new NC snake law

[Skiploder]

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

[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.

[hud556]

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.

[Skiploder]

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.

[mainbutter]

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.

[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?

[mainbutter]

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.

[Skiploder]

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.

[Skiploder]

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.

[Skiploder]

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.