Question for all the "exotic" keepers on here....

Please understand I am in no way making judgements one way or another....

But I am reading a lot of threads on here with people railing against rules, laws, and regulations of any sort.

I guess my question is ultimately this...is there any one on this site that does actually believe and support regulations of some sort?

While what much of what is being discussed and what people are trying to pass is completely ridiculous...

I for one don't want people who are obviously incapable (in any way shape or form) keeping 35 large predatory cats and a bunch of grizzly bears (just for an extreme example). Don't we (not as reptile keepers) but simple humans have some sort of responsibility to regulate people when they themselves refuse to do so and their lack of judgement or ability gets peopled killed?


Constructive, thoughtful comments are appreciated...I am just thinking out loud here so to speak. Ditch the negativity and attacks at the door please :D:P

My take: How many "exotic" pets kill people other than their owners? Especially compared to accidental deaths by dogs and horses? No government body, group of people, or individual person has the right to dictate to me how I choose to run and/or risk my life, unless they can show PROOF that my choices create a strong threat of bodily harm to another human being that does not have the capacity to avoid that risk (e.g. letting hots roam loose in a room where my children play - extreme example). Blanket laws do not address the real problem, which is typically a lack of education and information for all parties involved.

I think permits, formal training for dealing with, and enclosure requirements would be a good idea for keeping hots and giants.

I'll probably get bashed now! LOL

Also, who is to say what size is the minimum for a giant. Is a 5 foot corn snake a giant? I bet some people would see a 5 foot anything and think it was a pretty big snake.


Never looked into it, but I think there are states with regs on hots, etc...


I'm interested to see what others think.


GOOD THREAD!!!

I do believe that some animals have no business being 'pets' for various reasons. I also don't believe in big blanket bans of exotic pets unless there's a really good reason for it. Before getting back into reptiles I had a background in rescues, so I definitely hate seeing idiots causing abuse and neglect to animals.

I think that pet ownership in general should be a privilege and not a right...I wish parenthood was the same way, TBH :rolleyes: People do all sorts of terrible things to non-exotic pets and those non-exotic pets can be just as 'dangerous' to the environment and other people as people think 'big bad' everglades burms are.

I'm not really sure what point I'm trying to make, just thinking out loud :) I love animals of all sorts and wish there were more repercussions for people who abuse the privilege of owning pets.

I think the government has enough to do without sticking its nose into everybody's business. I am sick of government trying to save us from ourself. It's kinda like warning labels on meat and poultry. Really? Shouldn't that be intuitive? And if a person in stupid enough to bring home a gaboon viper and does not know what they are doing so be it.. it thin's out the gene pool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OsirisRa32

Please understand I am in no way making judgements one way or another....

But I am reading a lot of threads on here with people railing against rules, laws, and regulations of any sort.

I guess my question is ultimately this...is there any one on this site that does actually believe and support regulations of some sort?

While what much of what is being discussed and what people are trying to pass is completely ridiculous...

I for one don't want people who are obviously incapable (in any way shape or form) keeping 35 large predatory cats and a bunch of grizzly bears (just for an extreme example). Don't we (not as reptile keepers) but simple humans have some sort of responsibility to regulate people when they themselves refuse to do so and their lack of judgement or ability gets peopled killed?


Constructive, thoughtful comments are appreciated...I am just thinking out loud here so to speak. Ditch the negativity and attacks at the door please :D:P

---

I would support regulations............. if you could show examples of any government doing anything at all efficiently and with fair balance. Is your example not an illustration of utter failure of already existing regulations. i.e. Mental health and protective custody laws.
The SPCA is no better, instead I prefer to support independent community no-kill shelters.
Then there are groups like PETA, responsible for more animal suffering and death than you'd ever believe. Those grade-A scumbags would stomp on a kittens head and make a video of it if they thought it would get them more donations.

Forget regulations, I've always wanted a mountain lion as a pet. I understand that it could kill me but you know what, that's my own choice. I know the consequences and am willing to deal with them. I don't need someone else trying to tell me I can't have something I've always wanted. Besides, it's not like they're exotic anyway, just big. Lol.

- - - - - - - - I am not for regulations. I am for responsible animal keeping - - - - - - - -

- Exotic is in the eye of the beholder. Some think I'm crazy because I have 3 small non-venomous snakes. I think people who have 5 dogs are crazy. Is a fluffy Russian Pomeranian not an exotic animal? A Pit bull dog is a "hybrid" of 4 or 5 different breeds. Exotic?
-I don't need any government trying to protect me from myself. Darwinism will take care of the careless. The responsible keepers don't need anyone telling them how many or what kind of pets they can own/collect as long as they are doing things right and not infringing on the rights of or endangering others.

Let's stir the pot here a bit:

First and foremost (in principle):

I favor regulations because they protect animals from many of the idiots who own them and have no idea how to care for them or who view them as disposable.

I favor regulations that favor dedicated keepers.

I favor regulations that are not trojan horses for animal right's groups to in turn impose their regulations and values on me.

I favor regulations that protect my ability to keep exotics - specifically by limiting the ability of others (who may do this hobby harm) to keep them.

Here's the rub: the problem is that those regulations must come from within the hobby - not from grandstanding, knee-jerking, glad handing politicians. Those regulations must be imposed by dedicated keepers in order to protect a specialty subsect of exotics from not-so-dedicated keepers. Those regulations must not be wielded as weapons by animal "welfare" groups via future amendments.

The problem is that such a set of regulations cannot exist in this society, with this government and with a law enacting system that allows for good bills to be gradually amended, twisted and turned bad.

Therefore, because a perfect set of regulations cannot be sustained in our society, I am forced to oppose regulations - even if it means that animals will suffer, that welfare groups will be given a steady stream of propaganda and even if it means that someday, my rights may disappear via a draconian set of regulations imposed on me.

Honestly, I think it depends.
It depends on the animals and on the regulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSnakeGuy

- - - - - - - - I am not for regulations. I am for responsible animal keeping - - - - - - - -

- Exotic is in the eye of the beholder. Some think I'm crazy because I have 3 small non-venomous snakes. I think people who have 5 dogs are crazy. Is a fluffy Russian Pomeranian not an exotic animal? A Pit bull dog is a "hybrid" of 4 or 5 different breeds. Exotic?
-I don't need any government trying to protect me from myself. Darwinism will take care of the careless. The responsible keepers don't need anyone telling them how many or what kind of pets they can own/collect as long as they are doing things right and not infringing on the rights of or endangering others.

---

An exotic animal from a veterinary stand point is anything that is not a companion animal(dog/cat) or a large animal (horses/livestock, etc).

There are exotic dog breeds, but they are not considered exotic animals. They are still dogs.

Anything found in a Petco is 'exotic'. Rats, fish, birds, guinea pigs, ferrets, mice, and reptiles included etc etc are all exotic. Critters found in zoos can are termed exotic.

How about permits, regulations and training before people pop out kids? :D

Raising and letting them out into the public could be just as bad as forgetting to lock the tigers cage.

Honestly, there are some good regulations and some that are just ridiculous. Let's be honest, without protecting most of the human race from their own stupidity, there would be a lot less overpopulation...

Like many others, I agree with looking at the problem and trying to find a way to treat that without blanket legislation. I live in a location where pretty much all snakes are banned but yet I still keep them and even volunteer at our local human society doing reptile educational programs. Seeing as the animal control officer for my area has held my animals, knows I have them, and does not say anything, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. This isn't the case in many areas, however. Let's look at this logically for a moment.

The problem: Lack of education and distribution of misinformation whether with good or ill intent. It is not the snakes, tarantulas, scorpions, or even dogs fault that people misunderstand them. However, they are the ones who get blamed. There are more stories about how exotics are dangerous than I care to think about and those are the ones many people tend to remember.

The solution: Education, education, education. As nice as it is to teach children about these animals, let's face it, the kids in that elementary school where you just taught them about how friendly snakes can be are not the ones making the laws. Veterinarians, human society workers, pet shop employees (they are distributing false information to customers which in turn makes the hobby look bad which is why they are on this list), and anyone holding a government office and making decisions regarding our hobby needs to be informed. They will not go out and seek that information on their own in most cases so we must be proactive. Is it fair? Not even remotely but if we continue to wait to fight until the legislation is proposed, we put ourselves behind the 8 ball so to speak. Every single one of us needs to take the time and educate those around us whenever possible. I will happily spend an extra hour (and have more than I care to admit) working with a pet shop employee to explain proper ball python care to them. I show off my snakes pictures and when faced with that horrified expression we've all seen from people who think we're crazy, I'll calmly ask them why they dislike snakes to open the discussion. Patience along with being proactive will get us a lot further than fighting like a cornered animal once the bills are introduced. Even by informing your next door neighbor about your animals and how they can be wonderful pets will mean one more person in your corner even if they don't choose to keep them themselves. This is the power of education. Don't underestimate it.

The exceptions: Anything that really can be a true danger to society. Don't get me wrong, I feel that private owners should have the right to own hots, big cats, etc. I also feel that those people should go through training, pass a test, and have their enclosures/keeping practices examined. Any idiot can buy a tiger in Missouri for example. Unfortunately, that animal should not have to suffer because that person shouldn't own it in the first place. It can be a danger to others should it get loose. With proper legislation regarding licensing and education, fewer animals would suffer without taking away the ability to own these creatures. Honestly, I would even be willing to take a class and get a license to own my ball pythons and corns if that's what it took despite them not being truly dangerous.

All that being said and done, I admit that I ignore the laws regarding exotics in my area which state I may not own them. I also would not condone owning anything dangerous such as hots, primates, big cats, etc. without proper education and licensing. In my city, the law is written as such:

(3) Keeping Wild and Exotic Animals Prohibited. (a) No person shall keep, maintain or have in such person’s possession or under such person’s control any poisonous reptile, dangerous or wild animal or insect, including, but not limited to, poisonous insects and arachnids, all poisonous snakes, constrictor snakes, any snake exceeding four (4) feet in length, non-human primates, bears, crocodiles, alligators, coyotes, elephants, gamecocks and other fighting birds, hippopotami, hyenas, jaguars, leopards, lions, lynx, pumas, cougars,
mountain lions, panthers, ocelots, tigers, or other wild feline species, wolf hybrids and wolves.
(b) Exceptions. The prohibitions set forth in subsection (a) shall not apply to licensed pet shops, zoological gardens, public or private educational institutions, circuses and professional animal acts or other shows requiring an entertainment activity license required by sec. 12.07 of this Municipal Code;

Considering that means ALL snakes (let's face it, they either are venomous or constrict to kill), tarantulas, and scorpions are illegal, I will continue fighting with education and hope to someday step in front of our city council to have this law amended to more reasonable standards. I also realize that change takes time but I will take that time and risk to ensure a better future for our hobby.

Your local laws show the problem. Lack of education. Rules are being made by people that have no clue what the problem is so finding a solution is impossible. They state no poisonous snakes so that limits you from owning a Rhabdophis snake but not a pygmy rattlesnake. They use these blanket terms and statements without knowing the damage it does because they have no working knowledge of the hobby.

I will support any rule or regulation that makes sense and is just.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jason Bowden

I think permits, formal training for dealing with, and enclosure requirements would be a good idea for keeping hots and giants.

I'll probably get the $**%%^ bashed out of me now! LOL

Also, who is to say what size is the minimum for a giant. Is a 5 foot corn snake a giant? I bet some people would see a 5 foot anything and think it was a pretty big snake.


Never looked into it, but I think there are states with regs on hots, etc...


I'm interested to see what others think.


GOOD THREAD!!!

---

Hots are banned in CA except for zoos, (or zoo permit holders, ie; private zoos), educational/research institutions, and licensed zoological importers, (who may only sell hots to the aforementioned institutions). Bigs are relatively unregulated except for certain localities such as LA which requires a City license for any type of animal the deem as "exotic" and not already banned by state or federal law, and that includes all types of reptiles. The licenses are relatively easy to obtain, but they limit the number of animals that can be kept and the species allowed, and sometimes require inspections, (native reptiles are considered "exotics" too). Though many in LA do keep herps without permits, if caught the fines can be stiff, and the animals can be confiscated. However, native reptiles can be kept if the holder has a valid State Fishing License as well as the City permit, though natives cannot be sold, (but captive bred babies of wild-caught natives can be sold). Having been in both the retail and wholesale sides of the pet business in LA for some time, I learned first-hand about those "exotics" licenses, and was inspected several times, (but never cited).

I do think hots should be restricted to some extent, and possibly bigs, but if the keeper shows proper experience and facilities, (via inspections), then so be it. Handling hots is a tense, nervy and dangerous activity, and I remember every single time I did it...I wouldn't recommend it for "hobbyists". I also was always in places with all required safety precautions close at hand, including back-up personnel and antivenin. Doing any otherwise is inviting disaster, believe it....it's just a matter of when! As to bigs, back-up personnel with some experience should be available any time snakes bigger than 12' are handled, that's just common sense, (not matter how "tame" and acclimated they are). I pulled a 13' Burmese off an employee who had been bit and constricted around the arms and legs and fell to the floor in a lump of snake/kid with the big snake locked on his forearm. If I hadn't been there and knew what to do, a bad situation could have been a tragic situation. The kid required stitches, antibiotics, and weeks of physical therapy, but it could have been worse. The snake also suffered some jaw damage from having his mouth pried open by me trying to extricate the kid's arm......he pulled teeth out of his arm for weeks afterward. and looked like he had been attacked by a crazed wire brush. No mater how much we trust our snakes we can't forget that they are indeed wild animals, the may adapt well to captivity, but they are still wild.

S

The danger that pets in general cause the public is so miniscule.

I agree with alot of what skiploder said, especially that I really dislike animals being treated terribly from irresponsible owners.

