S.b. 310 [Archive] - sSNAKESs : Reptile Forum

PDA

View Full Version : S.b. 310

kernel

05-22-12, 03:42 PM

S.B. 310 passed..... At this rate, the entire reptile industry is going to be shut down. We HAVE to do something!

CDN_Blood

05-22-12, 04:28 PM

jaleely

05-22-12, 08:09 PM

Yeah, I'm a hypocrite, because I take care of exotic pets, but in all reality I disagree with them being imported and sold, bred for colors despite genetic issues, etc., etc.
Kind of sucks, but there should not be snakes at all in every single dirty old petstore to be puchased by a squalling kid throwing a tantrum and then given to the pound a few months later.
As for the ones I have...If i have to get a license or something some day to keep them, fine.

exwizard

05-22-12, 08:15 PM

Jay

05-22-12, 08:46 PM

Im not going there. I see a potential debate coming so I will avoid it now.

You just went there, why would you reply with no intentions.

kernel

05-22-12, 09:52 PM

Should live animals really be an industry in the first place? I've said it before and I'll say it again; if people were more responsible and dedicated to their charges, this wouldn't be an issue, but since so many people are overproducing so many different reptiles, they've gotten to the point that they're considered disposable, so yeah, of course that is going to lead to problems and that's exactly why laws like this come into play. That's my 2 cents - over 'n out :)

I could really get into it with you here, but I won't. I don't feel like it right now and I don't want to create a mess for Wayne to clean up. I'll let someone else argue with you.

Yeah, I'm a hypocrite, because I take care of exotic pets, but in all reality I disagree with them being imported and sold, bred for colors despite genetic issues, etc., etc.
Kind of sucks, but there should not be snakes at all in every single dirty old petstore to be puchased by a squalling kid throwing a tantrum and then given to the pound a few months later.
As for the ones I have...If i have to get a license or something some day to keep them, fine.

I wouldn't have such a big problem if they didn't make the permits so outrageous and didn't require $250,000 insurance PER animal. Read the bill and you'll see just how ridiculous it is. Laws, Acts, and Legislation (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_SB_310)

GarterPython

05-22-12, 09:58 PM

Does anybody have the sight that talks about it. I know I am in Canada but I would still like to read it.

exwizard

05-23-12, 12:54 AM

You just went there, why would you reply with no intentions.Because I disagree and for the following reason.

I could really get into it with you here, but I won't. I don't feel like it right now and I don't want to create a mess for Wayne to clean up. I'll let someone else argue with you.I have such a tendency to get drawn into debates that I hate so that was the best reply I could come up with.

shaunyboy

05-23-12, 05:59 AM

as long as imported animals are transported CORRECTLY then i see NO problem with it

it gives natives a way to earn a living and feed their familys

it gives us access to snakes that are rare in captivity

imo,as long as its all done correctly,then there is no reason to stop it

cheers shaun

jarich

05-23-12, 06:39 AM

I could really get into it with you here, but I won't. I don't feel like it right now and I don't want to create a mess for Wayne to clean up. I'll let someone else argue with you.

I wouldn't have such a big problem if they didn't make the permits so outrageous and didn't require $250,000 insurance PER animal. Read the bill and you'll see just how ridiculous it is. Laws, Acts, and Legislation (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_SB_310)

I think a lot of what this bill states is very reasonable. Its a much smarter bill than most of them I think, allowing for dwarf varieties to be excluded if they are under 12 feet. The insurance is not per animal, its for groups of five. That $200,000 is just insurance against the first five animals, and honestly if you have more than 5 giants, then I dont think the amount it costs for that much insurance should be a big deal. They almost explicitly state in the bill that its a way to make sure that people who dont have the money to keep them responsibly, dont have them.

The requirements for permitting seem valid, and fairly simple:
1) Register the snake/animal
2) Microchip it
3) Have two years experience with that type of animal
4) Have a working relationship with a vet
5) Make a plan for if the thing escapes
6) Prove financial responsibility by being able to provide insurance

I think thats perfectly reasonable. With the possible exception of the microchip, anyone with a giant should really have all that anyway. Microchips are cheap and simple, so no big deal. The insurance shouldn't cost more than about $1000-2000 a year or so, which again should not be a problem if someone has a snake that large anyway. I think this bill is a decent one, and a big improvement on most of the other ones Ive seen.

CDN_Blood

05-23-12, 06:45 AM

Exactly. These are responsible requirements and hopefully it will weed-out the garbage and turn keeping herps back into a sensible and responsible hobby instead of an all-too-easy to turn a buck industry where anyone with a fist full of cash can get anything, anywhere, anytime ;)

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 08:26 AM

I'll rehash some of my thoughts from another thread. While I philosophically agree with reasonable regulation in efforts to weed out the irresponsible keepers, in a realistic sense I do not think it can be or ever will be implemented in such a fashion that is fair to responsible keepers.

This bill in Ohio was fueled by the incident in Zanesville (which did involve reptiles of any kind), but the Animal Rights groups (HSUS and company) pressured state officials to include herps in it because quite frankly, that has been their goal all along. I don't see how it is fair to categories leopard geckos, ball pythons and tortoises along with lions, tigers, and bears.

It will do very little to weed out the negligent and irresponsible keepers. Just look at Florida. Even with a reasonable permitting system for the "Reptiles of Concern" (giant snakes and Nile monitors), many still disregarded it [this permitting system is now defunct, and the ROCs are now illegal to keep as of 2010). It only will make it harder for the already responsible reptile keepers to continue with their hobby.

I seriously can't believe that so many of you are agreeing with this so casually. If I lived in Ohio, I would be very upset: angry at ignorant lawmakers, disappointed at my fellow herpers in the community and discouraged at the future ramifications of this thing. The big picture is that many states look to others for ideas and direction. This is just the beginning. We've already seen other states try to pull this nonsense. Some were not as successful as Ohio, while others are still fighting with USARK.

I just don't see how people can say they don't want their rights taken away, but they want to see more regulation. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Another thing to keep in mind is that this is an election year, and that's another reason we're seeing a slight increase of ridiculous bills and laws being proposed over the past few months, not just in the reptile industry but in other markets as well. Nevertheless, S.B. 310 is not a good thing for the reptile community, and it will only get worse. Bills like this one are just a foot in the door for our enemy. If you think you're "safe" because you only keep geckos, or bearded dragons or turtles, or that its because you live in the state of _____, you are sadly mistaken. Sooner or later, this war will come knocking on your door.

jarich

05-23-12, 09:09 AM

The only herps in this bill are the giant snakes, longer than 12 feet, and venomous snakes. The venomous ones were already under regulation, so nothing new there. Which means in this case only those snakes longer than 12 feet are being regulated.

I suppose at the end of the day I am somewhat casual about it as it doesnt really seem to affect anyone that much in reality. Like you said, the law was already in place in Florida and many other places before, but is simply not enforced in most cases. These laws are just ways of giving the police a means to bust people when a bad situation catches their notice. Again, Im not saying similar laws are all reasonable in each of the states. There are some really stupid and overreaching ones in some other states. However, this one in particular seems well thought out and reasonable.

youngster

05-23-12, 09:17 AM

The only herps in this bill are the giant snakes, longer than 12 feet, and venomous snakes. The venomous ones were already under regulation, so nothing new there. Which means in this case only those snakes longer than 12 feet are being regulated.

What are the guidelines for giants? Actually being over 12 feet or having the potential to go over 12 feet?

Sorry if this is answered but it's early and I don't wanna read that bill yet :p

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 09:34 AM

The point is that people who are being responsible are being punished for the actions of the few that are not. I mean, just some of the wording is indicative of the ignorance of the bill's creators.

Venomous Snakes - Like you said, they were already regulated. Putting them on this bill is redundant and just a knee-jerk reaction
Komodo dragons? seriously, they're already endangered and under severe protection. Its not like the average private keeper can own one. Again, completely redundant to add this animal to the bill. It was just a large powerful dangerous reptile and that's why its on the bill.

