# Federal and State Exotic Reptile, Amphibian And Mammal Banning



## wildak (Mar 25, 2012)

I think this is in the right place ...(I did'nt notice a section here on laws or in the news where we could stay up to date on who's trying to ban what). It's a BIG rant.

I would like to hear opinions on all the Animal banning going on through out the US.

CT just banned a lot of reptiles, Amphibians, and insects. Some of which are from uneducated people I suppose. From what I understand in that state anyways you have to turn in your animals that are on the list and I'm guessing they will be put down.

The constrictor law just passed so none of the 9 constrictors can cross state lines in anyway. Totaly screwing up many businesses in a time where the economy is already hurting.

There's talks of outlawing large breed dogs that are CAN BE considered dangerous by stopping licensed purebred breeders (not just puppy mills ) from breeding. which labs and golden retrievers and a LOT of other dogs account for a lot of injuries not just pitbulls.

Outlawing any cats that have any exotic genes.

If you look at the Humaine Societies web page turtles and tortoises are going to be in their cross hairs soon. They talk about how many people die from Salmonella every year from turtles and tortoises (which we know is'nt true). They talk about the 4'' law and salmonella. Which is only because a 4'' or less turtle will fit in their childs mouth.. hense the sickness. Who's fault is that?

We need to stop all the animal extremists now or we will all loose the things we hold dear and everyone who's breeding for conservation will have to sit back and watch their favorite animals become extinct since they can't be bred in captivity any longer.

I say lets be just as extreme and elect Ted Nugent for president. If you want someone to fight against animal exstremists he's the man.

Bryan


----------



## Yvonne G (Mar 25, 2012)

We won't be able to have our tortoises, yet people in China and Asian countries will still have extremely rare and protected tortoises.


----------



## Madkins007 (Mar 25, 2012)

I know this is an unpopular stance in forums like this, but I am all in favor of limiting which animals can be considered as household pets. I say this knowing full well that the more the government gets involved with the laws, the more screwed up they will probably be.

I know people talk about the 'slippery slope' a lot- "if they ban THIS now, then they will ban EVERYTHING eventually', but we see in real life that this does not often happen. 

People often point to the rhetoric of the Humane Society of the United States as an example of what the country may do, but honestly- no one really seems to listen to them. Look at how many circuses and horse buggies there are in the US- two of their pet causes (great pun, huh?)

I am 'extreme' enough in my opinion that I believe it should apply to fish and invertebrates as well. I am still wavering on my stance about dogs- but let's face it, dogs are a real danger in the US- domestic or feral!

I will certainly reconsider my stance if you can give me one good reason why anyone should be allowed to have an exotic animal pet that can pose a risk to an innocent bystander if it gets loose- this would include wolves, big cats, venomous and big snakes, and so on. (Remember- owning pets is not specifically named as a right American's have, and 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' is not a law.)

Having said all that, what I would LOVE to see would be a tiered system.
- Tier One- animals with no restrictions. Most common pet shop birds, fish, small animals, and many small reptiles would fall in this category.
- Tier Two- animals with few restrictions, but requiring a license, and generally some sort of proof of good husbandry practices (like routine shots, etc.) Dogs and cats are the best examples of this, but I could see it expanded to a few other species.
- Tier Three- restricted animals. If you want an animal on this list (big reptiles, venomous fish and invertebrates, small exotics with little risk and not endangered, etc.) then you need to apply for a permit which would require some proof of capabilities, insurance/bonds, etc. I think I would add some breeds or types of dogs here as well.
- Tier Four- forbidden or VERY restricted animals- dangerous, endangered, big, etc. Basically you need to be able to convince the panel that you can do this and have all precautions in order. This is mostly for zoos and so on, but would be available to anyone who can jump all the hoops.

Most places in the US already have a form of this- with tiers 1, 2, and 4- so we would just need to create a process for tier 3 and shuffle some animals around a bit.


----------



## wildak (Mar 25, 2012)

I too am in favor of some restrictions like you said a tiered system would be better than a straight out ban.

I am not a fan of animals being sold to anyone in a pet stores. All the Red Ear sliders and other animals that just die or get dumped in a pond a year later. 

It should not limit it to zoo only. A lot of people strongly believe in captive breeding programs and should be able to get said permits and work with zoo's and other like institutions. Like Stud book programs where I could exchange bloodlines with these places for the species. Like some of us are doing now. 
People could be USDA approved and permitted with random checks and insurance just like zoos. Right now it's heading toward if you are not an educational institution your out.

In CT some of the species banned were without merit. Poison dart frogs and Taranchulas ( I'm not a spider person what so ever, I would sooner put a rattlers head in my mouth than touch a tiny spider) but most of them are harmless with a bee sting type of bite and can't live in the wilds of CT. Poison dart frogs captive born or wild caught are no longer poisonous since they get their poison from the varied insects they eat in the wild. These are just two examples of not properly looking at the facts.

I could see it working better on a state by state basis rather than total ban. Poison dart frog may be able to live in the wilds of South Florida ( I don't really know) and non-native Taranchulas may be able to live in southern states. Why ban them in Northern states if they pose no threat of living in the wild or hurting someone.

I personaly am a reptile lover of all kinds but never had an urge to keep the huge pythons. I could some restrictions for safety and even more where they can survive in the wild. Perhaps requiring microchips in all species that can go feral with huge fines if ones found. Random checks to see if everyone licensed has their chips and records in place. Each state or county would have to hire more officers to do these things but that what the licenses help pay for.

Why don't they ban horses? People are killed by horses every day. We don't know for sure if they are native to the US or not. I know honey bees are not native and they kills way more people than pet crocodiles, or snakes do. I just wonder what's the deal. 

There's large amount of tax dollars come from reptiles, horses and honey. Who's picking on reptiles and why not others.

Alaska probably has the strictest animal laws out there but I can keep any non venomous reptile. Crocodile or a Komodo Dragon, you still have to have all the legal paper work. Alaska has strict laws on aquarium fish as well which I strongly believe in since they would be impossible to regulate what gets dumped in a salmon stream.

Once the ball gets rolling it will be hard to stop. Like I said I don't keep giant pythons or tigers but we need to see something other than total ban across the board or turtles and tortoises are going to be on the list.

Ted Nugent for President.

Bryan


----------



## Tom (Mar 25, 2012)

One good reason: Because I want to.


Bryan. Ted would not be pleased with post number four. Post number three would be dismissed as anti-American BS.


----------



## wildak (Mar 25, 2012)

Tom I looked it over again and I don't follow what you mean. Can you be more specific? 
The stuff about the horses ?

Does Ted still have a giant python ? HAHA I forgot about that. oops Sorry TED.
I still like them I just don't want one.

Could you imagine the look on the faces of some of the extremist groups if Ted ran for President.
He's a very intelligent man, If Arnold can win in CA Ted can go all the way. He bleeds red white and blue.
Plus his guitar would sound great in the whitehouse.


----------



## froghaven5 (Mar 26, 2012)

Just recently Muscovy ducks were to be banned by the FWS (Migratory Bird division) due to them only being considered native in 3 counties in Texas. Local goverments were complaining about them becoming invasive and the ownership of these ducks were to be banned except for meat purposes only. This regulation was almost passed until many people in the poultry world contacted the appropriate people and educated them on just how private ownership of these ducks have been for many years and continue to be used (meat, eggs and showmanship). The regulation had been halted in 2010 and was in the process of being rewritten.


----------



## dmmj (Mar 26, 2012)

Please let me make a point about banning. Take calfornia, (please) once you start with one little ban it steamrolls. so first they banned smoking in bars and resturants, hey that worked so lets ban them in governmental buildings, now lets ban them in front of all buildings, now let's do beaches, now let do people's private cars if you have children in there, now they are pushing in one city to ban them in all apartment complexes. the government once they start banning stuff they don't stop. I am gonna disagree with mark and say I only see the same thing happening to reptiles, once they start they won't stop, case in point california.


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

Froghaven: is your avitar a picture of a Redfoot eating a bunny ??? lol


They are already doing it with reptiles. They started with 4 snakes in Florida.........it passed, then only a few months later they amend the bill to add more snakes and make it nation wide, Any transport across state lines is a federal offence.

Then CT banning a ton of animals. Even rear fanged snakes like cat eye, and I think hognose since they have a tiny bit of venom. If you had 1,000 of these mildy venomous snakes in a state and having someone bit that has a allergic reaction and dies. Well that would be like winning the lotto 10 times. Most bites may itch for a few hours.