I do not think that any animal is too dangerous to be kept as a pet if kept responsibly. I cringe everytime I turn on animal planet and see folks hugging a lion and saying "he loves me he would never attack me". Animals are just that, animals, and you have to respect the power and instincts they have.

I do not favor any governmental regulations at all. I think as a community we can solve all of the problems we have if given the time to do so.

The main problems I see with our trade are the following: 1.) Inexperienced people getting their hands on animals they are not ready for. 2.) Not having an enforcement wing of the BOI to be able to extract money from peoples accounts who scam others. 3.) Not having a offline BOI for expos

Number 1 can be solved by breeders and through the BOI. Don't purchase from folks that you know peddle african rocks to inexperienced keepers.

Number 2 could be setting up a section on fauna, bush league, kingsnake etc where you put money down in a interaction which is held until the deal is checked off as completed by both members of the deal. If the deal is not checked and a complaint is issued then it is taken to the BOI, the person who is caught scamming gets that money automatically extracted from the classified account and it is sent to the victim.

Number 3. We really need a way to get scum out of expos. I'm not sure if this is implemented elsewhere in the country but I can tell you that on the east coast it is not. I would really like to see an expo with its own "regulators" who go around and check tables for signs of neglect or improper care. Also I would like to see expos actually do an online search of the folks who will be vending and if any show up with a BOI they are banned from the expo. I am sure responsible keepers dread going to an expo only to infect their collection with mites or worse. Also, who the hell wants a bunch of beat up animals next to their table which looks flawless anyway. The folks that bring busted up animals to expos make the entire hobby look bad and then expos set up a principle that it is ok to have animals in that condition by allowing them to vend there. This does not send a good message to new folks who are just now getting into the hobby. /rant off

Most of these problems are already being solved though, the BOI works great. The market is slowly weeding out the scum that dont keep animals properly as 95+% of us take great pride in clean, well taken care of animals. This forces others to compete with that cleanliness and creates a new status quo for breeding animals.

Regulations to make peope responsible owners and do things right. I don't think some regulations would be bad. Some animals can be dangerous(IMO).
Did someone say mountain lion? Uh, I have small children.
Venomous snake? You crazy! LOL I know some of you have them. Be careful!
Very hard to make every one happy. But, I don't want a venomous snake to escape into my neighborhood and bite a unsuspecting person.
So, maybe there needs to be a reg/requirement for the type of enclosure you can keep a hot in. Just roll it around.

I hate the extremes! I can't imagine a world where a person can't keep a gold fish.

Assault weapons. There was a time before gun powder. Plenty of killing went on.

I agree with regulation for most of the reasons mentioned here. Here's where I stand specifically:

-Kids under 18 shouldn't be able to purchase giant snakes or venomous without their parents signing off that THEY'RE the ones responsible until the keeper is 18 and understand what the animal is going to turn into when their kid decides they're bored with it or realize they can't take it to their college dorm with them. "Oh it's just a little snake in an aquarium" should never be a reason someone is allowed to get a pet. They should have to sign a document understanding that the animal will weigh more than they do at some point and be unsafe to handle alone (moooommmm, will you help me take out my 130 lb snake so I can pick up its turd that's larger than the dog).

-Some animals are not fit for pets. Please don't confuse that statement with saying people shouldn't be allowed to have them, they just shouldn't fit under a word like 'pet' and therefore should require some kind of screening and regulation of their keeping. Of all of the animals under the title of herps, I'd actually say monitor lizards fit my reasoning best. The main point of that reasoning is their intelligence and specialized needs, not their size or 'destructive powers'. Second on that list would be venomous snakes and third would be the largest constrictors. Those last 2 would simply be because I think they require specialized enough care that there should be a screening or regulation process behind keeping them, for the sake of the animal and not the keeper.

It'd be great to make people get a permit to have a human child but it will never happen - so that point is really derailing the thread or trying to compare an apple to an orange to make it look rotten. Its sound logic objectively, but not sound logic in the context of the reality of our society.

To address the OP, I think actually a huge amount of people on here support some kind of regulation.

What you see people bashing is regulation by some idiot that thinks he's smart because he's in politics raving some nonsense about 'ban everything that's not a cat, dog, or goldfish' despite cats being the most destructive invasive species since humans, dogs being one of the most dangerous pets you can possibly own, and goldfish supporting some of the worst habitat destruction and population devastation seen in the pet trade.

Lots of good thoughts coming up in the posts!

Glad a lot of us are chiming in on this.


Do the keepers need to be regulated? Maybe so!
One of my locaL snake buddies(grits) was vending at our local Repticon show recently. He had several baby burms for sale. We were talking about some of the people that were interested and buying them.
He had refused to sell to some of the people interested in them. One of the people turned down was a 17 year old young man. Several questins were asked him: Do you have snakes? Have you had snakes in the past? Do you know what kind of snake this is? Replies: No No No
grits(Beanie) would not sell this guy the snake/burm. Research was recommended. Also some other 1st snakes were recommended including ball pythons, etc...

Burms are beautiful. Burms are gentle. I love them, but i don't think most people should keep them, or "maybe" not be allowed to keep them. IDK
If burms didn't get as big, I would definately have one.

I saw "keeping scum out of expos/the industry" mentioned. I agree! And think highky of venders, like Beanie, not selling exotics to unprepared potential owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrLang

I agree with regulation for most of the reasons mentioned here. Here's where I stand specifically:

-Kids under 18 shouldn't be able to purchase giant snakes or venomous without their parents signing off that THEY'RE the ones responsible until the keeper is 18 and understand what the animal is going to turn into when their kid decides they're bored with it or realize they can't take it to their college dorm with them. "Oh it's just a little snake in an aquarium" should never be a reason someone is allowed to get a pet. They should have to sign a document understanding that the animal will weigh more than they do at some point and be unsafe to handle alone (moooommmm, will you help me take out my 130 lb snake so I can pick up its turd that's larger than the dog).

-Some animals are not fit for pets. Please don't confuse that statement with saying people shouldn't be allowed to have them, they just shouldn't fit under a word like 'pet' and therefore should require some kind of screening and regulation of their keeping. Of all of the animals under the title of herps, I'd actually say monitor lizards fit my reasoning best. The main point of that reasoning is their intelligence and specialized needs, not their size or 'destructive powers'. Second on that list would be venomous snakes and third would be the largest constrictors. Those last 2 would simply be because I think they require specialized enough care that there should be a screening or regulation process behind keeping them, for the sake of the animal and not the keeper.

It'd be great to make people get a permit to have a human child but it will never happen - so that point is really derailing the thread or trying to compare an apple to an orange to make it look rotten. Its sound logic objectively, but not sound logic in the context of the reality of our society.

---

What effect would signing in regulations for an owning age have? I don't think age is ever the defining characteristic of ignorance and I'm sure plenty of parents would sign off for the animal as well. Also, why age 18?

I'm not sure I follow the pet paragraph. Could you define "pet"? I'd define the word "pet" as any animal kept in captivity. With that definition I'd stand by my above statement, any animal that is cared for and respected properly is a fine pet, everything from a single celled organism all the way up to a blue whale. Obviously the reality of people wanting to own those two extremes is non existant for a myriad of reasons. Now if we are talking about "pet" being defined as something you can cuddle, then no, a venemous does not fall into that definition.

And I'm not sure I get the last paragraph either. If that statement is sound logic objectively then I dont understand "in the context of the reality of our soceity". Logic is objective whether soceity or individuals within that soceity want to accept it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slitherous

Hots are banned in CA except for zoos, (or zoo permit holders, ie; private zoos), educational/research institutions, and licensed zoological importers, (who may only sell hots to the aforementioned institutions).

S

---

Actually, there is one hot snake that is legal to own.
You can legally own albino Western Diamondback rattlers in CA. You don't need to be a zoo or educational/research group to possess one. The reason is if they ever do get out, they are native and won't invade or disrupt local wildlife and environments. Plus being albino makes them a huge target for predators, so they are often eliminated anyway.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

What effect would signing in regulations for an owning age have? I don't think age is ever the defining characteristic of ignorance and I'm sure plenty of parents would sign off for the animal as well. Also, why age 18?

---

Age is not a defining characteristic of ignorance but you're not fooling anyone to say it isn't hugely correlated. That's not even my point though... let me explain. In this situation, a legally defined minor has to have parental permission for everything else they do. In the case of someone over 18, they should still have to be legally required to sign off that they understand the potential for the animal they're purchasing. How many burmese pythons have been sold by sheisty salesmen who tell the customer that they can live in an aquarium their whole life and don't grow more than 6 feet? The idea here is to make it a legal requirement to inform the buyer of the potential of the animal they're purchasing through a standardized process and set of information. For someone who can't sign a legal document anyway (a minor) the responsibility falls on the legal guardian just like in any other situation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

I'm not sure I follow the pet paragraph. Could you define "pet"? I'd define the word "pet" as any animal kept in captivity. With that definition I'd stand by my above statement, any animal that is cared for and respected properly is a fine pet, everything from a single celled organism all the way up to a blue whale. Obviously the reality of people wanting to own those two extremes is non existant for a myriad of reasons. Now if we are talking about "pet" being defined as something you can cuddle, then no, a venemous does not fall into that definition.

---

People keep bears and elephants at zoos. I wasn't looking to redefine the word pet or even argue definition. Think of it as a concept for the sake of what I'm trying to convey. Livestock animals, for instance, require permits. They're not defined as 'pets'. What makes them different? The same set of qualities I'm referencing: specialization of care, high care requirements, ability to devastate natural populations. Maybe it's a trade thing, but it [removal from the category of 'pet'] should be based on the specialized care requirements. Dogs fit under this in my opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

And I'm not sure I get the last paragraph either. If that statement is sound logic objectively then I dont understand "in the context of the reality of our soceity". Logic is objective whether soceity or individuals within that soceity want to accept it or not.

---

I know that logic is defined as objective. It's not a reasonable argument to make in the US at this time. Go to somewhere like some places in Asia where human population has broken the threshold of government regulation and this argument becomes valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrLang

Age is not a defining characteristic of ignorance but you're not fooling anyone to say it isn't hugely correlated. That's not even my point though... let me explain. In this situation, a legally defined minor has to have parental permission for everything else they do. In the case of someone over 18, they should still have to be legally required to sign off that they understand the potential for the animal they're purchasing. How many burmese pythons have been sold by sheisty salesmen who tell the customer that they can live in an aquarium their whole life and don't grow more than 6 feet? The idea here is to make it a legal requirement to inform the buyer of the potential of the animal they're purchasing through a standardized process and set of information. For someone who can't sign a legal document anyway (a minor) the responsibility falls on the legal guardian just like in any other situation.

People keep bears and elephants at zoos. I wasn't looking to redefine the word pet or even argue definition. Think of it as a concept for the sake of what I'm trying to convey. Livestock animals, for instance, require permits. They're not defined as 'pets'. What makes them different? The same set of qualities I'm referencing: specialization of care, high care requirements, ability to devastate natural populations. Maybe it's a trade thing, but it [removal from the category of 'pet'] should be based on the specialized care requirements. Dogs fit under this in my opinion.

I know that logic is defined as objective. It's not a reasonable argument to make in the US at this time. Go to somewhere like some places in Asia where human population has broken the threshold of government regulation and this argument becomes valid.

---

I have not experienced that first hand. I have noticed that in general kids are more mature then their parents and that those kids who are not mature are parented by ignorant parents. Just because minors are legally required to get parental permission for everything else they do does not mean that they "should" be required to also get parental permission to own an animal or that those existing laws for "everything else" are logical to begin with. My position here again melts down to seller responsibility, BOIs, and ostracism from economic transactions. Also, what would it matter to make it a legal requirement to inform the buyer? Scumbags are still simply not going to do it surely. If they are only interested in peddling animals for quick cash and they purposefully omit the animals size to make that money, why then would they change there mind? Are these regulations even enforceable? Who is going to carry them out? What are the penalties for non-compliance?

Without defining pet you open a pandoras box of infinite possibilities of regulation and illogic. Who is to say what constitutes "specialization of care, high care requirements, and the ability to devastate natural populations"? I agree the last one is objective but these animals ability to devastate natural populations is a problem of the commons to begin with. The others are purely subjective depending on each individuals living arrangement and commitment. And again, all of this to solve what problem exactly? I'd say 95+% of breeders are doing things legit and those that are not are being weeded out through BOI, captive reptiles kill one person every 2 years and it is always the keeper. The devestation of the ecosystems is a problem of the commons which can not fully be solved at the moment however it is being handled by the local population.

I can purchase a retic right now, but I can't purchase a burm! Anyone else find this ridiculous! I do believe that ownership of such animals should only be given to those who show experience and knowledge within the hobby. Educate people don't tell them what they can and can not do. People are resourceful and if interaction with some type of wild animal is something they desire you can almost guarantee that at least a handful of those will find a way to attain that animal. If blanket laws didn't leave people in the dark pertaining to the education and the nature of those animals I believe people would better understand what it is they want and it might help to weed out the impulsive exotics buyers who only want a wild animal (that he/she more then likely can not take care of) because they were told that they couldn't have said animal. I believe in regulations I just believe that the current regulations that we have don't address the issues and over all suck. :/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herpenthusiast3

I can purchase a retic right now, but I can't purchase a burm! Anyone else find this ridiculous! I do believe that ownership of such animals should only be given to those who show experience and knowledge within the hobby. Educate people don't tell them what they can and can not do. People are resourceful and if interaction with some type of wild animal is something they desire you can almost guarantee that at least a handful of those will find a way to attain that animal. If blanket laws didn't leave people in the dark pertaining to the education and the nature of those animals I believe people would better understand what it is they want and it might help to weed out the impulsive exotics buyers who only want a wild animal (that he/she more then likely can not take care of) because they were told that they couldn't have said animal. I believe in regulations I just believe that the current regulations that we have don't address the issues and over all suck. :/

---

You live in Northern California - right?

