Reptile & Amphibian Forums

This article is a good example of what the humane society and organizations like them are doing for us. In the ad link, you will see the article that was published today. The law goes into effect Jan. 1st 2005. Andy

Link

How were animal rights activists responsible for this?

I don't know if any activists were involved in the New York incident, but I know from personal experience that some extremist view "us" reptile keepers to be the most detrimental of all on wildlife populations. I have had members of PETA tell me that they are against ANY creature being used for anything, including pet ownership. They claim that the animals deserve to live in their wild, native enjvironemnts and shouldn't be used in captivity for any purposes, including education. So they could be directly or indirectly related the the NY law.

This was a ll started by the humane society. Peta has been pushing this also. Andy

I did a little googling and it's true that the ASPCA and the Humane Society both supported this bill. It's strange to me that the vast majority of people who would be adversely affected by this bill are responsible animal lovers who would normally agree with what the ASPCA and Humane Society are trying to accomplish.

It's the random news stories of "Giant Python Eats Dog!" which lead some folks who are incapable of basic reason to seek a law to make owning these snakes illegal. There's much more danger posed by irresponsible dog owners than irresponsible snake owners. I bet no data went into the creation of this bill: data like the proportion of pythons kept as pets that have injured or killed a small child versus the proportion of dogs that have done the same.

What we need are educated, intelligent people in government who recognize idiocy when they see it. And we also need the herp community to step up and try to stop these laws from being passed.

What we need is the NRA! Nationl Reptile Association.

Tom

What "wisdom."

One quote:

The law "doesn't restrict average people from owning a snake," she said. "They just can't have a cobra or a python."

And another:

"Not everybody should have a 15-foot boa constrictor," agreed Bob Krantz of Buffalo, education director of the Western New York Herpetological Society.

- - -

A cobra OR a python? Quite a big difference there.

15-foot boa constrictors? Not too many of them around. He should know better.

This is the same bill a lot of KS members and other forum members wrote to Governor Pataki about. Why is it always the uninformed and uninvolved that make the decisions?

Bill

I would definitly agree that the ignorant people always make decisions for others. I would agree that there are some inexperienced and irresponsible keepers of some of the larger pythons, but responsible owners shouldn't have to suffer from the mistakes of a few idiots. One python gets out and they think they have to ban all of them from the childrens python up to anacondas. I myself wrote Governor Pitaki about this issue, I never got a response, and really didn't expect one. They don't listen to responsible keepers of reptiles. They have stereotyped all of us into drug-using tatooed freaks with hippy hair and body peircings.( I myself have no problem with a tatoo or peircing, but you know all know that is what reptile keepers in general are viewed as) Anyway, they somehow think this bill will prevent further accidents and improve public safety..WRONG!! Just wait until people have to dump their animals, or kill them uselessly because they can no longer keep them, and nevermind the illegal trade that will now be very widespread. I think it will make things worse, not better. If I were a resident of New York I'd pack my stuff and leave. Just my 2 cents.

To clarify, this bill will not require people to dump their animals. People that have these pets already can keep them but must register the animals with animal control in the first sixty days of the new year.

I have been around the fireing line of the animal rights activists for 20 years now, and the media is swayed toward their agenda more than we care to accept. I do not know this guy ("Not everybody should have a 15-foot boa constrictor," agreed Bob Krantz of Buffalo, education director of the Western New York Herpetological Society.)
Bob Krantz, but judging from his position he fell prey to specific questions that were then rewrote to convey another message overall. Look at the statement ( The law "doesn't restrict average people from owning a snake," she said. "They just can't have a cobra or a python." That should be a flag for what they are trying to do. The ban only bans several large species of large pythons yet she lumps them all in so the general public readers will be swayed to believe any time they hear someone has a python now they are law breakers... His next statement says...("And you don't want to break into a house and find a gorilla there," he said, referring to a 2003 state law that requires registering dangerous pets to protect such first responders as fire, ambulance and police officials.) He was most likely refering to policies that were already being used to protect people and these agencies..they turned that whole statement around and made him sound pro-ban. We need to be educated if we are going to fight. These liberals have an agenda..it is to take your rights as pet owners, one animal at a time. Andy

"These liberals have an agenda..it is to take your rights as pet owners, one animal at a time."

I don't think this is the battle we as herpers need to fight. It may be true that the genesis of this bill and others like it was from people who don't believe certain animals should be kept confined to cages: an anaconda should be wild and free in South America and not locked up in a cage. But how this bill gets passed is that somehow these people convince the higher-ups that these animals are a dangerous threat to the populace. That anaconda will eat your children! So what do we need to do? We need to convince the lawmakers that these animals are not dangerous in the hands of the vast majority of owners (and compare this to dog owners). The bill isn't about the right to freedom for certain species of animals, it's about some phantom threat that these animals pose. The animal rights people pushing these laws may believe it's wrong to keep certain animals as pets but they cannot pass a bill stipulating these moral values as a reason to ban them. So they do the smart thing and think of a 'public good' reason to do so. We need to prove that this reason is not legitimate.

I can't remember if it was Peta or another similar organization (that claims that animals should never be used by humans)but they aired a commercial starring Alicia Silverstone, and in it she is towing the company line so to speak- don't keep animals as pets, don't eat meat, yada yada yada....
The funny thing is she is sitting next to a beautiful tiger that is clearly not in its natural habitat (unless there is a new subspecies that is found on hollywood sound stages) . And judging from the way she was petting and snuggling with it, she wasn't the first person to meet this tiger (in other words it was clearly a captive raised if not captive bred animal- the tiger, not mrs. silverstone she is obviously wild caught- haha).
Sorry- Just thought the obvious hipocracy was funny.

Isn't it a shame that true animal lovers (such as those of you reading this) are often at odds with these groups such as peta and the humane society.