california makes no sense!

[TripleMoonsExotic]

In Georgia I can't own a corn snake but I can own a 20 something foot retic and all the indigenous venomous snakes I want without a permit. It just goes to show you how our government loves to waste our tax dollars making laws that are idiotic.

I believe the reason for that is because Cornsnakes are a native protected species in Georgia as opposed to a Retic which isn't native.

[rabernet]

I believe the reason for that is because Cornsnakes are a native protected species in Georgia as opposed to a Retic which isn't native.

That is correct!

[dacalio]

Very true, but what about eastern diamondbacks? They are a lot less common than corn snakes. I don't want to argue with you but my herpetology teacher at Georgia Southwestern has been researching all these animals for a very long time and he feels the same. I love all reptiles venomous or not. I don't feel corn snakes are becoming endangered any time soon. Eastern diamondbacks already are even though our Government will not admit it.

Oh, but that would put a hamper on rattlesnake roundups now wouldn't it?

[rabernet]

Get involved then - get involved with the herp society, see what, if any movements they may have to get new bills introduced in the next session to change or ammend the current laws. We can all complain about how things are, but how many of us actually do anything to try to make change?

[dacalio]

I also wanted to add. Do you think it's a good thing that we cannot own a snake because it's protected. Personally, I feel the complete opposite. I don't see any reptiles or amphibians making a swift come back. I feel that should be all the more reason to begin captive propagation with the exception of collecting anything from the wild. It makes absolutely no sense to deprive an entire state of ownership of an animal that is so easily produced in captivity that has zero impact on wild populations.

Just my opinion.

[rabernet]

Not that I defend the law, but playing devil's advocate. In FL, there's a very real problem of people releasing captive animals into the wild.

If someone got tired of their corn collection and decided to let them go in GA, since they're indigenous to GA anyway, they could possibly also be releasing illnesses that the wild corn snakes don't have resistences to and wipe them out - THAT'S why they have this law - to protect the wild population from being exposed to a captive population.

[dacalio]

Touche'

I agree that is a very valid concern. I often think in terms of me and my collection I don't consider the irresponsible individuals.

However, if that were true it would seem they would outlaw the ownerhip of the venomous native snakes too for that very same reason.

We can dance all day!

[Athen]

ok i understand what yall are saying about the indigenous cornsnakes and all but... what about the fact of me being able to own a cheetah or a gorilla but not allowed to own a ferret or an ASF what is the signifigance there? lol im quite certain a gorilla or a cheetah released out into the wild when i got tired of it would make a whole lot more of an impact than an ASF or ferret. none of those animals btw wre indigenous to california.. lol

[dacalio]

Sorry I got off track there. Personally I feel all these laws are pretty damn stupid. Feral cats and dogs have made more of an impact than any of these other animals have. So, I'm with you bro. We already have a rodent problem, I am fairly certain that another rodent native to Africa would not be able to compete with rats and mice.

Now if climate were that of say Hawaii, well that is a completely different story. Nearly any animal can thrive there except maybe polar bears and stuff. OK, I know that is not a completely true statement but you know what I mean.

Unless our government wants to make ownership of cats and dogs illegal they need to back off. I think it's hypocritical and illogical in every possible way. Most importantly it's not backed by any scientific proof.

[Mindibun]

I don't want to get involved in this too much because most laws regarding animals are sub-par to say the least. It's a hot topic for me and I don't want to get upset.

Regarding the gorillas and cheetahs, I don't know why they decided to leave them out of the law (wouldn't it have been just as easy to go ahead and include them in the list?) but I'd be willing to bet that the ferrets and ASFs are more of a concern because they're much easier to afford and get a hold of. It would be quite difficult to actually find a pet gorilla, so most people won't go to the trouble. I suppose the government is counting on that.

Another guess that I might venture is the fact that there's so much money in the fur business. Perhaps those two species (whose fur or skin are worth quite a bit) cannot survive in that state should they get loose, so legislators allow them to be brought into the state to get money coming into the area via fur traders. It may seem a little far-fetched (even to me) but you'd be surprised how often the reasoning behind a stupid law is some under-the-table, trying-to-keep-money-in-the-state reason.

Ok, I'm done now.