Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The State of Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection is taking steps to revise animal regulations that could ban many reptiles. Revisions could put a halt to the importation and possession of many commonly held reptiles. The proposed regulatory changes were motivated by an incident with a Chimpanzee that gained national attention. The reptiles included in the proposal have posed no demonstrable threat to the environment, or human and animal health and safety. This is a jerk knee reaction that has not been well thought out. The language of the proposal is from a boiler plate proposal written by members of the Animal Rights Industry.

USARK suggests our Model State Legislation as a much more reasonable alternative. The USARK proposal provides for secure containment, environmental integrity and public health & safety protocols.

Click hear to read proposed regulatory changes:
www.usark.org/uploads/CT%20Reg%20Proposal.pdf

Click here to STOP CT Reptile Ban:
usark.org/campaign.php?id=15

The Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has scheduled three open forums on proposed changes to the rules governing the importation, possession and liberation of wild animals. Please attend and make polite professional comments in support of USARK alternative proposal.

The three forums will take place:

March 16, 2010, 7 – 9 pm
Department of Environmental Protection
Marine Headquarters
333 Ferry Road
Old Lyme, CT
directions: www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2690&q=322412&depNav_GID=1511

March 18, 2010, 10 am – 12 pm
Connecticut Forest and Park Association
16 Meriden Road
Rockfall, CT
directions: www.ctwoodlands.org/contact

March 24, 2010, 7 – 9 pm
Department of Environmental Protection
Kellogg Environmental Center
500 Hawthorne Avenue
Derby, CT
directions: www.ct.gov/dep/cwp/view.asp?a=2690&q=322412&depNav_GID=1511

***Please Click the USARK Donate Button and contribute $ to USARK ***

There Is Strength in Numbers... Protect Your Rights! We can win this fight!!

For questions or help contact:
Andrew Wyatt
president@usark.org

-----
USARK

I have a question about this statement in the above text:

"The reptiles included in the proposal have posed no demonstrable threat to the environment, or human and animal health and safety."

Can anyone steer me towards hard scientific data that supports this?

Thanks.

>>I have a question about this statement in the above text:
>>
>>"The reptiles included in the proposal have posed no demonstrable threat to the environment, or human and animal health and safety."
>>
>>Can anyone steer me towards hard scientific data that supports this?

This question is indicative of just how a** backwards this all is. The basis of reason, logic and civilized debate is that those making a claim or putting forth a believe have the burden of proof. It's not up to others to disprove that claim or belief. If you believe the reptiles in question pose a threat to anything or anyone, present the "hard scientific evidence" to support that. I'm curious to see what "hard scientific evidence" there is to support the claim that any reptiles are a non-negligible threat to human safety. An "innocent bystander" is just as likely to get hit by lightning twice and then abducted by aliens than to get killed/injured by a rogue python.

"If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is around to hear it fall, does it make a sound."
It is indeed hard to prove a hypothetical negative. That is why the burden of proof rests with the accuser.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Um... I noticed they had the words 'several types of "poisonous" snakes' on that list...

VENOMOUS snakes have venom glands and hypodermic teeth (called fangs) to deliver venom with.

There you go, I made my own scientific evidence... the politically-minded would get it anyway. Venom is usually not good for the human body.

Exactly. CT lists an assortment of venomous snakes that have (through the ages) proved to be a demonstrable threat to human health and safety.

To say that none of the reptiles on the list are dangerous is absurd.

Automobiles are dangerous. Swimming Pools are dangerous. Airplanes are dangerous. Hospitals are dangerous. Guns are dangerous. People are dangerous...
What's your point.
Steph, looks like you've found a friend in BlusterTimes.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Ya we're teaming up *rolls eyes* actually my beliefs are probably closer to yours from reading posts. but in no way is a venomous snake/lizard a good pet/captive/inmate/whatever. I've been waiting for the chance to make this crap illegal for a long time, and if it has to be from scapegoating on pythons... well I'm sorry but thats how politics works. It helps the reptile trade, it helps the pet trade. AT LEAST in public image.

My point is that the OP made a statement that is glaringly not factual.

Undermines credibility considerably.

"Automobiles are dangerous. Swimming Pools are dangerous. Airplanes are dangerous. Hospitals are dangerous. Guns are dangerous. People are dangerous...
What's your point.
Steph, looks like you've found a friend in BlusterTimes.
jsc"

Awwwww damn. your nickname for me is better... is there a way I can change it to that?