Why can't you purchase a burm?

Without reading the whole thread because frankly, I'm really not in the mood...

My $0.02 about "protecting" people from owning dangerous animals that could kill them, i.e. hots or giant constrictors, big cats, bears, whatever...

Are you also going to say that people can no longer enjoy dirt biking? Horseback riding? Car racing? Bicycling? Hang-gliding or sky-diving or flying a small plane... drinking? Smoking? Eating anything but human kibble specially formulated so you don't get overweight? Owning a dog? Owning large furniture that may fall on them? Ban soda machines, swing sets, skates, skateboards, surfing, heck- swimming at ALL, and so on and so forth?

You can NOT make the world a perfectly safe place and just because to ME, racing a dirt bike along mountain trails seems like something only a suicidal crazy person would do, doesn't mean I have the right to tell you that it's no longer allowed as an activity because you could get hurt or killed and it's just too dangerous because not only you would be in danger, but bystanders or hikers who you might run over or land on when you go off a cliff.

Adults have a right to pursue happiness and if that means owning a big stupid yellow lab that might knock them down accidentally and cause brain damage... or owning a live rattlesnake... or going sky diving... that's their choice.

Plus, any owner is ALREADY legally liable for any damage or harm caused by their animals. If my cow escaped the pasture and jumps in front of a car, I'm liable for the damage to the car and injury to the driver. It's no different if my dog runs out and bites someone. It's not different if it's a ferret, a gerbil, a horse, a bull or an elephant.

As long as it's zoned for livestock, anyone can go out and buy a cow or horse. There's no permit to buy a horse. It can cause more harm to people than any constrictor snake, and by history, has killed more people in a year than all the nonvenomous reptiles have... ever.

There's usually some regulations regarding containment of certain species. Basically they boil down to "Don't let it get loose and cause havok." We don't need more regulations, and regulations that are passed will not be good for pet owners nor for the general public.

I'm a huge right wing conservative in general. The less government involvement the better. I will say this. I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership, however I do agree with the CURRENT legislation in Michigan. Meaning if you do not have a cpl you need to go to your local pd and pass a short exam, once the exam is passed you receive 4 cards. One goes to the gun dealer, one stays with you and two are for the local pd data base (for handguns only.) I like this because it eliminates impulse buys and people who won't pass a basic back ground check. If you hold a cpl you can buy any thing you want right away with no need to register. I have no problem with this being done in the exotic world. A simple permit before you are allowed to buy I believe would eliminate a lot of irresponsible exotic owners. You can't just got to an expo and buy something without at the very least putting some thought into it. Won't be 100% effective but maybe a step in the right direction.Just my 2 cents

I might actually like it if there were some sort of class/training I could take in order to become a "certified reptile keeper" or something like that. I don't think everyone should be REQUIRED to take this class, especially if they have just a pet turtle or a pet corn snake... But if you are really getting in to keeping and breeding reptiles, I feel like there should be some sort of test to make sure you are fit for the job. Similarly to how you have to take an exam before you get your drivers license. Having a license would make me feel more official and less like a "backyard breeder". As long as it didn't cost an arm and a leg, I think a lot of people would go for that. Similarly to how many responsible gun owners are completely for having background checks for gun sales.

Prohibition is never the answer and only causes public outrage. Regulation isn't a bad idea, but I think all the current legislation in the pipes is all BS. These people don't know what they are talking about and are so misguided.

In many instances, Education can eliminate the need for Legislation. The difficulty lies with coordinating the information and finding outlets and avenues to reach all those that would need to be reached, in an efficient and economical way. Legislation is usually initiated in a reactive way to some isolated occurance or sometimes multiple occurances, as was the case in the Ohio ban. But in the end the laws don't really correct the problem. It simply allows the majority, to feel comforted that the situation is resolved, until the next incident occurs and causes another response.

As a very extreme example, look at the Sandy Hook incident. Think of the number of different crimes that the shooter could have been charged with had he been captured. (Murder, Theft, Breaking and Entering, Transporting a loaded weapon, Firing a gun in city limits, etc.) and the list goes on and on. In each instance a law had been broken. So now, show me how another law would have prevented it since none of the ones that were broken, did.

Applying that logic to the reptile world, how will more regs solve the problem. People will break the laws and do stupid things if they want too. There is no way around that and no amount of laws or regulations, short of a total ban, will stop them. And even a total ban won't gaurantee there aren't any problems. Can anyone here say heroin? Its a banned substance but it still causes a great deal of trouble. But more education will prevent the majority of people acting or reacting out of ignorance. And, it doesn't require more laws or regulations in order to educate. Think of how many people smoke today (as a percentage of the total) versus the numbers that used to. That reduction has not been a result of legislation, but education. Informed people will often choose not to smoke. And just so you smokers don't think I'm picking on you. I smoked for 15 years. But I started when there was alot less information available then there is today. Just my 0.02

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3skulls

How about permits, regulations and training before people pop out kids? :D

Raising and letting them out into the public could be just as bad as forgetting to lock the tigers cage.

---

im glad im not the only one who's ever thought of this!! lol

I'm with you Wolfy but look at what some cities are trying to do with large fountain drinks and super sizing meals.

I don't think a class is going to solve anything. The government would not know what needs to be taught and like most government programs it would turn out to be a colossal waste of money. It would also just be another hoop for responsible owners to jump through while the irresponsible owners continue doing whatever they want to do without care. It's just like adding more gun control. You and I will follow the rules but the criminals will not.

I think much more responsibility should be taken by the buyer but sometimes the seller as well. I am not saying that sellers should require a test or home check but like the earlier example of just talking to a guy wanting a burm and finding out he knows nothing about them. That is a good decision not to make that sell but I'm sure we all know of a situation where the buyer was sold something they had no business owning, yet.

However much of the problem in that situation is the buyer. Before I buy anything I research it. I've been researching a pacman frog for two months just to make sure I'm ready for the commitment. Plenty of post here are asking advice about a possible addition to the collection, that's great. It makes me so angry when people get certain breeds of dogs because they are pretty or cute only to find out that it is a hyper breed that does not do well in an apartment so they put it on craigslist. I think that information is easily available today and there is no excuse for not being a knowledgeable buyer.

Just like the fountain drink I think government should leave us alone with the things they are currently trying to get done. I'm not fat, I workout, and I can't remember the last time I had a fountain drink but if tomorrow I want a 90oz Dr Pepper I think I should be able to buy one. I really doubt America started it's weight problem with a large drink. The reptile committee as a whole is a great place with great people. We prove that on this forum everyday with people helping other people. But with any large group we have a few that do dumb things that give the hobby a black eye and open the door for rules and regulations that hurt the whole group.

