Federal and State Exotic Reptile, Amphibian And Mammal Banning

[DanaLachney]

Hope will probably not be enough, more then likely folks will have to become involved and fight for their rights.

That just made me think of that Beastie Boys song lol

 

[tortadise]

the most i see being implemented into a "ban" would be that of cites 1 and studbook animals. It would be outrageous to ban redfoots sulcatas, greeks, hermanns, marginated. If this were to happen, there would be a grandfather clause. There has to be if so implemented. States or federal government could not just take cites 1 or listed endangered tortoises and euthanize or flood zoos with them. Animal rights and international law protects them. They cant take them from us if they pass laws to "ban". and if they try, I will enforce my second ammendment right and use my weapons. Its not going to get this way it cant with tortoises. if it does then my second plan of moving my tortoise santuary to costa rica will be in full force ; )

 

[JacksonR]

In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson: Those who would trade freedom for safety will have, and will deserve, neither...

Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but this sentiment was Benjamin Frankiln's, not Thomas Jefferson. You should probably start fact checking before repeating things.

---

Hyperbole makes both sides look foolish. Having rules and regulations concerning reptile ownership isn't a one way ticket to fascism. I do not think the Federal government should be involved, but I have no problem with states and local governments making laws that affect pet ownership. Don't like it; change it or move.

This whole slippery slope way of thinking has been going on for as long as people have kept reptiles. I'm sure they said the same thing when the FDA rule was enacted. "They'll start with the under 4 inchers, and then ban them all." And here we are 30 years later.

And unAmerican?, seriously? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

---

No one listens to that dumb 4 inch law anyway....

Also calm down.

 

[DanaLachney]

the most i see being implemented into a "ban" would be that of cites 1 and studbook animals. It would be outrageous to ban redfoots sulcatas, greeks, hermanns, marginated. If this were to happen, there would be a grandfather clause. There has to be if so implemented. States or federal government could not just take cites 1 or listed endangered tortoises and euthanize or flood zoos with them. Animal rights and international law protects them. They cant take them from us if they pass laws to "ban". and if they try, I will enforce my second ammendment right and use my weapons. Its not going to get this way it cant with tortoises. if it does then my second plan of moving my tortoise santuary to costa rica will be in full force ; )

Well then I better acquire my "zoo" before than can create such a law > You gotta love that grandfather clause lol

 

[Bow]

And unAmerican?, seriously? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Off topic but I really hope you were movie quoting there! I probably have watched Princess Bride more then one human should...

 

[wildak]

This whole slippery slope way of thinking has been going on for as long as people have kept reptiles. I'm sure they said the same thing when the FDA rule was enacted. "They'll start with the under 4 inchers, and then ban them all." And here we are 30 years later.

I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act. Buddha

You can sit on your hands if you like and try to convince others to join you but I'm not much for sitting and watching others set the rules to live my life by.

Anyone wanting to come up with any new plans of action in our network feel free to PM me.

the most i see being implemented into a "ban" would be that of cites 1 and studbook animals. It would be outrageous to ban redfoots sulcatas, greeks, hermanns, marginated. If this were to happen, there would be a grandfather clause. There has to be if so implemented. States or federal government could not just take cites 1 or listed endangered tortoises and euthanize or flood zoos with them. Animal rights and international law protects them. They cant take them from us if they pass laws to "ban". and if they try, I will enforce my second ammendment right and use my weapons. Its not going to get this way it cant with tortoises. if it does then my second plan of moving my tortoise santuary to costa rica will be in full force ; )

Some states are requiring you to turn in any animals on the list. No grandfather clause. Most of these animals would likely be put down.

quoting Peta "better dead than fed" lol yeah right. How can you say your pro animal.

 

[tortadise]

Well PETA can answer to my bullets and they have no international or national jurisdiction to euthanize an endangered species with just "well it's the law now" attitude. They can pass whatever law they want. They won't stop me from my doing of greater good with all my animals and guns.

