Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Can someone explain why the law is bad???

It doesn't say that you can't keep ANY reptiles.

(as far as I read anyway) All I got out of it is that some of the more dangerous and very large monitors are banned for keeping. And venomous snakes as well.

Savannahs are apparently still allowed, ackies too, durmerils and the rest of the little guys. I didn't see anything about white throat but maybe I missed it.

I don't disagree with the law, large monitors in apartments and condos probably can't be a good thing...especially if it's a nile or a water.

Sure it sucks but realistically I'm sure it will solve more problems than it will create. Plus there are plenty of other facinating reptiles to keep, breed and enjoy.

I'm sure many would disagree with me...but that's just the way I see it.
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

No matter what it currently says, it paves the way for more licensing and eventually banning of all reptiles.

Besides, I never realized everyone who lived in the State of New York lived in an apartment or condo. Did you miss the part where you must agree to not breed them as part of the permit process? It clearly states v.albig as well. Do you know how easily and quickly they will append/modify sections once it is law?

--Robert

The reason the proposed law is bad is, it again treats the keepers as stupid, all of them.

It again tells you what to do, not tells you how well to do it.

For instance, a person that donates a Whole room in a condo, has offered better conditions than a person who owns a ranch and but only offered a small box. No unprotected species of monitor is too large for a normal room or two. Yes there are those who would do that. (DK)

So if DK lived in a condo in NY, he should not be allowed to offer such good conditions????? WHY?

I do imagine, if we are legislated to be idiots(led around with leashes)(told what to do) then there is no reason to actually learn anything.

I am of the feeling that legislating the restriction of keeping animals is an attempt to promote ignorance. I believe, the public needs more awareness that animals exsist. In a real sense, not in a TV sense. FR

Without reading it in detail I can tell you the best reason..
1) Who are you to tell someone else what they can keep in their home or what they can do as long as it doesnt harm someone else.
2) It opens the door to banning any and all exotics because the HSUS, AKC etc dont want you to have anything but a dog or cat anyways. I dont even need to compare dogs to reptiles, its obvious.
3) Its all started by a few neighbors who are ignorant, know ZERO about reptiles, and dont think you or I should have em.
4) If they ban a few species, they can add any time they want, its always covered to ammend or add later.

It like comparing laws from PA to CA on wild animals, PA its illegal to have them almost any species, yet CA you can have almost any native species, but so many non native species are illegal.
I dont want to have crocodilians, but I dont want to restrict someone else from having them, theres no reason to restrict someone from having venomous species unless they are not an adult, not of sound mind, or physically capable, after all its their business not ours. Ive had large and small monitors for 13 years or more, and never has any of my large monitors hurt anyone else, yet Ive had a bosc (savannah) that bit some guy before I could intervene on the finger tip (didnt do much at all really). Its already illegal to bring snake-heads into most states because people release them into the wild and polititions want votes.

I understand what you all have said and my example with a condo was just an example...I didn't say "everyone" lives in condos.

Anyway...I don't see how once the law is made that they will be able to change and modify it to ban all herps. Everytime they add a species to that list it must be passed. (well here in canada anyway)

Either way, I understand the concern of the politicians as well as other people who are for this law in NY. Many people do not like herps...plain and simple...they don't understand why anyone would ever want to keep them let alone look at them. In what way will banning the selected reptiles on the list benefit the city???

In the eyes of poiticians they may see it as a very good law to consider...why let people own 4-7 foot lizards that are potentially dangerous to the owners and the people around them??? Also I think somewhere in the law it says that they want to help protect the species from being so heavily exported...

I'm not saying I'm for the law, I just can understand why they would make such a law...I don't find it ridiculous or unreasonable...if I was a resident of NY I'd probably move away if they passed the law.

But I can definitley understand why the law may pass.

Put yourself in a politicians shoes and think to yourself...in what way is letting a handful of people own big lizards helping New York City???

Either way, it sucks but I still don't think it's the end of the world and I disagree that it will lead to total banishment of keeping herps.

This is my last post on the subject...

Just my opinion...
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

for the gentleman who stated...

"Who are you to tell someone else what they can keep in their home or what they can do as long as it doesnt harm someone else?"

Well, I'm just a guy in Canada so I'm not going to tell you anything...but the government will tell you what you can and cannot keep and if you fail to follow the rules that they create for what they believe is best for the rest of society...then you may be fined.

And the truth is: How can you guarentee me that your 6 foot water Monitor isn't going to "accidentally" escape and cause harm to someone.