Then Ohio started by a mad man who let a bunch of dangerous animals loose before he offed himself. Well their should have been some permits and inspections involved. I guess he was cited a few times and when they were about to come get the animals is when he did it. Well that's not our fault. So the extremists got the ammo they needed for that one and build off that 1 instance to try to ban all exotics.

We still have'nt banned smoking, drinking, msg, saturated fats and a million other things that kill people . It's the thought of being killed by a reptile that scare people, destroy what you don't understand.

I'll try to cut and past some new laws.


----------



## froghaven5 (Mar 26, 2012)

wildak said:


> Froghaven: is your avitar a picture of a Redfoot eating a bunny ??? lol


Sulcata eating Rose of Sharon flower 






froghaven5 said:


> wildak said:
> 
> 
> > Froghaven: is your avitar a picture of a Redfoot eating a bunny ??? lol
> ...



We have lots of bans here in NJ including smoking most places including in parks (outdoors). Hubby likes to call this a communist state.


----------



## dmmj (Mar 26, 2012)

A fascist state makes more sense.


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/regulations/26/26-55-6.pdf

Read this from Connecticut, it's long but at least try to skim over it. It is the longest ban list, it basicly listed every thing in the animal kingdom except dogs and some cats.

Somethings are like ok, i can see not wanting your neighbor having an African Elephant as they are hard to contain ( I know from experience) and control.
But all rodents are banned except Guinea pig. this includes hamsters, mice, rats, gerbils, mouse and chinchilla. ??????? (Sorry Little Jonny we need to take your hamster and have it gased.)

Also I seen things like deer and elk and so on, which are often farmed all over the US. 

So basicly putting a lot of animal vets, reptile breeders, elk/deer farms, pet stores, feed stores, hay and grain farms and so on out of work. I know it won't shut everyone down but it WILL hurt big time.

I would like to compare their census in 10 years from this past one. Along with unemployment and state taxes.





Pulled from Fauna. Hope this is ok.

CT Rule Change/ Reptile Ban 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The situation in CT is a difficult one. There was an administrative rule change done, as opposed to a law passed that had to be voted on and signed by the Governor. This is the danger inherent in states that grant arbitrary rule making authority to their state agencies. A bill proposal you can fight, but often times your ability to influence a rule is minimal by design. They really don't want public input. That is why they granted arbitrary rule making authority. 

Last March, when the public comment period was open, USARK made public comment opposing the rule, and urged CT residents to do the same. Obviously they have decided to enact the rule. There appears on the surface to be some legal challenges for the rule. They may have overstepped their legal bounds. USARK attorneys are reviewing the rule to see if we can make a case against it. Stay tuned...

USARK Alert of Public Comment Deadline from last March:

DEADLINE for Public Comment March 1, 2011

Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection Bureau of Natural Resources Wildlife Division is taking Public Comment on a proposal to promulgate regulations pursuant to Connecticut General Statute Section 26-55. This proposal as written would effectively ban the importation, ownership and trade of many reptiles. Please make Public Comment through the link provided below!

Click here to make Public Comment: http://usark.org/campaign.php?id=22

Although well meaning, this Rule Making process seems to have been highjacked by the Animal Rights Industry. As stakeholders, USARK members in CT were never invited to participate in the formulation of a proposed rule. The premise of public health and safety is inconsistent with the fact that reptiles have never been a public health or safety risk in Connecticut. The reptiles listed cannot survive outdoors for most of the year in CT. It is too cold even for most reptiles native to the US to survive in CT, let alone tropical reptiles. There has never been a death associated with a captive reptile in CT. On average there is only about one per year in the entire US. Traditional pets and livestock are responsible for dozens of deaths every year without proposed bans of ownership. This proposal has been corrupted by special interest groups opposed to animal ownership and is being exploited to attempt to remove as many animals from ownership as possible. This proposal if enacted will create a new class of criminal in CT from thousands of solid, reptile keeping, law abiding citizens.

USARK has an alternative to a ban on ownership and trade of reptiles. We have a set of industry Best Management Practices that will address concerns in CT, without alienating the citizens of CT or destroying hundreds of jobs in the process. This model provides a voluntary framework for responsible reptile keeping with the primary focus being secure containment and public health & safety protocols. 

Click here to read proposed regulation: http://www.usark.org/uploads/Connecticut265562011.pdf 

Please engage in the process and make Public Comment prior to the March 1st DEADLINE!


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

dmmj said:


> Please let me make a point about banning. Take calfornia, (please) once you start with one little ban it steamrolls. so first they banned smoking in bars and resturants, hey that worked so lets ban them in governmental buildings, now lets ban them in front of all buildings, now let's do beaches, now let do people's private cars if you have children in there, now they are pushing in one city to ban them in all apartment complexes. the government once they start banning stuff they don't stop. I am gonna disagree with mark and say I only see the same thing happening to reptiles, once they start they won't stop, case in point california.



My point exactly. Also, if the government would start putting extreme punishments on the animal owners that do not take cate of their animals properly, puppy mills, Pit Bull fighters, **** fighters, animal abusers etc. We could eliminate a lot of the problems. I do believe in breeders having to purchase a hefty yearly license of no less then $500.00, mostly dog breeders. That would eliminate your backyard breeders who for the most part do not have a clue what they are doing or breeding. Also would eliminate many homeless dogs. The next thing the government needs to do. Put the responsibility of babies/kids back into the parents hands and not the rest of us. I shouldn't lose my right, because your to lazy to wash your child's hands. Also as far as I am concerned salmonella, is so blown out as a blame for everything. I should have never lived past the age of childhood or be alive today if salmonella was so bad. The stuff getting kids, etc are all the anti bacterial, keep your homes and body as germ free as possible. That will hurt you the most. This country needs to take more concern about the real issues, poverty, bullying, drugs, etc.,etc.,etc., and keep their nose out of what they know nothing about. People ruin animals, dogs. Their are very few that are born bad. The ones that are, are due to poor breeding, backyard breeders and puppy mills. Sorry for rambling. This stuff gets me angry a little. BTW Illinois, is the same as Cali with the smoking ban.


----------



## froghaven5 (Mar 26, 2012)

Did you see this?



> Tinley Summit sparks idea for legal symposium
> Jeff Barringer - Tuesday, Mar 20, 2012
> 
> After this weekend's summit, a number of people in the community -- those who could and those who couldn't attend the summit meeting in Chicago -- and I are exploring the idea of a Reptile and Amphibian Law Symposium that would be 3-4 days of panels, workshops and seminars on federal, state, and international laws and regulations and the people and organizations they impact.
> ...


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

Andrea, I don't think I did see that. Unfortunately I don't do Facebook. I will try to look into it and see how it is going and if there is another way to get info other then the Facebook. Thanks. Hopefully anyone can join in on them, not just from Illinois.


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

Too bad the same group organizing it can't come to every state. I just don't understand some of the laws and reasoning behind them.

If we could come up with a plan as an organization or several organizations joining together for the same cause. We could help figure out ways to regulate and license serious keepers and breeders.
As was said earlier, a tier system. Different levels of licensing with different levels of commitment. We are going to have to bend a little but it would be far better than loosing everything we hold dear.

Right now we seem to have a lot of us in the dark as what is happening. We need a reptile TV news channel. Or maybe there's a website that has just the facts and not hear say and opinions. If there is please let me know.

I hope to open a reptile conservation center and breeding facility someday in the near future and don't want this to happen to me either. I would like to breed Chinese Alligators and possibly Komodo Dragons or other endangered reptiles without persecution.


----------



## froghaven5 (Mar 26, 2012)

http://www.nraac.org/laws/


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

Yeah thanks I just found that from the facebook page link, I missed that the first time.

http://www.usark.org/statelaws.php

This one shows upcoming changes and what's ahead, state by state or nation wide.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 26, 2012)

I have stated my opinions on this matter several times before on similar threads, so I'll try not to rehash my thoughts to much here. (feel free to search under my post history, and you could probably find the relevant threads).

I am not diametrically opposed to a reasonable regulation or permit system like what Mark (Madkins) suggested. Generally, I can agree that the average person is not able to properly keep a giant python, or a green iguana, or a sulcata tortoise, or a monitor lizard. If outlined and implemented correctly, I think such a permit system would help curb those types of animals (among others) from getting in the hands of people who, quite simply, have no business keeping them.