Oh, my point. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0417148/ that might well be the "research" congress has had done on this.

However, I retain the idea that SOME animals (not all snakes, probably some snakes, but imho venomous) shouldn't be sold to random people who have no need for such a critter.

Ahh, I see your point now. Venomous reptiles (including the two lizards) should be illegal in 50 states w/o strict permit/licensing.... unless you are actually going to supply some anti-venom! Then you should get a tax break. My .02

To say that something can be dangerous is not saying much at all because everything can be dangerous.

Sure, venomous snakes and giant constrictors can be dangerous, but so can sleeping in your bed in your home in the middle of the night. It's all about statistical probability, and there are no statistics that show that keeping venomous snakes or giant constrictors is any more dangerous than the myriad of things we all do everyday, like driving a car, riding a bicycle, playing sports, cooking food, changing a light bulb, etc.

Here are some statistics to consider:

CAUSES OF DEATH IN 2001, comparing human fatalities caused by normal activities to fatal captive exotic animal attacks

This is a logical fallacy.

um... no, it is not a logical fallacy... it's actual statistics in the real world.

Well, I do like statistics and that was well played.
I've got to say that I'd frown on the ownership of a venomous (ESPECIALLY venomvoid) animal like I would frown upon any other animal that I would (for whatever reason) prefer was in a zoo, than in my neighborhood.
I can think of a few german shepherds down the road like this. That kind of howling is not acceptable. I imagine that this is the case with something like a WARTHOG. (FFS!). which is going to burrow, and cause all kinds of hell. I mean really how many acres does a "group" of large game pigs need?? Without it belonging to someone who has been known to be able to handle and accomodate the animal.

When you learn how to drive, you have to get a LICENSE

I'm not against regulating dangerous things as long as it can be shown that regulation is absolutely necessary and that such regulation imposes the minimum restrictions necessary to achieve its purpose.

It would bother some of your neighbors, if you kept a basement full of venomous snakes and huge snakes. Only the venomous would bother me.

Buster, If your neighbor kept venomous snakes and one got loose and caused you or your family harm, wouldn't our legal system provide sufficient remedy in a civil court of law by allowing you to file for tort relief with a lawyer?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Not if the animal is legally kept. Or if it was say a cottonmouth (native), that owner can just lie low... how will anyone ever know it was his and not from my creek?? He's not registered, if he was then they would know EXACTLY who's snake it was.

"Not if the animal is legally kept. Or if it was say a cottonmouth (native), that owner can just lie low... how will anyone ever know it was his and not from my creek?? He's not registered, if he was then they would know EXACTLY who's snake it was."

What are you making such a fuss about? I don't believe there has ever been a member of the general public in the U.S. or Canada that has been bitten by someone's escaped venomous snake. The probability of an escaped venomous snake biting you is certainly far less than the probability of being bitten by an indigenous venomous snake, and how often does that happen?

Furthermore, only a fraction of venomous snake bites result in envenomation and, again, only a fraction of people who receive medical attention die from envenomations.

Lastly, how would registration prove whose snake bit you? Would it not be possible for there to be both registered and non-compliant (unregistered) individuals? It seems to me that all registration would do would be to point fingers at innocent individuals, if it were the non-compliant individual's snake that bit you. If you're talking about micro-chipping, then that's a different matter, but as I started off my reply... are you not trying to "manufacture" a problem that doesn't really exist?

No, my opinion of the problem was that there's no way of telling who owns the animal, no list.

Your hypothetical situation of an escaped cottonmouth vs a wild one from your creek is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and I have heard a lot of ridiculous things in my life.

"Your hypothetical situation of an escaped cottonmouth vs a wild one from your creek is the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard and I have heard a lot of ridiculous things in my life."

Why? Lots of water moccasins in that creek. Also western water snakes (or w/e they are actually called) and yes, I can tell the difference between something that is a viper and a water snake.

you drive on public roads hence the licensing requirement. If you had a large enough piece of property and built your own road you could cut up your license and drink yourself blind if you wanted to and it would be perfectly legal.
The same should apply for personal property that you keep on your own private property. I personally think if someone wanted to keep a t-rex they should be able to as long as it's properly caged. Where I live for all I know my one neighbor just might have a t-rex I don't know I mind my own business and he minds his and as long as whatever he does on the other side of my patch of woods doesn't bother or harm me in any way (or vice versa) that's the way it will stay.