 

[Jacqui]

Well PETA can answer to my bullets and they have no international or national jurisdiction to euthanize an endangered species with just "well it's the law now" attitude. They can pass whatever law they want. They won't stop me from my doing of greater good with all my animals and guns.

So your saying IF Federal agents came to your place, after laws were made stating you could not keep your tortoises, you would shoot the Federal agents? Because it won't be PETA, who comes a callin'.

 

[jaizei]

This whole slippery slope way of thinking has been going on for as long as people have kept reptiles. I'm sure they said the same thing when the FDA rule was enacted. "They'll start with the under 4 inchers, and then ban them all." And here we are 30 years later.

I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act. Buddha

You can sit on your hands if you like and try to convince others to join you but I'm not much for sitting and watching others set the rules to live my life by.

Anyone wanting to come up with any new plans of action in our network feel free to PM me.

Reading comprehension is important. Let's review.

I did not advocate sitting and doing nothing. There needs to be a compromise, ignore the extremist on both sides. They look foolish. Wait while I get mah guns. Second amendment remedies.

1. I said that having some rules, which you yourself said you support, doesn't mean we necessarily end up with an all out ban. There is a reason why slippery slope is considered a fallacy. There is middle ground. I am saying that we have heard this slippery slope argument for decades. I remember this same exact argument happening on forums 15 years ago. Still hasn't happened. If anything, many species of reptiles are easier to get now than they were then.

2. In the part you didn't quote, (I do not think the Federal government should be involved, but I have no problem with states and local governments making laws that affect pet ownership. Don't like it; change it or move.), I clearly advocate action if a state or local government tries to make laws you do not like. A government of the people, by the people, for the people. Sounds familiar

 

[JacksonR]

Banning pets has now seemingly become a hot button issue. Just like health care reform not long ago....every lawmaker is talking about it.

Mostly brought on by the python problem in Florida.

 

[Madkins007]

I have to admit- I really enjoy the give and take here, especially since for the most part, it is being done in the spirit of 'we may disagree on this, but let's go have a beer/coffee'.

I would like to clarify a couple of my thoughts, then I think I am going to mostly just read and enjoy the thread from here on out.

1. Under my dream system, it is not so much that animals would be banned, you would just have to demonstrate something to the government before you could buy some species. (Such as- basic knowledge, a bond or insurance in case of problems, etc.)

2. The animals on my lists would mostly be those that...
- pose a public risk if something would happen.
- are at risk in their home ranges, and/or could cause significant environmental impact if released. (More 'rabbits in Australia' than 'pythons in the Everglades'- although I know that with feral dogs and cats, red-ear sliders, and so on, that ship has pretty much already sailed in the US)
- need more specialized care than the typical person can provide.

3. I am not a lawyer or law-maker, so I have absolutely no idea how I would implement any of this, or keep the government from turning it to sh&*. All things being equal- I would prefer the status quo to some proposals we have heard from our elected officials- but that does not stop me from thinking that somehow there is a better way.

 

[JacksonR]

For some venomous snakes and crocodiles/alligators you already have to demonstrate you know what you're doing before you can buy them.

King cobras for example. They're only $250 by the way. I'm toatally getting one....

I have to admit- I really enjoy the give and take here, especially since for the most part, it is being done in the spirit of 'we may disagree on this, but let's go have a beer/coffee'.

I would like to clarify a couple of my thoughts, then I think I am going to mostly just read and enjoy the thread from here on out.

1. Under my dream system, it is not so much that animals would be banned, you would just have to demonstrate something to the government before you could buy some species. (Such as- basic knowledge, a bond or insurance in case of problems, etc.)

2. The animals on my lists would mostly be those that...
- pose a public risk if something would happen.
- are at risk in their home ranges, and/or could cause significant environmental impact if released. (More 'rabbits in Australia' than 'pythons in the Everglades'- although I know that with feral dogs and cats, red-ear sliders, and so on, that ship has pretty much already sailed in the US)
- need more specialized care than the typical person can provide.

