new NC snake law

I found this article this morning and I am completely furious. I did not even know this type of legislation was being considered in my state, and I find the whole article to be ridiculous and completely untruthful. I am incensed right now!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/bre...ry/825961.html

Here is athread on it from a while back.

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=91559

Although the article you posted has some ridiculous facts the law itself is not as unresonable as others. It basically says if you own a large or venemous snake you are required by law to keep it in a secure escape proof cage and if does escape you are liable for any harm it does. It in now way outlaws owning these animals, just puts laws in the books making people responsible.

Ball pythons, boas and other smaller snakes are not affected by this law.

edit

america, land of the greed and home of the slave.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by West Coast Jungle

Here is athread on it from a while back.

http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...ad.php?t=91559

Although the article you posted has some ridiculous facts the law itself is not as unresonable as others. It basically says if you own a large or venemous snake you are required by law to keep it in a secure escape proof cage and if does escape you are liable for any harm it does. It in now way outlaws owning these animals, just puts laws in the books making people responsible.

Ball pythons, boas and other smaller snakes are not affected by this law.

---

good to hear, this is legislation I can support.

You support it? What about your fellow keepers like myself who own "giant" constrictors? This is just the beginning, next it will be any snake, or they will start banning.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

You support it? What about your fellow keepers like myself who own "giant" constrictors? This is just the beginning, next it will be any snake, or they will start banning.....

---

I dont support it necessarily but it is not as extreme as other laws that have been presented. Have you read the actual law? USARK helped draft it. It basically says own a hot, croc, large snake, buy a secure cage or be liable. Seems like common sense but as we all know people buy pets but not the proper equipment to heat it let alone secure it. Which is bad for all of us.

I personally feel this law could be used as an example of a compromise by those extremist who do wish to ban. This law takes their arguement away or at least weakens it

If someone owns a hot or any other potentially dangerous animal I dont think it is too unreasonable to make them house it securely to protect the safety of others.

I don't see anything wrong with this law. It is an attempt to make people responsible for their pets. If you are one of those people that is already a responsible owner then you have nothing to fear. They are not asking you to declare that you own snakes, register them, or even putting a restriction on how many you can own. They are simply saying if you own, secure them or you will be liable if something goes wrong.

he once found a 20 ft python under a house........yeah right

I understand that and I agree that it is not as bad as it could be. I am just frustrated with the supposed facts in the article, and the way that people think about things like this in general. Its frustrating that we do all we can to keep our animals the way they should be, and then because of a few dumb people, we all have to pay for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by llovelace

he once found a 20 ft python under a house........yeah right

---

he did! it survived the winter too!!

:rolleyes::rofl:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by llovelace

he once found a 20 ft python under a house........yeah right

---

He supposedly found the skin of a 20 foot snake, but we all know skin streches... and I have seen some HUGE black rats snakes out here....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

I understand that and I agree that it is not as bad as it could be. I am just frustrated with the supposed facts in the article, and the way that people think about things like this in general. Its frustrating that we do all we can to keep our animals the way they should be, and then because of a few dumb people, we all have to pay for it.

---

Agreed the article is full of bogus facts. Jake the snake, Alice Cooper, um that was like 20 years ago? Real up to date research:(

Hahaha yeah... not so much... and did you know burms can survive the 15 degree winters?? ;)

Well I am just not happy reading what the snake removal guy said, there was no reason the euthanize that ball python. I sent him a letter.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by llovelace

Well I am just not happy reading what the snake removal guy said, there was no reason the euthanize that ball python. I sent him a letter.

---

I agree, I read that and thought haven't you heard of adoption?? Just ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

You support it? What about your fellow keepers like myself who own "giant" constrictors? This is just the beginning, next it will be any snake, or they will start banning.....

---

I haven't read the law, but am going on what west coast jungle said

I support keepers being liable if their animals escape, be it snakes, dogs, horses, or any other creatures.

I don't see anything wrong with it. I have all 3 of my snakes in a viv with a locking lid, and on top of that, my ball has 4 books which totals roughly 15 pounds. To me, it's making snake owners responsible for their snakes. The same as any other animal. For example your doggie gets loose, you are responsible for bites or yard damage done by said dog. I support it. Although I do think some of the facts are a bit over the top. I would like to see a snake eat a German Shephard (not really but something in comparison) and I'm not sure ab out the 20ft python surviving the winter (stupid question, do pythons even hybernate since they're not native to cold winters?)

I agree with educating potential large python owners. I agree with holding the keeper responsible for escapes of potentialy dangerous animals. But I dont agree with the legislation just my opinion.

This law is a great law and should be in place in every state. It will help against the fight for banning all snakes. Also what responsible snake keeper doesnt keep there snakes in secure enclosures? I dont want my babies escaping and getting hurt, how about you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

I found this article this morning and I am completely furious. I did not even know this type of legislation was being considered in my state, and I find the whole article to be ridiculous and completely untruthful. I am incensed right now!

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/bre...ry/825961.html

---

Furious?

Call USARK - they helped pen this one..........

Did you even read the legislation?

Who gives a rip about the article? It will be gone and forgotten before this thread dies.

The legislation is what matters. It was done with the involvement of the reptile community. Even if you had no idea that the legislation was being enacted, I cannot see where a responsible reptile keeper could argue with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hud556

I agree with educating potential large python owners. I agree with holding the keeper responsible for escapes of potentialy dangerous animals. But I dont agree with the legislation just my opinion.

---

What part of the legislation do you have a specific issue with?

Maybe you should let USARK know so they can keep from making the same error in another state.

I've attached a link to the bill so that you can outline the parts you have the most issue with.......

http://www.usark.org/statelaws.php?state=NC

I did read the legislation, and after perusing it I came to the conclusion that it was not as bad as I first thought, or as the article made it seem. The article is what upset me the most I think, just the bogus facts and all that nonsense. I think its great that they are choosing to compromise instead of just outright banning animals. I hope that this can be a good example for future legislation in other states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

What part of the legislation do you have a specific issue with?

Maybe you should let USARK know so they can keep from making the same error in another state.

I've attached a link to the bill so that you can outline the parts you have the most issue with.......

http://www.usark.org/statelaws.php?state=NC

---

I dont agree with the government telling me how I have to do things in my own home, Its as simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

I did read the legislation, and after perusing it I came to the conclusion that it was not as bad as I first thought, or as the article made it seem. The article is what upset me the most I think, just the bogus facts and all that nonsense. I think its great that they are choosing to compromise instead of just outright banning animals. I hope that this can be a good example for future legislation in other states.

---

Newspaper articles in general are full of bogus fact and general inconsistencies - be it politics, current events, etc. Your better off ignoring crap like that.

I don't think requiring reptile owners to act like responsible human beings is compromising. It's sad that we have to enact laws to get people to do the the right thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hud556

I dont agree with the government telling me how I have to do things in my own home, Its as simple as that.

---

After reading the legislation I've come to the conclusion that I don't like it. From what I heard, it sounded like it just made keepers liable for escaped pets, but the actual legislation itself does in fact tell you how you have to do things in your own home.. yeah I don't like that.

I agree and my point is that most of us do not need this legislation to get us to properly keep our reptiles, so this a way of compromising with the government instead of just having an outright ban. Maybe the government doesnt see it that way, but I think that it will be helpful in preventing some crappy keepers from keeping these animals. My only question is how will they enforce it and how will they designate what is "proper" housing, aside from locks?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

I agree and my point is that most of us do not need this legislation to get us to properly keep our reptiles, so this a way of compromising with the government instead of just having an outright ban. Maybe the government doesnt see it that way, but I think that it will be helpful in preventing some crappy keepers from keeping these animals. My only question is how will they enforce it and how will they designate what is "proper" housing, aside from locks?

---

They probably specifically did not go into detail on what is "proper" and what is not, because there would be too much argument over what is and what isn't good housing.

I have some problems with the section on handling.. the way it is worded, it could be interpreted that you could not allow a visitor to your home to handle or help handle your large constrictors.

32 "It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or negligently suggest,
33 entice, invite, challenge, intimidate, exhort or otherwise induce or aid any person to handle or
34 expose himself in an unsafe manner to any reptile regulated in any manner
35 under this Article."

Is asking your friend to help you while you clean your retic's cage intentionally inviting him to expose himself in an unsafe manner? Is handling your burm with someone else in the room intentionally exposing yourself and the other person in an unsafe manner to the snake?
Some would say that yes, large snakes are inherently unsafe, but to a degree that we can control so that it is more safe than might be otherwise.

There is purposeful ambiguity in the wording, which opens up options for keepers but also creates legal concerns for them as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hud556

I dont agree with the government telling me how I have to do things in my own home, Its as simple as that.

---

I get you. The bill is so unreasonable.

For example...

It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, use, transport, or traffic in any of the large constricting snakes that are not housed in a sturdy and secure enclosure. Permanent enclosures shall be designed to be escape-proof. Transport containers shall be designed to be escape proof.

That's pretty bad. What in the heck was USARK thinking? Making large constrictor owners keep their animals in secure enclosures.

Even worse.....

Each enclosure shall be labeled clearly and visibly with the scientific name, common name, number of specimens, and owner's identifying information. A written safety protocol and escape recovery plan shall be within sight of permanent housing and a copy shall accompany the transport of any of the large constricting snakes. The safety protocol shall include emergency contact information, identification of the local animal control office, and first aid procedures.

Too much effort for me....

I could go on..the section on venomous reptile housing is just as draconian. It would force people to keep venomous reptiles in secure enclosures. I'm a true believer in that I should be able to act as stupid as I want in the confines of my own home. I mean, other than my wife and kids, who am I endangering? They are my wife and kids after all, if they are harmed by my negligence then so be it........at least I'm free to do whatever I want.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

I agree and my point is that most of us do not need this legislation to get us to properly keep our reptiles, so this a way of compromising with the government instead of just having an outright ban. Maybe the government doesnt see it that way, but I think that it will be helpful in preventing some crappy keepers from keeping these animals. My only question is how will they enforce it and how will they designate what is "proper" housing, aside from locks?

---

Good questions.

I strongly suggest you ask that question of USARK since they co-authored the bill. It would be informative to hear what they have in mind when it comes to defining some of the requirements of the bill.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

They probably specifically did not go into detail on what is "proper" and what is not, because there would be too much argument over what is and what isn't good housing.

I have some problems with the section on handling.. the way it is worded, it could be interpreted that you could not allow a visitor to your home to handle or help handle your large constrictors.

32 "It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or negligently suggest,
33 entice, invite, challenge, intimidate, exhort or otherwise induce or aid any person to handle or
34 expose himself in an unsafe manner to any reptile regulated in any manner
35 under this Article."

Is asking your friend to help you while you clean your retic's cage intentionally inviting him to expose himself in an unsafe manner? Is handling your burm with someone else in the room intentionally exposing yourself and the other person in an unsafe manner to the snake?
Some would say that yes, large snakes are inherently unsafe, but to a degree that we can control so that it is more safe than might be otherwise.

There is purposeful ambiguity in the wording, which opens up options for keepers but also creates legal concerns for them as well.

---

..

Do you really think it's purposeful ambiguity or is it just badly written? I think it's the latter.........

I can't even figure out what they are trying to say in that section......again........whether or not it's some crack pot Senator or the self-appointed guardians of your rights, you should be able to query them on issues like this. You should be able to point out inconsistencies in their language - you should even take it upon yourself to let USARK know that you don't think that their efforts are needed.

Otherwise, the bill becomes law and people are pretty much stuck with it - unless it's amended with another bill.

I'm assuming purposeful ambiguity, laws are rampant with purposeful ambiguity for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it makes them easier to pass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I'm assuming purposeful ambiguity, laws are rampant with purposeful ambiguity for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it makes them easier to pass.

---

Keep in mind who the co-authors were..........USARK............do you think they'd author that sort of ambiguity into legislation that could adversely impact the people they are representing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

They probably specifically did not go into detail on what is "proper" and what is not, because there would be too much argument over what is and what isn't good housing.

I have some problems with the section on handling.. the way it is worded, it could be interpreted that you could not allow a visitor to your home to handle or help handle your large constrictors.

32 "It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or negligently suggest,
33 entice, invite, challenge, intimidate, exhort or otherwise induce or aid any person to handle or
34 expose himself in an unsafe manner to any reptile regulated in any manner
35 under this Article."

Is asking your friend to help you while you clean your retic's cage intentionally inviting him to expose himself in an unsafe manner? Is handling your burm with someone else in the room intentionally exposing yourself and the other person in an unsafe manner to the snake?
Some would say that yes, large snakes are inherently unsafe, but to a degree that we can control so that it is more safe than might be otherwise.

There is purposeful ambiguity in the wording, which opens up options for keepers but also creates legal concerns for them as well.

---

I think what that means is teasing a friend to make the snake attack them. Not as asking an experienced friend to help you clean the cage.

I actually love the idea of this law. Do they have any licensing program for these animals?

Personally I think if you have an animal as a pet and it is venomous or actually large enough to cause harm (this includes a lot of dogs) then you should have to register, and they should have suggestions on enclosures. And it's the kind of thing they should keep up on and actually come by your house from time to time to make sure your animal is doing well and you're keeping up with things.

Other than creating some minor hassle, if you are a responsible pet owner then this will be a simple nuisance, but it will stop people's small dogs from disappearing and stop potential attacks on people.

Also, I do firmly support them having affordable classes to go to that will teach you to handle very large or very venomous animals (with people who actually know what they are talking about).

And you should still have to register if your animal has had it's venom glands removed (because it's offspring will be venomous).

But, seriously, I don't see how any of this can be seen as unreasonable. That'd be like arguing that it's unreasonable to make you have a license for a car.

I know In delaware you ( now ) required to get a permit for each none native snake you want. I am not sure how that effects vemonous snakessince I don't keep any. I do know they not really changed it as ofright now as in some parts you can't own a snake unless you own x amount of land but you can havea horse, goat or whatever animal wise.

I do believe that a person should be held responible for their pets, I know thatyeah escapes happen and such but I also think letting neighbors know( warned) and the spca incase the animal is seen outside the home would be helpful specially if the neightbor willing to call and let you know . since retriving it would prevent an attack.
I do call and update the state Permit ) office about 1-2 times a year as to what I am housing so as to prevent any issues incase ther ever a complaint. Might be why I get some slack cut .. I know of several of my past rescue were given up cause people found out they were not able ot get the permits or such.

Personally, I think the responses here would be a lot different if this law applied to ball pythons and the like, but I wont go into that now. I never said the law was unreasonable, I think its beneficial for the animals, this way they have a chance of getting better care and it will be harder for pet stores to have them in stock. To me this means more people will buy from responsible breeders who actually know what they are doing, and those people who wont put in the effort to taking proper care of the animals wont be able to purchase them as easily. I think there are a lot of good things about this legislation, I do feel that it is a bit ambiguous and there are some issues that need to be addressed before I will accept it completely, but overall it is not as bad as it could be.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by aaramire

Personally, I think the responses here would be a lot different if this law applied to ball pythons and the like, but I wont go into that now.

---

Very good point, and I do think it points out one of the very good aspects of this new legislation: it actively recognizes only a restricted number of species as potentially dangerous, venomous snakes and the biggest of the big constrictors.

None of this "oh no3s pythons are invading the everglad3s!" business with pictures of ball pythons.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

I get you. The bill is so unreasonable.

For example...

It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, use, transport, or traffic in any of the large constricting snakes that are not housed in a sturdy and secure enclosure. Permanent enclosures shall be designed to be escape-proof. Transport containers shall be designed to be escape proof.

That's pretty bad. What in the heck was USARK thinking? Making large constrictor owners keep their animals in secure enclosures.

Even worse.....

Each enclosure shall be labeled clearly and visibly with the scientific name, common name, number of specimens, and owner's identifying information. A written safety protocol and escape recovery plan shall be within sight of permanent housing and a copy shall accompany the transport of any of the large constricting snakes. The safety protocol shall include emergency contact information, identification of the local animal control office, and first aid procedures.

Too much effort for me....

I could go on..the section on venomous reptile housing is just as draconian. It would force people to keep venomous reptiles in secure enclosures. I'm a true believer in that I should be able to act as stupid as I want in the confines of my own home. I mean, other than my wife and kids, who am I endangering? They are my wife and kids after all, if they are harmed by my negligence then so be it........at least I'm free to do whatever I want.

---

I appreciate your mocking sarcasm but I am entitled to my opinion, so go force yours onto someone else... oh does the bill mention who will be coming into your house to make sure your following all regulations and how often?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hud556

I appreciate your mocking sarcasm but I am entitled to my opinion, so go force yours onto someone else... oh does the bill mention who will be coming into your house to make sure your following all regulations and how often?

---

I'd leave large sex toys and lube all over the place if anyone ever "inspected" my pets in my home.

lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hud556

I appreciate your mocking sarcasm but I am entitled to my opinion, so go force yours onto someone else... oh does the bill mention who will be coming into your house to make sure your following all regulations and how often?

---

The intent of the bill is to be proactive and head off more HR669-type legislation. Claiming you have an issue with a bill that requires keepers of potentially hazardous animals to act responsibly is silly.

Huffing and puffing about not wanting to be saddled with the government in your hobby is a waste of breath. I don't want to pay taxes - but I have to in order to keep from going to jail. I don't want to register my guns but I have to in order to legally own them.

Newsflash: The government is going to be in your hobby whether you like it or not. Even USARK, who some claim to seek no quarter, apparently recognize that simple fact. The proof? You and I are discussing it.

The whole reason why we are facing on onslaught of legislation is because people aren't acting responsibly and haven't been for some time. Go to FieldHerpForum and take a look at all the pictures in the latest Florida thread. Iguanas, water monitors, burmese pythons, peacock bass - I could go on. The fact is that the reptile community has to face the fact that we either help draft legislation that we can live with or suffer from legislation we can't.

The bill is badly written in spots - no one who reads it line for line can argue that. Whether you are pro or con on the bill there are problems with the text of the legislation. USARK is the self-anointed protectors of all things herp - people who have an issue with this bill should let USARK know so that they can amend it before the herp community of North Carolina is stuck with a self-inflicted law that causes as many headaches as it seeks to prevent.

Or worse - before this becomes a model bill for other states.

So if you think that the bill allows the jack-booted agents of the government to storm your house making sure your cages conform with the new law - then let the brave boys at USARK know that this part of the legislation needs to be clearly defined.

I live in California and am not affected by this bill. That hasn't stopped me from letting USARK know what I think about parts of their bill and what they need to change before they get my support.

You live in North Carolina. If this bill passes in it's current form, there is vagueness in the language and intent that could have some serious repercussions for you. My worthless opinion is that anyone who lives in NC and has issues with this should contact USARK and let them know....

From USARK's website:

SB307 Regulate Ownership & Use of Certain Reptiles, written by Herpers for Herpers, has just passed the North Carolina Senate and is headed for the House of Representatives. The USARK sponsored legislation was authored in partnership with NC PARC (Partners in Amphibian & Reptile Conservation) and had input from the NC Zoo, NC Museum of Natural Sciences, NC Veterinary Medical Association, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Dept. of Agriculture and private citizens. It was supported by the NC Animal Agriculture Community. It maintains the right of responsible reptile keepers to work with certain reptiles, while setting practical standards for secure caging, safety protocols, transport, anti-release provisions and escape recovery plans. It also sets penalties for negligence and other violations of protocol. Simple, straight forward and pragmatic; it is a model for state legislation around the country. Only Big 5 constrictors, venomous and crocodilians are affected by this bill.

This is just another example of how USARK continues to reverse trends and do the necessary hard work of the Herp Community. After years of losing ground to the Animal Rights Movement the Reptile Nation has finally come together. We now have our voice, and the voice of the Reptile Nation is USARK!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skiploder

The intent of the bill is to be proactive and head off more HR669-type legislation. Claiming you have an issue with a bill that requires keepers of potentially hazardous animals to act responsibly is silly.

---

This will have no impacton HR669-type legislation. HR669 was spawned due to concern that invasive species will destroy local ecosystems, not because venomous or large reptiles have the potential to be dangerous to humans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

This will have no impacton HR669-type legislation. HR669 was spawned due to concern that invasive species will destroy local ecosystems, not because venomous or large reptiles have the potential to be dangerous to humans.

---

Read the text of the bill and USARK's own blurb - it also deals with anti-release provisions and escape recovery plans.

(c) Any person intentionally releasing into the wild a nonnative venomous reptile, a large constricting snake, or a crocodilian shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.


Also look at the legislation recently written in Connecticut:
http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...25&postcount=2

I'm confused why USARK didn't let people know they were drafting legislation for reptile owners before it was a proposed bill?
They seem to have updates about everything, until this. What else do they have planned? Anything in Florida? Any nationwide ones? Anyone know? I check the website off and on, but I never saw info on this until it was done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

I'm confused why USARK didn't let people know they were drafting legislation for reptile owners before it was a proposed bill?
They seem to have updates about everything, until this. What else do they have planned? Anything in Florida? Any nationwide ones? Anyone know? I check the website off and on, but I never saw info on this until it was done.

---

The posted the NC news on May 14. Ralph Davis posted the same info on Kingsnake that same day.

http://usark.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=37

That was the first I had ever heard of it. They may have posted info elsewhere.

My first thought when I saw the announcement in May was that it was odd that they hadn't discussed it on any of the forums (or their website) during the writing/run-up process.

They claim they got feedback from private keepers. I guess Crutchfield and Davis can legitimately be called private keepers..........