Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Welcome to kingsnake.com's message board system. Here you may share and discuss information with others about your favorite reptile and amphibian related topics such as care and feeding, caging requirements, permits and licenses, and more. Launched in 1997, the kingsnake.com message board system is one of the oldest and largest systems on the internet.

Click here to visit Classifieds
https://www.crepnw.com/
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

Re-birth of MD HB 339 - banning ownership of certain exotic pets

Katrina Nov 01, 2005 05:43 AM

Here's the latest. It IS a much, much better bill than it was before.

Grandfathering is included, but you have to register with animal control. Some of my questions for the Judiciary Committee are included below, as is the actual revised bill. The revisions were made after meetings with some of the "stake holders", such as non-AZA accredited zoos, reptile breeders, ect. The only reptiles affected are caimans and false caimens, and the I need to look at the snake families to see what's really new to the list. Alligators, crocodiles, and most venomous snakes have already been illegal for several years in MD. Copperheads were legal (allowed to possess no more than four individuals that were caught in the state) due to a loop-hole and the fact that they were native.

Remember, this won't become a new bill until January. Also, at the committee hearings last year (for the actual HB 339 bill), testimony was allowed by out-of-state residenets that owned these animals, and some of their comments were incorporated into the revision. So, even if you're not in MD, you can help with this.

-----------------------

TUESDAY NOVEMBER 1, 2005
House of Delegates Judiciary Committee

1:00 P.M. Joint Hearing Room
Legislative Services Building
Annapolis, MD

Subject: Briefing on "Criminal Law - Prohibition Against Wild Animals as Pets" (HB 339 of 2005)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, CONTACT: Douglas R. Nestor, Lauren C. Nestor, or Claire E. Rossmark, Dept. of Legislative Services
Telephone: 410-946-5350/5510 (Annapolis/Baltimore Area)
301-970-5350/5510 (Washington, D.C. Area)

Here are the directions:

Take 97S to Annapolis, and take rt. 50 east (to Ocean City).
Exit to the right onto Rowe Blvd.
Go 3 traffic lights. At the third light you should be able to see the State House. On the left is the Legislative Services Building. Veer to the RIGHT to the parking garage before the next light. This is the Arrundel Center Garage, and is the closest to the Legislative Services Building.

The breifing is in the Joint Hearing Room, directly in front of you as you enter the building.

Make sure you HAVE A PICTURE ID, and be aware that you'll be passing through a metal detector.

Give yourself PLENTY of EXTRA time to get there, and plan to sign in a half hour before the breifing. There is lots of construction going on in the areas around the State House. You'll have to sign in for the briefing, similar to what is done for the committee hearings, but likely there will be
no testimony from the public, but it won't hurt to ask the legislators after the meeting if you can make an appointment to talk with them in person. We should be talking with committee members and our own delegates at this point.

If you need to find out who your delegate is, or how to contact your delegate, go here:
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/hse.html

To see who is a member of the Judiciary Committee, go here:
http://www.mdarchives.state.md.us/msa/mdmanual/06hse/html/com/05jud.html

A copy of the original bill, HB 339, which is being revised and resubmitted in January, is here: http://mlis.state.md.us/2005rs/bills/hb/hb0339f.pdf
THE WORDING OF THE REVISION IS BELOW.

My main question has to do with this: "a statement that failure to post security or request a hearing within 10 days of the date of the notice will result in the disposition of the animal;" What does this mean if animal control takes an animal they think is illegal but is not? If I don't post security but my animal is legal, will I loose the rights to my animal before
the hearing? Do I have to post security for the animal in order to retain possession of it? The revision says that you don't have to pay for care and up-keep of the animal if it turns out to be legal, but if you post a security, will you get it back once the animal is found to be legal? What
happens if my seized, but legal, animal is euthanized because there was no agency qualified to care for it until a hearing is held? I personally don't have any animals that will be banned, but we all know that not every animal control personnel is aware of what the actual laws are.