Here is the main issue, though: who decides all this? Who decides which species are categorized into which Tier? Who determines the proper "guidelines" for each species? In short, the answer cannot be the government alone. We cannot trust the government to do this on their own. I mean, just a few weeks ago, someone was telling us how their own Florida Fish & Game office couldn't identify a baby gopher tortoise when it was right in front of them. If some of these badge wearers can't even ID the native species in their own states, how can we rely on them to do anything else?

For everyone living under rock, the new Rule Listing that added Burmese pythons, African rocks, and yellow anacondas to the Lacey Act went into effect this past Friday. That means you can't transport any of those species across state lines anymore, nor can they be imported into the U.S. I am just waiting for the incident where someone is pulled over, and some ignorant FWS official tries to fine someone for carrying their small ball python across state lines to the nearest exotic vet because he "thought" it was a Burmese.

So again, the ONLY way a proper permit system can be created is if reptile industry leaders and the govt works TOGETHER. It is possible; Florida FWS has worked pretty closely with the reptile community for some of their ROCs (reptiles of concern) and with venomous species permitting, etc. But realistically, I do not see it happening on a federal level.

Here's why: As others have already mentioned, since the Rule Listing this year, many states have jumped on the "Ban all reptiles" bandwagon in some degree; including Illinois, Ohio, Rhode Island, Virginia, West Virginia, and more...all within a few weeks of that rule listing announcement on Jan 16th. Contrary to Mark's opinion, I have to say that when you give them a inch, they will take a mile. Anyone who keeps up with reptile-related legislation issues will see that this is true.

So while on a fundamental level, I agree with some form of regulation or permit system. But realistically, I do not feel it will ever be done properly, and ultimately, the less involvement the govt has in this hobby, the better it will be for us. It is OUR responsibility to start policing ourselves better.

If anyone is interested in getting a (relatively) brief history of the events that led the Rule Change on Jan 16th (including the pythons in Florida issue, and other herp laws in the past 4 years), I strongly encourage you to read this article I wrote on my blog: http://studentofthereptile.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/43/


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 26, 2012)

These are the laws you disregard. Banning hamsters?? Dogs?? Turtles?? BS

Fascist country.


----------



## Tom (Mar 26, 2012)

JacksonR said:


> These are the laws you disregard. Banning hamsters?? Dogs?? Turtles?? BS
> 
> Fascist country.



Totally agree! With all that's going on in the world, members of our government are wasting time banning pet hamsters.... I bet we'll need another tax increase to help implement the new life-saving, super-important hamster ban. I sure hope my neighbors don't turn me in to the feds for having my little girls menacing pet hamsters...


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

One would think a ban of the size of the one in CT would wreck the economy in that state being it was all done at once.


----------



## IRTehDuckie (Mar 26, 2012)

my torts name is ted, not after ted nugent.. but i know who ill be writing down on the ballot.


----------



## Neal (Mar 26, 2012)

It's really upsetting that they even consider these types of laws. 

I can't even begin to list skills and knowledge of so many things that I likely would not have otherwise obtained if it wasn't for this hobby. I can only hope my children and their children will have the same opportunities I did to keep turtles and tortoises as pets and have their own experiences.


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 26, 2012)

wellington said:


> I do believe in breeders having to purchase a hefty yearly license of no less then $500.00, mostly dog breeders.



I have to disagree on this comment. When I was training and showing dogs, I bred my ***** one time. If I were to have to pay plus $500 for breeding my *****, then to cover that absurd cost, I would think, "Heck let's just breed Bowser every time I can and sell the puppies to whomever will pay the most, forget about finding good homes being the important part". Well, I wouldn't want to think that way, but I see no other way for Joe Public to think. I think your plan would hurt the little breeder who is in it to perfect their own line, not those folks who are out to make money on breeding dogs, to those folks $500 is no big deal and would actually be a tax write off.


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 26, 2012)

No laws. No regulations. No permits.

Everyone who thinks otherwise be wrong...


----------



## jaizei (Mar 26, 2012)

wildak said:


> http://www.ct.gov/dep/lib/dep/regulations/26/26-55-6.pdf
> 
> Read this from Connecticut, it's long but at least try to skim over it. It is the longest ban list, it basicly listed every thing in the animal kingdom except dogs and some cats.
> 
> ...



Work on your reading comprehension. It said:
_A member within the order Rodentia, *except *for guinea pig (Cavia
porcellus), gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus), chinchilla (Chinchilla
lanigera), rat (Rattus norvegicus), mouse (Mus musculus), hamster
(Mesocricetus auratus), dwarf hamster (genera Phodopus and
Cricetulus), Patagonia mara (Dolichotis patagonum) and American
beaver (Castor canadensis),_

Everything in red is excluded, and not banned. 





StudentoftheReptile said:


> I am not diametrically opposed to a reasonable regulation or permit system like what Mark (Madkins) suggested. Generally, I can agree that the average person is not able to properly keep a giant python, or a green iguana, or a sulcata tortoise, or a monitor lizard. If outlined and implemented correctly, I think such a permit system would help curb those types of animals (among others) from getting in the hands of people who, quite simply, have no business keeping them.
> 
> Here is the main issue, though: who decides all this? Who decides which species are categorized into which Tier? Who determines the proper "guidelines" for each species? In short, the answer cannot be the government alone. We cannot trust the government to do this on their own. I mean, just a few weeks ago, someone was telling us how their own Florida Fish & Game office couldn't identify a baby gopher tortoise when it was right in front of them. If some of these badge wearers can't even ID the native species in their own states, how can we rely on them to do anything else?
> 
> ...





The fact that you recognize that the average person isn't equipped to properly (and safely) care for giant snakes and monitors mean that you are too rational. You also hit the nail on the head; as a whole, the herp community has done a horrible job policing itself. Now that someone else thinks they have to, everyone is up in arms. Too little, too late. 





JacksonR said:


> No laws. No regulations. No permits.
> 
> Everyone who thinks otherwise be wrong...



Simply saying something does not make it so.


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 26, 2012)

Then what is banned in rodents? Maybe someday I want a capibara. Or a yellow anaconda. Simply writing a clause on a fancy sheet of paper does not make something banned.


----------



## Heliopteryx (Mar 26, 2012)

JacksonR said:


> No laws. No regulations. No permits.
> 
> Everyone who thinks otherwise be wrong...



No regulations saying you have to have at least a vague idea of what you are doing before you get a new pet or start breeding animals?


----------



## Madkins007 (Mar 26, 2012)

JacksonR said:


> Then what is banned in rodents? Maybe someday I want a capibara. Or a yellow anaconda. Simply writing a clause on a fancy sheet of paper does not make something banned.



Uh... legally, yes it does. 

And as far as what is banned in Rodentia- lots of things since it is a huge order. They allow patagonias and beaver, which would seem to be a nod to trappers and the fur industry, but would outlaw squirrels, wild mice and rats (which covers a lot of species), flying squirrels, chipmunks, agouti, gophers, porcupines, nutria, prairie dogs, marmots... You'd be out of luck on your capybara.

Not sure why you tossed in the anaconda comment about banned rodents.


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> wellington said:
> 
> 
> > I do believe in breeders having to purchase a hefty yearly license of no less then $500.00, mostly dog breeders.
> ...


----------



## Madkins007 (Mar 26, 2012)

Tom said:


> One good reason: Because I want to.
> 
> 
> Bryan. Ted would not be pleased with post number four. Post number three would be dismissed as anti-American BS.



Tom, I continue to respect and admire you, and do not mean any of the following with any heat towards you or anyone else who disagrees with me.

"Because I want to" is not really a good reason to do something that can result in harm to others. 

And as much as I admire Ted Nugent, I really don't give a flying fig if we see eye to eye on some issues.



dmmj said:


> Please let me make a point about banning. Take calfornia, (please) once you start with one little ban it steamrolls. so first they banned smoking in bars and resturants, hey that worked so lets ban them in governmental buildings, now lets ban them in front of all buildings, now let's do beaches, now let do people's private cars if you have children in there, now they are pushing in one city to ban them in all apartment complexes. the government once they start banning stuff they don't stop. I am gonna disagree with mark and say I only see the same thing happening to reptiles, once they start they won't stop, case in point california.



Using cigarettes, with the known and proven risks of smoking them and of second-hand smoke, even in small amounts, and using it as an example of what could happen to reptiles is not really comparing apples to apples. 

