Reptile & Amphibian Forums

There's been quite a bit of chatter recently regarding states proposing new regulations with respect to venomous reptile husbandry. The general feeling on this issue has spanned the spectrum from indifference to outrage...Some of my thoughts on this issue are as follows...

1) While I do keep hots myself, this is not a "right"...A right is something that cannot be taken from me without my consent. It is a privilege...Not everyone has the "right" to keep dangerously venomous reptiles, and indeed I believe the vast majority of the public isn't qualified to do so. All of this squabbling about "rights" bears no relevancy in terms of our charges, precisely because with few exceptions, the law does not specifically state that we may keep them for personal enjoyment. We are afforded that privilege in many cases through oversite by legislators. Once this oversite is brought to their attention, they are quick to correct said oversite with legislation. In many regions they are legal because the law doesn't specifically state that they aren't...no other reason. There are exceptions, but in many cases venomous reptiles are legal only because there hasn't been specfic legislation (yet) that outlaws them.

2) There is a big difference between gun laws and reptile laws. Our founding fathers saw an intrinsic benefit in the general public having the right to bear arms. Hence, it is a constitutionally protected right, not subject to change without much consideration and effort on the part of those wishing to change it. There is no such provision for venomous reptiles. Again, with few exceptions (and I do mean a very few) legislators do not see any intrinsic benefit to the private ownership of dangerously venomous reptiles. This, coupled with the fact that those that keep these animals are a distinct minority, means that unless the "hot-keeping" community can somehow convince John Q. Legislator that there IS an intrinsic benefit to this activity, any sort of leniency in the laws stands little chance.

3) Legislators are not interested in gathering facts and carefully weighing options before proposing laws, especially in terms of laws regarding the ownership of venomous reptiles. They are interested in appeasing their constituents, and the majority of those constituents see no valid reason for a dangerously venomus reptile being kept by a private party. As a result, it is much easier to pass an all-out ban than it is to engieer a "permit system" (similar to the one in Fla.). A system like that costs money, time and manpower and without a significant number of their constituents engaging in the practice of venomous husbandry, legislators won't look twice at it. There's no incentive for them to do so, as most people agree 100% with a ban.

I'm as frustrated with the "legislative mindset" as any of you, but I understand that as long as we fail to present our side as a viable, beneficial option to our legislators, these same legislators will have no second thoughts about passing legislation that damages our hobby further.

-AzAtrox

See, I in my opinion..there is a big difference. You see us as having no rights. I see there is a right. I do not care whether or not a founding father of the counrty considered keeping venomous snakes a right. It was likely no a concern to them. What I see is people would like to be free of laws which are not in direct affect with others. I am completely alright with people not being allowed to kill others or steal from others. I am even alright with a school bus st0pping at every railroad crossing (nobody is really hurt more than maybe a few minutes of life spent being safe). I am not ok with people using our political system to place bans and regulate people on some slim chance that someone may be affected. One thing I very much respect about Illinois is the fact they have no helmet law. While I will ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet...it is MY CHOICE. It is people who fight for their freedom for these things which is the basis of the country we live in. While snakes are not uotlined in our constitution...it is the fact we are great citizens of our counrty and love the world we live in which makes it a shame that people would like to create bans as a political move simply because reptiles give people "the creeps." If I have the right to believe in something that will not affect me until I die...then I should have a right to that which affects the basis of which I would like to dedicate my life to (as long as I am not directly hurting anyone else).

The first post, and I would have to agree with him/her, basically gave a very realistic viewpoint as to how our political system works. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but that's the reality that we have to work with. As a curator of a wildlife center that keeps venomous species, and, also a private hobbyist, I don't feel it is anyone's "right" to own a venomous herp because most are not qualified and I would personally have a real problem if I found out that my neighbor owned a cobra who was less than responsible in owning one. "Rights" and "priveleges" are oftentimes confused. BUT, I do feel that there should be a process in place that allows the responsible folks an opportunity to keep venomous reptiles (even if that means jumping through many hoops, approvals and permit fees).

As an aside rebuttal, I am astounded that Illinois doesn't have a helmet law for motorcyclists. So, a teenager, who feels that h/she is invincible, can ride their motorcycle w/out a helmet? Are you saying that a parent letting his child ride on his motorcycle w/out a helmet is okay (hopefully, the law only pertains to adults 21 years of age or older). Sure wouldn't happen in my house! But, hey, I guess those motorcylists who ride their vehicles w/out helmets may not have much to protect up their between the ears.

Rob Carmichael, Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center
Lake Forest, IL

>>See, I in my opinion..there is a big difference. You see us as having no rights. I see there is a right. I do not care whether or not a founding father of the counrty considered keeping venomous snakes a right. It was likely no a concern to them. What I see is people would like to be free of laws which are not in direct affect with others. I am completely alright with people not being allowed to kill others or steal from others. I am even alright with a school bus st0pping at every railroad crossing (nobody is really hurt more than maybe a few minutes of life spent being safe). I am not ok with people using our political system to place bans and regulate people on some slim chance that someone may be affected. One thing I very much respect about Illinois is the fact they have no helmet law. While I will ride a motorcycle and wear a helmet...it is MY CHOICE. It is people who fight for their freedom for these things which is the basis of the country we live in. While snakes are not uotlined in our constitution...it is the fact we are great citizens of our counrty and love the world we live in which makes it a shame that people would like to create bans as a political move simply because reptiles give people "the creeps." If I have the right to believe in something that will not affect me until I die...then I should have a right to that which affects the basis of which I would like to dedicate my life to (as long as I am not directly hurting anyone else).
-----
Rob Carmichael, Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center at Elawa Farm
Lake Forest, IL

It really is a fine line between "protecting" the public vs the "so called" rights of the individual.

As to ownership....the story is that...we "own" everything because we are citizens. The truth is we don't even own our own homes. We actually "lease" them from the government. if you doubt this, watch what happens when your property "rights" conflict with the goverments needs.

The government is of the correct opinion that the majority of the public lacks the ability to make informed choices. They should know-because we elected them.

Look at who we vote for (and how)we vote. All too many Americans vote based on a name, or vote on an issue based on what the media tells them is correct. This is why the founding fathers created our government, so that the "educated" representitives would steer us in (what they feel is) the right direction.

The truth is you do not "own" your animals. The government can come in and seize them any time they want. Yeah, there is the court system, but that is deliberately expensive. it is true that we have the best justice MONEY can buy.

The bottom line is that in issues like this that have very little financial impact on the government, it is often considered a nuisance issue. If enough people complain, the government steps in and makes a law to apppease the loudest voices, so they can say they worked in the public interest, and then go back to what is really important to them.

That is why when fools who play with dangerous animals that they are keeping illegally, or that they lack the training to work safely with, are our biggest enemies. When the ovrwhelming image is negative....that is the voice the government will respond to.

There has been a move in the last forty odd years away from the concept of "Personal Responsibility". The public has indicated the the government take a larger role in protecting us, educating and raising our children...etc. Too often we here the excuse that it is not our responsibility...someone else can do it.

We will lose this interest of ours because we allow illegal and reckless activities to occur in our hobby and no one does anything about it. The very voice of our hobby-Herpetological Societies are failing-due to lack of membership.

If you doubt the value of these Herp societies...remember that our enemies are organised and can send a united voice. Without organisation, we are just individuals pissing in the wind.

Ultimately, we will see a day when very little in this hobby will be available for us to enjoy..and it will be our own fault for letting it happen.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

np

Boy I couldn't agree with you more. There is no doubt that we (the hobbyists) have utterly failed in policing our own hobby. The sport of falconry is a great example of what can happen when a group of individuals come together and forward self policing laws that protect the interests of responsible people. It hasn't happened in the reptile hobby. My wildlife center alone is a testament to this reckless and irresponsible behavior as we have quite a few venomous and non venomous herps in our collection as a result of people keeping certain herps illegally. Although herp societies certainly have great opportunities to help band large groups together, you will find that some societies, like the Chicago Herp Society, are very "anti-venomous" towards private ownership. Granted, IL laws forbid the keeping of venomous by private individuals but I hope that someday that will change; unfortunately, if that day does come, the CHS will probably not change their stance due to some bad apples who need to go (for the most part, though,....there are actually some truly wonderful folks with the CHS).