For animals that will be banned, but will be grandfathered, will a notice have to be submitted to animal control each year (a caiman could live another 20 years or more after grandfathering)? What if you move within the state, from county to county? What if you are moving to MD from out-of-state?

--------------------------------------------------------

Proposed revisions:

10-621.
(a) (1) This section does not apply to [a person who:
(i) offers the species listed in subsection (b)
of this section for sale, trade, barter, import, or exchange to a public zoo, park, museum, or educational institution; or
(ii) holds a valid State or federal permit to use the species listed in subsection (b) of this section for educational, medical, scientific, or exhibition purposes.

(2) This section does not apply to an animal of a species of wildlife not kept as a household pet that is individually exempted from this section under a permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources institution]:

(i) a research facility or federal research
facility licensed under the federal animal welfare act;

(ii) an exhibitor licensed under the Federal Animal Welfare Act that displays the animals listed in subsection (b) of this section in a public setting as the exhibitor's primary function;

(iii) a person who possesses a valid license or permit issued by the department of natural resources;

(iv) an animal sanctuary that:

1. is a nonprofit organization qualified under § 501(c)(3) of the internal revenue code;

2 operates a place of refuge for abused, neglected, impounded, abandoned, orphaned, or displaced wildlife;

3. does not conduct commercial activity with respect to any animal of which the organization is an owner; and

4. does not buy, sell, trade, lease, or breed any animal except as an integral part of the species survival plan of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association;

(v) an animal control officer under the jurisdiction of the State or local governing authority, law enforcement officers acting under the authority of this subtitle, or a private contractor of a county or municipal corporation that is responsible for animal control operations; and

(vi) a person who holds a valid license to practice veterinary medicine in the state and treats the animal specified in subsection (b) of this section in accordance with customary and normal veterinary practices.

(2) (i) This section does not prohibit a person who had lawful possession of an animal specified in subsection (b) of
this section on or before May 31, 2006 from continuing to possess that animal, if the person provides written notification to the local animal control authority on or before August 1, 2006.

(ii The notification shall include:

1. the person's name, address, and telephone number;

2. the number and type of animals being kept; and

3. a photograph of the animal or a description of a tattoo or microchip identification of the animal.

(b) A person may not import into the State, offer for sale,
trade, barter, possess, breed or exchange [as a household pet] a live:
(1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear;
(2) caiman, false caiman, alligator or crocodile;
(3) member of the cat family other than the domestic cat, or a hybrid of a member of the cat family and a domestic cat if the
hybrid weighs over 30 pounds; [or]
(4) member of the dog family other than the domestic dog or a hybrid of a member of the dog family and a domestic dog;
(5) nonhuman primate, including a lemur, monkey, chimpanzee, gorilla, orangutan, marmoset, loris, or tamarin; or
(6) poisonous snake in the family groups of Hydrophidae, Elapidae, Viperidae, or Crotolidae.
(c) (1) A person who violates this section is guilty of
a misdemeanor and on conviction is subject to:

[(1)] (i) if an individual, a fine not exceeding $1,000; or

[(2)] (ii) if not an individual, a fine not exceeding $10,000.

(2 The provisions of this section may be enforced by:

(i) any state or local law enforcement officer; or

(ii the local animal control authority for the jurisdiction where the violation occurs.

(d) (1) An animal in subsection (b) of this section may be immediately seized if:

(i) there is probable cause to believe that the possession of the animal is in violation of this section; or

(ii) the animal poses a risk to public health or public safety.

(2) An animal listed in subsection (b) that is seized may be returned to the person who had possession of the animal at
the time the animal was seized only if it is established that:

(i) possession of the animal by the person
is not a violation of this section; and

(ii) the return of the animal does not pose a
risk to public health or safety.

(3) (i) notice that the animal was seized shall
be served on the person who had possession of the animal at the time the animal was seized by:
1. posting a copy of the notice at the place where the animal is taken into custody;

2. regular and certified mail, return receipt requested; or

3. delivering the notice to a person residing on the property from which the animal was seized.

(ii) The notice shall include;

1. a description of the animal seized;

2. the authority for and the purpose of the seizure;

3. the time, place and circumstances of the seizure;

4. a contact person and telephone number;

5. a statement that the person from whom the animal was seized may:

A. post security to prevent disposition of the animal; and

B. request a hearing concerning the seizure;

6. a statement that failure to post security or request a hearing within 10 days of the date of the notice will result in the disposition of the animal; and

7. a statement that, unless a court finds that the seizure of the animal was not substantially justified, the actual costs of the care, keeping, and disposal of the animal are the responsibility of the person from who the animal was seized.

(4) (i) Before a seizure under paragraph (1) of this subsection occurs, the person in possession of the animal to be seized may request that the animal remain in the person's physical custody for 30 days after the date the animal was to be seized.

(ii) During the 30 days provided in subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, the person shall take all necessary actions to comply with this section.

(iii) At any reasonable time during the 30 day period the local animal control authority may inspect the premises where the animal is being kept.

(5) (i) if a person who retains possession of an
animal under paragraph (4) of this subsection is not in compliance with
this section after the 30 day period has expired, the local animal
control authority shall seize the animal and place it in a holding
facility that is appropriate for the species.

(ii) The authority taking custody of an
animal under this paragraph shall provide notice of the seizure in the same manner as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection.

(6) (i) a person from whom an animal was seized may request a hearing in the district court within 10 days of the seizure.

(ii) a hearing shall be held as soon as practicable to determine that validity of the seizure and the disposition of the animal.

(7) (i) Unless the court finds that the seizure of the animal was not justified by law, a person from whom animal listed
in subsection (b) of this section is seized is liable for all actual costs of care, keeping, and disposal of the animal.

(ii) The costs required under this paragraph shall be paid in full unless a mutually satisfactory agreement is made between the local animal control authority and the person claiming an
interest in the animal.

(8) (i) If there is no request for a hearing within 10 days of the notice or if the court orders a permanent and final disposition of the animal the local animal control authority may
take steps to find long term placement of the animal with an other appropriate facility that is equipped for the continued care of the particular species of the animal.
(ii) if there is no entity that is suitable for the care of the animal, the animal may be euthanized.
(e) (1) This section does not limit a county or municipality from enacting laws or adopting regulations that are more
restrictive pertaining to any potentially dangerous animals, including those listed in subsection (b) of this section

Replies (1)

Katrina Nov 09, 2005 04:10 PM

Just an FYI...

To my surprise, testimony was allowed at the briefing. In fact, that's pretty much all it was, testimony by those in favor of, or opposed to, the bill, and Q & A for the Judicicary Committee members. Actually, testimony and Q & A was longer at the briefing than it typically is during a regular session committee bill hearing. Two of the committee members are more for permitting than for out-right banning, and are very worried about personal rights.

There were NINE people testifying FOR the bill, including the bill's sponser, Delegate Menes, and perhaps four or five of the nine were from HSUS, and one of those for the bill was a private citizen. Believe me when I tell you that the HSUS people KNEW in advance that testimony was permitted.

There were THREE of us testifying AGAINST the bill, and I (a private citizen who has no animals affected by this bill - I don't) was the only one concerned about the reptiles in particular. My main complaint was that this erroded personal freedom, due to the fact that the authorities could "immediately confiscate" a banned animal if there was "probable cause to believe" that the animal was illegal, and if there was no facility that could properly care for the animal, it could be euthanized. Tramples all over personal liberties, IMO.

I was also worried about the wording pertaining to state and federal permits. Take PA and caimans for expample. There are no state or federal permits to have caimans (or alligators) in PA. Under the wording of this bill, no facility other than an AZA zoo or institution would be able to bring crocodilians into the state, which would severely limit educational potential in many areas.

I'm worried that other reptiles, namely large pythons and monitors, will be added to the list before this is submitted as a new bill in January. The HSUS and Delegate Menes are almost rabid about seeing this bill become law in some form.

Katrina

Site Tools