I KNOW that lazy lawmakers find it easier to ban or exclude whole categories of animals than to work on a smarter level, but that is where advocacy comes in. If 'reptile moderates' do not work together to help shape laws, then the extremists on both sides will- and since the extremists generally sound crazy, it may well go to the side with more money, like PETA and HSUSA.

There may not be the billions of dollars in reptile pets that there is in cats and dogs, but we still represent a significant political and financial block... if we could hash out a decent, moderate stance that Joe Public could swallow and live with.


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 26, 2012)

Yeah I threw in anaconda....sorry. The rudeness isn't needed either. Learn to debate without the smugness...


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 26, 2012)

wellington said:


> I understand what you are saying. However I was a breeder, for the show and betterment of the breed. A good breeder will never make money. They are lucky if they break even. The big breeders out for money, would never want to pay the license fee because they are all about money, not the dogs. To eliminate unwanted dogs, the backyard breeders need to stop. Good reputable breeders do not and will not breed to what ever comes along. They do a lot of research to better the breed and lines. They also will not breed those lines again if it didn't work out. Even with lots of research, some people still will lie and hide what is really in their lines. This license fee would also be used as a fine for any unregistered/unlicensed person that has a litter of puppies. my only drawback, is the accidental backyard
> breedings. I am afraid they would dispose of the puppies in a bad way so they didn't get caught paying the fine. That's where maybe, once the puppies were able to be placed in homes or no kill shelter, the dog would have to be spayed within a certain amount of time in order to not pay the fine. Dogs are my number one love. I hate that not one breed is kept pure. When I got out of breeding/showing. There still weren't any Shar-Pei mutts that anyone in my circuit really new about. Now they are all over and it eats at me to not end. Not many agree with me. My own cousin and I totally disagree. However, she was a backyard breeder. My opinion, one breeding does not better a breed. It takes much more work than that, to bring good in and get the bad out and for it to carry through the lines and actually make it better.



So your saying a "good" breeder would be happy to shell out $500? Perhaps a rich one might, but the common person, I doubt it. So your also saying you would force somebody who did not have a spare $500 sitting around and their female "accidentally" got breed, to have their female forced spayed? What about the not so well to do who also have a moral problem with spaying their females? (and yes, there are folks like that).

I happen to think all these designer mutts are not a good idea, myself too. 

There would also be folks who say all those not up to standard puppies breed by "good" breeders also add to the unwanted dog population problem also.



Just going to address one part of all this talk, the "what if" we have to pass some sort of test our knowledge and our housing abilities. Just who gets to play god with what is the "right way" and what is the "wrong way"? Just look around this very forum, where folks atleast have a common interest and knowledge in tortoises. How often can we even agree as to what the basics should be? I can tell you how often, never. We each have our own way and what works for us. If even a closed group like this has such wide variances in ideas, how do we ever hope those on the outside could come to a workable plan?


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> wellington said:
> 
> 
> > I understand what you are saying. However I was a breeder, for the show and betterment of the breed. A good breeder will never make money. They are lucky if they break even. The big breeders out for money, would never want to pay the license fee because they are all about money, not the dogs. To eliminate unwanted dogs, the backyard breeders need to stop. Good reputable breeders do not and will not breed to what ever comes along. They do a lot of research to better the breed and lines. They also will not breed those lines again if it didn't work out. Even with lots of research, some people still will lie and hide what is really in their lines. This license fee would also be used as a fine for any unregistered/unlicensed person that has a litter of puppies. my only drawback, is the accidental backyard
> ...





I am not rich, but would still pay the price. I love dogs more than money. I kept the dogs I could not or would not sell. My dogs were not sold to be bred unless they were good enough to be put in the shows. Yes I believe all pets should be spayed or neutered. It is better for their health. As for your very last paragraph. Hmmm, your guess is as good as mine.


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 26, 2012)

wellington said:


> I am not rich, but would still pay the price. I love dogs more than money. I kept the dogs I could not or would not sell. My dogs were not sold to be bred unless they were good enough to be put in the shows. Yes I believe all pets should be spayed or neutered. It is better for their health. As for your very last paragraph. Hmmm, your guess is as good as mine.



I love the dogs, my dogs, more then money too, but still I would not throw $500 away on something so stupid myself. I would rather be putting that money into upgrading the lives of my animals. I myself believe in spaying and neutering and the dogs I sold had such clauses with their purchase. Actually I gave several of the puppies to 4Hers for free and took back another one as an adult, when other folks could no longer keep their puppy (also part of my contract). However, I do not feel I have the right to FORCE somebody into spaying or neutering their animals. In some ways, yes it may be better for their health, but it also can cause more health problems. Anti spay folks point to the obesity problems that seem to bloom with spayed and neutered animals as one such negative to do it.


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

> Work on your reading comprehension. It said:
> A member within the order Rodentia, except for guinea pig (Cavia
> porcellus), gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus), chinchilla (Chinchilla
> lanigera), rat (Rattus norvegicus), mouse (Mus musculus), hamster
> ...


. 

You are correct Jaizei. I am sorry everyone I mis-read the Rodentia clause on CT. Put down the gerbil and back away. Sorry again, I read it several times and it did'nt add up that everything under the sun was banned yet Beaver was at the bottom of the list and myself being a former trapper have never heard of a beaver farm (please NO pun intended). So I assumed after Guinea Pig the remainder was the banned portion.
Good catch Thankyou.



> You also hit the nail on the head; as a whole, the herp community has done a horrible job policing itself. Now that someone else thinks they have to, everyone is up in arms. Too little, too late.



I could'nt disagree more. It's never too late, we just need organization such as the very extremists trying to take our rights away. I'm not saying I know exactly what to do. 

Maybe each of the larger reptile forums can elect representatives to speak on our behalf and/or species. We would all have to pitch in for air fair, room and board etc. (or just those who are serious about this). Maybe something like different levels of donations as members???? Fund raising, T-shirts etc.

Divide the country in to Zones (for the lack of a better word) like East of the Mississippi could be divided into 3-4 zones being the higher populations and several more zones out West. Each zone would have a rep from each forum involved. 

Each rep. would study only their zone. State Laws, Problem species, potential risks of introduced species in their zone etc. etc. 

All reps from all the forums in said zone would meet quarterly and discuss matters at hand and a course of action. All zone reports and notes then can be reviewed by any contributing member ( in order to TRY to keep agendas away from those opposing forces) Each zone will then elect a speaker or President (an attorney would be great).

I know it's not perfect so try not to bash me too much. I just now came up with the idea. The big issue would be funding but I'm sure we could talk to breeders, pet stores, supply chains and so on.

The first step is to get other forums on board with this or similar ideas. 

Any Ideas??? Please.....







The representative meets with others from


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> wellington said:
> 
> 
> > I am not rich, but would still pay the price. I love dogs more than money. I kept the dogs I could not or would not sell. My dogs were not sold to be bred unless they were good enough to be put in the shows. Yes I believe all pets should be spayed or neutered. It is better for their health. As for your very last paragraph. Hmmm, your guess is as good as mine.
> ...


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


> Just going to address one part of all this talk, the "what if" we have to pass some sort of test our knowledge and our housing abilities. Just who gets to play god with what is the "right way" and what is the "wrong way"? Just look around this very forum, where folks atleast have a common interest and knowledge in tortoises. How often can we even agree as to what the basics should be? I can tell you how often, never. We each have our own way and what works for us. If even a closed group like this has such wide variances in ideas, how do we ever hope those on the outside could come to a workable plan?



It is human AND animal nature to have your own opinions, it's not just the reptile community. Think of one organization or government that all agree on all subjects.

If your refering to USDA when speaking of "tests" it's along the same lines. The individual inspector sometimes interprets things differently. One inspector says "looks great keep up the good work" while the next one writes a bunch of "fix it tickets".

I learn a great deal from these forums but would never allow my ego to keep us from coming up with a plan of action. 

Heck draw senior member names from a hat to start with.


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 26, 2012)

I want to breed New Guinea Singing Dogs...


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

wildak said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> > Just going to address one part of all this talk, the "what if" we have to pass some sort of test our knowledge and our housing abilities. Just who gets to play god with what is the "right way" and what is the "wrong way"? Just look around this very forum, where folks atleast have a common interest and knowledge in tortoises. How often can we even agree as to what the basics should be? I can tell you how often, never. We each have our own way and what works for us. If even a closed group like this has such wide variances in ideas, how do we ever hope those on the outside could come to a workable plan?
> ...


