Reptile & Amphibian Forums

I recently tried to adopt a snake and was told by the rescue shelter that I can not because I live in Aurora Colorado. Up until 2 years ago, Aurora had a six foot length limit. A man put an 11 foot Burmese python around his neck and took it out to meet his friends. Something scared it and it killed him. Because of this, my 14 inch rough green snake who is recovering from a cricket attack is now illegal and staying with a friend in Denver. That is like saying because a wolf attacked a child you cannot have a Chihuahua.

I want to fight the ridiculous law and really have no clue how to begin. Is there anyone else in the area who objects to this?

Anyone have any advice how to begin?

C
Link

I was given incorrect information by an Aurora Animal Care officer. I have filed a complaint.

It seems the real ordinance is not as strict as I was told but it is still something I want to overcome.

Sec. 14-8. Keeping wild, exotic or dangerous animals or livestock.

(a) Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, harbor, sell or in any other manner traffic in the following species or hybrid species of animals:

(1) All poisonous animals, constrictor snakes and all nonpoisonous snakes and reptiles with a length greater than three feet measured from the tip of the nose to the tip of the tail.

The reasons I was given for this restriction were 1) the death of a man who hung an 11 foot burmese python around his neck and took it out to meet friends and 2) their snake experts stated that it takes 1 person per 3 feet to handle a constrictor. They said an average person attacked by a constrictor would not be able to unwind the snake from hisher body alone if it were over three feet long. Does anyone have any information that could be used to refute this?

C

Thats absolutely ludicrous, their so-called snake expert is obviously a complete moron.

SO, one person died from a snake. Big deal. How many people are killed by horses or dogs each year? Are they all banned? Certainly not because then the councilors would be voted out of office. This is just more fear and paranoia resulting in discrimination against herpers.

Glad to help out in any way I can.

Cheers
Bryan
-----
Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Australian Venom Research Unit,
University of Melbourne
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Population and Evolutionary Genetics Unit,
Museum Victoria
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://www.venomdoc.com

Get a sidewinder rattlesnake. They stay under three feet, and they're not poisonous.

They're VENOMOUS. Whoever wrote the law knows very little about what animals are "poisonous."
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

I like that. It's the letter of the law. Made me laugh.

These laws are made by people who know NOTHING about the animals they have banned. Come on... poison dart frogs are on their list of dangerous animals.

I did file a complaint against their Animal Control officer who was giving out the erroneous 12 inch rule information. That just shows me they are actively discriminating against reptiles. I thought my rough green snake and glass lizard were illegal. They are not.

Last May, Colorado citizens overcame the breed specific laws against pitt bulls and pitt breeds. Before that they were put to death on site just for being born. The state law over ruled the city ordinances and made quite a few pitt haters in Denver County very angry. They got rid of the breed discrimination and made the laws and penalties for having an agressive animal that attacks stiffer. Now if a cocker bites a kid the owner faces the same penalties that he would if it had been a Pitt that bit the kid. The goal is to make people more responsible for their animals. Responsible pet ownership should be the goal of the anti-herp laws too. If people use theior heads and brains and avoid doing things like wrapping 11 foot Burmese Pythons around their neck, then there would be no issue.

This pic was emailed to me. Not sure who the little girl is, but this illustrates the problem. Terminal stupidity... not dangerous animals.

C

it seems to me more and more that it's not the snakes that are dangerous, it's owners that have absolutely no common sense.
Maybe the parents of that kid had a big life-insurance policy they were hoping to collect. I can't see why else anyone would do anything that stupid.