A Real Conversation About Licensing

[lady_bug87]

So it came up in another thread about how owning snakes requires a license with restrictions (Australia) and I honestly agree with it.

I mean, take a look at what's happening in the US and on a smaller scale Canada? They are looking at banning the ownership of large constrictors and in a lot of places they already have. Not to mention the whole thing behind owning hots.

Let's be realistic for a second. All of us here may be awesome, great, above board members who know what they're doing and have a great amount of knowledge and all that, BUT we have all seen videos and facebook stuff (and posts if we're being fair) of people who have NO BUSINESS owning these specialized (yep I said it) animals.

From refusal to fix husbandry /housing issues, breeding too young/too small animals, improper handling (more so for hots and giants), poor/dangerous feeding habits and general crappy conditions. Some of these issues end in injury and even death. The worst part is that THOSE are the people the general public associates with the hobby. Not us. So of course they're quick to ban them. No ownership = No problem.

That's where I think licensing fills a void. Is it 100% enforceable? No way. Will it cover your bumbum if a neighbor calls to complain? absolutely. REGARDLESS of how I feel about the private ownership of giants or hots I don't think just anyone should own them. I think its the only way to protect our hobby.

Hell if I had to register and microchip my boas to keep them, I would no questions asked. I think any keepers who are passionate, and awesome, and above board would. The time for hiding in our basements is done. The time for fighting bans is here and the only way to end it (In my opinion) is to license it. No matter the outcome (Legislation wise) one side is always going to be unhappy. Either we'll be unhappy because we won't be able to keep what we want or they (general anti-snake public) will be unhappy that we can and in turn they will keep trying to ban things until they succeed.

So I want an honest conversation. No bullpoop about keeping giants or hots, no yelling, nothing like that; because this isn't a giant keeper problem or a hot keeper problem. this is a keeper problem. we're ALL keepers.

So let's discuss this as a community.

[Minkness]

I have been saying this for a while, and not just for snakes. I feel that just about all animals should be licensed. I think the harder question is 'how'. By family? Type? Size? Would it limit the number of animals per collection?

I'm all for making sure that proper handlers and keepers are rewarded and ensuring proper care is given to these animals. But what would the negitives be? Honestly, I rather like that if I want totake my pet (dog, cat, bird, lizard, snake, ect) to the petstore just for a strole. Same goes for conventions (not just repticon) and maybe out at the park on a nice day. It's a freedom I do appreciate.

So what is the balance? How can we ensure health and safety of these animals while still keeping our freedoms?

[Albert Clark]

I am all for it bc I feel I am a responsible, knowledgeable herp keeper. As are so many of us who are long termers and the short termers who really want the excitement. The ones that show passion and want to do the right things for the reptiles. We need to first, be responsible, and associate ourselves with our local herp societies who are already associated with universities and colleges. Join USARK and stay abreast of the issues that relate to herps on a statewide level. Familiarize ourselves with basic husbandry fundamentals until it is ingrained. This is merely a start to head in the proper direction as a community united for the absolute right to own and propagate the reptile species as a whole. Venomous, non venomous, and all herps in between. Can you imagine what this world would be like without all the reptiles and amphibians controlling rodent and insect populations? Just my 0.02 cents. :)

[sophiedufort]

Dear lady_bug87, I beg to differ. Having a license doesn't make a person more responsible in dealing with snakes. It would be just another money maker for governments, not to mention that there would always be those who'd procure/keep snakes without a permit. I come from Australia, and I can say that there are reasons behind licensing requirements for snake owners. These requirements have little to do with the animals' well-being, and a lot to do with the governments' desire to keep track. Australia is an isolated island, and the snake hobby is very restricted, mostly for practical reasons: most Australian snakes are poisonous and importation of snakes and reptiles in general is prohibited and illegal. Australia has very strict customs laws, and people can spend years in jail for a much lesser crime than illegal snake importation.
Getting back to licensing in general, I think it is a waste of time and money. It will not educate people about dealing with snakes, unless it is designed as a compulsory theoretical course and examination. I cannot fathom any reason a local/state/federal government would invest in implementing such changes.
A snake lover doesn't need a license to care for his/her snake/s. More often than not, snake owners will strive to learn about their snake and its needs, and will do their best to provide the best environment for their pet. With or without licensing, there will always be people who mistreat an animal, release it in the wild when it grows too big, etc. On the other hand, license requirement for keeping poisonous snakes makes complete sense, as it would be a necessary monitoring tool.

[Minkness]

Why license just hots? Why not allow the cost of the license go to things like reptile rehabs, research, and legal protections? Licensing any animal is a benigit as it would weed out the people who won't spend that kind of money on an animal, thus taking care of at least some of the irrisponsible population of keepers.

Perhaps different licensing for different levels....E for small non venomous (kings, corns, ect), D for rear fanged and larger non venomous, C for larger boas, B for giants, A for hots and so on. Each level may require a certain number of hours in a class room and a test to be passed and a one time fee or somethong. No different than how they regulate any license, even a driver's license or a gun license.

It could go into breeding licenses as well. If a breeder sells something to an unlicensed keeper, it could jeopardize their breeding establishment, thus further protecting animals from getting into the hands of the irrisponsible.

Will this prevent any illegal doings? No...just like it doesn'tstop massage parlors from being a brothel, or machine guns owned by a criminal and so on. But it does make it more difficult and gives more power and freedoms to those who have at least taken the TIME to be licensed.

It doesn't have to be a money sink, or government run, so long as it is government supported everything else can be 'non proffit' (as stated earlier in my post).

Just think...if the licensing class was 50$ and took only 8 hours to accomplish, then 10$ for the registered card declaring your state of license, how that would be more help than anything.

The logistics of finding a way to begin the process, establish a core group of supporters, and enact the rules and regulations of the defined licenses is perhaps far more meaningful than simple opinions on the matter.

[lady_bug87]

Dear lady_bug87, I beg to differ. Having a license doesn't make a person more responsible in dealing with snakes. It would be just another money maker for governments, not to mention that there would always be those who'd procure/keep snakes without a permit. I come from Australia, and I can say that there are reasons behind licensing requirements for snake owners. These requirements have little to do with the animals' well-being, and a lot to do with the governments' desire to keep track. Australia is an isolated island, and the snake hobby is very restricted, mostly for practical reasons: most Australian snakes are poisonous and importation of snakes and reptiles in general is prohibited and illegal. Australia has very strict customs laws, and people can spend years in jail for a much lesser crime than illegal snake importation.
Getting back to licensing in general, I think it is a waste of time and money. It will not educate people about dealing with snakes, unless it is designed as a compulsory theoretical course and examination. I cannot fathom any reason a local/state/federal government would invest in implementing such changes.
A snake lover doesn't need a license to care for his/her snake/s. More often than not, snake owners will strive to learn about their snake and its needs, and will do their best to provide the best environment for their pet. With or without licensing, there will always be people who mistreat an animal, release it in the wild when it grows too big, etc. On the other hand, license requirement for keeping poisonous snakes makes complete sense, as it would be a necessary monitoring tool.

Why is the government keeping track of who owns what a bad thing? And no. Licensing doesn't make better keepers but it will make people accountable. I believe it will protect keepers willing to be protected. Unless you (general you. Not you as an individual) are not operating within your local bylaws, you're already allowing the government to control what you keep. The license would be an extension of that

[Aaron_S]

Dear lady_bug87, I beg to differ. Having a license doesn't make a person more responsible in dealing with snakes. It would be just another money maker for governments, not to mention that there would always be those who'd procure/keep snakes without a permit. I come from Australia, and I can say that there are reasons behind licensing requirements for snake owners. These requirements have little to do with the animals' well-being, and a lot to do with the governments' desire to keep track. Australia is an isolated island, and the snake hobby is very restricted, mostly for practical reasons: most Australian snakes are poisonous and importation of snakes and reptiles in general is prohibited and illegal. Australia has very strict customs laws, and people can spend years in jail for a much lesser crime than illegal snake importation.
Getting back to licensing in general, I think it is a waste of time and money. It will not educate people about dealing with snakes, unless it is designed as a compulsory theoretical course and examination. I cannot fathom any reason a local/state/federal government would invest in implementing such changes.
A snake lover doesn't need a license to care for his/her snake/s. More often than not, snake owners will strive to learn about their snake and its needs, and will do their best to provide the best environment for their pet. With or without licensing, there will always be people who mistreat an animal, release it in the wild when it grows too big, etc. On the other hand, license requirement for keeping poisonous snakes makes complete sense, as it would be a necessary monitoring tool.

1. No one said it will educate people. As Lori said, it will keep people accountable. I think that in itself is worth while. If someone does something wrong and is teported and is found to not have a license then their animals can be taken away and less damage done.

2. I think that you are wrong that more often than not people will strive for the best. Their wouldnt be as many sick rescues is this were the truth. People neglecting animals isn't as rare as you may think. Licensing keeps those people from repeat offenses and damaging the hobby.
Sure people can keep things "hush hush" but so what? It's better than nothing.

I would pay $100 to $500 per year.

[MDT]

Why is the government keeping track of who owns what a bad thing? And no. Licensing doesn't make better keepers but it will make people accountable. I believe it will protect keepers willing to be protected. Unless you (general you. Not you as an individual) are not operating within your local bylaws, you're already allowing the government to control what you keep. The license would be an extension of that

in general, i think the .gov (i'm talking u.s.) "keeping track" is a very slippery slope. at least our gov track record is not great and borders on deplorable.

that being said, i do agree that there *could* be a higher degree of accountability with a licensing fee. but just as we've seen with firearms in the u.s. (and i am an avid shooter/firearms guy that follows the letter of the law)....the folks that are citizens and want to conform to the normalcy of society will follow the law, the criminals, on the other hand will not.

not really sure where i fall into this, but if mandated, i would license my snakes.

[Aaron_S]

in general, i think the .gov (i'm talking u.s.) "keeping track" is a very slippery slope. at least our gov track record is not great and borders on deplorable.

that being said, i do agree that there *could* be a higher degree of accountability with a licensing fee. but just as we've seen with firearms in the u.s. (and i am an avid shooter/firearms guy that follows the letter of the law)....the folks that are citizens and want to conform to the normalcy of society will follow the law, the criminals, on the other hand will not.

not really sure where i fall into this, but if mandated, i would license my snakes.

I can see your point. I respect it.

I would argue that no system is perfect and that we should attempt something. I don't agree with "well it's not perfect so we should do nothing." Might as well get rid of all laws since that system isn't perfect either.

I think that this would be a step towards a real community. Side note, too many people are criminals in this hobby and too many of them get away screwing people over and over. This would be a way to help keep the community safe and build a united front against legislators.

[lady_bug87]

in general, i think the .gov (i'm talking u.s.) "keeping track" is a very slippery slope. at least our gov track record is not great and borders on deplorable.

that being said, i do agree that there *could* be a higher degree of accountability with a licensing fee. but just as we've seen with firearms in the u.s. (and i am an avid shooter/firearms guy that follows the letter of the law)....the folks that are citizens and want to conform to the normalcy of society will follow the law, the criminals, on the other hand will not.

not really sure where i fall into this, but if mandated, i would license my snakes.

I totally agree. It's not 100% bullet proof. And as a part of a law abiding avid shooting and hunting family, I see the pitfalls first hand. However, I think the benefits for those willing to follow the "rules" outweigh a lot of costs.

[Minkness]

MTD does have a point on the US keeping track of things....some things are grossly neglected while others boarder on zero privacy.

And no, it won't stop the criminals, but it will lesson the uneducated, the hoarders, and the outright abusers of these animals dramatically.

It doesn't have to be overly difficult or expensive, but could help protect the animals AND the keepers. Renewing a license every 10 years cpuld be as simple and cheap as taking another 8 hour class tonensure keepers are up to date on husbandry and accept the responsibility of continuing proper care of their animals.

[sophiedufort]

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

[lady_bug87]

MTD does have a point on the US keeping track of things....some things are grossly neglected while others boarder on zero privacy.

And no, it won't stop the criminals, but it will lesson the uneducated, the hoarders, and the outright abusers of these animals dramatically.

It doesn't have to be overly difficult or expensive, but could help protect the animals AND the keepers. Renewing a license every 10 years cpuld be as simple and cheap as taking another 8 hour class tonensure keepers are up to date on husbandry and accept the responsibility of continuing proper care of their animals.

Exactly. It's not about control, its about responsibility.

[lady_bug87]

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

What ethical ramifications do you foresee?

[bigsnakegirl785]

I think that as long as it's not government ruled and there are fair and informed rules and fees (if applicable) in place, I wouldn't mind having to license my animals. I just don't like the idea of the government, who hasn't shown themselves to be all that informed on just about any issue I can think of, having say over how we keep our animals. As long as knowledgeable owners or herpetologists, who know that ball pythons won't take over Wisconsin for example, are in charge I'm all for it.

I appreciate the fact that a licensing system with fees would keep the majority of people away that wouldn't be willing to pay all that extra money. I'm also kind of on the edge where I think if someone is competent and can support what they have, they should be allowed to have what they want, so I'm not fond rules that limit competent individuals' keeping. That said, when the animal is potentially dangerous, I believe there should be harsher restrictions in place to reduce the danger they pose to others.

Education on basic care can also serve as a deterrent, as I've had several friends impulse buy animals and immediately try to re-home their animals once I informed them how extremely insufficient the husbandry they were provided with at the store was. So, although I doubt classes could be established that catered to every single species that we keep, a good general ed class that went over care of groups of reptiles with similar basic care seems good to me.

[Aaron_S]

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

I feed my snakes just fine as well as maintain their habitats. I would be willing to spend additional money on a license with no qualms.

This is a life long passion for me. Money is almost no object for my passion. Lori knows this and knows it would never be in question to apend money on a license if we needed to.

Too bad you don't really have freedom. Laws are here, more will come, this would bode well for fighting against them.

Are yoj suggesting if this came to be you'd shun the license and not be a contributing member of your hobby/community? Could USARK not somehow voice this and get xx amount of dollars allocated to defending against laws? Surely the government getting money LEGALLY (and votes) would help keep them from our walls.

Why not use the political game instead of fight it?

Also, I will say this here and now. Politics are not allowed on the forum so keep this GENERAL and not about parties or who is on what side to keep from being banned. I will not be gentle in this manner and Jason can ban me if I step over this line too.

[lady_bug87]

I think that as long as it's not government ruled and there are fair and informed rules and fees (if applicable) in place, I wouldn't mind having to license my animals. I just don't like the idea of the government, who hasn't shown themselves to be all that informed on just about any issue I can think of, having say over how we keep our animals. As long as knowledgeable owners or herpetologists, who know that ball pythons won't take over Wisconsin for example, are in charge I'm all for it.

I appreciate the fact that a licensing system with fees would keep the majority of people away that wouldn't be willing to pay all that extra money. I'm also kind of on the edge where I think if someone is competent and can support what they have, they should be allowed to have what they want, so I'm not fond rules that limit competent individuals' keeping. That said, when the animal is potentially dangerous, I believe there should be harsher restrictions in place to reduce the danger they pose to others.

Education on basic care can also serve as a deterrent, as I've had several friends impulse buy animals and immediately try to re-home their animals once I informed them how extremely insufficient the husbandry they were provided with at the store was. So, although I doubt classes could be established that catered to every single species that we keep, a good general ed class that went over care of groups of reptiles with similar basic care seems good to me.

