Reptile & Amphibian Forums

S307 Regulate Ownership & Use of Certain Reptiles, written by Herpers for Herpers, has just passed the North Carolina Senate and is headed for the House of Representatives. The USARK sponsored legislation was authored in partnership with NC PARC (Partners in Amphibian & Reptile Conservation) and had input from the NC Zoo, NC Museum of Natural Sciences, NC Veterinary Medical Association, NC Wildlife Resources Commission, NC Dept. of Agriculture and private citizens. It was supported by the NC Animal Agriculture Community. It maintains the right of responsible reptile keepers to work with certain reptiles, while setting practical standards for secure caging, safety protocols, transport, anti-release provisions and escape recovery plans. It also sets penalties for negligence and other violations of protocol. Simple, straight forward and pragmatic; it is a model for state legislation around the country. Only Big 5 constrictors, venomous and crocodilians are affected by this bill.

This is just another example of how USARK continues to reverse trends and do the necessary hard work of the Herp Community. After years of losing ground to the Animal Rights Movement the Reptile Nation has finally come together. We now have our voice, and the voice of the Reptile Nation is USARK!

CLICK HERE TO READ S307 & SEE CURRENT STATUS!
www.ncga.state.nc.us/gascripts/BillLookUp/BillLookUp.pl?Session=2009&BillID=s307

USARK Board of Directors

-----
Rock On!!!

Edited on May 14, 2009 at 10:50:51 by PHGinger.

I just read the N.C. bill. Good job!

swiss

"(b) If any person, other than the owner of a venomous reptile, large constricting snake, or crocodilian, the owner's agent, employee, or a member of the owner's immediate family, suffers a life threatening injury or is killed as the result of a violation of this Article, the owner of the reptile shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. This subsection shall not apply to violations that result from incidents that could not have been prevented or avoided by the owner's exercise of due care or foresight, such as natural disasters or other acts of God, or in the case of thefts, of the reptile from the owner."

In Norway we don´t have a death penalty so naturally I am a bit sceptic to cutting the heads of supposed criminals when the law fails to define the term "venomous animal". I have no doubt that this bill has absolutely the best possible intentions, but if applied improperly, a lot of innocent people may end up loosing their heads, not figuratively speaking... In taking account recent finds in science, that most species of reptiles may have venom glands, most reptile keepers are potentially eligible for the death penalty, and that sounds scary to me...
This only serves to strengthens my suspicions..
Even though USark has dome extensive overhauling on this bill,
it still appears me as a dangerous thing send for amendment on the senator hill.

Live and let live I say,
but in the US you guys often say nay..
I must respect that you deal with criminals your way.
Still, in respect to empathy I would urge you to reconsider,
if irresponsible reptile keeping´s really a Class 1 misdemeanor.
Thank you for your humane time spent in consideration of deatbeats.

regards
oby

that an eclectic group (academia, professional, and private people/organizations) can find middle ground and ward off extremist regulation.

A big thank you to everyone involved. It took quite a bit of debate and compromise but we created something rather unique and I hope it serves as a model for other states.

Unity is where it's at!

kingsnake tonight... Warms the heart to hear such good news for a change but good news don´t come cheap. I suspect that an absurd amount of work went in to this from the part of Tom Wolfe, Andrew, Mr. Meyers and a whole bunch of other folks us in this forum included.
Thanks guys. thkans a million, no a billion! and a half.. at least... ^_^

The Reptile Nation with USark in the point puts it´s money where it´s mouth is and takes responsability to do the right thing.

*waving american flag*
obeligz

A big CONGRATS to USARK and staff..
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

"responsible handling is permitted under this section."

This is stating the evident in an irresponsible manner in my oppiion.
If responsible owners have a right to keep animals, they shouldn´t need permission, even though it is logical that the responsible keeping of reptiles and amphibians can only happen on certain premises.
This piece of legislation does not acknowledge the right to responsible bioculture. None the less, USark has done a great job in removing the most of the venom from the original text, it´s difficult scope up everything at the first go.
I hope there is no rush passing this bill. looks like it needs just a lil more work to it before it comes out as a perl in animal welfare legislation.
I like the 10 day rule in this article, page 3 lines 4-12. ten days may be a very small window of time. Things take time in such matters. Perhaps the reptile nation should be more patience and give the authorities a cheritable window of 30 days to act(or even 20 days).
In turn, if reptiles die or suffer damage while in confiscation, if the owner is found to be not guilty of the supposed crime that lead to a confiscation of animals, then it is fair that the authorities reimbource the owner with a cheritable amount of money to cover or pain caused, damage made and time lost. time is money even for the snake breeder.
I realize that in 30 days an irresponsible authority may easily kill a whole collecion of frogs or other sensitive amphibians or reptilians, but on the other hand, 10 days may be a short time limit even for the responsible authority to meet.
In my opinion this will motivate the responsible keeper to have a health certificate, or proof of health condition prior to confiscation, and at the same time it will motivate the authority to take good case of animals in confiscation and provide them with the best possible care while imprisoned away from home.

What are your thoughts on the 10 day time limit?

regards
oby

Recent research has shown bearded dragons to be venomous. They may not be dangerous, but still they are venomous.. According to Dr. Bryan Greg Fry (www.venomdoc.com), the evolution of venom predated the evolution of some snakes;

"The venom gland was developed right at the very base of this tree, long before any of the 'colubrids' even showed up. Consequently, the vast majority of the advanced snakes are venomous, including most of the snakes typically thought of as non-venomous." Dr. Fry (see pic below)

- http://www.venomdoc.com/images/Colubroidea_phylogeny2.jpg

"This origin of venom is so far back, that it occurred before the snakes we commonly think of as 'non-venomous' even showed up on the tree of life. We even isolated from a ratsnake the typical cobra-style neurotoxin, belonging to a toxin family called 3FTx (three-finger toxins) that is the signature of elapid venoms This toxin, which we named alpha-colubritoxin, is as potent as comparative elapid neurotoxins. Like the elapid toxins, it blocks the nicotinic acetylcholine receptor. What this does is stops the nerve signal from being able to cause the muscle fibre to twitch. No signal = no movement = couch potato. We've subsequently found these toxins in pretty much every 'colubrid' species we've looked at, showing that this toxin type is one of the oldest and that being venomous is the inherent condition of the advanced snakes.

Analysis of the venoms from as many different lineages as we could get our hands on showed that the 'colubrid' snake venoms are by and large just as complex as the elapid or viper venoms." Dr Fry

- http://www.venomdoc.com/toxin_molecular_evolution.html

So.. that would mean that all reptiles except old world pythons will soon be banned in North Carolina?

regards
oby

I don't know about that, but in my personal experience it seems just the act of swallowing prey produces a great deal of mucous laden salivation, that immediately starts to degrade the food/prey item.
For instance, if a snake (Colubrid or Boid) spits up a half swallowed meal, the thing will continue to degrade, just with and where the mucous is attached to it. That crap is nearly impossible to wash off, too.
I'm pretty sure human salivation accomplishes the same thing, though not to such an extent.
Just my thoughts.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

My point being -- envenomation through salivation with digestive enzymes is a bit overdone, in my opinion.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

but still... if it is reptile, and it has venom glands, and they produce potent venom, shouldn´t it be considered a venomous reptile even though it is not dangerous?
I mean.. many spiders are also venomous with out being dangerous..
oby

If there is/are distinct, stand alone, fully functional Venom Gland(s), then it should be considered "Venomous". If it's saliva generated from multiple salivary glands, it should not be considered venomous IMO.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

"Colubrids"

"A huge amount of my time is spent examing the molecular evolution of the venom in the various families of snakes that are considered 'colubrids'. These snakes were formerly dumped into one vast family called the Colubridae. However this family is not a natural group and actually seven or more families that are in some cases far far more closely related to elapids than they are to other 'colubrids'.

The venoms of these snakes are in some cases just as complex as elapids and vipers. The venoms are exactly that, true venoms. They are not 'toxic saliva'. The gland producing the venoms was formerly referred to as the 'Duvernoy's gland'. However, this is an artificial term that is evolutionarily misleading, it is in fact the same venom gland as the one found in cobras and rattlesnakes. This is because venom evolved once, at the very base of the Colubroidea (Advanced snakes) evolutionarily tree, long before any of the 'colubrids' evolved. Thus, these snakes have the same gland and produce some of the same toxins. We even pulled out the classic cobratoxin (a 3FTx (three-finger toxin)) from a bloody ratsnake!! The toxin was homologous to and just as potent as a comparative cobra toxin. Same toxins = same gland.

In the same vein, the distinction between opisthoglyphous (rear-fanged) and aglyphous (lacking fangs) "colubrids" has been abandoned. Not only did this distinction shoehorn a wide variety of dentitional types into two artificial, non-monophyletic categories, but it similarly ignored the fact that a wide variety of "colubrids" possess complex venoms, with widely shared toxin gene families that transcend any divisions based on dentition types." Dr. Fry

Same toxins I was told, 3FTx was found in lizards..
oby

Yeah, and I think way to many academics/researchers get a bit carried away when it comes to finding something to -- write about, get published, earn degrees, gain/maintain tenure, obtain grant money, maintain accreditation, etc., etc..
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Yeah, they do get carried away, don´t they...
Some scientists just don´t know when to stop. Wife says, food is ready! Scientist goes, I´ll be there in a sec honey, just have to finish microscoping this piece of snake[bleep]! And then he discovers some decisive interesting thing, and remains glued to the microscope for a whole week.
In the end he of the week he doen´t even offer some rational explanation except, I´m so sorry bout that settes. I found science doesn´t respect legislation some times at least.. It´s not fair, if legislation respects science it should be the same the other way around but I kid you not, for the most part AR philosophy just won´t dissolve smoothly into the fabric of responsible legislation. It just stands out as spikes and sharp hooks woven into the fabric. I think that´s dangerous even, cause it reduces the strength of the moral fabric of legislation and those spikes and hooks, if not removed in time can really tear the ethics in society, and of you sit on it you will get hooked by the end till it bleeds. In a broader context I think this may prove to have negative consequences for biodiversity and the humane society of moral agents and their buts.
The world of today is in many respects still taking a turn in for the worse and it looks as though in the decades to come the bacteria are in for a feast, but those guys are all edible and all present, in no danger of extinction. Certain parasites are also making a bald bloom but as prey animals disappear I think the most dangerous viral strains may feed themselves towards a sudden population collapse due to over exploitation and reckless disrespect towards their hosts.
I think some scientists often end up chasing the wrong mites when they are asked to prove the positive viral strains supposedly linked to ectoparasites.
But I think or at least I hope Dr. Fry is a good guy. In any case that is up to the individual snake to decide.
Still.. if we could thin out he ranks of rabid scientists I think that could help our cause a great deal but being a hobbyist myself I´m not sure how to achieve this?
Anyways, appreciate your thoughts on the matter.
Thanks
oby

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to intentionally or negligently suggest, entice, invite, challenge, intimidate, exhort or otherwise induce or aid any person to handle or expose himself in an unsafe manner to any reptile under this Article.

Does this mean that it will be illegal to speak kindly to others about large constrictors, crocs and venomous reptiles?
That would make reptile talk pretty much illegal except of talking about turtles or tuataras.. ?

oby