I am not fully supportive of certain species being kept as pets, but IF someone is going to keep those animals as pets (for example.... a Siberian Tiger), I believe there should be some regulation ensuring the animal's enclosure is adequate to keep it confined and thus prevent escape. This is not only for the general public's safety, but for the animal's safety as well. There's more to it than that, but at the moment I can't put much more thought into it. I view "exotic" pets in a similar way to more mainstream pets. I am against breed specific legislation that regulates or bans specific breeds of dog, but I am for leash laws and ensuring adequate housing. I would really like to see similar laws for cats (i.e. keep them confined in some manner, it really is possible). I wish there was more that could be done about preventing people from releasing exotic animals, but that's a problem with the public not the animals in question, and banning those species will not stop the problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

You live in Northern California - right?

Why can't you purchase a burm?

---

I can find a local pet store or ad for a burm but I can no longer find my dream burm and have him sent to me due to the fact that they can't sell over state lines anymore. :/ and the Burms being sold in my area seem to be harder and harder to find. :/ I do know where I can still purchase one but I don't have the resources to take care of one right now so I can't in good conscious purchase one. I'm just worried by the time I do Have the ability to take care of one I won't be able to get my hands on one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herpenthusiast3

I can find a local pet store or ad for a burm but I can no longer find my dream burm and have him sent to me due to the fact that they can't sell over state lines anymore. :/ and the Burms being sold in my area seem to be harder and harder to find. :/ I do know where I can still purchase one but I don't have the resources to take care of one right now so I can't in good conscious purchase one. I'm just worried by the time I do Have the ability to take care of one I won't be able to get my hands on one.

---

Contact GBU Enterprises when you're ready. They're a reptile specialty shop in Lodi. If you can't go yourself, they can ship. But they breed burms. And you can always find some at reptile shows in the state.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

*keep in mind I have not read all the posts, it's like 5am and I'm too lazy to right now*

I think that if someone is stupid enough to have something like a tiger as a pet, and can't care for it, and gets killed, it's natural selection. Weeding out the stupid, I don't feel bad for those people at all. I do feel bad that the animal usually gets killed as well. May sound cold, but I'm in school essentially learning how to be a zookeeper, and honestly anyone with half a brain should know that those are not logical "safe" pets. People find ways to kill themselves everyday, you can't put restrictions on everything, and this is supposed to be a "free country". However this does not apply to endangered/restricted species, which is a different issue.

With reptiles I think there should be some more regulation in terms of animal cruelty, with laws to support it. I mean someone keeping a full grown savannah monitor in a 30g fish tank should be charged like someone keeping a golden retriever in a small cage would be. They are just not as strict as they should be with cruelty in regards to less "cute" and "popular" animals. I have seen many a reptile who's owner deserved to be in jail for the low quality of care they were providing. I hate the ignorance excuse, do your research before you get any animal. I'm sure no one would buy the "I didn't know it need fresh water and food, and a decent amount of room" excuse if it was a dog or cat, so why is it okay for a turtle or a lizard?

I am not okay with the government telling me I can't take my pets wherever I move. I don't have any large snakes or restricted species, but if I did want one, the government shouldn't be able to confine it to one state. Tag it, put a chip in it, make me register it, that's fine, but we should be able to cross state lines with our pets. You try telling someone with a dog that they can't take it with them when the move out of state! Why is a beloved snake any different? The isolated incidences in south Florida are just that-isolated. These laws are a massive over reaction to a local problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KMG

I'm with you Wolfy but look at what some cities are trying to do with large fountain drinks and super sizing meals.

I don't think a class is going to solve anything. The government would not know what needs to be taught and like most government programs it would turn out to be a colossal waste of money. It would also just be another hoop for responsible owners to jump through while the irresponsible owners continue doing whatever they want to do without care. It's just like adding more gun control. You and I will follow the rules but the criminals will not.

I think much more responsibility should be taken by the buyer but sometimes the seller as well. I am not saying that sellers should require a test or home check but like the earlier example of just talking to a guy wanting a burm and finding out he knows nothing about them. That is a good decision not to make that sell but I'm sure we all know of a situation where the buyer was sold something they had no business owning, yet.

However much of the problem in that situation is the buyer. Before I buy anything I research it. I've been researching a pacman frog for two months just to make sure I'm ready for the commitment. Plenty of post here are asking advice about a possible addition to the collection, that's great. It makes me so angry when people get certain breeds of dogs because they are pretty or cute only to find out that it is a hyper breed that does not do well in an apartment so they put it on craigslist. I think that information is easily available today and there is no excuse for not being a knowledgeable buyer.

Just like the fountain drink I think government should leave us alone with the things they are currently trying to get done. I'm not fat, I workout, and I can't remember the last time I had a fountain drink but if tomorrow I want a 90oz Dr Pepper I think I should be able to buy one. I really doubt America started it's weight problem with a large drink. The reptile committee as a whole is a great place with great people. We prove that on this forum everyday with people helping other people. But with any large group we have a few that do dumb things that give the hobby a black eye and open the door for rules and regulations that hurt the whole group.

---

You definitely have some good points. The one thing I'd like to mention though is that the whole "who should be more responsible buyer/seller" thing. I'd say it has to fall on the seller, thats the only person you can control i.e. yourself. You really can't make people get educated or do research but you can refuse to sell to folks that do not show a level of competency needed for the species they are interested in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herpenthusiast3

I can purchase a retic right now, but I can't purchase a burm! Anyone else find this ridiculous!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Herpenthusiast3

I do know where I can still purchase one but I don't have the resources to take care of one right now so I can't in good conscious purchase one. I'm just worried by the time I do Have the ability to take care of one I won't be able to get my hands on one.

---

To answer your first question:

Yes, completely ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

You definitely have some good points. The one thing I'd like to mention though is that the whole "who should be more responsible buyer/seller" thing. I'd say it has to fall on the seller, thats the only person you can control i.e. yourself. You really can't make people get educated or do research but you can refuse to sell to folks that do not show a level of competency needed for the species they are interested in.

---

Yes, if someone is attempting to buy a full-grown retic from "you" and mentions how neat it will look in their garage in Miami in July, THEN you should refuse the sale. However, it is rarely this cut and dry on whether a person is or will be prepared to take care of an animal properly when it reaches its full potential, whether that be a large cat, giant constrictor, or tse-tse fly. A seller simply doesn't always spend that much time with a potential buyer, especially at a place like an expo.