I'm sure I'm going to get some flack for this, but whatever...it doesn't make sense to make a law that punishes everyone for the actions of a few. What you do is simply increase the penalties for negligent behavior.

Before I say more, something should be said about the different between public safety and occupational hazard (http://usark.org/position-statements/public-safety/). For that reason, I'll avoid using the analogy of gun ownership or driving. Let's use the example of lawn maintenance. If someone gets injured using a weed-eater, or a lawn mower, it doesn't make sense to suddenly make a law restricting the ownership and usage of lawn maintenance equipment. Most sensible people with adequate experience know how to operate such machines, and any injuries incurred are usually a result of occupational hazard. Can you imagine if you had to pay a permit fee every year and take an exam to qualify for owning and operating a lawn mower?

Again, this law is not as bad as it could have been (anyone read the original version when it was first proposed last year?). But it is the precedent it sets that is troubling. I mean, I've had giant snakes before. I'm responsible. I know what I'm doing. I'd be pissed if I suddenly had to start paying a permit fee and getting a new insurance plan for keeping animals I've been keeping my entire life just because some nutcase let loose some big cats and wolves. Why should I have to pay for someone else's mistakes?

hellosugaree

05-23-12, 09:38 AM

(L) "Restricted snake" means any of the following:
(1) All of the following constricting snakes that are twelve feet or longer:
(a) Green anacondas;
(b) Yellow anacondas;
(c) Reticulated pythons;
(d) Indian pythons;
(e) Burmese pythons;
(f) North African rock pythons;
(g) South African rock pythons;
(h) Amethystine pythons.
(2) Species of the following families:
(a) Atractaspididae;
(b) Elapidae;
(c) Viperidae.
(3) Boomslang snakes;
(4) Twig snakes.

Also regarding permitting it looks like you only need to apply for one permit no matter how many restricted snakes you possess. And regarding the comment about them being lumped with lions and tigers: although lions and tigers are included in sections of the bill, they are defined and addressed separately from restricted snakes--the same permits and restrictions do not apply to cheetahs and restricted snakes...

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 09:46 AM

Also regarding permitting it looks like you only need to apply for one permit no matter how many restricted snakes you possess. And regarding the comment about them being lumped with lions and tigers: although lions and tigers are included in sections of the bill, they are defined and addressed separately from restricted snakes--the same permits and restrictions do not apply to cheetahs and restricted snakes...

I apologize for any inaccuracies in my earlier statements. I know this bill has been amended more than once during its history; some proposed amendments were accepted while some were rejected. I admit that I haven't been keeping up with the current version that actually passed, and was probably channeling a lot from the earlier drafts. I know a lot of changes USARK suggested were rejected, and that probably contributed to my misconceptions as well.

I still maintain that it would have been better if they had just left reptiles out of it altogether, and it will no positive effect on the herp community in Ohio, or elsewhere.

jarich

05-23-12, 11:20 AM

Ill be honest, I think it will have about as much effect on things as the laws in place have, which is pretty much none. There are all kinds of illegal animals sold on CL in NYC everyday. I mean, the cops have much better things to do than bother checking on people's snakes. It will allow them the prosecution rights for problem cases that come up, however; which I think is a good thing. There are a lot of people with snakes they shouldnt have, just like there are a lot of people with guns they shouldnt have, or knives they shouldnt have or blah blah blah.

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 11:30 AM

Ill be honest, I think it will have about as much effect on things as the laws in place have, which is pretty much none. There are all kinds of illegal animals sold on CL in NYC everyday. -- - There are a lot of people with snakes they shouldnt have, just like there are a lot of people with guns they shouldnt have, or knives they shouldnt have or blah blah blah.

Of course...those people aren't going to be effected at all. Its the large-scale collectors and breeders, rescues and shelters, etc.; i.e. the good, responsible hobbyists that are going to suffer from this kind of stuff. Eventually, it can affect shows and expos, etc. [Admittedly, I'm not an Ohio-resident, so I don't know what the herp community is like up there, I'm just making a general argument.]

jarich

05-23-12, 11:37 AM

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 11:48 AM

By the way, "I love steak but dont want to be slapped in the face with it"! Awesome, might have to steal that.

Ironically, someone said that to me several years ago, when I was being an arsehole know-it-all on another forum.

hellosugaree

05-23-12, 12:11 PM

Ya me either, and I think that the expos are the place it will really play out. The breeders and rescues/shelters have to have insurance already, so hopefully it shouldnt really affect them too much. Aside from more paperwork that is. The government does love their paperwork....

By the way, "I love steak but dont want to be slapped in the face with it"! Awesome, might have to steal that.

How many expos have people selling giant constrictors over 12 feet? In such cases, it such a bad thing that they or their potential buyer have to fill out a little extra paperwork and show that they are fit to keep an animal of that size? I love snakes as much as the next guy, but quite frankly not everyone is fit to keep a gigantic or poisonous snake or alligator, etc. These aren't small house kittens... Some of the application requirements are pretty reasonable, like requiring you to name a vet who will treat the snake if it has problems. What do you do when your snake gets sick and nobody wants to deal with a 21 foot, 50lb snake? A lot of people don't think about these things before they get these snakes. If this deters even 5% of the normal load of unfit retards that buy or sell these snakes without being fully prepared then it's not such a bad thing. Serious breeders and keepers will fill out a little extra paperwork...

Speaking of expos and shows, some reptile shows are pretty disgusting anyway and many (not all) people are only out to make a buck and don't give half a **** about what happens to the animal after they get paid for it. I've seen someone gladly sell a snake to someone who requested asked for the cheapest snake they had and was carrying it's future home: A tiny cracked tank with a piece of astroturf and a very old, used heat rock. The seller happily produced a $5 snake, no questions asked, no suggestions made. I'm also sure plenty of retics and anacondas have been bought from people who sold them to customers one could easily figure out were not fit if they bothered to have a five minute conversation with them. There are plenty of responsible breeders and keepers out there, but this "the very few bad keepers ruin it for everybody" business that everyone keeps regurgitating is probably a bit understated. Irresponsible keeping of snakes and other reptiles in the industry is much more common than most people are willing to admit. They are reptiles, but they are also living animals. They deserve respect and proper care. They can feel pain, stress, and can definitely suffer and often do. This happens with any type of animal kept as pets, but I think it is more commonly something that the reptile community tends to look past. The laws may not change anything on their own, but my hope is that they will have the following impact: Rather than bitching about how the "minority" ruins it for everyone and fighting for complete lack of regulation of any aspect of the community whatsoever, maybe people the community as a whole will start taking action within their own group so to speak. When are the keepers, breeders, and people who host shows going to start taking some responsibility for what goes on inside? If we raise our standards and hold people accountable who don't follow acceptable practices, maybe things will turn around and we don't have to worry about someone else taking away privileges from us. Law enforcement doesn't have the resources to enforce these laws anyway, and even if they did, it probably won't make much of a dent. Why not take the stance that the laws are designed with a good purpose in mind, and try to fulfill that purpose on our own. The only way things can be improved are from the inside out. If we improve things ourselves from the inside, people will stop trying to fix them from the outside. If everyone has the "it's not me so it's not my business and not my responsibility" attitude every time they see something wrong, then your friends in the government are going to make it their responsibility. Too many people are comfortable with observing something from a breeder or vendor that they know is wrong, yet 5 minutes later buying a snake from them because they have the one the person wants or the best deal... Even a keeper who only ever purchases one reptile in their life and does nothing else in the community has the power to make things better or worse.

exwizard

05-23-12, 12:32 PM

How many expos have people selling giant constrictors over 12 feet? In such cases, it such a bad thing that they or their potential buyer have to fill out a little extra paperwork and show that they are fit to keep an animal of that size? I love snakes as much as the next guy, but quite frankly not everyone is fit to keep a gigantic or poisonous snake or alligator, etc. These aren't small house kittens... Some of the application requirements are pretty reasonable, like requiring you to name a vet who will treat the snake if it has problems. What do you do when your snake gets sick and nobody wants to deal with a 21 foot, 50lb snake? A lot of people don't think about these things before they get these snakes. If this deters even 5% of the normal load of unfit retards that buy or sell these snakes without being fully prepared then it's not such a bad thing. Serious breeders and keepers will fill out a little extra paperwork...

