Why?

[Russ Lawson]

You may disagree with the wording of the particular legislation, but to me it just doesn't seem wise to let any John go buy hots and large constrictors. I think it's actually a good thing for there to be proposals of this sort of legislation in the states that currently have none because it will make reptile keepers in the US as a whole look better to the government (which I might remind you has absolutely NO expertise on our animals, and for the most part thinks they're all evil monsters that are out to get them).

Now I will say that I disagree with a provision that the state be able to take your animals for any length of time, but that could be something the state has requested in the type of legislation. It's really hard to say, but that little piece sounds pretty bad in my book.

But yes, quite honestly I would rather see legislation like this at the state level than a ban at the national level. If the government sees a lot of that they might lay off because it's really expensive to enforce a ban like they're pushing for at the national level. There is going to have to be a compromise somewhere unfortunately. The media and AR psychos have made this far too large of an issue that it really isn't, and most of our politicians lack the capacity to see past that. Would you rather have to pay $50 for a permit, or not be allowed to breed and sell your large constrictors at all?

[Denial]

I understand where you coming from. I have no problem paying a permit fee. But the way this is written right now has to many loopholes. Most of the breeders at our shows are responsible breeders and will not sell hots or large constrictors to anyone under 18.

This is another part of the bill I do not agree with

(B) It is unlawful for a person intentionally or negligently to suggest, entice, invite, challenge, intimidate, exhort, or otherwise induce or aid a person to handle or expose himself in an unsafe manner to a reptile regulated under this chapter.

[natsamjosh]

You may disagree with the wording of the particular legislation, but to me it just doesn't seem wise to let any John go buy hots and large constrictors. I think it's actually a good thing for there to be proposals of this sort of legislation in the states that currently have none because it will make reptile keepers in the US as a whole look better to the government (which I might remind you has absolutely NO expertise on our animals, and for the most part thinks they're all evil monsters that are out to get them).

Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible, so I don't agree this will make reptile keepers look any different. Florida has even more restrictive regulations, but that obviously didn't stop that idiot down in Florida from having his python escape and get blamed for killing his step daughter. IMO, I only see negatives:

1) Those who want to destroy the hobby will keep pushing for further, more restrictive legislation. This only makes it easier for them.

2) This vague bill opens up a whole can of worms as far as what safe and responsible handling means. I'm scared to do my presentations at my kids's schools now!

3) Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible owners.

4) Responsible owners will pay the price both literally and figuratively.

5) Another controlling gov't entity needs to be created to enforce the new laws. More tax money, more ill informed gov't workers who could potentially take your snakes, etc.

Also, I don't think it's reasonable to put hots and large constrictors in the same category. Compared to baseball bats, lightning, kitchen knives, cars, and
swimming pools, large constrictor snakes present ZERO risk to the public and only a ridiculously small risk to even to the owners. We might as well make laws banning going outside (to avoid some idiot from going outside in a lightning storm.)




Thanks,
Ed

[Denial]

EXCELLENT post ed!

[mainbutter]

I will never support any legislation that restricts ownership of reptiles based on the idea of dangers they pose to the public.. because there is statistically zero danger to the public.

I will never support any legislation that restricts the rights of individuals to put themselves at risk. I don't want the government protecting me from myself, that's my choice if I wish to engage in dangerous activities.

I will never support any organization that supports any legislation that falls into the above two categories.

I will let USARK know my feelings.

[Denial]

I will never support any legislation that restricts ownership of reptiles based on the idea of dangers they pose to the public.. because there is statistically zero danger to the public.

I will never support any legislation that restricts the rights of individuals to put themselves at risk. I don't want the government protecting me from myself, that's my choice if I wish to engage in dangerous activities.

I will never support any organization that supports any legislation that falls into the above two categories.

I will let USARK know my feelings.

Maybe they will respond to you!

[mainbutter]

Maybe they will respond to you!

I wrote them an email voicing my concerns and reiterating my personal stances on reptile legislation:

It has been rumored among the reptile keeper community that USARK is being proactive and promoting state-level legislation regulating venomous reptiles and large constrictors in states where no such legislation currently exists.

I feel that, as a reptile keeper who supports USARK in just about all their efforts, I need to bring my concerns (echoed and agreed upon by many in the community) to your attention.

I will never support any federal-level reptile legislation whatsoever.

I will never support any legislation that restricts ownership of reptiles based on the idea of dangers they pose to the public. There is no question that venomous reptiles and large constrictors are inherently dangerous, but even in states with a complete lack of dangerous reptile legislation, there is statistically ZERO risk to the public. If you were to measure the danger of these animals by the history of injuries and deaths, all danger is aimed directly at the keepers, and to a lesser degree those who reside in their household.

I will never support any legislation that restricts the rights of individuals to put themselves at risk. I don't want the government protecting me from myself, that's my choice if I wish to engage in dangerous activities.

I will never support an outright ban on keeping particular species.

I will never support any organization that supports any legislation that falls into the above categories.

I hope that USARK's positions on reptile legislation allows me to continue supporting your organization.

I got a prompt response, inviting me to cross post this response as well!

Peter,

We agree with you completely. I think much of your concern is based on misunderstanding. There are some in the community that have very little comprehension of what is going on around them politically and legislatively. They have been sleeping blissfully while our rights to own reptiles have disappeared. Finally we have a voice and are able to mold our own future instead of having it dictated to us. The same ones who are abusively critical of our efforts are the same ones who did nothing before. Now things are happening because of all the publicity our community has gotten this year. State and Federal government is taking action. Some people are getting scared and blaming USARK for what government and Animal Rights orgs are doing. All we have done is provide a framework for our survival. Nothing that we have proposed would take away a reponsible keepers ability to keep what they want. In fact what we have proposed would secure your ability to keep the herps you want into the indefinate future... including all the big 5, venomous and crocodilians. NO Permits, No FEES, NO Registration, No Microchipping.... Challenge those that are pushing misinformation to show you how anything we have done will stop anyone from keeping the reptiles of their choice. Then bring their answers back to me. I guarantee their accusations won't hold water in the light of day. Feel free to cross post.

Thank you for your support,
Andrew

[Denial]

Thanks for posting peter. Although I have not been sleeping blissfully I have been working my ass off calling offices and sending emails and letters I do thank andrew for replying to you and taking the time to reply to email also. I do feel better knowing that usark is not pushing for this bill and it is up to the residents of south carolina. So once again I urge anyone in south carolina to help fight this and continue to live in a state that has basically very few laws regarding what type of pet you may own.

[Russ Lawson]

Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible, so I don't agree this will make reptile keepers look any different. Florida has even more restrictive regulations, but that obviously didn't stop that idiot down in Florida from having his python escape and get blamed for killing his step daughter. IMO, I only see negatives:

1) Those who want to destroy the hobby will keep pushing for further, more restrictive legislation. This only makes it easier for them.

2) This vague bill opens up a whole can of worms as far as what safe and responsible handling means. I'm scared to do my presentations at my kids's schools now!

3) Irresponsible owners will still be irresponsible owners.

4) Responsible owners will pay the price both literally and figuratively.

5) Another controlling gov't entity needs to be created to enforce the new laws. More tax money, more ill informed gov't workers who could potentially take your snakes, etc.

Also, I don't think it's reasonable to put hots and large constrictors in the same category. Compared to baseball bats, lightning, kitchen knives, cars, and
swimming pools, large constrictor snakes present ZERO risk to the public and only a ridiculously small risk to even to the owners. We might as well make laws banning going outside (to avoid some idiot from going outside in a lightning storm.)




Thanks,
Ed

Florida also did a pathetic job of informing its general public they were passing ROC laws, but that point is moot. I was angry about them when they passed because now I have to jump through a few more hoops to get dwarf burms and retics. Again I'd rather the state have these laws than an all out ban. I'm not here to argue or anything, I was just trying to point out where USARK might be coming from with this type of legislation. I don't necessarily agree with it the way it is written, but from what I hear, the wording is vague, which i see as a huge negative.

As far as making our enemies' jobs easier, I think state-level legislation could potentially do the opposite. If the federal government sees the states all coming up with their own legislation, they might determine it not to be worth the time or money to enact new laws on the federal level regarding it. At least ideally I can see it working that way. I pretty much agree with you on all of the other points, but having a permitting system in place would at least prevent some irresponsible people from obtaining animals they shouldn't have. Additionally, I don't really see a reason to be deterred from doing demonstrations with your animals as long as you're not doing some thrill show. Educational demonstrations with these animals at schools and such are a very good thing to keep doing as far as I'm concerned. Keep removing bits of the senseless phobias people have about our animals.

Additionally I didn't mean to come off like I was putting hots and large constrictors in the same category. They are very different. Actually neither is a public threat with proper caging. The reason I included the two in the same sentence is because it still takes a certain type of person to properly care for a large constrictor, and I don't think people who just buy them for the fear factor should be keeping them. I do agree with mainbutter about laws "protecting people from themselves" so to speak. They are stupid and unnecessary, and I am entirely opposed to them.

To be honest, I would rather see no more laws restricting the reptile industry passed anywhere. Unfortunately I just can't realistically see that. The media has already blown this far out of proportion into some huge problem. The politicians aren't going to just sit there and this go without passing some law because they think it will make them look good and get them re-elected. It's unfair and unfortunate, but that's just how the system is. The best we can do is do our best to educate them about our animals, and fight every law the crazy AR people bring up.

I wish those of you in SC best of luck fighting to get this thing thrown out or revised, but like I said if it's a $50 permit to keep a large constrictor, it's a compromise I'm willing to take over a potential ban any day.

[WingedWolfPsion]

If we come across as unrealistic and unwilling to compromise, not to mention negligent--we will lose.