Keeping a 7 foot lizard will affect other people...your neighbors might be uneasy about their grandaughter going out to play when you've got your 7 footer walking around your backyard. SO that affects them.

And as for what they can do without harming anyone else...that's like saying: I can do as many drugs as I want and that won't affect anyone else...well it's going to affect the tax payers that have to pay the ambulance drivers to pick your overdosed body up and bring it to the hospital...it's going to affect the guy with the broken leg who has to wait for you to get your stomach pumped before he can get surgery...

Everything everyone does affects everyone else. (if you think about it hard enough)

You can never say that: "my water monitor is so tame he's never hurt anyone."

That's what the two gay magicians said before their big tiger dragged one of them off the stage by his neck...then he almost beld to death.

You're entitled to think whatever you'd like...but I guess I just think differently.

Post if you want and I'm sure I'll read it...but this is my last last post.

Cheers!
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

cv768 -
You said people would be uneasy about a monitor in someones Backyard with little kids around, well what about dogs? Has their even been a case of an unprotected varanid killing a person? Well their sure has been hundreds of cases of dogs killing people, why not ban them too? The way you're saying it seems like you're not to fund of large monitors yourself. If a responsible person ownes a large monitor, their is going to be slim chance of it getting outside and "hurting" people which I doubt it would do as it would be more likely to run away from someone then to try to hurt them. Even if provoked, the monitor would prolly consider running than biting. Now if it were a dominant dog, then the dog would attack. So following what you're saying people shouldn't be keeping dogs either because the way I look at it they are more dangerous.

I thought this would be my last post but I guess not...

I'll explain...it's all ethics.

People are much more comfortable with a dog than a lizard.

Ethics...most people are not knowledgable of reptiles...for the most part people are afraid of what they do not know.

I didn't say ban dogs...I didn't say ban anything...I just said I can understand where the point is coming from.

Sorry, if I steered you the wrong way.

I previosuly stated that...if I lived in new york and the law was passed that I would move...why would I move? Because I love reptiles, escpecially monitors...again, I'm only saying that I can understand where the point and law is coming from.

Not that I'm for it, but everyone seems so outraged that this law could be passed...well if they are making a law then I'm sure there is some justifiable evidence that would back up the facts (of which I do not know) that banning monitors would benefit the city.

I won't even say its my last post on the matter cause it never is.

Sigh.
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

Actually there is eveidence for animal attacks, its published every year for you and I to see, its a survey of all ambulance crews, doctors, hospitals, etc etc of animal attacks, and bites leading to the need for professional medical care, or causing death. The results consistantly show horses as injuring and killing more people every year than all other captive animals combined, dogs as number 2 at around 25,000 people needing professional medical care after a bite or attack, and thousands dieing. The figures for reptiles are a summary of 5-10 years because there are so few attacks or bites leading to the need for professional med care, even when they include that rare event of a very very large constrictor or a captive venomous snake etc causing death or serious injury.
Its all about politics, the AKC and other dog/ cat organizations have political pull and money therefore politicians listen and help them. The HSUS stated at one time that the real reason they want to ban all exotic pets is because there are millions of homeless dogs and cats, therefore you would be more inclined to adopt one if you cannot get another type of animal. The reason laws like that pass is IGNORANCE and lack of knowledge understanding, after all what usually happens when man does not understand something, we fear it, outlaw it, them destroy it. It comes done to an individuals responsibility.

"I don't see how once the law is made that they will be able to change and modify it to ban all herps. Everytime they add a species to that list it must be passed. (well here in canada anyway)"
They always add to laws that once passed they can be modified, added, subtracted, changed, and updated as a current legislation, they dont have to pass a new law.

"In what way will banning the selected reptiles on the list benefit the city???"

It doesnt benefit them but it benefits those who are against them being kept in captivity.

"why let people own 4-7 foot lizards that are potentially dangerous to the owners and the people around them??? Also I think somewhere in the law it says that they want to help protect the species from being so heavily exported..."

The people who lobby to pass these laws dont want you and I to have them they want you and I to adopt homeless dogs and cats.

Polititions dont know or understand anything about our hobby or our animals therefore they go by what lobbying groups tell them.

"Either way, it sucks but I still don't think it's the end of the world and I disagree that it will lead to total banishment of keeping herps."

No but the law states they can add to that list or ban them from the current legislation once its passed.

"And the truth is: How can you guarentee me that your 6 foot water Monitor isn't going to "accidentally" escape and cause harm to someone."