Rather than blame sellers for not running full background checks and blood tests (hyperbole), we should INSIST that individuals be responsible for their own actions. Perhaps better funding (and pay) for animal control programs would help? I don't know, but it seems like many in this thread are focused on the danger that animals pose to humans (owner or otherwise), rather than the danger we pose to the animals we choose to posess. Licensing and registration all sound peachy for "risky" animals, but who determines what is risky? And what do these lovely programs cost? Too high, and people will choose to break the law; too low, and they don't present the barrier to entry that they are intended for. Short version - keep government legislation out of it and focus on education, education, education. You can't force someone to learn, but if they hear things enough times, more people will learn in spite of themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Annarose15

Yes, if someone is attempting to buy a full-grown retic from "you" and mentions how neat it will look in their garage in Miami in July, THEN you should refuse the sale. However, it is rarely this cut and dry on whether a person is or will be prepared to take care of an animal properly when it reaches its full potential, whether that be a large cat, giant constrictor, or tse-tse fly. A seller simply doesn't always spend that much time with a potential buyer, especially at a place like an expo.

Rather than blame sellers for not running full background checks and blood tests (hyperbole), we should INSIST that individuals be responsible for their own actions. Perhaps better funding (and pay) for animal control programs would help? I don't know, but it seems like many in this thread are focused on the danger that animals pose to humans (owner or otherwise), rather than the danger we pose to the animals we choose to posess. Licensing and registration all sound peachy for "risky" animals, but who determines what is risky? And what do these lovely programs cost? Too high, and people will choose to break the law; too low, and they don't present the barrier to entry that they are intended for. Short version - keep government legislation out of it and focus on education, education, education. You can't force someone to learn, but if they hear things enough times, more people will learn in spite of themselves.

---

I agree, it can be hard to determine who is fit for keeping and who isn't even when you meet them in person and have 20-30minutes to talk to them. As a seller though I do spend quite alot of time with people (unless I already know them) screening them before I sell them anything. The "Rather than blame sellers for not running full background checks and blood tests (hyperbole)" is actually a strawman. I do not hold sellers 100% responsible for an animal being mistreated but I do hold sellers (including myself) more accountable then the buyer. I agree though that education can go a long way in prevention of these types of things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OctagonGecko729

You definitely have some good points. The one thing I'd like to mention though is that the whole "who should be more responsible buyer/seller" thing. I'd say it has to fall on the seller, thats the only person you can control i.e. yourself. You really can't make people get educated or do research but you can refuse to sell to folks that do not show a level of competency needed for the species they are interested in.

---

I think both are correct. The difference is the roll we see ourself in. I am not yet a breeder so I am making myself responsible but it is currently as the buyer. One day I will be on the other side and I will do whatever I can to be as responsible as possible when selling any animal.

I can certainly see your point of view we are just viewing this from different perspectives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KMG

I think both are correct. The difference is the roll we see ourself in. I am not yet a breeder so I am making myself responsible but it is currently as the buyer. One day I will be on the other side and I will do whatever I can to be as responsible as possible when selling any animal.

I can certainly see your point of view we are just viewing this from different perspectives.

---

Very good point, that was something I overlooked. Thanks for correcting that.

I don't think it would be out of line to require permit classes (the same idea as like Driver's Ed) to own larger constrictors. That way if they have a permit and are improperly keeping their pets there is NO EXCUSE. Even more so if they don't have one and are caught with one.

You could also argue that this would be best for all exotic animals, and just have different levels of permit. That gets complicated but if it helps weed out the idiots that got a Retic or something just to show off how "cool" or "bada$$" they are, I'm all for it.


I COMPLETELY agree that EVERYONE who wants to own a hot should have to go through classes and get some sort of license or permit. There's just too much "what if's" that can happen and so many idiots out there that the best weapon to fight it is knowledge.



Just my :2cent: though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

Let's stir the pot here a bit:

First and foremost (in principle):

I favor regulations because they protect animals from many of the idiots who own them and have no idea how to care for them or who view them as disposable.

I favor regulations that favor dedicated keepers.

I favor regulations that are not trojan horses for animal right's groups to in turn impose their regulations and values on me.

I favor regulations that protect my ability to keep exotics - specifically by limiting the ability of others (who may do this hobby harm) to keep them.

Here's the rub: the problem is that those regulations must come from within the hobby - not from grandstanding, knee-jerking, glad handing politicians. Those regulations must be imposed by dedicated keepers in order to protect a specialty subsect of exotics from not-so-dedicated keepers. Those regulations must not be wielded as weapons by animal "welfare" groups via future amendments.

The problem is that such a set of regulations cannot exist in this society, with this government and with a law enacting system that allows for good bills to be gradually amended, twisted and turned bad.

Therefore, because a perfect set of regulations cannot be sustained in our society, I am forced to oppose regulations - even if it means that animals will suffer, that welfare groups will be given a steady stream of propaganda and even if it means that someday, my rights may disappear via a draconian set of regulations imposed on me.

---

This is pretty much my stance too. I feel like regulations that will punish those who abuse and neglect animals ought to be done for the animals and for public safety and health. Oftentime these laws are badly written and punish good, responsible people. I opposed a local ordinace that was going to charge people with unneutered dogs. This wouldn't eliminate backyard breeders and all it would really accomplish is punishing responsible dog breeders by adding MORE fees to their business and make the backyard breeders stop bringing their poor animals in for even the most basic of veterinary care. We have an animal overpopulation issue in our area, but the way to handle it is through education and assisting the folks who find feral animals and bring them in out of the goodness of their hearts. I don't beleive people should own an animal if they can't afford to care for it, however, a lot of those people are kind hearted and do the best they can for those animals. It is pretty easy to judge some homeless guy for having a dog and no shelter for it, but that doesn't mean the dog doesn't get food, love and exercise and it may even be in better shape than a dog that gets overfed and locked up at home all day while the owner is at work. At the very least, the "homeless" dog has constant companionship and frequent walking.

That said, a lot of the b&%$#@s who drag a poor animal or kid around for sympathy money tick me off. I know this tends to be a huge majority, but I do know there are some folks who are honest and care more for their pet than themselves.

I just wish that people who get off their rumps more often, volunteer for ashelter, donate some timeor money to spay and neuter organizations and DO SOMETHING rather than expect the government to do it for them. Probelms like giant exotic snakes eating wildlife in Florida wouldn't be so rampant if people knew how to properly care for a giant snake and actually have reasonable expectations of their own abilities. I know people who haver the energy to keep up with five dogs, four cats and I don't know how many parrots. They might be considered animal hoarders by some. I would REALLY be overwhelmed by that amount of animals. My advice? Don't throw money at animal issues if you can get off your duff and DO something. Places like Petco will stop selling sick and wild caught animals if they keep getting cut off by GOOD breeders and people don't give them money for poorer quality pets. Not saying all Petco animals are bad, but I've had some sad experiences with our local store and it prejudices me. I don't respect the idea of buying an animal to save it because I know that means it will be replaced with another unfortunate soul as fast as possible. :C I DO respect the idea of complaining to the store manager, the district manager and the company rep and petitioning them for basic health and shelter for the animals being sold. This kind of action has made other companies limit the amount of large parrots being dispensed out as though they were toys rather than very sensitive, long lived and difficult pets! We can do the same for reptiles and other exotics. Apologies for the blather, but PETA is wrong. We can own domestic AND exotic animals responsibly. No kill shelters DO succeed in saving so many animals, it is worth fighting for if we think and act and spend responsibly!

