Reptile & Amphibian Forums

It seems to me that with all of the recent venomous legislation that has come about, one of the major reasons that governments will not endorse a permit system is "lack of funds and manpower"...

Now, it would seem to me that a system that was created that placed as little stress as possible on existing government functions while at the same time accomplished the permitting would be ideal for both sides....I'm not even sure if this is possible, but has anyone proposed such a system in place of bans? I'm not even sure if this is realistic, but it appears that (for residents in an increasing number of states) the time has drawn nigh for "thinking outside the box" if we wish to preserve the privilege we enjoy.

It isn't enough to say "this isn't right" or "this sucks" or "I SHOULD be able to..." anymore. As evidenced, goverment agencies will largely turn a deaf ear to this whining UNLESS viable options that do not impact (or do so minimally) existing procedures are proposed. I'd be interested to learn how the current permitting system in Fla. came to be, and the events that had to transpire before it occurred. Perhaps this can be used as the "case model" for future proposals.....Granted, it isn't perfect, but I think hot keepers in KY, NC and ND would beg for such a system right about now.....

All due respect to Mr. Harrison, I DO NOT think the answer here is to bow down to government interests and endorse a ban on venomous reptiles for private keepers. Doing so weakens the intrinsic fiber of the hobby, and can have potentially disastrous effects to those of us responsible private keepers that would encourage the opposite message...(i.e. that in responsible and experienced hands, venomous reptile keeping should be regulated, but allowed.) I do not think that Mr. Harrisons' theme in his letter stressed the correct standpoint for responsible private keepers. Indeed, I believe that it favored the exact opposite stance by citing potentially disastrous consequences of private snake keeping. Perhaps we all would have been better served if these examples could have been used as an example of what could happen if a reasonable permit system is NOT put into place.

We are all entitled to our own opinions, but I will disagree with Mr. Harrisons' official stance that private parties do not have business owning these animals. I guess I would have hoped that someone so prominent in our community and someone so knowledgeable about the animals we love would have stressed the importance and validity of responsible private keepers instead of coming out on the opposite end and declaring that a ban is appropriate.

Perhaps it truly is time for me to find other interests when those that should be supporting those interests can no longer say so....What a shame.

-AzAtrox

Here is a possible alternative to both permit systems and bans that I think would be effective in curtailing the inexperienced until they get experience and also the use of dangerous animals as weapons. (Someone brought up that idea in this forum before as a possibility for leading to a ban on hots.)

This would be to handle animal escapes under the laws we already have for second degree murder, manslaughter and attempted murder. (This would apply NOT only to hot reptiles but to ALL potentially dangerous animals wild, exotic or DOMESTIC. Dogs in the pit bull, alsation, rotweiller and doberman breeds kill far more people than hot reptiles and I've been in several near death attack situations in my lifetime so far from "domestic" dogs in the alsation and doberman breeds that their keepers let "escape" but NONE from the wild rattlesnakes that live in the same area.)

I really doubt many inexperienced people would want to deal with a life prison sentence as a possible result of their inexperienced animal keeping practices. However many of them would simply defy a hot ban or permit system which has lesser fines and and prison sentences.

Actually I think this approach of tying loose animal related deaths and injuries to the less than first degree homicide laws is the best route for three reasons.

1. It is the solution that best fits in with a Constitutionalist
system of Government. Under such a system governments are authorized to enforce laws against homicide or attempted homicide NO MATTER HOW IT HAPPENS. However they are NOT authorized to make "over night criminals" by arbutrarily banning anything. (This is known as Ex Post Facto legislation Constitutionally.)

2. This places the responsibility PURELY ON THE KEEPER and not the animal who I tend to think gets a "bum rap" in legislation
these days and 99 times out of 100 ends up euthanized.

Under the change to the homicide laws I propose as an alternative to bannings and permit systems the unreported escape of a dangerous animal or a non lethal bite, attack or envenomation by the animal EVEN IF REPORTED counts against the keeper as attempted murder.

A lethal bite, attack or envenomation from an escaped animal where the escape was accidental due to lack of experience will
count as a First Degree Manslaughter against the keeper.

A lethal bite, attack or envenomation from an animal deliberately
set loose would count as Second Degree Murder against the keeper.