Well my 6ft 2 inch albig has escped from her cagemany times, by ripping the door clean off but she doesnt escape from my house, nor does she ever hurt or bite anyone, remember Ive had many monitors in the past, the only one to bite someone other than me was a bosc (savannah, a medium sized monitor at 4.5 ft). Responsible owners do not allow them to get away and roam their neighborhoods.

"Keeping a 7 foot lizard will affect other people...your neighbors might be uneasy about their grandaughter going out to play when you've got your 7 footer walking around your backyard. SO that affects them."

My neighbors have known I have had monitors for over 12 years, they also know its my right as well their to have a dog, cat, bird, snake, etc. They also know if their dogs ever get lose and attack, bite etc in my yard, they will be burying them (my right by federal law passed in 1986 I believe, the visious dog law).

As far as a comparison to drugs there is none, drugs kill people (proven fact, many people and ruin lives), reptiles dont but to someone who doesnt know anything about them and believes movies like Anaconda etc etc they think reptiles are dangerous.

"That's what the two gay magicians said before their big tiger dragged one of them off the stage by his neck...then he almost beld to death."

Apples to oranges, my 6ft monitor wont drag you anywhere and cause any homo to bleed to death. Its all about someone elses political agendas, and loads of ignorance.

Great answer SHvar! I agree with your entire post. All these politicians do is sit around and spend our tax dollars on worthless bills like this one and when they have finished out the year and overspent, they figure out a way to raise our taxes to cover the next years agenda. Politicians are parasites, their only agenda is placating the lobbyists and the rich to maintain their own jobs. There are so many more important issues that should be addressed, but will be ignored. I don't own any of the monitors or snakes that would be on the list of banned reptiles, but if I wanted to own one, I wouldn't give a rip about any law. My house, my rules. Nobody in my neighborhood even knows I have a turtle and I intend to keep it that way. If I am not bothering anybody and my animals are kept in my home I should have the right to have them. I had dogs over the years, and since my last old one died of heart failure two years ago I have not gotten another. I must say I really don't miss the dog hair, barking, cleaning the yard... My opinion, just do what you want and keep your mouth shut.

Pam

SHvar wrote:

"Actually there is eveidence for animal attacks, its published every year for you and I to see, its a survey of all ambulance crews, doctors, hospitals, etc etc of animal attacks, and bites leading to the need for professional medical care, or causing death. The results consistantly show horses as injuring and killing more people every year than all other captive animals combined, dogs as number 2 at around 25,000 people needing professional medical care after a bite or attack, and thousands dieing. The figures for reptiles are a summary of 5-10 years because there are so few attacks or bites leading to the need for professional med care, even when they include that rare event of a very very large constrictor or a captive venomous snake etc causing death or serious injury."

SHVar,

Do you have references to this material? I want to know where this is published so I can get the actual numbers, and then write my govenor again with cold hard facts on my side.

Thanks,

Luke

If I find the statistics on all again for the year, and past years Ill post it. The dog attacks/bites and those needing professional med care are alot higher than I remember, wow!!!
dog bite statistics

A first glance it seems like there are an awful lot of people getting bitten seriously by dogs (serious enough to require a visit to the emergency department of a hospital) - 334,000 a year! But compare that to the number of dogs being kept (52 million) and the number of people getting bitten seriously, as a fraction of the number of people keeping dogs and it is only 0.6%

That's 6 people in every thousand. Now think of the number of people you know that keep monitors and the percentage of them that have been bitten seriously enough by a monitor to require stitches or more (ie a visit to the emergency department of a hospital). Much MUCH higher than 6 in a thousand.

The BIG difference, though, is that dogs tend to bite people other than their owners, whereas almost all bad monitor bites would be on the owners themselves. What people do to themselves is up to them. If reptile keeping is to be regulated, it shouldn't have to do with what the reptiles can do to people, but what the people can do to the reptiles (ie neglect).

> If reptile keeping is to be regulated, it shouldn't have to
> do with what the reptiles can do to people, but what the
> people can do to the reptiles (ie neglect).

I think there is a good case to be made for animal wellfare regulations that would affect certain monitors (actually, iguanas are the most abused and neglected reptiles in the US, followed probably by some of the large pythons, but I digress). However, a law to do this should not be presented as a public safety law. This is like using a sledgehammer to drive a screw. Use the appropriate tool for the job, and the appropriate law for the problem.

As far as I can tell, the most effective way to reduce the absuse and neglect of large reptiles is to make sure they sell for more than $200. When I was involved with the PNHS (Pacific Northwest Herpetological Society, a reptile society with an active reptile rescue program), the most problematic animals were invariably those with low purchase prices that grew large. These were problems because we encountered a lot of them, they were hard to place (not many people want a huge lizard or python), and they were commonly neglected because of the difficulties of caring for them. A $200 to $250 price tag seems to filter out most the casually interested from the truely dedicated. We could quibble about the exact price, of course, but this is the rule of thumb that explained most of what I saw.

Luke

I would agree that price influences level of care to a fair degree, but putting an artificially inflated price on things goes against capitalism and wouldn't last long. One seller would have theirs going for $200 so the competition would lower theirs to $190 and before long they'd be both selling their animals for $10 ea again, to get the punters through the doors.

Putting a licence system in place for reptile keeping very quickly separates the casual impulse buyer from the more serious, for even a $10 reptile would require someone to apply for the licence (as well as pay money for it). If those laws also stipulate that certain reptiles (particularly large/potentially dangerous ones or those difficult to keep) can only be kept by people with a certain licence level (which requires experience to obtain), the chance of someone buying the wrong animal on impulse is lessened even further.

Of course, with your population base and the number of animals already out there it would be extremely difficult at best to start implementing a system, so this is all theoretical, pie-in-the-sky banter

> I would agree that price influences level of care to a fair
> degree, but putting an artificially inflated price on things
> goes against capitalism and wouldn't last long. One seller
> would have theirs going for $200 so the competition would
> lower theirs to $190 and before long they'd be both selling
> their animals for $10 ea again, to get the punters through
> the doors.

That's why my idea would be that the difference between the purchase price and $200 would be taxed at 100%. The seller could lower their price if they wanted, but the buyer pays just as much, and the seller ends up getting less.

This has disadvantages, of course, namely the creation of a black market and that people could just go to New Jersy, Pensylvania, etc. and buy a cheap Nile monitor or iguana.

Luke

Any taxes, or licences which is absolutely stupid. If the system aint broke dont fix it.
Reptile shows, animals are sold with no taxes being paid, no records being kept unless on rare occaion someone wants a reciept. Internet sales are another almost impossible way to be regulated, international or intersate trade and commerce no sales tax, no permits no records, almost.
The whole idea of licenses, permits, taxes etc is to fund someones political agendas to make them look better to voters, it has nothing to do with saving anyone or any animals from cruelty. The majority of bad reptile owners are the first in line to get licenses etc, petstores after all they sell them so they must be the experts, at least to a politition not knowing better. Bad subject, how about enforcing current laws, the majority of people dont realize what laws they actually live under in even their local towns etc not including states, or federal.

First of all, just because you disagree with something doesn't make it stupid. Repeat as necessary.

As far as 'if it ain't broke, don't fix it' the reptile trade as it is is clearly very very broken, in my opinion. You may think the current system is good, but I think there is a huge issue with impulse buying and people getting reptiles for the wrong reasons. Ever wonder why people are trying to ban reptile ownership entirely in certain areas? The problem is, having it your way - complete freedom - eventually leads to the other extreme - complete banning - because things go horribly wrong. The idea behind a licensing system is to prevent situations which would lead to the necessity of banning.

By the way, we have a licensing system in place here and I can say that it does prevent impulse buying. At present, petshops can't get licences to sell reptiles, nor can the people who run, or rent booths at, reptile shows. Reptile shows in my state are product oriented, with no reptiles for sale. To sell reptiles here, it's all word of mouth and internet. No ads in magazines, newspapers, just hobbyist newsletters and that sort of thing. This will all sound 'stupid' to you because you are used to your system, but in terms of the animals' welfare (rather than your own) it is pretty good. I don't know of anyone that has had problems buying or selling reptiles, despite the lack of reptiles in petshops or at shows.

This isn't to say that our licensing system would work over there or that it's the answer to your problems. I am just trying to point out that it isn't a stupid concept.

You may not see or hear of all those animals sold blackmarket and kept by people who arent licensed, but thats the idea behind a blackmarket. Just like here the guy who got killed and eaten in his second house by his 3 komodos. The more restrictive laws are the worse and the sneakier black markets get. Im not saying that it doesnt help to have minimum prices, licenses in some cases but some states have licenses for any exotics, some states and localities dont allow certain animals but it doesnt stop them. Look at California laws on what you can have in captivity, for example, bet most Californians dont know what they can even have legally. There are plenty of other states with examples as such. We have problems here with neglected abused animals but it happens at all levels from the guy who decides to keep 20 dog or cats in his low income apartment to take care of them, to the guy who spends $1200 for a dog and $4000 for surgery to fix a broken bone then abandons it by a farm later on. The point is the problems are worldwide, and the animals are sent by the thousands from their home country to whatever conditions, but tno matter what that native selling it will still be selling it next year no matter what the laws say.