3. I am not a lawyer or law-maker, so I have absolutely no idea how I would implement any of this, or keep the government from turning it to sh&*. All things being equal- I would prefer the status quo to some proposals we have heard from our elected officials- but that does not stop me from thinking that somehow there is a better way.

 

[LeaderLeprechaun]

Please let me make a point about banning. Take calfornia, (please) once you start with one little ban it steamrolls. so first they banned smoking in bars and resturants, hey that worked so lets ban them in governmental buildings, now lets ban them in front of all buildings, now let's do beaches, now let do people's private cars if you have children in there, now they are pushing in one city to ban them in all apartment complexes. the government once they start banning stuff they don't stop. I am gonna disagree with mark and say I only see the same thing happening to reptiles, once they start they won't stop, case in point california.

i agree to a point. they are even banning smokin in mississippi starting with certain cities in the casinos and the restraunts. but there is so much they have already started to ban because people couldnt get stuff under control. i believe only those that can handle a specific animals needs is ok. however, all this impulse buying is getting out of hand. animals get loose and cause a hazard for people. but im talking of dangerious animals. however, if someone can handle it fine. other than that no. age specifics would be good too. like no one under 18 can get exotics.

---

I am not rich, but would still pay the price. I love dogs more than money. I kept the dogs I could not or would not sell. My dogs were not sold to be bred unless they were good enough to be put in the shows. Yes I believe all pets should be spayed or neutered. It is better for their health. As for your very last paragraph. Hmmm, your guess is as good as mine.

I love the dogs, my dogs, more then money too, but still I would not throw $500 away on something so stupid myself. I would rather be putting that money into upgrading the lives of my animals. I myself believe in spaying and neutering and the dogs I sold had such clauses with their purchase. Actually I gave several of the puppies to 4Hers for free and took back another one as an adult, when other folks could no longer keep their puppy (also part of my contract). However, I do not feel I have the right to FORCE somebody into spaying or neutering their animals. In some ways, yes it may be better for their health, but it also can cause more health problems. Anti spay folks point to the obesity problems that seem to bloom with spayed and neutered animals as one such negative to do it.

how can an animal become obese due to being fixed? ive only seen a fixed animal large due to laziness, not hormonal problems from not having reproductive organs. if this was an issue it would be displayed nationwide instead of have the issue pointed toward fixing the animals to prevent more offspring that cant be supported.

---

I don't know what the solution here is, but it seems INSANE to me to argue for a proven corrupt, incompetent, ignorant, stupid, inept, bureaucratic government entity to step in and exercise MORE control over something they are completely ignorant about.

What happened to personal responsibility? How about we let everyone enjoy their freedom in a "free" country how they see fit, and only punish the negligent or irresponsible people for their mistakes? Now there's a concept...

If I'm stupid enough to buy a large python and then NOT house it correctly, I should be held liable for any damage it does. If on the other hand, I buy a large python, house it correctly, and it lives its whole life with out ever running amok, why do some people want the government intruding upon my property and into my reptile room?

The beauty is, we ALREADY have this wonderful system I speak of in place. All we have to do is....... NOTHING!

All adults are free to enjoy an alcoholic beverage in this country. If you behave stupidly or irresponsibly, you will be fined, sued, imprisoned, or otherwise suitably punished.

If you are going to make the case that after the fact it is too late, then your are basically saying that the world is too dangerous and we should all live in padded cells so nobody ever gets hurt. Life is dangerous. Life is a risk. Part of LIVING is navigating those risks every day. Cars kill more people than pet boa constrictors, by an enormous margin. Why aren't we clamoring for banning cars. If public safety is your goal in banning and regulating potentially dangerous animals, why don't we start with the most dangerous threats to public safety and work our way down? People's pet snakes and lizards are pretty far down the list... None of my snakes or lizards have ever hurt anyone. Anyone know of a single case of monitor lizard homicide? Last I checked my boa hadn't snuck into any cribs and swallowed any children either...

agreed!!!!