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

[satomi325]

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).

S

Actually, there is one hot snake that is legal to own.
You can legally own albino Western Diamondback rattlers in CA. You don't need to be a zoo or educational/research group to possess one. The reason is if they ever do get out, they are native and won't invade or disrupt local wildlife and environments. Plus being albino makes them a huge target for predators, so they are often eliminated anyway.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

[MrLang]

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?

Age is not a defining characteristic of ignorance but you're not fooling anyone to say it isn't hugely correlated. That's not even my point though... let me explain. In this situation, a legally defined minor has to have parental permission for everything else they do. In the case of someone over 18, they should still have to be legally required to sign off that they understand the potential for the animal they're purchasing. How many burmese pythons have been sold by sheisty salesmen who tell the customer that they can live in an aquarium their whole life and don't grow more than 6 feet? The idea here is to make it a legal requirement to inform the buyer of the potential of the animal they're purchasing through a standardized process and set of information. For someone who can't sign a legal document anyway (a minor) the responsibility falls on the legal guardian just like in any other situation.

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.

People keep bears and elephants at zoos. I wasn't looking to redefine the word pet or even argue definition. Think of it as a concept for the sake of what I'm trying to convey. Livestock animals, for instance, require permits. They're not defined as 'pets'. What makes them different? The same set of qualities I'm referencing: specialization of care, high care requirements, ability to devastate natural populations. Maybe it's a trade thing, but it [removal from the category of 'pet'] should be based on the specialized care requirements. Dogs fit under this in my opinion.

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.

I know that logic is defined as objective. It's not a reasonable argument to make in the US at this time. Go to somewhere like some places in Asia where human population has broken the threshold of government regulation and this argument becomes valid.

[OctagonGecko729]

Age is not a defining characteristic of ignorance but you're not fooling anyone to say it isn't hugely correlated. That's not even my point though... let me explain. In this situation, a legally defined minor has to have parental permission for everything else they do. In the case of someone over 18, they should still have to be legally required to sign off that they understand the potential for the animal they're purchasing. How many burmese pythons have been sold by sheisty salesmen who tell the customer that they can live in an aquarium their whole life and don't grow more than 6 feet? The idea here is to make it a legal requirement to inform the buyer of the potential of the animal they're purchasing through a standardized process and set of information. For someone who can't sign a legal document anyway (a minor) the responsibility falls on the legal guardian just like in any other situation.

People keep bears and elephants at zoos. I wasn't looking to redefine the word pet or even argue definition. Think of it as a concept for the sake of what I'm trying to convey. Livestock animals, for instance, require permits. They're not defined as 'pets'. What makes them different? The same set of qualities I'm referencing: specialization of care, high care requirements, ability to devastate natural populations. Maybe it's a trade thing, but it [removal from the category of 'pet'] should be based on the specialized care requirements. Dogs fit under this in my opinion.

I know that logic is defined as objective. It's not a reasonable argument to make in the US at this time. Go to somewhere like some places in Asia where human population has broken the threshold of government regulation and this argument becomes valid.

I have not experienced that first hand. I have noticed that in general kids are more mature then their parents and that those kids who are not mature are parented by ignorant parents. Just because minors are legally required to get parental permission for everything else they do does not mean that they "should" be required to also get parental permission to own an animal or that those existing laws for "everything else" are logical to begin with. My position here again melts down to seller responsibility, BOIs, and ostracism from economic transactions. Also, what would it matter to make it a legal requirement to inform the buyer? Scumbags are still simply not going to do it surely. If they are only interested in peddling animals for quick cash and they purposefully omit the animals size to make that money, why then would they change there mind? Are these regulations even enforceable? Who is going to carry them out? What are the penalties for non-compliance?

Without defining pet you open a pandoras box of infinite possibilities of regulation and illogic. Who is to say what constitutes "specialization of care, high care requirements, and the ability to devastate natural populations"? I agree the last one is objective but these animals ability to devastate natural populations is a problem of the commons to begin with. The others are purely subjective depending on each individuals living arrangement and commitment. And again, all of this to solve what problem exactly? I'd say 95+% of breeders are doing things legit and those that are not are being weeded out through BOI, captive reptiles kill one person every 2 years and it is always the keeper. The devestation of the ecosystems is a problem of the commons which can not fully be solved at the moment however it is being handled by the local population.

[Herpenthusiast3]

I can purchase a retic right now, but I can't purchase a burm! Anyone else find this ridiculous! I do believe that ownership of such animals should only be given to those who show experience and knowledge within the hobby. Educate people don't tell them what they can and can not do. People are resourceful and if interaction with some type of wild animal is something they desire you can almost guarantee that at least a handful of those will find a way to attain that animal. If blanket laws didn't leave people in the dark pertaining to the education and the nature of those animals I believe people would better understand what it is they want and it might help to weed out the impulsive exotics buyers who only want a wild animal (that he/she more then likely can not take care of) because they were told that they couldn't have said animal. I believe in regulations I just believe that the current regulations that we have don't address the issues and over all suck. :/

[Skiploder]

I can purchase a retic right now, but I can't purchase a burm! Anyone else find this ridiculous! I do believe that ownership of such animals should only be given to those who show experience and knowledge within the hobby. Educate people don't tell them what they can and can not do. People are resourceful and if interaction with some type of wild animal is something they desire you can almost guarantee that at least a handful of those will find a way to attain that animal. If blanket laws didn't leave people in the dark pertaining to the education and the nature of those animals I believe people would better understand what it is they want and it might help to weed out the impulsive exotics buyers who only want a wild animal (that he/she more then likely can not take care of) because they were told that they couldn't have said animal. I believe in regulations I just believe that the current regulations that we have don't address the issues and over all suck. :/

You live in Northern California - right?

Why can't you purchase a burm?

[wolfy-hound]

Without reading the whole thread because frankly, I'm really not in the mood...

My $0.02 about "protecting" people from owning dangerous animals that could kill them, i.e. hots or giant constrictors, big cats, bears, whatever...

Are you also going to say that people can no longer enjoy dirt biking? Horseback riding? Car racing? Bicycling? Hang-gliding or sky-diving or flying a small plane... drinking? Smoking? Eating anything but human kibble specially formulated so you don't get overweight? Owning a dog? Owning large furniture that may fall on them? Ban soda machines, swing sets, skates, skateboards, surfing, heck- swimming at ALL, and so on and so forth?

You can NOT make the world a perfectly safe place and just because to ME, racing a dirt bike along mountain trails seems like something only a suicidal crazy person would do, doesn't mean I have the right to tell you that it's no longer allowed as an activity because you could get hurt or killed and it's just too dangerous because not only you would be in danger, but bystanders or hikers who you might run over or land on when you go off a cliff.

Adults have a right to pursue happiness and if that means owning a big stupid yellow lab that might knock them down accidentally and cause brain damage... or owning a live rattlesnake... or going sky diving... that's their choice.

Plus, any owner is ALREADY legally liable for any damage or harm caused by their animals. If my cow escaped the pasture and jumps in front of a car, I'm liable for the damage to the car and injury to the driver. It's no different if my dog runs out and bites someone. It's not different if it's a ferret, a gerbil, a horse, a bull or an elephant.

As long as it's zoned for livestock, anyone can go out and buy a cow or horse. There's no permit to buy a horse. It can cause more harm to people than any constrictor snake, and by history, has killed more people in a year than all the nonvenomous reptiles have... ever.

There's usually some regulations regarding containment of certain species. Basically they boil down to "Don't let it get loose and cause havok." We don't need more regulations, and regulations that are passed will not be good for pet owners nor for the general public.

[Seanjackmc]

I'm a huge right wing conservative in general. The less government involvement the better. I will say this. I'm a huge proponent of gun ownership, however I do agree with the CURRENT legislation in Michigan. Meaning if you do not have a cpl you need to go to your local pd and pass a short exam, once the exam is passed you receive 4 cards. One goes to the gun dealer, one stays with you and two are for the local pd data base (for handguns only.) I like this because it eliminates impulse buys and people who won't pass a basic back ground check. If you hold a cpl you can buy any thing you want right away with no need to register. I have no problem with this being done in the exotic world. A simple permit before you are allowed to buy I believe would eliminate a lot of irresponsible exotic owners. You can't just got to an expo and buy something without at the very least putting some thought into it. Won't be 100% effective but maybe a step in the right direction.Just my 2 cents

[Kaorte]

I might actually like it if there were some sort of class/training I could take in order to become a "certified reptile keeper" or something like that. I don't think everyone should be REQUIRED to take this class, especially if they have just a pet turtle or a pet corn snake... But if you are really getting in to keeping and breeding reptiles, I feel like there should be some sort of test to make sure you are fit for the job. Similarly to how you have to take an exam before you get your drivers license. Having a license would make me feel more official and less like a "backyard breeder". As long as it didn't cost an arm and a leg, I think a lot of people would go for that. Similarly to how many responsible gun owners are completely for having background checks for gun sales.

Prohibition is never the answer and only causes public outrage. Regulation isn't a bad idea, but I think all the current legislation in the pipes is all BS. These people don't know what they are talking about and are so misguided.

[rlditmars]

In many instances, Education can eliminate the need for Legislation. The difficulty lies with coordinating the information and finding outlets and avenues to reach all those that would need to be reached, in an efficient and economical way. Legislation is usually initiated in a reactive way to some isolated occurance or sometimes multiple occurances, as was the case in the Ohio ban. But in the end the laws don't really correct the problem. It simply allows the majority, to feel comforted that the situation is resolved, until the next incident occurs and causes another response.

As a very extreme example, look at the Sandy Hook incident. Think of the number of different crimes that the shooter could have been charged with had he been captured. (Murder, Theft, Breaking and Entering, Transporting a loaded weapon, Firing a gun in city limits, etc.) and the list goes on and on. In each instance a law had been broken. So now, show me how another law would have prevented it since none of the ones that were broken, did.

Applying that logic to the reptile world, how will more regs solve the problem. People will break the laws and do stupid things if they want too. There is no way around that and no amount of laws or regulations, short of a total ban, will stop them. And even a total ban won't gaurantee there aren't any problems. Can anyone here say heroin? Its a banned substance but it still causes a great deal of trouble. But more education will prevent the majority of people acting or reacting out of ignorance. And, it doesn't require more laws or regulations in order to educate. Think of how many people smoke today (as a percentage of the total) versus the numbers that used to. That reduction has not been a result of legislation, but education. Informed people will often choose not to smoke. And just so you smokers don't think I'm picking on you. I smoked for 15 years. But I started when there was alot less information available then there is today. Just my 0.02

[OsirisRa32]

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.

im glad im not the only one who's ever thought of this!! lol