SHvar, you've never been to Australia. I live here.

Sure, there are always going to be people keeping reptiles illegally, smuggling animals in and out of the country, etc. But, on the whole, we don't have 100,000 baby monitors being sold annually to anyone that fronts up with $10, leading to dozens and dozens of online posts that read "I just bought a monitor and it isn't eating".

Saying a system isn't working because there are a small percentage that cheat on the system is a weird way to look at it. You have laws against murder, yet people still murder. Does that make laws against murder useless? Think of the chaos you'd have if there were no laws against murder. Every time you got angry at someone in traffic you could blow them away with your handgun, no questions asked.

Our reptile licensing laws go a long way towards protecting the animals themselves, even if you disagree with how they might affect YOU and your concept of freedom if the same laws were imposed there. Certainly many more animals are protected than if there were no laws at all.

Like I said alot of states here have laws with licenseing etc for exotics of all types (anything but dogs, cats, and goldfish), but it doesnt work like it should, simple that you go to another state buy what you want, buy it over the internet, or buy it from someone who has them for sale privately and you dont need a license, most people dont know their own laws and how it affects what they can or cant have, nor do most care as long as they dont get caught. Of course you can argue for permits, laws, licenses, and even bans but it only affects you and I and all of those who do things the legal way. Of course it cuts down on 7-17 year olds impulse buying them, in that way it can be good but that native whos starving will still sell that monitor to the next guy whether its for the skin trade or for a pet. The problem has to be dealt with on 2 ends not just one. Maybe they should be responsible and not reproduce when they know they cant support themselves let alone support kids, education can make a difference, of course learning the hard way many natives in those countries starve almost daily, its called "natural selection", unfortunately 5-10 replace every one that dies.

"A survey by the national Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta ("CDC" concludes that dogs bite nearly 2% of the U.S. population -- more than 4.7 million people annually
Almost 800,000 bites per year"
" one out of every 6 -- are serious enough to require medical attention. Dog bites send nearly 334,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (914 per day)."

Thats a lot higher than you mentioned, and those figures are constantly on the rise, those were in 1996, as mentioned I believe they go up 2% a year. Id also like to find those statistics for all animals, as they gave an average of lizard bites and attacks in the US as .75 a year because they used an average of 10 years most years having no cases requiring professional medical care country wide. I was one of those, I remember the questions and paperwork required for an animal attack/bite, most of the time I was there in the hospital, no stitches because I waited too long to go to the hospital after almost losing my right ear to a 4.5 ft dieing blackthroat. The figures for snakes in captivity I remember were 1.5 a a year for nonvenomous in captivity (same average over 10 years time). Being that I help a reptile rescue on occaision I know there are thousands of medium to large sized monitors out there as I here about and see the abused, and on rare occaison the good ones nobody wants anymore after the novelty wears off of that $5 bosc or nile. I also saw a rare argus rescue (former Pro football player was the owner).

"Every year 2,851 letter carriers are bitten. (US Postal Service.) An American has a one in 50 chance of being bitten by a dog each year."
"1996, 304 people in the U.S. died from dog attacks, including 30 in California."
" Most deaths occurred in children"
"Dog attack victims in the U.S. suffer over $1 billion in monetary losses every year."
"The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place.
The vast majority of biting dogs (77%) belong to the victim's family or a friend."
"The breeds that the CDC considers highest risk are pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepherds, Huskies, Alaskan malamutes, Doberman pinschers, Chows, Great Danes, St. Bernards and Akitas."

"Although pit bull mixes and Rottweillers are most likely to kill and seriously maim, fatal attacks since 1975 have been attributed to dogs from at least 30 breeds."

"The most horrifying example of the lack of breed predictability is the October 2000 death of a 6-week-old baby, which was killed by her family's Pomeranian dog. The average weight of a Pomeranian is about 4 pounds, and they are not thought of as a dangerous breed. Note, however, that they were bred to be watchdogs! The baby's uncle left the infant and the dog on a bed while the uncle prepared her bottle in the kitchen. Upon his return, the dog was mauling the baby, who died shortly afterwards. ("Baby Girl Killed by Family Dog," Los Angeles Times, Monday, October 9, 2000 , Home Edition, Metro Section, Page B-5.)"

("Irresponsible behavior" is defined differently from place to place. In California, for example, it can be a felony for a person to possess a dog trained to fight, attack or kill that, because of the owner's lack of ordinary care, bites two people or seriously injures one person.)

"In different parts of the United States at the current time, there are a number of parents who are on trial for manslaughter because their dogs have killed their children. In these cases, the prosecutors have taken the position that the parents behaved irresponsibly because they left their children in the company of dogs most likely to bite."

"There is an 8 out of 10 chance that a biting dog is male. (Humane Society of the United States.) There is a 6 out of 10 chance that a biting dog has not been neutered. (Humane Society of the United States
Severe injuries occur almost exclusively in children less than 10 years of age.
The majority of dog attacks (61%) happen at home or in a familiar place
When a child less than 4 years old is the victim, the family dog was the attacker half the time (47%), and the attack almost always happened in the family home (90%).
Emergency room incidents annually "

Baseball/softball -- 404,364
Dog bites -- 333,687
Playground accidents -- 268,810
All-terrain vehicles, mopeds, etc -- 125,136
Volleyball -- 97,523
Inline skating -- 75,994
Horseback riding -- 71,162
Baby walkers -- 28,000
Skateboards -- 25,486

SHvar, read my post again. First of all, here is a direct quote from the site you linked.

"Approximately 35 percent of American households owned a dog in 1994, and the U.S. dog population exceeded 52 million."

"Dog bites send nearly 334,000 victims to hospital emergency departments per year (914 per day)."

Now here is what I said:

"A first glance it seems like there are an awful lot of people getting bitten seriously by dogs (serious enough to require a visit to the emergency department of a hospital) - 334,000 a year! But compare that to the number of dogs being kept (52 million) and the number of people getting bitten seriously, as a fraction of the number of people keeping dogs and it is only 0.6% "

So, which bit did you want me to read closely? Please make it concise this time, for I can't be bothered reading your exceedingly long posts.

Separate the statistics about dog bites from the statistics about dog bites that result in a visit to a hospital emergency department, and don't forget to include the number of dogs being kept.

If you want to compare dogs with monitors, it can't be a direct comparison for the number of monitor owners is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of dog owners. The total number of dogs therefore has to be taken into account.

If I said that the number of serious car accidents a year is 100,000 times the number of unicycle accidents, does that mean that unicycles are safer than cars, or that there are fewer unicycles? Now, what if I said that there were 200 million cars out there and 5 million serious car accidents per year, compared with 100 unicycles out there and 50 serious unicycle accidents. Which is more dangerous?

Has been to someone who had 3 adult komodos, they finished him off when he fell on large rocks from around 10ft or more, yet we have 304 deaths to dogs a year, 70% or more are family or friends in the home. I tried to quote the points you covered but gave conflicting numbers for, thats alot of figures to quote, so if you think thats long read the original article I noticed you quoted several things that were covered in the article, but like most attacks occuring to family or friends in the home, you stated most dogs attack someone else outside the family. And most bites being to children. You can make excuses all day but the primary reason we have fewer dogs attacking strangers is that here ownwers are physically and financially responsibile for all damages caused by their dogs even if its a criminal caught in the act(1986 federal viscous dog law). Gurad dogs were a good thing years ago but too much abuse to them and now they are useless to, everybody wanted a fierce dog after a while, abuse just the same only worse.

SHvar, you seem to selectively read bits of my posts and ignore the rest. The fact remains that the percentage of people that get bitten seriously enough by dogs to require emergency treatment compared to the total number of dogs owned is relatively small and would be a larger fraction if there were as many large monitors kept as dogs. Who said anything about deaths? Who said anything about children? Who cares about whether or not it's in the home or elsewhere in the end.

The numbers I quoted were numbers from your article. I didn't copy them incorrectly, I didn't calculate the percentage in any weird way, simply divided the number of serious dog bites (requiring hospital treatment) by the total number of dogs being kept.

It doesn't matter how you word it, or put it, or claim that I am misquoting, the fact remains that the total number of people being bitten by dogs is high because the total number of dogs being kept is high. Sure, dogs are dangerous animals, but don't think for a minute that if there were 52 million large monitors being kept in the US instead of dogs there wouldn't be a frighteningly high number of monitor bites requiring emergency medical attention.

I think the big difference is that dogs are owned by so many, are loose in the house or yards and have access to humans unlike a caged reptile, so the potential for dog injuries is certainly greater than reptiles. If someone came into my house and I did not want them to know I had reptiles, I would not take them into my reptile room. On the other hand, when you own a dog and someone comes in, the dog is usually loose, so they know you have a dog and the dog has access to humans. Most injuries by reptiles are usually to the owners themselves, not the general public. I agree that it is unfortunate that the lower priced reptiles are the most abused, but abuse of animals goes a lot farther than reptiles. Our government's involvement is only for one purpose, to placate the public to be re-elected and to charge more fees to pay for government overspending. The government doesn't give a d@#% about our reptiles or anything else for that matter other than their jobs, their healthcare and their pensions. Don't be fooled into thinking they are doing anything for us or our animals. It is all about them.

Pam

I agree...but I was basically stating my point of view from "how a undeducated politician" would think, as I stated in previous posts.
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

plain & simple we should have the god given right to own whatever herp we wish....yes there is the occasional butthead that will keep an alligator in a studio apartment but that's no reason to let the rest of the community suffer. I one day would love to own a croc when I buy real estate & can properly maintane it. now I think banning venemous anaimals could be a plus but who am i to judge..i would love to own them too but am not confident that i am ready for that challenge but who would i be to say that to someone who feels qualified.. if i am fighting for my right to keep a ball python i must fight for the right of the rest of the herpers regardless of what they keep....we need to be tight knit about this...not well i dont have crocs so "F" that guy...if you want one herp legal you should fight for the rest as well. this ban is dumb & will not ensure safety to ny citizens....ban alcohol so some guy doesn't drive home drunk & kill a child..that happens everyday but everybody drinks so you'll never see that...we are being targeted because it's a small industry compaired to others & there's a bunch of people that are repulsed by reptiles so the big boys really dont care about banning them...& yes one ban brings you a step closer to another ban or addition once the this is passed it will only make additions easier to go through because they will see it has refining the bill to make things safer that the original bill. i have seen on the 10 o'clock news "mauled by pitbulls" now every age child, adult, elderly & yet not once did I see a channel 4 exclusive "Man killed by pet snake" & it stops breeding which bothers me because a couple years ago I stumble on to this world & decided whether it be full time or just on the side... i want to breed & sell. it is a joy to work with them & finally i had hope because one of my all time hobbies i can actually make a little money from or just keep supporting them for free in a sense.....i'm 23 & insted of living it up the past 2 years I've dumped thousands which is a lot for me along with rent & bills...to help persue my dream of being an established breeder,,,now they wanna tell me no? also i have seen it spark intrest in younger people who want to do this as well..which to me is great kids in their teens i have seen trying to educate themselves & breed something instead of getting high behind the dairy queen..yes some people screw up it happens but those minor accounts are causing the negativity thats going to hurt an otherwise booming business.

All of these proposed laws will turn out to bite us (pun intended). We are supposed to be living in the USA, land of the free. What a joke that is. This government has so much control over every aspect of our lives and the individuals who write these laws are doing so to "protect us." I for one am sick and tired of these "public" servants trying to impose their opinions on everyone else. What about dogs and cats? Where is the legislation for their owners? In our local paper on May 23, 2004 there was an article about dog classes. In the article it stated and I quote "American Family Insurance, which insures 25% of homeowners in Wisconsin, paid more than $5 million in claims related to dog bites last year in its 17-state area, spokesman Ken Muth said. Dog bites remain the largest-about one-third of more than $300 million-of all liability claims among homeowners, according to the Insurance Information Institute. About 4.7 million people, a majority of them children are bitten every year and 800,000 require medical attention, according to the American Veterinary Medical Association." I did not see any statistics about reptile bites and/or injuries. Again, reptiles are being singled out strictly because people are creeped out by them. My own mother will not come in my reptile room. I have had animals all of my life, dogs, cats, birds, rodents, horses, sheep, goats, chickens, reptiles, etc. I have worked in the animal industry for many years in different capacities. Our reptiles are not hurting anyone. I agree that they should be well provided for, but for Go,'s sake, our government can't even prevent child abuse and they are worried about reptiles. Get real. It is our own business what we do and do not keep as long as they are cared for and do not bother anyone else. Dogs and cats are constantly running loose, doing their business on our lawns, barking and wantonly reproducing. I have yet to see the same problem with any reptiles. (with the exception of the Cape Coral Niles) LOL If we continue to let our government invade our privacy we will soon have to report our bathroom habits to them too. Is this what we really want or need? I am against all legislation to control any more of our lives. I am involved in more than animals, I am also a land developer, and if you want to see some real bull#$@#, try to develop a subdivision. Just my opinion.

Pam

Trust me if there were as many rattlers and adult water monitors owned in the pet trade as there are dogs...I guarentee you'd be dealing with many many more problems than you are with dogs.

So really those statistics and news channel sightings are kind of invalid to the discussion.

Just my opinion.
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

No they're not. These statistics just show that reptiles just show that reptiles do not cause nearly as much problems as dogs and other common pets, regardless of how many people actually own a reptile. I mean, it's not like large monitors and venomous snakes are going to become as popular as dogs...not by a long shot. Smaller snakes and lizards are becoming increasingly popular, but an "attack" from one will not lead to a trip to the hopspital.

The plain and simple fact is, these reptiles are not causing a problem, and in all of the years I've lived in new york (my whole life, 16 years) I've only heard of one or two people stupid enough to try keeping a lion or tiger as a pet, and one of them lived in an apartment. I actually agree that lions, tigers, and other animals of that sort should require at least a permit, and with those animals it is not necessary to breed them if you are a private collector. The reptile industry is completely different.

We just need to keep getting the word out to everyone so they can call in and tell them that this bill should not be passed.

I agree with you completely except for the fact that you cannot compare statistics applied to dogs with reptiles. Many many people own dogs and only a handful own reptiles...if you were to balance the ratio of monitors to dogs I would again...guarentee you would find many more problems surfacing with reptiles.

For the time being...no they are not causing a problem because so few people keep big lizards and that low percentage of big lizard keepers will probably always stay that way.
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

> For the time being...no they are not causing a problem
> because so few people keep big lizards and that low
> percentage of big lizard keepers will probably always
> stay that way.

In which case it will never be a public safety issue and there is no need for the law.

Luke

Yup.
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

Would it be better to own a green iguana than a nile? You own one, perhaps you can explain the rationale behind that.

Really though, the said law is bad because it is a basis for banning more reptiles. It is bad because of loose definitions saying what is good to keep and what isn't.

If New York does not now ban dumerils monitors, what happens when someone's arm is lacerated by one and they go to the hospital? Dums are then banned.

What about an ackie, ever been bitten by one? Ever owned one? They can bite with the best of them.

Frank pretty much takes care of the rest of the argument.

andrew

Nope, definetley not...we've dealt with some iggies that are just as mean as niles...intmidating little buggers.

I'm Canadian so really these laws don't even concern me but I would say that the line has to be drawn somewhere...which way do you stop??? Do you stop with just banning venomous snakes? Or should we ban the lizards with venom too?

Should we ban large lizards too because they are too big, and possibly aggressive???

Or do we let it all slide so people can keep 30 foot pythons, rattlers and crocodiles.

Really the line has to be drawn somewhere and the government is going to draw it for what they feel is right. Sadly, I'm going to assume that most of these government deciders are going to be totally uneducated, and biased in their opinions of reptiles. So that's why species are going to end up in there that maybe shouldn't.

But really again, it's ethics...dog are common, known and can typically be trained and are for the most part domesticated. Reptiles are kinda sorta not really common, can't really be trained if even tamed, and are definetly not domesticated...so many people fear the "wild" animals that some of up keep.

With fear comes laws and rules. Labs can be as mean as Niles and Savannahs can be as nice as Labs but people don't know that.

There are stereotypes that go with both...dogs are man's best friend and reptiles are...well...not welcome by most?

Either way yup it sucks that they are banning reptiles but what is anyone going to do about it??? I read all these complaints and outraged posts....we should all protest!

Well that's just my two cents...I think I'll flip them into the wish fountain.
-----
Chris Vanderwees

E-mail Me
1.3.0 Veiled Chameleons
3.2.0 Corn Snakes
1.3.0 Tokay Geckos
2.2.0 California Kingsnakes
1.3.0 South Florida Kingsnakes
1.1.0 Albino Sonoran Gopher Snakes
1.5.0 Leopard Geckos
0.1.0 Green Iguanas
3.4.0 Mali Uromastyx
0.0.1 Savannah Monitor

Almost any law that infringes on our rights to choose are bad. I don't mind so much guidelines that enforce a decent minimum of care or humane treatment. Can't people see how on so many different levels our right to choose & live free are being taken away? And not just with monitors. I just recently discovered that there are states in the USA where it's illegal to get a tattoo!!!!! Who gets off telling grown people that they can't do that!!!!

I am not going to get off on a crazy rant here but I know a New Yorker that keeps large monitors and to be honest I don't know that there is anyone more dedicated to his animals. John? Where the hell are you man?