Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Ban would keep wild amimals in the wild

By MISTY MAYNARD Staff Writer

Friday, July 8, 2005 8:05 PM EDT Print this story | Email this story

Beginning Tuesday, Kentucky residents will no longer be able to
acquire exotic animals, including lions, snakes, or tigers, as pets.
However, those who already possess such animals will be able to
retain them as long as they meet specified conditions.

The ban established by the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources
outlines in detail animals which are prohibited, as well as exempt
animals. The ban does not affect zoos, circuses, government agencies
or licensed and accredited educational institutions.

"There are some major problems out there and Fish and Wildlife is
acting to protect the public," Rep. Mike Denham said.

Specifically, the ban prohibits exotic animals which could
potentially damage native ecosystems, or could pose a risk to human
safety and health either through violence or disease.

"People like (exotic animals) because they're so cute (when they're
young), but they forget they're going to grow up," said David Casey,
a spokesperson for the Department of Fish and Wildlife. "Wild animals
just don't make good pets."

Denham cited an incidence in Morehead as a reason for the ban. In the
instance, a monkey bit a drive-through worker at the Viking BP Mart.
When the worker handed out a beverage to the individual in the
vehicle, the monkey attempted to grab the drink. The owner of the
monkey paid the worker's hospital bill, and the animal was to be
relocated to the Nicholasville primate center -- a decision made
before the biting incident.

Individuals who own exotic animals will be allowed to keep them,
though if at some point they die or must be transferred to another
location, the animal cannot be replaced. If the animal is taken
outside of the state, Casey said it cannot be brought back in.

The owner must provide proof the animal was obtained prior to the
ban, as well as keep veterinary records. The animals cannot be bred,
and if the animal escapes or is released, the person must immediately
called the Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources.

Though the ban goes into effect Tuesday, the Interim Joint Committee
on Agriculture and Natural Resources will hear the testimony
concerning the proposal Wednesday. Because of the nature of the
proposal, Denham said that the committee will not alter the ban but
could decide to take further action later when regular session
commences.

Contact Misty Maynard at misty.maynard@lee.net or call 564-9091, ext.
274.

State by state we will continue to fall until we finally step up and do something about it. We are allowing state officials to take over and letting these MISINFORMED individuals change our lives for the worst. We need to start policing our own hobby and keep these animals out of the undeserving hands. Start limiting what we breed, and limit especially who can obtain them. Otherwise we will continue to face these until there is nothing left.

Everybody is just sitting back and watching and complaining, but very few are actually doing something about it. It's amazing, even biologists and professional herpetologists do so little, but I personally feel could accomplish much for this hobby if they stood up for it.

I can not necessarily stand for somebody keeping Tigers, lions, bears (oh my), and other large animals that require TONS of room to be happy. I am not experienced with those animals and therefore cannot defend that side. However, herps I AM experienced with and know that without US these animals will not make for nothing within the next 20 years. States do NOTHING to protect these animals for the most part. We need to stand up and do something about this before it's too late and none of us are able to enjoy these animals.

OK I am done ranting now.

chris

I'm going back into my "right wing" political mode on this one. This ban should be threatened PUBLICALLY with JURY NULLIFICATION in the name of the NINTH AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION. (This amendment protects property rights that were not enumerated at the time the Constitution was written largely because they were not or could not be asserted for natural reasons. As a forinstance property rights in animals did not include herps at the time largely because a herp was often considered something to be killed on sight or a symbol used to represent the Revolution from which the Constitution came (Think Gadsdon flag here), or because the equipment to keep them properly did not yet exist. PROPERTY RIGHTS IN ANIMALS INCLUDE HERPS NOW BECAUSE THE MEANS NECESSARY TO ASSERT THOSE RIGHTS (PROPER EQUIPMENT) NOW EXIST!!!)

This is crazy,I think all exotics in kentucky should be covered,dogs, cats,horses,fish ,cattle,birds.Lets just go communist, state by state we are loseing our rights.Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire in this case,stupidity with stupidity.Start contacting fish and wildlife and complain about every animal that is not found in the state,and then lets see a jury fine a 10 year old boy for haveing a ball python.Terry

This problem has been around a long time.Some people think its not there problem who cares . Some people think its politics,hows that when fish and game officials are not even elected.I've been whining and crying over things like this since the sting of 98.And i get thoughs replys who cares doesnt effect me.Or its politics.What can whe do about this problem i dont know you tell me.All it is one person to complain it takes thousands to fix it FRED PRYOR

incarcerated for having a snake ? LOL ! Another not well thought out restriction and or ban as we have seen before that will not work. Let a couple of these infractions go before a judge and see how are thrown out of court. I keep saying who, whom will enforce such laws ? Your ordinary police officer don't want to and probably wouldn't have the capability to enforce nor have the knowledge. Your wildlife agent or agency is probably thinking the same as i have asked several of my state wildlife folks of these grounds : > oh no, more work for us and short handed anyway. So how is any of this EVER enforceable ? NOT ! It would all be a minor violation/s anyway. RIGHT ! AND how does anybody know to check these laws out. I don't care what anybody says, your average king snake, rat snake, or whatever pet keeper average person would not know of any such laws in place or would they even have knowledge of any such laws or how to find such laws. Now of the other large " exotics ", yes because of criteria already in place to own such other. And it would be ( know that already because of my " other " exotics at one time ) harder to hide a large feline, bear, primate, etc. from public or the word getting out that you own such. There is a site that you can go to to read why animal bans don't work. They really DON'T ! These laws are about as un-enforcible as the laws of spitting in public or the old ( how many of you know that this law is on almost every city law book > ? ) Jay Walking law. LOL !
-----
I may be old , cantankerous, crabby, and cynical, but......

I think the way the article sighted was worded it is a bit misleading, and while I am opposed to any ban as far as the keeping of herps this one could be worse. It doesn't ban the keeping of all exotic herps just venomous ones, or any other animals deemed inherently dangerous, I don't like it but it could be worse.

David
http://lrc.ky.gov/kar/301/002/082reg.htm

from who's viewpoint ? There could be that disease transmission attached to that in the form of salmonella as several groups/agencies are looking at. While most bans of reptiles are in fact first put on venomous, many more will try or goes on to include large snakes as boids and pythons and also large lizards as iguanas. Sometimes listed as " nuisance animals ".
-----
I may be old , cantankerous, crabby, and cynical, but......

And that is the part of it I hate the most, someone with little to no knowledge of reptiles deciding what is dangerous and what is harmless.
David