It is really difficult to convince law makers to give as much attention to finding better solutions to the bans when there is not a federally protected interest at had. Otherwise these are just in the name of public safety interest and the majority of people do not mind it.

There was a ban not long ago on the sale of sharpened samurai swords in New York. This was in response to two murders using these swords. This type of legislation looked pretty good after New York had just advertised this year was an all time low in violent crimes committed. So are we to assume that if we ban every potential murder weapon after it has been used in a murder...our violent crimes will be gone? Guns will stay because the lobby power (even though they are obviously the biggest problem). But what we can ban are knives, throwing stars, dart guns, baseball bats, rocks, cars, large or pointed sticks, bricks, poison (to get rid of the real ninjas), hammers, biceps over 17 inches, ropes, gasoline, and dangerous animals to name a few.

My point is, the sale of the swords in New York was certainly not what led to the murders. If the murders were two separate cases of people walking out of the mall and killing someone after buying swords...we could be on to something. But that isn’t how murder usually works. Those swords exist in many collections and have not been used to kill anyone (unless its one of those expensive collections where someone has a sword used to dethrone a king or something).

Oh ya, this is about venomous snakes. Maybe we should quit typing on here when there is a proposal and get a group to express out interests to those we know are going to be looked towards on an opinion for a legislative decision. But it needs to be done a lot sooner. Since we missed the easier road of prevention...try and do the unthinkable and change decisions.

I follered you over here from the Field Herping forum since it seems no one wants to talk about it over there.

>>A lethal bite, attack or envenomation from an animal deliberately
>>set loose would count as Second Degree Murder against the keeper.

Now you have another can of worms being opened. I perform reptile relocation services as a hobby. I've "deliberately set loose" a number of western diamondbacks into sparsely-populated areas after capturing and removing them from residencies (sometimes within the dwelling). Now I could potentially be held liable for murder, because I took an animal from one area where it naturally occurs and shuffled it a few miles away?
-----
Chris McMartin
www.mcmartinville.com
I'm Not a Herpetologist, but I Play One on the Internet

Exceptions could probably be made for releasing NATIVE hots in regions where they will present less danger to human populations.
I was spacifically talking about the deliberatie release of highly dangerous exotic hots like mambas, cobras, taipans, kraits and gabys with this.

I came up with this because it is obvious that thinking out of the box may require not only alternatives to bannings but also permitting systems that state and local governments don't seem to wnat to bother with as well.

Personally I think if there are any permit or ban systems they should apply to the dog breeds I mentioned in my previous post as well as exotic mammals and hot reptiles. As I said before I've been in far more near death situations with alsations (german shepherds) and dobermans than I have with rattlesnakes though both live on the loose where I live (and from what I hear pit bulls and rotts are even worse).

And as for the poster with the prejudice against guns I have never been in a near death situation with a gun either because I give them the respect they deserve.

I did not think I said anything to imply that. They certainly kill more people than samuri swords do. What I remeber saying is they will not be banned because they have a strong backing and there is a constitutional amendment the NRA and such organizations use in their favor. Unless venomous snake keepers can show how they have a federally protected interest, it will be very easy to pass regulations and/or bans. This is not a federally protected interest and the irresponsible behavior by the many has left an open target sweeping the nation. It is actually surprising it took this much if two murders could ban the sale of an ancient collectors item. I doubt Kill Bill was the final straw.

I think one primary difference that you did allude to in your post is that for a law abiding US adult citizen, possession of a gun is a constitutionally guaranteed right. There are no such guarantees when it comes to venomous reptiles.

In terms of comparing the gun lobby and the hot herp lobby, we're speaking of apples and oranges here as gun lobbyists are lobbying for the protection and right to possess and use something that has been protected since the inception of the Constitution. Hot keeping on the other hand is not a guaranteed luxury for anyone, as anyone's hot keeping ability can be revoked at any time at the leisure of the government. As such, there is no real "right" to keep these animals. It is a privilege afforded to private citizens (or not) at the discretion of the State. It's just like driving a car....it is a PRIVILEGE not a right...If the State so chooses, they can yank your license at any time and you'll be left taking the bus to work....

Part of "thinking outside the box" is realizing this, and keeping it in mind with any proposals or recommendations for any type of permit system.

Just my .02

-AzAtrox

keeping reptiles PERIOD isn't a right by any means. It is simply a privilege that will most likely be taken away for many of us. The NRA has powerful backing by the constitution to keep it holding it's rights regardless of the amounts of deaths guns "cause". However, being a gun owner myself, I would have to agree with the saying, "Guns dont kill people, People kill people!".

I dont really see anything that we come up with "AFTER THE FACT", being any good to us. We have to start being pro-active instead of re-active. We need to start policing our own hobby and promote education to the fullest. Weed out moron pet-store owners, and welcome the education of people about our animals and about our hobby. Unfortunately, at the current moment, it is so much easier for pet store owners to just take the money, than what it is to argue with the potential purchaser about "responsibility". The majority of these pet stores could care less, until they dont have an income.

In order to fix the problem that we are having, I think we should start working on ourselves, and then worry about the government.

Unfortunately, I feel that it has gotten a bit late for that.

Chris

Wrong!!!

If we keep accepting the idea that certain rights are "priveleges" given at the whim of governments full of TRAITORS and ENSLAVERS then NO RIGRTS EXIST AT ALL for either guns or hot herps.

As for the Constitution I can see two places that might cover the activity of reptile keeping as a RIGHT and not a privelege.

The first is the 9th amendment which basically covers Rights that have not been spacifically enumerated in the rest of the Constitution.

The second is the first Amendment freedom of religion which would certainly cover the "dominion" covenent of Genesis in the Bible
which authorizes the subduing and keeping of wild beasts INCLUDING REPTILES. Atheists and Agnostics nd practicioners of non biblical religions would probably not be able to claim a right here but I think Christian/Jewish/Muslem reptile keepers could.

Finally the Constitition of neither the United States or the
Constitutions of the respective states simply give NO GOVERNMENT the authority to reserve monopolies on any activities to itself as "priveleges" to grant to others, activities are either rights or crimes PERIOD (depending on who is carrying out the activities in question and why).

You guys should really take a look at some of the Constitutionalist/PaleoCon/Libertarian sites and forums out there on the internet. We are NOT dealing with people with concern for human life like we think we are when we are dealing with these bans and restrictions. We are dealing with TRAITORS and TOTALITARIAN ENSLAVERS. We have given government WAY TOO MUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER by way of FEAR and allowing it to redefine RIGHTS as PRIVELEGES and because of this it has drawn the dregs of society into itself to the rest of society's detrament.

Coral....

Your categorization of all activities as "rights or crimes" is a bit misguided. When you go down to the Dept. of Motor Vehicles, and you agree to hold a drivers' license, you acknowledge and accept that the State has full authority and means to revoke your privilege to hold that license at any time for any reason. Hence, that's one of the reasons that vehicle registrations and traffic tickets are paid by most of us, so that we can retain our privilege to drive. If it wanted to, the State could send you a notice that your driving privileges were revoked tomorrow, and guess what....If you drive from that point on, you are a criminal.

However, in terms of rights, the state CANNOT arbitrarily waive these rights in terms of dealing with it's citizens...Sure, you can say that your inability to keep venomous reptiles infringes upon your "right to happiness", but being unable to illustrate exactly how it impacts your "happiness" by citing specific rights spelled out within the Constitution isn't going to hold water with the general public. See, the gun lobby doesn't have this issue to deal with....then again, the right to "bear and take up arms" is a right specifically spelled out in the Constitution, and hence this is a pretty powerful argument in and of itself....

Your claim that it is your RIGHT to keep venomous snakes doesn't hold water....In fact, if true there are plenty of people out there that supposedly have this "right" that I personally wouldn't want anywhere near a venomous snake. See, that's the thing about rights.....you can't selectively choose who has rights and who doesn't...ALL US citizens over the age of 18 have the right to vote (except those convicted of felonies)...period. It didn't work well when only certain segments of the population were allowed to vote...when that happens, you get pesky little social revolutions and little things called "civil rights" movements...With rights, either everyone has them, or no one does.....It's privileges that are doled out to those that can prove themselves competent and diligent enough to have them. THAT'S why venomous snake keeping, driving, and all such other things are considered privileges and NOT rights.