"you drive on public roads hence the licensing requirement. If you had a large enough piece of property and built your own road you could cut up your license and drink yourself blind if you wanted to and it would be perfectly legal.
The same should apply for personal property that you keep on your own private property. I personally think if someone wanted to keep a t-rex they should be able to as long as it's properly caged. Where I live for all I know my one neighbor just might have a t-rex I don't know I mind my own business and he minds his and as long as whatever he does on the other side of my patch of woods doesn't bother or harm me in any way (or vice versa) that's the way it will stay."

Ok^ this makes sense. I do disagree on "if I can cage it and maintain it, i should be allowed to" but you make valid and intelligent points.

This is a straw man argument. It's not about statistical probabilities. It's about exotic species.

But, since you go there, the very presence of non-native injurious animals in, say, your neighbor's home greatly increases the odds of an "accident" involving said animal happening to you, whereas, in the natural course of life one wouldn't necessarily have to be concerned about oh, I dunno, king cobras in Connecticut. One would have to travel to their native habitat to find them.

And bear in mind that when it comes to things like automobiles, guns, dogs etc., typically one has to have a license to possess or operate one, there are leash laws, insurance requirements and so forth.

So, straw man. Logical fallacy. Obfuscation attempt not working on me.

No, it is about statistical probabilities. And, when you say "greatly increases the odds" do you mean by ten times as in 0.0000001 to 0.000001?

Not that stupid crap again.....You know what even if someone had a king cobra in their basement it would only be one or at most a small handful of them. It would be nowhere near the threat that they are where they actually occur and even there if most people actually wore shoes it would cut down on snake bites tremendously. The strawman argument is actually worrying about exotic snake envenomation from an escaped snake. Here in Fl. there are around 500 venomous permit holders statewide in a state with a population of about 18 million. I live 50 miles north of Orlando there are probably 500 meth labs between my house and Orlando any of which could blow up at any time. There's probably more of them than I would care to know around my house. I don't worry about it though it's ridiculous. You should read through those statistics btw if I remember correctly you have a 1 in 89 chance of being involved in a fatal car accident that's way more scary than snakes. How did you get to work this morning?

Bringing automobiles into a discussion about snakes is absurd.

Especially when the most valid comparison is also the most obvious: the presence of certain snakes versus the absence of certain snakes.

Straw man.

You know, Steph, if you really want to be safe in this big dangerous world you should start wearing a helmet at all times because head injuries are a serious matter, and you never know when you might slip and fall down.

Additionally, you might want to consider carrying a first aid kit around with you wherever you go because you never know when an accident might happen.

Doing the above should be priority number one, and down the list of things to do to make yourself safer, say at about number 384, you might consider banning the keeping of venomous snakes.

"You know, Steph, if you really want to be safe in this big dangerous world you should start wearing a helmet at all times because head injuries are a serious matter, and you never know when you might slip and fall down.

Additionally, you might want to consider carrying a first aid kit around with you wherever you go because you never know when an accident might happen.

Doing the above should be priority number one, and down the list of things to do to make yourself safer, say at about number 384, you might consider banning the keeping of venomous snakes."

First statement sounds stupid and ignoramus. Second, who in the HELL DOESN'T have a first aid kit within reach in the house/car/etc.? Do you not have kids? The third drives your point home. I will admit that it was clever.

It is not absurd. Automobile accidents are a realistic cause of death. I know lots of people in the reptile industry who keep or have kept venomous reptiles. All of them are still alive some of them have had close calls but they are still here.
I cannot say the same for automobile accidents I have had several good friends over the years who have been killed in automobile accidents.
What is absurd is bringing up the scenario of someone's pet cobra escaping and biting an innocent bystander and killing them. It's certainly possible it's just not probable.
I am not sure about the actual number of venomous snakebites in the U.S. annually but I do know that annual average number of deaths is 9 people. I also know that the majority of venomous bites involve intoxicated males between the ages of 18 and 40 who were hassling the snakes that bit them. That particular statistic was either in an issue of the vivarium or Reptiles you would have to dig deeper to find it. The point is the majority of venomous snake bites are the result of people hassling them and when all is said and done they only kill about 9 people a year.
More people than that win the lotto in the state of Fl. alone and I have heard the lotto called a tax on stupidity due to the unlikelihood of ever winning it.

