Did anyone get this email about the proposed revisions to FL class I, Class II, & Class III animals?
They are saying that non-native Hots are going to require a micro-chip. As stated below, that actually increases the risk of bites, by having to implant a micro chip, plus to the wild life officer that waves the chip reader over the venomous reptile. Sounds to extreme. Try micro-chipping a neonate Eyelash! Also they are proposing that quarterly updates be sent to them as to The number and species of hots in the collection, and failer to do so will result in non-renewal of permit.
Below is the email, Attached were drafts to the new proposed revisions that are not listed in this post. I can email anyone the revisions and i suggest that you would forward it to everyone you know in FL that might be effected by this!!!!
August 13, 2006
> Hello All,
> We are attaching the proposed draft of the FFWCC (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) proposed rule on Reptiles of Concern. First a note of caution. THIS IS A REALLY IMPORTANT LETTER FOR THE WELFARE OF THE REPTILE INDUSTRY. We make this statement because we know that everyone is very busy coming into the Daytona Expo and the temptation is to say this is someone elseâs problem, so let them deal with it. Now weâll get to the point. As we read the documents, here are the major points: (you must open the attached documents to read all of the verbage)
>
> It defines âreptiles of concernâ and includes in the group, Burmese and Indian Pythons, Reticulated Pythons, African Rock Pythons, Amethystine Pythons, Anacondas, Nile Monitors, Water Monitors and Tegus.
> Establishes a definition for: âcaptive wildlife,â âcritical incident,â ânatural disaster,â âreptiles of concern,â and âvenomous reptiles
> Addresses minimum land-area requirements and facility requirements for new facilities housing Class I or Class II wildlife.
> Requires the development of a Natural Disaster Plan or Critical Incident Plan for all permittees authorized to possess captive wildlife, venomous reptiles or reptiles of concern.
> Consolidates and clarifies caging requirements for reptiles.
> Establishes minimum caging requirements for large constrictor snakes.
> Consolidates regulations pertaining to the possession and housing of venomous reptiles in captivity and places them with other regulations pertaining to captive wildlife found in Rule 68A-6, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
> Incorporates portions of Rules 68A-25.002 and 68A-25.006, F.A.C., pertaining to the possession and housing of venomous reptiles in captivity, into proposed Rule 68A-6.007, F.A.C., addressing the possession, exhibition, and caging of venomous reptiles, reptiles of concern, and prohibited species.
> Requires the development and posting of Bite Protocol and Cage Card Identification at venomous reptile facilities.
> Establishes record-keeping and reporting requirements for dealers of live venomous reptiles or reptiles of concern.
> Requires the permanent marking/identification of non-indigenous venomous reptiles and reptiles of concern. (PIT TAGS ONLY READ BY AVID)
> Requires the reporting within 24 hours of discovery of the escape of any non-native venomous reptile or reptile of concern.
>
> The FFWCC has scheduled five Captive Wildlife Public Workshops so that the general public can comment on the proposed rule. If you feel that these rules are too restrictive, include the wrong animals, unfairly restrain trade, negatively impact our industry for very little environmental gain, or are just ill conceived, NOW IS THE TIME TO TAKE ACTION. Your participation is strongly encouraged. The locations and dates of the five Public Worshops are as follows:
>
>
> August 21, 2006, 6:00 p.m. â 8:00 p.m.
> Doyle Connor Building, Department of Agriculture, Division of Plant Industry,
> 1911 S.W. 34th Street, 1st Floor Auditorium, Gainesville, FL 32608-1201
> ----
>
> August 22, 2006, 6:00 p.m. â 8:00 p.m.
> Tampa Port Authority, 1101 Channelside Drive, 1st Floor Board Room, Tampa, FL 33602
>
> ----
>
> August 23, 2006, 6:00 p.m. â 8:00 p.m.
> Broward County Main Library, 100 S. Andrews Avenue, 8th Floor, Rooms 8A & 8B,
> Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33301-1830
>
> ----
>
> August 28, 2006, 6:00 p.m. â 8:00 p.m.
> Pensacola Junior College, 1000 College Blvd., Hagler Auditorium, Bldg. 2 Room 252, Pensacola, FL 32504-8910
>
> ----
>
> August 29, 2006, 6:00 p.m. â 8:00 p.m.
> Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, Bryant Building, 620 S. Meridian Street, 2nd Floor, Room 272, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600
>
> It is our sincere hope that as many people as possible will participate in this very critical regulatory process, since it drastically affects the entire industry.
> Sincerely,
> Bill Brant
> Eugene Bessette
> Marc Cantos
> Wayne Hill
>
> PS. Thus far we have received the following comments: If you agree or disagree with these comments, please let it be known at one of the five meetings. Also please be respectful of the person conducting the meeting, but do let them know how you feel about the rule that is being proposed.
>
> Since no morph Burmese pythons have been found in the Everglades, it seems reasonable to have an exemption for obvious morphs such as albinos, patternless, labyrinth, tiger retics, supertiger retics, etc.
> The requirement of inserting a PIT tag to identify a reptile of concern seems excessive. Several federal agencies allow the use of a digital photograph to identify an individual animal. The additional benefit of the digital record is that it could be e-mailed to FWC more quickly. It would also be far less invasive to the animal, especially neonate animals. Micro chips can be pretty big. Also there is a real history of micro chips migrating out of the animal, or coming out as a snake sheds its skin.
> The requirement to micro chip non-indigenous venomous snakes is putting the keeper at significant risk to comply with the requirement to chip every snake they own. It would also put the wildlife officer at significant risk when they verify that the venomous snake has in deed been micro chipped.
> There seems to be very little reason to include Tegu Lizards (Tupinambis) as reptiles of concern. There own Captive Wildlife Technical Advisory Group questioned a need to include Teguâs and suggested that they not be included.
