Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Los Angeles County: Ordinance to Amend Title 10 – Animals

Proposed regulatory changes in Los Angeles County could have shut down or forced relocation of Reptile & Tropical Fish breeders, dealers and pet stores. Although primarily aimed towards dogs and cats it would have had a devastating impact on the Reptile Nation in LA County.

If enacted the new regulations would have required:

1. Cages would not be allowed to be stacked.
2. 24/7 staffing if have more than 50 animals in the facility. See proposed Section 10.40.010(Z). If less than 50 animals, you must have adequate staffing for at least 8 hours a day. If you have more than 50 fish, reptiles, birds, etc., or any combination thereof, you must staff the facility 24/7.
3. Records must be kept on each "Animal". "Animals" defined in Section 10.08.020 any animal, bird, reptile or fish.
4. Proprietary business information will be available to the public (that could mean Animal Rights groups).
5. The Department may also impose “reasonable conditions” on a breeding license for any non dog or cat breeder.

Click here to read LA County Regulatory Proposal:

www.usark.org/uploads/LAcountyRegs.pdf

USARK engaged on this issue at all levels with staff and leadership at LA County Animal Care & Control and Board of Supervisors prior to hearings that were held March 9th & 10th. On March 9th Christine Roscher testified on behalf of USARK. Christine asked that the ordinance be limited to dogs and cats only. As a result The proposed ordinance was removed from the agenda for the LA County Board of Supervisors for March 16, 2010. The ordinance will be re-evaluated by LA County to ensure that animals “other than dogs and cats” are excluded from the requirements, as appropriate.

This information is from Patricia Learned, Executive Assistant to the Director, Department of Animal Care and Control, Marcia Mayeda.

Click here to read USARK testimony in LA County:

www.usark.org/uploads/LA%20County%20Testimony.pdf

California Department of Fish & Game: Turtles, Frogs & Heloderma

There will be a hearing to discuss agenda items on April 7th & 8th in Monterey.

Item 21. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO
SECTIONS 671, 671.1, 671.7 AND 703, TITLE 14, CCR, RE: NEW RESTRICTED
SPECIES PERMITS AND REQUIREMENTS. (Helodermas)

Item 25. POSSIBLE ADOPTION OF COMMISSION POLICY, RE: NON-NATIVE FROGS AND
TURTLES (Will not effect Herpetoculture or pets)

USARK has continued to be engaged with the Commission and the Department on these issues. Our Senior California Adviser George Osborn has arranged two high level meetings with the DFG since the hearing last month. We have established USARK as a resource to the Department and have offered our expertise in addressing issues. USARK Director Doug Price will give testimony on both agenda items for the Reptile Nation.

***Please Click the USARK Donate Button and contribute $10 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

posted with permission of PHFaust and kingsnake.com
-----
USARK

Who was behind THIS ridiculous attempt.

why is debate lacking on this topic?
While the initiative seems half-approved by government there seems to be room for a lot of imrovement on the herpetocultural side at least, as a pair of frogs may easily give rise to a hundred tadpoles but certainly one shouldn´t be crucified by government if one´s frogs mate, right?
Conservation of frogs after all is good, though perhaps stacking large constrictors too tight isn´t?
Where does one draw the boundary? In wolves clothing following AR mafia tactics I am inspired to differenciate between stacking snakes too tight and stacking them responsibly, how to best define minimum resquirements for reptiles with a limited emotional awareness? To complicate matters some snakes are kept to be snakes while some are kept to be pets, illustrated through the fact pet snakes are more commonly handled and socialised differently than snakes who are cultures in bulk for the sake of their skin or the color variations on it.
I find both USARK and PETA have been both vocal and active to point of admiration and while public debate has not been lacking on this forum some topics are inherently more difficult to chop down to agreement and working documents which please both parties and due to this some topics are caught up un an awkward silence. In essence, should bad legislation pass through due to prejudice or due to awkward silence, the unfortunate consequence is all the same, unpleasant for many parties involved.
I recognize in this legislation are bad elements with respect to some animals but likewise some good elements with respect to some animals.
In recent months USARK´s influence on PETA has certainly increased and as such good debate on this forum may be more easily relayed while at the same time the point of message is likely to be considered with more attention by peta now than a year ago. On the other hand Peta, while being in a more vulnerable state economically at the moment, is essentially not as vulnerable ethically in all respects and as such the vulnerability ot peta may be seen as a hollow or passing construct. As such I understand the reptile nation may only hold Peta in check through intelligent debate rather than through angry letters and crucifiction of Andrew every time Peta manages to pull another piece of half baked legislation throug congress.

Understanding herpetoculture is in a perpetual process of innovation and change, change comes through the extinction of past practice. Rather than PETA defining how reptiles should be kept responsibly, USARK should be defining how reptiles should be kept, but again, this depends on public debate within the herpetocultural environment. Once definitions are agreed upon and binded into law there is still room for peta to continue their policing work, while the average responsible herpetoculturist will be more at liberty to tend to their animals in the sense that a responsible legislation defends the interests of both keepers and animals while also embracing a standard of sustainability in wider perspective.

In the future I recognize sustainability will be in position to trump rights on some topics but which ones, the public decides, and the laws of nature.

regards
oby