Here is my reply I sent back:





Mr. Windorff,



Thank you for your response. You state that the goal of this ordinance

is to prohibit people from owning these animals. However, the likely

result of this will be that owners will simply "go underground" so to

speak. When this occurs, many owners will be less likely to report

escapes, bites (in the case of venomous, or "hots" as they are known),

accidents, or failing their animal to veterinary clinics for treatment

when need be for fear of prosecution. And how many animals would be

turned loose, abandoned, or surrendered to already overburdened

rescues once they are banned? These are all "unintended consequences"

of a ban.

Again I cannot see every species of animal in your list as being a

significant threat to the public. Namely iguanas and monitors over two

feet (which include savannah, Blackthroat, and most other commonly

kept monitor species). Can the department provide any statistics or

evidence justifying listing iguanas and most monitors as being

"inherently dangerous" to the public?



Furthermore, I am troubled by the language pertaining to boas and

pythons that may exceed eight feet. My concern here is that again, a

myriad of species would be included based on one or two

extraordinarily large specimens that have been documented to have

reached or exceeded that length but normally attain smaller sizes. One

of the species of snakes that I currently keep and work with is the

Boa Constrictor species, (Boa constrictor ssp.) that ranges throughout

central and South America. It is a popular and widely kept pet snake,

that attains lengths anywhere from 5 to 10 feet on average based on

genetics, subspecies, locality, sex, etc. As such I am not aware of

any deaths or fatalities caused by the boa constrictor. As it is

written, this ordinance would ban the boa constrictor species as a

whole, and I feel that the language here should be narrowed down

further. Only a small handful of large boids (boa and python species)

have been known to cause human fatalities and only then when that

particular animal is improperly housed, or is handled incorrectly.



One final suggestion I have is possibly crafting an alternative method

of regulation such as allowing for an annual license or permit to keep

these animals. Provisions could be made mandating animals be kept in

secure and proper caging, are properly fed, etc. The state of Florida

for example has many such provisions already in place for keeping

"Reptiles of Concern" which include venomous reptiles and large boids.

This could be another possible method of generating revenue as well.

Either myself or other members of the responsible reptile keeping

community of Wisconsin are more than willing to offer assistance in

improving this ordinance and crafting more reasonable language that

benefits both the public and responsible reptile keepers and pet

owners who would be affected by a banning ordinance.

[ Show Entire Thread ]