" What is absurd is bringing up the scenario of someone's pet cobra escaping and biting an innocent bystander and killing them. It's certainly possible it's just not probable. "

I have a pit/boxer mix and I do everything I can to protect innocent bystanders (who are beyond my no-trespass) from being killed by her. She's well trained and socialized with animals and people alike. But if you come up to my door and open it, you will be attacked. Not just bitten but viciously attacked. It's my right to do this, and inside her house I believe it to be HER right. She has bitten people before... kind of hectic... but I just point at the signs. No-Trespassing & beware of DOG!!! Do a lot of people think this should be illegal? Ya, I know the cities around me ALREADY HAVE HER BREED BANNED COMPLETELY, she is a boxer-mix when she goes to the vet. The only place I have lived in this state where APB's are legal in a city is Lawrence.

Ok, so as to Stephs quote, scenarios are fun. Likely the cobra didn't even get outside anywhere and it's actually the handlers family who is in trouble. (i'm starting to think you all live alone lol) Laws are made to protect people from themselves too.

Steph, I am curious. What exactly is your stake in all this, other than concerned citizen/champion debater?
For someone so vocal and so opinionated, you are not very forthcoming with your personal experience in this field, other than the previously mentioned box turtles. Are the box turtles the totality of your involvement, or is there more?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Steph, are you actually serious?
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

I think that, if we are going to engage in a discussion on the subject, that it is productive to stick with the matter at hand. Compare apples to apples, so to speak. Keep to the point, instead of muddying the waters with false analogies.

So, if we're going to discuss the topic of exotic venomous snakes in a non-native setting and the potential hazard they represent, then the most appropriate thing to do is to compare the risk of harm without the snakes present vs. with the snakes.

Example: If there were no black mambas in New Haven, then the odds of being bitten by one while in that town would be nil. If, subsequently, a resident of New Haven decides to obtain and keep a black mamba, then the odds of being bitten increase. Nominally perhaps, but certainly creating a risk where no risk had previously existed.

>>
>>Example: If there were no black mambas in New Haven, then the odds of being bitten by one while in that town would be nil. If, subsequently, a resident of New Haven decides to obtain and keep a black mamba, then the odds of being bitten increase. Nominally perhaps, but certainly creating a risk where no risk had previously existed.

Example: If there were no toothpicks in New Haven, then the odds of dying from ingesting one while in that town would be nil. If, subsequently, a resident of New Haven decides to obtain and use a toothpick, then the odds of swallowing it and dying increase. Nominally perhaps, but certainly creating a risk where no risk had previously existed.

http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/unlikely-ways-to-die/how-many-people-have-died-from-toothpicks

Surely you don't actually believe the nonsense you are spouting, you are just trolling. It's actually kind of entertaining.

http://www.videojug.com/expertanswer/unlikely-ways-to-die/how-many-people-have-died-from-toothpicks ^^

whoa... that was actually kind of enlightening... I heard of this happening with suckers but this seems rather factual. Cool tidbit.

"So, if we're going to discuss the topic of exotic venomous snakes in a non-native setting and the potential hazard they represent, then the most appropriate thing to do is to compare the risk of harm without the snakes present vs. with the snakes."

Exotic venomous snakes(in private hands)do exist in the U.S. To date, there is NO CONFIRMED bite, let alone death, to another person by an escaped exotic venomous snake ever.

Does zero (0) work for you?

Are you speaking about your own argument?

What makes you think that an exotic has to have *escaped* to pose an increased risk? Yet another straw man?

http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/168828-overview

Read all the way through. More than once if necessary.

OK, Steph, I would like to call your attention to some of the points in the article you referenced:

The national average (for snake bites) is approximately 4 bites per 100,000 persons.

Deaths secondary to snakebites are rare. With the proper use of antivenin, they are becoming rarer still. The national average has been less than 4 deaths per year for the last several years.

That's 4 deaths per year out 12,000 envenomations in a population of 300,000,000. The number of people in the general public that have EVER been bitten by someone's escaped venomous snake is 0.

In the United States, more than 40% of victims put themselves in danger by either handling pets or attempting to capture reptiles in the wild.The popularity of keeping exotic species has increased the number of envenomations by nonnative species.

I say foul on this statistic because it mixes data from all envenomations and from people with all types of experience with venomous snakes and then paints an exaggerated conclusion about captive venomous snake keeping. Perhaps this is the logical fallacy you seek?

It seems this article does more to prove that venomous snake keeping is relatively safe than the opposite. What did I miss?