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

No disrespect to anyone but how did we get onto dogs?


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

JacksonR said:


> I want to breed New Guinea Singing Dogs...



Okay. Do it before someone takes me up on the breeder licensing fee. Do it right and be one of the good breeders . There are very few good breeders, a whole bunch of bad


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 26, 2012)

wildak said:


> > You also hit the nail on the head; as a whole, the herp community has done a horrible job policing itself. Now that someone else thinks they have to, everyone is up in arms. Too little, too late.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Not sure on the zoning idea, but there IS a lobby group that has been fighting for our rights as herpers since 2008: the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (www.USARK.org). The president, Andrew Wyatt, already implemented reasonable care and husbandry guidelines for large constrictors in North Carolina, and with USARK and many reptile industry leaders, has sought to try and push for this type of statutes on the state level and federal. Regrettably, they are often opposed.

Once again, it is discouraging how many herpers I come across who have no idea USARK even exists.


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

I would pay to be a licensed breeder if that's what it takes. And likely will come to that, the problem being in some of the by laws it states you have to have already been a licensed breeder for like 2 years before the law was inacted. You can't wait until after the law is passed banning animals and then try to get the license. What a bunch of .......Dog crap..lol


----------



## wellington (Mar 26, 2012)

wildak said:


> No disrespect to anyone but how did we get onto dogs?



Sorry, not really sure. I think I was including them with the ban of pit bulls etc and some how got carried away, oops. I did try to get back on track with my second to last post. Again not real sure, but sorry.


----------



## wildak (Mar 26, 2012)

I know of USARK but we can't rely on just one or two organizations. We need more voices. ( like all the ones in my head lol).

The reptile community needs a celebrity spokesperson. Anyone here a celebrity ?


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 26, 2012)

We don't need lobbying. We just need to collectively ignore those laws. 

I won't be getting a license for singing dog breeding...lol


----------



## wildak (Mar 27, 2012)

Wow here's another strike against exotics http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sidesho...ian-rats-invading-florida-keys-210522485.html 

Giant African 9 pound rats released in Florida by an "exotic animal breeder" are breeding in the wild.

How convenient, almost seems planned ... A Peta rat plant. lol Hell maybe they only eat pythons.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 27, 2012)

wildak said:


> I know of USARK but we can't rely on just one or two organizations. We need more voices. ( like all the ones in my head lol).





I agree, but too many are still ignorant, or completely discount what USARK has accomplished. Without them, bill S.373 would have been passed back 2009, which would have banned ALL species of pythons, including the popular, diminutive ball python that so many are familiar with. Many criticize USARK and do not support them at all, but at the same time, NO ONE has really stepped up and offered an alternative. No one has done better, so to speak.

Like I said, I do agree that we need more voices. People need to get off their butts (figuratively and literally), stay up to date on current events, educate themselves on the facts and stand united against these draconian legislative measures we face. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there's a lot of reptile keepers out there that think USARK and PIJAC will do all the work for you, and you're probably safe anyway because you keep geckos and tortoises, and you don't keep "any of those dangerous species like big snakes and monitor lizards like they show on Animal Planet." Quite simply, you are mistaken. This started with snakes, but it will not end with snakes.

There IS a need for lobbying. We have to be able to fight these politicians with facts on their own homefield. Simply pissing and moaning about this stuff on Facebook and forums doesn't accomplish anything. That's why USARK is important. Until someone else steps up to bat and does one better, they and PIJAC are the best we've got and they deserve our support.



> The reptile community needs a celebrity spokesperson. Anyone here a celebrity ?



I'm not opposed to this, and I agree it may help, but similar to your own argument about lobby groups, simply having a celebrity poster child isn't going to be the begin-all,end-all solution to our issues. [I'm not saying you think it is, but I have heard this argument before, that having a famous person on our side will solve all our problems!]

That said, Slash of Velvet Revolver has always been an avid reptile lover. Betty White loves reptiles, too, as well as recently voiced her opposition to PETA and HSUS. Last year, Leonardo Dicaprio purchased a sulcata tortoise at the NARBC show in Chicago. Rumor has it he was actually very enthusiastic about his new pet and seemed very interested in getting into the "herp" hobby. Where this all leads, I don't know, but it is interesting to know...


----------



## Tom (Mar 27, 2012)

FYI, Leonardo has been into reptiles for at least the last 15+ years. I did a photo shoot with him in the mid 90's, before he got really famous, and he brought his beardy along. His lizard took a huge smelly crap on one of the white pool lounge chairs that we were sitting on. We were at some multi-million dollar Hollywood Hills mansion and here's this 2" long big smelly turd sitting on the stark white pristine chair... He cleaned it up, but it was a funny moment. The photographer was an animal lover and if I remember correctly he included the lizard in some of the pics during Leo's shoot. At that time Leonardo was a young kid and still friendly and down to earth. I saw him again in Morocco while filming "Body of Lies", and he wouldn't even look at me, much less talk to me. I tried to ask him if he remembered that photo shoot and he wouldn't even look at me, much less talk to me. He just turned his back and walked away. Then he had his stunt man do all the work with the dogs...

Just saying, I think you might need someone different as a spokesperson...


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> That said, Slash of Velvet Revolver has always been an avid reptile lover. Betty White loves reptiles, too, as well as recently voiced her opposition to PETA and HSUS. Last year, Leonardo Dicaprio purchased a sulcata tortoise at the NARBC show in Chicago. Rumor has it he was actually very enthusiastic about his new pet and seemed very interested in getting into the "herp" hobby. Where this all leads, I don't know, but it is interesting to know...



Doesn't the celebrity actually need to be known to the mainstream community? That would leave off Slash, whomever this person may be. Betty would be great, but unfortunately she is getting up there in years. You heard Tom's opinion of Dicaprio. Seems like it would be harder to get a good celebrity behind the movement, then to just use that effort on the movement directly.

Something is really needed to motivate the small person (no David this is nothing to do with your height.  ). I think there needs to be some how or some one to motivate the person with just one or ten "pets". I know for myself to get involved I really need an active hands on type role. It's my biggest complaint with TSA for example. I pay my dues, but have no real way to contribute to the cause, so I don't feel connected or actually needed.


----------



## Tom (Mar 27, 2012)

I don't know what the solution here is, but it seems INSANE to me to argue for a proven corrupt, incompetent, ignorant, stupid, inept, bureaucratic government entity to step in and exercise MORE control over something they are completely ignorant about.

What happened to personal responsibility? How about we let everyone enjoy their freedom in a "free" country how they see fit, and only punish the negligent or irresponsible people for their mistakes? Now there's a concept...

If I'm stupid enough to buy a large python and then NOT house it correctly, I should be held liable for any damage it does. If on the other hand, I buy a large python, house it correctly, and it lives its whole life with out ever running amok, why do some people want the government intruding upon my property and into my reptile room?

The beauty is, we ALREADY have this wonderful system I speak of in place. All we have to do is....... NOTHING!

All adults are free to enjoy an alcoholic beverage in this country. If you behave stupidly or irresponsibly, you will be fined, sued, imprisoned, or otherwise suitably punished.

If you are going to make the case that after the fact it is too late, then your are basically saying that the world is too dangerous and we should all live in padded cells so nobody ever gets hurt. Life is dangerous. Life is a risk. Part of LIVING is navigating those risks every day. Cars kill more people than pet boa constrictors, by an enormous margin. Why aren't we clamoring for banning cars. If public safety is your goal in banning and regulating potentially dangerous animals, why don't we start with the most dangerous threats to public safety and work our way down? People's pet snakes and lizards are pretty far down the list... None of my snakes or lizards have ever hurt anyone. Anyone know of a single case of monitor lizard homicide? Last I checked my boa hadn't snuck into any cribs and swallowed any children either...


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 27, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Doesn't the celebrity actually need to be known to the mainstream community? That would leave off Slash, whomever this person may be. Betty would be great, but unfortunately she is getting up there in years. You heard Tom's opinion of Dicaprio. Seems like it would be harder to get a good celebrity behind the movement, then to just use that effort on the movement directly.



I thought Slash was pretty well-known (shrugs), but I guess it's all relative, and I see your point. It all depends on what you grew up with, what you listen to, what you watch, etc. I have met people who have no idea what Star Wars or Star Trek is. On the flip side, I haven't picked up a People's Magazine in years and couldn't identify half of the well-known celebrities that are so-called "mainstream" right now.