Speaking of expos and shows, some reptile shows are pretty disgusting anyway and many (not all) people are only out to make a buck and don't give half a **** about what happens to the animal after they get paid for it. I've seen someone gladly sell a snake to someone who requested asked for the cheapest snake they had and was carrying it's future home: A tiny cracked tank with a piece of astroturf and a very old, used heat rock. The seller happily produced a $5 snake, no questions asked, no suggestions made. I'm also sure plenty of retics and anacondas have been bought from people who sold them to customers one could easily figure out were not fit if they bothered to have a five minute conversation with them. There are plenty of responsible breeders and keepers out there, but this "the very few bad keepers ruin it for everybody" business that everyone keeps regurgitating is probably a bit understated. Irresponsible keeping of snakes and other reptiles in the industry is much more common than most people are willing to admit. They are reptiles, but they are also living animals. They deserve respect and proper care. They can feel pain, stress, and can definitely suffer and often do. This happens with any type of animal kept as pets, but I think it is more commonly something that the reptile community tends to look past. The laws may not change anything on their own, but my hope is that they will have the following impact: Rather than bitching about how the "minority" ruins it for everyone and fighting for complete lack of regulation of any aspect of the community whatsoever, maybe people the community as a whole will start taking action within their own group so to speak. When are the keepers, breeders, and people who host shows going to start taking some responsibility for what goes on inside? If we raise our standards and hold people accountable who don't follow acceptable practices, maybe things will turn around and we don't have to worry about someone else taking away privileges from us. Law enforcement doesn't have the resources to enforce these laws anyway, and even if they did, it probably won't make much of a dent. Why not take the stance that the laws are designed with a good purpose in mind, and try to fulfill that purpose on our own. The only way things can be improved are from the inside out. If we improve things ourselves from the inside, people will stop trying to fix them from the outside. If everyone has the "it's not me so it's not my business and not my responsibility" attitude every time they see something wrong, then your friends in the government are going to make it their responsibility. Too many people are comfortable with observing something from a breeder or vendor that they know is wrong, yet 5 minutes later buying a snake from them because they have the one the person wants or the best deal... Even a keeper only ever purchases one reptile in their life and does nothing else in the community has the power to make things better or worse.
All the long posts having been said, the govt will not stop until all herps are banned. I don't trust the govt to stop there. They will keep marching on.

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 12:51 PM

Speaking of expos and shows, some reptile shows are pretty disgusting anyway and many (not all) people are only out to make a buck and don't give half a **** about what happens to the animal after they get paid for it. I've seen someone gladly sell a snake to someone who requested asked for the cheapest snake they had and was carrying it's future home: A tiny cracked tank with a piece of astroturf and a very old, used heat rock. The seller happily produced a $5 snake, no questions asked, no suggestions made. I'm also sure plenty of retics and anacondas have been bought from people who sold them to customers one could easily figure out were not fit if they bothered to have a five minute conversation with them. There are plenty of responsible breeders and keepers out there, but this "the very few bad keepers ruin it for everybody" business that everyone keeps regurgitating is probably a bit understated. Irresponsible keeping of snakes and other reptiles in the industry is much more common than most people are willing to admit.

I'm not denying there aren't irresponsible people in the industry. There certainly are, from the top rungs all the way down to the craigslist swappers. But what is the percentage/ratio of the goats versus the sheep? The only way is go and inspect the collections of every single reptile keeper in the entire country. Obviously, this is impractical for a number of reasons, so we can only guestimate and assume based on our own experiences and observations. I would still maintain that the majority of those who keep reptiles are fairly responsible, and the negligent parties are in the minority.

The laws may not change anything on their own, but my hope is that they will have the following impact: Rather than bitching about how the "minority" ruins it for everyone and fighting for complete lack of regulation of any aspect of the community whatsoever, maybe people the community as a whole will start taking action within their own group so to speak. When are the keepers, breeders, and people who host shows going to start taking some responsibility for what goes on inside? If we raise our standards and hold people accountable who don't follow acceptable practices, maybe things will turn around and we don't have to worry about someone else taking away privileges from us.

I heartily agree. There are a lot of people on many levels already doing what they can to implement exactly what you are suggesting. But it will only be effective if EVERYONE does it. Unfortunately, this is not the case. There are still many of people out there who don't give a flip about any of this, and are only out for padding their pockets. What do we do about THOSE people? We can't make laws that are discriminatory (okay, it applies to that guy, but not this guy, and who decides that anyway?

As noble as this effort is, it is too little too late. You are correct in that the reptile industry as a whole has more or less brought this upon ourselves. We got so caught up in the craze of breeding morphs, and importing new, weird stuff in, and over-breeding/importing the cheap/common stuff just to cover our overhead and make ends meet, and we didn't think so longterm.

Law enforcement doesn't have the resources to enforce these laws anyway, and even if they did, it probably won't make much of a dent. Why not take the stance that the laws are designed with a good purpose in mind, and try to fulfill that purpose on our own.

Again, part of it is that its little too late. And another part is that USARK and PIJAC has tried to work with these lawmakers. The standard for keeping they established for NCARK they have tried to implement for other states. But govt officials don't or will not listen, and are more concerned with being influenced with the NGOs.

The only way things can be improved are from the inside out. If we improve things ourselves from the inside, people will stop trying to fix them from the outside. If everyone has the "it's not me so it's not my business and not my responsibility" attitude every time they see something wrong, then your friends in the government are going to make it their responsibility.

Again, this is only effective if EVERYONE is onboard. When you figure out a way to get all the scumbags of the industry to stop thinking about their pocketbooks for one minute and consider helping out the rest of the hobby, then you feel free to share that secret with the rest of us.

Too many people are comfortable with observing something from a breeder or vendor that they know is wrong, yet 5 minutes later buying a snake from them because they have the one the person wants or the best deal... Even a keeper who only ever purchases one reptile in their life and does nothing else in the community has the power to make things better or worse.

Once more, I'm right there with ya. Just as sellers and dealers need to start self-policing and screening customers, consumers should start valuing quality over quantity. You're correct: buyers have the power. We can hit the scumbags where it hurts: their wallets.

hellosugaree

05-23-12, 02:37 PM

All the long posts having been said, the govt will not stop until all herps are banned. I don't trust the govt to stop there. They will keep marching on.

This is paranoid extremist talk. These laws were not thought of solely as a way for some evil villain to stick it to his serfs. Your geckos, bearded dragons, and most of your snakes are safe. Requiring someone to jump through a few hoops to keep a 20 foot snake or an alligator is not particularly unreasonable. Someone didn't just sit down one day and say: "Hmm... what can I take away from people for no reason." When people start releasing their geckos and bearded dragons and they start eating alligators in Florida, then you might have to worry about them too. What do you think is going to happen? They made a permit required to keep a few species of giant constrictors, only after they are OVER 12 FEET, and now they are going to say: "OK we got the giant snakes now let's take away geckos because taking away pets from people for no reason is fun."

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 02:47 PM

hellosugaree

05-23-12, 02:54 PM

I would strongly suggest you read this:
This what it has come to… « Student of the Reptile (http://studentofthereptile.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/43/)

Then listen to the following podcasts:

The Constrictor Ban 01/25 by Herpin Time | Blog Talk Radio (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/herpin-time/2012/01/25/the-constrictor-ban)

Reptile Radio Home - Listen to Reptile Radio - 100's of Archived shows available for download (http://reptileradio.com/)

Then go straight to the horse's arse...er...I mean, mouth. Wayne Pacelle, CEO of HSUS:

HSUS podcasts - Humane Talk with Tracie Hotchner : The Humane Society of the United States (http://www.humanesociety.org/about/podcast/)

Wayne's blog - Wayne Pacelle: A Humane Nation (http://hsus.typepad.com/wayne/)

Look at some of the older posts. HSUS is totally against the ownership of ALL exotic animals, and has been for decades.

