Federal and State Exotic Reptile, Amphibian And Mammal Banning

[StudentoftheReptile]

Believe me, I KNOW the government could screw this up, but after the number of dangerous animal attacks locally in the last several years, I don't think the way things are now is working either.

Couple things to keep in mind here.

The first is that it is not fair or reasonable to lump all "exotic animals" under the same category. Keeping big cats, alligators, bears, and primates is a lot different than keeping big snakes and iguanas and monitor lizards. When you say "dangerous animal attacks" the vast majority of them are from large exotic mammals, not reptiles. Very few are caused by herps.

That said, the second issue is distinguishing the two main reasons for restricting ownership of any animal: public safety and risk to environment. It goes a little hand-in-hand with the first thing, but you have to consider the realistic impact of that species. Many people are advocating bans for some of these animals for the wrong reasons.

For example, I am all for restricting availability for many of these species, but not necessarily because of safety or environment reasons. Its simply for animal welfare; i.e. the animal/species in question often is not care for properly and perishes prematurely.

 

[wellington]

I am all for some kind of regulations. Not to ban, but to educate/license, something before these kind of reptiles are able to be purchased. I am also sick and tired of the responsibility of people's kids being my problem. I am also sick of the idiots that don't take the care needed for these kinds of animals/reptiles to remain where they belong, so they can't get out and cause these kinds of problems for the rest of us who are responsible. I think the government have many, many bigger problems in this country they should spend their time on. Drugs, power drinks, bullying those things are killing thousands dailymand costing all of us a lot of money. The government will never get their heads out of their *** and see things for the way it is. "Politically correct" is one thing ruining this country. Call it what it is, a duck is a duck, no matter how you look at it. You can't fix what you don't want to see or acknowledge. Instead of taking away our freedoms of owning, something, put the responsibility back to the people to own it responsibly and pay big if you don't, not just a slap on the hand.

 

[wildak]

Betty White is awesome. Seeing her swear at those celebrity roasts are hilarious.
She had 2 giant crocodile pets in the movie lake placid. lol

---

"Dangerous animal attacks" Who classes what as dangerous? Some think snapping turtles are dangerous..... I don't. Dogs ARE dangerous and so are horses but they don't make mainstream news like a good old snake attack.

 

[Tom]

(snip)

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.
(snip)

Cool! So when someone's pet (fill in the blank with a wide variety of animals, from dogs to cobras), or a drunk driver, or something like that kills someone, we automatically kill the keeper or driver or perpetrator!

Wait... that is not what happens in real life. Dang.

If I could trust the keeper of potentially dangerous animals to care for them the way someone like you would, I would not give this issue a second thought, but too many of the people buying these kinds of animals do not have the knowledge or resources to really do the job right, and right now, there is no process in place to do any sort of screening.

Believe me, I KNOW the government could screw this up, but after the number of dangerous animal attacks locally in the last several years, I don't think the way things are now is working either.

Who said anything about killing irresponsible drunk drivers or pet keepers? I'm simply pointing out that there is a criminal justice system already in place to deal with this sort of recklessness and irresponsibility.

I'm not worried about you having a glass of wine with your dinner either, but should I be clamoring for "Prohibition II" because some other dumba** might have six glasses and then drive home...? My stand is no I should not. I recognize that in order to NOT infringe upon your right to have some wine with your dinner that I must take the risk of some jerk abusing alcohol and getting on the road with me and my family. AND there is already a system in place to deal with the jerks and it's works as well as it can. Every drunk driving fatality is a tragedy, but banning and or regulating alcohol just creates more problems and does NOT solve the initial one.

Same with reptiles... Look at the Asian black market for tortoises and turtles...

More laws and government bureaucracy will NOT give you the safety and peace of mind that you seek, but it will take away freedom from those who have done, and will do, no wrong.

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

 

[Jacqui]

In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:

Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but didn't he also keep slaves and have many children off of his black slave females????

 

[dmmj]

I have never understood the concept of punishing the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible, seems wrong and unamerican to me.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:

Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but didn't he also keep slaves and have many children off of his black slave females????

I believe so, but it doesn't mean he can't say something that is insightful. Just because someone did something "bad" in their lifetime, doesn't make them universally bad in every single thing they do and say.

 

[Tom]

In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:

Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but didn't he also keep slaves and have many children off of his black slave females????

Nice. Totally irrelevant. Are we now going to debate all the atrocities from the past of the human race? Really, what is your point?

You know I used to keep my baby sulcatas on rabbit pellets with no water bowl, because I was taught to do it that way, everyone back then did it that way, and I didn't know better. Does that now mean that anything and everything that I have said, or ever will say, has no value or validity?

So you think the founders of this great country are nothing but a bunch of backwards slave owners and showed no wisdom whatsoever? Do the evil deeds of the man's past make what he said any less true?

 

[Jacqui]

In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:

Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but didn't he also keep slaves and have many children off of his black slave females????

I believe so, but it doesn't mean he can't say something that is insightful. Just because someone did something "bad" in their lifetime, doesn't make them universally bad in every single thing they do and say.

