Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Here come the anti reptile bills for this year.

(c) Notwithstanding any provisions of subsections (a) or (b), no person shall be permitted
1-13
to own any of the following: alligator(s), crocodile(s), python(s), and boa constrictor(s).
1-14
Ownership shall be punishable by a fine of not less than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

www.rilin.state.ri.us/billtext10/senatetext10/s2027.htm

I don't understand this bill. Is it saying you have to have a permit to own any reptile? And will just boa constrictors be banned or the entire boa family?
I live in RI so this is bad news for me. Any suggestions on what I should do to help fight this?

I just found out it is in the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Regulatory Issues. This page has a list of members of that committee that I too will be contacting. Even if you do not live in RI, I would advise contacting them since once they pass it in one state, other states will follow:
The State of Rhode Island General Assembly

>>I just found out it is in the Senate Committee on Constitutional and Regulatory Issues. This page has a list of members of that committee that I too will be contacting. Even if you do not live in RI, I would advise contacting them since once they pass it in one state, other states will follow:
>>The State of Rhode Island General Assembly

I emailed all the members of the committee today. I got a response from one of the bill sponsors. His reply was unbelievably lame, but on the bright side, he did actually respond and probably actually read my e-mail. Woo-hoo! Won't make a bit of difference, but at least I know I got a politician to actually read a correspondence.

I figured after the election in Massachusetts, maybe we can try to scare some of the Democrats that are sponsoring these stupid bills. (Yes, I know I'm not scaring anyone, just trying to make myself feel better.)

Here is my e-mail exchange with the senator:

---------------------------------------------->

I was asked to put this in for a number of people who contacted me. Thanks

John J. Tassoni, Jr.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ed
Sent: Wednesday, January 20, 2010 11:35 AM
To: sen-tassoni@rilin.state.ri.us
Subject: S.2027 comments

Dear Senator Tassoni,

I recently became aware of the proposed legislation (S.2027) which would regulate and ban ownership of hundreds of types of pets, most of them completely harmless even under ANY circumstances. I’m wondering what possible, logical
justification can be put forth to even come up with this bill, much less put it into effect. It seems like a hysterical, knee-jerk reaction to extremely rare events such as the chimpanzee attack in Connecticut. Given that one is much more likely to get hit by lightning than attacked/killed by an “exotic” pet,
this proposed law makes no sense. It would make more sense to regulate how and when people can go outside so as to avoid getting struck by lightning.

This proposed legislation is a perfect example of why the sleeping giant of “we the people” is waking up and starting to vote out those who waste valuable time on bills such as this. Aside from personally losing your credibility, do you really want to make little Johnny’s parents get a permit to get him a pet frog or lizard??

Please shoot down this ridiculous, oppressive piece of proposed legislation. Also, if you want to see how “dangerous” boas and pythons (mostly which are not “giant” snakes) are, please spend some time with some actual owners and looking up the statistics rather than believing hype and propaganda. Here are some
statistics on “exotic” animals:

http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/StatisticsFrame.htm

Thanks for your time,

I would ask the authors and sponsors of the bill, exactly what is the purpose of such legislation? Surely, they don't author and enact such legislation for no good reason...or do they?

We are simply the ugly stepchild, the whipping boy, the villain de jour.

It's all about seeming to be doing something. Most legislators are lawyers. They write laws. Laws require lawyers, judges and courts to interpret and enforce. It's just good business to make more laws, requiring more lawyers. It's called job security. And all the while they get to look like they are actually doing something, something for the good of the citizen. What a crock!

Don't get me started. I'll leave contacting them to those a little more diplomatic.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer