S.b. 310

[StudentoReptile]

Originally Posted by hellosugaree

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]

Originally Posted by hellosugaree

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, 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.

Originally Posted by StudentoReptile

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]

Originally Posted by exwizard

Since you call me extremist for not trusting the government, let me tell you where Im coming from. When Iowa first passed 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]

Originally Posted by hellosugaree

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/...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]

This was just posted today on USARK's website (SB 310: KASICH?S BIG, EXPENSIVE BLUNDER POISED TO KILL SMALL BUSINESS IN OHIO

SB 310: KASICH’S 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


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 (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.


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.



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]

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]

Originally Posted by StudentoReptile

...[*]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]

Originally Posted by StudentoReptile

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.

I appreciate the info.

[Kettennatter]

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]

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

Exotic animal ban recommended in Ohio ? USATODAY.com

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.

[jarich]

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

[kernel]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by kernel

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

Exotic animal ban recommended in Ohio ? USATODAY.com

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]

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...69_pet_ban.pdf