Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Previously a very pet friendly town, with no real restrictions on ownership of anything. New laws pending effective 9/1/10. They will be voted on July 7, 2010. I have pulled relevant reptile items and will link to full laws below.

ORDINANCE 2010-07
VILLAGE OF MOUNT HOREB
AN ORDINANCE CREATING SECTIONS
11.12, 11.13, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16, 11.17, 11.18, AND 11.19
OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE VILLAGE OF MOUNT HOREB
NOW, THEREFORE, the Village Board of the Village of Mount Horeb, Dane County, Wisconsin, do create Section 11.12, 11.13, 11.14, 11.15, 11.16, 11.17, 11.18 and 11.19 of the Municipal Code of the Village of Mount Horeb as follows:
11.12 PROHIBITED AND PROTECTED ANIMALS, FOUL, REPTILES, INSECTS, AND FARM ANIMALS

(5) WILD ANIMALS; PROHIBITION ON KEEPING. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, maintain, or have in his possession or under his control within the Village any poisonous reptile or any other dangerous or carnivorous wild animal, insect, or reptile, any vicious or dangerous domesticated animal, or any other animal or reptile of wild, vicious, or dangerous propensities. Specifically, it shall be unlawful for any person to keep, maintain, or have in his possession or under his control within the Village any of the following animals, reptiles or insects:
a) All poisonous animals and reptiles including rear-fang snakes.
b) Apes: Chimpanzees (Pan); gibbons (Hylobates); gorillas (Gorilla); orangutans (Pongo); ans siamangs (Symphalangus).
c) Baboons (Papoi, Mandrillus).
d) Bears (Ursidae).
e) Bison (Bison).
f) Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus).
g) Crocodilians (Crocodilia), thirty (30) inches in length or more.
h) Constrictor snakes.
i) Coyotes (Canis latrans).
j) Deer (Cervidae); includes all members of the deer family; for example, whitetailed deer, elk, antelope and moose.
k) Elephants (Elephas and Loxodonta).
l) Gamecocks and other fighting birds.
m) Hippopotami (Hippopotamidae).
n) Hyenas (Hyaenidae).
o) Jaguars (Panthera onca).
p) Leopards (Panthera pardus).
q) Lions (Panthera leo).
r) Sale of Rabbits, Chicks, or Artificially Colored Animals.
s) Lynxes (Lynx).
t) Monkeys, old world (Cercopithecidae).
u) Ostriches (Struthio).
v) Pumas (Felis concolor); also known as cougars, mountain lions, and panthers
w) Rhinoceroses (Rhinocero tidae).
x) Sharks (class Chondrichthyes).
y) Snow leopards (Panthera uncia).
z) Tigers (Panthera tigris).
aa) Wolves (Canis lupus).
bb) Poisonous insects.

(4) SPACE STANDARDS. Minimum space requirements for both indoor and outdoor enclosures shall include:
(a) Structural strength. The housing facilities shall be structurally sound and maintained in good repair to protect the animals from injury and to contain the animals.
(b) Space requirements. Enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns.
(c) Sanitation Standards. Minimum standards of sanitation for both indoor and outdoor enclosures shall include periodic cleaning to remove excreta and other waste materials, dirt and trash so as to minimize health hazards.
Proposed Legislation in Mt Horeb

-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

It shows a certain degree of ignorance and hast in creation. To critique the errors would be tantamount to helping create the restrictive code.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

This is pretty much boiler-plate public safety and humane treatment stuff.

>>This is pretty much boiler-plate public safety and humane treatment stuff.

Public safety? Yeah, "constrictor snakes" really pose a threat to "public safety." If they are, we might as well ban EVERYTHING, from swimming pools, scuba diving, driving cars, owning baseball bats (or any blunt or sharp object), going outside (lightning), staying inside (carbon monoxide poisoning) to....

So do you support the law or not?

I'm not a Mt Horeb, Wisconsin resident, so whether or not I support this is totally moot.

As for other public safety issues that you mention, like swimming pools: public ones are required to have lifeguards on duty, to be fenced in and access controlled. Private pools are required to be fenced in in most areas. Scuba diving and driving cars require instruction and/or licensing. Many weapons are restricted, and some are banned.

Don't be a prat.

>>I'm not a Mt Horeb, Wisconsin resident, so whether or not I support this is totally moot.

No it's not, given these calls for bans are becoming more and more prevalent. I'll rephrase the question, since you are avoiding answering for some reason. If your home town legislators proposed this broad ban of pets, would you support it? If so, why? If not, why not?

