Holy crap!!

[bcr229]

I will respond but my answers will be tailored to the bill currently making its way through my own state's legislature.

First, the bill was obviously not written by people who are knowlegeable about exotic animals. The prior version that passed the House uses the term "poisonous" rather than "venomous" snakes. The current version defines all venomous snakes the same way, so legally a hognose or even a garter (yes garters are venomous) is equivalent to a timber rattler.

Second, the bill is being voted on by people who know even less about exotic animals. Not just one, but two legislators we contacted used the "snow snake" deaths as a reason why they were supporting the legislation. The snow snake is an internet hoax.

Third, another reason being touted for the legislation is because someone released a croc/monitor in a lake in WV last year, which is already a violation of our law. It's not widely known but the perp was caught and confessed... and he will not be charged. I got that info straight from the governor's office yesterday.

Fourth, this bill supposedly will protect public safety by banning/restricting/requiring permits for certain species... yet no one can cite numbers from doctors, hospitals, emergency rooms, etc. in the state on how much damage/injury/death there is from exotic animals kept as pets (as opposed to people who get tagged by wild copperheads or rattlesnakes).

Fifth, the bill requires keepers to purchase liability insurance that would be either prohibitively expensive or unobtainable from most providers.

Sixth, the preliminary number I've been given for the annual permit fee is $200 per animal per year. That number is being set by an unelected board, not by statute. Permit fees go to the state's general fund, not to additional funding/training for animal control officers so that they can learn to handle or house exotics, or so they can identify abusive conditions.

Seventh, the legislation does nothing to address setting minimal husbandry requirements for each species such as we have for livestock.

Eighth, setting a length limit on snakes encourages "maintenance feeding" to keep the snake's size under the limit.

If a keeper of an exotic animal is doing so under conditions that create a legitimate public safety issue, there are already laws in place to handle it - everything from reckless endangerment through manslaughter.

I don't mean to start anything (and I sincerely do not want a debate - I truly am curious), but I live in Canada. Our government has banned, nation-wide, all snakes large enough to seriously injure an adult human - as in, reticulated pythons and anacondas, those sorts of species along with large crocs and alligators - and all venomous snakes (not including the rear-fanged or mildly venomous like hog nose snakes).

I don't really understand the frustration against these laws...

I understand that it impedes your individual freedoms. I really do.
However, here we have had issues with people owning exotic animals like large cats, and those people have unfortunately either been very badly hurt or killed BECAUSE they didn't know how to take care of them. Which gives the animals a bad reputation that they DO NOT DESERVE. Nor do they deserve the abuse they often go through being mistreated and malnourished. That's not to say all people do this, because they don't. But some do... and that is not fair to the animals, either.

So my question is, if laws like those in Canada (or similar) are introduced to parts of the USA, do you think they serve any purpose at all?
My thinking is, they will protect people who do not understand or know how to properly care for the exotic animals which can and do sometimes harm them (as all animals can), as well as the animals themselves.
If you already own some of these animals, and do properly care for them, would you be entitled to keep them due to "grandfather laws"?

Or do you think the risks associated with keeping "dangerous" herps (not sure I agree with this term, but the kind that truly can injure or harm adult humans... not, like, a 6 foot corn snake ) outweighs the government's choices?

Looking forward to some respectful feedback and opinions
Thanks! (Also an apology to the OP for high-jacking a bit. I hope this only contributes to your thread!)

[NH93]

It's really one thing to apply risks to yourself. It's another to apply risks to someone else who isn't a recipient of it.

And I agree that tigers and large constrictors are different, but they can both cause harm. That can't be denied (even if pet tigers would cause more harm than pet snakes - I believe they would/do, but others who actually own large cats might disagree). But what about risks to the animals?

Do you think the laws would stop people who don't know how to care for the animals, though? I would think that large constrictors need special care in that it takes more than one person sometimes to handle them, does it not?

I strongly believe that there are pros and cons to EVERY law made, or else they wouldn't pass. Not that I agree with every law. I'm interested in seeing if anyone has anything good to say, perhaps about the protection of large snakes from (to quote) "stupid" people/owners.
Because as far as I can tell, from the communities I am involved with, there isn't as much backlash in Canada against the current laws as their is in the USA with proposed laws.

And I don't mean this law specifically, just in general. Because as others have mentioned, there are nothing but flaws with the one posted. I definitely don't disagree there!

[NH93]

It's BECAUSE it's a law. The Government should NOT be in the business of legislating away my personal freedoms. If I wanted to go snowboarding down a mountain of glass shards in my bathing suit I should be allowed to do that. Sure some people may think that it would be incredibly stupid to try a stunt like that and I would agree with them, but that doesn't give the government the right to tell people they can't do it. I know that this is probably an extreme example but there are many MANY things FAR more dangerous then keeping large constictors that are perfectly legal.

It is NOT the governments job to tell me how to live my life. One of our former governers said it best (if a little harshly) 'The government is not in the business of legislating against stupidity'

That's a good point.
But what if the large constrictors are the ones in danger? As in, not getting taken care of properly. Or do you think it goes the same as with any other species of animal, that anyone has the ability to mistreat their pet and the government can't tell them what to do (or they could intervene in other ways, like with the SPCA or animal control)? But with this in mind, they don't appear to have the knowledge to know what's right for the animals anyways since they are making so many mistakes in the posted proposal... so that's where I get confused.

On that note, just as an opinion (because it is subjective and different for everyone), do you also believe this about owning guns?
I don't think the two are really comparable, but I've been noticing a lot that snakes and guns seem to go together on this forum... at least from the American users!

[OctagonGecko729]

The snakes and guns thing is because its an extension of the principle that property is not inherently dangerous.. It is the individual who owns such property that makes it dangerous or safe through adhering to proper protocols and safety measures or not.

[MonkeyShuttle]

Hey Melinda if this bill passes you should drive to the state border with some spray paint and go ahead and put a big X over the WILD and the WONDERFUL part of that nice sign they got out there so people will know its just WEST VIRGINIA


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MonkeyShuttle]

$200 per animal per year! Thats insane!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[MarkS]

That's a good point.
But what if the large constrictors are the ones in danger? As in, not getting taken care of properly. Or do you think it goes the same as with any other species of animal, that anyone has the ability to mistreat their pet and the government can't tell them what to do (or they could intervene in other ways, like with the SPCA or animal control)? But with this in mind, they don't appear to have the knowledge to know what's right for the animals anyways since they are making so many mistakes in the posted proposal... so that's where I get confused.

On that note, just as an opinion (because it is subjective and different for everyone), do you also believe this about owning guns?
I don't think the two are really comparable, but I've been noticing a lot that snakes and guns seem to go together on this forum... at least from the American users!

That's kind of an apples VS oranges argument. There are plenty of animal cruelty laws in place that could be enforced if the animals are not being kept correctly. But there is a big difference between arresting someone for animal cruelty and banning a species from ownership by EVERYBODY because some people 'might' not know what they're doing. It's kind of backwards. It would be like banning all teenagers from shopping because a few of them might want to shoplift something.

I agree with octagongecko729 on the gun issue and I think he stated it well. Personally I'm not much of a gun person. I have a few that I used to use for hunting though I haven't gone out now for many years. I don't shoot for fun and I'm not a collector but if someone tried to take away the few that I have I'd be pretty upset, I might want to take up hunting again when I have more time. Guns are just tools that are used for a specific job and are not themselves dangerous, it's how they are used that has the potential to be dangerous.

[kc261]

My biggest problem with these laws is the same problem I have with gun laws and many other laws. It only hurts law abiding citizens. There should be laws (and I believe there are although I don't know details) against animal cruelty whether through ignorance or intent, and laws against allowing an animal you own to harm another person, whether through negligence or intent. I can even see adding some new laws requiring reasonable permits ($200/animal/year isn't reasonable) or other regulation of some species such as tigers or venomous snakes that have potential to be dangerous.

But, people who are knowledgeable about the animals they keep and do take all the necessary precautions to do it safely aren't the problem. Yet they are the ones who are going to get their animals taken away, because they are also the ones who will obey the new law, just like they are the ones already obeying the existing laws. But someone who doesn't care about the law and/or doesn't care about taking proper care of an animal they own and/or doesn't care about making sure a potentially dangerous animal is maintained in a safe and secure manner will still break the law, will still own animals they don't take care of, and will still potentially have those animals end up harming other people. It might be that they go ahead and keep a rattlesnake even though it is illegal and then it gets loose and bites someone (I'm not even going to go into the fact that I think some species of rattlesnakes are native to WV so a rattlesnake bite could happen anyway), or it might just be that they own a dog that is perfectly legal, but it is underfed and under socialized or even deliberately trained to be vicious and the dog ends up mauling someone.

Gun laws don't stop criminals from owning guns and thus they don't stop people being killed by guns. Exotic animal bans aren't going to stop people from being cruel to animals and other people from being hurt by animals.

[artgecko]

Wow... this just goes to show how ignorant most politicians are, unfortunately, I don't think that ignorance is limited to reptiles. bcr229- I hope this does not get signed by the governor... I will check out the link you provided (can't remember if it is on this thread or the other one) and try to write something coherent.

On the slightly OT topic of laws similar to this, this again makes me lean even more strongly towards libertarianism... The government slowly strips away rights and no one notices until it is their turn on the chopping block.

NH93- Your questions are interesting.. I think it has to do with personal responsibility vs. dependence on the state. The more you depend on the state to "keep you safe" the more you expect them to legislate everything. To quote Benjamin Franklin: "They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

You opinion is also effected by how the laws in your country affect you.. i.e. The laws you stated are against giant constrictors and crocdilians... Do you want a retic? Did you own one and then have your right to keep it taken away? I'm guessing no.... So you don't feel very strongly about that law. What if your province passed a new law saying that you could not own any snake over 6' like the WV law, meaning that you could not keep adult female BPs, would you be against it? This is like the saying about the Nazis' rise to power and the German people's reaction to it:
"First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out-- Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me."

Basically, the government will make laws that affect small groups... Like herpers and no one will speak out because they don't own reptiles. This isn't because the laws are right, it's because the law effects only a few. If the WV government or your local government made a law outlawing keeping dogs over, say, 60lbs, because they are "dangerous" if not confined and handled correctly there would be a huge public outcry because the law effects many... And such a law would have more basis than the one passed in WV considering just how many people get mauled by dogs on a daily basis... we had a small child killed here locally two weeks ago and another story yesterday about a severe (but not deadly mauling). Such a law would take away the freedom of both the responsible and irresponsible dog owners, thus punishing people because their dog "could" potentially hurt someone.

Again, bcr229- I apologize for my long and somewhat OT response... Government nonsense like this just makes me so angsty.. And what I hate most is that people don't realize that their freedom is being stripped away. I will try and do some research on numbers and use the form on your governor's page and respond. I'd like to "know the facts" before writing him. I feel for you and your collection, no one should have to worry that what they are doing "might" become illegal.. Is there a "grandfather" clause in the law? I would think that it would be necessary with something like this.

[bcr229]

1) No grandfather clause.
2) While a detailed factual comment would be great we're expecting this bill to be signed or vetoed in he next few days so please just hammer the governor's office with calls. Facts will be needed later for public outreach though!