I didn't know that about Leonardo. Its not like he was my first choice anyway, but I was just relaying internet chatter that I had about his attending the NARBC. Age aside, I still wouldn't mind having Betty White speaking out for us. For starters, she's a woman. I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, but for portraying a positive image for the herp hobby, having a sweet gutsy old lady like Betty holding a python around her neck is packs more punch than seeing a rock guitarist like Slash or a snobbish, controversial actor like Leo do the same. (BTW, she has done this on talk shows before...google to find the pics!)


Just came across this. Had to share!!! Send this to all those stupid politicians!


----------



## Tom (Mar 27, 2012)

Betty is AWESOME! Did a commercial shoot with her a few years ago and she is a truly wonderful human being in every way. Caring, considerate, intelligent, well spoken, graceful... just lovely to be around. She's one of my all time favorite celebrities that I have worked with.


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

Right now, we need to really work on how the mainstream public sees us. Snakes especially need to be worked past folks seeing them as evil, slimey, and huge monsters just waiting to attack our children and small pets. Good PR needs to be gotten when ever and how ever we can get it. Small children need to be educated on what snakes (and the rest of the reptiles) really are like and the benefits from having them around. Folks remember the bad PR and the horror stories, much more then they do the good things. It's those mental visuals folks have about reptiles, that makes them such easy marks for banning. So easy to use our very popular preconceived and deep rooted fears about reptiles and then to give those slight pushes with horror stories, to get the public all riled up against them.



StudentoftheReptile said:


> Age aside, I still wouldn't mind having Betty White speaking out for us. For starters, she's a woman. I'm not trying to be sexist or anything, but for portraying a positive image for the herp hobby, having a sweet gutsy old lady like Betty holding a python around her neck is packs more punch than seeing a rock guitarist like Slash or a snobbish, controversial actor like Leo do the same. (BTW, she has done this on talk shows before...google to find the pics!)



I agree. The age thing was more pointed towards she may unfortunately not be around for that much longer.


----------



## Tom (Mar 27, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Right now, we need to really work on how the mainstream public sees us. Snakes especially need to be worked past folks seeing them as evil, slimey, and huge monsters just waiting to attack our children and small pets. Good PR needs to be gotten when ever and how ever we can get it. Small children need to be educated on what snakes (and the rest of the reptiles) really are like and the benefits from having them around. Folks remember the bad PR and the horror stories, much more then they do the good things. It's those mental visuals folks have about reptiles, that makes them such easy marks for banning. So easy to use our very popular preconceived and deep rooted fears about reptiles and then to give those slight pushes with horror stories, to get the public all riled up against them.



I have been doing my part on this since the 80's. First in the pet shops and since then I have done presentations for 1000's of school kids. Not to mention talking to 100's of people on the movie sets for the last 16 years... There was a huge shift in attitudes about reptiles in the early 90's. They went mainstream, but I haven't seen much happen since then. Well, nothing good anyway...


----------



## tortadise (Mar 27, 2012)

I would love to help as much as I could. But being classified under 501(c)(3) and USFW confiscation accredited facility that kinda exempts me from being a "pet owner". My mom is a pretty well known doctor and I'm also working on writing a tortoise book through my moms book agency. I suppose we could all get input on it and put it out in a book and contact lots of media on the "people of America and wildlife loves". Hmmm that's a good book title.

I'm not a big fighter but I will NOT stand and have my animals banned. Because some beiarcratic money making moron thinks that a poison dart frog or redfoot tortoise is going to change anything in these states wild habitats. There may be reticent and African rocks living out in the Everglades but they won't last very long. It's the media making it seem like there taking over.


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

Now that I have saw what Slash looks like, you would have another problem with him. He looks like a hard rocker, motorcycle gang member, drug user image in the minds of so many folks, especially the older ones. It's those older folks your trying to get to change their minds remember.

(Please nobody take personal offense to my comments. Just reminding folks of the mainstream image a high percentage of the population holds, not giving my personal thoughts. Image is very important in something along these lines, even if they do not hold true in reality.)



Tom said:


> I have been doing my part on this since the 80's. First in the pet shops and since then I have done presentations for 1000's of school kids. Not to mention talking to 100's of people on the movie sets for the last 16 years... There was a huge shift in attitudes about reptiles in the early 90's. They went mainstream, but I haven't seen much happen since then. Well, nothing good anyway...



Aren't presentations for school kids awesome? I loved it. My children were great assets also, when giving talks to children.


----------



## Madkins007 (Mar 27, 2012)

Tom said:


> (snip)
> 
> If I'm stupid enough to buy a large python and then NOT house it correctly, I should be held liable for any damage it does. If on the other hand, I buy a large python, house it correctly, and it lives its whole life with out ever running amok, why do some people want the government intruding upon my property and into my reptile room?
> 
> ...



Cool! So when someone's pet (fill in the blank with a wide variety of animals, from dogs to cobras), or a drunk driver, or something like that kills someone, we automatically kill the keeper or driver or perpetrator! 

Wait... that is not what happens in real life. Dang. 

If I could trust the keeper of potentially dangerous animals to care for them the way someone like you would, I would not give this issue a second thought, but too many of the people buying these kinds of animals do not have the knowledge or resources to really do the job right, and right now, there is no process in place to do any sort of screening.

Believe me, I KNOW the government could screw this up, but after the number of dangerous animal attacks locally in the last several years, I don't think the way things are now is working either.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 27, 2012)

Madkins007 said:


> Believe me, I KNOW the government could screw this up, but after the number of dangerous animal attacks locally in the last several years, I don't think the way things are now is working either.



Couple things to keep in mind here.

The first is that it is not fair or reasonable to lump all "exotic animals" under the same category. Keeping big cats, alligators, bears, and primates is a lot different than keeping big snakes and iguanas and monitor lizards. When you say "dangerous animal attacks" the vast majority of them are from large exotic mammals, not reptiles. Very few are caused by herps.

That said, the second issue is distinguishing the two main reasons for restricting ownership of any animal: public safety and risk to environment. It goes a little hand-in-hand with the first thing, but you have to consider the realistic impact of that species. Many people are advocating bans for some of these animals for the wrong reasons.

For example, I am all for restricting availability for many of these species, but not necessarily because of safety or environment reasons. Its simply for animal welfare; i.e. the animal/species in question often is not care for properly and perishes prematurely.


----------



## wellington (Mar 27, 2012)

I am all for some kind of regulations. Not to ban, but to educate/license, something before these kind of reptiles are able to be purchased. I am also sick and tired of the responsibility of people's kids being my problem. I am also sick of the idiots that don't take the care needed for these kinds of animals/reptiles to remain where they belong, so they can't get out and cause these kinds of problems for the rest of us who are responsible. I think the government have many, many bigger problems in this country they should spend their time on. Drugs, power drinks, bullying those things are killing thousands dailymand costing all of us a lot of money. The government will never get their heads out of their *** and see things for the way it is. "Politically correct" is one thing ruining this country. Call it what it is, a duck is a duck, no matter how you look at it. You can't fix what you don't want to see or acknowledge. Instead of taking away our freedoms of owning, something, put the responsibility back to the people to own it responsibly and pay big if you don't, not just a slap on the hand.


----------



## wildak (Mar 27, 2012)

Betty White is awesome. Seeing her swear at those celebrity roasts are hilarious.
She had 2 giant crocodile pets in the movie lake placid. lol

"Dangerous animal attacks" Who classes what as dangerous? Some think snapping turtles are dangerous..... I don't. Dogs ARE dangerous and so are horses but they don't make mainstream news like a good old snake attack.


----------



## Tom (Mar 27, 2012)

Madkins007 said:


> Tom said:
> 
> 
> > (snip)
> ...



Who said anything about killing irresponsible drunk drivers or pet keepers? I'm simply pointing out that there is a criminal justice system already in place to deal with this sort of recklessness and irresponsibility.

I'm not worried about you having a glass of wine with your dinner either, but should I be clamoring for "Prohibition II" because some other dumba** might have six glasses and then drive home...? My stand is no I should not. I recognize that in order to NOT infringe upon your right to have some wine with your dinner that I must take the risk of some jerk abusing alcohol and getting on the road with me and my family. AND there is already a system in place to deal with the jerks and it's works as well as it can. Every drunk driving fatality is a tragedy, but banning and or regulating alcohol just creates more problems and does NOT solve the initial one. 

Same with reptiles... Look at the Asian black market for tortoises and turtles...

More laws and government bureaucracy will NOT give you the safety and peace of mind that you seek, but it will take away freedom from those who have done, and will do, no wrong.

In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson: Those who would trade freedom for safety will have, and will deserve, neither...


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

Tom said:


> In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:



Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but didn't he also keep slaves and have many children off of his black slave females????


----------



## dmmj (Mar 27, 2012)

I have never understood the concept of punishing the responsible for the actions of the irresponsible, seems wrong and unamerican to me.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 27, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Tom said:
> 
> 
> > In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:
> ...



I believe so, but it doesn't mean he can't say something that is insightful. Just because someone did something "bad" in their lifetime, doesn't make them universally bad in every single thing they do and say.


----------



## Tom (Mar 27, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Tom said:
> 
> 
> > In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson:
> ...



Nice. Totally irrelevant. Are we now going to debate all the atrocities from the past of the human race? Really, what is your point?

You know I used to keep my baby sulcatas on rabbit pellets with no water bowl, because I was taught to do it that way, everyone back then did it that way, and I didn't know better. Does that now mean that anything and everything that I have said, or ever will say, has no value or validity?

So you think the founders of this great country are nothing but a bunch of backwards slave owners and showed no wisdom whatsoever? Do the evil deeds of the man's past make what he said any less true?


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> Jacqui said:
> 
> 
> > Tom said:
> ...



Hmm read and reread what I wrote, I do not see where I said he never did ANY thing good in his life.  It does however make me question, if he can be considered a GREAT person. Sorry my morals and beliefs are showing and there are just some behaviors which I feel keeps any person from being great. Also we need to be careful we don't take this even further off topic.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 27, 2012)

By rights, I never said that Thomas Jefferson was "great" anymore than you said he never did anything good. My point (as well as Tom's) was that one's past actions don't automatically nullify or discredit any alleged good works he does in later life.

Your initial comment by bringing up his past seemed to imply this. I agree with Tom in that it was completely irrelevant to his quote that Tom cited.



Jacqui said:


> Also we need to be careful we don't take this even further off topic.



I agree!


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

Tom said:


> Jacqui said:
> 
> 
> > Tom said:
> ...



Irrelevant? Perhaps. I find it interesting, I can not ask a question about if I was recalling a person correctly, without it being made into some huge deal. At the time I asked, I was asking for information on if my memory was correct. That was all I was asking. I did think this was suppose to be a place to ask questions and get clarifications on things said. Why do you always go off on a tangent, when I ask a simple fricking question?????? 



Tom said:


> So you think the founders of this great country are nothing but a bunch of backwards slave owners and showed no wisdom whatsoever? Do the evil deeds of the man's past make what he said any less true?



Once more Tom, where did you get this idea from? You get your hackles raised about folks misquoting you and jumping to conclusions from one comment you make on one subject to it being meant to cover a whole slew of other things. Looks to me like this is what you just did to me. Sorry I forgot Tom's rules, agree with Tom or say nothing at all... and apparently not ask questions or wonder about any remark Tom may have made.


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 27, 2012)

Now now....keep it civil. Can I be a mod? ha


----------



## DanaLachney (Mar 27, 2012)

So are they banning tortoises?????!!!!!


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

JacksonR said:


> Now now....keep it civil. Can I be a mod? ha



You would have to ask Josh.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Mar 27, 2012)

DanaLachney said:


> So are they banning tortoises?????!!!!!



To my knowledge, no, at least not on a federal level. 

But on the state level, one could say they have tried (although tortoises likely weren't their target species). Some have tried banning all pythons and boas, others all snakes, while others still tried to ban all reptiles, and even others all exotic animals and/or non-native species to that state in question. Many of these lawmakers are, in a word, ignorant, and write these bills and laws so vaguely. It often makes one wonder if they're really that dumb or the bills were written in such a way deliberately, just to see what they can get away with.

But it behooves any pet owner to stay on top of these issues and be ready protest and oppose (professionally, mind you) BEFORE these laws sneak up on us.


----------



## Neltharion (Mar 27, 2012)

In my former job with the CA Dept of Justice, I worked pretty closely with California's Dept of Fish and Game. What's bad here in California, aside from the initial Fish and Game statute that imposed the ban on many animals, a Board that presides over the Dept. of Fish and Game can enact regulations that hold the same weight as law. Aside from some allowances for public comment, this Board can ban animals without public vote or consideration, or voting by the State Senate or State Assembly. 

Here in California, we have some of the most restrictive animal keeping laws in the country. This has existed for quite some time. Short of your dogs, house cats, mice, hamsters, rats, guinea pigs; and your farm stock, cows, horses, goats, pigs; most other mammals are banned here in California.

Among the reptiles banned in California; most venomous, Marine Toads (yes, they were banned once the publicity started about the secretions being used as drugs), alligators and crocodiles, gila monsters, and snapping turtle species. The majority of exotic mammals are banned, this includes ferrets, hedgehogs, prairie dogs, and sugar gliders. Gar, piranha, barracuda, and even those Glo fish that have been genetically altered are banned.

The people that really want these banned animals find ways to get them. In neighboring states like Oregon, Nevada, Arizona, and even out of the country like Mexico; people travel across state lines and smuggle the animals in. There are a lot of ferret owners here in California, and the laws are relatively unenforceable unless someone reports a person owning an illegal animal. 

My neighbor has had a large indoor aquarium with a school of piranha for many years. He would never set them loose into the waterways, they wouldn't survive a Northern California winter anyway. An otherwise law abiding, productive, tax paying member of society is by definition a 'criminal' because he wants to own a particular species of fish. There really is no harm in what he's doing, but our government creates laws to regulate at the lowest common denominator which means that the responsible have to suffer because of the damage that the irresponsible can potentially do.


----------



## dmmj (Mar 27, 2012)

I am so glad there are other people on this forum who can write clearly to get my often times long and rambling point across thanks neltharion


----------



## jaizei (Mar 27, 2012)

Tom said:


> In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson: Those who would trade freedom for safety will have, and will deserve, neither...



Correct me if I am remembering wrong, but this sentiment was Benjamin Frankiln's, not Thomas Jefferson. You should probably start fact checking before repeating things.




Hyperbole makes both sides look foolish. Having rules and regulations concerning reptile ownership isn't a one way ticket to fascism. I do not think the Federal government should be involved, but I have no problem with states and local governments making laws that affect pet ownership. Don't like it; change it or move. 

This whole slippery slope way of thinking has been going on for as long as people have kept reptiles. I'm sure they said the same thing when the FDA rule was enacted. "They'll start with the under 4 inchers, and then ban them all." And here we are 30 years later.

And unAmerican?, seriously? _You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means._


----------



## DanaLachney (Mar 27, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> To my knowledge, no, at least not on a federal level.
> 
> But on the state level, one could say they have tried (although tortoises likely weren't their target species). Some have tried banning all pythons and boas, others all snakes, while others still tried to ban all reptiles, and even others all exotic animals and/or non-native species to that state in question. Many of these lawmakers are, in a word, ignorant, and write these bills and laws so vaguely. It often makes one wonder if they're really that dumb or the bills were written in such a way deliberately, just to see what they can get away with.
> 
> But it behooves any pet owner to stay on top of these issues and be ready protest and oppose (professionally, mind you) BEFORE these laws sneak up on us.



Well one would hope no such laws pass!!!


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 27, 2012)

DanaLachney said:


> Well one would hope no such laws pass!!!



Hope will probably not be enough, more then likely folks will have to become involved and fight for their rights.


----------



## DanaLachney (Mar 27, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Hope will probably not be enough, more then likely folks will have to become involved and fight for their rights.



That just made me think of that Beastie Boys song lol


----------



## tortadise (Mar 27, 2012)

the most i see being implemented into a "ban" would be that of cites 1 and studbook animals. It would be outrageous to ban redfoots sulcatas, greeks, hermanns, marginated. If this were to happen, there would be a grandfather clause. There has to be if so implemented. States or federal government could not just take cites 1 or listed endangered tortoises and euthanize or flood zoos with them. Animal rights and international law protects them. They cant take them from us if they pass laws to "ban". and if they try, I will enforce my second ammendment right and use my weapons. Its not going to get this way it cant with tortoises. if it does then my second plan of moving my tortoise santuary to costa rica will be in full force ; )


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 27, 2012)

jaizei said:


> Tom said:
> 
> 
> > In the words of the great Thomas Jefferson: Those who would trade freedom for safety will have, and will deserve, neither...
> ...





