CT just snuck this thru

Thanks to the chimp attack, we know have this going into effect on Oct 1st.

General Assembly File No. 516
January Session, 2009 Substitute House Bill No. 6552
House of Representatives, April 6, 2009
The Committee on Environment reported through REP. ROY, R. of the 119th Dist., Chairperson of the Committee on the part of the House, that the substitute bill ought to pass.
AN ACT BANNING THE POSSESSION OF POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS AND THE IMPORTATION, POSSESSION AND LIBERATION OF WILD ANIMALS.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives in General Assembly convened:
Section 1. (NEW) (Effective October 1, 2009) (a) No person shall operate, provide, sell, use or offer to operate, provide, sell or use any computer software or service in this state that allows a person, when not physically present, to remotely control a firearm or weapon to hunt a live animal or bird.
(b) Any person who violates subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 2. Section 26-40a of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):
(a) No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal. For the purposes of this section, the following wildlife, or any hybrid thereof, shall be considered [as] potentially dangerous animals:
(1) The felidae, including, but not limited to, the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx, [and] bobcat, [the] tiger, serval, caracal, jungle cat and Savannah cat;
(2) The canidae, including, but not limited to, the wolf, [and] coyote and fox; [and the]
(3) The ursidae, including, but not limited to, the black bear, grizzly bear and brown bear;
(4) The hominidae, including, but not limited to, the gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan;
(5) The hylobatidae, including, but not limited to, the gibbon or "lesser ape";
(6) The cercopithecidae, including, but not limited to, the baboon and macaque;
(7) The macropodidae, including, but not limited to, the kangaroo and wallaby;
(8) The mustelidae, including, but not limited to, the wolverine;
(9) The hyaenidae, including, but not limited to, the hyaena;
(10) The elephantidae, including, but not limited to, the hippopotamidae, including the hippopotamus;
(11) The rhinocerotidae, including, but not limited to, the rhinoceros;
(12) The suidae, including, but not limited to, the warthog;
(13) The alligatoridae, including, but not limited to, the alligator and caiman;
(14) The crocodylidae, including, but not limited to, the crocodile;
(15) The gavialidae, including, but not limited to, the gavial;
(16) The elapidae, including, but not limited to, cobras, coral snakes and mambas;
(17) The viperidae, including, but not limited to, copperheads, rattlesnakes, cottonmouths and all other adders and vipers;
(18) The rear-fanged members of the colubridae in the genera lothornis, boiga, thelotornis, thabdophis, enhydris, dispholidus, clelia, rhabdophis, hydrodynastes, philodryas and malpolon;
(19) The Burmese/Indian, African Rock, amethystine and reticulated of the pythonidae;
(20) The green, yellow and dark spotted anacondas of the boidae;
(21) The helodermatidae, including, but not limited to, Gila monsters and beaded lizards; and
(22) The Nile monitor, water monitor, black-throat monitor, white-throat monitor, crocodile monitor and komodo dragon of the varanidae.
[No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal.]
(b) Any such animal illegally possessed may be ordered seized and may be relocated or disposed of as determined by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. The Department of Environmental Protection shall issue a bill to the owner or person in illegal possession of such potentially dangerous animal for all costs of seizure, care, maintenance, [and] relocation or disposal of such animal. Additionally, any person who violates any provision of this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed [one] two thousand dollars, to be fixed by the court, for each offense. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct offense and in the case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may request the Attorney General to institute an action in Superior Court to recover such penalty and any amounts owed pursuant to a bill issued in accordance with this section and for an order providing such equitable and injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate.
(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to municipal parks, zoos [and] accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or the Zoological Association of America, public nonprofit aquaria, nature centers, [or] museums [,] or laboratories and research facilities maintained by scientific or educational institutions [;] registered with the United States Department of Agriculture or to a person possessing a Bengal cat certified by an internationally recognized multiple-cat domestic feline breeding association as being without wild parentage for a minimum of four prior generations which cat was registered with the Commissioner of Agriculture on or before October 1, 1996, provided no such cat may be imported into this state after June 6, 1996. [; or to persons possessing animals legally on or before May 23, 1983.] In any action taken by any official of the state or any municipality to control rabies, a Bengal cat shall be considered not vaccinated for rabies in accordance with accepted veterinary practice.
(d) Any person who wilfully violates any provision of subsection (a) of this section shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor.
Sec. 3. Section 26-55 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):
[No] (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, no person shall import or introduce into the state, or possess or liberate therein, any live fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate unless such person has obtained a permit therefor from the commissioner. [, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to require such permit for any primate species that weighs not more than fifty pounds at maturity that was imported or possessed in the state prior to October 1, 2003.] Such permit may be issued at the discretion of the commissioner under such regulations as the commissioner may prescribe. The commissioner may by regulation prescribe the numbers of live fish, wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates of certain species which may be imported, possessed, introduced into the state or liberated therein. The commissioner may by regulation exempt certain species or groups of live fish from the permit requirements. The commissioner may by regulation determine which species of wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates must meet permit requirements. The commissioner may totally prohibit the importation, possession, introduction into the state or liberation therein of certain species which the commissioner has determined may be a potential threat to humans, agricultural crops or established species of plants, fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates. The commissioner may by regulation exempt from permit requirements organizations or institutions such as municipal parks, zoos, laboratories and research [laboratories, colleges or universities] facilities maintained by scientific or educational institutions, museums, public nonprofit aquaria or nature centers where live fish, wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates are held in strict confinement.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of this section, the importation and possession of the following species is prohibited: (1) Any primate in the families cheirogaleidae, lemuridae, lepilemuridae, indriidae, lorisidae, loris, daubentoniidae, galagidae, galago, tarsiidae, callitrichidae, cebidae, pitheciidae or atelidae; (2) the sciuridae, including, but not limited to, the prairie dog; (3) the viverridae, including, but not limited to, the civet and genet; (4) any venomous species in the family arachnidea, including, but not limited to, the tarantula and scorpion; and (5) any poisonous species in the family dendrobatidae, including, but not limited to, poison arrow frogs.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Commissioner of Environmental Protection may issue a permit for the possession of a service primate to a permanently disabled person with a severe mobility impairment, provided such disabled person submits written certification to said commissioner: (1) From a licensed medical doctor attesting to such disabled person’s disability, mobility impairment and the need for a service primate to provide an essential function that cannot be performed by the disabled person; (2) that such service primate was legally obtained, is from the genus Cebus and is trained by an accredited service primate training organization; and (3) that the organization furnishing the service primate to the disabled person is a nonprofit organization and is in compliance with all applicable federal and state animal welfare laws.
(d) Any such fish, bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate illegally imported into the state or illegally possessed therein [shall] may be seized by any representative of the Department of Environmental Protection and [shall] may be relocated or disposed of as determined by the commissioner. [Any person, except as provided in section 26-55a, who violates any provision of this section or any regulation issued by the commissioner as provided in this section shall be guilty of an infraction. Importation, liberation or possession of each fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate in violation of this section or such regulation shall be a separate and distinct offense and, in the case of a continuing violation, each day of continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense.] The Department of Environmental Protection shall issue a bill to the owner or person in illegal possession of such animal for all costs of seizure, care, maintenance, relocation or disposal for such animal.
(e) Any person who violates any provision of this section or any regulation adopted by the commissioner pursuant to this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars, to be fixed by the court, for each offense. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct offense. In the case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may request the Attorney General to institute an action in Superior Court to recover such civil penalty and any amounts owed pursuant to a bill issued in accordance with subsection (d) of this section and for an order providing such equitable and injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate.
(f) Any person who wilfully violates any provision of this section or any regulation adopted by the commissioner pursuant to this section shall be guilty of a class C misdemeanor.

This act shall take effect as follows and shall amend the following sections:
Section 1 October 1, 2009 New section
Sec. 2 October 1, 2009 26-40a
Sec. 3 October 1, 2009 26-55

Wait... this can just go into effect? We can't do anything about it? :weirdface

Yep. They voted on it on April 6th. Never even knew it was being heard.

I post about it a few weeks ago.http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showthread.php?t=87683

I had a bad feeling this one was going to pass. I didn't know it had though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michelle.C

I post about it a few weeks ago.http://ball-pythons.net/forums/showthread.php?t=87683

I had a bad feeling this one was going to pass. I didn't know it had though.

---

UGH. I didn't see that post. I just found out about this today.

Can someone sum this up? How will it affect the herp world?

Joshua,

Not all that much for now! This law is only Connecticut... however, more of these laws might be passed state per state... and more probably will get passed.

As far as I know there aren't may huge breeder in Connecticut though, so as far as that is concerned, we're not losing a BHB or a NERD.

If you live in CT you cannot own large constrictors, monitors, rear fanged snakes, hots, dart frogs, T's, scorps, exotic cats, prarie dogs, primates, marsupials...............basically everything is now illegal to keep.
No permits will be issued and no animals will be grandfathered in. Anyone caught gets fined astrinomical amounts and loses the animals. The fines are per animal per day.

They've done sneaky stuff like this for years, there were some commonly kept animals on that list.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Joshua,

Not all that much for now! This law is only Connecticut... however, more of these laws might be passed state per state... and more probably will get passed.

As far as I know there aren't may huge breeder in Connecticut though, so as far as that is concerned, we're not losing a BHB or a NERD.

---

But you are now losing a lot of small breeders and hobbyists.

Just any herper/future herper:mad:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Joshua,

Not all that much for now! This law is only Connecticut... however, more of these laws might be passed state per state... and more probably will get passed.

As far as I know there aren't may huge breeder in Connecticut though, so as far as that is concerned, we're not losing a BHB or a NERD.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jerhart

Can someone sum this up? How will it affect the herp world?

---

Won't affect anyone outside of Connecticut. That being said, all species banned in Connecticut are, well, banned.

(a) No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal. For the purposes of this section, the following wildlife, or any hybrid thereof, shall be considered [as] potentially dangerous animals:
(1) The felidae, including, but not limited to, the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx, [and] bobcat, [the] tiger, serval, caracal, jungle cat and Savannah cat;
(2) The canidae, including, but not limited to, the wolf, [and] coyote and fox; [and the]
(3) The ursidae, including, but not limited to, the black bear, grizzly bear and brown bear;
(4) The hominidae, including, but not limited to, the gorilla, chimpanzee and orangutan;
(5) The hylobatidae, including, but not limited to, the gibbon or "lesser ape";
(6) The cercopithecidae, including, but not limited to, the baboon and macaque;
(7) The macropodidae, including, but not limited to, the kangaroo and wallaby;
(8) The mustelidae, including, but not limited to, the wolverine;
(9) The hyaenidae, including, but not limited to, the hyaena;
(10) The elephantidae, including, but not limited to, the hippopotamidae, including the hippopotamus;
(11) The rhinocerotidae, including, but not limited to, the rhinoceros;
(12) The suidae, including, but not limited to, the warthog;
(13) The alligatoridae, including, but not limited to, the alligator and caiman;
(14) The crocodylidae, including, but not limited to, the crocodile;
(15) The gavialidae, including, but not limited to, the gavial;
(16) The elapidae, including, but not limited to, cobras, coral snakes and mambas;
(17) The viperidae, including, but not limited to, copperheads, rattlesnakes, cottonmouths and all other adders and vipers;
(18) The rear-fanged members of the colubridae in the genera lothornis, boiga, thelotornis, thabdophis, enhydris, dispholidus, clelia, rhabdophis, hydrodynastes, philodryas and malpolon;
(19) The Burmese/Indian, African Rock, amethystine and reticulated of the pythonidae;
(20) The green, yellow and dark spotted anacondas of the boidae;
(21) The helodermatidae, including, but not limited to, Gila monsters and beaded lizards; and
(22) The Nile monitor, water monitor, black-throat monitor, white-throat monitor, crocodile monitor and komodo dragon of the varanidae.

It also appears that no one is grandfathered in. You either relocate it or "dispose" of it. Looks like illegally keeping any species comes with a hefty fine (up to $2000) and they take possession of that animal. I assume to destroy it.

Yeah, I know, it's horrible that this law got passed!

However, as far as affecting the entire herp world, the effect is not nearly as great as say, HR669.

Wow how sad. Feel bad for the herpers in CT. :(

wow.

Suckage major.

So, does "Mustelidae, including but not limited to the wolverine" mean that thousands of ferret owners across CT will become fugitive felons as of October?

Guess that means my idle thought of a small, mossy terrarium dotted with azure frogs is history, too.

~Bruce, annoyed, but not surprised. This sort of thing happens whenever chimps attack.

Not trying to single ya out:D

But CT just got screwed in the blink of an eye. Even in HR669 doesn't pass, dont underestimate what these people are capable of doing. This is proof right here people, get on the ball, keep yourself informed, and act.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Yeah, I know, it's horrible that this law got passed!

However, as far as affecting the entire herp world, the effect is not nearly as great as say, HR669.

---

Yep and I know several people that keep ferrets.

Either relocate the animals before Oct 1st or risk financial ruin from the fines and have the state destroy the animals.

They basically killed CT with this law. They banned just about every animal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 2kdime

Not trying to single ya out:D

But CT just got screwed in the blink of an eye. Even in HR669 doesn't pass, dont underestimate what these people are capable of doing. This is proof right here people, get on the ball, keep yourself informed, and act.

---

Completely agreed. This is proof that it is very possible that HR669 WILL go through. While it's doubtful, it's possible.

I can't imagine all of those people in CT, and what they are going to have to go through. My heart truly goes out to them.

Wow that just came out of nowhere... :(

Now I'm wondering what other states could have hidden laws in the works we don't know about...

Bet you all never thought you would have to be so actively involved in politics for your country, state, city or county when all you really wanted to do was keep a small collection of exotics. It is scary that in the land of the free that so many of our rights are being taken away from us without even giving us the oportunity to speak on the topics at hand. They know that the majority of the time the topics would not pass on a bill of their own so they underwrite them on bigger bills that have much more social impact and let the other bill get past. Thus, they effectively pass the bill they were trying to by letting it "piggyback" on other bills. We all need to become active in our communities and fight back. As long as we are active we can find out about the laws and by publicly posting on this as well as other sites we can get the word out to everyone. Todd

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPJ

They basically killed CT with this law. They banned just about every animal.

---

Pretty much ferrets and dart frogs are the only animals on this list that shouldn't be included.

All other animals on this list should only be kept in zoos or by professionals.
By no means did this "Kill CT"....unless of course you have to give up your beloved pet rhino or hippo.

Hi,

I can't see the justification for having all tarantulas and scorpions on it?

And wouldn't the rear fanged bit prohibit hognoses?


dr del

I don't think hots should be banned? :confused:

Plenty of people do it responsibly!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi,

I can't see the justification for having all tarantulas and scorpions on it?

And wouldn't the rear fanged bit prohibit hognoses?


dr del

---

I agree with this also. Hoggies should also be exempt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

I don't think hots should be banned? :confused:

Plenty of people do it responsibly!

---

But plenty of people don't. Maybe a case by case license is needed for hots?.....


Overall this law stops people from buying/keeping dangerous large animals that really shouldn't be kept in the home anyway....you really cannot argue with that.

This just proves once again that one person can ruin it for everyone. For every 10 responsible exotic hobbyists, there is always one "special" individual trying to be cool and doesn't care that it will negatively effect what the responsible people work so hard for everyday.

The government is so busy trying to pass new laws everyday, when what they should be doing is enforcing the ones we have now! Time and time again, I see new laws go into place, when enforcement of the current ones would probably have prevented the need for a new law!

:soapbx:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi,

I can't see the justification for having all tarantulas and scorpions on it?

And wouldn't the rear fanged bit prohibit hognoses?


dr del

---

From the text:

18) The rear-fanged members of the colubridae in the genera lothornis, boiga, thelotornis, thabdophis, enhydris, dispholidus, clelia, rhabdophis, hydrodynastes, philodryas and malpolon;

No heterodon. So hognoses are fine.

well that bites big time. sorry this happened.

Now to find out about my state...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by monk90222

Pretty much ferrets and dart frogs are the only animals on this list that shouldn't be included.

All other animals on this list should only be kept in zoos or by professionals.
By no means did this "Kill CT"....unless of course you have to give up your beloved pet rhino or hippo.

---

...........or your beloved mussurana or mangrove snake or white throated monitor or black throated monitor or false water cobra or gila monster or beaded lizard or taratula or scorpion or any other species as provided under by:

"The commissioner may totally prohibit the importation, possession, introduction into the state or liberation therein of certain species which the commissioner has determined may be a potential threat to humans, agricultural crops or established species of plants, fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates"

Seriously, did you read the bill?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Joshua,

Not all that much for now! This law is only Connecticut... however, more of these laws might be passed state per state... and more probably will get passed.

As far as I know there aren't may huge breeder in Connecticut though, so as far as that is concerned, we're not losing a BHB or a NERD.

---

You are totally wrong.

Thousands of responsible exotic owners just got screwed and their pets just got sentenced to death.

........and how does not losing a big breeder consititute an acceptable intrusion onto our rights? When did you and I become expendable so that Kevin and Brian can live to fight another day?

It affects everyone who owns an exotic pet. It shows just how easy it is to quickly and almost secretly enact legislation that can take away your rights and freedoms.

It also shows how unorganized and ineffective this community is. How many of you even bother to check your state senate and assembly websites for bills of this type coming down the pipe?

The State of Connecticut just encated a poorly written piece of legislation that not only denies exotic pet owners of their rights but sentences an untold number of animals to death.

It also grants immense power to the "commisioner" to add species to the list as he sees fit. It also provides a model and an example for advocates of this type of garbage in other states to follow.

It stinks and it has a huge affect on everyone in this community.

Quote:

---

(c) The provisions of this section shall not apply to ....... or to a person possessing a Bengal cat certified by an internationally recognized multiple-cat domestic feline breeding association as being without wild parentage for a minimum of four prior generations which cat was registered with the Commissioner of Agriculture on or before October 1, 1996, provided no such cat may be imported into this state after June 6, 1996. [; or to persons possessing animals legally on or before May 23, 1983.] In any action taken by any official of the state or any municipality to control rabies, a Bengal cat shall be considered not vaccinated for rabies in accordance with accepted veterinary practice.

---

...so I guess someone from the Bengal Cat lobby was on hand for consultations during the draw up of the law?

Quote:

---

[No] (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, no person shall import or introduce into the state, or possess or liberate therein, any live fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate unless such person has obtained a permit therefor from the commissioner. [, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to require such permit for any primate species that weighs not more than fifty pounds at maturity that was imported or possessed in the state prior to October 1, 2003.] Such permit may be issued at the discretion of the commissioner under such regulations as the commissioner may prescribe. The commissioner may by regulation prescribe the numbers of live fish, wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates of certain species which may be imported, possessed, introduced into the state or liberated therein. The commissioner may by regulation exempt certain species or groups of live fish from the permit requirements. The commissioner may by regulation determine which species of wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates must meet permit requirements.

---

Here's your way around this Steve, take out the commissioner for a beer or two and have a chat.

All kidding aside, laws can and do get changed. If it doesn't go into effect until Oct 1st, then there's time for the affected parties in CT to get motivated and do whatever is possible to get this changed to a more sensible piece of legislation. The alternative is doing nothing and being assured no changes for the better will happen. Never give up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

Joshua,

Not all that much for now! This law is only Connecticut... however, more of these laws might be passed state per state... and more probably will get passed.

As far as I know there aren't may huge breeder in Connecticut though, so as far as that is concerned, we're not losing a BHB or a NERD.

---

Um so its no big deal if we lose some of our family from here rights to own reptiles :weirdface.I hope this was just a typo because anyone and everyone that loves reptiles matters ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

You are totally wrong.

Thousands of responsible exotic owners just got screwed and their pets just got sentenced to death.

........and how does not losing a big breeder consititute an acceptable intrusion onto our rights? When did you and I become expendable so that Kevin and Brian can live to fight another day?

It affects everyone who owns an exotic pet. It shows just how easy it is to quickly and almost secretly enact legislation that can take away your rights and freedoms.

It also shows how unorganized and ineffective this community is. How many of you even bother to check your state senate and assembly websites for bills of this type coming down the pipe?

The State of Connecticut just encated a poorly written piece of legislation that not only denies exotic pet owners of their rights but sentences an untold number of animals to death.

It also grants immense power to the "commisioner" to add species to the list as he sees fit. It also provides a model and an example for advocates of this type of garbage in other states to follow.

It stinks and it has a huge affect on everyone in this community.

---

I suppose my opinion differs from yours.

Don't get me wrong. These pieces of legislation are affecting the entire herp communty, which is what Joshua was asking about.

However, this particular law by itself does not affect the entire American herp community all that much because it's only one (small) state.

Get my point? I'm hating these laws and I do think they're a threat. This particular law by itself, however, doesn't affect the whole community all that much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by joepythons

Um so its no big deal if we lose some of our family from here rights to own reptiles :weirdface.I hope this was just a typo because anyone and everyone that loves reptiles matters ;)

---

*sighs*

Joshua asked the question how this would affect the entire herp community. Not individual herpers. I feel really bad for all those herpers, but since only large constrictors and hots are banned, it won't affect the entire community that much.

Do you not agree?

I totally disagree with you on this one.

Lawmakers often look to what has been done in other states when making new laws. This new law in CT could easily be used as a foundation for the law that will be proposed in YOUR state.

Still think it doesn't matter much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

I suppose my opinion differs from yours.

Don't get me wrong. These pieces of legislation are affecting the entire herp communty, which is what Joshua was asking about.

However, this particular law by itself does not affect the entire American herp community all that much because it's only one (small) state.

Get my point? I'm hating these laws and I do think they're a threat. This particular law by itself, however, doesn't affect the whole community all that much.



*sighs*

Joshua asked the question how this would affect the entire herp community. Not individual herpers. I feel really bad for all those herpers, but since only large constrictors and hots are banned, it won't affect the entire community that much.

Do you not agree?

---

Do the advocates/sponsors of these bills live in just Connecticut?

Of course not. These bills are backed by the same environmental groups that are behind 669.

You can only take down one state at a time. Today it's Connecticut. Tomorrow maybe Arkansas and before you know it, Texas. Will you be shrugging your shoulders when Texas enacts a similar bill? Or would you be shrugging your shoulders if it was "just" the state that either BHB or NERD are in?

...and by the way - read the Bill for crying out loud. It also includes rear fanged snakes (most of which are not even considered "warm"), varanids, tarantulas, scorpions and dart frogs. It also empowers the "commissioner" to ban any additional animals he/she think pose a threat to other animals or humans.

What happens when they find out that most colubrids are technically venomous? Some of the opistoglyphs listed in the bill are no more dangerous than that. What then?

But before you *sigh* at mine or any other post - please, read the freaking bill.

No need to fight amongst ourselves guys:D

What we need to be doing in checking into our local legislation to try and detect things like this before it becomes a problem like Conneticut.

HR669 could even be a distraction of sorts, keep your eyes open everybody, its not over yet.

I want to help fight this, but how? I'm in MA; would legislators in CT really care what I have to say?

Some animals should still be completely legal, but others should have a permit system in place. For example, large snakes such as burms/Afrocks and also hots. However I have no idea how I'd explain that to a legislator...

Any ideas?

Before you start acusing me of stuff think about what you're saying.

Yes I read the bill. No I'm not shrugging my shoulders.

Are you not reading my posts?!

I'm saying THIS PARTICULAR BILL does NOT affect the ENTIRE COUNTRY all that much.

HOWEVER, the IDEAS BEHIND THE BILL will affect the ENTIRE COUNTRY.

I wasn't sighing at your posts by the way.

*EDIT* I'm also saying it's only big constrictors, hots, and your "warm" snakes. Some of your opistoglyphs can prove harmful to people and are thus considered dangerous. It's not a lot of species banned, mind you. Yes I'll say it again, I read the bill.

Quote:

---

However, this particular law by itself does not affect the entire American herp community all that much because it's only one (small) state.

---

Quote:

---

Get my point? I'm hating these laws and I do think they're a threat. This particular law by itself, however, doesn't affect the whole community all that much.

---

For NOW

However it creates a precedent, CT did it and other states will look at this and say let’s do the same.

I'm appalled at the whole thing, but most of all I cannot believe that dart frogs are on that list.
Don't any of those politicians know ANYTHING about these animals?

If I were making laws, I'd at least spend a few minutes looking into the things I was banning. I hate ignorance. These frogs are not toxic in captivity. Not even a little.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FragginDragon

Never give up.

---

Never surrender!

As far as bills banning certain pets go, this is better than most. If you're not keeping monitors, hots, or giants you're fine. Most of the time when people start passing laws against snakes, all constrictors get lumped into the group of banned animals.

Ball python and boa constrictor owners out there in CT, consider yourselves lucky, but keep voicing your opinion about pet owners' rights.

I think in the future we're going to see hots and giant snakes being banned in just about every state.

What I don't understand is why all these places with similar laws have it in for monitor lizards. Have they ever proven themselves to be dangerous to people or the ecosystem?

And of course banning Ts and scorps is just dumb.

Well I guess the animals that I have here and have raised for years that are now considered dangerous under this bill don't matter since I am from a small state and not a large breeder.
By the way there ARE some great breeders in CT. Check KS once in a while and you will see some of them advertising. They may not be as well-known as BHB or NERD but they produce quality animals and are good people.
CT may be small which is a plus in some ways since most of us in the herp community tend to know each other and a lot of this states breeders have been in my house and we have done deals with each other, but we are just like anyone else who cares about our animals and don't want to have to give them up.
Florida, New York and now CT have heavy restrictions. The people who want to shut down our hobby are hitting it state by state.
Who knows what state could be next?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DutchHerp

I suppose my opinion differs from yours.

Don't get me wrong. These pieces of legislation are affecting the entire herp communty, which is what Joshua was asking about.

However, this particular law by itself does not affect the entire American herp community all that much because it's only one (small) state.

Get my point? I'm hating these laws and I do think they're a threat. This particular law by itself, however, doesn't affect the whole community all that much.



*sighs*

Joshua asked the question how this would affect the entire herp community. Not individual herpers. I feel really bad for all those herpers, but since only large constrictors and hots are banned, it won't affect the entire community that much.

Do you not agree?

---

Sigh all you want but they only start with one group then they go for EVERYONES throats ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPJ

Well I guess the animals that I have here and have raised for years that are now considered dangerous under this bill don't matter since I am from a small state and not a large breeder.
By the way there ARE some great breeders in CT. Check KS once in a while and you will see some of them advertising. They may not be as well-known as BHB or NERD but they produce quality animals and are good people.
CT may be small which is a plus in some ways since most of us in the herp community tend to know each other and a lot of this states breeders have been in my house and we have done deals with each other, but we are just like anyone else who cares about our animals and don't want to have to give them up.
Florida, New York and now CT have heavy restrictions. The people who want to shut down our hobby are hitting it state by state.
Who knows what state could be next?

---

Steve you matter to me bro :gj:.Now lets stop these idiots from passing these ignorant laws NOW!!!

The comment that only a few species should not be on that list...

SD retics are now banned... that is a manageable snake.

The way such species were discarded with sweeping strokes is very scary. As noted they piggy-backed things on there with the premise of dangerous animals.

Vine snakes are rear fanged... terrifying and dangerous things that they are.

Bruce