A Real Conversation About Licensing

**lady_bug87** · 07-27-15, 06:00 PM

So it came up in another thread about how owning snakes requires a license with restrictions (Australia) and I honestly agree with it.

I mean, take a look at what's happening in the US and on a smaller scale Canada? They are looking at banning the ownership of large constrictors and in a lot of places they already have. Not to mention the whole thing behind owning hots.

Let's be realistic for a second. All of us here may be awesome, great, above board members who know what they're doing and have a great amount of knowledge and all that, BUT we have all seen videos and facebook stuff (and posts if we're being fair) of people who have NO BUSINESS owning these specialized (yep I said it) animals.

From refusal to fix husbandry /housing issues, breeding too young/too small animals, improper handling (more so for hots and giants), poor/dangerous feeding habits and general crappy conditions. Some of these issues end in injury and even death. The worst part is that THOSE are the people the general public associates with the hobby. Not us. So of course they're quick to ban them. No ownership = No problem.

That's where I think licensing fills a void. Is it 100% enforceable? No way. Will it cover your bumbum if a neighbor calls to complain? absolutely. REGARDLESS of how I feel about the private ownership of giants or hots I don't think just anyone should own them. I think its the only way to protect our hobby.

Hell if I had to register and microchip my boas to keep them, I would no questions asked. I think any keepers who are passionate, and awesome, and above board would. The time for hiding in our basements is done. The time for fighting bans is here and the only way to end it (In my opinion) is to license it. No matter the outcome (Legislation wise) one side is always going to be unhappy. Either we'll be unhappy because we won't be able to keep what we want or they (general anti-snake public) will be unhappy that we can and in turn they will keep trying to ban things until they succeed.

So I want an honest conversation. No bullpoop about keeping giants or hots, no yelling, nothing like that; because this isn't a giant keeper problem or a hot keeper problem. this is a keeper problem. we're ALL keepers.

So let's discuss this as a community.

**Minkness** · 07-27-15, 06:16 PM

I have been saying this for a while, and not just for snakes. I feel that just about all animals should be licensed. I think the harder question is 'how'. By family? Type? Size? Would it limit the number of animals per collection?

I'm all for making sure that proper handlers and keepers are rewarded and ensuring proper care is given to these animals. But what would the negitives be? Honestly, I rather like that if I want totake my pet (dog, cat, bird, lizard, snake, ect) to the petstore just for a strole. Same goes for conventions (not just repticon) and maybe out at the park on a nice day. It's a freedom I do appreciate.

So what is the balance? How can we ensure health and safety of these animals while still keeping our freedoms?

Albert Clark · 07-27-15, 06:40 PM

I am all for it bc I feel I am a responsible, knowledgeable herp keeper. As are so many of us who are long termers and the short termers who really want the excitement. The ones that show passion and want to do the right things for the reptiles. We need to first, be responsible, and associate ourselves with our local herp societies who are already associated with universities and colleges. Join USARK and stay abreast of the issues that relate to herps on a statewide level. Familiarize ourselves with basic husbandry fundamentals until it is ingrained. This is merely a start to head in the proper direction as a community united for the absolute right to own and propagate the reptile species as a whole. Venomous, non venomous, and all herps in between. Can you imagine what this world would be like without all the reptiles and amphibians controlling rodent and insect populations? Just my 0.02 cents.

sophiedufort · 07-27-15, 06:42 PM

Dear lady_bug87, I beg to differ. Having a license doesn't make a person more responsible in dealing with snakes. It would be just another money maker for governments, not to mention that there would always be those who'd procure/keep snakes without a permit. I come from Australia, and I can say that there are reasons behind licensing requirements for snake owners. These requirements have little to do with the animals' well-being, and a lot to do with the governments' desire to keep track. Australia is an isolated island, and the snake hobby is very restricted, mostly for practical reasons: most Australian snakes are poisonous and importation of snakes and reptiles in general is prohibited and illegal. Australia has very strict customs laws, and people can spend years in jail for a much lesser crime than illegal snake importation.
Getting back to licensing in general, I think it is a waste of time and money. It will not educate people about dealing with snakes, unless it is designed as a compulsory theoretical course and examination. I cannot fathom any reason a local/state/federal government would invest in implementing such changes.
A snake lover doesn't need a license to care for his/her snake/s. More often than not, snake owners will strive to learn about their snake and its needs, and will do their best to provide the best environment for their pet. With or without licensing, there will always be people who mistreat an animal, release it in the wild when it grows too big, etc. On the other hand, license requirement for keeping poisonous snakes makes complete sense, as it would be a necessary monitoring tool.

**Minkness** · 07-27-15, 07:10 PM

Why license just hots? Why not allow the cost of the license go to things like reptile rehabs, research, and legal protections? Licensing any animal is a benigit as it would weed out the people who won't spend that kind of money on an animal, thus taking care of at least some of the irrisponsible population of keepers.

Perhaps different licensing for different levels....E for small non venomous (kings, corns, ect), D for rear fanged and larger non venomous, C for larger boas, B for giants, A for hots and so on. Each level may require a certain number of hours in a class room and a test to be passed and a one time fee or somethong. No different than how they regulate any license, even a driver's license or a gun license.

It could go into breeding licenses as well. If a breeder sells something to an unlicensed keeper, it could jeopardize their breeding establishment, thus further protecting animals from getting into the hands of the irrisponsible.

Will this prevent any illegal doings? No...just like it doesn'tstop massage parlors from being a brothel, or machine guns owned by a criminal and so on. But it does make it more difficult and gives more power and freedoms to those who have at least taken the TIME to be licensed.

It doesn't have to be a money sink, or government run, so long as it is government supported everything else can be 'non proffit' (as stated earlier in my post).

Just think...if the licensing class was 50$ and took only 8 hours to accomplish, then 10$ for the registered card declaring your state of license, how that would be more help than anything.

The logistics of finding a way to begin the process, establish a core group of supporters, and enact the rules and regulations of the defined licenses is perhaps far more meaningful than simple opinions on the matter.

**lady_bug87** · 07-27-15, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

Dear lady_bug87, I beg to differ. Having a license doesn't make a person more responsible in dealing with snakes. It would be just another money maker for governments, not to mention that there would always be those who'd procure/keep snakes without a permit. I come from Australia, and I can say that there are reasons behind licensing requirements for snake owners. These requirements have little to do with the animals' well-being, and a lot to do with the governments' desire to keep track. Australia is an isolated island, and the snake hobby is very restricted, mostly for practical reasons: most Australian snakes are poisonous and importation of snakes and reptiles in general is prohibited and illegal. Australia has very strict customs laws, and people can spend years in jail for a much lesser crime than illegal snake importation.
Getting back to licensing in general, I think it is a waste of time and money. It will not educate people about dealing with snakes, unless it is designed as a compulsory theoretical course and examination. I cannot fathom any reason a local/state/federal government would invest in implementing such changes.
A snake lover doesn't need a license to care for his/her snake/s. More often than not, snake owners will strive to learn about their snake and its needs, and will do their best to provide the best environment for their pet. With or without licensing, there will always be people who mistreat an animal, release it in the wild when it grows too big, etc. On the other hand, license requirement for keeping poisonous snakes makes complete sense, as it would be a necessary monitoring tool.

Why is the government keeping track of who owns what a bad thing? And no. Licensing doesn't make better keepers but it will make people accountable. I believe it will protect keepers willing to be protected. Unless you (general you. Not you as an individual) are not operating within your local bylaws, you're already allowing the government to control what you keep. The license would be an extension of that

**Aaron_S** · 07-27-15, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

Dear lady_bug87, I beg to differ. Having a license doesn't make a person more responsible in dealing with snakes. It would be just another money maker for governments, not to mention that there would always be those who'd procure/keep snakes without a permit. I come from Australia, and I can say that there are reasons behind licensing requirements for snake owners. These requirements have little to do with the animals' well-being, and a lot to do with the governments' desire to keep track. Australia is an isolated island, and the snake hobby is very restricted, mostly for practical reasons: most Australian snakes are poisonous and importation of snakes and reptiles in general is prohibited and illegal. Australia has very strict customs laws, and people can spend years in jail for a much lesser crime than illegal snake importation.
Getting back to licensing in general, I think it is a waste of time and money. It will not educate people about dealing with snakes, unless it is designed as a compulsory theoretical course and examination. I cannot fathom any reason a local/state/federal government would invest in implementing such changes.
A snake lover doesn't need a license to care for his/her snake/s. More often than not, snake owners will strive to learn about their snake and its needs, and will do their best to provide the best environment for their pet. With or without licensing, there will always be people who mistreat an animal, release it in the wild when it grows too big, etc. On the other hand, license requirement for keeping poisonous snakes makes complete sense, as it would be a necessary monitoring tool.

1. No one said it will educate people. As Lori said, it will keep people accountable. I think that in itself is worth while. If someone does something wrong and is teported and is found to not have a license then their animals can be taken away and less damage done.

2. I think that you are wrong that more often than not people will strive for the best. Their wouldnt be as many sick rescues is this were the truth. People neglecting animals isn't as rare as you may think. Licensing keeps those people from repeat offenses and damaging the hobby.
Sure people can keep things "hush hush" but so what? It's better than nothing.

I would pay $100 to $500 per year.

MDT · 07-27-15, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

Why is the government keeping track of who owns what a bad thing? And no. Licensing doesn't make better keepers but it will make people accountable. I believe it will protect keepers willing to be protected. Unless you (general you. Not you as an individual) are not operating within your local bylaws, you're already allowing the government to control what you keep. The license would be an extension of that

in general, i think the .gov (i'm talking u.s.) "keeping track" is a very slippery slope. at least our gov track record is not great and borders on deplorable.

that being said, i do agree that there *could* be a higher degree of accountability with a licensing fee. but just as we've seen with firearms in the u.s. (and i am an avid shooter/firearms guy that follows the letter of the law)....the folks that are citizens and want to conform to the normalcy of society will follow the law, the criminals, on the other hand will not.

not really sure where i fall into this, but if mandated, i would license my snakes.

**Aaron_S** · 07-27-15, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDT

in general, i think the .gov (i'm talking u.s.) "keeping track" is a very slippery slope. at least our gov track record is not great and borders on deplorable.

that being said, i do agree that there *could* be a higher degree of accountability with a licensing fee. but just as we've seen with firearms in the u.s. (and i am an avid shooter/firearms guy that follows the letter of the law)....the folks that are citizens and want to conform to the normalcy of society will follow the law, the criminals, on the other hand will not.

not really sure where i fall into this, but if mandated, i would license my snakes.

I can see your point. I respect it.

I would argue that no system is perfect and that we should attempt something. I don't agree with "well it's not perfect so we should do nothing." Might as well get rid of all laws since that system isn't perfect either.

I think that this would be a step towards a real community. Side note, too many people are criminals in this hobby and too many of them get away screwing people over and over. This would be a way to help keep the community safe and build a united front against legislators.

**lady_bug87** · 07-27-15, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MDT

in general, i think the .gov (i'm talking u.s.) "keeping track" is a very slippery slope. at least our gov track record is not great and borders on deplorable.

that being said, i do agree that there *could* be a higher degree of accountability with a licensing fee. but just as we've seen with firearms in the u.s. (and i am an avid shooter/firearms guy that follows the letter of the law)....the folks that are citizens and want to conform to the normalcy of society will follow the law, the criminals, on the other hand will not.

not really sure where i fall into this, but if mandated, i would license my snakes.

I totally agree. It's not 100% bullet proof. And as a part of a law abiding avid shooting and hunting family, I see the pitfalls first hand. However, I think the benefits for those willing to follow the "rules" outweigh a lot of costs.

**Minkness** · 07-27-15, 07:52 PM

MTD does have a point on the US keeping track of things....some things are grossly neglected while others boarder on zero privacy.

And no, it won't stop the criminals, but it will lesson the uneducated, the hoarders, and the outright abusers of these animals dramatically.

It doesn't have to be overly difficult or expensive, but could help protect the animals AND the keepers. Renewing a license every 10 years cpuld be as simple and cheap as taking another 8 hour class tonensure keepers are up to date on husbandry and accept the responsibility of continuing proper care of their animals.

sophiedufort · 07-27-15, 07:57 PM

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

**lady_bug87** · 07-27-15, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minkness

MTD does have a point on the US keeping track of things....some things are grossly neglected while others boarder on zero privacy.

And no, it won't stop the criminals, but it will lesson the uneducated, the hoarders, and the outright abusers of these animals dramatically.

It doesn't have to be overly difficult or expensive, but could help protect the animals AND the keepers. Renewing a license every 10 years cpuld be as simple and cheap as taking another 8 hour class tonensure keepers are up to date on husbandry and accept the responsibility of continuing proper care of their animals.

Exactly. It's not about control, its about responsibility.

**lady_bug87** · 07-27-15, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

What ethical ramifications do you foresee?

bigsnakegirl785 · 07-27-15, 08:11 PM

I think that as long as it's not government ruled and there are fair and informed rules and fees (if applicable) in place, I wouldn't mind having to license my animals. I just don't like the idea of the government, who hasn't shown themselves to be all that informed on just about any issue I can think of, having say over how we keep our animals. As long as knowledgeable owners or herpetologists, who know that ball pythons won't take over Wisconsin for example, are in charge I'm all for it.

I appreciate the fact that a licensing system with fees would keep the majority of people away that wouldn't be willing to pay all that extra money. I'm also kind of on the edge where I think if someone is competent and can support what they have, they should be allowed to have what they want, so I'm not fond rules that limit competent individuals' keeping. That said, when the animal is potentially dangerous, I believe there should be harsher restrictions in place to reduce the danger they pose to others.

Education on basic care can also serve as a deterrent, as I've had several friends impulse buy animals and immediately try to re-home their animals once I informed them how extremely insufficient the husbandry they were provided with at the store was. So, although I doubt classes could be established that catered to every single species that we keep, a good general ed class that went over care of groups of reptiles with similar basic care seems good to me.