That being said, I will never own a couger, tiger, wolf or anaconda. I'm not sure if I'm tough enough to handle a ten foot python, much less a 200 pounder! I get my snakes from breeders and do not buy animals from Petco and actively send people to the local stores I know accept only the best bred birds and reptiles and fish. :) Personal responsibility is an almost magical thing!

I read this thread and had to step away to collect my thoughts on this issue. I think the majority of us have only one concern when it comes to any type of animal, pet or native, and that is the welfare of the animal. Nearly all of us have gone to great lengths to ensure the animal we bring into our home and into our lives is well cared for and has a good life. WE have invested great amounts of time, energy, AND money to provide. We have gone so far as to join forums such as these to pass along education and knowledge to new owners or to ask our own questions when WE need advice. We also freely give to others who come here seeking advice on how to best care for their animals or to people contemplating owning many types of herps. All in all in the end, we all just want what is best for our beloved pets so we can continue to enjoy this hobby...

As far as regulations go, regulating humanity is a nearly impossible task. Humans are as imperfect as any species comes. We fail miserably because of our capacity for feelings, wants, needs, and desires. Nature usually doesn't have that problem. Animals are born with innate instincts that guide them through their lives and is about the greatest example of perfect existence. I agree that the people proposing and passing blanket legislation and local ordinances have no idea what they are doing. There is no way they understand, or are even willing to hear or learn what our hobby is all about. So because of their preconceived notions or beliefs in certain animal species, they pass these laws believing they are right and just. They hear of the exceptions to the rule. ONE guy was killed in Ohio by a Burmese python so the other 300,000 Burms. 500,00 boas, and one million ball pythons are all bad. TWO counties in Florida (the only two counties in the whole US that can sustain a Burmese) have an issue with "invasive" pythons so we'll just ban ALL Burmese pythons, North and South African pythons, and Anacondas from "invading" the rest of the United States. And as far as snakes go, here are the average deaths per year by species:

Average Number of Deaths per Year in the U.S

Bee/Wasp	53
Dogs	31
Spider	6.5
Rattlesnake	5.5
Mountain lion	1
Shark	1
Alligator	0.3
Bear	0.5
Scorpion	0.5
Centipede	0.5
Elephant	0.25
Wolf	0.1
Horse	20
Bull	3

Now, do we need to regulate keeping herps, specifically snakes? Will it work? Do gun laws work? DO drunk driving laws work? Do banking regulations work? Do we have the staff and resources to enforce the existing laws? I don't think they do work and I sure the hell don't think the government is doing a good job of enforcing the laws that are already on the books in any area they try to "regulate". They are trying to regulate humanity and in the end, there will always be people that think the laws don't apply to them. There will always be people who will buy that Burm or Retic on a whim without educating themselves as to what keeping a big snake entails. We see the same disregard for Ball pythons, corn snakes, dogs, cats, and just about every animal kept by people and in about every regulated industry.

SO no, I do not believe regulations will work...

I DO believe the MAJORITY do very well in educating themselves....before or after the fact to me doesn't matter...they learn real fast. I have answered a handful of posts of people who come here after they have purchased their Ball and they get educated in CORRECT husbandry very quickly. I consider myself a good keeper. I have a good understanding of basic husbandry, I practice good quarantine procedures with new additions, I try to pick the BEST feeders I can find, and I am very ADD about my snakes environments (often calling my wife numerous times a day to give me their cage "numbers"...lol). YET I learn something new every day. I give some knowledge back every day. I don't know EVERYTHING. And anyone who says or believes they can't learn anything new is not someone I take advice from.

SO in short, I think our hobby needs to regulate itself. We are the ones who need to educate our family, friends, neighbors, co-workers, politicians and anyone willing to listen and learn. I think we have done a fabulous job up until now, but we have a long way to go. It is only by our individual efforts as part of this group that our group and our industry will make the difference and survive. It is in OUR patience and willingness to learn and our willingness to teach that will make the difference. We will not convert everyone. But the more we can show others how to care for our beloved herps, the more we can demonstrate the fact our snakes are far less "dangerous" than your common pets, the less legislation will be passed that will decimate our hobby and our way of life. IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY.

Well at least I am not the only one with scarface dreams of a tiger in the backyard, a Michelle Pfiefer in the front, and automatic weapons in my fortress/house. Also heck, if none of these things are that dangerous (cept dearest Michelle out of her mind on quaaludes) then why have any laws any safety nets or anything regarding them?

All this talk about a self regulating hobby...we don't exactly have the same constituency as say the Jedi Knights or Time Lords or some other fictional self regulating group. I think people have already questioned the government's inability to self regulate itself and the greater population.

If we get more regulation it will probably become an issue of too much rather than not enough. More wisdom from a movie: in The Hangover Mike Tyson owned a tiger. I don't know if he does but should Mike Tyson be able to own a tiger? If he goes out and changes his face with a inconspicuous tattoo, God bless him and America. But if the tiger gets out and mauls....anything smaller than it (as tigers are apt to do) than at least we respected Mike Tyson's God given right to own an animal who's care is essentially a full time job that people train years for.

This is a problem without a fix because there are people with bad judgement who look at an exotic animal as if it were a pokemon. Then on the other side we have our crazy reactionary lunatics who think even a ball python has the unprecedented ability to choke a human from around their neck, despite their method being to constrict a victim's diaphram.

An intermediate level of regulation would be ideal. But apparently that is too much or not enough for everybody. To those with questionable judgement: is a class and a permit really too much after the $$$$$ and hours you pour into your animal planet special waiting to happen? How dare people question your ability to control this force of nature after they already question your judgement.

The fact that animal care has any political element is already a problem. And the idea that politics pervade everything is just stupid. But hey, Tony Montana with a gun is more dangerous than Mike Tyson with a tiger. At least society understands that.

I would support a permit system for certain animals if the laws and regulations were written by other hobbyists or people who support our right to own what animals we want. Right now I don't support any new laws, because the Politicians have no idea what they're talking about and they're making their decisions based on information that they get from from groups who don't want us to have anything "exotic".

Even a self regulating hobby can find itself having issues with the government. If you don't think so, take a look at what is going on with the model aircraft hobby right now. Even with the help of a large centralised and well funded organzation fronting us we are having issues. Which sucks for me as the only two things I really do a lot could be severely altered or taken away completely. As long as the laws are written by those outside the hobby, they will not work in our favor. Heck, the only people who know there is a problem are those of us who actually consider this a hobby. The average person with a single snake/lizard/turtle or whatever will quietly sit back and never hear any of this, or will do the ol' "It doesn't/won't concern/effect me, I just have _________". As many have already said, education is our best tool. And I hope to be very good at using it someday.

I think that any animal prohibition should not take place if the un-involved public is not at risk. An example could be that a snake owner who has all of his animals on his or her property, and under his supervision, should not be made to submit to any regulations. :colbert: