Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 2,285

1 members and 2,284 guests
Most users ever online was 54,199, Yesterday at 02:43 AM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 76,094
Threads: 249,236
Posts: 2,572,907
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, PhillipLindgren
Results 1 to 10 of 21

Threaded View

  1. #15
    BPnet Veteran WrongPython's Avatar
    Join Date
    06-08-2019
    Posts
    545
    Thanks
    1,559
    Thanked 1,813 Times in 492 Posts

    Re: Usark- new alerts!

    Normally I tend to keep to myself regarding reptile policy thoughts, but I think there are actually some interesting public policy things to learn here for those who may be interested.

    Regarding Eureka: this policy action is an overall updating of city animal ordinances. It sounds as though this is just for the City of Eureka proper -- and not the overall Eureka metro area -- so I imagine the proposed bans and caps are designed with the hope of keeping nuisance-level animal situations from developing within the city, like animal hoarding. The overall tone of the proposals strike me as more of a "no annoyingly large animals or collections, please!" type of thing versus animal rights/"you shouldn't be allowed to keep that EVER!" Livestock bans within city limits are actually pretty common, so seeing that isn't a surprise. The overall "large animal" ban -- which includes the giant snakes and crocodilians -- isn't much of a surprise either. Large animals and their maintenance tend to present more of a nuisance in dense(r) cities than they do in the country. As for the insect thing, I wouldn't be surprised if they were just lumped in with everything else, and that city council folk would be open to changing their minds after talking with people. Again, this sounds like this is just a case of local government updating ordinances to keep up with the times and prevent nuisances, and not them trying to step on peoples' rights.

    Regarding all the other stuff: I get the impression that all of these travelling animal show and animal shipping bans stem from Tiger King. In officials' to limit the big cat/related exotics trade, other species have inadvertently been caught up. Travelling animal show regulations are probably designed to stop mobile cub petting operations and circuses with sub-par husbandry, while animal shipping bans probably want to stem the trade of big cats. In many cases, the initial drafts of laws are unknowingly written too broadly, since lawmakers are not normally subject matter experts in what they're attempting to regulate. This is why legislative bodies often have their own research support bodies, seek public comment on proposed laws, listen to various lobby groups, etc. Making good policy takes time, and in the vast majority of cases, spur-of-the-moment and first attempts don't meet muster and end up dying. A lot of policy proposals can be described as good intentions, but poor execution.
    0.1 Sonoran Boa sigma​: "Adelita" ('19 Hypo het. leopard)
    1.0 Boa imperator longicauda: "Kuzco" ('19 het. anery)
    0.1 West Papuan Morelia spilota​: "Pandora" ('20)

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to WrongPython For This Useful Post:

    Bogertophis (03-05-2021)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1