Beautiful. You hit the nail right on the head.

[eminart]

No thanks. More regulation is seldom the answer. If you make the license too expensive or difficult to obtain, then the hobby will die off to just a few hardcore people. The variety of reptiles will go with it. If you make the license easy or cheap to obtain, all you've done is add an extra headache for everyone.

[Aaron_S]

No thanks. More regulation is seldom the answer. If you make the license too expensive or difficult to obtain, then the hobby will die off to just a few hardcore people. The variety of reptiles will go with it. If you make the license easy or cheap to obtain, all you've done is add an extra headache for everyone.

I can respect that thought.

My counter is regulation is coming regardless. So why not be proactive and show them we are serious about being onside?

I get the price thing if it's too high. Too low could be an issue too. I know up here in Ontario we have a fishing license and a boating license. Both fairly easy to get and each one only costs about $40. Not much of a headache to get them.

[SSSSnakes]

I have no problem with licensing, but I see little effect it has had in my state. Most of my snakes fall under a license requirement. There are currently 3 licenses that I have to keep: 1- Collect and Possess Native species, 2- Venomous and Giants and 3- Endangered and Threatened. To have these licenses you have to have a reason to have them: scientific, educational and exhibition. To keep these license each year I have to take and send pictures of my holding facility. showing locked enclosures, proper labeling, transporting protocol and supply a activity report of where and when the snakes were used for these purposes. Only one of the licenses actually cost money.

That said, most of the people that I know keep all the above snakes illegally without a license, or have lied to get their license. The DEC is making it harder in the past few years for those who lied to keep their license, but then they just have their licensed not renewed and continue to keep their snakes illegally.

I was keeping these snakes before licenses were required and I kept them the same way I keep them now. The licensing has not caused me to take better care of or be more responsible of my snakes.

I think the licensing is a way for the government to keep track of what we have, so one day they can step in and take them away from us. The less the government is involved the better. If we had policed ourselves better, then we would not have the problems we have now.

[sophiedufort]

What ethical ramifications do you foresee?

Quite a few. A hobby, particularly one that involves animals, raises too many issues that would need to be regulated. For instance, how one can define the threshold between a responsible owner and one that is not? If we need a license to have a snake, then why not regulate dog/cat ownership, as well as ownership of any other pet? What makes snake owners more susceptible of needing a license? Would one's financial ability to keep a pet be taken into account when issuing a license? Would we have to prove that we can actually provide for these pets? After all, not being able to provide proper conditions can lead to mistreatment. But who is to decide that threshold? And how? Another example: who is right and who is wrong in their definition of snakes' welfare? Handling or not handling a snake? Is that a welfare issue? And the examples are countless.
The animals' well-being and their treatment, are the bases of a perpetual heated debate. What some believe is responsible owner behavior is considered by others to be inappropriate. Defining responsible behavior would be, in itself, a nightmare. That goes for both the treatment of animals and the owner's misdoings that affect others. While it is easier to regulate the way one's behavior impacts on the society (i.e.: release of animals in the wild, and the environmental impact deriving from it), how can we (in practical terms) decide upon the criteria of being a good owner (this being strictly related to the way owners interact with their animals)? If your idea of licensing is about making people more responsible, then would you kindly define that responsibility, and explain how on earth could that be put into practice. Accountability should extend, according to quite a few members of the forum, to the way people treat their pets. Sounds great and sensible, but can anyone put forward a pertinent explanation as to how this can be accomplished?
As I said before, in order for licensing to be effective, it should be regulated by law, otherwise the ensuing penalties would not be legally enforceable, and would make licensing redundant, nothing more than a money black hole. Legalizing a regulatory measure involves studies, debates, submissions, and more debates. That costs a lot of money, which will eventually become the licensees' burden. Then the purpose of licensing must be considered too: is it a measure to protect the animals, and/or a measure to protect the society from the harmful actions of irresponsible owners? or both? If it is the former, the debate would revolve, as I said, around what's right and what's wrong, and what backs it up (ethical debate). If it's the latter, then it should be regulated by law without the need for a license. Whoever does something to abuse a pet should be punished by law, and same goes for someone who, through neglect, mistreatment or malice, knowingly or unknowingly harms the wider population. Let's all remember that such laws exist, and we don't need to re-write them for snake owners. Currently, any animal abuse is punishable by law, be that of a domestic or wild animal, and so is the release of pets in the wild, or the use of pets to produce harm. We don't need to pay an additional tax for that.
I would rather support mandatory requirements for snake breeders to provide their customers with detailed care sheets specific to their purchase, and with explanations about the impact of pet mistreatment. That would be an informative, practical solution, also inexpensive for the breeders.

[Aaron_S]

I have no problem with licensing, but I see little effect it has had in my state. Most of my snakes fall under a license requirement. There are currently 3 licenses that I have to keep: 1- Collect and Possess Native species, 2- Venomous and Giants and 3- Endangered and Threatened. To have these licenses you have to have a reason to have them: scientific, educational and exhibition. To keep these license each year I have to take and send pictures of my holding facility. showing locked enclosures, proper labeling, transporting protocol and supply a activity report of where and when the snakes were used for these purposes. Only one of the licenses actually cost money.

That said, most of the people that I know keep all the above snakes illegally without a license, or have lied to get their license. The DEC is making it harder in the past few years for those who lied to keep their license, but then they just have their licensed not renewed and continue to keep their snakes illegally.

I was keeping these snakes before licenses were required and I kept them the same way I keep them now. The licensing has not caused me to take better care of or be more responsible of my snakes.

I think the licensing is a way for the government to keep track of what we have, so one day they can step in and take them away from us. The less the government is involved the better. If we had policed ourselves better, then we would not have the problems we have now.

Your last comment really stands out Jerry.

Unfortunately, we didn't do a better job and now they are coming regardless. Sure we can win some fights but I think it would go a long way if people were willing to "play" in the sandbox.

I applaud you for having and keeping your licenses/animals legally.

[Minkness]

Now that sounds like too much to me. A medium ground should be met. A license shouldn't be controling. =/

[sophiedufort]

Also, I will say this here and now. Politics are not allowed on the forum so keep this GENERAL and not about parties or who is on what side to keep from being banned. I will not be gentle in this manner and Jason can ban me if I step over this line too.

Aaron, I am not trying to do a political debate. I am just saying that a license that is not legally regulated is not enforceable, and that in fact we already have animal laws that extend to snakes, be that in the event of mistreatment, or misuse of pets to harm the wider public. Why add a tax to it (a license) for snake owners?

[lady_bug87]

I have no problem with licensing, but I see little effect it has had in my state. Most of my snakes fall under a license requirement. There are currently 3 licenses that I have to keep: 1- Collect and Possess Native species, 2- Venomous and Giants and 3- Endangered and Threatened. To have these licenses you have to have a reason to have them: scientific, educational and exhibition. To keep these license each year I have to take and send pictures of my holding facility. showing locked enclosures, proper labeling, transporting protocol and supply a activity report of where and when the snakes were used for these purposes. Only one of the licenses actually cost money.

That said, most of the people that I know keep all the above snakes illegally without a license, or have lied to get their license. The DEC is making it harder in the past few years for those who lied to keep their license, but then they just have their licensed not renewed and continue to keep their snakes illegally.

I was keeping these snakes before licenses were required and I kept them the same way I keep them now. The licensing has not caused me to take better care of or be more responsible of my snakes.

I think the licensing is a way for the government to keep track of what we have, so one day they can step in and take them away from us. The less the government is involved the better. If we had policed ourselves better, then we would not have the problems we have now.

I think that's a bit paranoid but i respect it. Maybe I'm seeing the world through rose coloured glasses. BUT it has to be better than outright bans.

[Aaron_S]

Aaron, I am not trying to do a political debate. I am just saying that a license that is not legally regulated is not enforceable, and that in fact we already have animal laws that extend to snakes, be that in the event of mistreatment, or misuse of pets to harm the wider public. Why add a tax to it (a license) for snake owners?

I know you aren't. I put that as a warning to participants in general.

How many of those current laws are enforced? It's all over fauna how many times people get away with things.

Why add something? When a population has some skin in the game (money) they generally partcipate and do a better job. If I have to pay into a licensing to keep my passion I'm all for it. I'd prefer some of the money going into conservation programs and funding the process.

[prairiepanda]

If we need a license to have a snake, then why not regulate dog/cat ownership, as well as ownership of any other pet? What makes snake owners more susceptible of needing a license?
Many municipalities do regulate the ownership of dogs, cats, and other common pets. Every city I've ever lived in has required dog registration which is to be updated annually for a fee, and most have required cats to be registered as well(cats usually only require a one-time registration, though; not sure why they are often dealt with differently). For small animals, the regulations tend to be more relaxed and harder to enforce. For example, having limits set on the total number of caged animals allowed in a household or per square meter of property. Many cities have very specific guidelines for "farm" animals as well, if they're allowed at all within city limits as pets. The city I currently live in has bylaws which go into great detail about the space requirements of specific animals being kept as pets within city limits, including guinea pigs, rabbits, and "small rodents"(rats, mice, hamsters, etc.) among other animals. For reptiles, however, there is very little regulation. They have banned a good chunk of reptiles altogether, but the ones that are allowed have no regulation at all. It would be nice to see reptiles being recognized as much as mammals, but unfortunately people tend not to care about their wellbeing as much.

Would we have to prove that we can actually provide for these pets? After all, not being able to provide proper conditions can lead to mistreatment. But who is to decide that threshold? And how?
Obviously it's unreasonable to expect enforcement of specific care guidelines, especially with the overwhelming variety of different reptile species in the pet trade and their different needs. But these things aren't normally enforced based on the care given. They're enforced when it's brought to bylaw enforcement's attention that your animals are clearly sick and/or dying. "Mistreatment" is judged by the health of the animals. For example, where I live, there is a bylaw describing the kind of enclosure a pet goat must be kept in. If someone is keeping their goat in a different enclosure and the goat is not suffering or ill, they won't be reported and thus nothing will happen. But if the goat is injured due to the poor design of the enclosure and someone reports it, the owner will be fined and can have the animal confiscated. In the case of registered dogs, if the owner is charged for a very serious offense regarding the care of the dog, they will not be able to license any other dogs. That doesn't prevent them from secretly getting a new dog without a license(unlikely since whoever reported him would probably notice), but at least it's a deterrent.

I would rather support mandatory requirements for snake breeders to provide their customers with detailed care sheets specific to their purchase, and with explanations about the impact of pet mistreatment. That would be an informative, practical solution, also inexpensive for the breeders.
Great idea; many breeders do it already, or at least provide care sheets on their websites. But how would you enforce such a thing? It's good practice for breeders, sure, but not something I can see being applied as a law.

[lady_bug87]

Many municipalities do regulate the ownership of dogs, cats, and other common pets. Every city I've ever lived in has required dog registration which is to be updated annually for a fee, and most have required cats to be registered as well(cats usually only require a one-time registration, though; not sure why they are often dealt with differently). For small animals, the regulations tend to be more relaxed and harder to enforce. For example, having limits set on the total number of caged animals allowed in a household or per square meter of property. Many cities have very specific guidelines for "farm" animals as well, if they're allowed at all within city limits as pets. The city I currently live in has bylaws which go into great detail about the space requirements of specific animals being kept as pets within city limits, including guinea pigs, rabbits, and "small rodents"(rats, mice, hamsters, etc.) among other animals. For reptiles, however, there is very little regulation. They have banned a good chunk of reptiles altogether, but the ones that are allowed have no regulation at all. It would be nice to see reptiles being recognized as much as mammals, but unfortunately people tend not to care about their wellbeing as much.


Obviously it's unreasonable to expect enforcement of specific care guidelines, especially with the overwhelming variety of different reptile species in the pet trade and their different needs. But these things aren't normally enforced based on the care given. They're enforced when it's brought to bylaw enforcement's attention that your animals are clearly sick and/or dying. "Mistreatment" is judged by the health of the animals. For example, where I live, there is a bylaw describing the kind of enclosure a pet goat must be kept in. If someone is keeping their goat in a different enclosure and the goat is not suffering or ill, they won't be reported and thus nothing will happen. But if the goat is injured due to the poor design of the enclosure and someone reports it, the owner will be fined and can have the animal confiscated. In the case of registered dogs, if the owner is charged for a very serious offense regarding the care of the dog, they will not be able to license any other dogs. That doesn't prevent them from secretly getting a new dog without a license(unlikely since whoever reported him would probably notice), but at least it's a deterrent.


Great idea; many breeders do it already, or at least provide care sheets on their websites. But how would you enforce such a thing? It's good practice for breeders, sure, but not something I can see being applied as a law.

Every time Aaron and I sell an animal a caresheet is sent alongside the COG. But there's no guarantees that the new owner reads it

[prairiepanda]

Every time Aaron and I sell an animal a caresheet is sent alongside the COG. But there's no guarantees that the new owner reads it

I appreciate breeders who do that. Sure, it might get ignored, but some people just want to be spoon-fed information rather than doing their own research, and this habit makes sure that those kinds of people are getting the right(by your standards) information.

Back when I bred gerbils, prospective adopters had to pass a knowledge test in order to have one of my babies. They were not informed of this until they showed up to receive the animal. They had to complete it once without any references, and if they got less than 100% correct they were allowed to repeat it once with the use of a cheat sheet of my making(forcing them to read the information they were missing). If they got less than 100% the second time, they left without a gerbil. If they did get 100% the second time, they had to agree to let me inspect the animal's living conditions after one month. (Those who got 100% on the first try, proving they had taken the initiative to do proper research, did not need to make any such agreement)...of course, that would be impossible for any large-scale breeder to do, especially with customers across the country. It was easy for me because I was in a small town and only produced a few litters.

[AlexCrazy]

Im not sure if i have a say in this cos i kinda got my BP illegally.. (through friends in the neighboring country.. got him across the border no problem in a bus) but only cos there was no other way.. and the law don't say anything about not native snakes.. my country is a third world country.. so the hobby is almost only me and 2-3 other people somewhere.. but non the less i would really like him to have a license.. to do things right for the hobby.. I what to fight to have this wonderful hobby grow cos its great.. and if that would mean to put a chip in my BP.. then i would do it no matter the cost. I would personally volunteer to be a teacher for a license and make sure they go to right hands.. it wont keep bad owners from doing what they do.. but it will show that good owners take it seriously and have control.. like any other tipe of pet owner.
Are government wants to suck money out of everyone and in any way.. but i think it would be for good that they charge for the license.

[Sylphie]

In my country you can own giants without licenses, but to own hots you must fill really specialized requirements of goverment (a special separate room with special doors, special cages etc), the same goes for all caimans and aligators. And I think that's a really great way to have only owners that are really passionate and with a BIG knowledge... to meet that requirements you need really A LOT of money, so nobody that is just "wow, I want to be badass" will not bother to build all the goverment wants.
As for giants... they are still a little problem, I see a lot of people that are buying the small ones, but when they start to reach adult sizes then owners are just trying to sell them. And the market is small, as there isn't a lot of "true" hobbysist that will want and have the space for a giant.

[Tsubaki]

A license for Giants and Hots is a nice idea, however realizing it is a completely different thing.

A neighboring country (Belgium) Has laws about keeping reptiles. There is 3 types of licenses, Vlarem 1, Vlarem 2, Vlarem 3. (You need a license for all kinds of (non) exotic animals btw, but ill stick to the reptile part for this explanation)

This is how they are Supposed to work,
P.s. Vlarems are not free, costs depends on city. They expire after several years, 20 for Vlarem 3.

Vlarem 3, the 'lowest' Vlarem.
You ask for this license when keeping 1-30 reptiles, which are considered 'harmless to humans'. (Turtles/tortoises can be kept without vlarem) Each city determines on its own, which reptiles are to be considered harmless. -Not having this vlarem, and still keeping these animals. Is not punishable by law, however if found out you do not have a license all animals can be confiscated. Offspring 'officially' counts for your Vlarem as well, so one litter of cornsnakes could get you over your Vlarem. However; it should not get you into trouble if you state they are newborns, that are not meant to stay.

Vlarem 2, The middle. You require this Vlarem, to keep 30+ harmless reptiles, or any reptiles considered a potential threat. (Venom, Large, or Agressive, the city decides which animals are Vlarem 2) Keeping these animals without this vlarem, is considered a crime.

Vlarem 3, Keeping véry large quantity of animals. Considered a 'Zoo' License. Obviously keeping them without a vlarem, is considered a crime.


What the Vlarems actually are like.(A lot of this info is given to me by forums and friends, in the Netherlands you don't need any license
Vlarem 3 is not supposed to be hard to get, however.. It can go wrong very easily. As each city official determines for him or herself what they consider dangerous.. Sometimes ballpythons end up classified to be 'potentially dangerous to humans' and hognosed snakes get written down as hots and require a 'Vlarem 2', It all depends on who handles your request. Also, some cities immediately deny any request for a Vlarem, if you live in certain residential areas.

Some cities consider tarantulas a part of this Vlarem, If they check on you and you have tarantulas. They could determine you are keeping animals over your Vlarem (If added up the total goes over 30) Also, if they decide you are keeping 'dangerous' animals without Vlarem 2 you're in trouble. However you should be able to talk your way out of it, because the license is not for 'Spiders' but it does mention 'potentially dangerous creatures' (which some spiders could possibly be, widows/redbacks etc). It is very easy to make a case about most tarantulas not being harmful. But it is still not a comforting thought that you might get into trouble.

- A friend that requested a license after moving cities to keep 1-30 harmless reptiles, listed the Latin names of the species in the form. The request was denied and he was told he needed a Vlarem 2, because they considered his dwarf 'Boa Constrictors' to be potentially dangerous 15 foot monster snakes. (Whoever was in charge of approving or denying his request probably doesn't know how to google properly) However, later he filed another request without the latin names (Common Belgian/Dutch names with 'small+harmless' added)... And it got approved.

- Another friend got his Vlarem denied, and ended up having to move to a city where they weren't as strict in order to keep his pets (Cornsnakes, Ballpythons and Leopard gecko's, the ballpythons were considered dangerous) However, later in the same city he moved AWAY from because he wasn't allowed to keep his pets. Someone we know from a forum managed to get several reticulated pythons and a few White throated monitors on a Vlarem 3 license, by simply only requesting a license for '1-30 Vlarem 3, Psittacus erithacus, Broghammerus Reticulatus, Polydaedalus albigularis' Harmless Exotics animals/birds (Parrot).' Basically Saying, African gray parrots, Reticulated pythons and White throated monitors (From which he left out the 'varanus' part of the latin name). The City approved, they probably assumed they were all parrot species. Technically, he did nothing wrong and his license is valid for 20 years.

-Also read about someone who had 30+ tarantulas and 2 snakes, they checked on him because he had 2 snakes registered. One inspector was afraid of spiders said he had to file for Vlarem 2, he could have denied because he technically did not have to. He did it anyway, and since he filed for it and it was denied.. He had to move or lower the numbers of tarantula's. (He's lucky they did not consider them Vlarem 2 because of them 'being potentially dangerous' or he would have had to get rid of all of them) P.s. he did not get rid of any spiders, just put a few cockroaches in spider tubs and told that particular inspector he started keeping cockroaches in stead. (He now still frequently gets visited, because his name is in the system after being reported for having to many animals and being denied a vlarem 2, most inspectors however don't even care for the spiders)


Vlarem 2, in Some cities you're able to get one as long as you show expertise. Basically, if you can talk big you could possibly get it. Its often more dependent on how good of a talker you are, and how willing they are to believe you can care for these animals. Than them actually knowing if you are actually knowledgeable/skilled enough.. In some cities it's not hard to get one for 30+ harmless reptiles, but nearly impossible to get one for 1 venomous snake or giant.

Vlarem 1, Forget about it, unless you have a Zoo/Store/professional breeding fascility. I have only heard of a few people actually getting one.


So in summery, it's a a very nice idea and all. If they all would agree on one list, and one method. I do not see this happening t.b.h. There are so so so many stories like this one, where the people who are supposed to know their business are nothing more than paper-pushers who are often too lazy to google in depth. Propositions of list of animals, which would be banned to keep; have been discussed in this country often too. Usually they come down to 'Everyone will have to get rid of 99% of pets, harmless or not' They are very surreal. One of the proposed lists the Axolotl was banned, because it is listed to be extremely endangered. This shows how 'incredibly well' researched such a list is. Banning the Axolotl makes no sense whatsoever, since Axolotls are extremely rare in the WILD (Maybe already extinct in some places) but cheap and very common pets because they thrive in captivity. Banning them as pets would not be beneficial for the species, catching them from the wild bring no profit so that is not the problem causing their endangerment. But banning them for the hobbyist might bring this little salamander a lot of problems.

I doubt they will ever be able to create a law where i would have no complaints about. I'd simply think: -Make a list of actually dangerous animals- (venomous / very large / etc) Make people get a license for those, and have each of those animals registered (Photo i.d. / Chip if possible maybe)- List the minimum amount of care an animal should be provided with per species, and make it a crime not to do so (Like the Germans outlawing fishbowls, and having minimum tank sizes for certain fish). Also, the care-sheet should be provided with any animal sold, and a pet owner should have them for each species they keep. A lot of work, but i think that's the only thing that could work.

Sorry for the incredibly long post, i have discussed this subject so many times on Dutch/Belgian forums.

[bigsnakegirl785]

Quite a few. A hobby, particularly one that involves animals, raises too many issues that would need to be regulated. For instance, how one can define the threshold between a responsible owner and one that is not? If we need a license to have a snake, then why not regulate dog/cat ownership, as well as ownership of any other pet? What makes snake owners more susceptible of needing a license? Would one's financial ability to keep a pet be taken into account when issuing a license? Would we have to prove that we can actually provide for these pets? After all, not being able to provide proper conditions can lead to mistreatment. But who is to decide that threshold? And how? Another example: who is right and who is wrong in their definition of snakes' welfare? Handling or not handling a snake? Is that a welfare issue? And the examples are countless.
The animals' well-being and their treatment, are the bases of a perpetual heated debate. What some believe is responsible owner behavior is considered by others to be inappropriate. Defining responsible behavior would be, in itself, a nightmare. That goes for both the treatment of animals and the owner's misdoings that affect others. While it is easier to regulate the way one's behavior impacts on the society (i.e.: release of animals in the wild, and the environmental impact deriving from it), how can we (in practical terms) decide upon the criteria of being a good owner (this being strictly related to the way owners interact with their animals)? If your idea of licensing is about making people more responsible, then would you kindly define that responsibility, and explain how on earth could that be put into practice. Accountability should extend, according to quite a few members of the forum, to the way people treat their pets. Sounds great and sensible, but can anyone put forward a pertinent explanation as to how this can be accomplished?
As I said before, in order for licensing to be effective, it should be regulated by law, otherwise the ensuing penalties would not be legally enforceable, and would make licensing redundant, nothing more than a money black hole. Legalizing a regulatory measure involves studies, debates, submissions, and more debates. That costs a lot of money, which will eventually become the licensees' burden. Then the purpose of licensing must be considered too: is it a measure to protect the animals, and/or a measure to protect the society from the harmful actions of irresponsible owners? or both? If it is the former, the debate would revolve, as I said, around what's right and what's wrong, and what backs it up (ethical debate). If it's the latter, then it should be regulated by law without the need for a license. Whoever does something to abuse a pet should be punished by law, and same goes for someone who, through neglect, mistreatment or malice, knowingly or unknowingly harms the wider population. Let's all remember that such laws exist, and we don't need to re-write them for snake owners. Currently, any animal abuse is punishable by law, be that of a domestic or wild animal, and so is the release of pets in the wild, or the use of pets to produce harm. We don't need to pay an additional tax for that.
I would rather support mandatory requirements for snake breeders to provide their customers with detailed care sheets specific to their purchase, and with explanations about the impact of pet mistreatment. That would be an informative, practical solution, also inexpensive for the breeders.

The only problem with that is, most animal abuse laws do include reptiles, but animal control couldn't give a single care in the world how badly they were treated they won't do a thing to help them or penalize the owners. Reptiles are seen as lesser by the general public, and seen as a set of animals that can't be abused because they supposedly feel no pain or emotions. They're not worth bothering with, because they aren't suffering from the abuse!

I personally think a licensing that educates and simply shows you know at the least the basics, as well as that gives special training for hots and giants is what we need. Nothing that says "you can only have X animals" or "you can only keep X group of reptiles" should be implemented, as that brings in unnecessary complications and makes people have to maintain unnecessary multiple licences to keep a variety of animals. I can understand there being special licenses for keeping hots or giants (or crocodilians and large montors, etc), though as they are potentially dangerous animals. They need to be housed and handled differently than other reptiles as they could potentially kill people or pets.

I don't think the license itself should control how you keep pets, but it should put basic guidelines in place. Imo, an animal should be able to exhibit all natural behaviors, so I personally would support a license that went something along the lines of "Length+Width is equal to or greater than the snake's length," "enough height should be offered that they can get off the ground," "no dangerous or unsanitary bedding should be used" etc. as far as general housing. I'm not well-versed on lizard-keeping so can't go much into detail there. But there is a lot of things most keepers seem to agree on that is generally accepted as harmful that could easily be included on licenses, such as sand is an unsuitable substrate for the majority of reptile species kept and that pine/cedar is harmful to reptile respiratory systems.

I think a general ed class would encourage new owners to do their own research. If they're willing to go through the pain, most will probably be willing to do the extra leg work to research the care of their specific pet.

So basically I think for non-dangerous reptiles the licenses should be more education-based and lenient, but the dangerous ones should have policies in place to reduce dangerous keeping and lessen the danger they pose to others. The licenses should not be overly controlling and should have reasonable fees.

So I basically agree with Tsubaki here.

[Minkness]

^^^^Agreed^^^^

[Aaron_S]

The only problem with that is, most animal abuse laws do include reptiles, but animal control couldn't give a single care in the world how badly they were treated they won't do a thing to help them or penalize the owners. Reptiles are seen as lesser by the general public, and seen as a set of animals that can't be abused because they supposedly feel no pain or emotions. They're not worth bothering with, because they aren't suffering from the abuse!

I personally think a licensing that educates and simply shows you know at the least the basics, as well as that gives special training for hots and giants is what we need. Nothing that says "you can only have X animals" or "you can only keep X group of reptiles" should be implemented, as that brings in unnecessary complications and makes people have to maintain unnecessary multiple licences to keep a variety of animals. I can understand there being special licenses for keeping hots or giants (or crocodilians and large montors, etc), though as they are potentially dangerous animals. They need to be housed and handled differently than other reptiles as they could potentially kill people or pets.

I don't think the license itself should control how you keep pets, but it should put basic guidelines in place. Imo, an animal should be able to exhibit all natural behaviors, so I personally would support a license that went something along the lines of "Length+Width is equal to or greater than the snake's length," "enough height should be offered that they can get off the ground," "no dangerous or unsanitary bedding should be used" etc. as far as general housing. I'm not well-versed on lizard-keeping so can't go much into detail there. But there is a lot of things most keepers seem to agree on that is generally accepted as harmful that could easily be included on licenses, such as sand is an unsuitable substrate for the majority of reptile species kept and that pine/cedar is harmful to reptile respiratory systems.

I think a general ed class would encourage new owners to do their own research. If they're willing to go through the pain, most will probably be willing to do the extra leg work to research the care of their specific pet.

So basically I think for non-dangerous reptiles the licenses should be more education-based and lenient, but the dangerous ones should have policies in place to reduce dangerous keeping and lessen the danger they pose to others. The licenses should not be overly controlling and should have reasonable fees.

So I basically agree with Tsubaki here.

The part I have trouble with is you say the license shouldn't control how I keep my pets but then go on to describe how to control how I keep my pets.

You want the height to be enough to get off the ground. So you're telling me I need branches in every enclosure. What about burrowing snakes or ground dwellers like ball pythons? Does it harm them to not have a branch in their enclosure? Sure they can climb but it is not needed for them to thrive.

I agree with your sentiment about the license that should give guidelines to the health of the animal. I wouldn't put it on the enclosure exactly. I'd put it something like "during inspection the animal can't look unhealthy or in distress."

[bigsnakegirl785]

The part I have trouble with is you say the license shouldn't control how I keep my pets but then go on to describe how to control how I keep my pets.

You want the height to be enough to get off the ground. So you're telling me I need branches in every enclosure. What about burrowing snakes or ground dwellers like ball pythons? Does it harm them to not have a branch in their enclosure? Sure they can climb but it is not needed for them to thrive.

I agree with your sentiment about the license that should give guidelines to the health of the animal. I wouldn't put it on the enclosure exactly. I'd put it something like "during inspection the animal can't look unhealthy or in distress."

What I was meaning with that was that basic accommodating housing should be offered. So, it's not controlling what kind of enclosure it's in, not controlling whether or not you use lights, whether or not you use UTH's, etc. Just housing that would be able to provide adequate room to provide what you needed to allow most kept species to have an enclosure set up to provide them with a means to practice natural behaviors.

If you'd read, you'd realize that the height thing was simply an example. I realize that strictly fossorial snakes do not require climbing, but I personally believe any snake that is above ground will at some point find themselves climbing. In the wild, even ball pythons can be highly arboreal, living their lives outside of breeding season in the trees, although it is limited to the smaller male ball pythons. I personally am just of the opinion they should have that choice, and having choices to express all of their natural behaviors is how they can best thrive. You don't have to use to space.

I do see your point though, I'm just of a differing opinion. So I can see the merit of simply looking for signs of illness/distress for the sake of a license.

[MDT]

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh572/mtucker66/bagdad%20bob_zpsfzxnhqva.jpg (http://s1252.photobucket.com/user/mtucker66/media/bagdad%20bob_zpsfzxnhqva.jpg.html)

[Aaron_S]

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh572/mtucker66/bagdad%20bob_zpsfzxnhqva.jpg (http://s1252.photobucket.com/user/mtucker66/media/bagdad%20bob_zpsfzxnhqva.jpg.html)

Felt that lacked a bit.

I expect better from you Matt.

5/10.

[Minkness]

Having minimum care requirements for a reptile wouldn't be too different than the care requirements for an outside dog. Must have food, shelter, and water available to the animal. So you could have a dog cjained up outside woth a barrel for shelter, a water bowl, and throw it chow once a day and that would be 'sufficient'. So minimum care requirements could be something like 'so much space per squar in per inch (or foot) of reptile, heat source required if needed per species, water available, and that's that that. It would be a minimum of course. After all, most racks operate on a minimum size but most have a heat source and fresh water available. Like the 'rule of thumb' for fish is 1 gallon per inch of fish or something. So it could be something simmilar to that but in reptile terms.

But honestly, that's more along the lines of regulation, NOT licensing. Licensing is more about the privlage of owning an animal and to get that privlage one should prove their knowledge. We don't need to go onto the litigation of who they are cared for.

As mentioned earlier, even reptiles are protected by the animal abuse laws. If we want those enforced, that is a very different rout than licensing.

[MDT]

Felt that lacked a bit.

I expect better from you Matt.

5/10.

Oh man! c'mon!!! Bagdad Bob?!?!? It's genius!!!

[Minkness]

Oh man! c'mon!!! Bagdad Bob?!?!? It's genius!!!

I'm so offended....

(Kidding lol)

[Aaron_S]

Having minimum care requirements for a reptile wouldn't be too different than the care requirements for an outside dog. Must have food, shelter, and water available to the animal. So you could have a dog cjained up outside woth a barrel for shelter, a water bowl, and throw it chow once a day and that would be 'sufficient'. So minimum care requirements could be something like 'so much space per squar in per inch (or foot) of reptile, heat source required if needed per species, water available, and that's that that. It would be a minimum of course. After all, most racks operate on a minimum size but most have a heat source and fresh water available. Like the 'rule of thumb' for fish is 1 gallon per inch of fish or something. So it could be something simmilar to that but in reptile terms.

But honestly, that's more along the lines of regulation, NOT licensing. Licensing is more about the privlage of owning an animal and to get that privlage one should prove their knowledge. We don't need to go onto the litigation of who they are cared for.

As mentioned earlier, even reptiles are protected by the animal abuse laws. If we want those enforced, that is a very different rout than licensing.

Good point. That is getting sidetracked from the idea of licensing.

Side note, don't let fish keepers hear you say that rule of thumb. It is incorrect and they don't like it.

Oh man! c'mon!!! Bagdad Bob?!?!? It's genius!!!

Meh. Do better.

[MDT]

Meh. Do better.


http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh572/mtucker66/sad%20kitty_zpsd8twz8ad.jpg (http://s1252.photobucket.com/user/mtucker66/media/sad%20kitty_zpsd8twz8ad.jpg.html)

[Minkness]

Good point. That is getting sidetracked from the idea of licensing.

Side note, don't let fish keepers hear you say that rule of thumb. It is incorrect and they don't like it.

.

Oh, I know it's wrong lol. But I said it to point out the 'minimum' which is not always the correct measurement. Neither is keeping a dog chained outside for it's whole life with a barrel for shelter and the lowest grade dog food.

[Aaron_S]

http://i1252.photobucket.com/albums/hh572/mtucker66/sad%20kitty_zpsd8twz8ad.jpg (http://s1252.photobucket.com/user/mtucker66/media/sad%20kitty_zpsd8twz8ad.jpg.html)

Suck it up buttercup.

[MDT]

Suck it up buttercup.


see? that's why i like you..... tough love :)

[trailblazer295]

You can't legislate stupid. Certain cities already have licenses for dogs and cats. I moved into one and then moved away and somehow my cat managed to stay alive. It's merely a cash grab. Listen to today's local news about the dogs left in hot cars. For the non locals it was 32C (90f) not counting humidity and it's humid too. Happens every year no matter how many times you say it.

"For every idiot proof system devised, a new, improved idiot will arise to overcome it"

[AlexCrazy]

"For every idiot proof system devised, a new, improved idiot will arise to overcome it"
LOL XD so true..

[Aaron_S]

see? that's why i like you..... tough love :)

Lori won't like you complimenting me lol

[misskirbyd]

Australian here! ( I think maybe I inspired the original post?). As an isolated island nation, a lot of our fauna laws are for the protection of native species.. and so because of that native reptiles and amphibians are the only ones we are allowed to keep. If my understanding is right, the licensing is in part intended to avoid people pillaging wild animals for pets (taking wild animals requires a very special license, as does breeding more than one clutch a year I think). Being an isolated nation we also don't have some diseases other countries do, so we have serious quarantine laws too.

I'll share how it works just in case anyone is interested - The licenses differ by state but here in Western Australia the license to keep herps is split into 5 categories, currently cat. 1 has nothing, cat. 2 has some geckos, frogs, lizards, cat. 3 adds more of those plus 2 types of pythons, cat. 4 more of everything but all species with higher care needs, and cat. 5 includes your venomous snakes and very large pythons etc. (All categories include all the animals of lesser cat.s of course). The state Herpetological society has been working for years to add more animals to each category. We are required to log an annual record sheet for each species we keep (basically numbers, sexes if known, movements etc) which I presume is to track breeding, deaths etc).

I applied for a cat 3 license straight up as I want a snake. I had to answer a couple of questions via form which included my experience keeping herps and the environment I intended to keep them in. As a new keeper I described how I was doing research, contacting local breeders who would help me, and that I would keep them in an enclosure/environment that matches the care sheets the Department of Parks and Wildlife make available online. License was $40 for 1 year, $75 for 2, $100 for 3 years. (higher cat.s cost more)
It is my understanding that upgrading to a higher license can require references, successful keeping at lower cat.s, and for cat. 5 an inspection of keeping area. Venomous snakes may require training but in not sure. Any license is also held with the knowledge you can be randomly inspected at any time. Herps can't be kept in bedrooms or bathrooms as technically wildlife officers can't ask to see those rooms.

I have read on an Australian forum of inspectors in other states being idiots but haven't read anything like that about my state. Planning to join the state Hero Society at their next manual meeting so maybe learn otherwise. I am new to the keeping community but like to do lots of research.

Anyway, just thought id share for anyone who might be curious. Its interesting for me to read perspectives from other places.

[pet_snake_78]

Ya so I'm going to have to vote no. I think I am paying too much in taxes to begin with, no need for extra fees for keeping pets. Plus only the honest people pay them, the types who keep animals irresponsibly are unlikely to bother registering them. I can't see any benefit of adding additional government fees.

[jossh27]

Why license just hots? Why not allow the cost of the license go to things like reptile rehabs, research, and legal protections? Licensing any animal is a benigit as it would weed out the people who won't spend that kind of money on an animal, thus taking care of at least some of the irrisponsible population of keepers.

Perhaps different licensing for different levels....E for small non venomous (kings, corns, ect), D for rear fanged and larger non venomous, C for larger boas, B for giants, A for hots and so on. Each level may require a certain number of hours in a class room and a test to be passed and a one time fee or somethong. No different than how they regulate any license, even a driver's license or a gun license.

It could go into breeding licenses as well. If a breeder sells something to an unlicensed keeper, it could jeopardize their breeding establishment, thus further protecting animals from getting into the hands of the irrisponsible.

Will this prevent any illegal doings? No...just like it doesn'tstop massage parlors from being a brothel, or machine guns owned by a criminal and so on. But it does make it more difficult and gives more power and freedoms to those who have at least taken the TIME to be licensed.

It doesn't have to be a money sink, or government run, so long as it is government supported everything else can be 'non proffit' (as stated earlier in my post).

Just think...if the licensing class was 50$ and took only 8 hours to accomplish, then 10$ for the registered card declaring your state of license, how that would be more help than anything.

The logistics of finding a way to begin the process, establish a core group of supporters, and enact the rules and regulations of the defined licenses is perhaps far more meaningful than simple opinions on the matter. That's ridiculous. Class room time just to be able to own a animal? Of you're going to licence it, go ahead... Make us pay a fee, maybe do a quick online test but i think classroom time is bullspit. I sure as heck don't have time as a father and someone who works 12+ hours a day to spend n a classroom for a day and listen to someone talk about responsibilities as a pet owner and "teach" us to be safe. Should giants be micro chipped and licenced? - i don't think its a bad idea but as for schooling/training i think is going a bit far. I do see what your saying mink, but i just cring at the idea.

