PDA

View Full Version : Another Rotten Bylaw


Iguanalady
06-20-03, 11:44 PM
The City of Surrey. Home of the Infamous Christine Schramm and the Rainforest Reptile Refuge has decided to create a new bylaw. This bylaw was proposed and given a 1st 2nd and 3rd reading all in one meeting without the promised announcement to the local reptile society. Its final adoption will take place shortly but they wont say when. the bylaw is pasted below. The contact information for the city councillors is on this page http://www.city.surrey.bc.ca/_Utility/contact.asp
Basically with this bylaw nobody will be allowed to sell trade or give away any reptile in the city limits without a fine of up to $5000. Please help us out by sending a letter of protest.


DRAFT COPY

CITY OF SURREY

BY-LAW NO. 14823

A by-law respecting the sale and purchase of endangered,
dangerous and exotic animals
.................................................. ................................……

WHEREAS Section 703(1) of the Local Government Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 323 authorizes a municipal council to pass by laws for prohibiting or regulating the keeping of animals.

The Council of the City of Surrey HEREBY ENACTS as follows:

1. This By law may be cited as "Surrey Exotic Animal By law, 2003, No. 14823".

DEFINITIONS

2. In this By law, unless the context otherwise requires:

"animal" includes birds and reptiles, but excludes humans, fish and aquatic invertebrates;

"City" means the City of Surrey;

"Council" means the Council of the City of Surrey;

"endangered animal" means any animal listed on the CITES #1 Endangered Species list;

"keep" means the act of having the care, custody, control or possession of an animal;

"prohibited or dangerous animal" means any animal that is or is deemed to be potentially harmful to humans by nature, aggression, venom, toxins or size and that require specifically designed, secure enclosures to ensure safekeeping including those prohibited animals listed on Schedule "A"; and

"safekeeping" means the provision for security in order to prevent any animal from attacking or injuring a person or domesticated animal or farm animal or exposing same to infection or disease.

APPLICATION

3. This by law does not apply to domestic dogs which are regulated under the Surrey Dog Responsibility By Law, 1999, No. 13880.

PROHIBITED SALE AND PURCHASE OF ANIMALS

4. No person shall sell, transfer or exchange, or offer to sell, transfer or exchange, for any consideration whatsoever in the City, either on a temporary or permanent basis, any endangered animal or any prohibited or dangerous animal.

5. No person shall purchase, buy, take in exchange, take in part payment or otherwise acquire for any consideration whatsoever in the City, either on a temporary or permanent basis, any endangered animal or any prohibited or dangerous animal.

6. For the purposes of sections 4 and 5, prohibited or dangerous animal includes any animal listed in or falling within those classes of animal listed in Schedule "A" attached to and forming part of this by law.

EXEMPT FACILITIES

7. Sections 4 and 5 of this by law do not apply to prevent the keeping or safekeeping of animals at:

(a) the premises of a City facility used for keeping impounded animals;

(b) the premises of an affiliate or branch of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals;

(c) the premises of an accredited veterinary hospital under the care of a licensed veterinarian;

(d) the premises of facilities accredited by the Canadian Association of Zoos and Aquariums; and

(e) the premises of an establishment licensed pursuant to the Meat Inspection Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 283.

OFFENCES

8. Any person who contravenes any provision of this by law or who suffers or permits any act or thing to be done in contravention of this by law is guilty of an offence.

PENALTIES

9. Any person or corporation convicted of a breach of any provision of this by law shall be liable to a penalty of not less than $100 and not more than $5,000 plus the costs of the prosecution.

CONFLICT

10. Where this by law conflicts with any other by laws respecting animals, this by law prevails to the extent of the conflict.


PASSED THREE READINGS on the 16th day of June, 2003.


RECONSIDERED AND FINALLY ADOPTED, signed by the Mayor and Clerk, and sealed with the Corporate Seal on the _________ day of _________________, 2003.



_________________________________ MAYOR


_________________________________ CLERK
h:\by-laws\pending\2003\clk14823.blw.doc
LJC 6/20/03 10:20 PM


SCHEDULE "A"

PROHIBITED ANIMALS

1. Animals on the list of the Convention on International Trade and Endangered Species (CITES #1 Endangered Species List).

2. Marsupials, including kangaroos, opossums and wallabies, except the sugar glider (perauridae breviceps).

3. Non human primates, including chimpanzees, gorillas, monkeys and lemurs.

4. Felids, including tigers, leopards and cougars, except the domestic cat.

5. Canids, including coyotes, wolves, foxes and hybrid wolf dogs, except the domestic dog.

6. Mustelids, including weasels, otters, badgers and skunks, except domesticated ferrets.

7. Ursids.

8. Artiodactylus Ungulates, except domesticated goats, sheep, pigs, cattle and lamas.

9. Procynonids, including raccoons, coatis and cacomistles.

10. Hyenas.

11. Perissodactylus Ungulates, except domesticated horses, donkeys and asses.

12. Elephants.

13. Cetaceans and pinnipeds, including seals, fur seals and walruses.

14. Reptiles.

15. Ratite Birds, including rheas and cassowaries.

16. Raptors, including eagles, hawks and owls, whether diurnal or nocturnal.

17. Edentates, including anteaters, sloths and armadillos.

18. Bats.

19. Cockroaches.

20. Crocodilian, including alligators and crocodiles.

21. Viverids, including mongooses, civets and genets.

22. Constrictors, including pthonidia and biodae, rock pythons, burmese pythons, reticulated pythons and green anaconda.

Ryan and Katie
06-21-03, 01:05 PM
Ignorance is a crime! This lady has no right to try and enforce any law of this kind. Dogs and cats pose a much greater problem to animal rescue facilities around the world. Reptiles are such a small percent of a much greater issue. Education is key in these problems, not an all out ban. Most people assume they know how to care for dogs and cats but the stats dont lie (Over 5 million cats and dogs are euthanized each year!) Most first time(not all) reptile owners open a book about their animal at least once. Dont get me wrong not everyone should own certain reptiles, but not everyone should own dogs or cats... These kind of bylaws have been a plague to herpers around the world for many years and I figured over time with the mass amount of information available (the internet) at our fingertips people like Christine Schramm would even get a clue!. But people like her keep poping up with the same uneducated opinion and views. I agree with bans on certain species of reptiles but not all reptiles because that would be a shame... IMO... Just a rant!!!

Tim and Julie B
06-21-03, 02:31 PM
This is messed up! Why is BC all of a sudden taking a few steps back on reptile ownership. By laws are popping up everywhere in BC now. This is getting to be a huge problem. I can't think of why other then ignorance would these people pass a bylaw like that. Christine Schramm is obviously spreding BS as usual. Hopefully she only has a few more years left. Reptile owners are not criminals and should not have their pets banned. Dam it people suck the only positive is that more people are getting into herps so when it is the next generations turn to rule, they won't be pig headed and inflence by BS.

Lisa
06-21-03, 03:14 PM
So if I got this straight, ALL reptiles are banned? or just ones that are on CITES I?
If it's the latter that's not so bad (how many people own CITES I reptiles?)

MartinW
06-21-03, 03:49 PM
All reptiles are banned, according to item 14 of schedule "a" at the end, as well as animals on CITES #1. That really sucks for people in Surrey. I wouldn't want to live there, not just because of the bylaw, but because I was robbed at a skytrain station in Surrey and lost around $40! That happened the only time I ever went to Surrey.

Martin

Mason
06-21-03, 04:56 PM
the roaches I can understand, k even the "hybrid" wolf dogs.
But these polititians are real board and small minded to pull this. Can't they put up some more stop signs or something?

Lame.

Mason
06-21-03, 05:07 PM
I sent this;



To:
Mayor Doug McCallum Councillor Judith E. Higginbotham Councillor J. Marvin Hunt Councillor Barbara Steele Councillor Gary D. Tymoschuk Mayor and Council
Subject:
*
Message:
* I can't understand why you are banning exotic pets.
In a time where concervation is on the mind of the first world countries, and expansion through destruction is on the mind of the 3rd world countries. Don't you think Canada of all places should be a safe haven for these animals who are having their land, and home's destroyed.
If the politians of today, like yourself, don't start looking toward a broad spectrum future you will be remembered as a nuisance by me and my children while we have to spend time fixing your ignorant mistakes.

I hope everyone in your town moves out.
Name:
*
E-mail Address:

Address:
123 Anaconda dr.
Oakville Ontario.
Phone Number:


I hope the rest of you follow suit.

gonesnakee
06-21-03, 05:26 PM
I just emailed the Mayor & explained to him how I'll never spend another red cent in his city based on the biased backwards attitudes he & his council represent. I would recomend that each & everyone of you does the same irreguardless of whether you would ever visit there or not. Not that helps much, but Surrey does rely on tourism so if we can affect that or make them think that their new bylaw may affect it, every little thing we can do to make them think about it more, the better. Is there some kind of petition or anything started that we can sign to show our opposition for their new bylaw? Mark I.
P.S. What do they propose to do for the people that were always legal in the past & are now in violation as a result of their idiotic decision to pass this bylaw? Just confiscate their stuff & fine them because they decided to change the rules? Hardly diplomatic.

Bryce Masuk
06-21-03, 06:13 PM
fools they banned raptors too... Its funny how they ban things that naturaly live around here coyotes hawks garter snakes I doubt the new law will be taken seriously eventually if things continue like this reptiles "wont exist" or at least as far as the city of surrey knows.
I am lucky I live just over the fence of surrey literally if i go though the back fence of my house I am in surrey. I wonder why they wont stop with this crap and focus on real issues like the crime auto theft is the worst in north america grow I guess this draws the publics view away from real problems....
Hopefully langley doesnt go this way But it most likely will

Lisa
06-21-03, 06:33 PM
Looking at the letter again, it seems to read that keeping them is ok, but transfer of ownership within city limits is prohibited (I could be wrong here, legalese isn't a first or second language). This basicly means pet stores are SOL and anyone wishing to transfer the ownership of a reptile must do so out side of city limits (I guess Surrey won't be hosting any reptile expos in the near future. It also means no one can give Christine Schramm any more reptiles within city limits.

So this could mean just crossing scott road to transfer ownership.

Iguanalady
06-21-03, 06:43 PM
Thanx for the support guys. Keep it coming. All I can say is that right now in BC we are fighting more bylaws than ever. The Recent seizure of the exotic animals and monkeys by the SPCA may have accelerated things and Christine is in a panic because she thinks her years are number and nobody is there to fill her shoes. We are hanging on by a thread here. We have barely staved off damaging bylaws in Maple Ridge, Abbotsford, and Richmond. Most we had to settle for compromises in but at least we beat the all out bans proposed. I am hoping this will be the same but since its Christines home town and the council is likely married to her and her ideals it will be tougher. Even though we have defeated bylaws banning herps we still have to deal with virtually ever city having an "anti-circus" bylaw which prevents any reptiles from being at public events at many placeswhich puts a serious crimp in our shows and sales. Indeed a bylaw officer called us up 2 days before our last sale and harrassed us. It happened in Richmond a while back too. They have stupid timing. 2 days before shows!!

Anyway keep up your support....we need all we can get. If it happens here you can bet your city coucillors will soon be saying well look at BC lets follow their lead.

Iguanalady
06-21-03, 07:41 PM
Yes it is the sale, trade or giving away of reptiles. But Reptiles will hurt over it. Most stores wont sell good reptile products or crickets if they cant sell reptiles. We cannot just stand by and let it happen because at the moment we could still get around it. It will hurt us down the road if we allow it to pass.

Bryce Masuk
06-22-03, 05:01 PM
Maybe people reptiles should be "stolen" and they might "find" A stack of bills on the ground.......

your right though it will be a pain to get food I really cant understand why people want this the general public doesnt care or even notice us only a few pricks

Lisa
06-22-03, 08:52 PM
I think it's probably the same people that are trying to outlaw stuff like dwarf tossing.

Dwarf tossing is done voluntarily, no one is coerced into doing it, they are not landing on a bed of spikes (cushions actually) but there are people out there that feel people that are vertically challanged can not make desicions for themselves. I know, this has nothing to do with herps but this is the same mentality that gets us our herp laws.

The only thing we can do is be vocal about our rights before they are chisled away one by one.