American Bar Association Recommends Constrictor Ban

[CrystalRose]

Happened to see this on another site I belong to.

http://usherp.org/2014/09/01/america...nstrictor-ban/

[bcr229]

It reads like the same poorly-researched drek they publish on gun control.

[Daigga]

Federal law currently provides no protection for dangerous wild animals kept as pets.22 Thus, the only way to fully protect the public health and safety, and to eliminate
animal welfare risks, is to prohibit the private ownership of dangerous wild animals.

"Because there isn't any laws protecting the animals welfare, we should pass a law that makes ownership illegal." What? Not maybe a law protecting animal welfare? Just a straight ban? That seems a little extreme, not to mention missing a few logical steps.

Children, parents, and authorities are finding released or escaped pet pythons, boa constrictors, and anacondas all over the country, where they endanger communities, threaten
ecosystems, and in many cases suffer tragic deaths.

Mostly I only hear about these happening with Burms in Florida, since most other exotic species come from climates too different from north and central USA. The other examples I know of mostly include fish, none of which are mentioned in this report. Anyone care to chime in about non-native exotic species causing havoc? I'm not much of an expert, just pretty sure that "all over the country" is an exaggeration.

. Allow current owners to keep the animals they currently possess (grandfather clauses),
but protect those grandfathered animals by giving officials the authority to regulate
possession and to inspect the animals’ living conditions and care they receive;

You can keep your current animals, but only under what is sure to be heavy regulation. The way the report reads leads me to believe that the writers would not look kindly on large snakes being kept in rack systems, but I could be wrong here.

Total count of fear-mongering specific stories: 11
Not counting the numerous mentions of zoonotic illnesses and instances of abuse.

Most of the report lists big cats specifically more than reptiles, as I think only one of the specific cases involved a death by a giant python. Monkeys and primates are also listed more frequently, which is kind of odd to me since snakes make up the biggest majority of the dangerous animal list. By the way, did you notice that not only are large constrictors listed in the dangerous species, but colubrids as well?


Annoying, as most of the article reads like an accusation toward exotic animal owners and lumps all keepers into the same category as the abusive nutjobs that think it's okay to keep tigers and alligators in apartments. The biggest shame is that there aren't many lobbyist on our side of the fence, and if the suggestions int he report make it to legislation it's almost guaranteed to pass.

[Heeltoeclutch]

I'm not really sure how much to freak out about this.

Part of me has always felt that bull like this is inevitable, at least in the U.S.; someone will always make a fuss about nothing of consequence and in general the public cannot do much to stop them, especially a relatively small group of enthusiasts like us.

This thread only has two replies, yet it seems like this report's implications, should it go legislative, could destroy so much that this site helps to promote. Being a neophyte in the herp world, I'm not really sure how much weight something like this carries; historically, should we all be writing letters to our senators, booking plane tickets to D.C. and buying signmaking supplies? Or is this a pretty common occurrence that we just need to wait out until it blows over?

I have so little to lose if this goes through compared to most of the people on this site... I guess I'm just amazed at how little our community here seems phased.

[artgecko]

I understand your viewpoint heeltoeclutch, and have noticed the same lack of response to many legal threads on this forum. I am not sure if it is due to many not looking in this sub forum, or if it is a sign of general malaise in our community. When the new proposed add-ons to the lacey act had a comment period (where the public could post comments), there was a thread posted here and I went to comment. I think it only got 700 comments or something like that and I know there are thousands of herpers in the US.

I think some of it is the mentality that "I don't own a large constrictor and BPS aren't on the list so it doesn't effect me"... What people don't get is that banning the big snakes is the first step in a process that will take away our rights to own any pets. I, myself, now have two boas that could be put on the lacey act and (if this opinion gets passed and is then suggested to the legislature and turns into law), could be banned. If these people get their way, there will be no breeding / keeping of these snakes.

Here is a link to USARKs article about the issue. It explains some things more clearly than the other article and also goes into detail about the AR people behind it and what AR groups goals are.

[Heeltoeclutch]

Thanks art,

That article is a bit comforting - it sounds like there's not much we can do at the moment unless the proposal advances. If there ends up being something that needs doing I hope it gets the attention it needs.

What a mess. People are dumb. Other people are wonderful. Interesting.

[ER12]

Here is more info from USARK:

In late August, the American Bar Association's (ABA) Animal Law Committee (ALC), part of the Trial, Tort and Insurance Practice Section of the ABA, submitted a recommended Resolution (viewable at http://www.usark.org/wp-content/uplo...s-Aug-2014.pdf) to the ABA House of Delegates for consideration. It does not appear that this Resolution was presented to the ABA House of Delegates at the ABA’s Annual Meeting in August and remains pending. The next opportunity for action on this proposal would presumably be at the ABA’s Mid-Year Meeting next February.

USARK has fully-reviewed the resolution which takes a position against possession of many exotic animals, including reptiles. We wanted to take the time to provide some background information rather than sending this without explanation, seeing as this is not a matter of dire urgency. No action (i.e. adoption or rejection of this Resolution) has been taken by the House of Delegates. There will be opportunities to challenge and revise the Resolution if movement is seen regarding this document.

This Resolution urges adoption of a ban on private ownership of certain animals, including reptiles. This "Dangerous Wild Animal" (DWA) sample legislation is nearly identical to the DWA bills that have been introduced in various states in recent years. Certain committees within the ABA, which are largely populated by ideologically-motivated members of the Bar, have been active on exotic animal issues for years. While this is not a new threat, vigilance is warranted and it is important that we continue to monitor ABA activity. Action has been seen by certain members of the Bar that varies little from activism against the pet community.

USARK will keep you updated on any issues arising from this matter.

Why is the ABA involving themselves with animal-related matters?

The ABA is comprised of several “Sections” organized around different areas of law. The ALC is relatively unique in that it is dominated by members of the ABA that have ties to animal rights groups (usually such committees have attorneys with a wide variety of viewpoints). Not surprisingly, its positions tend to mirror those of the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society of the United Sates (HSUS), and other related organizations. As such, it is less of a concern that the Animal Law Committee has adopted this Resolution than it would be if it became the official position of the ABA.

What is the basis of this document?

Unfortunately, this document heavily references material, websites, and blogs belonging to HSUS, Born Free USA, and other animal rights groups. Even inaccurate internet media articles are cited. This recommendation is certainly skewed to the favor of the animal rights movement, as HSUS is cited repeatedly. It does not incorporate any material or statistics reinforcing that the overwhelming majority of these animals are kept by responsible keepers and that there is no true threat to public safety. This committee also suggest regulation through collective punishment (punishment of the whole due to a few) which is overbearing and unconstitutional. Rather than punishing the deserving irresponsible pet owners, the entire pet community is punished.

What is this committee recommending?

The Live Animal Committee is suggesting an end to the private ownership of the animals listed below. While they do suggest that current pet owners should be "grandfathered" (exempt from a new ban and able to keep their pets), it does state that even grandfathered owners must meet new regulations. This may include liability insurance (a cost that may prove prohibitive to keeping an animal), expensive permits and other requirements. They also recommend that breeding and acquisition of new animals be terminated.

Animals listed as "Dangerous Wild Animals"
Class Mammalia
Order Carnivora:
Family Canidae: captive-bred red wolves (Canis rufus) and gray wolves (Canis lupus).
Family Felidae: lions (Panthera leo), tigers (Panthera tigris), leopards (Panthera pardus), clouded leopards (Neofelis nebulosa, Neofelis diardi), snow leopards (Panthera uncia), jaguars (Panthera onca), cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus), captive-bred mountain lions (Puma concolor).
Family Hyaenidae: all species of hyena and aardwolf.
Family Ursidae: Asiatic Black Bears (Ursus thibetanus), captive-bred American black bears (Ursus americanus), Brown Bears (Ursus arctos), Polar Bear (Ursus maritimus), Sloth Bears (Melursus ursinus), Sun Bears (Helarctos malayanus), Giant Panda Bears (Ailuropoda melanoleuca), Spectacled Bears (Tremarctos ornatus), including hybrids thereof.
Family Procyonidae: all species, excluding raccoons (Procyon lotor).
Order Primates: all species, excluding humans.
Class Reptilia
Order Crocodylia: all species of alligators, crocodiles, caimans, gharials.
Order Squamata:
Family Atractaspidae: all species, such as mole vipers.
Family Boidae: anacondas (Genus Eunectes), boa constrictors (Boa constrictor), Burmese pythons (Python molurus), reticulated pythons (Python reticulatus), amethystine pythons (Morelia amethistinus), scrub pythons (Morelia kinghorni), Northern African pythons (Python sebae), Southern African pythons (Python natalensis).
Family Colubridae: boomslangs (Dispholidus typus), twig snakes (Genus Thelotornis).
Family Elapidae: all species, such as cobras, mambas, and coral snakes.
Family Hydrophiidae: all species, such as sea snakes.
Family Viperidae: all species, such as rattlesnakes, pit vipers, and puff adders.
Who would be exempt under this sample legislation?

Only facilities accredited with the American Zoological Association (AZA) and the Global Federation of Sanctuaries, circuses that possess class C Animal Welfare Act licenses, etc. (See page 14 at http://www.usark.org/wp-content/uplo...s-Aug-2014.pdf)