herp legislation?

[Gary D.]

Which model of herp legislation do you feel is best for the hobby?
(some models currently in place throught Canada)

-Ban 'em all

-Reactionary bans on problem species

-Prohibit petstore sales of certain species

-Licensing

-Restrictions on large and/or dangerous species

-Leave my herps alone

[Tim_Cranwill]

I vote licencing all the way... even though it will never happen.

Some people aren't fit to keep any reptiles at all while others are more than capable of keeping just about anything. The same goes for stores...

[crazykeeper]

I agree with Tim.

[Big_V]

I wish it were done by lincensing. As a person who used to work in a pet shop I cant count the number of times ive turned people down because they just wanted it too show off and such. I think a combination of certain laws would work. But it seems the general non herp loving public will never allow us to prove the stereotypes wrong.

[CDN-Cresties]

Just a thought, wouldnt licencing cost money from the actual owners? Usually people have a problem when extra fees are involved. Personally, I think it would be good for the hobby.

[ortega]

it is dumb to ban anything. A man was killed by a burm in Brampton in 1992, so my hog isle boa is illigal? what the f@#$ is that. Even a rosy boa is banned, while all the surrounding cities have no legislation against it. Ridiculous!

[Classic]

As nice a licencing sounds, How many new herpers would decide not to get a herp because of the hassle. It would mean alot of new people not getting that first animal.
Just my thought.
Brian

[CDN-Cresties]

Maybe only licencing for only large snakes and lizards.

[Lrptls]

i have a few ideas that i think would help herps. i voted for prohibting pet stores from selling certain species, i think petstores should only sell herps that are easy beginners (corns, leopard geckos, newts, so on) and when people want to upgrade just go to a herp expo,online, herp rescues. and herp rescues should be most peoples first thought when wanting an animal, atleast i think so, because so many of them needs homes bad and they arn't all sick and agresive. i also dont think just any one should be able to go get a herp because not every one knows what there doing and geting theirself into. i like how rescues have people take tests to see if they know about the species they want and this should be in more places like pet stores. banning reptiles is so stupid because what happens to the ones that people already own? they get thrown into zoos and then the zoo gets overloaded and can't care for them? just some of my thoughts...

[alex_33]

I agree with CDN-Cresties, licencing for large snakes and lizards and of course venomous animals would be best in my opinion.

[M_surinamensis]

There are a few legitimate concerns here...

First and foremost, herpers need to be involved in the legislation surrounding herps, because we do NOT want groups working counter towards all of our goals to be the only ones speaking up.

Personally I voted for legislationon all levels, and for large and dangerous species... but also for "leave my herps alone" which seems a bit contradictory, so I feel a need to explain.

Federal legislation of import/export numbers is a positive thing if it's overseen by competent individuals or utilizes the information from outside organizations... Meaning, laws surrpounding who's allowed to own CITES appendix one animals are probably a good thing... CITES isn't an infalliable end all final authority, but a LOT of effort goes into making the status changes of individual species as precise and justified as possible. Provincial legislation in moderation can potentially be a positive thing as well, I liken it to State legislation down here (er... where I am). There are certain species which can potantially represent a threat to native populations and I feel that any permit system put into place surrounding large and/or dangerous species should happen mostly on this level. Local legislation has it's place as well, but generally I feel it should only really have control over such things as zoning issues.

I suggest large/dangerous animals need additional regulation, but this shouldn't be in the form of banning, it should be the area where permit systems are in place. Hot snakes, crocodilians, large mammals, primates and the like should be serious contenders for a REASONABLE permit system. The object not being to make it impossible to own one, merely to provide evidence of sufficient education/experience, physical space and so on. I don't think large constrictors should be covered similarly as they're really nowhere near as likely to cause human injury, despite a few sensationalized news stories.

Blanket permit systems are an impossibility and represent a degree of governmental influence in the private sector that I doubt most people would stand for... I sure wouldn't anyway. The initial difficulty is getting a beauracracy to decide what represents suitable education on the part of the applicant... it would mean governmental justification of accepted husbandry practices, which isn't really possible... Setting out obvious abuse/neglect conditions is one thing, having legislation which dictates what temperature corn snakes need to be kept at is another entirely.

Most of the controls over the pet industry/ownership should be internal. The end consumer holds a great deal of power over the actions of other keepers and certainly over dealers. By using every avaliable resource for education, participating in the local herping community and refusing to spend money with dealers who have practices that you disapprove of, positive changes are made. By inviting legislation, it opens the door for an all out ban.

Really the problems are fewer and further between then they are often represented as being. Abandoned herps, represented even as a percentage of the total herps in captivity are far rarer than most other animal groups... keepers really do tend to make an attempt towards self education, more so than many other animal groups here as well... There will always be some brainless owners and dishonest or neglectful dealers, but this can't be eliminated entirely, only minimized and controlled. The power to do so lies with individuals rather than through legislative attempts to halt the fairly tame problems we really have.

It's important to keep things in perspective when considering/discussing the problems the industry does have too. Yes, there are plenty of bad petstores. There are also an enormous number of GREAT stores and an overwhelming majority which can be called mediocre (not amazing, but not a hellhole). There are some uneducated keepers, but there are far more who know a great deal about their pets. There are dishonest or shady dealers and con artists, but there are amazing individuals who have dedicated themselves to the hobby (the private sector has out-produced zoos and labs for a good decade and a half, including first time captive reproduction and husbandry information).

Inviting restrictions only hurts the honest keepers anyway. Much like with gun control, those who aren't obeying the law to start won't have any qualms about continuing their ways. Someone neglecting their animal won't be detered by permit costs or species specific legislation. If they cared, they wouldn't be creating a problem to begin with.

[CONCEPT03]

their shouldnt be any legislation who are they to tell me what pets i cannot have, i got a better idea lets get fidel castro to be are president so they can control every aspect of my life!

[Pontus]

damn right concept03