Posted by:
EricWI
at Tue Sep 1 18:42:15 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by EricWI ]
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.
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: WI-Exotic Pets Becoming a Common Problem - EricWI, Tue Sep 1 18:42:15 2009