NYS seeks to criminalize reptile ownership

[infernalis]

If this passes, I am selling my house and MOVING to Africa forever.

If this is what America is coming to, I no longer wish to be a citizen.

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?sh=printbill&bn=A02869&term=2013

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
__________________________________________________ ______________________

2869

2013-2014 Regular Sessions

I N A S S E M B L Y

January 18, 2013
___________

Introduced by M. of A. CLARK -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Agriculture

AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to prohib-
iting the ownership, possession or harboring of a wild animal or
reptile

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEM-
BLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Section 370 of the agriculture and markets law, as added by
2 chapter 1047 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:
3 S 370. [Protection of the public from attack by] PROHIBITION OF THE
4 OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION OR HARBORING OF wild animals and reptiles. Any
5 person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable
6 of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being[, who shall fail to exer-
7 cise due care in safeguarding the public from attack by such wild animal
8 or reptile,] is guilty of a [misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for
9 not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than five hundred
10 dollars, or by both] CLASS E FELONY AS DEFINED BY THE PENAL LAW. FOR
11 THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "[Wild] WILD animal" [within the meaning
12 of this section, shall not include a dog or cat or other domestic
13 animal] IS DEFINED IN ACCORDANCE TO PARAGRAPH E OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF
14 SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW.
15 Previous attacks upon a human being by such wild animal or reptile, or
16 knowledge of the vicious propensities of such wild animal or reptile, on
17 the part of the possessor or harborer thereof, shall not be required to
18 be proven by the people upon a prosecution hereunder; and neither the
19 fact that such wild animal or reptile has not previously attacked a
20 human being, nor lack of knowledge of the vicious propensities of such
21 wild animal or reptile on the part of the owner, possessor or harborer
22 thereof shall constitute a defense to a prosecution hereunder.
23 S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
24 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

EXPLANATION--Matter in ITALICS (underscored) is new; matter in brackets
[ ] is old law to be omitted.
LBD06313-01-3

[blindfireak40]

I saw this the other day. It's a shame that our lawmakers are so completely filled with irrational fears and so convinced of their duty to enforce their warped perception of "common sense". The previous text of the law was just fine. I will be writing a strongly worded letter.

[Kettennatter]

This seems horribly broad. In fact, it would probably criminalize the possession of most pet birds, but also common pets, such as hamsters. And since a garter snake bit me once, I'm sure garters would be on the top of the list.

[Aaron_S]

First Wayne don't get too upset yet. Here is how I broke it down. It isn't too bad.

Any
5 person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable
6 of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being[, who shall fail to exer-
7 cise due care in safeguarding the public from attack by such wild animal
8 or reptile,]

This says it needs to be able to inflict bodily harm. If it can (if they wish a bite is 'bodily harm') then you need to exercise due care to protect the public from such things.

This sounds a lot more like it's geared towards venomous/giant snakes as well as tigers and other dangerous animals.

In the second part defining a wild animal it states an animal who has attacked humans in the past or known to have vicious propensities [sic] it says you can't make a defense because the owner 'didn't know it was venomous' or that 'the retic never hurt anyone before' as a defense.

I know a councilman in Ontario here who also owns reptiles. He says to honestly show up to a meeting that you're allowed to be at and start with "I'm Wayne Harvey I live ______ and I believe this doesn't work because it's a blanket statement of reptiles in which I own a few that could never 'inflict bodily harm'."

Write a bit of a speech saying you own garter's and other small species.

I know it sucks because it's really general and that "bodily harm" is very broad but it sounds like they're trying to stop giants/venomous (moreso the latter).

You could also quote laws in Ontario. The Toronto area has the 3 meter rule for such things. Maybe find it and bring it to their attention.

[blindfireak40]

Read carefully, Aaron, particularly at the end. I thought the same as you at first. Everything in brackets is on the books, has been since the sixties. All of the bracketed text is being replaced by the ALL CAPS text immediately following it (or is being removed entirely). It does exactly what Wayne says it does, IF it passes and the all caps text replaces the bracketed text.

Furthermore, it essentially says that mere possession is a felony; proof of previous attacks or propensity is not needed to move forward with prosecution.

[GDZILLA95]

Just another reason why I could never live in NY.

[MDT]

This coming from the land of criminalized soft drinks....wow, a FELONY.....
I wish politicians would realize that most of the time, less is more.

Wayne, I hope this dies in committee.

[Aaron_S]

Read carefully, Aaron, particularly at the end. I thought the same as you at first. Everything in brackets is on the books, has been since the sixties. All of the bracketed text is being replaced by the ALL CAPS text immediately following it (or is being removed entirely). It does exactly what Wayne says it does, IF it passes and the all caps text replaces the bracketed text.

Furthermore, it essentially says that mere possession is a felony; proof of previous attacks or propensity is not needed to move forward with prosecution.

Thanks for the tip. Here it is edited for JUST the new stuff going in. The way you and I read it seems to be more to what they are doing.

I also still believe if someone feels strongly about it. Go there. Tell them who you are, where you live and what you do. That's worth SO much to them because it's real opposition from real people.

Also, correct me if I copied/pasted it wrong with the bracket thing.

PROHIBITION OF THE
4 OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION OR HARBORING OF wild animals and reptiles. Any
5 person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable
6 of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being is guilty of a CLASS E FELONY AS DEFINED BY THE PENAL LAW. FOR
11 THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION.

WILD animal IS DEFINED IN ACCORDANCE TO PARAGRAPH E OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF
14 SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW.
15 Previous attacks upon a human being by such wild animal or reptile, or
16 knowledge of the vicious propensities of such wild animal or reptile, on
17 the part of the possessor or harborer thereof, shall not be required to
18 be proven by the people upon a prosecution hereunder; and neither the
19 fact that such wild animal or reptile has not previously attacked a
20 human being, nor lack of knowledge of the vicious propensities of such
21 wild animal or reptile on the part of the owner, possessor or harborer
22 thereof shall constitute a defense to a prosecution hereunder.
23 S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
24 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

[blindfireak40]

That is exactly correct.

[blindfireak40]

Alright everyone, I've gone ahead and written that strongly worded letter. Please give it a read and let me know what (if anything), you might change. Feel free to utilize the basic framework for letters of your own. I'm well aware this is transpiring 3000 miles from me, but the important thing is to make our voices heard; it could be our state (or province, Aaron ;)) next.


//////////LETTER\\\\\\\\\\
To whom it may concern:

I have just become aware of item 2869, which is currently under deliberation within the Committee on Agriculture within the New York State Congress. As I’m sure you are aware, this proposed amendment seeks to criminalize and marginalize a large swath of society, including: private citizens, specialty store owners, and even educators. This proposed bill would be absurd, inhumane, and a gross violation of personal rights as written.

First, we shall examine the ridiculous nature of this proposed alteration. As you may or may not be aware, reptiles are some of the most capable survivalists found in nature, and as such come equipped with natural defenses. So too do cats, dogs, horses, cows, sheep, pigs, chickens, ducks, geese, parrots, and goats. However, unlike at least four of these commonly kept animals, reptiles are extremely unlikely to cause any lasting harm whatsoever; when properly cared for and secured, this risk decreases to negligible levels. Like any other intelligent animal, a reptile exhibits certain behaviors that indicate its mood before physical altercation may occur. If a dog has his hackles raised, the responsible owner removes it from the situation; evidently if a snake exhibits similar behavior, the responsible legislature must remove all of them from the state.

Furthermore, this amendment would (as mentioned above) make criminals out of countless law-abiding citizens. Many others would be forced to close businesses that have been running for years, all to stay within a law that honestly need not have changed. As a small child, I was spellbound by the class pet, a gopher snake (a small, harmless reptile that never struck at anyone—not that that detail would matter under this law), as were all of my classmates. Were this item to proceed, such an experience would be completely denied to school children across your state, with inestimable consequences.

And what would occur if this heinous piece of legislative micromanagement were to pass into law? As it is commonly stated, ignorance is no defense. Would the 14-year-old who captures a garter snake be charged as an adult for his crime(s)? Would the 50-year-old man who couldn’t bear to part with his 45-year-old tortoise be locked up, and the poor animal euthanized? No matter how gentle the final sleep, removing reptiles from caring homes because of legislative fear can only be described as inhumane.

Perhaps second only to the concerns regarding the fate of thousands of previously well-kept pets is the trampling of individual rights here involved. There is absolutely no way that a reptile could pose a danger to a person, her property, or the state without putting their owner in violation of the well-written existing Section 1-370 law. As I’m sure you are amply aware, New York can be a very cold place; many captive reptile species are tropical in nature, or native to New York. Thus, any potential environmental impact caused by escaped pets is negligible, as they would not survive one winter, or perhaps not even one month.

It is my fervent belief as one of those dirty libertarians that if a person’s actions do not harm another person or his property, the government has absolutely no business interfering with those actions. It is for this reason especially that these proposed changes are ludicrous and overreaching; the bill as written in 1965 provides for government intervention in the case of damage to persons other than the responsible owner, and this is where the bill should be left.

I am far from a perfect human being. Occasionally I may tell a fib, or I may take the rest of the pizza at the all-you-can-eat buffet, but I try to live my life honestly. If I receive extra change, I fess up. If someone drops their wallet, I return it. I’ve never been a criminal, but if you proceed with this bill, I would become one by your definition. I thank my stars I live in the slightly less insane state of California, but I shudder at the precedent that would be set by this proposal. Please, for the sake of literally thousands of your constituents, take a step back and ask yourself, would these changes do more harm than good? And please do us all a favor and be as candid with yourselves as I’ve been with you.

Thank you for your time,

Sean Carmel Draper, a concerned reptile keeper.

[Aaron_S]

I think it's a really solid start.

The things I would remove from it are the jabs at the lawmakers. They aren't going to be happy with some of the language used. Those kinds of things won't help the matters. Just needs to be kept professional and said in person.

Paperwork says nothing to these people. They simply laugh or take a cursory look and toss it in the garbage. In person is what it's about.

[blindfireak40]

I think it's a really solid start.

The things I would remove from it are the jabs at the lawmakers. They aren't going to be happy with some of the language used. Those kinds of things won't help the matters. Just needs to be kept professional and said in person.

Thanks, and duly noted. Definitely written a little angrily, but I'll reread it after this lab report lobotomizes me and tone down the rhetoric a bit.


Paperwork says nothing to these people. They simply laugh or take a cursory look and toss it in the garbage. In person is what it's about.

I understand this as well, but as much as I'd love to fly out and meet Littlefoot and Cera and hand-deliver this, the financials are just not there :( So I'll have to settle for a letter, and hope even one of them reads it all the way through.

[Aaron_S]

The other issue is they don't care about you because you're in CA.

I'm not trying to be an *** I'm simply stating information passed onto me from someone who's a councilman and does this on a regular basis. I know it's only one view but it's an "inside" one so I try to put a little more thought behind it.

I think your letter is a good script for Wayne if he wants to take it and improve upon it!

[blindfireak40]

The other issue is they don't care about you because you're in CA.

I'm not trying to be an *** I'm simply stating information passed onto me from someone who's a councilman and does this on a regular basis. I know it's only one view but it's an "inside" one so I try to put a little more thought behind it.

I think your letter is a good script for Wayne if he wants to take it and improve upon it!

Hahaha no worries, I know it's likely to do nothing, but it's the least I could do...and this way when CA tries to pull this crap I'll be prepared! :yes:

[Aaron_S]

Good thinking.

I'd like to see more people weigh in here in the discussion.

[Roadtrash]

New York is getting a little crazy lately. First you can't get a large drink anymore then they go into all this gun nonsense they just passed and now they want to get rid of reptiles.

There are a lot of good people in New York but all the crazy ones seem to be in charge, what gives with that?

If they keep on the way this thing reads they might be banning a lot of dogs as well cause some do bite. And I guess they'll have to do away with cows cause they might get after you too. What about chickens, you ever have a rooster flog you? And I hate to get started on those man eating goldfish.

I guess I better stop i seem to be wandering.

[Aaron_S]

New York is getting a little crazy lately. First you can't get a large drink anymore then they go into all this gun nonsense they just passed and now they want to get rid of reptiles.

There are a lot of good people in New York but all the crazy ones seem to be in charge, what gives with that?

If they keep on the way this thing reads they might be banning a lot of dogs as well cause some do bite. And I guess they'll have to do away with cows cause they might get after you too. What about chickens, you ever have a rooster flog you? And I hate to get started on those man eating goldfish.

I guess I better stop i seem to be wandering.

It actually makes a point to not include domestic animals so your hyperbole is uncalled for.

Use some actual knowledge and form a solid response. This kind of response will only further them to outright banning everything.

[Falconeer999]

Little more digging - if you look at the part where it references the environmental conservation law, it appears this is the list of reptiles they are referring to:
(5) All reptiles that are venomous by nature, pursuant to department
regulation, and the following species and orders: Burmese Python (Python
m. bivittatus), Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus), African Rock
Python (Python sabae), Green Anaconda (Eunectes maurinus), Yellow
Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), Australian Amethystine Python (Morelia
amethistina and Morelia kinghorni), Indian Python (Python molurus),
Asiatic (water) Monitor (Varanus salvator), Nile Monitor (Varanus
nilocitus), White Throat Monitor (Varanus albigularis), Black Throat
Monitor (Varanus albigularis ionides) and Crocodile Monitor (Varanus
salvadori), Komodo Dragon (Varanus komodensis) and any hybrid thereof,
(6) Crocodylia.

[infernalis]

OK, so I am no legal eagle here, my Savannah Monitors are in no danger of being taken away from me?

[blindfireak40]

Little more digging - if you look at the part where it references the environmental conservation law, it appears this is the list of reptiles they are referring to:

Once again, it appears so, but it is important to notice that the text of the law makes illegal all wild animals AND reptiles, whereas the list that you just quoted is found as a subset of "wild animals" (i.e. 11-0103 Section E item 5). This insinuates to me that the ban is more universal than that list indicates, as the blanket term "reptile" is included. If they only wanted to ban that list of species, they would have said "wild animals as defined by blah blah blah...", not "Wild animals AND reptiles".

I cannot understate how ridiculous this law is, and it says exactly what we've been saying it says.

[Falconeer999]

The law is poorly worded (as many are). It says "wild animal or reptile" then it says "wild animal is defined as" X. Within that definition for X is a list of reptiles. I could make an argument that the definition is supposed to act as a definitive list. A prosecutor would argue that any reptile that is capable of causing "bodily harm" (which has no legal definition - it can be anything as minor as a scratch or someone saying "ow"), is banned under the law.

Note - I went to law school, but not a licensed attorney.

[Falconeer999]

Once again, it appears so, but it is important to notice that the text of the law makes illegal all wild animals AND reptiles, whereas the list that you just quoted is found as a subset of "wild animals" (i.e. 11-0103 Section E item 5). This insinuates to me that the ban is more universal than that list indicates, as the blanket term "reptile" is included. If they only wanted to ban that list of species, they would have said "wild animals as defined by blah blah blah...", not "Wild animals AND reptiles".

I cannot understate how ridiculous this law is, and it says exactly what we've been saying it says.

See my post below yours where I talk about that.

[infernalis]

My post must have been written with invisible text.....

[Gungirl]

I hope you are not going to have to fight to keep them Wayne.. this is such crap!

[Falconeer999]

My post must have been written with invisible text.....
Mine was kind of in response to yours about your monitors. I would say it can go either way as it currently reads, but tipping more towards them being illegal because of the way they say "wild animals are defined as" instead of "wild animals and reptiles are defined as". I believe the original post said it had gone through a first reading - hopefully it will be tweaked some before the final reading and it will be better worded.

[infernalis]

I hope you are not going to have to fight to keep them Wayne.. this is such crap!

I will move away first Kat.

They are my everything (just below my family)

You can appreciate this....

We have a new law that requires a full background check just to purchase a box of shotgun shells:unhappy:

They also impose a 3 box limit per purchase (at least the local wal marts do)

People are buying up reloading equipment like crazy here.

We laso have a 7 round clip limit, get caught with a gun that holds more than 7 rounds of ammo at once and you are a crimminal.

So I guess those $100 marlin .22 semi autos are considered illegal to own now.

such crap.

[Aaron_S]

OK, so I am no legal eagle here, my Savannah Monitors are in no danger of being taken away from me?

Already been addressed but I'd like to point out if there's a chance that the public can attend any meeting and actually say something then I highly recommend you do so.

I'd quote the legal findings of Toronto.

[dinosaurdammit]

I will move away first Kat.

They are my everything (just below my family)

You can appreciate this....

We have a new law that requires a full background check just to purchase a box of shotgun shells:unhappy:

They also impose a 3 box limit per purchase (at least the local wal marts do)

People are buying up reloading equipment like crazy here.

We laso have a 7 round clip limit, get caught with a gun that holds more than 7 rounds of ammo at once and you are a crimminal.

So I guess those $100 marlin .22 semi autos are considered illegal to own now.

such crap.


soon you will have to fill out permission forms to just take a dump in your own house. Hope you dont have to move, this is just all a bunch of bullocks.

[Aaron_S]

I hope you are not going to have to fight to keep them Wayne.. this is such crap!

Wait...we shouldn't have to fight to keep our animals? The world should just allows us whatever we want? Dangerous or not?

I stand by what I said. If this comes up anywhere else then show up in person if this really bothers you and that you enjoy where you live. Make a stand. It's not difficult to do. I'd do it for you but the problem is they don't care about me since I live in Canada.

[Gungirl]

Aaron I believe in freedom.. something that is hard to come by now.

[Kettennatter]

Wait...weuldn't have to fight to keep our animals? The world should just allows us whatever we want? Dangerous or not?

I stand by what I said. If this comes up anywhere else then show up in person if this really bothers you and that you enjoy where you live. Make a stand. It's not difficult to do. I'd do it for you but the problem is they don't care about me since I live in Canada.

Oddly enough I find myself in agreement with Aaron. At least I can say I fought the Dangerous Animal Act in Ohio.

[Zoo Nanny]

Written letters/emails by individuals do little unless done by many. I've been involved in a few different campaigns over the past 10 years where we have generated thousands of letters/emails to inundate the specific officials involved. If you go to causes.com and put a plea out to all that belong it will spread like wild fire. Each person who signs up to sign petitions through causes is asked to then send the plea to an additional 10-50 individuals. It can be done without involving Causes as well. All that would be needed is a plea to web sites that you belong to. Give the names of specific people to write to. Address and/or email addresses of the individuals posted even a copy of an example letter/email will help to persuade folks to help out. I really hope it doesn't pass Wayne.

[Aaron_S]

Written letters/emails by individuals do little unless done by many. I've been involved in a few different campaigns over the past 10 years where we have generated thousands of letters/emails to inundate the specific officials involved. If you go to causes.com and put a plea out to all that belong it will spread like wild fire. Each person who signs up to sign petitions through causes is asked to then send the plea to an additional 10-50 individuals. It can be done without involving Causes as well. All that would be needed is a plea to web sites that you belong to. Give the names of specific people to write to. Address and/or email addresses of the individuals posted even a copy of an example letter/email will help to persuade folks to help out. I really hope it doesn't pass Wayne.

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahhha

I like the passive political stance. It's good for a laugh.

What councilperson cares about some nobody on the internet? I can literally sign it a million times myself. The people who make these laws and such just toss all written things in the garbage. It can easily be forged. They don't help, no matter how many.

Go there. Stand up. Do your part.

[Aaron_S]

Oddly enough I find myself in agreement with Aaron. At least I can say I fought the Dangerous Animal Act in Ohio.

Good for you. :) I hope some good came from it.

[Aaron_S]

Aaron I believe in freedom.. something that is hard to come by now.

Plenty of it.

Let's not get off track here of the stated law in the first post. I'd prefer not to discuss freedoms as a whole but freedoms with our hobby/passion/business (reptiles).

Do you believe that the world could just operate with everyone having the freedom for whatever? How safe would you be? I want a grizzly bear. I should have the freedom to do so! Doesn't matter about anything else! MY freedom is above ALL else. Sure, it may kill,maim,destroy properties, kids or whatever but aslong as my freedom is intact. I also don't believe in caging one of these, free range is a must! My neighbours have NO SAY in this matter.

It's asinine to ever believe that freedom with everything is okay. Once upon a time there were no laws such as these. Of course incidents happened and we needed to build a structured way to deal with them.

[Kettennatter]

Good for you. :) I hope some good came from it.

Yes, in contrast to other animals, reptiles got the far better deal after quite a bit of a lobbying push. Licensing requirements for snakes over 12ft and venemous snakes are still rather restrictive. (Crocodilians got the bad end of the deal.) There is still a lawsuit pending, and while I'm not getting my hopes up, I am supporting the organization who brought forward the lawsuit.

[Zoo Nanny]

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahhha

I like the passive political stance. It's good for a laugh.

What councilperson cares about some nobody on the internet? I can literally sign it a million times myself. The people who make these laws and such just toss all written things in the garbage. It can easily be forged. They don't help, no matter how many.

Go there. Stand up. Do your part.

Yes those that live in NY should go there and stand up and those outside can help by sending letters and emails.
It does work regardless of how comical you find it. How many people do you suppose contacted their reps during the attempted federal ban on all exotic animals? Politicians may not listen or read but they do take in to consideration numbers of people who can vote them back in or out.

[jarich]

Its an interesting argument, and one I am not sure on where I stand exactly.

I believe that reptiles should be harder to get than they are now. Its become too easy to get anything and everything in the US, and the effects of this ease on the wellbeing of both captive and wild populations is evident. I say in the US, because the US makes up 80% of the entire world's trade in reptiles. (Yes thats right, all the rest of the countries in the world only account for 20% of all reptiles traded globally. Its pretty easy to say we are the problem) And the reality is that the VAST majority of those animals will die prematurely due to nothing more complex than improper care. (If 85-95% of dogs and cats were dying due to poor nutrition and husbandry there would be an absolute uproar) These are wild animals, with very few species that are either easy to care for or interact well with humans. Yet they are often bought for teenagers and kids and almost universally slowly tortured to death. The prevalent theory on reptiles is much like fish; no big deal if they die, and usually you just toss it in the trash and get another.

Tied to this large trade in reptiles is the driving force of capital. Every new species found on some remote island is almost instantly put into the US pet trade because there is so much money to be made from it. Large scale breeders now have the capital to buy up rare species at astronomical prices, and that is difficult for locals in third world countries to pass up. The presence of the market here has driven the exploitation of the natural world of reptiles in a way that otherwise would not have happened. Its ironic that new species of reptiles are now discovered by the reptile trade PRIOR to scientific discovery, and therefore prior to knowing how big the wild population, how collection will effect them, or what to classify them as in CITES.

So when I see these laws spring up now, there is a large part of me that thinks it is a good thing, and that we, as a collective, deserve this. There was no self regulation, there was no thought of what would happen in the future as a collective. It was merely that there was money to be made and the freedom to do whatever we wanted. I dont condone large scale reptile breeders or importers for the same reason I dont condone puppy mills; I dont believe they have contributed to the benefit of the animals, but rather singularly to the pocketbook of the keepers, and usually the detriment of the animals.

So now we have the situation in the US where you can get a ridiculously venomous reptile, or one big enough to kill an idiot, at practically any hobby exhibition. Reprehensible places like Backwater Reptiles will sell rare and dangerous reptiles to any boob who will pay the prices. Do I think that anyone should be able to purchase a cobra or a retic or croc monitor or some practically unheard of species from deepest New Guinea? Absolutely not. It is not freedom to be able to do so, it is a lack of collective sense and awareness. Now come the laws that are the reaping of what we have sown.

Having said that, I have to realize the hypocrisy of some of those statements. I own reptiles, and they largely came from the wild. However, even if the laws were as strict as those in Australia, I would still own reptiles. Obviously it would be different species, but I would probably get no less enjoyment from them. The main difference though with stricter laws is that there would not be such a prevalent or large scale problem at least. If licensing was required for reptiles, instead of them just being throw away pets to give to your kids so they feel cool for two months, I think that it would be more of a commitment from keepers, like it was 30 years ago. Is this a cure for all the ills of the reptile trade? No, of course not, but perhaps through a scaled license (one for zoos/research facilities, one for hobbyists, one for breeders) we could not only create a more beneficial situation for the reptiles but also create a more coherent community surrounding them.

There is also the argument that the large scale of the pet trade has driven research and development of better husbandry tools. The lights, heaters, enclosures, etc available today are undoubtedly better than anything we had 20 or 30 years ago. However, when taken over the numbers that the increased trade has killed, you would be hard pressed to say that any of these developments have benefited reptiles as a whole.

Something should have happened a long time ago. We didnt do anything about it as an industry, other than try to make money off it, so now come the laws. Will they likely go too far? Yes, and we have no one else to blame really. Perhaps the best thing this teaches us as a collective is that we are all responsible as reptile keepers, even to those reptiles that are not ours. So be it.

[Aaron_S]

Yes those that live in NY should go there and stand up and those outside can help by sending letters and emails.
It does work regardless of how comical you find it. How many people do you suppose contacted their reps during the attempted federal ban on all exotic animals? Politicians may not listen or read but they do take in to consideration numbers of people who can vote them back in or out.

A politician in New York doesn't care for a voter in Texas or another Country. We don't vote in their elections. So I don't think they consider them at all.

All those letters and e-mails can simply be forged. Why should they believe those are actual voters anyway?

[Aaron_S]

I agree with your overall statement because it's true. We were given our freedom, as it's been called, and we screwed it up. We now have to take our lumps.

Here are the parts I disagree with.

I dont condone large scale reptile breeders or importers for the same reason I dont condone puppy mills; I dont believe they have contributed to the benefit of the animals, but rather singularly to the pocketbook of the keepers, and usually the detriment of the animals.

Partially false. It's also highly hypocritical because without those breeders you wouldn't ever have what you have for a reasonable price. Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would consider the reptile trade farmers and not mills. Breeders take care of their animals, they aren't sitting in waste or malnourished. They simply breed them on a regular basis and don't interact with them on a pet level. It's basic care and that's it. It has done wonders for a lot of species.

Obviously it would be different species, but I would probably get no less enjoyment from them.

I wish venomous and giant keepers would share in this thought.

The lights, heaters, enclosures, etc available today are undoubtedly better than anything we had 20 or 30 years ago. However, when taken over the numbers that the increased trade has killed, you would be hard pressed to say that any of these developments have benefited reptiles as a whole.

Really? I'm sure the monitor keepers would beg to differ how much these developments have helped them understand them from a captive standpoint. Plenty of species of reptiles are in conservation programs because we developed those items so we can stop them from being wiped out in the wild.

[Zoo Nanny]

A politician in New York doesn't care for a voter in Texas or another Country. We don't vote in their elections. So I don't think they consider them at all.

All those letters and e-mails can simply be forged. Why should they believe those are actual voters anyway?

You would be surprised how many do care, because a good number have further aspirations in the federal gov and may need those voters from outside of their home state down the road. If the media is pulled in it becomes an even bigger deal to those politicians when people around the country are bombarding them with opinions.
It was a suggestion in hopes of aiding Wayne and others in NY not a post to start an argument.

[Aaron_S]

You would be surprised how many do care, because a good number have further aspirations in the federal gov and may need those voters from outside of their home state down the road. If the media is pulled in it becomes an even bigger deal to those politicians when people around the country are bombarding them with opinions.
It was a suggestion in hopes of aiding Wayne and others in NY not a post to start an argument.

Well, I'm taking my view from a councilman. What actual PROOF do you have other than your assumption that it works?

I have yet to see the media EVER say there's an online petition and it worked. It never has.

It's fine to make suggestions but honestly make realistic ones that would work instead of wasting someone's time.

[Zoo Nanny]

Well, I'm taking my view from a councilman. What actual PROOF do you have other than your assumption that it works?

I have yet to see the media EVER say there's an online petition and it worked. It never has.

