Reptile & Amphibian Forums

The NC SB 1032 bill banning exotics will have a committee meeting Tuesday the 17th at 10 AM in room 1124 LB.

Well...a tiger, chimpanzee, or rattlesnake is one thing...but will keeping of larger boids be restricted? It can't be because of care issues. I know I'm not the only one that stresses out over humidity that's a little bit low. And surely a captive bred snake that has the proper conditions will not pose any greater threat than keeping a rottweiler. I think the furthest they should be able to go on that one is requiring big snake owners to "escape proof" their homes. And many of us even do that already. Even though I am not a NC resident, I still stand for the rights of snake owners to keep their pets as long as husbandry requirements are met and safety precautions are respected. What does everyone else think?

not everyone does this with their animals. It is what the few people dont do that hurts us all. Furthermore, escape proofing your home doesn't necessarily keep the snake from killing YOU or anyone living with YOU. It is the poor decisions made by ordinary keepers that dont have as much experience and knowledge as some of us, that are what is causing the problems.

Absolutely. But one of the issues covered in the bill was liability for injury to others. If something happened to you or yours, it wouldn't be a public liability problem. And I agree with you that in all situations, people should consider the dangers of their specimens and make sure they have the ability to care for them properly BEFORE they decide to take the responsibility or lack thereof. Especially when it has such a major effect on the market, laws, well-being of the animal involved, and most importantly, the safety of the keepers and public.

since reptiles are considered by law to be property rather than animals, should that even matter?
-----
beardies 2.2.0 (Bracx, Briack, Maleficant, & Daisy)
Sugar Gliders 4.4.0
Cresteds 6.10.0
Red-eared slider 2.4.6.
Burmese Python 2.2.0
Ball Python 2.3.0
Hedgehogs 3.3.0
Kinkajou 1.1.0

This bill( if passed) states they will be contacting/listening to
breeders,owners,etc.
If good educated representation where sent in behalf of responsible owners by responsible owners,this may/could have a huge effect of what happens when the updated recommended bill goes before state legislatures in 2006.

GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF NORTH CAROLINA
SESSION 2005
S 2
SENATE BILL 1032
Judiciary II Committee Substitute Adopted 5/18/05

Short Title: Study Inherently Dangerous Animals. (Public)
Sponsors:
Referred to:

March 24, 2005
A BILL TO BE ENTITLED
AN ACT directing the department of environment and natural resources to determine the best means of Protecting the public against the health and safety risks posed by Inherently Dangerous Animals.
The General Assembly of North Carolina enacts:
SECTION 1. The Department of Environment and Natural Resources, in consultation with the North Carolina Zoological Park and the Wildlife Resources Commission, shall study the need to protect the public against the health and safety risks posed by inherently dangerous animals and propose a means of best providing that protection to the public while protecting the welfare of inherently dangerous animals as well. In developing recommendations, the Department shall consult with the following entities or groups, or appropriate representatives of those entities or groups:
(1) The North Carolina Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services;
(2) The North Carolina School of Veterinary Medicine;
(3) The State Animal Response Team;
(4) Local law enforcement officials;
(5) Local animal control officials;
(6) Wild animal breeders;
(7) Exotic pet hobbyists;
(8) Commercial pet retailers;
(9) Small zoo owners;
(10) Humane organizations; and
(11) Any other entities or groups whose interests may be affected by proposed regulations.
The Department shall report its findings to the General Assembly no later than the convening of the 2006 Regular Session of the 2005 General Assembly. Any legislation recommended in the report may be considered during the 2006 Regular Session of the 2005 General Assembly.
SECTION 2. The report made by the Department of Environment and Natural Resources pursuant to this act shall include:
(1) A list of the types of animals that possess such inherently dangerous characteristics that they should not be owned or possessed by persons who do not have special expertise or training, and a determination as to whether these animals should be grouped into classes for differential treatment based upon the nature and extent of the threat they pose to the public. This list should also include information about the nature of the dangers posed by each type of animal.
(2) A suggested means for regulating ownership of certain animals, including a means of enforcing any proposed restrictions on the ownership or possession of those animals. This portion of the report may include an evaluation of regulations in place in other jurisdictions that have proven to be effective in protecting the public from inherently dangerous animals.
(3) A plan for addressing inherently dangerous animals that are indigenous species within the jurisdiction of the Wildlife Resources Commission under Article 22 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes and a consideration as to whether any potential legislation should broadly address the keeping of any wildlife as pets, whether indigenous or not and whether inherently dangerous or not. This portion of the report should result from extensive consultation with the Wildlife Resources Commission.
(4) A recommendation as to whether persons owning or possessing animals covered by any proposed restrictions should be grandfathered in under a regulatory scheme and the appropriate means of grandfathering those persons in, including consideration of whether certain animals are so threatening to the public safety that the grandfathering of untrained owners or possessors should not be allowed under any circumstances.
(5) A recommended list, as comprehensive as possible, of persons and entities that should be exempted from the proposed restrictions on ownership or possession of the animals covered by any proposed restrictions, such as zoos, veterinary hospitals, wildlife sanctuaries, research institutions, and the like.
SECTION 3. This act is effective when it becomes law.