Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Why gripe NOW about the direction the country is going? Much of the legislation (or framework for it, and certainly germane precedents) putting restrictions on animal ownership has been in place for decades if not much longer.

Zoning laws have prohibited certain animals from being kept in municipalities for many decades: it is against the law to keep farm animals in town in hundreds of not thousands of towns around the country.

There have been laws in place prohibiting inter-state commerce of animals and animal parts for decades as well.

Certain animals have had protected status for ages, too.

Does anyone *really* think that the framers of the US Constitution envisioned anyone (except perhaps scientists)actually wanting to keep snakes as 'pets'? Or that they were so prescient as to anticipate the global trade in exotic animals, and therefore defended our collective rights to ownership of exotic pets?
Link

One hand clapping.

Steph, that is why the Constitution and other founding documents were so broadly conceived (in many cases). I would argue that we maintain captive herps under license from the "Pursuit of Happiness" mandate taken directly from the Declaration of Independence (arguably a document more basic to our Republic's formation than the Constitution-and yes I do believe one which has the force of law). Like "Life" and "Liberty". "Pursuit of Happiness" is so fundamental to the existence of free men and women that only the most compelling societal interests should be allowed to interfere.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

Breeder of:
Green Tree Pythons
Jungle Carpet Pythons
Pastel, Pinstripe, FIRE, Piebald, Clown, Lavender Albino, Leucistic, and Spider Ball Pythons
Striped Colombian Boa Constrictors
Kenyan, Rufescens, and Conicus Sand Boas
Red Phase Western Hognose Snakes
Spider Western Hognose Snakes
Albino Western Hognose Snakes
Locality Trans-Pecos Mexican Hognose Snakes
Southern Hognose Snakes
Eastern Hognose Snakes
Tricolor Hognose Snakes
Hypo Checkered Garter Snakes
Eastern Blackneck Garter Snakes
Stillwater Hypo Bullsnakes
Patternless Bullsnakes
S. GA Eastern Kingsnakes
Locality Desert Kingsnakes
Albino Desert Kingsnakes
Hypo Desert Kingsnakes
Mexican Black Kingsnakes
Desert Phase, Striped Desert, Newport, and Coastal California Kingsnakes
Locality Mexican Milksnakes
Spotted Mexican Milksnakes
Tangerine Mexican Milksnakes
Locality Alterna
Abbott Okeetee Cornsnakes
Mexican Baird's Ratsnakes
Cape Housesnakes
Tangerine Albino African Fat -Tailed Geckos
Locality Spotted Turtles

The Declaration of Independence is NOT the Constitution though, is it?

Nope-it's arguably (and my old History 533 Prof did so argue)MORE fundamental to who we are as a nation than the Constitution.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

Breeder of:
Green Tree Pythons
Jungle Carpet Pythons
Pastel, Pinstripe, FIRE, Piebald, Clown, Lavender Albino, Leucistic, and Spider Ball Pythons
Striped Colombian Boa Constrictors
Kenyan, Rufescens, and Conicus Sand Boas
Red Phase Western Hognose Snakes
Spider Western Hognose Snakes
Albino Western Hognose Snakes
Locality Trans-Pecos Mexican Hognose Snakes
Southern Hognose Snakes
Eastern Hognose Snakes
Tricolor Hognose Snakes
Hypo Checkered Garter Snakes
Eastern Blackneck Garter Snakes
Stillwater Hypo Bullsnakes
Patternless Bullsnakes
S. GA Eastern Kingsnakes
Locality Desert Kingsnakes
Albino Desert Kingsnakes
Hypo Desert Kingsnakes
Mexican Black Kingsnakes
Desert Phase, Striped Desert, Newport, and Coastal California Kingsnakes
Locality Mexican Milksnakes
Spotted Mexican Milksnakes
Tangerine Mexican Milksnakes
Locality Alterna
Abbott Okeetee Cornsnakes
Mexican Baird's Ratsnakes
Cape Housesnakes
Tangerine Albino African Fat -Tailed Geckos
Locality Spotted Turtles

Of course the Declaration of Independence is important: the fact remains that it is NOT the legal framework on which this government was founded. The Constitution provides that framework.

