Question for all the "exotic" keepers on here....

[3skulls]

How about permits, regulations and training before people pop out kids?

Raising and letting them out into the public could be just as bad as forgetting to lock the tigers cage.

[Dracoluna]

Honestly, there are some good regulations and some that are just ridiculous. Let's be honest, without protecting most of the human race from their own stupidity, there would be a lot less overpopulation...

Like many others, I agree with looking at the problem and trying to find a way to treat that without blanket legislation. I live in a location where pretty much all snakes are banned but yet I still keep them and even volunteer at our local human society doing reptile educational programs. Seeing as the animal control officer for my area has held my animals, knows I have them, and does not say anything, I consider myself one of the lucky ones. This isn't the case in many areas, however. Let's look at this logically for a moment.

The problem: Lack of education and distribution of misinformation whether with good or ill intent. It is not the snakes, tarantulas, scorpions, or even dogs fault that people misunderstand them. However, they are the ones who get blamed. There are more stories about how exotics are dangerous than I care to think about and those are the ones many people tend to remember.

The solution: Education, education, education. As nice as it is to teach children about these animals, let's face it, the kids in that elementary school where you just taught them about how friendly snakes can be are not the ones making the laws. Veterinarians, human society workers, pet shop employees (they are distributing false information to customers which in turn makes the hobby look bad which is why they are on this list), and anyone holding a government office and making decisions regarding our hobby needs to be informed. They will not go out and seek that information on their own in most cases so we must be proactive. Is it fair? Not even remotely but if we continue to wait to fight until the legislation is proposed, we put ourselves behind the 8 ball so to speak. Every single one of us needs to take the time and educate those around us whenever possible. I will happily spend an extra hour (and have more than I care to admit) working with a pet shop employee to explain proper ball python care to them. I show off my snakes pictures and when faced with that horrified expression we've all seen from people who think we're crazy, I'll calmly ask them why they dislike snakes to open the discussion. Patience along with being proactive will get us a lot further than fighting like a cornered animal once the bills are introduced. Even by informing your next door neighbor about your animals and how they can be wonderful pets will mean one more person in your corner even if they don't choose to keep them themselves. This is the power of education. Don't underestimate it.

The exceptions: Anything that really can be a true danger to society. Don't get me wrong, I feel that private owners should have the right to own hots, big cats, etc. I also feel that those people should go through training, pass a test, and have their enclosures/keeping practices examined. Any idiot can buy a tiger in Missouri for example. Unfortunately, that animal should not have to suffer because that person shouldn't own it in the first place. It can be a danger to others should it get loose. With proper legislation regarding licensing and education, fewer animals would suffer without taking away the ability to own these creatures. Honestly, I would even be willing to take a class and get a license to own my ball pythons and corns if that's what it took despite them not being truly dangerous.

All that being said and done, I admit that I ignore the laws regarding exotics in my area which state I may not own them. I also would not condone owning anything dangerous such as hots, primates, big cats, etc. without proper education and licensing. In my city, the law is written as such:

(3) Keeping Wild and Exotic Animals Prohibited. (a) No person shall keep, maintain or have in such person’s possession or under such person’s control any poisonous reptile, dangerous or wild animal or insect, including, but not limited to, poisonous insects and arachnids, all poisonous snakes, constrictor snakes, any snake exceeding four (4) feet in length, non-human primates, bears, crocodiles, alligators, coyotes, elephants, gamecocks and other fighting birds, hippopotami, hyenas, jaguars, leopards, lions, lynx, pumas, cougars,
mountain lions, panthers, ocelots, tigers, or other wild feline species, wolf hybrids and wolves.
(b) Exceptions. The prohibitions set forth in subsection (a) shall not apply to licensed pet shops, zoological gardens, public or private educational institutions, circuses and professional animal acts or other shows requiring an entertainment activity license required by sec. 12.07 of this Municipal Code;

Considering that means ALL snakes (let's face it, they either are venomous or constrict to kill), tarantulas, and scorpions are illegal, I will continue fighting with education and hope to someday step in front of our city council to have this law amended to more reasonable standards. I also realize that change takes time but I will take that time and risk to ensure a better future for our hobby.

[KMG]

Your local laws show the problem. Lack of education. Rules are being made by people that have no clue what the problem is so finding a solution is impossible. They state no poisonous snakes so that limits you from owning a Rhabdophis snake but not a pygmy rattlesnake. They use these blanket terms and statements without knowing the damage it does because they have no working knowledge of the hobby.

I will support any rule or regulation that makes sense and is just.

[Slitherous]

I think permits, formal training for dealing with, and enclosure requirements would be a good idea for keeping hots and giants.

I'll probably get the $**%%^ bashed out of me now! LOL

Also, who is to say what size is the minimum for a giant. Is a 5 foot corn snake a giant? I bet some people would see a 5 foot anything and think it was a pretty big snake.


Never looked into it, but I think there are states with regs on hots, etc...


I'm interested to see what others think.


GOOD THREAD!!!

Hots are banned in CA except for zoos, (or zoo permit holders, ie; private zoos), educational/research institutions, and licensed zoological importers, (who may only sell hots to the aforementioned institutions). Bigs are relatively unregulated except for certain localities such as LA which requires a City license for any type of animal the deem as "exotic" and not already banned by state or federal law, and that includes all types of reptiles. The licenses are relatively easy to obtain, but they limit the number of animals that can be kept and the species allowed, and sometimes require inspections, (native reptiles are considered "exotics" too). Though many in LA do keep herps without permits, if caught the fines can be stiff, and the animals can be confiscated. However, native reptiles can be kept if the holder has a valid State Fishing License as well as the City permit, though natives cannot be sold, (but captive bred babies of wild-caught natives can be sold). Having been in both the retail and wholesale sides of the pet business in LA for some time, I learned first-hand about those "exotics" licenses, and was inspected several times, (but never cited).

I do think hots should be restricted to some extent, and possibly bigs, but if the keeper shows proper experience and facilities, (via inspections), then so be it. Handling hots is a tense, nervy and dangerous activity, and I remember every single time I did it...I wouldn't recommend it for "hobbyists". I also was always in places with all required safety precautions close at hand, including back-up personnel and antivenin. Doing any otherwise is inviting disaster, believe it....it's just a matter of when! As to bigs, back-up personnel with some experience should be available any time snakes bigger than 12' are handled, that's just common sense, (not matter how "tame" and acclimated they are). I pulled a 13' Burmese off an employee who had been bit and constricted around the arms and legs and fell to the floor in a lump of snake/kid with the big snake locked on his forearm. If I hadn't been there and knew what to do, a bad situation could have been a tragic situation. The kid required stitches, antibiotics, and weeks of physical therapy, but it could have been worse. The snake also suffered some jaw damage from having his mouth pried open by me trying to extricate the kid's arm......he pulled teeth out of his arm for weeks afterward. and looked like he had been attacked by a crazed wire brush. No mater how much we trust our snakes we can't forget that they are indeed wild animals, the may adapt well to captivity, but they are still wild.

S

[OctagonGecko729]

The danger that pets in general cause the public is so miniscule.

I agree with alot of what skiploder said, especially that I really dislike animals being treated terribly from irresponsible owners.

I do not think that any animal is too dangerous to be kept as a pet if kept responsibly. I cringe everytime I turn on animal planet and see folks hugging a lion and saying "he loves me he would never attack me". Animals are just that, animals, and you have to respect the power and instincts they have.

I do not favor any governmental regulations at all. I think as a community we can solve all of the problems we have if given the time to do so.

The main problems I see with our trade are the following: 1.) Inexperienced people getting their hands on animals they are not ready for. 2.) Not having an enforcement wing of the BOI to be able to extract money from peoples accounts who scam others. 3.) Not having a offline BOI for expos

Number 1 can be solved by breeders and through the BOI. Don't purchase from folks that you know peddle african rocks to inexperienced keepers.

Number 2 could be setting up a section on fauna, bush league, kingsnake etc where you put money down in a interaction which is held until the deal is checked off as completed by both members of the deal. If the deal is not checked and a complaint is issued then it is taken to the BOI, the person who is caught scamming gets that money automatically extracted from the classified account and it is sent to the victim.

Number 3. We really need a way to get scum out of expos. I'm not sure if this is implemented elsewhere in the country but I can tell you that on the east coast it is not. I would really like to see an expo with its own "regulators" who go around and check tables for signs of neglect or improper care. Also I would like to see expos actually do an online search of the folks who will be vending and if any show up with a BOI they are banned from the expo. I am sure responsible keepers dread going to an expo only to infect their collection with mites or worse. Also, who the hell wants a bunch of beat up animals next to their table which looks flawless anyway. The folks that bring busted up animals to expos make the entire hobby look bad and then expos set up a principle that it is ok to have animals in that condition by allowing them to vend there. This does not send a good message to new folks who are just now getting into the hobby. /rant off

Most of these problems are already being solved though, the BOI works great. The market is slowly weeding out the scum that dont keep animals properly as 95+% of us take great pride in clean, well taken care of animals. This forces others to compete with that cleanliness and creates a new status quo for breeding animals.

[Jason Bowden]

Regulations to make peope responsible owners and do things right. I don't think some regulations would be bad. Some animals can be dangerous(IMO).
Did someone say mountain lion? Uh, I have small children.
Venomous snake? You crazy! LOL I know some of you have them. Be careful!
Very hard to make every one happy. But, I don't want a venomous snake to escape into my neighborhood and bite a unsuspecting person.
So, maybe there needs to be a reg/requirement for the type of enclosure you can keep a hot in. Just roll it around.

I hate the extremes! I can't imagine a world where a person can't keep a gold fish.

Assault weapons. There was a time before gun powder. Plenty of killing went on.

