Why?

Im a little confused at the moment. Why would usark put restrictions in place for a state that is doing FINE without them? South carolina is an amazing state to live in if you own exotic animals! We have no laws concerning our venomous or our constrictors. There are certain counties that its illegal to own crocs but other then that we have great animal laws. And its been going WONDERFUL until now. For some reason andrew believes we should put laws in place. But WHY??? South carolina is not worried about exotic animals right now so why try to put laws in place when everything is going fine?

I smell something bad about to happen :(

Here, we can't own Desert Tortoises unless you have a license, nor can you take them out of the wild. Same goes for native venomous species.

I just dont understand what gives him the right to put these laws in place when we were completly fine without them. Its not like our congressman in sc are pushing for laws or bans on our animals. So why even start and the laws are written with holes. They give law enforcement the right to take your animal for 5 days if they dont think you should have it. Our law enforcement is not set up to handle my animals and bad husbandry would do a number to a burm in 5 days

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denial

I just dont understand what gives him the right to put these laws in place when we were completly fine without them. Its not like our congressman in sc are pushing for laws or bans on our animals. So why even start and the laws are written with holes. They give law enforcement the right to take your animal for 5 days if they dont think you should have it. Our law enforcement is not set up to handle my animals and bad husbandry would do a number to a burm in 5 days

---

Maybe writing a letter or sending an email or even calling would do something. I never hear of any problems with SC, and this guy that is trying to put down laws will start up some problems. I mean come on, look how many problems there are with this python ban and other bills, things have been going insane.

Wouldn't be a bad idea for all this hoo-ha to be on a state to state basis.

Wait, what's going on with SC?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoolioTiffany

Here, we can't own Desert Tortoises unless you have a license, nor can you take them out of the wild. Same goes for native venomous species.

---

These restrictions fall under completely different rules than the large constrictors. There are very good environmental/conservation reasons for restrictions on desert tortoises and native venomous snakes/lizards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoolioTiffany

Maybe writing a letter or sending an email or even calling would do something. I never hear of any problems with SC, and this guy that is trying to put down laws will start up some problems. I mean come on, look how many problems there are with this python ban and other bills, things have been going insane.

---

Ive tried to contact him. He doesnt really see eye to eye with me and some other keepers. We dont agree with his tactics and the way they feel they should handle the situations and I really dont agree with him trying to change the laws in my home state when theres no reason what so ever to start with this

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eventide

Wait, what's going on with SC?



These restrictions fall under completely different rules than the large constrictors. There are very good environmental/conservation reasons for restrictions on desert tortoises and native venomous snakes/lizards.

---

We are about to have laws concerning venomous animals, constrictors, and crocs. The laws right now in sc are basically you can have any venomous any constrictors and theres only a few counties that outlaw crocs but most cities allow them. So I see no reason to try to enforce some now. The congressman in sc are not even worried about exotics right now there not pushing for a ban or restrictions so I want to know why andrew feels the need to introduce them?

These restrictions fall under completely different rules than the large constrictors. There are very good environmental/conservation reasons for restrictions on desert tortoises and native venomous snakes/lizards.[/QUOTE]

Yes I know, I was giving an example of some laws we have, and I didn't say I disagreed with them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kdime

Wouldn't be a bad idea for all this hoo-ha to be on a state to state basis.

---

I agree it should be on a state to state basis I just wish people from nc would mind there business and not try to change our state when we are fine the way we are right now. South carolina has great laws concerning exotics and I just dont understand why they need to change it right now

Maybe it's a political tactic thing he's trying to pull? You know, looking better by passing some ridiculous laws under the guise of "helping?"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p3titexburial

Maybe it's a political tactic thing he's trying to pull? You know, looking better by passing some ridiculous laws under the guise of "helping?"

---

I could not AGREE with you more!

Or, perhaps there has been talk behind the scenes that you are not aware of, and he is being proactive in order to prevent something worse from coming up later. With no restrictions in place currently, it may be that SC is vulnerable to those trying to legislate a total ban. With sensible restrictions already in place, it will not look like there is any need for a ban in the future.