It's fine to make suggestions but honestly make realistic ones that would work instead of wasting someone's time.
Victory: Lackland Sexual Assaults Petition Finds Success - Causes Blog (http://blog.causes.com/2012/09/victory-lackland-sexual-assaults-petition-finds-success/)
House committee hearing to address sexual assault in military | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-usa-military-sex-hearing-idUSBRE90M09620130123)

[Aaron_S]

Victory: Lackland Sexual Assaults Petition Finds Success - Causes Blog (http://blog.causes.com/2012/09/victory-lackland-sexual-assaults-petition-finds-success/)
House committee hearing to address sexual assault in military | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/23/us-usa-military-sex-hearing-idUSBRE90M09620130123)

I still think it's funny how you think a federal case of military sexual abuse correlates to a State animal issue.

Besides that, has the hearings happened from the first case? If not, it isn't a success yet. Besides that, is there actual proof that it came from the petition. No, the site that promotes online petitions don't count.

The second link had 60 people come forward with their case! How can that be ignored? 60 victims!!! It isn't just a random letter or petition started that caused anything it was the SIXTY people. The story just made it seem like the petition matter, when I doubt it did since nobody has officially said so.

Keep believing in nothing. I'll stick to my FACTS.

[jarich]

I agree with your overall statement because it's true. We were given our freedom, as it's been called, and we screwed it up. We now have to take our lumps.

Here are the parts I disagree with.



Partially false. It's also highly hypocritical because without those breeders you wouldn't ever have what you have for a reasonable price. Also, I've said it before and I'll say it again. I would consider the reptile trade farmers and not mills. Breeders take care of their animals, they aren't sitting in waste or malnourished. They simply breed them on a regular basis and don't interact with them on a pet level. It's basic care and that's it. It has done wonders for a lot of species.



I wish venomous and giant keepers would share in this thought.



Really? I'm sure the monitor keepers would beg to differ how much these developments have helped them understand them from a captive standpoint. Plenty of species of reptiles are in conservation programs because we developed those items so we can stop them from being wiped out in the wild.

We are agreeing far too much lately Aaron, so Im going to nitpick. ;)

I would disagree with your above assessment in that you think reptiles need be a reasonable price. I dont think they should be, and regardless, I dont think its only due to large scale breeders that there are reasonable prices. For example, BPs and Boscs are heavily imported and cheaply purchased animals anyway, so its hard to say large scale breeders set the price for anything except the morphs and rare lines.

(Incidentally, all my animals are either rescues or unwanted animals I got off CL, so it would seem my hypocrisy does have some limits. ;))

As for breeders being 'farmers', I would say rather that they are like 'ranchers', although thats just semantics. The difference between puppy mills and large scale ranching/feed lots is just as small though. We just accept it with feed animals whereas we dont with certain lovable pets. (people who would never buy a dog from a puppy mill will often gladly buy the cheapest battery raised chickens from Walmart) One could argue that the lives of cows, sheep, chickens, etc have not actually been 'improved' by large scale ranching either, merely that there are more of them to eat as a result, and that we are able to keep them confined in small spaces better. So I suppose your analogy is apt, though I have a hard time seeing it as an improvement. The big difference though is that ranchers and puppy breeders often just do it as a job or for the lifestyle, whereas I am not aware of any reptile breeder who got into it other than through passion for the animals directly. This is just one reason why I dont have a problem at all with small scale breeders, though admittedly its hard to say exactly where that line is between large and small scale. It is also the reason why I have trouble believing that husbandry wouldnt improve through time without any large scale breeding. Monitors have never been bred in any large scale sense, rather the passion of a few individual keepers and researchers led to those developments.

As for the monitors and advancements in keeping, I am not aware of any advancements made by companies (research and development) rather than individuals, which would not be a part of what I was speaking towards in that previous statement. A better example would be reptiles like chameleons or bearded dragons, where developments like better UV lights, vitamin supplements and misting systems have benefited husbandry a great deal in the last 20-30 years. However, what I was saying is that these advances towards the ease of husbandry of reptiles, while admirable, still save fewer animals than die in the increased reptile trade as a whole. I think fewer animals are saved by the change from heat rocks to UTH's than are killed by ignorant owners. Sort of like saying GMO products are a cure for poverty. While it may help some, it doesnt make up for the situation as a whole, and never will.

[Roadtrash]

It actually makes a point to not include domestic animals so your hyperbole is uncalled for.

Use some actual knowledge and form a solid response. This kind of response will only further them to outright banning everything.

You didn't recognize a little humor there? Surely you didn't think I was being serious about cows and chickens.

[Jendee]

I have several friends in NY one of which has a open payment plan for a boa with me. Who is quite upset and distraught over this :/ this whole thing (once it starts passing counties, cities and states) will spread like wildfire :(

[Aaron_S]

I have several friends in NY one of which has a open payment plan for a boa with me. Who is quite upset and distraught over this :/ this whole thing (once it starts passing counties, cities and states) will spread like wildfire :(

Why are people crying over this when I don't hear that they are finding out when they can go speak and try to change it? It's like voting. If you didn't vote, you can't complain about the President after!

Jarich, I'll respond to you soon ;)

[shaunyboy]

imo most western governments are trying to take away peoples freedom,under the guise of its for your own good,we are protecting you...

just look at all the new laws implemented after 911

imo now the government has most folk groomed into thinking the government knows best,is doing it for the good of the Country,etc..

they are now going overboard with new laws and amendments,in the name of we are protecting the public

i really hope this amendment does not go through,for all you Keepers in New York

also with all the crap going on regards the reccesion,you would think picking on reptile keepers,would not be at the top of a list of things to do ?

all the best,shaun

[dinosaurdammit]

imo most western governments are trying to take away peoples freedom,under the guise of its for your own good,we are protecting you...

just look at all the new laws implemented after 911

imo now the government has most folk groomed into thinking the government knows best,is doing it for the good of the Country,etc..

they are now going overboard with new laws and amendments,in the name of we are protecting the public

i really hope this amendment does not go through,for all you Keepers in New York

also with all the crap going on regards the reccesion,you would think picking on reptile keepers,would not be at the top of a list of things to do ?

all the best,shaun


You know these people have all this time to **** around and pass bs laws but our budget is still in need of balancing as well as other topics that are worth a dang. :I MERICA HECK YEA my foot. Ugh. Germany here I come.

[infernalis]

Just so everyone knows, I am reading and taking all of this in.

[blindfireak40]

Hahaha Oh relax, Dinosaur, you live in Arizona! You've got another couple of decades before you really have to worry about any serious right infringement...at least I hope and pray so. Arizona is my planned refuge if stuff starts going really nuts here in CA.

[MoreliAddict]

Just so everyone knows, I am reading and taking all of this in.
Same. Good read whether you have anything to add or not. lol

[dinosaurdammit]

Hahaha Oh relax, Dinosaur, you live in Arizona! You've got another couple of decades before you really have to worry about any serious right infringement...at least I hope and pray so. Arizona is my planned refuge if stuff starts going really nuts here in CA.

Screw arizona- this place is crooked as the day is long, im moving back to alabama eventually, once my husband retires from the air force. In the immortal words of Jon Reep "If i wanna keep a bobcat in my coat closet IMA DO THAT" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yohB-IXxl7I)

[Kettennatter]

also with all the crap going on regards the reccesion,you would think picking on reptile keepers,would not be at the top of a list of things to do ?


It's called "redirection", and I do it with my kids all the time. Are they crying because I won't take them to McD? I'm sure there is a dog in the yard I could point out to them ...

[blindfireak40]

Screw arizona- this place is crooked as the day is long, im moving back to alabama eventually, once my husband retires from the air force. In the immortal words of Jon Reep "If i wanna keep a bobcat in my coat closet IMA DO THAT" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yohB-IXxl7I)

I suppose it's all perspective...as a lifelong California resident, Arizona looks a bit like the promised land lol. Montana or Wyoming would be better, though.

Any plans for action yet, Wayne??

[MoreliAddict]

Has anyone seen this link to petition?

New York Action Alert Assembly Bill 2869 | USARK (http://usark.org/campaign/new-york-action-alert-assembly-bill-2869/)

[Akuma223]

Why does it say Connecticut environmental committee in the link?

[shaunyboy]

It's called "redirection", and I do it with my kids all the time. Are they crying because I won't take them to McD? I'm sure there is a dog in the yard I could point out to them ...

to be honest mate.....

our governments getting that bad,that they don't even bother throwing some misdirection our way,no they just pass crap and say it's done,so deal with it...

imo our countrys heading for some serious uprisings,in the not so distant future :hmm:

cheers shaun

[Aaron_S]

You know Wayne I made a post about the definition of domesticate and domesticated animal in another thread.

With the right argument you could argue that snakes are domesticated pets. I spoke with the councilman I mentioned earlier and he agreed that showing up and saying your piece on what you keep would be most ideal. Get some NYS friends who have reptiles to go with you.

I'd also bring the Toronto legislation with the 2 meter for lizards and 3 meter for snake law stuff too. At least that way they can feel like both sides "won" by getting something "banned".

[Aaron_S]

I'll repost it here because it belongs here more....

What constitutes "domesticated" animals? By this definition in the next link, then all captive animals are "domesticated". Would 8 generations or more of captive breeding not constitute "domestication"?

Domestic | Define Domestic at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domestic)

If you look further into it there's "domesticated" definition. Would this not also constitutes a lot of animals kept in captivity? Yes, we have snakes that eat live prey and don't really seem to mind but how many of them tossed out in the savannah of Africa would be able to hunt and live for a long time? I know many of our morphs would be dead within the first 12 hours.

Domesticate | Define Domesticate at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/domesticate)