Reptile & Amphibian Forums

THE SUN (Myrtle Beach, Florida) 14 February 05 Pet stores hope city revises animal ban - Business owners want to sell alternative critters (Emma Ritch)
Tommy Morris could soon take the corn snakes out of his store's back room and sell the scorpions, frogs and turtles that were on display until a few weeks ago.
Morris, owner of Coastline Pet Supply, and others in the pet-store business hope Myrtle Beach City Council passes its final vote Feb. 22 to revise rules on animal sales.
Animal-control officers raided Myrtle Beach's two pet stores in January to stop the sale of animals deemed "wild and feral" - a large group that could be open to interpretation, and, until recently, was interpreted to allow some of Morris' animals.
It is unclear whether the proposed ordinance would add animals to the ban or revise it, said city spokesman Mark Kruea, but it does detail standards for pet stores, which council members say they hope will prevent stores from selling animals without proper care. The ordinance passed initial approval Tuesday and faces one more vote before it's implemented. City Attorney Tom Ellenburg said this version will continue to be modified until final passage.
The city restricts the sale or public display of animals because of health concerns, environmental effects or the animal's welfare.
The law would affect all shops that sell animals in the city limits, including Wal-Mart and beachwear stores.
Robert Triolo wants further changes to the city's rules to let him sell some alternative pets, including tarantulas, water monitors, bearded dragons, geckos and snakes that can grow longer than 8 feet.
Triolo, owner of Sunsational Pets Inc., thinks the city's list of revisions is too specific and that the city should defer to state and federal guidelines for banning animals. He supports increased supervision and standards for pet care but thinks the city still isn't doing enough.
Triolo said City Council is voting on laws without researching animals, although some council members seem open to revisions.
"I understand [limiting] a beachwear store. A live animal is not a trinket," he said. "It's stock; it's a profit margin to them."
Green iguanas, which Morris and Triolo say are popular pets, are banned under the proposed ordinance. Both pet store owners said they want to attend Thursday's City Council workshop to offer advice.
"I hope those businesses that are affected by it can help with the language and the animals on the list," Councilman Chuck Martino said at last week's meeting.
The council could take some of Triolo's requests off the still-developing list - for example, marmosets, which Triolo said can predict seizures in humans.
"I think the consensus of council was that we don't want to stop this guy's business," Councilman Randal Wallace said. "Maybe we're being too specific, and that's what's getting us in trouble."
This is not the city's first effort to curb animal sales.
The city cracked down in July on beachwear stores that sold frogs in aquariums without filtration systems. In 2001, City Council briefly prohibited hermit crabs until residents said the city had gone too far.
Mayor Mark McBride opposed this most recent ordinance, saying police officers are not trained to determine what are the best conditions for each animal and the ordinance requires too much of the city.
Triolo's store is on Seaboard Street, in the vicinity of piercing parlors and someday even tattooing. Such an atmosphere attracts people who want some of those banned pets, he said.
"I don't understand them banning all the alternative pets,"Triolo said. "We're in an alternative city."
Pet stores hope city revises animal ban

bleed over to the private sector as i have seen . Of course it can also be the reverse. Before people blast pet stores, keep in mind that if they can sell , you can keep as a rule. This similar incident was proposing in a city where i had a pet store but it was the keeping of boids in the city limit that was being regulated to non-keeping. It wasn't me that the city council was trying to shut down on selling but the general public keeping. It was conceived that boids and pythons was termed as " inherently dangerous " and the only thing that was demanding of me was another permit to sell. Why ? Because we were on the state line of 2 states and a lot of my sales was with the next state which in turn brought revenue not only to the city but to the state. This wasn't fair, of course due to anybody of that city being able to cross the state line and buy. So I went before the city council and showed them where there was absolutely no attacks, maiming, deaths EVER in the history of the city due to reptiles. But there was all of the latter by > dogs and horses. And I showed them where certain housing areas ( apartments, some home associations ) already had ample wording of keeping such and therefore no city law had to supersede. I also asked if the city could ban the large snakes, why they didn't ban the dogs breeds that was on record for problems of " inherently dangerous ". They saw my point and dropped the ban and regulations PLUS gave me a refund of 2 years worth of permits. There is a little more to this story like the city wanting me to check everybody's drivers license > ? that bought a large snake form us, report anybody that came in to our store that was known to live in the city limits that bought large feeder animals, etc. Of course this didn't happen and is another story for another time !