^^"Deaths secondary to snakebites are rare. With the proper use of antivenin, they are becoming rarer still. The national average has been less than 4 deaths per year for the last several years."^^

"That's 4 deaths per year out 12,000 envenomations in a population of 300,000,000. The number of people in the general public that have EVER been bitten by someone's escaped venomous snake is 0."

What is the number of bites from snakes who haven't escaped? 12,000 envenomations a year!!!? I thought the number was smaller than that actually...

I want ZERO chance bc my local hospitals DON'T HAVE ANTIVENIN!!!

I can only encourage you to go find out what a false analogy is. Because you're making one. Might as well understand what you're dealing with, right?

Non-native honey bee’s kill more people than all venomous snakes either native or non-native so the first thing we need to do is ban the release of all non-native honey bee’s into the wild. How far do you want to go with banning non-native wildlife? I live in California and most of the fish in our streams are non-native so I guess we need to remove all of them. Then of course there are all the ?*$% Pheasant and turkeys that Fish & Game stocks out here. Do you get the point?

I don't care to much for cows. They can be injurious and they are harmful to the environment. At one time in our history they were invasive. PETA and HSUS both, view the current livestock industry as an inhumane institution. Rodeos, the same. So, lets ban cattle.

That will never happen, as the beef and dairy industry is much too large a part of our economy and our way of life.

That is exactly why we and what we do is under attack. We and what we do is such a small sector of the economy by comparison, we're an easy target on their agenda. Combine that with most people's negative attitude towards snakes and it's practically a done deal.

The American public needs to know the unrealistic extremes, the full picture, these Animal Rights Organizations are willing to go to, in order to further their ideology.

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

" don't care to much for cows. They can be injurious and they are harmful to the environment. At one time in our history they were invasive. PETA and HSUS both, view the current livestock industry as an inhumane institution. Rodeos, the same. So, lets ban cattle.

That will never happen, as the beef and dairy industry is much too large a part of our economy and our way of life.

That is exactly why we and what we do is under attack. We and what we do is such a small sector of the economy by comparison, we're an easy target on their agenda. Combine that with most people's negative attitude towards snakes and it's practically a done deal.

The American public needs to know the unrealistic extremes, the full picture, these Animal Rights Organizations are willing to go to, in order to further their ideology. "

Okay well as I've stated if you think "livestock snakes" is a good way to go I AGREE. Rattlesnake and gator are DELICIOUS so I assume others are too. I'm not a "snacist" but I do like to eat meat. You really think us mid-westerners are just going to let AR groups walk all over us? Nope, we're gonna feed the carnivorous people and herbivorous people both. I think murderous thoughts at the idea of removing ANY livestock or grain or vegetable. Most mid-westerners would kill for their beliefs in this. I bet AR meat is tasty.

"Bringing automobiles into a discussion about snakes is absurd.

Especially when the most valid comparison is also the most obvious: the presence of certain snakes versus the absence of certain snakes.

Straw man."

Yes^

but so can sleeping in your bed in your home in the middle of the night.

Back in 2007 on groundhog day over a dozen people did just that about 2 miles from my house. a tornado took them out at around 3am. ( years before that the same thing happened when I was living in Longwood fl. and even more people were killed in Kissimmee/St. Cloud/Narcossee area about 40 altogether in that one I think. I have quite a few edb's crawling around my property and have yet to get bit by one and shoes do not exist on my feet at home unless I'm operating a chainsaw.
I'm thinking tornados are alot more dangerous than the edb's or any other venomous snake for that matter. perhaps the govt. should ban them instead of reptiles.

Trust me I've been through tornadoes and known people to lose homes, but I've never known anyone who died and that's really unfortunate that you do. I've never thought of them as deadly bc we get the really spindly ones (quite often) here.

At any rate, can't really ban the weather.

>>Exactly. CT lists an assortment of venomous snakes that have (through the ages) proved to be a demonstrable threat to human health and safety.
>>
>>To say that none of the reptiles on the list are dangerous is absurd.

What's absurd is your lack of logic. We are talking about public safety and risk, not whether something is or can be "dangerous." Anything can be dangerous. Scuba diving is dangerous, and results in many fatalities every year. Many children die from drowning in pools every year. Dogs send tens of thousands of people to the hospital every year, and kill about a dozen per year. I guess we should ban scuba diving, pools and dogs?

How many people have been killed/attacked by escaped/released snakes in the US over the last 50 years? How many of those were innocent bystanders (ie, neither the owner nor someone handling the snake?)

There is just so much good thinking going on here...and the degree of patience is remarkable.
Thanks to all.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer