Trying to take a different look at proposed bans (LONG)

[JohnNJ]

Perhaps your right about them, I don't know... but would fighting them every inch of the way accomplish anything?

It would accomplish a lot more than giving in.

[wolfy-hound]

Fighting them every inch of the way MIGHT slow them down enough that we have a chance to educate the followers that simply believe the propaganda!

Make NO mistake, PETA is against keeping ANY pet, and the exotics will be their stepping stone to each species of pet, right down to the cats and dogs, which will most likely be last.
They've already started with laws that would prevent anyone but a large kennel to breed dogs, banning "backyard" and "hobby" breeders of dogs. This would eliminate the lousy backyard breeders.. it's a great thing, right? No! It elimates some BYB, and all of the show breeders, the responsible breeders that might have one litter a year.. and who does it leave? The puppy mills!! Who are easy to shut down, by their usual practices, and there you suddenly have no breeders of dogs at all.
This is a example of how PETA works, they propose something that SEEMS reasonable and good.. and they show it in the best light. Once it's a done deal.. you find what a bad thing is was.. but it's now too late.

Reptiles are not cuddley.. they are not warm-blooded.. they are a 'easy target' for the first legislation. Then it will be small exotics like sugar gliders, and hedgehogs... it's a progressive thing.
Fight them every inch, or your grandchildren won't be able to keep even a goldfish.

[littleindiangirl]

Just out of curiosity, and i agree with you, but what do you propose after the pet store/ breeder does their job? This still leaves the gap in the system of all the impulse buys that dump their pet. Or do you think it is just impossible to control? One interesting experience I had was with a dog breeder (Tibetan Terriers) who had sold my parents dogs before. They had a littler and my wife wanted one. We called and talked to them and they asked most the questions. Some people may be put off by this approach but they wanted to be sure their dogs were going to responsible homes. In the end we can to a mutual decision that we did not have enough space at the time but they told us to contact them when we got into a bigger place. I was pretty impressed by the ethics of the whole thing.

It isn't a perfect plan, far from it I know. But I have to agree that persistent education is really key! Just like Spaniard said, we lack a strong role model that puts the spot light on the positives when keeping exotics and reptiles.

[kc261]

When you think about it, even Steve Irwin was not really the role model we need. He was GREAT and did a lot of very positive things, but he was mostly about animals in the wild and somewhat about animals in zoos, so while any positive press for reptiles is a good thing, it really wasn't about the ownership of exotics as pets.

[Skiploder]

Let's face reality here for a second - legislation is imminent. It is not a question of "if" but "when" and "how bad". Anyone who thinks you can petition or whine this away needs a good hard smack in the head.

Since we know it's coming, why not focus our energies on beating the legislators to the punch and showing for once that the people in this hobby can be relied upon to police themselves? How about we agree that selling giant constrictors and hots to uneducated or unprepared people is a bad thing - mainly for the animals.

Comparing permits or licensing in our hobby to dogs, cats, farm animals, slurpees, hyundais, whatever is a waste of time. Right or wrong, we have been getting bad press because any tool with enough money can go out and buy whatever he wants - be it a rattlesnake or a large constrictor. We should have a permitting system in place that restricts ownership of species that are potentially deadly or potentially invasive.

We're moaning and whining about the B.C. ban but look at the majority of the species they targeted - what do they all have in common?

.....and for those who claim that somehow venemous reptiles, large monitors or large constrictors only kill or hurt their owners - what universe are you living in? Is it fair that a small child or neighbor is impacted by some idiot's lack of common sense or responsibility? Or is that somehow covered by Darwin?

http://www.astm.org/JOURNALS/FORENSIC/PAGES/1454.htm

How about the animals themselves? Connie brings up a point that very few people are even skirting in these discussions - has anyone who is against permitting thought about the animals themselves? How many end up improperly cared for? How they die from neglect or suffer through abysmal husbandry?

I own a lot of reptiles and I would have no problems with a permitting system. I could care less as to whether or not my exsiting collection is grandfathered in. I'm willing to register my animals and pay reasonable fees if it alleviates some of the painfully stupid crap occuring in this hobby.

What I care about is how fast we are headed towards having to deal with some ignorant representative's or senator's badly written legislation that ends up unfairly punishing those consumers and breeders who act ethically and responsibly.

[wolfy-hound]

The neglect and abuse is a totally seperate issue to me. People neglect dogs ALL the time, and no one is proposeing that we should ban or regulate owning dogs. How about horses? There's record numbers of horses being neglected, abandoned, or taken to shelters.. and no one is suggesting we ban or regulate horse ownership.
The issue I have is with BANS. If it is a responsible system of permitting.. then I'd be okay with that. HOWEVER.... Rhode Island has a permitting system.. and no one gets permits. They instituted a system that requires you to go get a permit to own XXX(nearly every exotic out there), but instead of regulating the ownership of exotics.. they've basically outlawed it, since they simply do not give out any permits.
I'd like to see a case where a large monitor lizard killed someone in the U.S. Looking around, I don't seem to see any news articles. Once in a great GREAT while, a giant boid will kill someone, generally the owner. And of course, on occasion, a hot will kill someone, again.. generally the owner.
How many people are killed by dogs? Where's the legislation outlawing those? Horses? No laws against horses as dangerous animals. COWS kill people every year!!
It's RIDICULOUS to say that reptiles should be banned due to their dangerous nature.. when nearly any other pet out there kills/injures hundreds more people each year than the reptiles do.

[Slim]

Perhaps your right about them, I don't know... but would fighting them every inch of the way accomplish anything?

If the only thing we accomplish by fighting every step of the way is to obtain a stand off, and hold on to what we have, that is far better to me than losing this hobby an inch at a time.

[Skiploder]

The neglect and abuse is a totally seperate issue to me. People neglect dogs ALL the time, and no one is proposeing that we should ban or regulate owning dogs. How about horses? There's record numbers of horses being neglected, abandoned, or taken to shelters.. and no one is suggesting we ban or regulate horse ownership.
The issue I have is with BANS. If it is a responsible system of permitting.. then I'd be okay with that. HOWEVER.... Rhode Island has a permitting system.. and no one gets permits. They instituted a system that requires you to go get a permit to own XXX(nearly every exotic out there), but instead of regulating the ownership of exotics.. they've basically outlawed it, since they simply do not give out any permits.
I'd like to see a case where a large monitor lizard killed someone in the U.S. Looking around, I don't seem to see any news articles. Once in a great GREAT while, a giant boid will kill someone, generally the owner. And of course, on occasion, a hot will kill someone, again.. generally the owner.
How many people are killed by dogs? Where's the legislation outlawing those? Horses? No laws against horses as dangerous animals. COWS kill people every year!!
It's RIDICULOUS to say that reptiles should be banned due to their dangerous nature.. when nearly any other pet out there kills/injures hundreds more people each year than the reptiles do.

Theresa:

The facts don't matter to the people enacting the laws and trying to educate a career politician as to the facts and stats is an exercise in futility.

We are a relative minority in the pet trade and we've gained a pretty bad rap with John Q. Public along the way.

This is where the argument breaks down. Making a comparison to dogs and cats holds not water - not because the argument is invalid or illogical but because there are billions of dollars behind the feeding, care and pampering of these animals. No legislator in their right mind would go much farther beyond highly publicized breed-specific bans or the currently licensing laws.

Money talks and numbers talk. We really don't have either. Some bonehead in a suit is going to dictate the future of our hobby if we don't take whatever ammo their using out of their guns.

That's why WE should be the group making an attempt at self regulating via permits within reason, formulated by intelligent people in our hobby.

[icygirl]

What I don't understand about all this, is the "cleanup". Meaning: if the proposed bans are passed into law, then what happens to the millions of these animals currently in people's homes? Do those people all instantly become criminals unless they give up their animals? And furthermore, where are all these animals going?

I am very much in favor of setting up a FUNCTIONAL permit system for owning certain herps. Ideally, the permits would not be terribly difficult to come by, but would weed out people who have no idea what they're getting into. Kind of like our Quarantine Room... It's not hard to gain access, but look, there are still tons of people on our forums who've never seen it, and the web-surfer who happens in on our forums won't be able to just drop in there. I think permits would cut down on impulse purchases, for sure.

But like others have mentioned, the people who actually understand what reptiles need, and what makes a good reptile owner, are few and far between in politics...

[Gorgias]

I hate to keep playing devils advocate but I think regardless of our feelings towards PETA we have to accept what they are. Animal right groups are representing the wishes of a large portion of the public. People donate to animal rights groups because they believe animals are treated badly. It's true there are extremists in the groups, and frauds, and people using the system. I would like to point out that most of the really radical animal rights people really are not in PETA, but instead in direct action groups like ALF. PETA and HSUS are often criticized for not going far enough. I really think there is no danger of EVERYONE losing ALL pets. The full animals rights utopia may one day exist, but not in America and not any time soon. One thing I find kind of ironic, I didn't see to much on PETA's site about banning exotics, I did however find a fact sheet telling people that exotics are difficult to care for and need things like UV, Heat, special diets, and proper caging. HSUS however, the more powerful group with more donations, more lawyers, more accomplishments, and a better public image had many articles suggesting how dangerous exotics are. Animal rights are not making the rules, but they have a voice in the rule making. They are not an oppressive totalitarian political force trying to rule us all. They are simply a group with an agenda that they would like to see recognized, and usually there is room for negotiation with people like this. Even if it won't happen, focusing on a us and them mentality really doesn't really help the problem. And blaming politicians really isn't a good approach either. They represent the public and (in theory) do whats best for the public. In some cases it would be appropriate to direct your anger their way, this isn't one of them. Banning exotics would not be a directly hurt people, yes I acknowledge financial circumstances but this is an indirect form, remember that you want the system to allow you to do continue something. Owning pets is not guaranteed and is not a required basic need.

I'm really glad to see that other people feel that neglect and irresponsibility are part of the issue and that self regulation is key! Just out of curiosity, and I'm not trying to antagonize anyone here, for those of you who say you will fight ever inch of ground against these bans and groups.... what exactly are you planning on doing?

I also was wondering if anyone had any kind of idea as to how a effective permit system would work? If you could just pick one up for a fee what would be different than just a tax on reptiles?

Finally if it has not been addressed, I believe the bans would work as follows: If HR 669 were to pass, you would no longer be able to breed, ship, or transport animals across state lines... but you could still keep your pets you have. If S373 were to pass... I don't know, pythons would be considered a invasive species, and I'm guessing we would have to surrender them to be euthanized. I doubt they could all be put in zoos and it wouldn't make sense to ship them off for two reasons: the incredible expense, and the fact most of them were bred in captivity and don't know how to survive in the wild and would have less than effective immune systems from lack of exposure to diseases and parasites.