>>It really is a fine line between "protecting" the public vs the "so called" rights of the individual.
>>
>>As to ownership....the story is that...we "own" everything because we are citizens. The truth is we don't even own our own homes. We actually "lease" them from the government. if you doubt this, watch what happens when your property "rights" conflict with the goverments needs.
>>
>>The government is of the correct opinion that the majority of the public lacks the ability to make informed choices. They should know-because we elected them.
>>
>>Look at who we vote for (and how)we vote. All too many Americans vote based on a name, or vote on an issue based on what the media tells them is correct. This is why the founding fathers created our government, so that the "educated" representitives would steer us in (what they feel is) the right direction.
>>
>>The truth is you do not "own" your animals. The government can come in and seize them any time they want. Yeah, there is the court system, but that is deliberately expensive. it is true that we have the best justice MONEY can buy.
>>
>>The bottom line is that in issues like this that have very little financial impact on the government, it is often considered a nuisance issue. If enough people complain, the government steps in and makes a law to apppease the loudest voices, so they can say they worked in the public interest, and then go back to what is really important to them.
>>
>>That is why when fools who play with dangerous animals that they are keeping illegally, or that they lack the training to work safely with, are our biggest enemies. When the ovrwhelming image is negative....that is the voice the government will respond to.
>>
>>There has been a move in the last forty odd years away from the concept of "Personal Responsibility". The public has indicated the the government take a larger role in protecting us, educating and raising our children...etc. Too often we here the excuse that it is not our responsibility...someone else can do it.
>>
>>We will lose this interest of ours because we allow illegal and reckless activities to occur in our hobby and no one does anything about it. The very voice of our hobby-Herpetological Societies are failing-due to lack of membership.
>>
>>If you doubt the value of these Herp societies...remember that our enemies are organised and can send a united voice. Without organisation, we are just individuals pissing in the wind.
>>
>>Ultimately, we will see a day when very little in this hobby will be available for us to enjoy..and it will be our own fault for letting it happen.
>>
>>Frank
>>-----
>>"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."
-----
Rob Carmichael, Curator
The Wildlife Discovery Center at Elawa Farm
Lake Forest, IL

I agree that there are too many people keeping snakes which they are not qualified for. I do not feel anyone should keep venomous snakes or large constrictors either. I also feel a permit system would be more than fair and would help the filtration of the "testosterone factor." I also think it is absolutely foolish to ride a motorcycle without a helmet. Other states have ruled that the effect of not having a helmet would cost people money when you get hurt. I deffinitely do not feel completely comfortable with someone keeping a cobra next door. But I am sure there are plenty of people who would not feel comfortable with you keeping a cobra either Rob. Because people do not understand you are capable of safely and securely housing the animal. They also have the "what if." I would feel very comfortable with you being my neighbor Rob. I also would feel much less comfortable with some of my drunken neighbors having guns next door than the chances something would go wrong when a cobra is kept and it made its way out of the house and bit me. While the chance is there..it is a chance I would be willing to take in my everyday life because it is pretty slim. I may run a similar risk when going outside and coming across a native venomous snake. I honestly fear people much more than cobras. Drunken people with guns have motivations and abilities which allow them to open doors. I hate to see the easy route of a law to regulate the people and I feel it is just another step and taking the freedom away from our country.

I can understand your points, but unfortunately I'm not sure I agree with all of them. Be careful when you say that keeping venomous reptiles is a "right". When you do that, you afford people that are not qualified the opportunity to engage in an activity that has the potential to cause great harm to people. There are plenty of unqualified people out there keeping venomous animals because they think it is their "right" to do so. Indeed, that's a big contributor to where we are today.

Keeping venomous snakes SHOULDN'T be a right in my opinion. It should be a privilege afforded to those qualified after they can demonstrate that they are qualified (like driving a car). Driving isn't a right...The government can revoke your license at any time...It is a privilege.

