Reptile & Amphibian Forums

USA TODAY (McLean, Virginia) 26 December 05 Exotic pet debate likely to face lawmakers again next year (Kristen Wyatt)
Salisbury, Md. (AP): This alligator is almost cute, just about a foot long with wide baby eyes and a teeny jaw that looks like it could hardly manage a carrot. It's what the alligator will become in a few years — as long as a small car with a fearsome bite — that landed it with Jim Rapp.
Rapp is director of the Salisbury Zoo, where this juvenile gator was sent along with other exotic animals seized by state officials from their owners. Rapp and other animal advocates are pushing for lawmakers to tighten Maryland's rules on what animals can be kept as pets, saying the Internet and animal programs on TV have caused an explosion of people acquiring exotic animals.
"Go on the Internet and search for 'tiger cub.' You can find one to buy," Rapp said. "Some people don't want to go get a dog or a cat at the pound. They want an exotic, wild animal."
Maryland already calls some pets off-limits except to licensed handlers, including large cats, venomous snakes and the alligator, which was found in a Salisbury pet shop.
But a proposal last year in the General Assembly to expand pet laws to ban more animals, including small primates and more snakes, sputtered amid opposition from exotic animal lovers who say the government shouldn't tell people what pets they can have.
"I think that if you have the space and you have the money and you have the knowledge, then you should be able to keep what you want to keep," said Holli Friedland of Baltimore, who works with a reptile and amphibian rescue group and has opposed the exotic pet bill.
The bill, which sponsors say will be considered again next session, highlighted an animal rights divide many pet owners have never heard of. Wildlife authorities concede they have no idea how many exotic or wild animals Marylanders may be keeping as pets, and the bill brought to Annapolis dozens of exotic pet fans that lawmakers didn't know existed.
"I didn't realize there were private parties, untrained individuals, who were keeping animals who were really unreliable as a household pet," said the bill's sponsor, Delegate Pauline Menes, D-Prince George's.
Both sides are gearing up for another fight over exotic pets. The group that originally suggested the bill, the Humane Society of the United States, sent its director of captive wildlife protection to Annapolis during the interim to persuade lawmakers to pass it. At that hearing, the room was brimming with exotic animal lovers who oppose the idea.
"You cannot be messing around with things like lions, tigers, bears, primates and just hope for the best. Someone's going to hurt," said the Humane Society director, Richard Farinato, who works at a Texas sanctuary for discarded or dangerous exotic pets.
Farinato and other supporters say exotic pets could hurt their owners or escape and maul strangers. They say wild animals are improperly cared for and are sometimes mistreated in the hands of untrained owners. Bill supporters also cite the possibility of exotic pets, especially pet monkeys, spreading disease to humans.
"We don't know what the next exotic disease is that may jump from primate to human," Rapp said. Farinato said some monkeys carry hepatitis B.
He also pointed to a monkeypox outbreak in 2003 that sickened more than 70 people in the Midwest with blisters and a rash that resembles smallpox as a cause for concern. In that case, the illness was spread by prairie dogs after they were infected by imported African rodents at a pet distribution center.
To Richard Hahn, director of the Catoctin Wildlife Preserve and Zoo in Thurmont, the fears of animal attacks or disease outbreaks are exaggerated. He doesn't keep any exotic animals as pets — and as a licensed animal exhibitor, he wouldn't be affected by the bill — but he pointed out that far more people are hurt by dogs than by exotic pets.
"This is something that is much ado about nothing," Hahn said.
Opponents have also taken issue with how the pet ban would be enforced. Animals on the banned pet list could be seized without a warrant. Hahn and others have complained that animal control workers may not be trained to recognize banned animals.
"Let's say someone looks into your window and they see a cat, and they think it's a big cat, something they think is on the list. They could then break into your house and take the cat. That's not right," Hahn said.
The concerns have led to a revised bill, which includes fewer animals than the Humane Society originally hoped to ban. The proposal still includes a provision allowing for the seizure of animals, though, something Rapp said is necessary if the ban is to work.
"Somebody has to have the authority to deal with these animals," he said. "If you violate this law, an officer should be able to confiscate the animal."
Not everyone is sure a compromise can be worked out. A senator who joined the bill as a sponsor last session, Democrat Norman Stone of Baltimore County, said he's unlikely to push the measure again.
"Reaction was fairly strong," he said. "No matter what we did, nobody was satisfied on the committee" that considered the ban.
Menes warned that a wild pet is bound to injure somebody if lawmakers don't act.
"I just think that the position of the average citizen as to whether they feel comfortable with the knowledge that their neighbor now can own these exotic pets and they could be exposed to possible danger, they would want this bill," she said.
MD Exotic pet debate likely to face lawmakers again next year

SO MUCH FOR "LAND OF THE FREE" I GUESS YOU COULD SAY WE ARE KINDA FREE AS LONG AS OTHER PEOPLE SAY WHAT WE ARE DOING IS OK. AND "NO SEARCH WARRENT" WHAT EVER HAPPENED TO ILLEGAL SEARCH AND SEIZURE??????

Rick Hahn will be down there with the rest of us to attempt to shoot it down...or get enough votes to get Menes out of office.
-----
1.1 Blackheaded pythons
1.1 Woma (Juvie female)
2.1 Aussie Olives
1.1 Timors
1.0 Angolan Juvie
1.1 Savu
1.1 Juvie Bloods
1.1 Juvie Balls
1.1 IJ Carpets
1.1 Coastal Carpets
1.2 Macklotts
1.1 Papuan Olives
1.0 Jungle Carpet
2.2 Scrubs (on breeding loan)
0.1 Jungle/Diamond cross
0.1 child, CB
0.1 wife, WC

The wording of the revision is below all of this. It IS a much, much better bill than it was in 2005 (when it was called HB 339 - it will have a new bill number for 2006), but it still has it's problems, particularly with this part of the bill:

"(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"

So, if you're on vacation and a police officer sees your caimen in the locked pen on your property, he can seize it immedicately
because he thinks it's illegal?

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 currently affected are caimans and false caimens, and 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 IN MD FOR SEVERAL YEARS. 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.

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.

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

If you need to find out who your delegate is, or how to contact your MD 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