You can talk about enslavers, government monoploies and whatever else you want to....it's still a free country....but that still won't change the fact that like alot else in life, venomous snake keeping is not a right endowed upon you or anyone else by anyone or anything. It is a PRIVILEGE, and as such if a government (be it a federal, state or local government) deems it improper to afford such a privilege to it's citizens, then the government can take steps to see that the privilege is revoked. The government CAN'T do that with rights....Rights ARE endowed upon you precisely because you are a citizen of the US and are over the age of 18. The government cannot take them away just because it wants to.....

I imagine I'll get a response in reference to "government enslavers", "government monopolies" and such, and I'll open it and read it...but it still won't change the fact that venomous snake keeping is NOT a right by any accepted definition of the word...it is a privilege because a) it is not endowed by anyone or anything and b) not everyone over the age of 18 is qualified to keep venomous snakes. Therefore, your perceived "right" to keep a black mamba, Gaboon viper or anything else in your home is an illusion....It is a privilege, and if you do it when the privilege has not been extended to you (i.e. with a ban) then you are not "exercising your rights"....you are engaging in criminal activity.

-AzAtrox

First of all I would not keep hots because I don't have the experience for it. (Like I said before I respect the deadly qualities of my guns and I respect hots for what they are too.) I'm applying my theory about rights as opposed to "priveleges" to ALL HERPS because ALL HERPS will eventually be subject to these bannings. The quest for TOTAL POWER by the organized wicked knows NO LIMITS. Hots are just a way for the assorted Totalitarians, pervs, (Read about the Franklain Coverup on the Constitutionalist/Libertarian websites sometime and ask if these are REALLY the kind of people you want granting you the "privelege" to own herps, hot or not.) and traitors that run our government at present time to slowly boil the water under the frog so to speak.

About the ONLY modern pol currently in power that I have ANY respect for now is Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. He carries a copy of the Constitution with him to the capital building and won't vote for ANY bill that it does not SPACIFICALLY AUTHORIZE. My advice to you guys if you want to keep ANY herps in the future is to find more Ron Pauls and less of the pervs, crooks and traitors like George W. Shrubbiesmirk and John sKerry (both members of the TRAITOR "Skull and Bones" society) that we have been filling our elective offices with lately.

Thank you for spelling out what I was alluding to. That was exactly the point I was trying to make with my comment about guns and their constitutional protection.

Where we do have a slight problem is where we may not be dealing with the "hot laws" in the best way possible. BUT, the law does not require this unless there is a federally protected interest at heart. Religion is a federally protected interest, but I do not think this would be the strongest ground for hot keepers to stand on.

When we start talking about government as traitors and enslavers, we do start looking like young punks trying to use anarchist takeover in Russia as our means to keep venomous snakes. Or we look like Dale on King of the Hill. I am not trying to be offensive here, but the anti government forums are no more help to this than the silly thread we create here on kingsnake.

Please do not take this post the wrong way. I just keep seeing the same things over and over. I spend a lot of time in "the real world" educating people about reptiles and the responsibility. I run a herp society which also focusses a lot of attention on this issue. When I look at how many people limit their reptile discussion to the internet I do not see this getting far.

Thank you. While I may look like some idiot that believes that hots should not be kept RESPONSIBLY by owners with experience in their keeping I most definitely am not. Neither am I "anti government" I am anti pervs, crooks, and anti Freedom traitors in government period.

As a forinstance we can keep some hots here in California without a lick of experience (wild caught native rattlers with a fishing license) but I would never do such a thing precicely because of my current lack of experience with such animals. Also if you read the post I started this thread with I certainly believe that inexperienced hot keepers should answer to the fullest extent of current law (The murder and homicide laws) for the consequences of their actions if such actions should end tragically. I do believe that keeping herps is a right but like the gun right it is one that must be practiced RESPONSIBLY with the full extent of the homicide laws being brought to bear on one who does it IRRESPONSIBLY and gets someone killed in the process.

None of these is what I would call an "anti government" position.
As opposed to gun and herp keeping serving in an elective government office IS A PRIVELEGE and our vote is the "permit" for that privelege. That "permit" should NEVER be given to pols who do not keep their oaths to preserve our freedoms, nor to pervs, crooks or those who belong to morally and loyalty questionable "secret societies".