>>
>>As for other public safety issues that you mention, like swimming pools: public ones are required to have lifeguards on duty, to be fenced in and access controlled. Private pools are required to be fenced in in most areas. Scuba diving and driving cars require instruction and/or licensing. Many weapons are restricted, and some are banned.

I guess you didn't read the original post. It calls for *prohibition* of ownership - " it shall be unlawful for any person to keep, maintain, or have in his possession or under his control within the Village". So your response is, like 99% of the time, non-sequitur.

I did read the original post.

This is a discussion forum, not a voting forum. Should my town decide to further legislate pet ownership, then I'll concern myself with that when it happens.

Public safety issues are always subjective, which is why there is so much variation in laws from one municipality to the next. You provided the non sequitur by asking why cars or scuba diving aren't prohibited as well.

You seem to be unable to grasp the basic differences between the activities (personal transportation, wild animal ownership, diving), their impact on the public at large (driving is mostly viewed positively, diving is typically a private activity that does not endanger anyone but the participants, wild animals in captivity can be ticking time bombs in the wrong hands) and therefore the differences in legislation of the activities. Car owners/operators are typically licensed and insured, as are divers.

It's unfortunate that you can't seem to understand the nuances. It's to your own detriment.

I believe the point was that many mainstream activities, while arguably are more dangerous, are permitted in today's America while those activities not seen by the majority as acceptable are not permitted, regardless of their level of danger. Would you not agree that some of the animals covered by this ban are harmless?

The analogy is not appropriate. Asking rhetorical questions using a flawed analogy serves no purpose.

And, not to be difficult here, but whether or not I think that any of the animals listed are harmless or not is immaterial: what is important to know is how the term is defined *legally*.

That is the question you should be asking, and it should be asked of the Mt. Horeb WI government.

>>The analogy is not appropriate. Asking rhetorical questions using a flawed analogy serves no purpose.
>>
>>And, not to be difficult here, but whether or not I think that any of the animals listed are harmless or not is immaterial: what is important to know is how the term is defined *legally*.
>>
>>That is the question you should be asking, and it should be asked of the Mt. Horeb WI government.

Stephanie,

These boiler plate regulations tend to spread once they're passed in one area. So, stopping it in one town or county can help it from being passed in another county. I don't see why my harmless captive bred western hognosed snake should be made illegal simply for being a snake. The town is basically making all snakes illegal, except for maybe garter snakes. Where is the sense in that? Why make my snake illegal when it's not hurting any one? Why constantly limit my ability to move to another area to make a living, if I want to keep my pets? It makes as much sense as banning Yorkies and Boston terriers because someone's "pit bull" killed a child.

Katrina

" It makes as much sense as banning Yorkies and Boston terriers because someone's "pit bull" killed a child."

This is perhaps the best analogy yet. The non herp keeping public needs to look at the big picture. A law like this takes time and resources away from these towns and cities for no good reason.

, wild animals in captivity can be ticking time bombs in the wrong hands) and therefore the differences in legislation of the activities. Car owners/operators are typically licensed and insured, as are divers.

I think I will take my chances any day with the majority of animals on the list over a 3,000 lb vehicle any day.

As far as ticking time bombs go a vehicle with a quarter of a tank of gas in it parked in a garage of a house that catches on fire can very easily take out several surrounding houses when it explodes. You would be amazed at the powerful blast that can be caused by only 2 or 3 gallons of gas with the proper air mixture in an enclosed area.
If you don't believe me ask any fireman.

I am a retired fire fighter, and yes, that's pretty much correct as far as the car in the garage.

wild animals in captivity can be ticking time bombs in the wrong hands) and therefore the differences in legislation of the activities. Car owners/operators are typically licensed and insured, as are divers.

Most of the wild animals that would fall under this legislation are no more ticking time bombs than a goldfish is. So that doesn't really explain the differences between this piece of legislation and that which governs cars and divers.

This law has some serious flaws and quite honestly could be easily turned over as passed when they tried to implement it on the people of the town.

The restriction on wolves lists them simply as Canis lupus with no regards to subspecies. Current research on wolves no longer considers the domestic dog to be classified as Canis familiaris it is recognized as Canis lupus (sp) familiaris so this law effectively makes it illegal to own domestic dogs with it's lack of being specific to subspecific status. There is a lot of case law out there where poorly written ordinances such as this one have attempted to ban wolf/dogs but were written poorly and in the end thrown out of court.

The restriction on "poisonous" insects(I prefer venomous myself as it is more accurate) is also quite amusing as well. First off there is the whole poisonous/venomous debate Ladybird beetles and lightning bugs as well as many types of butterflies are poisonous if one were to eat them. Is this what they are banning? Bees and ants have venom and a delivery system for that venom both are quite edible btw, This begs the question of if they are going after local beekeepers and children with ant farms.
Which ever they are going after they will surely not be able to go after those who keep spiders or scorpions both of which have deadly venomous members in their groups and neither of which are insects as they are both arachnids.
I can see it now, "sorry son, we have to confiscate your ant farm, but that death stalker scorpion your big brother has is just fine."

>>The restriction on "poisonous" insects(I prefer venomous myself as it is more accurate) is also quite amusing as well. First off there is the whole poisonous/venomous debate Ladybird beetles and lightning bugs as well as many types of butterflies are poisonous if one were to eat them. Is this what they are banning? Bees and ants have venom and a delivery system for that venom both are quite edible btw, This begs the question of if they are going after local beekeepers and children with ant farms.

Actually the ordinance is much longer and did have a section that directly addressed bee keeping. It also was very extensive and specific with pot belly pigs.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

I just read the whole thing according to the link you provided. This was very interesting reading. From what I can see the governing body of this town has a lot of time on their hands to worry about irrelevant issues and lack the knowledge to actually draft relevant legislation.
I have already pointed out the whole insect/arachnid thing and they do not go further into this within the text of the ordinance with the exception of bees which you pointed out. The other obvious issue is that from a taxonomic perspective this ordinance effectively outlaws domestic dogs being that it specifically forbids the keeping of Canis lupus with no distinction made for either separate subspecies of C. lupus or by specifically exempting domestic dogs. Interestingly enough they list the red wolf in their ordinance and list it as Canis niger which is incorrect this animal is known properly as Canis rufus (with some debate to the possibility of it being a C. lupus subspecies C. lupus rufus.) it really doesn't matter anyway because it would be virtually impossible for a private citizen to actually obtain red wolves for private use but one does have to ask that given this impossiblity what is the point of including this in this piece of legislation.
That leads me to one of my final questions of this legislation. What is the thing with banning sea turtles and why only 3 species instead of all species of sea turtles? Once again these are animals that are all but impossible for a private citizen to own given the federal laws protecting them and yet for some reason this town sees a need to prohibit someone from owning 3 species of them(and only 3) which defies any logic I can think of. I'll be scratching my head about that one for a while.

What does "boiler plate" mean? I have not heard that expression before. Thanks.

I'm not sure of the exact etymology but it is used to describe official terminology that is so universally re-used as to be somewhat standardized. Some legal forms like a (basic Power of Attorney) or form letters are examples of boiler plate. Many contracts contain language that is considered boiler plate.

Hope that helps. It's an old-fashioned figure of speech.

Thanks. Boiler plate or not I wish they would have put more thought into it. Though it may be standard that doesn't make it fair or reasonable.

It reminds me of the way surfers were treated in the 60's.

Also it may be standard for the way reptiles are managed regarding safety. It is not standard for the way safety regulations in general are handled.

A "boiler plate" is what you use to cook a "straw man"

It appears that we have yet another WI municipality that has simply copied the same generic, cookie cutter ordinance from another municipality almost verbatim without conducting any real insight or research into the subject at all whatsoever.
Research must really not be part of their standard job descriptions.

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

Then again, there are no doubt those that would ask "why waste taxpayer dollars duplicating research that has already been done?"

I would agree if the research is conducted in a peer reviewed scientific manner, however, in most cases the "research" is simply public opinion or the copying of other similar by-laws. Why else would you see so many by-laws that prohibit the keeping of Tarantulas because they're deemed to be "dangerous" pets.

Anyone who has ever researched Tarantulas will know that, while they can bite and envenomate, their bite and envenomation is hardly dangerous.

That may be true, but read this proposed legislation closely (although we don't have the full text):

"It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, maintain, or have in his possession or under his control within the Village any poisonous reptile or any other dangerous or carnivorous wild animal, insect, or reptile, any vicious or dangerous domesticated animal, or any other animal or reptile of wild, vicious, or dangerous propensities."

That is very broad language and encompasses a lot.

I know I'll probably come under fire for this, but in a way this is understandable: 50 years ago no one would have considered this necessary because the idea of owning some of these animals as pets just wasn't on the radar. That municipalities are scrambling to play catch-up is no surprise. I suspect that one reason that the language is so broad is so that it can be used to anticipate future pet fads and trends.

That a village of 6000 ( that is tiny!!!) should 'borrow' a template from elsewhere should come as no surprise to anyone.

Yep, not only is this by-law overly broad, it's vague as well as no attempt is made to define "dangerous", "poisonous", etc. These are very important words and should be defined. For these reasons, IMO, this by-law, if passed, could easily be struck down by a court challenge.

We haven't seen how the terms are defined. That will be important.

We haven't seen how the terms are defined. That will be important.

What I find most disturbing about this law and those like it, is that they are predjudiced against, for lack of a better word, "wierdos".

Because they deem us "wierdos" they feel it totally uneccessary to do an objective analysis of the situation. I can understand banning large constricting snakes, large lizards, crocodilians and venomous herps even though I don't agree with it and would much rather see a permit system and caging requirements.

It is unfair and unreasonable to ban a whole array of totally harmless kingsnakes, milksnakes, ratsnakes, gophersnakes, rosy boas and on and on. I find it truly disgusting that some people feel they have the right to just poo poo other's loves and passions simply because they view them as "wierdos".

Anyone who makes a decision to engage in an activity or takes an active interest in anything unusual is bound to be considered different.

It comes with the territory. And since there are plenty of individuals who deliberately set out to do something that will set themselves apart, one would hope that they wouldn't be surprised when they find themselves with such a label attached.

Wow, that is deeply offensive. I am hurting nobody with my kingsnakes yet you are telling me I should get ready to be predjudiced against.

Read my comment again and then try to lighten up and not take things so personally.

Throughout history, people have been labeled as 'weirdos' as a result of doing something out of the ordinary.

I don't care about being a wierdo. My point was about when they feel they can make laws against our hobby without doing research and without any semblance of fairness, just because they think wierdos don't deserve equal treatment.

" Throughout history, people have been labeled as 'weirdos' as a result of doing something out of the ordinary."

In this "supposedly" enlightened age theoretically we should not be legislating or even discriminating against "weirdos".
We no longer hang witches in this country nor do they burn them in modern western Europe or even in South America to my knowledge (I will not include the many muslim countries nor parts of Africa where such practices still occur although I am referring to modern countries.)
Homosexuality is no longer considered abnormal behavior and if someone spoke up and called it such they would be called out for doing so. Nor do we consider the mentally ill to be "heretics" and do God-knows-what to them for being mentally ill.
Is it really too much to ask to not be considered a "weirdo" for keeping reptiles as pets?
Not that I really give a rat's frackin' axe what people call me (I you ever took one look at me you'd realize few people would have the guts to do so to my face anyway)....But for the argument, given that we are such an "enlightened" society these days should such labeling be tolerated these days?
Or is it that there is a political agenda among the "enlighteners" of our society that allows them to exercise a double standard and call us "weirdos" as it aids their political agenda?

It is, quite simply, human nature.

So I guess what you are insinuating is that because it is human nature it is acceptable?

You'd be guessing incorrectly.

That's what you said in earlier post, that it was to be expected and historically done, so OK. Didn't you just say that a couple lines up? Or did you just imply that? Or was it infer that?

Maybe it was -- Yea, so what? What can you do? Accept the inevitable. Maybe that was the point you were trying to get across?
jsc

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

Hormonal teen angst is unbecoming in adults.

Some comment only you understood. That's the best you can do to avoid the question?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

It is a known fact that 'outsiders' tend to be viewed as, well, outsiders: odd, strange, weird, suspect, etc.

Anyone who sets out to do something different and then subsequently complains of being misunderstood really should re-examine their motives for trying to set themselves apart in the first place rather than whine about their circumstances like a hormonal teen.

There. Does that help?

It is a known fact that 'outsiders' tend to be viewed as, well, outsiders: odd, strange, weird, suspect, etc.

Anyone who sets out to do something different and then subsequently complains of being misunderstood really should re-examine their motives for trying to set themselves apart in the first place rather than whine about their circumstances like a hormonal teen.

You know there is a group of people in our area that have been saying this same thing for many years. A lot of them live in Osteen Fl. They wear these nifty little white pins with a cool looking red cross on it. From what I am told they wear pillow cases on their heads at their meetings but I wouldn't know as I am not a member. Perhaps you would know for sure since you seem to keep posting their philosophy on here.

Wow! Knights Templar?!?!? In Florida!?!?! Golly gee, someone call Indiana Jones!!!!!

Go ahead and make fun but it's become obvious that you are defending the common predjudices of those who are ignorant about herps. Furthermore, attempting to do so by casting blame on the victim.

Honestly I wish you would just come right out and say you are against private ownership of herps.

No. What do you call that, a pirouette?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

LOL. Then you may well be beyond help. So sorry.

Well of course I do understand and recognize those that poo poo what I and others here consider unnecessary, ill conceived, and ineffective laws and regulations that restrict my freedom to enjoy the activities I choose, activities I've done all my life...those that consider these legal restrictions as normal, beneficial, appropriate, and necessary for public safety, etc. as coming from elitist self-righteous snobs that carry the Animal Rights banner.

And I do recognize those as the very same ones that spread misinformation, peddle fear with their dogma, mischaracterize my activities, judge, label, and otherwise perpetrate lies and misstatements of fact...I do recognize those individuals as being the very same AR aficionados that do participate on this forum from time to time.

Walks like a duck. Quacks like a duck. So all is not lost. I can still correctly identify a dedicated AR foot soldier when I see one. I can still see through all the smoke and gyrations and clearly see the true agenda.

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

I don't know what they call it. I was hoping the person on here who seems to be so in tune with their philosophy could enlighten us.

Bottom line is --- They're legislating morality and person taste. Not supposed to be a legitimate reason for laws.

Thinly veiled "for your safety, for my safety, for all our safety" excuse/justification.

It's the Home Owner's Association covenants gone wild!

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

"Anyone who has ever researched Tarantulas will know that, while they can bite and envenomate, their bite and envenomation is hardly dangerous."

It doesn't matter as tarantulas are not insects and thus not covered. This law does not require hundreds of dollars of research to make it right but it does require a third grade knowledge of science which apparently the authors of this legislation sorely lack.

Yep, but I was using the Tarantula in the general sense, not this specific case. Sorry for the confusion.

I wasn't confused at all we both know what they are talking about with this law. Unfortunately for them it will be a crime to own box elder bugs in their town and tarantulas will be just fine.
My question is this what will happen to all those box elder bugs currently in captivity?
Will they be grandfathered in? Will they require microchipping of the grandfathered bugs? If they don't grandfather them in what will happen then? I mean will people just turn loose their captive box elder bugs? That's bad as we don't want people liberating poisonous insects. Will their be amnesty for box elder bug owners and will they go to a sanctuary or just be euthanized to the dismay of their former owners.
I see it going underground, The owners of the box elder bugs and ladybird beetles should get away with it just fine, but come nightfall the lightning bug owners are screwed.
Meanwhile the people who own black widows, brown recluse spiders and deadly scorpions will be laughing at how stupid this law really is.

LOL, good one!
-----
1.0 Albino American alligator, "Smoke"
1.1 American alligator,"Al Bite Ya & Molly"
1.1 Purple Albino Reticulated Pythons, "Gumbo & Abita"
0.1 Eastern Gaboon Viper, "Gabbie" Recently passed away at 24 years old
Help me find this snake!

Yet another example of a very poorly written by-law.

A poor attempt at copying a bad law.

It is always a good idea to try to find the nexus/originator and rational of such a proposal in order to determine legitimacy and motive.

Probably a knee jerk reaction to Terry Cullen's situation.

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

These people have to appear as if they are doing the Peoples' business to legitimize their existence.
Political pandering to ignorance is nothing new. They call it demagoguery.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

I see we're still feeding the animals. And "constrictor" can refer to a number of local snakes. Hmmmm....maybe that's the point, eh?

>>I see we're still feeding the animals.

My apologies, but I've cleaned all my snake tanks, my wife is working, kids are all out with their friends, and it's 95 degrees outside (105 with humidity factored in), so I'm a little bored.

>>And "constrictor" can refer to a number of local snakes. Hmmmm....maybe that's the point, eh?

Regarding the use of "constrictor", I think you are giving these people too much credit. Personally I think they ignorantly believe "constrictor" is synonymous with "dangerous."

I guess you can't keep a kingsnake but you can keep a king cobra scince its not a constrictor or poisoonus. LOL!!!!

BTW what snakes are poisonous?

Rob

"a) All poisonous animals and reptiles including rear-fang snakes."

You know techincally a lot of box turtles are poisonous because they consume poisonous mushrooms in the wild and it renders their flesh poisonous to eat.
From my understanding this is the original basis behind the protection of box turtles in N.Y. state as they are considered a game animal with a closed season.

Then you can't keep Hog-nose, garters, and ring-necks.

Yeah those and quite a few other colubrids. I seem to recall there is a theory floating around out there that all colubrids are venomous to some degree.
I think this law is ultimately going to anger dog owners when somebody figures out that this law techincally outlaws all dogs due to the lack of subspecific classification of Canis lupus.

From my experience, I'd agree. Their saliva does seem to interact with the food item ...as in, if they drop an item after beginning the swallowing process. That slime they leave where their mouth has been is something else. I'm pretty sure those salivary enzymes are digesting the food item from first contact. Many venoms are specialized digestive enzymes.
Just my opinion.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Human saliva is considered part of the digestive system. That may make us poisonous

>>(4) SPACE STANDARDS. Minimum space requirements for both indoor and outdoor enclosures shall include:
>>(b) Space requirements. Enclosures shall be constructed and maintained so as to provide sufficient space to allow each animal adequate freedom of movement. Inadequate space may be indicated by evidence of debility, stress, or abnormal behavior patterns.

Oddly enough there was a big reason I posted this. Please read above. Now how many of us keep snakes in racks? Do you think a non reptile owner would find rack systems appropriate sized caging? Remember the issues raised recently with rubbermaid housing.

And yes this is a knee jerk reaction and I would suspect to see many of these pop up.

Lastly this is not law yet. Voting is coming. Hopefully folks will take the time to work on the smaller laws as well as the bigger ones. I know I will be addressing this law as I have several folks in the town that have adopted ball pythons! I am not a resident, but I have an interest.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

I noticed that. Similar to the LA County ordinances, although a bit vague and did not strike me as so sinister as LA regs.

That is why it would be a good idea to find the individual(s) behind this.

Who proposed ordinance? Where'd they get the idea? Who wrote ordinance?

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

There are still people that think snakes need "enrichment" to challenge them in their cages. A nice snake book would be enriching in the cage

"WE" (not me)like the look, but non-herpers don't understand that.

I posted this befor but it is appropriate to post to this thread. I keep ball pythons in rubbermade tubs and wanted a coupple in tankes to enjoy so I moved 3 of them into 3 exo-tera tankes with hides, mulch, heat, water, branches, etc. I finaly moved them back to the tubs because for 1 month they would not eat in the openness of the tankes. It is not about what we would like it is what makes them feel safe. Even in the rubbermade tubes they spend most of there time in the smaller shoe boxes in the tubs. Many snakes only move around when they have to and would rather stay curled up in a safe hole only comming out to eat, drink, breed, or warm up.
Keeping a cat or dog in a house all the time is probobly more cruel and in a cage at a shelter or breeder is like keeping a snake in a snake bag on the shelf.
Rob

Yup.

It is a shame that misconceptions and ignorance fuel the debate.
We've got to do a better job of informing the public of the reality of the situation. Otherwise, our opponents will ride that train to our oblivion.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Rob,You may be suprised about what "dog people" think. As I was looking to buy a Golden Retriver after ours died,I was shocked at how many breeders TURNED US DOWN, because we said, "we have over two acres of land for it to run and play and all fenced in." Many, I mean almost all said "they should be kept outside. and would not sell us one. It turned out the same was true for many big dog breeders. So,I went to the dog prison and got a Bloodhound! They were glad just to see it get a home. It just struck me as weard! VM

CORRECTION "They said they should NOT be kept outside! kinda of blue the whole story*&_%^# VM

>>I posted this befor but it is appropriate to post to this thread. I keep ball pythons in rubbermade tubs and wanted a coupple in tankes to enjoy so I moved 3 of them into 3 exo-tera tankes with hides, mulch, heat, water, branches, etc. I finaly moved them back to the tubs because for 1 month they would not eat in the openness of the tankes.

OHHH I concur. I just had a very heated discussion with a HERPER friend over tanks/racks. He felt they were lacking, incomplete and too confining. Some snakes (especially STP's which I keep) function MUCH better with confinement. I moved all of them finally into size appropriate rack housing and noted insane growth rates. While the seclusion doesnt give me as much opportunity to see the animals, it gives me further reason to open and directly interact with the animals.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

Absolutely. Snake psychology/sense of security is critical for success. Just another snake myth that is killing the hobby.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Whewww! I can still keep my Cobra, but my box turtle will have to go. Given that a box turtle can be poisonous, if they have fed on wild mushrooms, and a Cobra is Venomous not poisonous.