A Real Conversation About Licensing

[Sylphie]

In my country you can own giants without licenses, but to own hots you must fill really specialized requirements of goverment (a special separate room with special doors, special cages etc), the same goes for all caimans and aligators. And I think that's a really great way to have only owners that are really passionate and with a BIG knowledge... to meet that requirements you need really A LOT of money, so nobody that is just "wow, I want to be badass" will not bother to build all the goverment wants.
As for giants... they are still a little problem, I see a lot of people that are buying the small ones, but when they start to reach adult sizes then owners are just trying to sell them. And the market is small, as there isn't a lot of "true" hobbysist that will want and have the space for a giant.

[Tsubaki]

A license for Giants and Hots is a nice idea, however realizing it is a completely different thing.

A neighboring country (Belgium) Has laws about keeping reptiles. There is 3 types of licenses, Vlarem 1, Vlarem 2, Vlarem 3. (You need a license for all kinds of (non) exotic animals btw, but ill stick to the reptile part for this explanation)

This is how they are Supposed to work,
P.s. Vlarems are not free, costs depends on city. They expire after several years, 20 for Vlarem 3.

Vlarem 3, the 'lowest' Vlarem.
You ask for this license when keeping 1-30 reptiles, which are considered 'harmless to humans'. (Turtles/tortoises can be kept without vlarem) Each city determines on its own, which reptiles are to be considered harmless. -Not having this vlarem, and still keeping these animals. Is not punishable by law, however if found out you do not have a license all animals can be confiscated. Offspring 'officially' counts for your Vlarem as well, so one litter of cornsnakes could get you over your Vlarem. However; it should not get you into trouble if you state they are newborns, that are not meant to stay.

Vlarem 2, The middle. You require this Vlarem, to keep 30+ harmless reptiles, or any reptiles considered a potential threat. (Venom, Large, or Agressive, the city decides which animals are Vlarem 2) Keeping these animals without this vlarem, is considered a crime.

Vlarem 3, Keeping véry large quantity of animals. Considered a 'Zoo' License. Obviously keeping them without a vlarem, is considered a crime.


What the Vlarems actually are like.(A lot of this info is given to me by forums and friends, in the Netherlands you don't need any license
Vlarem 3 is not supposed to be hard to get, however.. It can go wrong very easily. As each city official determines for him or herself what they consider dangerous.. Sometimes ballpythons end up classified to be 'potentially dangerous to humans' and hognosed snakes get written down as hots and require a 'Vlarem 2', It all depends on who handles your request. Also, some cities immediately deny any request for a Vlarem, if you live in certain residential areas.

Some cities consider tarantulas a part of this Vlarem, If they check on you and you have tarantulas. They could determine you are keeping animals over your Vlarem (If added up the total goes over 30) Also, if they decide you are keeping 'dangerous' animals without Vlarem 2 you're in trouble. However you should be able to talk your way out of it, because the license is not for 'Spiders' but it does mention 'potentially dangerous creatures' (which some spiders could possibly be, widows/redbacks etc). It is very easy to make a case about most tarantulas not being harmful. But it is still not a comforting thought that you might get into trouble.

- A friend that requested a license after moving cities to keep 1-30 harmless reptiles, listed the Latin names of the species in the form. The request was denied and he was told he needed a Vlarem 2, because they considered his dwarf 'Boa Constrictors' to be potentially dangerous 15 foot monster snakes. (Whoever was in charge of approving or denying his request probably doesn't know how to google properly) However, later he filed another request without the latin names (Common Belgian/Dutch names with 'small+harmless' added)... And it got approved.

- Another friend got his Vlarem denied, and ended up having to move to a city where they weren't as strict in order to keep his pets (Cornsnakes, Ballpythons and Leopard gecko's, the ballpythons were considered dangerous) However, later in the same city he moved AWAY from because he wasn't allowed to keep his pets. Someone we know from a forum managed to get several reticulated pythons and a few White throated monitors on a Vlarem 3 license, by simply only requesting a license for '1-30 Vlarem 3, Psittacus erithacus, Broghammerus Reticulatus, Polydaedalus albigularis' Harmless Exotics animals/birds (Parrot).' Basically Saying, African gray parrots, Reticulated pythons and White throated monitors (From which he left out the 'varanus' part of the latin name). The City approved, they probably assumed they were all parrot species. Technically, he did nothing wrong and his license is valid for 20 years.