Then check out: HumaneWatch (http://www.humanewatch.org/) to see what they're spending their money on.

He said nothing about the human society... He said government... Most of this addresses the humane society.

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 03:04 PM

He said nothing about the human society... He said government... Most of this addresses the humane society.

You apparently did not read it entirely, nor did you listen to any of the podcasts. Andrew Wyatt specifically mentions the HSUS, along with the Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature's Conservancy. If you listen to later Herpin' Time episodes, Andrew Wyatt speaks about the impending SB 310 and HSUS's involvement.
---------------------------------
They tried to pass that H.R. 669 bill back in 2009 that banned all non-native species to the U.S. Get that? That's every animal that is not native to America. What do you think that entails?

They are hitting the easy targets first: big snakes, big cats, large dog breeds, etc. Do you honestly think they're just going to stop at those? Once they've outplayed the "these animals are simply too dangerous for the average person to keep" card, then they'll fall back on: "these animals just have too many specific care requirements for the average person. Most people are not prepared to keep these animals properly, and as a result, too many end up unwanted and dumped off in shelters that are already over-crowded and under-staffed. Animal rescues and shelters have enough on their plate dealing with all the neglected dogs and cats left on their doorstep. They don't have the knowledge, space or man-power to deal with all the unwanted exotic animals that are a result of irresponsible impulse purchases." After all the big, dangerous reptiles are regulated, then they'll probably play up the Salmonella angle again, and try to take away everything else.

This is not just a reptile thing, even though its a little more close to home for most of us and quite honestly, reptiles are an easy target because the general public already has a negative view of them. But this also involves other exotics like sugar gliders, chinchillas, hedgehogs, etc.

Maybe it's "just for fun" as you put it, but it is a campaign against the exotic animal industry as a whole, reptiles included. For whatever reasons they seem to so fervently believe in, these organizations do not want people owning pets. And they will do everything in their power to accomplish that goal.

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 03:12 PM

hellosugaree

05-23-12, 03:21 PM

People call me and other like-minded extremists, and that we're over-reacting. Well, then if we're wrong, then how come these laws keep popping up left and right?

We're extremists? I say, anyone who says the powers-that-be are going to stop after they're done with the giant snakes...is living under a rock and is frighteningly naive. You need to wake up and keep up to date with what is going on. People like you are part of the the problem, mistakenly believing that "well, its about time they started regulating big snakes. As long as it doesn't directly affect little ole me, whatever."

Your comments are overly pointed.

I never said I supported a federal ban of snakes. I simply said that the Ohio thing did not seem particularly unreasonable. Did you happen to read any of it, or did you simply oppose it because you feel it will lead to unreasonable things later even if it isn't unreasonable to begin with?

I also never said it's about time they started regulating big snakes, I just said I can see where they are coming from when this whole thing got started. There have obviously been problems with them, and even you can't deny that. Opposing legislation that is not unreasonable just because you say it will lead to legislation that is unreasonable is not a very strong argument. Since you seem to be the master of judging naivety, please tell me: is that not naive? How can you expect the other side not to take an all or none approach when that is the same approach you condone? Is that not naive? Furthermore, you previously stated: "I don't see how it is fair to categories leopard geckos, ball pythons and tortoises along with lions, tigers, and bears." Since you brought up the topic of naivety, I find it extremely naive to make this ridiculous conclusion that could not be farther from the truth. If you actually spent 5 minutes reading the bill before jumping to extreme conclusions you might have seen that. Jumping to wild conclusions about things without even making an effort to understand what they are about, in my opinion, fits the definition bill for naive and living under a rock--the very same things you said about me for not virulently opposing something that seems pretty reasonable.

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 03:57 PM

I simply said that the Ohio thing did not seem particularly unreasonable. Did you happen to read any of it, or did you simply oppose it because you feel it will lead to unreasonable things later even if it isn't unreasonable to begin with?

I opposed the version that passed. It had redundancies (among other things, mentioning the already mentioned venomous snakes and the already severely protected Komodo dragon) which demonstrated an extreme lack of preliminary research during the bill's construction. It really had no real foundation for even involving the giant constrictors, when there is no real risk to public safety. I also don't agree with many specific restrictions, either. You can disagree with that, but I really do not care. I genuinely felt it was unnecessary.

I also opposed it because I know USARK and other organizations proposed to amend the bill for more realistic guidelines. For the most part, the officials rejected all of it. This again demonstrates unreasonable behavior from unreasonable govt officials. The bill itself is arguably a domino effect from previous legislation, and I genuinely feel other states may potentially follow suit in Ohio's example.

So to answer your question, I most certainly did oppose it, and that is why.

I also never said it's about time they started regulating big snakes,

It was implied. I apologize if I misinterpreted you. This subject is a touchy one with me. Sometimes, I feel like its bad enough that we have a minority of our hobby that's irresponsible. Its even worse when another faction is so willing to roll over and acceot any leglistion that comes our way.

I just said I can see where they are coming from when this whole thing got started. There have obviously been problems with them, and even you can't deny that.

(sigh) I could write pages about this one....first let's do a impromptu survey of how many people in the U.S. keep giant snakes and how many serious accidents/deaths have occured as a result of giant snake ownership. We've all heard the statistics. There are so many things the average person can get injured or killed by before a giant snake, take your pick: struck by lightning, bees, dogs, horses, car accidents, the list goes on. I'm not denying that a large 20 ft python is potentially dangerous, but so is a motorcycle or a riding lawn mower for that matter. The realistic danger presented simply does not warrant the severe restrictions.

If by "problems" you are including the invasive Burmese in south Florida, I suggest you take a look at that blog again. The snakes are present in only 3 counties. They are barely surviving, not getting ready to migrate northward to start gobbling up poodles and kindergarters like the media would have us believe. I hope you are not naive enough to believe that.

Opposing legislation that is not unreasonable just because you say it will lead to legislation that is unreasonable is not a very strong argument.

Since you and I seem to have different views of what is unreasonable in this matter, let's just agree to disagree on this one, heh?

Since you seem to be the master of judging naivety, please tell me: is that not naive? How can you expect the other side not to take an all or none approach when that is the same approach you condone? Is that not naive?

It's naive when the "other side" base their law-making decisions on hysteria, fear-mongering and pseudo-science, and not actual facts. I consider it a little naive (among a few other choice adjectives) when USARK and other herp organizations try to work with officials for a more reasonable approach to the percieved problem based on real facts, and the ideas are outright dismissed.

Furthermore, you previously stated: "I don't see how it is fair to categories leopard geckos, ball pythons and tortoises along with lions, tigers, and bears." Since you brought up the topic of naivety, I find it extremely naive to make this ridiculous conclusion that could not be farther from the truth. If you actually spent 5 minutes reading the bill before jumping to extreme conclusions you might have seen that.

I already admitted my mistake for not reading the text from the current bill. If you took 5 minutes to see my first post on the top of the 2nd page of this thread, you would see this.

exwizard

05-23-12, 04:15 PM

This is paranoid extremist talk. These laws were not thought of solely as a way for some evil villain to stick it to his serfs. Your geckos, bearded dragons, and most of your snakes are safe. Requiring someone to jump through a few hoops to keep a 20 foot snake or an alligator is not particularly unreasonable. Someone didn't just sit down one day and say: "Hmm... what can I take away from people for no reason." When people start releasing their geckos and bearded dragons and they start eating alligators in Florida, then you might have to worry about them too. What do you think is going to happen? They made a permit required to keep a few species of giant constrictors, only after they are OVER 12 FEET, and now they are going to say: "OK we got the giant snakes now let's take away geckos because taking away pets from people for no reason is fun."Since you call me extremist for not trusting the government, let me tell you where Im coming from. When Iowa first passed 717F (http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=717F), the original version did not include snakes but special interests saw fit to add them in. While Im not opposed to venemous snakes being on this list, giants on the other hand, I have a problem. African Rocks, Anacondas or Retics are now banned from Iowa entirely.To top matters off, Des Moines does not allow any snake over 6' in length no matter the species unless you have a permit. I have this permit but I resent the fact that I had to wait a very long time to even be able to take this class that allows me to get the permit in the first place. I really fear any further restrictions on me being able to keep my snakes.

Floridas problems cannot happen in states like Ohio, Iowa or anywhere else that winters get too cold to sustain them. If a Burm or Retic ever escapes there is no way they can survive much less thrive in our harsh winters so Florida is irrelevant to that argument.

Also it is not extremist to push for smaller government less regulation and lower taxes, because each one of these stifles economic activity. Ive said it before, anytime government gets involved in anything even if its to provide "solutions" to society's problems it screws up society even more and ends up spending untold trillions on a problem they only aggravate and that includes snake keeping restrictions and their enforcement.

People call me and other like-minded extremists, and that we're over-reacting. Well, then if we're wrong, then how come these laws keep popping up left and right?

We're extremists? I say, anyone who says the powers-that-be are going to stop after they're done with the giant snakes...is living under a rock and is frighteningly naive. You need to wake up and keep up to date with what is going on. People like you are part of the the problem, mistakenly believing that "well, its about time they started regulating big snakes. As long as it doesn't directly affect little ole me, whatever." This I agree with completely.

hellosugaree

05-23-12, 07:23 PM

Since you call me extremist for not trusting the government, let me tell you where Im coming from. When Iowa first passed 717F (http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/cool-ice/default.asp?category=billinfo&service=iowacode&ga=83&input=717F), the original version did not include snakes but special interests saw fit to add them in. While Im not opposed to venemous snakes being on this list, giants on the other hand, I have a problem. African Rocks, Anacondas or Retics are now banned from Iowa entirely.To top matters off, Des Moines does not allow any snake over 6' in length no matter the species unless you have a permit. I have this permit but I resent the fact that I had to wait a very long time to even be able to take this class that allows me to get the permit in the first place. I really fear any further restrictions on me being able to keep my snakes.

Floridas problems cannot happen in states like Ohio, Iowa or anywhere else that winters get too cold to sustain them. If a Burm or Retic ever escapes there is no way they can survive much less thrive in our harsh winters so Florida is irrelevant to that argument.

Also it is not extremist to push for smaller government less regulation and lower taxes, because each one of these stifles economic activity. Ive said it before, anytime government gets involved in anything even if its to provide "solutions" to society's problems it screws up society even more and ends up spending untold trillions on a problem they only aggravate and that includes snake keeping restrictions and their enforcement.

This I agree with completely.

Ex, I wasn't using the Florida thing as an argument. That was more of a ridiculous overstatement to make the point that geckos and and bearded dragons are not going to come under fire.

I also never said I supported banning big snakes. All I said was the Ohio thing wasn't particularly unreasonable. They ask you to show proof that you have a willing vet, a plan for escape, etc. That isn't unreasonable to keep a retic over 12 feet. This has nothing to do with geckos or all your herps like everyone keeps saying. Should my neighbor be worried about his house cats because lions are on there? Are they out to take away peoples cats now? I know there is a lot of unreasonable legislation out there and I don't agree with it.

I didn't call you extremist for not trusting the government. You basically stated that because Ohio enacted a permit system for some constrictors over 12 feet, that they are out to take away all our herps. The legislation has nothing to do with geckos, bearded dragons, or turtles. Your viewpoint based on that is a bit extreme. All I said was the Ohio legislation was not unreasonable and nobody is out to take away your freaking geckos. Then you all started bombing me with a bunch of other crap about federal bans and stuff in Iowa, once again none of which had anything to do with anything even remotely close to a gecko. I should have known my comment about extremist would open up a can of worms. Maybe that was a bit stronger of a word than I wanted to use. Sorry about that ex. I just don't agree with the belief that the government is out to take away your geckos based on the fact that Ohio requires a permit to have a retic over 12 feet, becuse that that is pretty much what both of you said directly. If you want to tell me that you honestly believe a bill that requires someone to obtain a permit to keep venomous snakes or a few constrictor species only if they happen to be over 12 feet means that the government is trying to take away people's geckos, then we can leave it at that. I call that a bit extreme, and I won't back out on that one. Other than that, I said nothing about Iowa or federal bans with respect to extreme views.

Cheers

StudentoReptile

05-23-12, 08:15 PM

Ex, I wasn't using the Florida thing as an argument. That was more of a ridiculous overstatement to make the point that geckos and and bearded dragons are not going to come under fire.

I'm sorry that I assumed that or implied that you did. You merely stated "There have obviously been problems with them..." and that kinda left it open to interpretation. I didn't know if you were referring exclusively to attacks/accidents involving giants or the Florida invasive issue or both.

I also never said I supported banning big snakes. All I said was the Ohio thing wasn't particularly unreasonable. They ask you to show proof that you have a willing vet, a plan for escape, etc. That isn't unreasonable to keep a retic over 12 feet. This has nothing to do with geckos or all your herps like everyone keeps saying. Should my neighbor be worried about his house cats because lions are on there? Are they out to take away peoples cats now? I know there is a lot of unreasonable legislation out there and I don't agree with it.

Well, I suppose I (like Ex) am looking at it from a different perspective and a wider lense than you are. You are correct in that this bill by itself, is not that bad. But I've been following this stuff since 2007. I've watched the steadily growing trend of restricting legislation over the past 4 years, both on the state and federal levels. When you take into account how long the reptile industry has been established, how long those pythons have actually been in the Everglades (I know..NOT Ohio, but stay with me here), and how many deaths/accident actually involve reptiles...and THEN take it all in together, and combine it with watching the actions of HSUS and other animal rights orgs. There IS an agenda against the exotics animals industry, and it has little to do with public safety or preserving the environment, as they would have you believe.

I didn't call you extremist for not trusting the government. You basically stated that because Ohio enacted a permit system for some constrictors over 12 feet, that they are out to take away all our herps. The legislation has nothing to do with geckos, bearded dragons, or turtles.

I'm trying to find the original text, but if I recall, the first draft of the bill actually included ALL reptiles.

Ah ha here it is: http://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/129_SB_310_I_Y.pdf

Look here at this line: (21) Any other animals designated by the director of agriculture in rules.

Then on line: (5) Any other snakes designated by the director in rules.

I don't know about you, but that's some pretty vague and scary text if you ask me. That means if the bill had passed in that form, they could almost any animal they deemed "dangerous" at will. Now luckily, for Ohio animal keepers, the bill was amended to omit that text, but still...

Then you all started bombing me with a bunch of other crap about federal bans and stuff in Iowa, once again none of which had anything to do with anything even remotely close to a gecko.

Once again, I dunno where you're coming from, but we looking at this thing from a different perspective. I'm not saying that they're out to "get geckos" specifically. I had just used that species as an example of a small, harmless reptile that most people would think of as "safe." My point was that they ARE out to restrict and/or ban ownership of all exotics, even the "safe" ones. Now you can disagree and that's fine. Honestly, I hope that I am wrong. But realistically, I fear that I am not.

I just don't agree with the belief that the government is out to take away your geckos based on the fact that Ohio requires a permit to have a retic over 12 feet, becuse that that is pretty much what both of you said directly. If you want to tell me that you honestly believe a bill that requires someone to obtain a permit to keep venomous snakes or a few constrictor species only if they happen to be over 12 feet means that the government is trying to take away people's geckos, then we can leave it at that.

Okay, perhaps I didn't clarify that well. Honestly, the govt could care less about all this. Our enemies are animal rights groups: HSUS and their ilk. These organizations spend more money on postage each year than USARK's entire annual budget. They influence politicians and pay for campaigns, lawyers, etc. to push their agenda: bottom line is that money talks and they got a heck lot more of it than we do. Most of the politicians lobbying these bills, they're just pushing a hot topic to help boost votes and increase their chances for re-election.

Honestly, I was thinking earlier this evening....how many people even privately own big cats and primates and elephants, etc. in Ohio? I still wonder exactly how "necessary" this bill even was, reptiles or not.

StudentoReptile

05-24-12, 09:06 AM

This was just posted today on USARK's website (SB 310: KASICH?S BIG, EXPENSIVE BLUNDER POISED TO KILL SMALL BUSINESS IN OHIO (http://usark.org/?p=986):)

SB 310: KASICH’S BIG, EXPENSIVE BLUNDER POISED TO KILL SMALL BUSINESS IN OHIO (http://usark.org/featured/sb-310-kasichs-big-expensive-blunder-poised-to-kill-small-business-in-ohio/)

By Erika N. Walsh

“There is poison in the fang of the serpent, in the mouth of the fly and in the sting of a scorpion; but the wicked man is saturated with it.” ~ Chanakya
http://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wyatt12-225x300.jpg (http://usark.org/featured/sb-310-kasichs-big-expensive-blunder-poised-to-kill-small-business-in-ohio/attachment/wyatt1-3/)

May 22, 2012, Ohio’s Senate Bill 310, which went through 16 revisions in the Senate and one, big Omnibus Amendment in the House, passed the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 89-9. It was rushed through the Senate regarding the House amendments on the same day and passed by a vote of 30-1. SB 310 awaits only Governor Kasich’s signature before becoming Ohio law. There is no chance of veto.

SB 310 has sweeping implications for all exotic animals. In terms of reptiles, it imposes a prohibitive permitting scheme for all species of venomous snakes and certain constrictors over 12′ in length. (The United States Association of Reptile Keepers (http://www.usark.org/) (USARK) will have a summary impact statement on its web site this week.) It imposes enormous and specific liability insurance or surety bond requirements on owners of venomous snakes, the likes of which are not available. SB 310 requires owners of all restricted snakes to meet certain standards of care that have not been defined and will be set by administrative rule at some later date by group of people unqualified to define best management practices for reptiles. By administrative rule, the director of agriculture can require any information he chooses on the application to own restricted snakes and breeding restricted snakes requires a separate permit. Additional species may be added to the dangerous wild animals list or the list of restricted snakes by either legislative process or a simple concurrent resolution without full legislative process. The impact on reptile hobbyists, owners, breeders and small businesses will be enormous.

How did Ohio go from being one of the few completely unregulated states with respect to exotic reptiles, to one of the most restrictive in less than three months?

The genesis of SB 310 goes back to 2010 and Kasich’s predecessor, Governor Ted Strickland. Strickland was under tremendous pressure from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) to regulate standards of care for Ohio farm animals. HSUS had threatened to file petitions for HSUS’s proposed constitutional amendment on animal care and housing. (FN1.) Strickland, caving to the pressure of HSUS’s threats, made a deal to draft an executive order. In exchange for this agreement, HSUS agreed to drop their ballot initiative for 2010 and committed to instigating no future initiatives for at least ten years. (FN2.)

On January 6, 2011, the deal brokered between Strickland and HSUS resulted in Strickland issuing an emergency executive order banning exotic pets in Ohio. (FN3.) The executive order would have authorized the Ohio Department of Natural Resources (ODNR) Division of Wildlife to adopt new rules that prevented new private ownership of wild animals, required existing private owners of dangerous wild animals to register the animals with the state, and defined the type of facilities that could own and rehabilitate dangerous wild animals. The emergency rules would be in place for 90 days. (FN4.)

Four days later, Kasich was sworn in as Ohio’s governor, having defeated Strickland in November 2010 by a narrow margin. (FN5.) By this time, USARK had become aware of the terms of Strickland’s well publicized deal with HSUS. In January 2011, USARK began contacting Kasich’s office.

By the spring of 2011, Kasich had decided not to sign Strickland’s exotic animal ban because he felt that it exceeded the authority of ODNR and because he felt that it would damage Ohio small businesses. (FN6.) Kasich blocked Strickland’s executive order until its expiry.
Then Zanesville happened. On October 18, 2011, Zanesville, Ohio police began receiving 911 calls of lions, bears, tigers, and other large, dangerous animals wandering loose. The animals, 56 in all, belonged to a man named Terry Thompson, who had kept them on a private game preserve and who chose to turn them loose just prior to killing himself. No humans were harmed by the loosed animals, but unfortunately, the animals were not so lucky. Forty-nine lions, tigers, bears, wolves, mountain lions and a baboon were slaughtered. Most of these were shot and killed by law enforcement officers within 1500 feet of their pens. One was hit by a car. No reptiles were involved in the Zanesville incident.

The public criticism against Kasich from the Zanesville tragedy was swift and condemning. Kasich, of course, refused to accept any culpability, but it turned into an enormous political embarrassment for Kasich, so much so that he sent his friend, Jungle Jack Hanna to the media to defend him. Hanna (television celebrity and Director Emeritus of the Columbus Zoo and Aquarium), a strong Kasich ally who personally donated $7500 to Kasich’s gubernatorial campaign, made the rounds on national TV claiming it was not Kasich’s fault and further stating that even if Strickland’s original ban had been left in place, there wasn’t anyone to enforce it and no place to put the animals if they had to be taken away. (FN7.)

Politicians achieve their status in life by renegotiating every promise they ever make. The most successful ones make the largest reversals. Kasich may become very successful.

Before Zanesville, Kasich claimed to be protecting Ohio’s small businesses. After Zanesville, he claimed that he blocked Strickland’s executive order because of deficiencies in that order. He became hell bent on passing prohibitive legislation against exotic animal owners as political damage control.

In December 2011, USARK met with Senator Troy Balderson, the senator representing the district in which Zanesville lies, and the same senator who sponsored SB 310. USARK also met with the director of ODA, the director of ODNR, both of their staffs, and multiple other legislators regarding the inclusion of reptiles (which have never posed a public safety threat in Ohio) in what was already taking form as a huge, restrictive legislative thundercloud for exotic animals and to educate the administration on the impact to Ohio residents and businesses. Other organizations also became interested in and around this time and they, too, began trying to influence the governor.

Senator Balderson made multiple promises to USARK during these meetings. Balderson assured USARK that only crocodilians and venomous snakes would would fall under his permit system (no constrictors), and that the system would be favorable to industry and it would be “business as usual.” He reversed on those promises.

On March 8, 2012, Balderson introduced SB 310, seeking to enact a sweeping law to establish requirements governing the possession of multiple species of animals, which would be designated as “dangerous wild animals” as well as multiple species of snakes which would be designated under the law as “restricted snakes.” He reversed on his promise to omit constrictors. He reversed on his promise to maintain “business as usual” for the reptile industry. SB 310′s provisions with respect to snakes were so onerous and expensive that they would have served to be a de facto ban on the ownership of multiple species of constrictor snakes as well as venomous snakes.

Rumors in the Statehouse circulated that Balderson, who was not elected but appointed to his senate seat by Kasich, was buckling under the pressure of the governor, who was in a frantic scramble to avoid looking bad over Zanesville. USARK made the strategic decision (with which I agreed whole heartedly) to discontinue discussions with Balderson because at best, he lacked the political authority to negotiate, or, at worst, he was negotiating in extremely bad faith.
http://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/no.jpg (http://usark.org/featured/sb-310-kasichs-big-expensive-blunder-poised-to-kill-small-business-in-ohio/attachment/no/)

USARK appeared on March 27, 2012 at the first opponents hearing on SB 310 before the Senate Agriculture, Environment and Natural Resources Committee. Wyatt gave compelling testimony to a standing room only crowd, amid a sea of NO SB 310 buttons provided by USARK, that the reptile industry generates approximately $30 million annually in the state of Ohio; that thousands make their livings or supplement their incomes by farming reptiles as a non-traditional agricultural pursuit; that a rational argument could not be made that working with any reptiles presented public safety risks, and that 90% of the impact of SB310 was directed at the reptile industry, hobbyists and pet owners. He requested that all reptiles be removed from SB 310 and that administrative rule making authority to add new species be removed as well.
USARK appeared on April 17th, and on April 24th, each time presenting testimony that not only would SB 310 create a huge burden on Ohio commerce and small businesses, but that reptiles have statistically never posed a public safety risk in Ohio or elsewhere in the U.S.
By April 17th it was clear to us that the Senate intended to listen to virtually unending testimony on SB 310, but had every intention of passing SB 310 out of committee. During that week, USARK began executing its strategy to try to ameliorate the damaging provisions of SB 310 in the Ohio House of Representatives. Wyatt felt, and I agreed, that progress in the Senate was futile and further efforts there were going to be fruitless under the circumstances.

Balderson made and reneged on more promises regarding SB 310 during this time period. For example, he promised that administrative rule making authority to add new species would be removed. In fact, he put that promise into writing. But he reneged.

By April 24th, SB 310 was in its 16th version. Some opponents spoke out in favor of the sixteenth version because Balderson removed Boa constrictor, removed constricting snakes less than 12′ long, and allowed surety bonds in certain cases instead of liability insurance for venomous snakes. The inclusion of constrictors, later “bargained” back, was not a victory. Balderson took pains to agree to “concessions” that the legislature could reclaim because of his failure to remove administrative rule as promised. It was a shell game played by Balderson and Kasich against the stakeholders and their representatives who were inexperienced at the carnival.
http://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/wyatt-walsh-300x240.jpg (http://usark.org/featured/sb-310-kasichs-big-expensive-blunder-poised-to-kill-small-business-in-ohio/attachment/wyatt-walsh/)

USARK began meeting with House representatives on April 24, 2012 and voicing our objections to SB 310. These objections were resoundingly well received in the House and USARK was assured that the House would not buckle to the whims of a tyrannical governor as the Senate had.

Beginning in April, several aides also intimated to USARK that somehow, some of the opponents of SB 310 were leveraging it against another pending piece of legislation, Ohio SB 130. In other words, if opposition to SB 310 were quelled, SB 130 might not be scheduled for committee hearing. SB 130 is a puppy mill bill and puppy production in Ohio is a much larger industry that reptile keeping. Another layer of intrigue had been added. Although we could not verify for certain this had happened, we received enough comments from enough offices, that it seemed likely. As of May 23, 2012, SB 130 still has not been scheduled for further committee hearings and the session is about to end. It was assigned to the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee on February 2, 2012, more than a month before SB 310 was even introduced.

On April 25, 2012, SB 310 passed out of the Ohio Senate on a vote of 30-1 and moved to the House. The same day, USARK was on the phone with Chairman David Hall’s office addressing the issue of administrative rule as well as other problematic features that persisted in SB 310. By this time, USARK already had appointments scheduled for the following week with more than half of the representatives on the House and Natural Resources Committee to discuss SB 310 and had contacted Kasich’s office multiple times regarding meeting with the governor to discuss SB 310. After two weeks of such attempts, Kasich’s aide admitted that Kasich would not meet with USARK regarding SB 310 and told us that, through her, Kasich made a personal request to the director of agriculture, Director Daniels, to meet with Wyatt and me. Unfortunately, the director’s schedule did not allow that to happen.

By May 1, 2012, USARK had submitted a proposed substitute bill to Representative David Hall, the Chairman of the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. USARK was back in Ohio on May 8th and 9th for continued meetings with legislators in the House, to discuss the particulars of USARK’s sub bill (which was distributed to the House Committee on May 8th) and to testify in the House Committee hearings.
Throughout hearings, USARK continued to hammer home the points that SB 310 represented an unfunded mandate that would fall squarely on the shoulders of Ohio taxpayers, that reptile owners continued to be disproportionately affected, that reptiles posed no safety risk in Ohio, that administrative rule to add new species violated due process rights, that the insurance requirements of SB 310 were impossible to meet because such policies did not exist, and that ideologues and imported animal rights experts were the only proponents, proponents that would drive Ohio residents out of business.

Attendance by committee members at the House committee hearings was outstanding. Members asked pointed and excellent questions and paid close attention to the testimony that was given. On two nights, these public hearings went until approximately midnight. USARK appeared on behalf of our Ohio members, and multitudinous Ohio residents appeared and testified as well, many in the herpetoculture community as well as owners of exotic mammals. At most hearings, opponents outnumbered proponents by more than 20 to one. Proponents were HSUS, PETA, a handful of local zoo representatives (always at least one of Hanna’s cronies from the Columbus Zoo) and imported animal rights advocates from other states.
Early on, Representative Jim Buchy (R) developed a pointed interest in support of USARK’s positions and USARK’s sub bill. Buchy sent the USARK sub bill to drafting and through him it was proposed to the House committee. Other representatives were also opposed to the Senate version of SB 310 and it was clear to them that USARK’s criticisms of specific provisions were accurate.

In our May 8, 2012 meeting with Chairman Hall, he explained to USARK that when the House received SB 310 from the Senate, the House committee members felt that SB 310 was so problematic that there were not enough votes to pass it out of committee. Hall indicated that he would not call for a vote if they could not pass it. However, if the changes were made in the House necessary to pass SB 310 out of committee, he felt certain that the Senate would not approve it. In that case, the two chambers were required to “conference” the issue, with the governor, which would delay the session.

After May 10, 2012, no further testimony was taken on SB 310. On May 14th, seven committee members caucused SB 310 with Balderson and Kasich. USARK learned after that caucus that the majority of the House committee was also caving under Kasich’s will. All of the House committee members were up for reelection in November. They were anxious to get back to their districts to campaign. Balderson threatened that substantive changes would not pass in the Senate. Kasich promised that he would veto SB 310 if it arrived on his desk with substantive changes. As a result, the only changes that the House committee proposed in its Omnibus Amendment were those that both Balderson and Kasich had pre-approved.
The Omnibus Amendment did not restore legislative process to SB 310. Instead, it allows the director of agriculture to add species to the restricted snakes list or to the dangerous wild animals list (or between those two lists) with approval of the General Assembly. This could be through the introduction of an amendment in the form of a bill. However, it can also be through a concurrent resolution, for which hearings, multiple readings, committees and public input are not required. A concurrent resolution only needs a simple majority vote in each chamber and may occur quite silently. This is not full legislative process.

The insurance provisions in SB 310 are either not obtainable or may be so onerous that the cost will preclude nearly all breeders from meeting the requirements. The standards of care are not defined and administrative rules could impose standards of care that are so impossible as to represent a ban on all permits. Moreover, the director of agriculture can, by administrative rule, define what information and requirements are necessary to keep restricted snakes. SB 310 is adefacto ban on keeping venomous snakes and possibly constrictor snakes over 12′ of certain species.

On May 16, 2012 , SB 310 passed the House Agriculture & Natural Resources Committee late in the evening by a vote of 17 to 4. The four Representatives who opposed the bill were Buchy, Boose, Damschroder and Hagan.