Also, the reptile community looks rather foolish if it stands up and says that absolutely anyone should be able to go into a store and purchase a 20 foot snake, without regard to whether or not they know what to do with it. Ignoring the fact that this is a potentially dangerous animal makes the community look reckless.

Well if there has been talk behind the scenes and usark is aware of that then They should make that known to the reptile community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denial

Well if there has been talk behind the scenes and usark is aware of that then They should make that known to the reptile community.

---

I think that would make it less strange or unacceptable for a ban to occur.

Most of the time, the argument for a ban is that the animal poses a threat to the natural ecosystem rather than the people (although there are arguments for it--but then, we'd have to ban every dangerous object if that were the case) but they won't have that problem with winter temperatures reaching the 40s and 30s.

To me, it's a political move, with all the media the reptile community has been garnering. A jump on the band-wagon so to speak. SC has bigger issues to worry about than reptiles right now--every state does (except maybe Florida.)

On another note, people come up with some really weird laws sometimes.

One state doesn't allow you to tie a giraffe to a lamp-post, another doesn't let you tie an alligator to a fire hydrant. (or maybe they're the same state -_-??)

Political moves? (or someone trying to be funny...)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by p3titexburial

I think that would make it less strange or unacceptable for a ban to occur.

Most of the time, the argument for a ban is that the animal poses a threat to the natural ecosystem rather than the people (although there are arguments for it--but then, we'd have to ban every dangerous object if that were the case) but they won't have that problem with winter temperatures reaching the 40s and 30s.

To me, it's a political move, with all the media the reptile community has been garnering. A jump on the band-wagon so to speak. SC has bigger issues to worry about than reptiles right now--every state does (except maybe Florida.)

On another note, people come up with some really weird laws sometimes.

One state doesn't allow you to tie a giraffe to a lamp-post, another doesn't let you tie an alligator to a fire hydrant. (or maybe they're the same state -_-??)

Political moves? (or someone trying to be funny...)

---

You also can't go whaling from a moving vehicle in Tennessee.

Oh my goodness. Okay that's really really really weird. More than the "where do you find whales in Tennessee" is the question "how exactly do you whale from a moving vehicle?"

not just sc either its also va!

When I was watching the hearing, with you and a few others in fact, Andrew mentioned that he was in the middle of creating some state language on big snakes. I can see why he wants to do it also. If he creates a state language it keeps things out of the feds hands. As long as the states are handling these problems, the feds really don't have to deal with it. If a few states choose to make legislations against these snakes it is much better than a full U.S. ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoolioTiffany

I smell something bad about to happen :(

Here, we can't own Desert Tortoises unless you have a license, nor can you take them out of the wild. Same goes for native venomous species.

---

Native venomous can be collected with a simple hunting license and require no license to keep in Arizona.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by twistedtails

When I was watching the hearing, with you and a few others in fact, Andrew mentioned that he was in the middle of creating some state language on big snakes. I can see why he wants to do it also. If he creates a state language it keeps things out of the feds hands. As long as the states are handling these problems, the feds really don't have to deal with it. If a few states choose to make legislations against these snakes it is much better than a full U.S. ban.

---

Yes but the state is not choosing to make legislations. Andrew is proposing we have them. Our state is fine the way it is. We have no problem with exotics. Just because he is proud of something he did in north carolina does not mean we want the same thing in south carolina. The law as written has many loop holes. It gives officers rights to take your animals for 5 days if they feel you shouldnt have them. The facilitys they will be taken to will not be set up to handle exotic animals. Maybe if andrew would reply to me and tell me why he feels the need to do this or any member of usark for that matter. BUt I will be fighting this law and I urge anyone living in south carolina or va to fight as well. South carolina is a great palce to live if you own exotics because we basically have no restrictions and I feel thats the way that should stay. It will ruin our shows in sc. They will be just like the nc shows and the ga shows.

You may disagree with the wording of the particular legislation, but to me it just doesn't seem wise to let any John go buy hots and large constrictors. I think it's actually a good thing for there to be proposals of this sort of legislation in the states that currently have none because it will make reptile keepers in the US as a whole look better to the government (which I might remind you has absolutely NO expertise on our animals, and for the most part thinks they're all evil monsters that are out to get them).

Now I will say that I disagree with a provision that the state be able to take your animals for any length of time, but that could be something the state has requested in the type of legislation. It's really hard to say, but that little piece sounds pretty bad in my book.

But yes, quite honestly I would rather see legislation like this at the state level than a ban at the national level. If the government sees a lot of that they might lay off because it's really expensive to enforce a ban like they're pushing for at the national level. There is going to have to be a compromise somewhere unfortunately. The media and AR psychos have made this far too large of an issue that it really isn't, and most of our politicians lack the capacity to see past that. Would you rather have to pay $50 for a permit, or not be allowed to breed and sell your large constrictors at all?

I understand where you coming from. I have no problem paying a permit fee. But the way this is written right now has to many loopholes. Most of the breeders at our shows are responsible breeders and will not sell hots or large constrictors to anyone under 18.

This is another part of the bill I do not agree with

(B) It is unlawful for a person intentionally or negligently to suggest, entice, invite, challenge, intimidate, exhort, or otherwise induce or aid a person to handle or expose himself in an unsafe manner to a reptile regulated under this chapter.

Yeah, wording like that seems a bit vague and open for interpretation, which is generally not a good thing when concerning your rights. If the state government currently doesn't see an issue, it may not have any affect now, but politicians are only in office so long... I'd suggest trying to have as many herpkeepers in SC as you can get contact USARK and request a revision of the proposal to address some of the potentially damaging wording.

We are setting it up now to fight this. Its currently in the Agriculture and Natural Resources committee. And the bill sponser is

Representative Herb Kirsh
District 47 - York Co.
Contact Address: (H) P.O. Box 31, Clover, 29710

Bus. (803) 222-3701 Home (803) 222-3768
© 503A Blatt Bldg., Columbia, 29201

Bus. (803) 734-3071


So if you live in sc you might want to call. Write letters. Do whatever you can.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Russ Lawson

You may disagree with the wording of the particular legislation, but to me it just doesn't seem wise to let any John go buy hots and large constrictors. I think it's actually a good thing for there to be proposals of this sort of legislation in the states that currently have none because it will make reptile keepers in the US as a whole look better to the government (which I might remind you has absolutely NO expertise on our animals, and for the most part thinks they're all evil monsters that are out to get them).

---

Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible, so I don't agree this will make reptile keepers look any different. Florida has even more restrictive regulations, but that obviously didn't stop that idiot down in Florida from having his python escape and get blamed for killing his step daughter. IMO, I only see negatives:

1) Those who want to destroy the hobby will keep pushing for further, more restrictive legislation. This only makes it easier for them.

2) This vague bill opens up a whole can of worms as far as what safe and responsible handling means. I'm scared to do my presentations at my kids's schools now!

3) Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible owners.

4) Responsible owners will pay the price both literally and figuratively.

5) Another controlling gov't entity needs to be created to enforce the new laws. More tax money, more ill informed gov't workers who could potentially take your snakes, etc.

Also, I don't think it's reasonable to put hots and large constrictors in the same category. Compared to baseball bats, lightning, kitchen knives, cars, and
swimming pools, large constrictor snakes present ZERO risk to the public and only a ridiculously small risk to even to the owners. We might as well make laws banning going outside (to avoid some idiot from going outside in a lightning storm.) :)




Thanks,
Ed

EXCELLENT post ed!

I will never support any legislation that restricts ownership of reptiles based on the idea of dangers they pose to the public.. because there is statistically zero danger to the public.

I will never support any legislation that restricts the rights of individuals to put themselves at risk. I don't want the government protecting me from myself, that's my choice if I wish to engage in dangerous activities.

I will never support any organization that supports any legislation that falls into the above two categories.

I will let USARK know my feelings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I will never support any legislation that restricts ownership of reptiles based on the idea of dangers they pose to the public.. because there is statistically zero danger to the public.

I will never support any legislation that restricts the rights of individuals to put themselves at risk. I don't want the government protecting me from myself, that's my choice if I wish to engage in dangerous activities.

I will never support any organization that supports any legislation that falls into the above two categories.

I will let USARK know my feelings.

---

Maybe they will respond to you!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by natsamjosh

Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible, so I don't agree this will make reptile keepers look any different. Florida has even more restrictive regulations, but that obviously didn't stop that idiot down in Florida from having his python escape and get blamed for killing his step daughter. IMO, I only see negatives:

1) Those who want to destroy the hobby will keep pushing for further, more restrictive legislation. This only makes it easier for them.

2) This vague bill opens up a whole can of worms as far as what safe and responsible handling means. I'm scared to do my presentations at my kids's schools now!

3) Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible owners.

4) Responsible owners will pay the price both literally and figuratively.

5) Another controlling gov't entity needs to be created to enforce the new laws. More tax money, more ill informed gov't workers who could potentially take your snakes, etc.

Also, I don't think it's reasonable to put hots and large constrictors in the same category. Compared to baseball bats, lightning, kitchen knives, cars, and
swimming pools, large constrictor snakes present ZERO risk to the public and only a ridiculously small risk to even to the owners. We might as well make laws banning going outside (to avoid some idiot from going outside in a lightning storm.) :)




Thanks,
Ed

---

Florida also did a pathetic job of informing its general public they were passing ROC laws, but that point is moot. I was angry about them when they passed because now I have to jump through a few more hoops to get dwarf burms and retics. Again I'd rather the state have these laws than an all out ban. I'm not here to argue or anything, I was just trying to point out where USARK might be coming from with this type of legislation. I don't necessarily agree with it the way it is written, but from what I hear, the wording is vague, which i see as a huge negative.

As far as making our enemies' jobs easier, I think state-level legislation could potentially do the opposite. If the federal government sees the states all coming up with their own legislation, they might determine it not to be worth the time or money to enact new laws on the federal level regarding it. At least ideally I can see it working that way. I pretty much agree with you on all of the other points, but having a permitting system in place would at least prevent some irresponsible people from obtaining animals they shouldn't have. Additionally, I don't really see a reason to be deterred from doing demonstrations with your animals as long as you're not doing some thrill show. Educational demonstrations with these animals at schools and such are a very good thing to keep doing as far as I'm concerned. Keep removing bits of the senseless phobias people have about our animals.

Additionally I didn't mean to come off like I was putting hots and large constrictors in the same category. They are very different. Actually neither is a public threat with proper caging. The reason I included the two in the same sentence is because it still takes a certain type of person to properly care for a large constrictor, and I don't think people who just buy them for the fear factor should be keeping them. I do agree with mainbutter about laws "protecting people from themselves" so to speak. They are stupid and unnecessary, and I am entirely opposed to them.

To be honest, I would rather see no more laws restricting the reptile industry passed anywhere. Unfortunately I just can't realistically see that. The media has already blown this far out of proportion into some huge problem. The politicians aren't going to just sit there and this go without passing some law because they think it will make them look good and get them re-elected. It's unfair and unfortunate, but that's just how the system is. The best we can do is do our best to educate them about our animals, and fight every law the crazy AR people bring up.

I wish those of you in SC best of luck fighting to get this thing thrown out or revised, but like I said if it's a $50 permit to keep a large constrictor, it's a compromise I'm willing to take over a potential ban any day.

If we come across as unrealistic and unwilling to compromise, not to mention negligent--we will lose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

If we come across as unrealistic and unwilling to compromise, not to mention negligent--we will lose.

---

And if we make ourselves out to be door mats and give them an inch to prevent them taking a mile, we lose X100. The government should do what it was set out to do, and worry about the Constitution being upheld. I swear the founding fathers would beat them all over the head for ruining what this country was supposed to be all about.

^ People like Hamilton and Adams would disagree.

However, I too believe that there should be state laws in place for required permits to keep large constrictors and hots. This is not going to take my animals away from me, this IS going to show that there are existing laws in place and a national ban is not needed. So you have to jump through a few hoops and pay a few permit fees. Big deal. Try living in another country where 50% of your paycheck goes to socialist programs and then complain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ScottyBoa

^ People like Hamilton and Adams would disagree.

However, I too believe that there should be state laws in place for required permits to keep large constrictors and hots. This is not going to take my animals away from me, this IS going to show that there are existing laws in place and a national ban is not needed. So you have to jump through a few hoops and pay a few permit fees. Big deal. Try living in another country where 50% of your paycheck goes to socialist programs and then complain.

---

That mentality is going to cost you your animals and even your liberty one day. You'll feel safer giving up this for that, this for that, until you have no more to give because you gave it all away. Why not give up a little bit of freedom in exchange for that oh so tangible feeling of security. Thinking that going tit for tat, quid pro quo or vis a vis...whatever you wanna call it...with the government is going to help you keep your animals is foolish. They won't stop. Keep thinking that and one day you can line your rack with the Bill of Rights.


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty or safety..."

Benjamin Franklin

"The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government."

Patrick Henry

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence. It is force. And force, like fire, is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

George Washington

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denial

Maybe they will respond to you!

---

I wrote them an email voicing my concerns and reiterating my personal stances on reptile legislation:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mainbutter

It has been rumored among the reptile keeper community that USARK is being proactive and promoting state-level legislation regulating venomous reptiles and large constrictors in states where no such legislation currently exists.

I feel that, as a reptile keeper who supports USARK in just about all their efforts, I need to bring my concerns (echoed and agreed upon by many in the community) to your attention.

I will never support any federal-level reptile legislation whatsoever.

I will never support any legislation that restricts ownership of reptiles based on the idea of dangers they pose to the public. There is no question that venomous reptiles and large constrictors are inherently dangerous, but even in states with a complete lack of dangerous reptile legislation, there is statistically ZERO risk to the public. If you were to measure the danger of these animals by the history of injuries and deaths, all danger is aimed directly at the keepers, and to a lesser degree those who reside in their household.

I will never support any legislation that restricts the rights of individuals to put themselves at risk. I don't want the government protecting me from myself, that's my choice if I wish to engage in dangerous activities.

I will never support an outright ban on keeping particular species.

I will never support any organization that supports any legislation that falls into the above categories.

I hope that USARK's positions on reptile legislation allows me to continue supporting your organization.

---

I got a prompt response, inviting me to cross post this response as well!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Andrew Wyatt

Peter,

We agree with you completely. I think much of your concern is based on misunderstanding. There are some in the community that have very little comprehension of what is going on around them politically and legislatively. They have been sleeping blissfully while our rights to own reptiles have disappeared. Finally we have a voice and are able to mold our own future instead of having it dictated to us. The same ones who are abusively critical of our efforts are the same ones who did nothing before. Now things are happening because of all the publicity our community has gotten this year. State and Federal government is taking action. Some people are getting scared and blaming USARK for what government and Animal Rights orgs are doing. All we have done is provide a framework for our survival. Nothing that we have proposed would take away a reponsible keepers ability to keep what they want. In fact what we have proposed would secure your ability to keep the herps you want into the indefinate future... including all the big 5, venomous and crocodilians. NO Permits, No FEES, NO Registration, No Microchipping.... Challenge those that are pushing misinformation to show you how anything we have done will stop anyone from keeping the reptiles of their choice. Then bring their answers back to me. I guarantee their accusations won't hold water in the light of day. Feel free to cross post.

Thank you for your support,
Andrew

---

Thanks for posting peter. Although I have not been sleeping blissfully I have been working my ass off calling offices and sending emails and letters I do thank andrew for replying to you and taking the time to reply to email also. I do feel better knowing that usark is not pushing for this bill and it is up to the residents of south carolina. So once again I urge anyone in south carolina to help fight this and continue to live in a state that has basically very few laws regarding what type of pet you may own.