I do have questions myself regarding this proposal as well:
1) Could the venomous animals be more specifically defined, such as by
scientific family (i.e viperidae, elapidae, etc)? As the section is currently written, would it be applicable to every species with a duvernoy's gland (such as Heterodon and Thamnophis, or Hognose and garter snakes respectively)?

2) One section stated that animals must be registered locally. Would this section be a precautionary for
emergency personnal for the possible event of a natural disaster,
accident, or similar occurance affecting the animal keeper's facility that they would need to respond to?

3) Also in the registration section, it states that the animals must
be registered by a specific deadline. Would this mean that owners who
wish to keep these species after the deadline has passed will not be
able to register or do so?

[ Hide Replies ]

• USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - USARK, Tue Feb 24 17:06:22 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Tue Feb 24 19:18:36 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - HappyHillbilly, Wed Feb 25 13:07:48 2009
• Correction!!! - HappyHillbilly, Wed Feb 25 13:10:25 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Wed Feb 25 14:02:01 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - USARK, Wed Feb 25 15:14:20 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - HappyHillbilly, Wed Feb 25 20:23:43 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislatio - brhaco, Wed Feb 25 08:48:16 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - EricWI, Wed Feb 25 09:53:05 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - wireptile, Wed Feb 25 12:41:01 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Wed Feb 25 13:11:06 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - wstreps, Wed Feb 25 13:55:55 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - USARK, Wed Feb 25 15:19:32 2009
• a contrary view - bobclark, Wed Feb 25 13:55:46 2009
• RE: a contrary view - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Wed Feb 25 14:22:33 2009
• RE: a contrary view - bobclark, Wed Feb 25 15:50:31 2009
• RE: a contrary view - USARK, Wed Feb 25 16:05:32 2009
• RE: a contrary view - bobclark, Wed Feb 25 21:38:22 2009
• RE: a contrary view - USARK, Thu Feb 26 06:10:30 2009
• RE: a contrary view - TOM_CRUTCHFIELD, Wed Feb 25 17:15:46 2009
• RE: a contrary view - USARK, Wed Feb 25 15:38:45 2009
• RE: a contrary view - bobclark, Wed Feb 25 15:44:03 2009
• RE: a contrary view - USARK, Wed Feb 25 15:58:08 2009
• RE: a contrary view - natsamjosh, Wed Feb 25 16:55:28 2009
• RE: a contrary view - USARK, Wed Feb 25 17:34:55 2009
• BTW - USARK, Wed Feb 25 17:43:34 2009
• RE: a contrary view - natsamjosh, Wed Feb 25 20:35:42 2009
• RE: a contrary view - Jaykis, Thu Feb 26 09:38:45 2009
• RE: a contrary view - natsamjosh, Thu Feb 26 10:39:36 2009
• RE: a contrary view - Jaykis, Thu Feb 26 19:16:53 2009
• RE: USARK Introduces Landmark Legislation - Katrina, Fri Mar 6 13:26:37 2009