I'm not talking about mere legalities here, but something deeper.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

Breeder of:
Green Tree Pythons
Jungle Carpet Pythons
Pastel, Pinstripe, FIRE, Piebald, Clown, Lavender Albino, Leucistic, and Spider Ball Pythons
Striped Colombian Boa Constrictors
Kenyan, Rufescens, and Conicus Sand Boas
Red Phase Western Hognose Snakes
Spider Western Hognose Snakes
Albino Western Hognose Snakes
Locality Trans-Pecos Mexican Hognose Snakes
Southern Hognose Snakes
Eastern Hognose Snakes
Tricolor Hognose Snakes
Hypo Checkered Garter Snakes
Eastern Blackneck Garter Snakes
Stillwater Hypo Bullsnakes
Patternless Bullsnakes
S. GA Eastern Kingsnakes
Locality Desert Kingsnakes
Albino Desert Kingsnakes
Hypo Desert Kingsnakes
Mexican Black Kingsnakes
Desert Phase, Striped Desert, Newport, and Coastal California Kingsnakes
Locality Mexican Milksnakes
Spotted Mexican Milksnakes
Tangerine Mexican Milksnakes
Locality Alterna
Abbott Okeetee Cornsnakes
Mexican Baird's Ratsnakes
Cape Housesnakes
Tangerine Albino African Fat -Tailed Geckos
Locality Spotted Turtles

"Why gripe NOW about the direction the country is going? Much of the legislation (or framework for it, and certainly germane precedents) putting restrictions on animal ownership has been in place for decades if not much longer.

Zoning laws have prohibited certain animals from being kept in municipalities for many decades: it is against the law to keep farm animals in town in hundreds of not thousands of towns around the country.

There have been laws in place prohibiting inter-state commerce of animals and animal parts for decades as well.

Certain animals have had protected status for ages, too.

Does anyone *really* think that the framers of the US Constitution envisioned anyone (except perhaps scientists)actually wanting to keep snakes as 'pets'? Or that they were so prescient as to anticipate the global trade in exotic animals, and therefore defended our collective rights to ownership of exotic pets?"

Actually herpers have been "complaining" for decades. There have been many losses but there have been some victories as well. In the 1980's it was illegal to collect graybands, milksnakes, trans-pecos rats, rock rattlers, etc. Texas Parks and Wildlife even admitted at the time that they had no science that indicated prohibition was needed. All they did, and they admit it, was review a bunch of price lists and protect anything that had a significant commercial value. This held up until a scientist named Denny Miller in the late 80's or early 90's(not sure of the exact dates since I didn't start hunting TX until 1996) did a study basicly proving that collection from the road(the main way these herps were collected) could not harm populations of most of these animals.

In about the late 1970's California began to prohibit commercial collection of herps. Again with very little data. In the early 90's California herpers succeeded in getting CAF&G to institute a commercial captive propagation permit for Common Kingsnake, Gophersnakes and Rosy Boas which has worked very well. Since then there have been attempts to expand the list of commercially breedable species to include such species as California Mountain Kingsnakes, Rubber Boas, Chuckwallas and Alligator Lizards but these attemps have not been successful yet.

I think the reason you may be under the impression that this is a new fight is maybe because you are young or because you are relatively new to the hobby, no offense intended. Also kinda starting with Steve Irwin, herps became "cool". This also coincided with the ball python craze and both factors greatly inceased public(and politicians) intrest and awareness of the herp hobby.

I appreciate you taking the time to post, but you still didn't really answer the question, although you did shed a little light on one factor.

The fact remains that the popularity of herps as pets is relatively new phenomenon, with a fairly well documented surge happening a couple of decades ago. About when you took up the hobby.

Since there have been restrictions on animal ownership in place for considerably longer than that, I am curious as to why the protestations?

Perhaps it's simply a function of a younger cohort of herp owners who were unaware of existing laws and who have not looked at the historical context of the issue. Maybe it's a generational difference: younger people these days do tend to do as they please and follow the notion that it is better to ask forgiveness than to ask permission.

As for being young or new to the hobby...I have been keeping exotic pets of different kinds since I was a very small child. In the Sixties.

I didn't answer your question because to do so would be to acknowledge a false premise. Your question is based on the premise that only now have hobbyists begun to fight against anti-herp keeping legislation. Rather I gave you two examples of hobbyists fighting legislation in the 80's and 90's.

As far as the founding fathers not spelling out the right to keep herps. They could no more forsee the popularity of keeping herps than they could foresee the government wanting to legislate it. They did however do their best to assure free speech and a system of checks and balances was set up so that succeeding generations could fight any type of legislation that any American citizen considered oppresive or merely unwarranted.

No, I think that you're missing the point or even ignoring it. The premise of my original question is why are herp keepers only now protesting any legislation regarding keeping animals, as such kind of regulatory framework predates the relative recent popularity of herps.

It gives the impression that the herp keepers who make such assertions think that they deserve special exemptions or that they are ignorant of existing precedents or they are totally out of step with mainstream pet owners. Or all three. Or more.

"No, I think that you're missing the point or even ignoring it. The premise of my original question is why are herp keepers only now protesting any legislation regarding keeping animals, as such kind of regulatory framework predates the relative recent popularity of herps."

No I am not ignoring you're question. The above is exactly what I refuted when I gave two example of herpers fighting legislation in the 80's and 90's. So you cannot say "only now" are we fighting because we have been fighting for a long time.

"It gives the impression that the herp keepers who make such assertions think that they deserve special exemptions or that they are ignorant of existing precedents or they are totally out of step with mainstream pet owners. Or all three. Or more."

Is this is a conclusion you were trying to steer people towards? Do you feel that herp hobbyists in general feel they deserve exemptions? This seems innaccurate to me but I will think about it for ahwile before answering.

"It gives the impression that the herp keepers who make such assertions think that they deserve special exemptions or that they are ignorant of existing precedents or they are totally out of step with mainstream pet owners. Or all three. Or more."

Ok I said i would get back to this part and now I have a little more time. Do you have any specific examples of what you mean by "such asserstions", "special exemptions" and "existing precedents"? Like say a preexisting law or precedent from which herpers are requesting a special exemption? What assertions have been made by herpers that you are refering to?

I don't keep any of the big 9 so maybe that's why I need further clarification. My intrest in herps started as a child in the early 1970's from watching such shows as Land of the Lost and Marlin Perkin's Wild Kingdom. The first herps I kept were fence, sideblotch and alligator lizards that I caught in my yard and outside the church my parents took me to. I have always been more interested in native North American herps and in field collecting my own animals than I have been in exotics. What I have seen is increasing restrictions on collecting and maintaining the native herps that I am most interested in. From my perspective many of the things I used to do as a child are now prohibited, mostly on the basis of the precautionary principal rather than strong data.

There was alot of commercial collecting going on in the 70's from what I have heard and observed based on old price lists I have seen. Very little was known about what effects this could have on wild populations so I do recognize the potential benifits of using precautionary principals. I think it should be used mainly as a way to buy time so that studies can be done. Unfortunately what I see most often is the precautionary principal being used as an end in itself, with very little, if any, follow up study being done to either justify or reverse the original restrictions.

Despite these restrictions the herp hobby has continued to grow. In my opinion, after gaining some field experience with certain herps I formerly considered rare, some of the restrictions put in place decades ago now seem unwarranted, ineffective or at least in need of fine tuning.

I should say "widespread popularity"...

"Does anyone *really* think that the framers of the US Constitution envisioned anyone (except perhaps scientists)actually wanting to keep snakes as 'pets'?"

Stephanie, does this answer your question:

Benjamin Franklin, second only to George Washington as a champion of American independence and a signatory to both the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution had a pet lizard and advocated that the Rattlesnake should be the symbol of the United States instead of the Bald Eagle.

Source: sln.fi.edu/qa99/musing3/index.html and wiki.answers.com/Q/Did_Benjamin_Franklin_have_pets

And, quite a few U.S. presidents have had exotic pets.

Source: www.clevelandseniors.com/family/petprez.htm

Your point?

Ben Franklin also suggested the turkey be the national symbol of the USA. Several founding fathers and signers of the Declaration of Independence also owned slaves, and considered the liberties they held so dear to be the rights of landowners and free men only. I suspect that, while some of them may have kept exotic pets, they likely didn't think that it should be a *right* for everyone in the nation to enjoy. You forget that, especially in the South, there were still deeply entrenched attitudes about the privileges of class.

Intersting you should mention the privlidge of class because many of these laws exempt certain classes, zoos, animal rescues, research facilities and educational facilities; the common thing being they are all licensed by the government.

"I suspect that, while some of them may have kept exotic pets, they likely didn't think that it should be a *right* for everyone in the nation to enjoy."

Pure unsupported speculation... shame on you!

Everything else in your previous post, Stephanie, is a classic straw man argument... again, shame on you!

Not necessarily...it is indeed speculative but based on known history and prevalent attitudes. Take a look at Thomas Jefferson's attitudes about public education, for example, and WHO he thought should obtain an education and for how long.
Want more examples? Both James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, the two primary authors of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, were both slave owners. Which illustrates that they felt that, in reality, not all men were created equal.

So, while there is know way of knowing EXACTLY what they would have thought about exotic pet ownership, it is pretty clear that the Liberties they espoused were actually reserved for certain classes rather than to be enjoyed by everyone.

You might enjoy reading some of the history of the settlement of the country: the south (Virginia most notably) actually was settled by distressed Cavaliers who tried to establish an aristocracy in the Chesapeake colony. Many presidents and other notable figures from Virginia were not only descended from that aristocracy, but were in many cases related either by blood or marriage. Madison and Washington were cousins, for example.

And this is your basis for concluding, "I suspect that, while some of them may have kept exotic pets, they likely didn't think that it should be a *right* for everyone in the nation to enjoy."?

What an extraordinary leap of logic and reasoning! Please continue, or is that all you have?

What you consider to be an 'extraordinary leap of logic' actually isn't such an extraordinary 'leap' at all.

The society in which several Founding Fathers were steeped is well documented to have been one of reserving certain privileges to the landowning upper classes.

Maybe you should do some more reading on the subject.

The late Isaac Asimov wrote a short story in which the main character, the last free thinker in a totalitarian society, was an elderly pet keeper with a small collection that included a tortise and a lizard. His last free act was to voluntarily turn his pets over to the government.
Now I don't think he meant it to be a rally cry for herp keepers but I do think he chose to use a pet keeper to illustrate his point of diversity because it is one of the last things you would think a government would have a problem with. I think he also meant to symbolize the value of nature versus the human values of order and control.

Since the tone of many of the replies here seems to be of a Lbertarian bent, I find it interesting that you should choose to cite an author of science fiction who was well known to be a a staunch supporter of the Democratic Party during the New Deal, and remained a political liberal the remainder of his life.

I agree.

Sorry for the short answer but I was on my way out the door. I don't know much about Asimov, I bought the book at a charity sale for $1. I also bought Foundation's Edge and the collectivist ideal is apparent in the book. All I can say is artists thoughts can sometimes transcend the actions any political party is usually capable of.

I believe the short story I spoke of isn't explicitly endorsing any particular political view. Rather it seeks to portray the value of two things, 1) The value of individuality first and foremost and 2) the value of preserving nature for it's own sake(as opposed to preserving only what man thinks is useful at any particular point in time). What I think is interesting is that he used a pet keeper to illustrate these points. This is especially significant for exactly the reason you stated, Isaac Asimov was a Democrat. Therefore this shows that at one point in time his primary(I must presume primary) audience, the Democrats, were receptive to the notion of keeping a wide array of pets. So what, if anything, has changed with the Democratic Party in regards to it's collective views on pet keeping? If at one time one of it's staunchest and most eloquent supporters used pet keeping as a symbol for freedom and individuality, what has changed?

Without knowing much about Isaac Assimov (Ayn Rand fan myself although I did like H.G, wells in spite of his liberal views.) I can tell you that the democratic party was not the same years ago as it is now. Reagan was originally a democrat his quite was I believe "I didn't leave the democratic party, the democratic party left me".
The concept of "trickle down economics" and the phrase "a high tide raises all ships both came from John F. Kennedy.
Personally in this day and age I see very little difference between the to leading parties. They both raise taxes and/or fees, they both spend ridiculous amounts of money and they both expand the role of government in our lives.
I do not agree with the troll at all but I am definitely not a republican either. In fact I challenge you republican cheerleaders out there to show me ONE instance where Republicans on the federal level did anything to reduce the size of our government. I suspect it would be hard on the state level as well.

This is just the way I see it --- Republicans do a pretty good job of loosening government restrictions on business. The financial meltdown and the runaway oil leak in the Gulf are two good examples of their failure to mind the store. That is what government is for, by the way. That, and National Defense. I personally think they've screwed that one up too.

But, their track record for the individual is bad. They seem to have a pocket full of right-wing Christian moralistic restrictions to burden society.

They love to control the behavior of the individual. What we call "personal freedoms". They do it along the vein of "for our safety". Stuff like that.

They are liars and hypocrites.

On the other hand the Dems seem to think government can protect us from everything. No fault behavior by the citizenry is OK. Throw personal responsibility out. Momma Gov'ment will kiss it and make it all better.

Their idealistic altruistic benevolent motives are unselfish and generous in theory, but not really practical when carried to the extent they would wish.

Their platform is unabashedly straightforward and in your face. No mincing words on what they want.

I would say, the AR agenda is one of their most dishonest legislative initiatives and goes completely contra to the Democrat's usual personal freedoms platform.

That's the way I see it.

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

John, this is the best well researched statements I've read in a long time. CONGRATS ON A GREAT POST...THANKS
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

Asimov was a prolific writer on all subjects, not just fiction. Hundreds of books, even on the bible. A massive talent that was a loss when he died. For a watered down script, still watchable, watch "I, Robot" w/Will Smith. I had the privilege of meeting him at lecture he gave.

You're correct...the Democratic Party is FAR more centrist than it was a few decades ago.

Even Alan Greenspan (Ayn Rand acolyte extraordinaire, BTW) is on record as saying "I thought Bill Clinton was the best Republican president we've had in a while."

I read Ayn Rand too, got The Fountainhead for $1 off the same table and ended up buying the other 2 at full price. How about Stienbeck's Log from the Sea of Cortez was very good. The way it showed academics and private enthusiasts working together for the benefit of science and nature was great and made me think of some of the great non-professional herpetoculturists and herpetologists like Carl Kauffield, Lawrence Klauber, Frank Retes, Tom Crutchfield and Richard Hoyer who have all contibuted to contributed to our knowledge of herps, both in captivity and in the wild.

I know Tom C. would be flattered to be mentioned in the same breath as Kaufeld and Klauber, but he should be. He has few peers in reptile husbandry, and has certainly paid his dues in herpetology.

I'm really not sure where you get that idea about members of the Democratic Party and their stance on pet keeping in general.

Maybe it doesn't apply to all of them, in fact I'm sure it can't. Still Nelson is a democrat and he is the author of the federal ban on import and interstate transport of the big 9. Boxer, another democrat, is my Senator and she supports it as well.

On the other hand Hilderbrand is the republican from TX who made it illeagal to collect/move/manipulate for photographs, basicly touch in any way herps on the roads and right of ways. This law makes no sense to me because you can still collect on private property. If an animal is not in need of protection what's the difference between collecting it off the road or off private property? Actually the road is the most eco friendly way because animals crossing and/or living near roads are almost as good as dead anyways. But I digress, it's just that it's an issue that's very close to my heart since I have been herping TX almost religously for the last 14 years.

Overall though I think it's the democrats that are being courted by animal rights activists.

I am registered as an independant and I have voted for members from both parties on a case by case basis. I am also not against all herp laws. If a need can be demonstrated with science I am for it. If not, I am against taking away freedoms.

Thanks for those links.

While the question of whether the Founding Fathers foresaw anything is yet another logical flaw (non-sequitur), it is hysterical that the a certain person tried to used Teddy Roosevelt to support her nonsense... yet Teddy owned snakes, lizards and many exotic animals:

"His favorite horse was named Bleistein but it was not his only horse. He also had General and Judge (carriage horses) and Renown, Roswell, Rusty, Jocko, Grey, Root, Wyoming, Yangeka and countless others. Then there was Pete, the bull terrier, Sailor Boy, a Chesapeake Bay Retriever, Jack, the Terrier, Skip, a mongrel and, Manchu a spaniel.

Still not done there was Emily Spinach, the snake and a number of other snakes, Eli Yale, a Macaw, Josiah a badger, Tom Quartz and Slippers, both cats and at least five guinea pigs most of which were named after members of the Clergy!

Roosevelt also hosted a lion, a hyena, a wildcat, a coyote, a zebra, and owl, a raccoon and an assortment of lizards, rats and fowl."

Teddy Roosevelt once had an Alligator at the White House....Wonder how he would view the stupidness?
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

As a waste of money is my guess.

Hard to say...although he clearly relished the role of Great White Hunter in Africa, he was also quite passionate about conservation here in the USA.

From a website on the subject:

"One of President Theodore Roosevelt's most lasting and significant contributions to the world was the permanent preservation of the some of the most unique natural resources of the United States. According to the National Geographic, the area of the United States placed under public protection by Theodore Roosevelt, as National Parks, National Forests, game and bird preserves, and other federal reservations, comes to a total of approximately 230,000,000 acres or about 84,000 acres per day!"

Yeah but preserving land is a wise use of money. Protecting Minnesota(and about 48 other states give or take 2 or 3) from a python invasion is just plain stupid. I'd like to think he would have been smart enough to spend the money on more worthwhile things.

More facts on the subject:
Link