2010 Legislation So Far

[Eventide]

The problem here is what what would constitute as "harrassment", "chase", and "capture"? That could technically make even simple herping illegal without a permit since that is technically "chasing" and/or "capturing" the animal.
Whenever I examine any herp or animal related legislation, I do not necessarily take it at face value. I tend to think of any and all of the unintended consequences (or perhaps intended) a given law might have.

Actually, it's pretty straightforward: Do anything but look at and/or take pictures of a Gila monster in the wild, and you could be cited. Besides, there's no reason to "chase" a Gila monster. They don't move very fast!

now i can't say i'm against regulating the Gators and Crocs, but then they add the pythons and boas, and it says nothing about what species of python or boa, so i would assume they mean any of them... including a Ball python, i have a serious problem with that. Again it's just a way for them (Government/congress/special interest groups) to take away rights and over regulate. I just don't get it really, what ever happend to live and let live.
I just hope everyone that visits and enjoys these forums will do there part too keep them going and write their respective State Reps, because if these laws are passed, we are all going to have to find somthing else to do, because there will be no need for these forums, it makes me sad because i just found this place and i've fallen head over feet for it.

sorry still not sure how the quote thing works exactly.

No worries!

You basically agree with me, it seems. I'm all for decent, non-stupid, non-HSUS laws that are there for a good reason. Tacking pythons and boas after crocodilians--with or without specific species listed--is just dumb.

I will fight for my right to keep reptiles...as long as I disagree with said law. The ones listed for Arizona, in my opinion, are not a problem and are not there just to crap on pet-keepers; these laws are/will be in place to protect the species from illegal poaching, harassment (which can greatly affect some desert species), etc. If we didn't have some of these laws--like banning bullfrogs, the no-harassment law for Gila monsters, and the limit on desert tortoises--these and other native species would be on the brink of extinction....

Hopefully you know and realize that the HSUS animal rights (AR) groups and the crooked politicians that are inspired by them that are pushing for many of these laws and legislation from behind the scenes are masters of deceiving both the public and legislators and will resort to using "back door" approaches in order to get their agenda passed in the end. I have seen and heard of them doing this many times, not only with reptile legislation. If they cannot ban something outright, they will try to make that given activity more expensive and costly to continue to engage in. This is what they have been doing with their meat ballot initiatives in some states such as Florida and Arizona, ultimately driving up the cost of meat. Legislation may seem "good" at face value, but oftentimes, the devil is in the details...

The key word, there, is "many" [of these laws]. I don't know the exact fraction of laws that HSUS supports, but I know HSUS isn't behind every, single law that restricts ownership of and trade in reptiles. Not every law concerning reptiles has some dark, evil agenda. Some of them are actually in the animals' best interests, believe it or not.

-

If we just flat-out assume that all reptile laws are bad without taking the time to research it or taking into account the reason(s) for the law, then we are no better than HSUS.

[ER12]

Eventide,

I am for the most part for reasonable and sensible regulations and permitting processes concerning native species. However, I think you are missing what some sections of this Arizona bill are about. This Arizona bill is not a permitting bill. It is a Ban bill. And who do we know that love those so much?

A. Except as provided in subsection B of this section, a person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, import or transport into this state, have custody or control of or propagate dangerous wildlife.

B. Subsection A of this section does not apply to a person in lawful possession of dangerous wildlife before July 1, 2010. A person in possession of dangerous wildlife has the burden of proving the person lawfully possessed the dangerous wildlife before July 1, 2010. A person who lawfully possessed dangerous wildlife before July 1, 2010 may retain possession of that dangerous wildlife for the remainder of the animal's life but only if the person complies with all of the following requirements:

and at the bottom of the page,

Sec. 3. Finding; purpose

A. The legislature finds that personal possession of dangerous wildlife as pets poses a threat to public health and safety and the health of the wildlife population in this state.

B. The purpose of this act is to protect the public health and safety and the health of the wildlife population in this state from dangerous wildlife held as pets.

I'm not sure about you, but this inflammatory language sure sounds like HSUS to me.

[Eventide]

Inflammatory? That's not inflammatory; that's legalese.

Again, we cannot just assume, because the language says things like "ban" or other similar things doesn't automatically mean it's bad and/or funded/backed by HSUS. I mean, c'mon, the parts you just quoted mean absolutely nothing until you look at the actual species banned.

I've read through the list, and the only animals I disagree with on that bill are the Desert tortoise, rattlesnakes/pit vipers, and hedgehogs. But then again, there are a lot of states that don't allow pit vipers or other venomous snakes. I'm okay with people owning venomous snakes as long as the caging is regulated and/or a permit is required. Random Joe should not own a venomous snake.

Did you read what the animals banned were? Prairie dogs, crocodilians, pronghorn, javelina, bats, 'possums, orangutans, sloths, beavers, bears, a whole bunch of non-tropical fish--the list goes on. Do you really think the general public should be able to own all these without any permits or other regulations?

[ER12]

Eventide,

Like you, I too am concerned mainly with the inclusion of viperidae, elapidae, and Dispholidus typus (Boomslang). Very few, if any, people are privately keeping many of those other species in the list as pets or other uses. However, If the scope and intent of this bill is to regulate species indigenous to Arizona, and to protect Arizona's natural resources from invasive species, then the majority of those snake species I mentioned do not belong in the list as most of them are obviously not indigenous to Arizona nor are or capable of long term survival and.or reproduction in the state if they were introduced (whether intentionally or unintentionally) that I am aware of. I doubt there are invasive cobras and Gaboon vipers in Arizona for instance. As for the public health and safety claim, I'm sure we all know and agree that keeping venomous is largely an occupational risk rather than a public safety issue in most cases. No third party member of the general public has been bitten, attacked, injured, or killed by an escaped exotic reptile in the US. It has always been the keeper them selves or someone else in the immediate vicinity and/or household where the animal is being kept.

Am I saying that there shouldn't be any regulations at all on venomous or any of the other animals you mentioned? No, not necessarily. Again, I like you, am for permitting processes for venomous. However, I did not see any such inclusion for a permitting process after the specified date of July 1, 2010 (before which is only a temporary grandfathering clause). After that it is a ban. I hope that clears things up for you.

[ER12]

I am referring to exotic venomous snakes in my first paragraph. Damn 10 minute rule...