UPDATE: California

UPDATE: California
Los Angeles County: Ordinance to Amend Title 10 – Animals
Proposed regulatory changes in Los Angeles County could have shut down or forced relocation of Reptile & Tropical Fish breeders, dealers and pet stores. Although primarily aimed towards dogs and cats it would have had a devastating impact on the Reptile Nation in LA County.
If enacted the new regulations would have required:

1. Cages would not be allowed to be stacked.
2. 24/7 staffing if have more than 50 animals in the facility. See proposed Section 10.40.010(Z). If less than 50 animals, you must have adequate staffing for at least 8 hours a day. If you have more than 50 fish, reptiles, birds, etc., or any combination thereof, you must staff the facility 24/7.
3. Records must be kept on each "Animal". "Animals" defined in Section 10.08.020 any animal, bird, reptile or fish.
4. Proprietary business information will be available to the public (that could mean Animal Rights groups).
5. The Department may also impose “reasonable conditions” on a breeding license for any non dog or cat breeder.

Click here to read LA County Regulatory Proposal:
http://www.usark.org/uploads/LAcountyRegs.pdf

USARK engaged on this issue at all levels with staff and leadership at LA County Animal Care & Control and Board of Supervisors prior to hearings that were held March 9th & 10th. On March 9th Christine Roscher testified on behalf of USARK. Christine asked that the ordinance be limited to dogs and cats only. As a result The proposed ordinance was removed from the agenda for the LA County Board of Supervisors for March 16, 2010. The ordinance will be re-evaluated by LA County to ensure that animals “other than dogs and cats” are excluded from the requirements, as appropriate.

This information is from Patricia Learned, Executive Assistant to the Director, Department of Animal Care and Control, Marcia Mayeda.
Click here to read USARK testimony in LA County: http://www.usark.org/uploads/LA%20Co...0Testimony.pdf

California Department of Fish & Game: Turtles, Frogs & Heloderma

There will be a hearing to discuss agenda items on April 7th & 8th in Monterey.
Item 21. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO
SECTIONS 671, 671.1, 671.7 AND 703, TITLE 14, CCR, RE: NEW RESTRICTED
SPECIES PERMITS AND REQUIREMENTS. (Helodermas)
Item 25. POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF COMMISSION POLICY, RE: NON-NATIVE FROGS AND
TURTLES (Will not effect Herpetoculture or pets)

USARK has continued to be engaged with the Commission and the Department on these issues. Our Senior California Adviser George Osborn has arranged two high level meetings with the DFG since the hearing last month. We have established USARK as a resource to the Department and have offered our expertise in addressing issues. USARK Director Doug Price will give testimony on both agenda items for the Reptile Nation.

There Is Strength in Numbers... Protect Your Rights! We can win this fight!!

Who thinks of these bills? Comedians? Because keeping tabs on 50 fish and making the store be staffed 24/7 if that have 50+ fish is ridiculous. Thank you for keeping us updated, and for all the work you put in. You are truly saving our hobby.:gj:

Every time you look a new law is proposed to destroy our hobby. It's getting to the point where it's only a matter of time a piece of legislation going to hit us where it hurts. I hope that day doesn't come, but it's getting to that point.

Wow.. Thats crazy..

You guys rule. Thanks for all you do!:salute:

Quote:

---

2. 24/7 staffing if have more than 50 animals in the facility. See proposed Section 10.40.010(Z). If less than 50 animals, you must have adequate staffing for at least 8 hours a day. If you have more than 50 fish, reptiles, birds, etc., or any combination thereof, you must staff the facility 24/7.

---

So I need staff for my tank of guppies? :rofl:

Now, I can say staff would be handy for the goats. However, the wording raises a question. If you're a private owner of say..animals of one species, i.e mice/rats. That falls under the rule of 50 animals. You still need staff?

I apologize for my ignorance; I understand that this is proposed legislation to regulate the hobby of animal husbandry, but I admit that I don't fully understand what's going on.