On May 22, 2012, SB 310 was read on the House floor for its third consideration. Chairman Hall testified that there had been over 15 hours of testimony taken by the House committee, more than 80 witnesses had appeared to give oral testimony and additional written testimony was submitted. He thanked Kasich, Balderson, and Balderson’s legislative aide. He said, “We made the bill stronger,” and, “I feel that we did get it right.”
Representative Terry Boose testified against SB 310. Boose asked more questions in committee than any other representative. He stated that when the House received SB 310, “I was 100% for the bill. I thought it was a good bill before listening to the 80 plus witnesses who testified.” Boose went on to list the litany of problems with SB 310. He said it created a false sense of security. He correctly noted that even if SB 310 passes, it is powerless to prevent another Zanesville, that a person could still own all those animals and still release them. He testified that SB 310 “takes away property rights, not just your neighbor next door, but businesses, valuable businesses in Ohio.”

Boose talked about the $30M to $100M annual revenues generated by the exotic animal business and said that SB 310 will “regulate them out of business.” He testified about the “out of state animal rights groups” that want to impose SB 310 on Ohio. He compared SB 310 to Ohio’s Jarod’s Law (referring to a environmental school safety law in Ohio that went into effect in March of 2006 and was repealed entirely in 2009 because the extraordinary costs of the regulations). (FN8.)

Boose noted that none of the proponents nor the committee had been able to find insurance or surety bonds with the language and terms SB 310 will require. He noted that SB 310 will force this businesses underground. He testified that the bill was devoid of any of the rules that it seeks to enforce. He said, “I cannot vote for this bill.”

USARK applauds Boose for testifying that, “When we pass laws that people cannot obey, then we destroy the Rule of Law and create a lawless society.”

SB 310 passed in the Ohio House of Representatives by a vote of 89-9. Those that voted against it were: Representatives Boose, Buchy, Conditt, Damschroder, Goodwin, Christina Hagan, Martin, Newbold, and Uecker. It immediately moved to the Senate the same day, where it passed by a vote of 30-1. The sole senator voting against it was Senator Jordan.

This is a sad day for reptile keepers in Ohio. USARK applauds the Ohio legislators that held to their promises and had the courage, the integrity and the intelligence to stand up for Ohio businesses and commerce in light of the pressure and hysteria of the ideologues to which Kasich and Balderson succumbed. USARK shall be publishing an impact summary for its constituents in Ohio so that they can understand what their legislature has done to their businesses and their hobbies.

Closing Remarks

Andrew Wyatt first asked me to contact him in early February 2012 through a mutual friend due to my prior involvement with Illinois legislation and my status as an attorney, regarding legislation pending at that time in Illinois. I began working with Wyatt in early March in Illinois and became interested in SB 310 as soon as it was introduced. I worked hand-in-hand with Wyatt, under his direction, throughout the life of SB 310 and strategized closely with him at each step.

It has been a great privilege to me personally and a great learning experience professionally to work with Wyatt. I have seldom met someone as intelligent, committed and principled as he is. During the course of our work on SB 310, I have answered to many USARK members about the USARK strategy in Ohio, to the extent that it was not privileged. Although the outcome disappointed us, I cannot criticize Wyatt’s strategy at any point in this battle. In fact, I fully supported it. Even in retrospect, there is not a single juncture at which I would have changed our course of action, nor do I think that any different strategy could have yielded a different outcome. USARK’s case never failed to be brilliantly prepared. We had the facts, the law, and public policy arguments all inuring favor to our side. Unfortunately, they were not enough to overcome Kasich’s political hangover following Zanesville, and that was ultimately the deciding factor.

StudentoReptile

05-24-12, 09:22 AM

Just to point out, Erika N. Walsh (the author of the article posted above) is, if I understand correctly, one of the lawyers hired by USARK. I didn't post all of that just to rehash a lot of points, or re-instigate the debate of this bill, persay. I just wanted to provide the account of someone who apparently has been involved with this thing from Day 1.

Aaron_S

05-24-12, 10:13 AM

... Komodo dragons? seriously, they're already endangered and under severe protection. Its not like the average private keeper can own one. Again, completely redundant to add this animal to the bill. It was just a large powerful dangerous reptile and that's why its on the bill...

I quoted this because it only took a minute or less to type that in there. Honestly, you underestimate people's stupidity. All it takes is one person to somehow, someway get a komodo dragon and simply say "it's not in the bylaw". Plenty of people have gotten off MURDER with a simple sentence so I don't blame them for putting in "just in case.." animals on the list.

Lastly, we were allowed to regulate ourselves for what? 50 plus years? Now we're being regulated. Purely because we couldn't do it on own before. It's sad but we're punished. That's life. Live with it and deal with it.

Before you go on about how I don't have a fight as I have smaller species. I certainly do have a fight. I just refuse to as I believe this regulation, as others stated, isn't unreasonable.

hellosugaree

05-24-12, 06:27 PM

Kettennatter

05-25-12, 05:40 PM

As an Ohionian the biggest problem with the bill is that it makes it hard for private rescues to stay in business, which have been the ones taking in reptiles when the HSUS wouln't. ODNR continues to reach out to these recues who will be forced to turn these species away.

Looking at Ohio and the extent of which this law can be enforced, I wonder what will happen to these reptiles going forward.

kernel

05-26-12, 04:43 PM

jarich

05-26-12, 04:58 PM

Check the date there Kernel. That is from last year, prior to this bill being put through.

kernel

05-26-12, 05:46 PM

I know that. He was saying they aren't going to come after our geckos and beardies, so I was showing him where they were going to ban ALL exotics. It didn't pass or anything, but the point is they TRIED.

Aaron_S

05-26-12, 08:07 PM

That sounds like tactics to me. Might as well put everything in the first time and when you get pushback from the community then you concede on the easy points you tossed in but make the other side concede something too.

To be honest, you'll never see that kind of blanket ban I don't think. Fish and those other animals make far too much money for the government for them to NOT want to regulate it and keep it going in some manner.

hellosugaree

05-26-12, 09:24 PM

Hellosugaree, you still think they don't want to ban our little geckos?

Exotic animal ban recommended in Ohio ? USATODAY.com (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/story/2011-11-22/zanesville-ohio-exotic-animals/51349430/1)

The recommended ban would ban fish, reptiles, birds, rodents and basically anything other than you common domesticated pet. Exotic mean not native, so technically that would ban cats, dogs, horses and most other live stock too, but it make an exception for domesticated animals.

First, it's a news story. The news tends to get things wrong or blown out of proportion all the time. It's not very specific. Please point out where it talks about small reptiles? I'm not arguing or trying to spark a heated debate, but just curious where you are reading that this has anything to do with geckos?

kernel

05-26-12, 11:04 PM

It says ALL exotics, that includes everything from geckos, to crocodilians, to monitors ect. Here's a bill from 2009 where they tried to pass a federal ban on ALL exotics.

http://www.pijac.org/_documents/us_h_669_1.pdf

And here's some more info on it

http://shorttailedopossum.tripod.com/clipart/hr669_pet_ban.pdf

StudentoReptile

05-29-12, 08:42 AM

I guess I view it more like gun rights (yeah, I know I said I wouldn't go there...but bear with me). Now I'm not going to debate how this hobby is exactly like the gun industry or whatever, and I'm not here to debate opinions on gun rights...just hear me out.

The anti-gun lobbyists have been trying to ban gun ownership for a while. The NRA and other organizations have fight them tooth and nail each time. So what do they do? They start restricting the number of rounds in a clip, or how firearms a person can own, etc. Every time they get knocked back, they do step back...but just not as far each time. You're right, Aaron...they throw the blanket ban out there first, then when all the special interest groups get involved, the bill gets whittled away to a point where it is considered "reasonable." They are acutely aware that they cannot take it all out in one big chunk. So they nibble and whittle away a little bit each time. One state at a time. One group of animals at a time.

Again, before this Zanesville incident occurred, was there really a big exotic animal issue in Ohio? Besides this guy with mental issues (who IMHO, was purely an isolated incident), how many people in Ohio were/are keeping those big exotic animals? What was the big problem?

I suppose I just think of the big picture when there's so much more important things in this country to worry about, and the govt is a little to worried about people owning snakes.

kernel

05-30-12, 12:47 PM

This is exactly how I see it as well.