Agree or disagree w/ the ritual, isn't this a "right" that should be protected under the constitution? I understand they have enacted laws to prevent this religious practice......nothing is sacred except for the almighty dollar.

Actually the Hopi Native Americans have had this rattlesnake handling ritual for longer that the extreme "Oneness" Pentecostals
have. I wonder if the Pentecostals might have picked it up forn the Hopi.

Interesting thought there. I would have to say that it would be crazy to think that one religion would take something from another. I mean come on, that would be like taking an Egyptian Obelisk and putting it in the middle of someplace else ...for instance... St Peter's Square in the Vatican. Yeah like that would ever happen.

(Please note the sarcastic tone, meant as a joke)
-----
Bryan, Atlanta GA

1-0-0 Ball Python - Apep
1-1-0 Rats... no wait... ROTTEN Little Cats - Ra, Bastet
0-1-0 Little Angelic Kitten - Isis
1-0-0 Horse... whoops... BIG Golden Retriever - Jake
0-1-0 Wife
2-0-0 Kids

Here's my position on the situation facing our community.

I do not completely support their position when it comes to a ban, I ABSOLUTELY agree with all of the other supporting facts they laid out in their position letter:

It's a fact that 90% of those people out there should not be keeping some or all the snakes they are keeping. I would love to keep some species of Mamba's and others but I realize they are indeed too hot to handle in my small snake room, there for I don't. I can live with putting myself at risk but I REFUSE putting others in a potientally dangerious situation just so I can enjoy these species in the comfort of my home.

Not all the snakes are housed in "professional grade" cages.

Very few people have "Snakebite protocols" ready with recognized "experts" to contact in an emergency. This is a damn good start on protecting yourself but how many out there have them in place?

VERY VERY few have the required Antivenom on hand incase of envenomation. Furthermore, The response Matt & I have regarding the Antivenom Bank is "Piss Poor" compared to the number of hot keepers in this region. Once again demonstrating the lack of responsability of Venomous Snake keepers in the region.

I simply don't have the time at the moment to go down the list of items supporting Jim & Kristen position but they're right on target except for the support of a ban.

Don't blame Jim & Kristen for what we as a community have put in motion.

Al Coritz
-----
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but foot prints. Not a law, just a good idea.

when people who keep potentially deadly animals refuse to fork up $250/year for what is arguably the cheapest "life insurance" you can ever buy. It's ridiculous when you think that many of these keepers who are avoiding joining the NEAVB have many thousands upon thousands of dollars worth of animals, yet can't justify to themselves $250 a year for membership to an AV bank...ridiculous, and another reason why this hobby is going downhill, many of us are just too damn irresponsible.

np

It is sad because it also eliminates one of the problems: BAD PR from the Zoo's when they have to give up serum to save a private keepers ass. Don't get me wrong, I agree with the Zoo's position on this as well as KRZ. It takes a long time to replace and Zoo's have tight budgets for purchasing A/V. Remember that these are not "Fuzzy cute Pandas" on which they spend millions, they're Reptiles, Venomous ones. That most people would like to see extinct. Reptile houses are most likely at the bottom of the Zoo's food chain when it comes to funding.

Other reasons for a strong Antivenom Bank:

1) As a large group we may be able to get Libility insurance for keepers who are members at reasonable prices. Eliminating another one of KRZ's valid points as a objection. Of course your cages and such would have to be up snuff.

2) We could help fund Reptile houses in AZA Zoo's across the country. Makes it a bit more unlikely they word give BAD PR, if the A/V Bank was not only preventing a drain on their serum supply but acting as a "back up" supply for AZA Zoo's if needed.

See..there is a way to do this right, we just may be too late. We just have to work together and support ways to satisfy law makers and professionals like KRZ that we are being responsable.

Al Coritz
www.neavb.org
-----
Take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but foot prints. Not a law, just a good idea.

The biggest obstacle to combatting these laws is the simple fact that we, as a hobby, have no lobby or singular organization with the financial backing to make us a political force to be reckoned with. Unfortunately, our votes and voices are not enough.

We are not "Big Tobacco" or "Big Oil" or the automakers. We are simply a diverse group of individuals with a common interest. Unfortunately, I know of no legislators that share our passion for the hobby who could be a voice for us.