When you talk about "keeping my animals doesn't cause harm to anyone", be careful with that too. Keeping venomous animals in a domestic situation has the POTENTIAL to have disastrous consequences, and as such it is the responsibility of the party keeping the animal to ensure that they are qualified to do so. The potential to cause great harm is there, and to diminish this and say that venomous animals are outlawed "because they give people the creeps" diminishes the level of responsibility and accountability required to engage in this activity. Yes, public prejudice is part of it, but is not the entire picture.

-AzAtrox

Oh I agree completely. But driving a car also has much more ability to harm people than keeping a snake. I do not think just anyone should be keeping venomous snakes either. But I fear more the government taking the less expensive route of a ban than they would a permit system. This I deffinitely would consider to be unfair and infringe on peoples rights who do deserve them. It is completely the responsibility of ourselves to regulate this because the governemnt is not going to take the best course of action. Thus I feel it is important to keep them out. You said everything absolutely correct and I agree. Maybe we just see a difference in the way I used "right." I feel a qualification regulation would still give people their right while a ban would not. While driving is always considered a privilage, I still feel it is a right when you prove capable. I can drive my car whenever I want to since I have have proven myself. People can also drive a car even if they have not proven this..they just much more confined in the space they do it..such as their front lawn and only if they do not live in residential area. See, it is also my right to have the chance to take a test and prove my ability to drive a car so I would deffinitely not think a ban on cars would be acceptable just because it was a privalige to begin with.

As stated above there is a thing called Personal Responsibility that is an issue here. If I choose not to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, it is at my-and my only risk.

Look at how the helmet concept has been corrupted to the point that (in some states)you have to wear one to ride a Bicycle!

That is almost as bad as the new laws about having to keep your car headlights on durring daylight hours. Talk about nuts! If I needed to have headlights on to see a 2,000 lb vehicle coming at me, I would hope someone would yank my license. But we all know laws like this are in place to create a need for business.

But what would you expect in a society that has manufacturers that sell cigarettes and stop smoking aids manufactured at the same company?

Crazy world for sure....

I agree (and in my state-it is the law) that training and the promotion of a permit system goes far towards solving the venomous issue.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

I stuck here with these ?'s in my mind.

(1) It's still legal in my state, but for how long?

(2) Do I try to get a permit system in effect, or will it do nothing but hurt my privilages sooner than later?

(3) Do I risk the above, or just keep quiet & be happy with what I got, and hope they never find out (if it does become illegal)?
-----
Chad Bachman

A hypothetical situation regarding your question #3, Chad: Say one of your neighbors, by any number of ways, finds out you keep hots and, either by themselves or spreading the word, notifies the police that "my neighbor has venomous snakes in his basement and I want them confiscated before they escape and we're all killed". All of a sudden you've got x number of days to get rid of your snakes. I bring this up because I see it potentially happening to me if I get something down the road, being that where I currently live, hots are illegal. There are places I could move to within the state, but that's something of a hassle. Just a thought.

Bill

If I told them, I would have to kill them (with a "gun" lol)!!

I know Bill, maybe it is just easier not keeping them, we could go see a quarter of what we used to see in private collections, in a zoo.

Like I said.....Lose lose situation we are in.

Take care bro,
-----
Chad Bachman

>>1) While I do keep hots myself, this is not a "right"...A right is something that cannot be taken from me without my consent. It is a privilege...

>>2) There is a big difference between gun laws and reptile laws. Our founding fathers saw an intrinsic benefit in the general public having the right to bear arms. Hence, it is a constitutionally protected right...

No, no, NO!

"Amendment IX (1791)

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

The founders meant for us to have the right to do anything that there was not a very good reason to prohibit us from doing, NOT the other way around. They tried very hard to make it clear that the specific rights that they listed in the constitution were only the ones that warranted specific mention, because they knew those would be the frist rights people would try to use this kind of twisted logic on.

Unfortunately, they then went and added a gigantic loophole that gave the states a way to justify all kinds of things that they clearly did not intend.

"Amendment X (1791)

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

If you insist on sticking with the privilege theory, read the following which tried to riegn in the abuses of amendment X and tell me how it fits with your understanding. (Emphasis added.)

"Amendment XIV (1868)

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. NO STATE SHALL MAKE OR ENFORCE ANY LAW WHICH SHALL ABRIDGE THE PRIVILEGES OR IMMUNITIES OF CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Interesting post Larry...I doubt that when the founding fathers wrote that piece that they had private venomous snake husbandry in mind...Nonetheless, I will respond in kind....

A privilege is something that is afforded to an individual, with the government reserving the right to revoke said privilege at any time. The government needs not show a good reason for this revocation, only that the person has been duly notified of it. Driving a car is a good example. It is by no means a right to drive a motor vehicle. It is a privilege bestowed upon those that successfully pass a written and physical test. At any time, (with due process) the government can revoke one's privilege to drive. Granted this (mostly) only happens when there is a justifiable reason, but by no means does the government required to wait until that justifiable reason exists to take this action.

A right is something that is bestowed upon someone that cannot be revoked (even by the government) except through their consent. A good example is the right to a trial by jury. Unless a person specifically and knowingly waives this right, a person on trial retains the right to a trial amongst their peers. The government cannot arbitrarily step in and decide that someone is not worthy of a trial by jury.

The Constitution specifically gave the state governments the power to rule on and enforce any dispute or disagreement not specifically dealt with on the federal level. As such, it is implied that as long as state law does not violate federal doctrine, it is true and proper. (Whether or not this is true is perhaps a matter of perception.) The Constitution only limits what the FEDERAL government can and cannot do with respect to it's citizens. It is very careful to avoid state power, except to say that it cannot be greater than or violate federal power. As a result, (according to the Constitution) it is up to the states to determine their own laws and doctrines so long as they fall in line with federal ones.

Since nowhere in the Constitution is venomous snake husbandry even alluded to as a "right" (unless one wants to make the stretch and consider this falling under the umbrella of "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" one can only assume that this issue was deliberately left up to the states to address. The founding fathers did not consider this issue worthy of special attention on the federal level, as it is doubtful that very many people in the US in that time kept pet cobras. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the issue of venomous reptile husbandry was not considered a right at the time, and in the time since the community has done little to change that outlook.

Not sure if that's what you wanted, but interesting topic regardless...

-AzAtrox

I hate to keep this going with a political debate which is starting to sway away from the topic at hand but I must say I agree with you both. However, the problem does not matter if it is privilage or a right...a ban pretty much makes all meaningless. I also do not care if it is a privilage or a right...as long as it is one of them. I would just like to protect (or gain) my ability to keep venomous animals..this means keeping it off of legal documents unless that document is a fair permit system such as the 1000 hours Florida carries.

You are wrong on the rights part. Snakes are a form of property to the owner and that is a right that is constitutionally protected. This right can be regulated to a certain point, but constitutionally should never be removed.
We can compare that to gun control if you would like. Guns are a protected right in the amendments therefore the states can not take it away. The can impose restrictions on who can own the gun and how one can be obtained. This restriction follows suit to all property laws. The Federal or State government does not have the right to impose bans on property. They can put restrictions in place, but not ban. I think these arguements would hold true in court.

That sounds right on paper, but the reality is that the government can take from you anything they want to in the name of public safety. After that, you will get to spend big bucks on a lawyer to try and get your snakes back before they misplace or destroy them. Even if you are right, they still win.

Frank
-----
"The luxury of not getting involved departed with the last lifeboat Skipper..."

There has to be someone in the hobby that would front a law suit or a group of lawyers that would be willing to bring it to court. I know there are bunch of people in NY that already organized a front against the legislation before it passed. The people in the state legislature have a responsibility to their constituents and will have to face a reelection. If this is challenged in a courthouse you are facing people that have to uphold the consitution and not run for reelection. I think these laws wouldn't hold up in court and that there is enough legal precedent to knock it down.

Jon