[MrLang]

I agree with regulation for most of the reasons mentioned here. Here's where I stand specifically:

-Kids under 18 shouldn't be able to purchase giant snakes or venomous without their parents signing off that THEY'RE the ones responsible until the keeper is 18 and understand what the animal is going to turn into when their kid decides they're bored with it or realize they can't take it to their college dorm with them. "Oh it's just a little snake in an aquarium" should never be a reason someone is allowed to get a pet. They should have to sign a document understanding that the animal will weigh more than they do at some point and be unsafe to handle alone (moooommmm, will you help me take out my 130 lb snake so I can pick up its turd that's larger than the dog).

-Some animals are not fit for pets. Please don't confuse that statement with saying people shouldn't be allowed to have them, they just shouldn't fit under a word like 'pet' and therefore should require some kind of screening and regulation of their keeping. Of all of the animals under the title of herps, I'd actually say monitor lizards fit my reasoning best. The main point of that reasoning is their intelligence and specialized needs, not their size or 'destructive powers'. Second on that list would be venomous snakes and third would be the largest constrictors. Those last 2 would simply be because I think they require specialized enough care that there should be a screening or regulation process behind keeping them, for the sake of the animal and not the keeper.

It'd be great to make people get a permit to have a human child but it will never happen - so that point is really derailing the thread or trying to compare an apple to an orange to make it look rotten. Its sound logic objectively, but not sound logic in the context of the reality of our society.

[MrLang]

To address the OP, I think actually a huge amount of people on here support some kind of regulation.

What you see people bashing is regulation by some idiot that thinks he's smart because he's in politics raving some nonsense about 'ban everything that's not a cat, dog, or goldfish' despite cats being the most destructive invasive species since humans, dogs being one of the most dangerous pets you can possibly own, and goldfish supporting some of the worst habitat destruction and population devastation seen in the pet trade.

[Jason Bowden]

Lots of good thoughts coming up in the posts!

Glad a lot of us are chiming in on this.


Do the keepers need to be regulated? Maybe so!
One of my locaL snake buddies(grits) was vending at our local Repticon show recently. He had several baby burms for sale. We were talking about some of the people that were interested and buying them.
He had refused to sell to some of the people interested in them. One of the people turned down was a 17 year old young man. Several questins were asked him: Do you have snakes? Have you had snakes in the past? Do you know what kind of snake this is? Replies: No No No
grits(Beanie) would not sell this guy the snake/burm. Research was recommended. Also some other 1st snakes were recommended including ball pythons, etc...

Burms are beautiful. Burms are gentle. I love them, but i don't think most people should keep them, or "maybe" not be allowed to keep them. IDK
If burms didn't get as big, I would definately have one.

I saw "keeping scum out of expos/the industry" mentioned. I agree! And think highky of venders, like Beanie, not selling exotics to unprepared potential owners.

[OctagonGecko729]

I agree with regulation for most of the reasons mentioned here. Here's where I stand specifically:

-Kids under 18 shouldn't be able to purchase giant snakes or venomous without their parents signing off that THEY'RE the ones responsible until the keeper is 18 and understand what the animal is going to turn into when their kid decides they're bored with it or realize they can't take it to their college dorm with them. "Oh it's just a little snake in an aquarium" should never be a reason someone is allowed to get a pet. They should have to sign a document understanding that the animal will weigh more than they do at some point and be unsafe to handle alone (moooommmm, will you help me take out my 130 lb snake so I can pick up its turd that's larger than the dog).

-Some animals are not fit for pets. Please don't confuse that statement with saying people shouldn't be allowed to have them, they just shouldn't fit under a word like 'pet' and therefore should require some kind of screening and regulation of their keeping. Of all of the animals under the title of herps, I'd actually say monitor lizards fit my reasoning best. The main point of that reasoning is their intelligence and specialized needs, not their size or 'destructive powers'. Second on that list would be venomous snakes and third would be the largest constrictors. Those last 2 would simply be because I think they require specialized enough care that there should be a screening or regulation process behind keeping them, for the sake of the animal and not the keeper.

It'd be great to make people get a permit to have a human child but it will never happen - so that point is really derailing the thread or trying to compare an apple to an orange to make it look rotten. Its sound logic objectively, but not sound logic in the context of the reality of our society.

What effect would signing in regulations for an owning age have? I don't think age is ever the defining characteristic of ignorance and I'm sure plenty of parents would sign off for the animal as well. Also, why age 18?

I'm not sure I follow the pet paragraph. Could you define "pet"? I'd define the word "pet" as any animal kept in captivity. With that definition I'd stand by my above statement, any animal that is cared for and respected properly is a fine pet, everything from a single celled organism all the way up to a blue whale. Obviously the reality of people wanting to own those two extremes is non existant for a myriad of reasons. Now if we are talking about "pet" being defined as something you can cuddle, then no, a venemous does not fall into that definition.

And I'm not sure I get the last paragraph either. If that statement is sound logic objectively then I dont understand "in the context of the reality of our soceity". Logic is objective whether soceity or individuals within that soceity want to accept it or not.