new NC snake law

[mainbutter]

I'm assuming purposeful ambiguity, laws are rampant with purposeful ambiguity for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it makes them easier to pass.

[Skiploder]

I'm assuming purposeful ambiguity, laws are rampant with purposeful ambiguity for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that it makes them easier to pass.

Keep in mind who the co-authors were..........USARK............do you think they'd author that sort of ambiguity into legislation that could adversely impact the people they are representing?

[Clear]

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.

I think what that means is teasing a friend to make the snake attack them. Not as asking an experienced friend to help you clean the cage.

[Oxylepy]

I actually love the idea of this law. Do they have any licensing program for these animals?

Personally I think if you have an animal as a pet and it is venomous or actually large enough to cause harm (this includes a lot of dogs) then you should have to register, and they should have suggestions on enclosures. And it's the kind of thing they should keep up on and actually come by your house from time to time to make sure your animal is doing well and you're keeping up with things.

Other than creating some minor hassle, if you are a responsible pet owner then this will be a simple nuisance, but it will stop people's small dogs from disappearing and stop potential attacks on people.

Also, I do firmly support them having affordable classes to go to that will teach you to handle very large or very venomous animals (with people who actually know what they are talking about).

And you should still have to register if your animal has had it's venom glands removed (because it's offspring will be venomous).

But, seriously, I don't see how any of this can be seen as unreasonable. That'd be like arguing that it's unreasonable to make you have a license for a car.

[mechnut450]

I know In delaware you ( now ) required to get a permit for each none native snake you want. I am not sure how that effects vemonous snakessince I don't keep any. I do know they not really changed it as ofright now as in some parts you can't own a snake unless you own x amount of land but you can havea horse, goat or whatever animal wise.

I do believe that a person should be held responible for their pets, I know thatyeah escapes happen and such but I also think letting neighbors know( warned) and the spca incase the animal is seen outside the home would be helpful specially if the neightbor willing to call and let you know . since retriving it would prevent an attack.
I do call and update the state Permit ) office about 1-2 times a year as to what I am housing so as to prevent any issues incase ther ever a complaint. Might be why I get some slack cut .. I know of several of my past rescue were given up cause people found out they were not able ot get the permits or such.

[aaramire]

Personally, I think the responses here would be a lot different if this law applied to ball pythons and the like, but I wont go into that now. I never said the law was unreasonable, I think its beneficial for the animals, this way they have a chance of getting better care and it will be harder for pet stores to have them in stock. To me this means more people will buy from responsible breeders who actually know what they are doing, and those people who wont put in the effort to taking proper care of the animals wont be able to purchase them as easily. I think there are a lot of good things about this legislation, I do feel that it is a bit ambiguous and there are some issues that need to be addressed before I will accept it completely, but overall it is not as bad as it could be.

[mainbutter]

Personally, I think the responses here would be a lot different if this law applied to ball pythons and the like, but I wont go into that now.

Very good point, and I do think it points out one of the very good aspects of this new legislation: it actively recognizes only a restricted number of species as potentially dangerous, venomous snakes and the biggest of the big constrictors.

None of this "oh no3s pythons are invading the everglad3s!" business with pictures of ball pythons.

[hud556]

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.

I appreciate your mocking sarcasm but I am entitled to my opinion, so go force yours onto someone else... oh does the bill mention who will be coming into your house to make sure your following all regulations and how often?

[mainbutter]

I appreciate your mocking sarcasm but I am entitled to my opinion, so go force yours onto someone else... oh does the bill mention who will be coming into your house to make sure your following all regulations and how often?

I'd leave large sex toys and lube all over the place if anyone ever "inspected" my pets in my home.

lol.

[Skiploder]

I appreciate your mocking sarcasm but I am entitled to my opinion, so go force yours onto someone else... oh does the bill mention who will be coming into your house to make sure your following all regulations and how often?

The intent of the bill is to be proactive and head off more HR669-type legislation. Claiming you have an issue with a bill that requires keepers of potentially hazardous animals to act responsibly is silly.

Huffing and puffing about not wanting to be saddled with the government in your hobby is a waste of breath. I don't want to pay taxes - but I have to in order to keep from going to jail. I don't want to register my guns but I have to in order to legally own them.

Newsflash: The government is going to be in your hobby whether you like it or not. Even USARK, who some claim to seek no quarter, apparently recognize that simple fact. The proof? You and I are discussing it.

The whole reason why we are facing on onslaught of legislation is because people aren't acting responsibly and haven't been for some time. Go to FieldHerpForum and take a look at all the pictures in the latest Florida thread. Iguanas, water monitors, burmese pythons, peacock bass - I could go on. The fact is that the reptile community has to face the fact that we either help draft legislation that we can live with or suffer from legislation we can't.

The bill is badly written in spots - no one who reads it line for line can argue that. Whether you are pro or con on the bill there are problems with the text of the legislation. USARK is the self-anointed protectors of all things herp - people who have an issue with this bill should let USARK know so that they can amend it before the herp community of North Carolina is stuck with a self-inflicted law that causes as many headaches as it seeks to prevent.

Or worse - before this becomes a model bill for other states.

So if you think that the bill allows the jack-booted agents of the government to storm your house making sure your cages conform with the new law - then let the brave boys at USARK know that this part of the legislation needs to be clearly defined.

I live in California and am not affected by this bill. That hasn't stopped me from letting USARK know what I think about parts of their bill and what they need to change before they get my support.

You live in North Carolina. If this bill passes in it's current form, there is vagueness in the language and intent that could have some serious repercussions for you. My worthless opinion is that anyone who lives in NC and has issues with this should contact USARK and let them know....

From USARK's website:

SB307 Regulate Ownership & Use of Certain Reptiles, written by Herpers for Herpers, has just passed the North Carolina Senate and is headed for the House of Representatives. The USARK sponsored legislation was authored in partnership with NC PARC (Partners in Amphibian & Reptile Conservation) and had input from the NC Zoo, NC Museum of Natural Sciences, NC Veterinary Medical Association, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Dept. of Agriculture and private citizens. It was supported by the NC Animal Agriculture Community. It maintains the right of responsible reptile keepers to work with certain reptiles, while setting practical standards for secure caging, safety protocols, transport, anti-release provisions and escape recovery plans. It also sets penalties for negligence and other violations of protocol. Simple, straight forward and pragmatic; it is a model for state legislation around the country. Only Big 5 constrictors, venomous and crocodilians are affected by this bill.

This is just another example of how USARK continues to reverse trends and do the necessary hard work of the Herp Community. After years of losing ground to the Animal Rights Movement the Reptile Nation has finally come together. We now have our voice, and the voice of the Reptile Nation is USARK!