No one listens to that dumb 4 inch law anyway....

Also calm down.


----------



## DanaLachney (Mar 27, 2012)

tortadise said:


> the most i see being implemented into a "ban" would be that of cites 1 and studbook animals. It would be outrageous to ban redfoots sulcatas, greeks, hermanns, marginated. If this were to happen, there would be a grandfather clause. There has to be if so implemented. States or federal government could not just take cites 1 or listed endangered tortoises and euthanize or flood zoos with them. Animal rights and international law protects them. They cant take them from us if they pass laws to "ban". and if they try, I will enforce my second ammendment right and use my weapons. Its not going to get this way it cant with tortoises. if it does then my second plan of moving my tortoise santuary to costa rica will be in full force ; )



Well then I better acquire my "zoo" before than can create such a law > You gotta love that grandfather clause lol


----------



## Bow (Mar 27, 2012)

jaizei said:


> And unAmerican?, seriously? You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.



Off topic but I really hope you were movie quoting there!  I probably have watched Princess Bride more then one human should...


----------



## wildak (Mar 28, 2012)

> This whole slippery slope way of thinking has been going on for as long as people have kept reptiles. I'm sure they said the same thing when the FDA rule was enacted. "They'll start with the under 4 inchers, and then ban them all." And here we are 30 years later.


I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act. Buddha

You can sit on your hands if you like and try to convince others to join you but I'm not much for sitting and watching others set the rules to live my life by.

Anyone wanting to come up with any new plans of action in our network feel free to PM me.



> the most i see being implemented into a "ban" would be that of cites 1 and studbook animals. It would be outrageous to ban redfoots sulcatas, greeks, hermanns, marginated. If this were to happen, there would be a grandfather clause. There has to be if so implemented. States or federal government could not just take cites 1 or listed endangered tortoises and euthanize or flood zoos with them. Animal rights and international law protects them. They cant take them from us if they pass laws to "ban". and if they try, I will enforce my second ammendment right and use my weapons. Its not going to get this way it cant with tortoises. if it does then my second plan of moving my tortoise santuary to costa rica will be in full force ; )



Some states are requiring you to turn in any animals on the list. No grandfather clause. Most of these animals would likely be put down.

quoting Peta "better dead than fed" lol yeah right. How can you say your pro animal.


----------



## tortadise (Mar 28, 2012)

Well PETA can answer to my bullets and they have no international or national jurisdiction to euthanize an endangered species with just "well it's the law now" attitude. They can pass whatever law they want. They won't stop me from my doing of greater good with all my animals and guns.


----------



## Jacqui (Mar 28, 2012)

tortadise said:


> Well PETA can answer to my bullets and they have no international or national jurisdiction to euthanize an endangered species with just "well it's the law now" attitude. They can pass whatever law they want. They won't stop me from my doing of greater good with all my animals and guns.



So your saying IF Federal agents came to your place, after laws were made stating you could not keep your tortoises, you would shoot the Federal agents? Because it won't be PETA, who comes a callin'.


----------



## jaizei (Mar 28, 2012)

wildak said:


> > This whole slippery slope way of thinking has been going on for as long as people have kept reptiles. I'm sure they said the same thing when the FDA rule was enacted. "They'll start with the under 4 inchers, and then ban them all." And here we are 30 years later.
> 
> 
> I do not believe in a fate that falls on men however they act; but I do believe in a fate that falls on them unless they act. Buddha
> ...



Reading comprehension is important. Let's review.

I did not advocate sitting and doing nothing. There needs to be a compromise, ignore the extremist on both sides. They look foolish. _Wait while I get mah guns. Second amendment remedies_. 

1. I said that having some rules, which you yourself said you support, doesn't mean we necessarily end up with an all out ban. There is a reason why slippery slope is considered a fallacy. There *is *middle ground. I am saying that we have heard this slippery slope argument for decades. I remember this same exact argument happening on forums 15 years ago. Still hasn't happened. If anything, many species of reptiles are easier to get now than they were then.

2. In the part you didn't quote, (_I do not think the Federal government should be involved, but I have no problem with states and local governments making laws that affect pet ownership. Don't like it; change it or move._), I clearly advocate action if a state or local government tries to make laws you do not like. A _government of the people, by the people, for the people_. Sounds familiar


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 28, 2012)

Banning pets has now seemingly become a hot button issue. Just like health care reform not long ago....every lawmaker is talking about it.

Mostly brought on by the python problem in Florida.


----------



## Madkins007 (Mar 28, 2012)

I have to admit- I really enjoy the give and take here, especially since for the most part, it is being done in the spirit of 'we may disagree on this, but let's go have a beer/coffee'. 

I would like to clarify a couple of my thoughts, then I think I am going to mostly just read and enjoy the thread from here on out.

1. Under my dream system, it is not so much that animals would be banned, you would just have to demonstrate something to the government before you could buy some species. (Such as- basic knowledge, a bond or insurance in case of problems, etc.)

2. The animals on my lists would mostly be those that...
- pose a public risk if something would happen.
- are at risk in their home ranges, and/or could cause significant environmental impact if released. (More 'rabbits in Australia' than 'pythons in the Everglades'- although I know that with feral dogs and cats, red-ear sliders, and so on, that ship has pretty much already sailed in the US)
- need more specialized care than the typical person can provide.

3. I am not a lawyer or law-maker, so I have absolutely no idea how I would implement any of this, or keep the government from turning it to sh&*. All things being equal- I would prefer the status quo to some proposals we have heard from our elected officials- but that does not stop me from thinking that somehow there is a better way.


----------



## JacksonR (Mar 28, 2012)

For some venomous snakes and crocodiles/alligators you already have to demonstrate you know what you're doing before you can buy them.

King cobras for example. They're only $250 by the way. I'm toatally getting one....








Madkins007 said:


> I have to admit- I really enjoy the give and take here, especially since for the most part, it is being done in the spirit of 'we may disagree on this, but let's go have a beer/coffee'.
> 
> I would like to clarify a couple of my thoughts, then I think I am going to mostly just read and enjoy the thread from here on out.
> 
> ...


----------



## LeaderLeprechaun (May 5, 2012)

dmmj said:


> Please let me make a point about banning. Take calfornia, (please) once you start with one little ban it steamrolls. so first they banned smoking in bars and resturants, hey that worked so lets ban them in governmental buildings, now lets ban them in front of all buildings, now let's do beaches, now let do people's private cars if you have children in there, now they are pushing in one city to ban them in all apartment complexes. the government once they start banning stuff they don't stop. I am gonna disagree with mark and say I only see the same thing happening to reptiles, once they start they won't stop, case in point california.



i agree to a point. they are even banning smokin in mississippi starting with certain cities in the casinos and the restraunts. but there is so much they have already started to ban because people couldnt get stuff under control. i believe only those that can handle a specific animals needs is ok. however, all this impulse buying is getting out of hand. animals get loose and cause a hazard for people. but im talking of dangerious animals. however, if someone can handle it fine. other than that no. age specifics would be good too. like no one under 18 can get exotics.





Jacqui said:


> wellington said:
> 
> 
> > I am not rich, but would still pay the price. I love dogs more than money. I kept the dogs I could not or would not sell. My dogs were not sold to be bred unless they were good enough to be put in the shows. Yes I believe all pets should be spayed or neutered. It is better for their health. As for your very last paragraph. Hmmm, your guess is as good as mine.
> ...



how can an animal become obese due to being fixed? ive only seen a fixed animal large due to laziness, not hormonal problems from not having reproductive organs. if this was an issue it would be displayed nationwide instead of have the issue pointed toward fixing the animals to prevent more offspring that cant be supported.



Tom said:


> I don't know what the solution here is, but it seems INSANE to me to argue for a proven corrupt, incompetent, ignorant, stupid, inept, bureaucratic government entity to step in and exercise MORE control over something they are completely ignorant about.
> 
> What happened to personal responsibility? How about we let everyone enjoy their freedom in a "free" country how they see fit, and only punish the negligent or irresponsible people for their mistakes? Now there's a concept...
> 
> ...



agreed!!!!


----------

