Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here to visit Classifieds
Click for ZooMed
Click here to visit Classifieds

Interpreting a local ordinance (your views?)...

Antegy Dec 12, 2004 09:48 AM

With all this talk about laws I made it a point to get a copy of the state of Massachusetts laws on keeping reptiles, as well as a copy of my city's local ordinance on keeping reptiles.

As far as the state is concerned, I am completely within the bounds of the current laws. Now, my city's local ordinance is a bit of a gray area. It seems that for years it was completely illegal to keep any kind of reptile - ANY kind (even turtles). Then, a couple of years ago a pet store (one of the larger chains) took the city to court so that it could sell reptiles in a store it opened in the city. The pet store succeeded, as far as getting the ordinance amended. BUT, the language is so vague that I'm at somewhat of a loss interpreting it.

Here it is:

Now, are my snakes "wild" or "so-called exotic"? It just isn't defined in the ordinance. How can such vague laws & regulations get passed?

Any comments/thoughts on this?

Thanks,
- Mark
.

-----
----------------------------------------------
My personal website: www.antegy.com
----------------------------------------------
My Kingsnake.com Picture Galleries

- Labyrinth Burmese Python Gallery
- Suriname Boa Gallery
- Mexican Black Kingsnake Gallery
- Pueblan Milksnake Gallery
- Trinket Ratsnake Gallery
----------------------------------------------
My photography on photo.net
----------------------------------------------
Me on myspace.com

Replies (4)

Samcin Dec 12, 2004 02:10 PM

Looks to me as if they deleted reptiles from the forbidden pet list.

Cindy

mchambers Dec 12, 2004 04:05 PM

My take ( read MY situation of Kansas and yours the same ): it deletes the " reptiles " because they are now with " exotics ". And it isn't necessary your own interpretation as it is up to the pertaining agency involved. You COULD say that it is vague ( and of course it is ) but how does " vague " hold up in court ? Ask many reptile hunters of Texas how that term applies in court. Let it be known as to almost all infractions of past in Texas on the above has never held in court but not without the price of an attorney. In fact this vagueness may of been one of the determining factore/s of the law reversal in our favor.

chris_mcmartin Dec 13, 2004 05:42 AM

>>Now, are my snakes "wild" or "so-called exotic"? It just isn't defined in the ordinance. How can such vague laws & regulations get passed?

Try to get a copy of the old regulation, so you could show that "reptiles" USED to be on the banned list, and now they're not.

Typically, regulations aren't written by biologists, so to the general public (and lawmakers) "animal" is interpreted as "warm and fuzzy creature."
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Samcin Dec 16, 2004 07:24 AM

"Animal" is probably defined by State Code. In VA, reptiles are companion animals and animal is everything except fish.

Cindy

Site Tools