Why are so many people opposed to keeping wild snakes as pets?

red ink · 04-14-12, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by theapexgerman

There ain't no laws in other states bout owning AZ mountain king I just can't buy one in arizona so I went out to catch one

LOL... Obviously AZ are trying to preserve them in their endemic range... What's already out there in other states is of no concern to them as they are not wild and already in captivity. Hence the laws only apply against keeping and POACHING in that state.

WAIT... maybe that isn't so obvious after all huh?

Mose · 04-18-12, 12:24 PM

Interesting thread, even though I'm late to the party. Lots of great points made - too many for me to comment on at this point, but I do have a few comments. First, I 100% support efforts to rely on CBB animals in our hobby rather than WC, for all of the reasons already mentioned. I regularly field herp, and have for 20 years, but I only bring back photos and memories from my trips. I don't have a single animal in my collection that is native to my area. Having said that, if I came across an animal that was very unique in some way, I would consider bringing it home and breeding it for the purposes of introducing its unique characteristics into the hobby. Aside from that, my philosophy is to let wild things stay wild.

The state in which I live (Nebraska) has wildlife laws that cover both game and non-game species. Species that are not protected as endangered or threatened can be harvested as long as a license is purchased. So if I want to fish for bass, I just purchase a license, and as long as I comply with bag limits and all other regulations, I am free to go out and fish as much as I want to. Non-game species like snakes can be collected ("harvested") in exactly the same way, with the same license. If I have a fishing license, and want to catch a garter snake and keep it, I can legally do so and not be "poaching". I have friends at the Game and Parks division, and none of them have seen cases of excessive collection of native herps. The bag limits effectively protect native species from large scale commercial collection, while preserving the freedom of individuals to collect the occasional animal. The system seems to work just fine here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by red ink

LOL... Obviously AZ are trying to preserve them in their endemic range... What's already out there in other states is of no concern to them as they are not wild and already in captivity. Hence the laws only apply against keeping and POACHING in that state.

Maybe or maybe not. A number of states have strict laws against keeping native snakes, which means residents are breaking the law if they go out in their back yard, collect a snake, and do a great job of keeping it in a perfectly suitable enclosure in their home. However, in many of those states, it is perfectly legal for those same residents to go out in their back yard with a shovel and kill every snake they see. So...indiscriminately slaughtering them is fine, but keeping and breeding them makes one a criminal. Can you explain to me how laws like that are meant to "preserve them in their endemic range..."? Maybe I'm cynical, but I suspect motives other than "concern for our native snakes" are behind laws like that.

red ink · 04-18-12, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mose

Maybe or maybe not. A number of states have strict laws against keeping native snakes, which means residents are breaking the law if they go out in their back yard, collect a snake, and do a great job of keeping it in a perfectly suitable enclosure in their home. However, in many of those states, it is perfectly legal for those same residents to go out in their back yard with a shovel and kill every snake they see. So...indiscriminately slaughtering them is fine, but keeping and breeding them makes one a criminal. Can you explain to me how laws like that are meant to "preserve them in their endemic range..."? Maybe I'm cynical, but I suspect motives other than "concern for our native snakes" are behind laws like that.

That would be in the legalities of the "protected" species.... In most cases a protected species would mean no collecting, no keeping and "no destruction". Unfortunately that "no destruction" part is where the grey area starts... Native wildlife laws (at least here) dictates we may not possess native animals without appropriate license (barring some species). We are not allowed to collect any species from the wild at all, regardless of conservation status.

We are however allowed to destroy/kill native wildlife in defense of people or livestock (grey area)....

So in most cases it would come down to individual ethics and morals. A person that has no interest in reptiles killing them in the in defense of wildlife clause; nothing we can do about it as the laws allow them to.

A person with a supposed love/interest in reptiles doing the same thing i.e. illegal collection or killing instead of calling a relocator is a reprehensible act in my book.

So at the finer points it would come down to the semantics of the legislation... most people would hear it's illegal to keep them but not to kill them and their happy with that. How many people actually would be interested in the semantics of the law that is involved?

I actually tried to find the legalities of AZ collection in regards to king snakes through the state website... vague and convoluded but I did find that the Sonoran king snake is a "protected" species.... the level of protection from their PDFs was not clearly stated unfortunately.