Living in LA county, this would obviously affect me. Could someone please explain?
sorry for taking your time =\

wow i have more than 50 fish lol
and way more than 50 herps.
and i hold a full time job which at times can be 8hrs-24 hours i still find the time

So, in short, having a single tank of feeder goldfish would require 24/7 staff, including records? Wow. I had no idea goldfish were, let alone any common pet store fish species, were so "out of hand" and required such immediate attention.

This continually reminds me just how much I "love" people. :rolleyes:

Reminds me of this crazy story from England where they had a police sting operation over the sale of goldfish to children under 16 years of age. Wonder if it would ever get to this point around here...

http://video.ca.msn.com/watch/video/...fish/17yvf28pd

I really don't see what so bad about this one...I mean, it's silly that they don't want stacked cages, and want 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. But I think it has some positive things about it too, especially regarding cat and dog breeding. Tighter regulation on that stuff is needed with all the animal cruelty going on, with puppy mills, over breeding, and the like. i don't know if many of you have noticed the animal neglect and cruelty in many different pet stores. having worked in a local pet store I know how the owners see all the animals, they're just trying to make a profit, and if they loose animals due to poor care they just order more and get credit for the lost ones. I'm not saying all pet store chains are like that, around here they are improving. But I don't see what would be so bad about pet stores having to keep records/info on all their animals(all the tiny fish might be difficult, but heck, maybe they can lump species together). I think this would help put value on each individual animal. At the pet store where I worked, we were often under-staffed, and it was really hard to get everything taken care of. I see this bill as an improvement on the way people run businesses that deal in animals. Some bits could be revised, but again, I don't see what's so bad about it. Alright, I'm done rambling, but I'd like to hear some feed back if anyone has it.

I don't see how you can say it is "not so bad". You can't look at laws and because there are some good parts and some bad parts, take the average and say it is neutral. This law, if passed as it was originally written, would have made large numbers of people into criminals, just because they owned a tank of fish, and also had a job, so their fish tank was not staffed 24/7. That is bad! There is no possible other way to look at it!

If tighter regulation is needed on some things to decrease animal cruelty and neglect, then a law should be written that addresses those specific things.

A law that oversteps its bounds as badly as this one did, even though there is absolutely nothing cruel about leaving a fish tank unattended for the majority of the day, is not an acceptable way of dealing with some relatively isolated issues of cruelty or neglect to cats & dogs.

And to clarify, before anyone jumps in and says that the cruelty issues are way too common to be called isolated...they are extremely isolated in comparison to the number of people who would have been turned into criminals due to owning 50 or more fish, or snakes, or rodents, etc. A law that makes more criminals out of "innocent bystanders" than its intended target, is definitely a bad law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oroborous

I really don't see what so bad about this one...I mean, it's silly that they don't want stacked cages, and want 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. But I think it has some positive things about it too, especially regarding cat and dog breeding. Tighter regulation on that stuff is needed with all the animal cruelty going on, with puppy mills, over breeding, and the like. i don't know if many of you have noticed the animal neglect and cruelty in many different pet stores. having worked in a local pet store I know how the owners see all the animals, they're just trying to make a profit, and if they loose animals due to poor care they just order more and get credit for the lost ones. I'm not saying all pet store chains are like that, around here they are improving. But I don't see what would be so bad about pet stores having to keep records/info on all their animals(all the tiny fish might be difficult, but heck, maybe they can lump species together). I think this would help put value on each individual animal. At the pet store where I worked, we were often under-staffed, and it was really hard to get everything taken care of. I see this bill as an improvement on the way people run businesses that deal in animals. Some bits could be revised, but again, I don't see what's so bad about it. Alright, I'm done rambling, but I'd like to hear some feed back if anyone has it.

---

The bill is poorly written. A tank of 50 fish doesn't need 24/7 staff. The max you need to do is feed them and change the filter. Maybe do a partial water change every few months.

I think enforcing the laws they have on the books instead of passing new laws would be a better option. Yes, I'm sure some puppy mills are out there, but isn't that what local animal control is for. This law is just too broad and effects too many industries to be effective.

So, what if a manufacture makes a high quality stacked caging for dogs and cats? What wrong with selling a product which is good for the consumer? If the consumer cares or neglects animals that's a different story.

Also, If your on a budget and can't afford extra help why should you be required to have employees if your capable of caring for your animals yourself. People need to report neglect and this would solve the issue. These are just some of my thoughts on the proposal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

I don't see how you can say it is "not so bad". You can't look at laws and because there are some good parts and some bad parts, take the average and say it is neutral. This law, if passed as it was originally written, would have made large numbers of people into criminals, just because they owned a tank of fish, and also had a job, so their fish tank was not staffed 24/7. That is bad! There is no possible other way to look at it!
.

---

There are plenty of other ways of looking at it.
The bad parts of this bill aren't even that bad. If passed it doesn't say you are a criminal for owning 50 fish in a tank. It's referring to pet stores, and saying they need 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. And if that means 50 tiny fish, that is pretty silly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raptor

The bill is poorly written. A tank of 50 fish doesn't need 24/7 staff. The max you need to do is feed them and change the filter. Maybe do a partial water change every few months.

---

You don't have to tell me, I worked in a pet store in the fish and reptile department. i know the care requirements. And yes, I agree it is silly to have 24/7 staffing for a tank of 50 fish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oroborous

There are plenty of other ways of looking at it.
The bad parts of this bill aren't even that bad. If passed it doesn't say you are a criminal for owning 50 fish in a tank. It's referring to pet stores, and saying they need 24/7 staffing for over 50 animals. And if that means 50 tiny fish, that is pretty silly.

---

Not for owning the fish, but for not having them staffed 24/7. When I read the law, I didn't see anywhere it talked about it only applying to pet stores. It seemed to me it would apply to everyone.

And perhaps I'm mistaken about this, but I thought a criminal was a person who broke a law. And if this law had been passed as originally written, then anyone who owns 50 fish in a tank and does not have staff caring for those 50 fish 24/7 would be breaking the law, and thus a criminal. The law doesn't have to say "you will be a criminal if you don't do this." It just has to say "you must do this," and then if you don't, you become a criminal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

Not for owning the fish, but for not having them staffed 24/7. When I read the law, I didn't see anywhere it talked about it only applying to pet stores. It seemed to me it would apply to everyone.

And perhaps I'm mistaken about this, but I thought a criminal was a person who broke a law. And if this law had been passed as originally written, then anyone who owns 50 fish in a tank and does not have staff caring for those 50 fish 24/7 would be breaking the law, and thus a criminal. The law doesn't have to say "you will be a criminal if you don't do this." It just has to say "you must do this," and then if you don't, you become a criminal.

---

That doesn't make sense friend. Who is gonna come into your home, and regulate whether or not you have 'staff' tending to your 50 fish 24/7? or maybe I'm misunderstanding?:confused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oroborous

That doesn't make sense friend. Who is gonna come into your home, and regulate whether or not you have 'staff' tending to your 50 fish 24/7? or maybe I'm misunderstanding?:confused:

---

You are absolutely right it doesn't make sense! That's why it is (would have been) a bad law.

It doesn't matter whether or not they would have been able to enforce it effectively, and it seems pretty obvious to me that they really weren't aiming it at people with a fish tank or two. That doesn't change the fact that if the law had been passed as written, people who did own 50 or more animals of any kind would have become criminals. Not convicted criminals. But breaking the law makes you a criminal, whether or not you get caught, whether or not the law makes sense. That is what was so extremely bad about the law as it was proposed.

I have read over parts of the bill and stand by my thoughts that it is not bad at all. Particularly section 10.40.010. It's basically requiring people to do for their animals what they should be doing anyway. And if you read through it you'll see it is mainly referring to dogs and cats. And it's all in the LA county, where there are problems with animal neglect and cruelty every day. And agian, if you have more than fifty animals in your home, you're gonna be there more often then not, so the whole staffing thing still doesn't seem to apply there. The last thing I want to say is, the bill doesn't say you are a criminal for owning 50 animals, only if you do not comply with the conditions of the bill, which are things people owning that many animals should be doing already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oroborous

I have read over parts of the bill and stand by my thoughts that it is not bad at all. Particularly section 10.40.010. It's basically requiring people to do for their animals what they should be doing anyway. And if you read through it you'll see it is mainly referring to dogs and cats. And it's all in the LA county, where there are problems with animal neglect and cruelty every day. And agian, if you have more than fifty animals in your home, you're gonna be there more often then not, so the whole staffing thing still doesn't seem to apply there. The last thing I want to say is, the bill doesn't say you are a criminal for owning 50 animals, only if you do not comply with the conditions of the bill, which are things people owning that many animals should be doing already.

---

you're giving the bill too much leeway . Perhaps the intent was good, but that doesn't matter if some of it is terrible. Imagine a bottle of aspirin with "mostly" aspirin but a few cyanide tablets in there...

If you're there "most of the time" you're not there 24/7 and you would be subject to prosecution. This alone is ridiculous. The language is such that it puts people who have done nothing unreasonable at an unnecessary risk. If you decompose the logic, you should see that there are many individual cases that exemplify the failings on a whole. you HAVE to take this at face value and at face value it is ridiculous. Now, perhaps if they referred to JUST cats and dogs they could address this issue, but INDIVIDUAL records for fish? that would take an entire staff of hardworking, incredibly observant employees just to record the information. Can you IMAGINE trying to chart for feeder goldfish? The idea is preposterous.

Wooow, that's nonsense. They should put people who actually know about these things into office.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Auletto

Every time you look a new law is proposed to destroy our hobby. It's getting to the point where it's only a matter of time a piece of legislation going to hit us where it hurts. I hope that day doesn't come, but it's getting to that point.

---

Very true. However, a few things we need to remember are:

1) Do you ever remember a time when the government created bills that actually helped a situation without causing more destruction elsewhere? We have to get used to that fact that this is what governments do. They make feeble attempts at fixing things while not fully understanding the repercussions of their actions. Dems or Repubs. It doesnt matter. I am convinced they are specifically here to make the lives of Americans miserable. They do a wonderful job of it thus far.

2) People fear what they dont understand. This goes for the S373 bill as well. People are grown to fear snakes and reptiles to the point that it takes a true animal lover with an open mind to get past the fears instilled into us as a kid. This is prevalent whenever we get asked "OMG, you have a snake! Does it bite? Arent you scared of its venom?" ::RollsEyes::

People simply are not educated about it, and that creates a cycle of fear we cant escape.

3) I am completely new to the ball python (snakes in general) game. But already i realize it is imperative that we, the educated and open minded, have a responsibility to share and educate what we have learned from these incredible animals to those that "just dont get it".

What i find incredibly humorous about all this is that if people were nearly as docile as ball pythons, the world just might be a better place. Not to mention if people had their picky eating habits we probably wouldnt be leading the world in terms of obesity population.

Yeah, seriously? This thing is just completely absurd. I don't live in CA (thankfully), but I have more than 50 animals here--snakes and geckos. They are so low-maintenance that on some days all I have to do is run through with a quick check to make sure no one has spilled their water. 24/7 staffing...for what?

For anyone that thinks allowing government more and more control of your everyday llife, you really need a reality check. What is the purpose of this law? If it's to assure the "animals" are being kept properly, I'm sure there are more than enough laws on the books to guide oour lawmakers. If it's being considered to control the citizens even more than they already are, then of course this is wrong.

California government has a history of needing to guide their citzens in their everyday life, so I'm unsure of their reasoning behind this bill.

But if you like being told what to do, then you will not see anything wrong with this bill.

If this is the case, then you will get what you deserve.
Jim Smith