[Minkness]

An 8 hour licensing class could just as easily be turned into an online class that you can take an hour at a time. And the number of hours could easily be negotiated for more OR less required hours. A massage therapist is required to have a minimum of 20 hours of additional 'class' time every 2 years. This is to ensure that the therapist is up to date on current laws and regulations as well as the most recent developments of their trade to perform new skills or keep skills they don't use regularly in accordance with the medical/ethical expections. One class may only be 6 hours but may cost 300$ and most are online courses, though class room classes are also offered.

[jossh27]

Right, but a massage therapist is doing it as a business, to make money... Most of us are just in this for the hobby. I wonder if pitbull owners had this same debate before their rights to own them were removed in Ontario

[jossh27]

Ya so I'm going to have to vote no. I think I am paying too much in taxes to begin with, no need for extra fees for keeping pets. Plus only the honest people pay them, the types who keep animals irresponsibly are unlikely to bother registering them. I can't see any benefit of adding additional government fees.
I'm in the same boat. Unless the breeders were going to have the babies micro chipped before sale then i can't see it helping. That being said only the responsible breeders would do such and the price would increase for said baby and irresponsible owners would just find a breeder who doesn't microchip leaving us at square one

[Minkness]

The reason is irrelevant. I was just using my personal experience to make a comparison of the option of available schooling for a license. Doesn't matter what that license is for.

I can't speak for taxes in Canada and have no idea how this could work, but in my post I mentioned that all proceeds would go to support other reptile needs such as rescues, rehabs, and the actual enforcement of the license among other needs strictly for the reptile community. This may be a bit of a pie in the sky dream, but in my brain it 'could' work.

[bigsnakegirl785]

That's ridiculous. Class room time just to be able to own a animal? Of you're going to licence it, go ahead... Make us pay a fee, maybe do a quick online test but i think classroom time is bullspit. I sure as heck don't have time as a father and someone who works 12+ hours a day to spend n a classroom for a day and listen to someone talk about responsibilities as a pet owner and "teach" us to be safe. Should giants be micro chipped and licenced? - i don't think its a bad idea but as for schooling/training i think is going a bit far. I do see what your saying mink, but i just cring at the idea.

If you're not willing to take the (relatively) short time it takes to do classes, you're not willing to take care of the animal is the way I see it.

[Minkness]

If you're not willing to take the (relatively) short time it takes to do classes, you're not willing to take care of the animal is the way I see it.

~^agreed^~

[jossh27]

If you're not willing to take the (relatively) short time it takes to do classes, you're not willing to take care of the animal is the way I see it.
see it how ever you want... I know I'm not alone on this. I'm not sure of your daily life schedule, but my free time is hard to come by. myself nor anyone else should have to spend it in a classroom or online doing classes just to be able to own a large snake. seems silly to me and still wont weed out the irresponsible owners.

[Aaron_S]

That's ridiculous. Class room time just to be able to own a animal? Of you're going to licence it, go ahead... Make us pay a fee, maybe do a quick online test but i think classroom time is bullspit. I sure as heck don't have time as a father and someone who works 12+ hours a day to spend n a classroom for a day and listen to someone talk about responsibilities as a pet owner and "teach" us to be safe. Should giants be micro chipped and licenced? - i don't think its a bad idea but as for schooling/training i think is going a bit far. I do see what your saying mink, but i just cring at the idea.

There's classroom time for a number of licenses. I believe to become a pilot you need to. Even as a "hobby" pilot.

Pretty much means if you're serious to do it then you'll take the classes. Trust me, we all have time somewhere for an hour here or there.

I believe in the fees. I really like microchipping animals as an idea. Simple scan and people know if you're supposed to have it or not.

Could be as simple as uploading the chip number to a registry everytime you buy or sell an animal. The seller could also "release" the number so it registers as sold/bought. Or traded or whatever.

[jossh27]

There's classroom time for a number of licenses. I believe to become a pilot you need to. Even as a "hobby" pilot.

Pretty much means if you're serious to do it then you'll take the classes. Trust me, we all have time somewhere for an hour here or there.

I believe in the fees. I really like microchipping animals as an idea. Simple scan and people know if you're supposed to have it or not.

Could be as simple as uploading the chip number to a registry everytime you buy or sell an animal. The seller could also "release" the number so it registers as sold/bought. Or traded or whatever.

Sure. im not against micro chipping but whos responsible for it? the breeders? the buyer? well ultimately the buyer would after the sale costs increase, but dont you think thats enough?

[Aaron_S]

Sure. im not against micro chipping but whos responsible for it? the breeders? the buyer? well ultimately the buyer would after the sale costs increase, but dont you think thats enough?

I'm fine with the breeder paying for them. And to be fair, chips don't cost too much. I would think bulk discounts would happen and the prices would or should come down. No way to know for sure.

[Minkness]

There's classroom time for a number of licenses. I believe to become a pilot you need to. Even as a "hobby" pilot.

Pretty much means if you're serious to do it then you'll take the classes. Trust me, we all have time somewhere for an hour here or there.

I believe in the fees. I really like microchipping animals as an idea. Simple scan and people know if you're supposed to have it or not.

Could be as simple as uploading the chip number to a registry everytime you buy or sell an animal. The seller could also "release" the number so it registers as sold/bought. Or traded or whatever.


Also would be a good way to keep track of type and gender. Maybe not 100% but netter than now perhaps.

[bigsnakegirl785]

see it how ever you want... I know I'm not alone on this. I'm not sure of your daily life schedule, but my free time is hard to come by. myself nor anyone else should have to spend it in a classroom or online doing classes just to be able to own a large snake. seems silly to me and still wont weed out the irresponsible owners.

If you have no free time why are you even considering a pet in the first place? It takes time to maintain husbandry and check on snakes. It takes time to change water and bedding. It takes time to clean and sanitize enclosures. It takes time to set up enclosures. If you don't have free time, you don't have time for an animal. And a large constrictor would be even more taxing, especially since there's usually more than one person involved. When I expand bedding for just two enclosures, it takes me a good 3-4 hours just to expand it. Then I have to also strain it, empty the enclosures, and replace the bedding. That only happens a few times a year, but it still takes awhile.

I make sure to try to set aside ~2 hours per day at least a few times a week to handle my snakes, I feel it's very important in monitoring health and makes noticing illnesses quicker if you interact with them regularly.

If I felt my life schedule was too taxing to take classes to own my animals, if that sort of legislation were to be instated in my area, I would do what I felt was best for my animals and re-home them. But that's just me.

[SSSSnakes]

Making people take training or making them get a license is not going to make them a better keeper. Look at how it has worked out with driver licenses.

[Aaron_S]

Making people take training or making them get a license is not going to make them a better keeper. Look at how it has worked out with driver licenses.

I'm not worried about making better keepers with a licensing program.

I see it in two ways.

1. A real community. People that want to disobey the law wouldnt be considered apart of the community. Leading to my second point.

2. Showing the legislators that we're as concerned about policing ourselves as they are. I believe it would show that we're willing to play ball.

[Minkness]

I'm not worried about making better keepers with a licensing program.

I see it in two ways.

1. A real community. People that want to disobey the law wouldnt be considered apart of the community. Leading to my second point.

2. Showing the legislators that we're as concerned about policing ourselves as they are. I believe it would show that we're willing to play ball.

Agreed, though I'd like to add that it would also help protect from (otherwise responsible) people who lack that commitment from getting an animal they may not be able to handle. Thinkbof parents who buy leos for theirkids then keep them on sand with a UV light over head all it's life. If it were more than an impulse buy, either that parent wouldn't buy it, or would know that samd is the umber 1 killer of leos (and many other reptiles). Even if this only increased responsible ownership by 10%, I feel that it's done it's job.