Hmm read and reread what I wrote, I do not see where I said he never did ANY thing good in his life. It does however make me question, if he can be considered a GREAT person. Sorry my morals and beliefs are showing and there are just some behaviors which I feel keeps any person from being great. Also we need to be careful we don't take this even further off topic.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

By rights, I never said that Thomas Jefferson was "great" anymore than you said he never did anything good. My point (as well as Tom's) was that one's past actions don't automatically nullify or discredit any alleged good works he does in later life.

Your initial comment by bringing up his past seemed to imply this. I agree with Tom in that it was completely irrelevant to his quote that Tom cited.

---

Also we need to be careful we don't take this even further off topic.

I agree!

 

[Jacqui]

In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:

Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but didn't he also keep slaves and have many children off of his black slave females????

Nice. Totally irrelevant. Are we now going to debate all the atrocities from the past of the human race? Really, what is your point?

Irrelevant? Perhaps. I find it interesting, I can not ask a question about if I was recalling a person correctly, without it being made into some huge deal. At the time I asked, I was asking for information on if my memory was correct. That was all I was asking. I did think this was suppose to be a place to ask questions and get clarifications on things said. Why do you always go off on a tangent, when I ask a simple fricking question??????

---

So you think the founders of this great country are nothing but a bunch of backwards slave owners and showed no wisdom whatsoever? Do the evil deeds of the man's past make what he said any less true?

Once more Tom, where did you get this idea from? You get your hackles raised about folks misquoting you and jumping to conclusions from one comment you make on one subject to it being meant to cover a whole slew of other things. Looks to me like this is what you just did to me. Sorry I forgot Tom's rules, agree with Tom or say nothing at all... and apparently not ask questions or wonder about any remark Tom may have made.

 

[JacksonR]

Now now....keep it civil. Can I be a mod? ha

 

[DanaLachney]

So are they banning tortoises?????!!!!!

 

[Jacqui]

Now now....keep it civil. Can I be a mod? ha

You would have to ask Josh.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

So are they banning tortoises?????!!!!!

To my knowledge, no, at least not on a federal level.

But on the state level, one could say they have tried (although tortoises likely weren't their target species). Some have tried banning all pythons and boas, others all snakes, while others still tried to ban all reptiles, and even others all exotic animals and/or non-native species to that state in question. Many of these lawmakers are, in a word, ignorant, and write these bills and laws so vaguely. It often makes one wonder if they're really that dumb or the bills were written in such a way deliberately, just to see what they can get away with.

But it behooves any pet owner to stay on top of these issues and be ready protest and oppose (professionally, mind you) BEFORE these laws sneak up on us.

 

[Neltharion]

In my former job with the CA Dept of Justice, I worked pretty closely with California's Dept of Fish and Game. What's bad here in California, aside from the initial Fish and Game statute that imposed the ban on many animals, a Board that presides over the Dept. of Fish and Game can enact regulations that hold the same weight as law. Aside from some allowances for public comment, this Board can ban animals without public vote or consideration, or voting by the State Senate or State Assembly.

Here in California, we have some of the most restrictive animal keeping laws in the country. This has existed for quite some time. Short of your dogs, house cats, mice, hamsters, rats, guinea pigs; and your farm stock, cows, horses, goats, pigs; most other mammals are banned here in California.

Among the reptiles banned in California; most venomous, Marine Toads (yes, they were banned once the publicity started about the secretions being used as drugs), alligators and crocodiles, gila monsters, and snapping turtle species. The majority of exotic mammals are banned, this includes ferrets, hedgehogs, prairie dogs, and sugar gliders. Gar, piranha, barracuda, and even those Glo fish that have been genetically altered are banned.

The people that really want these banned animals find ways to get them. In neighboring states like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and even out of the country like Mexico; people travel across state lines and smuggle the animals in. There are a lot of ferret owners here in California, and the laws are relatively unenforceable unless someone reports a person owning an illegal animal.

My neighbor has had a large indoor aquarium with a school of piranha for many years. He would never set them loose into the waterways, they wouldn't survive a Northern California winter anyway. An otherwise law abiding, productive, tax paying member of society is by definition a 'criminal' because he wants to own a particular species of fish. There really is no harm in what he's doing, but our government creates laws to regulate at the lowest common denominator which means that the responsible have to suffer because of the damage that the irresponsible can potentially do.

 

[dmmj]

I am so glad there are other people on this forum who can write clearly to get my often times long and rambling point across thanks neltharion

 

[jaizei]

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.

 

[DanaLachney]

To my knowledge, no, at least not on a federal level.

But on the state level, one could say they have tried (although tortoises likely weren't their target species). Some have tried banning all pythons and boas, others all snakes, while others still tried to ban all reptiles, and even others all exotic animals and/or non-native species to that state in question. Many of these lawmakers are, in a word, ignorant, and write these bills and laws so vaguely. It often makes one wonder if they're really that dumb or the bills were written in such a way deliberately, just to see what they can get away with.

But it behooves any pet owner to stay on top of these issues and be ready protest and oppose (professionally, mind you) BEFORE these laws sneak up on us.

Well one would hope no such laws pass!!!

 

[Jacqui]

Well one would hope no such laws pass!!!

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