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=...2869&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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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!

[Aaron_S]

Good thinking.

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