-Also read about someone who had 30+ tarantulas and 2 snakes, they checked on him because he had 2 snakes registered. One inspector was afraid of spiders said he had to file for Vlarem 2, he could have denied because he technically did not have to. He did it anyway, and since he filed for it and it was denied.. He had to move or lower the numbers of tarantula's. (He's lucky they did not consider them Vlarem 2 because of them 'being potentially dangerous' or he would have had to get rid of all of them) P.s. he did not get rid of any spiders, just put a few cockroaches in spider tubs and told that particular inspector he started keeping cockroaches in stead. (He now still frequently gets visited, because his name is in the system after being reported for having to many animals and being denied a vlarem 2, most inspectors however don't even care for the spiders)


Vlarem 2, in Some cities you're able to get one as long as you show expertise. Basically, if you can talk big you could possibly get it. Its often more dependent on how good of a talker you are, and how willing they are to believe you can care for these animals. Than them actually knowing if you are actually knowledgeable/skilled enough.. In some cities it's not hard to get one for 30+ harmless reptiles, but nearly impossible to get one for 1 venomous snake or giant.

Vlarem 1, Forget about it, unless you have a Zoo/Store/professional breeding fascility. I have only heard of a few people actually getting one.


So in summery, it's a a very nice idea and all. If they all would agree on one list, and one method. I do not see this happening t.b.h. There are so so so many stories like this one, where the people who are supposed to know their business are nothing more than paper-pushers who are often too lazy to google in depth. Propositions of list of animals, which would be banned to keep; have been discussed in this country often too. Usually they come down to 'Everyone will have to get rid of 99% of pets, harmless or not' They are very surreal. One of the proposed lists the Axolotl was banned, because it is listed to be extremely endangered. This shows how 'incredibly well' researched such a list is. Banning the Axolotl makes no sense whatsoever, since Axolotls are extremely rare in the WILD (Maybe already extinct in some places) but cheap and very common pets because they thrive in captivity. Banning them as pets would not be beneficial for the species, catching them from the wild bring no profit so that is not the problem causing their endangerment. But banning them for the hobbyist might bring this little salamander a lot of problems.

I doubt they will ever be able to create a law where i would have no complaints about. I'd simply think: -Make a list of actually dangerous animals- (venomous / very large / etc) Make people get a license for those, and have each of those animals registered (Photo i.d. / Chip if possible maybe)- List the minimum amount of care an animal should be provided with per species, and make it a crime not to do so (Like the Germans outlawing fishbowls, and having minimum tank sizes for certain fish). Also, the care-sheet should be provided with any animal sold, and a pet owner should have them for each species they keep. A lot of work, but i think that's the only thing that could work.

Sorry for the incredibly long post, i have discussed this subject so many times on Dutch/Belgian forums.

[bigsnakegirl785]

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

Quite a few. A hobby, particularly one that involves animals, raises too many issues that would need to be regulated. For instance, how one can define the threshold between a responsible owner and one that is not? If we need a license to have a snake, then why not regulate dog/cat ownership, as well as ownership of any other pet? What makes snake owners more susceptible of needing a license? Would one's financial ability to keep a pet be taken into account when issuing a license? Would we have to prove that we can actually provide for these pets? After all, not being able to provide proper conditions can lead to mistreatment. But who is to decide that threshold? And how? Another example: who is right and who is wrong in their definition of snakes' welfare? Handling or not handling a snake? Is that a welfare issue? And the examples are countless.
The animals' well-being and their treatment, are the bases of a perpetual heated debate. What some believe is responsible owner behavior is considered by others to be inappropriate. Defining responsible behavior would be, in itself, a nightmare. That goes for both the treatment of animals and the owner's misdoings that affect others. While it is easier to regulate the way one's behavior impacts on the society (i.e.: release of animals in the wild, and the environmental impact deriving from it), how can we (in practical terms) decide upon the criteria of being a good owner (this being strictly related to the way owners interact with their animals)? If your idea of licensing is about making people more responsible, then would you kindly define that responsibility, and explain how on earth could that be put into practice. Accountability should extend, according to quite a few members of the forum, to the way people treat their pets. Sounds great and sensible, but can anyone put forward a pertinent explanation as to how this can be accomplished?
As I said before, in order for licensing to be effective, it should be regulated by law, otherwise the ensuing penalties would not be legally enforceable, and would make licensing redundant, nothing more than a money black hole. Legalizing a regulatory measure involves studies, debates, submissions, and more debates. That costs a lot of money, which will eventually become the licensees' burden. Then the purpose of licensing must be considered too: is it a measure to protect the animals, and/or a measure to protect the society from the harmful actions of irresponsible owners? or both? If it is the former, the debate would revolve, as I said, around what's right and what's wrong, and what backs it up (ethical debate). If it's the latter, then it should be regulated by law without the need for a license. Whoever does something to abuse a pet should be punished by law, and same goes for someone who, through neglect, mistreatment or malice, knowingly or unknowingly harms the wider population. Let's all remember that such laws exist, and we don't need to re-write them for snake owners. Currently, any animal abuse is punishable by law, be that of a domestic or wild animal, and so is the release of pets in the wild, or the use of pets to produce harm. We don't need to pay an additional tax for that.
I would rather support mandatory requirements for snake breeders to provide their customers with detailed care sheets specific to their purchase, and with explanations about the impact of pet mistreatment. That would be an informative, practical solution, also inexpensive for the breeders.

The only problem with that is, most animal abuse laws do include reptiles, but animal control couldn't give a single care in the world how badly they were treated they won't do a thing to help them or penalize the owners. Reptiles are seen as lesser by the general public, and seen as a set of animals that can't be abused because they supposedly feel no pain or emotions. They're not worth bothering with, because they aren't suffering from the abuse!

I personally think a licensing that educates and simply shows you know at the least the basics, as well as that gives special training for hots and giants is what we need. Nothing that says "you can only have X animals" or "you can only keep X group of reptiles" should be implemented, as that brings in unnecessary complications and makes people have to maintain unnecessary multiple licences to keep a variety of animals. I can understand there being special licenses for keeping hots or giants (or crocodilians and large montors, etc), though as they are potentially dangerous animals. They need to be housed and handled differently than other reptiles as they could potentially kill people or pets.

I don't think the license itself should control how you keep pets, but it should put basic guidelines in place. Imo, an animal should be able to exhibit all natural behaviors, so I personally would support a license that went something along the lines of "Length+Width is equal to or greater than the snake's length," "enough height should be offered that they can get off the ground," "no dangerous or unsanitary bedding should be used" etc. as far as general housing. I'm not well-versed on lizard-keeping so can't go much into detail there. But there is a lot of things most keepers seem to agree on that is generally accepted as harmful that could easily be included on licenses, such as sand is an unsuitable substrate for the majority of reptile species kept and that pine/cedar is harmful to reptile respiratory systems.

I think a general ed class would encourage new owners to do their own research. If they're willing to go through the pain, most will probably be willing to do the extra leg work to research the care of their specific pet.

So basically I think for non-dangerous reptiles the licenses should be more education-based and lenient, but the dangerous ones should have policies in place to reduce dangerous keeping and lessen the danger they pose to others. The licenses should not be overly controlling and should have reasonable fees.

So I basically agree with Tsubaki here.

[Minkness]

^^^^Agreed^^^^

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by bigsnakegirl785

The only problem with that is, most animal abuse laws do include reptiles, but animal control couldn't give a single care in the world how badly they were treated they won't do a thing to help them or penalize the owners. Reptiles are seen as lesser by the general public, and seen as a set of animals that can't be abused because they supposedly feel no pain or emotions. They're not worth bothering with, because they aren't suffering from the abuse!

I personally think a licensing that educates and simply shows you know at the least the basics, as well as that gives special training for hots and giants is what we need. Nothing that says "you can only have X animals" or "you can only keep X group of reptiles" should be implemented, as that brings in unnecessary complications and makes people have to maintain unnecessary multiple licences to keep a variety of animals. I can understand there being special licenses for keeping hots or giants (or crocodilians and large montors, etc), though as they are potentially dangerous animals. They need to be housed and handled differently than other reptiles as they could potentially kill people or pets.

I don't think the license itself should control how you keep pets, but it should put basic guidelines in place. Imo, an animal should be able to exhibit all natural behaviors, so I personally would support a license that went something along the lines of "Length+Width is equal to or greater than the snake's length," "enough height should be offered that they can get off the ground," "no dangerous or unsanitary bedding should be used" etc. as far as general housing. I'm not well-versed on lizard-keeping so can't go much into detail there. But there is a lot of things most keepers seem to agree on that is generally accepted as harmful that could easily be included on licenses, such as sand is an unsuitable substrate for the majority of reptile species kept and that pine/cedar is harmful to reptile respiratory systems.

I think a general ed class would encourage new owners to do their own research. If they're willing to go through the pain, most will probably be willing to do the extra leg work to research the care of their specific pet.

So basically I think for non-dangerous reptiles the licenses should be more education-based and lenient, but the dangerous ones should have policies in place to reduce dangerous keeping and lessen the danger they pose to others. The licenses should not be overly controlling and should have reasonable fees.

So I basically agree with Tsubaki here.

The part I have trouble with is you say the license shouldn't control how I keep my pets but then go on to describe how to control how I keep my pets.

You want the height to be enough to get off the ground. So you're telling me I need branches in every enclosure. What about burrowing snakes or ground dwellers like ball pythons? Does it harm them to not have a branch in their enclosure? Sure they can climb but it is not needed for them to thrive.

I agree with your sentiment about the license that should give guidelines to the health of the animal. I wouldn't put it on the enclosure exactly. I'd put it something like "during inspection the animal can't look unhealthy or in distress."

[bigsnakegirl785]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

The part I have trouble with is you say the license shouldn't control how I keep my pets but then go on to describe how to control how I keep my pets.

You want the height to be enough to get off the ground. So you're telling me I need branches in every enclosure. What about burrowing snakes or ground dwellers like ball pythons? Does it harm them to not have a branch in their enclosure? Sure they can climb but it is not needed for them to thrive.

I agree with your sentiment about the license that should give guidelines to the health of the animal. I wouldn't put it on the enclosure exactly. I'd put it something like "during inspection the animal can't look unhealthy or in distress."

What I was meaning with that was that basic accommodating housing should be offered. So, it's not controlling what kind of enclosure it's in, not controlling whether or not you use lights, whether or not you use UTH's, etc. Just housing that would be able to provide adequate room to provide what you needed to allow most kept species to have an enclosure set up to provide them with a means to practice natural behaviors.

If you'd read, you'd realize that the height thing was simply an example. I realize that strictly fossorial snakes do not require climbing, but I personally believe any snake that is above ground will at some point find themselves climbing. In the wild, even ball pythons can be highly arboreal, living their lives outside of breeding season in the trees, although it is limited to the smaller male ball pythons. I personally am just of the opinion they should have that choice, and having choices to express all of their natural behaviors is how they can best thrive. You don't have to use to space.

I do see your point though, I'm just of a differing opinion. So I can see the merit of simply looking for signs of illness/distress for the sake of a license.

[MDT]

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by MDT

Felt that lacked a bit.

I expect better from you Matt.

5/10.

[Minkness]

Having minimum care requirements for a reptile wouldn't be too different than the care requirements for an outside dog. Must have food, shelter, and water available to the animal. So you could have a dog cjained up outside woth a barrel for shelter, a water bowl, and throw it chow once a day and that would be 'sufficient'. So minimum care requirements could be something like 'so much space per squar in per inch (or foot) of reptile, heat source required if needed per species, water available, and that's that that. It would be a minimum of course. After all, most racks operate on a minimum size but most have a heat source and fresh water available. Like the 'rule of thumb' for fish is 1 gallon per inch of fish or something. So it could be something simmilar to that but in reptile terms.

But honestly, that's more along the lines of regulation, NOT licensing. Licensing is more about the privlage of owning an animal and to get that privlage one should prove their knowledge. We don't need to go onto the litigation of who they are cared for.

As mentioned earlier, even reptiles are protected by the animal abuse laws. If we want those enforced, that is a very different rout than licensing.

[MDT]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Felt that lacked a bit.

I expect better from you Matt.

5/10.

Oh man! c'mon!!! Bagdad Bob?!?!? It's genius!!!

[Minkness]

Originally Posted by MDT

Oh man! c'mon!!! Bagdad Bob?!?!? It's genius!!!

I'm so offended....

(Kidding lol)

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by Minkness

Having minimum care requirements for a reptile wouldn't be too different than the care requirements for an outside dog. Must have food, shelter, and water available to the animal. So you could have a dog cjained up outside woth a barrel for shelter, a water bowl, and throw it chow once a day and that would be 'sufficient'. So minimum care requirements could be something like 'so much space per squar in per inch (or foot) of reptile, heat source required if needed per species, water available, and that's that that. It would be a minimum of course. After all, most racks operate on a minimum size but most have a heat source and fresh water available. Like the 'rule of thumb' for fish is 1 gallon per inch of fish or something. So it could be something simmilar to that but in reptile terms.

But honestly, that's more along the lines of regulation, NOT licensing. Licensing is more about the privlage of owning an animal and to get that privlage one should prove their knowledge. We don't need to go onto the litigation of who they are cared for.

As mentioned earlier, even reptiles are protected by the animal abuse laws. If we want those enforced, that is a very different rout than licensing.

Good point. That is getting sidetracked from the idea of licensing.

Side note, don't let fish keepers hear you say that rule of thumb. It is incorrect and they don't like it.

Originally Posted by MDT

Oh man! c'mon!!! Bagdad Bob?!?!? It's genius!!!

Meh. Do better.

[MDT]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Meh. Do better.

[Minkness]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Good point. That is getting sidetracked from the idea of licensing.

Side note, don't let fish keepers hear you say that rule of thumb. It is incorrect and they don't like it.

.

Oh, I know it's wrong lol. But I said it to point out the 'minimum' which is not always the correct measurement. Neither is keeping a dog chained outside for it's whole life with a barrel for shelter and the lowest grade dog food.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by MDT

Suck it up buttercup.