Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Do you own a corn snake, a Kenyan sand boa, or a ball python in the state Ohio? They have all just been deemed "dangerous" animals in order for immediate preservation of public peace, health, and safety.
(c) An alligator;

(d) A crocodile;

(e) A constricting snake;

(f) A venomous snake;

(g) Any other animal designated by the chief in rules adopted under this section.

www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_HB_352_I_N.html

This is a very dangerous situation for the herp community. I do want to point out though that your headline and post are a little misleading. This is proposed legislation not law. Yes we have to fight it but your post may make people give up when there is still opportunity to save our herps.

Under section 4, it states "Therefore, this act shall go into immediate effect".

Unless I am somehow misunderstanding or mis-interepreting that statement, and the bill still has to go through the normal legislative process, that is how I at least intially read it.

The bill still has to go through the legislative process. A member of the legislature cannot simply put a law in place. The reason for the statement you refer to is that in most states legislation that is passed goes into effect at specific time in the future stated in the bill. For a bill to take immediate effect on passage the language you cite is put in the bill but the bill must still pass and be signed into law by the governor.

Thanks for clarifying this for me.

....to penalize millions for the actions of one person. Columbus tried to pass a law banning all constricting snakes back when I lived up there, in '77. Fortunately, it didn't fly then and maybe this one won't, either. Herpers in Ohio really need to speak up about this or it'll kill the herp hobby in that state.

What really kills me about this is the fact that not a single one of these legislators cares one whit about this - it's just an opportunity to get up there and look like they can actually accomplish something, while ignoring the real problems of the nation.

IMO, it would be more appropriate to say:

"the actions of one person, acting selfishly in the name of personal freedom, have unwanted repercussions for the rest of us"

In reality, a minority set the bar very low for themselves, and now the bar may be raised for others. Citizens constantly pay for the selfishness of others. This has nothing to do with governance in America in particular, but is part of the human condition.

>>IMO, it would be more appropriate to say:
>>
>>"the actions of one person, acting selfishly in the name of personal freedom, have unwanted repercussions for the rest of us"
>>
>>In reality, a minority set the bar very low for themselves, and now the bar may be raised for others. Citizens constantly pay for the selfishness of others. This has nothing to do with governance in America in particular, but is part of the human condition.

Nonsense. There's no universal, physical law of nature that only allows for the "if one person in the class chews gum then the whole class gets punished" type of governance. If you truly believe this, then shouldn't having children outlawed, given how many cases of child abuse there are? Shouldn't alcohol outlawed, given about half of all violent crime involves alcohol? Knives, given the number of stabbings every year? Why aren't zoos outlawed, given the recent cases of escaped animals? Pools, given the number of children that drown?

The actions of one person shouldn't reflect on anyone else or "the hobby"; they should reflect only the person himself.

You seem to have missed the point. Completely.

I prefer to give credit where credit it due: to the individuals who necessitate the regulations in the first place. You prefer to blame government: I blame the stupid jerks who ruin things for the rest of us.

And, in case you haven't noticed, alcohol consumption and sales are both heavily regulated, via age restrictions, drunk driving laws, public consumption, and so forth. Pools are likewise regulated: barriers are required, safety standards are required for public pools, and private homeowners are required to carry considerable liability insurance. Knives are also regulated: switchblades and ballistic knives at the Federal level, others at state levels.

So quit blaming government: it's the irresponsible pet owners who are doing the damage.

Actually, it's politicians that craft and propose intentionally vague legislation promoting their own poltical agendas, usually based on false or, at best, intentionally misleading information provided by special interest groups, such as H$US, which can easily be sensationalized for maximm effect by "news organizations" which are clearly more interested fabricating and spinning news in lieu of fairly reporting it, that depend on the uniformed or feable minded sheeple that can easily be lead to act on fear and emotion instead of fact and reason. Can you say bbbaaahhhhhh??

I disagree: politicians and government do not propose or create public safety oriented legislation out of a vacuum. The root cause is always some jackass who calls attention to a potential problem in the first place by engaging in irresponsible, antisocial behaviors and/or activities.

In this case the animal owner had a long history of being a jerk. Of course the citizens in the area were frightened: they had been endangered by the sociopath down the road, in the end, very deliberately endangered.

And we the taxpayers have had to pay for behavior like his. More regulation, more taxpayer money spent on enforcement, taxpayer dollars paying to clean up these fiascoes.

So many people here seem to have a hard-on for the HSUS, and yet are so willing to ignore the conditions that led to the creating of organizations like HSUS in the first place.

Spare me the misplaced indignation.

"To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people, is a chimerical idea."
James Madison

"So many people here seem to have a hard-on for the HSUS, and yet are so willing to ignore the conditions that led to the creating of organizations like HSUS in the first place."

I'm pretty sure the HSUS and other animal rights based organizations were created by people who hate humans & humanity & have rather misguided views of the world, animals, natural history & our place in the "environment"

As for animal abuses, thats generally covered by animal welfare organizations, who are rather distinct from the animal rights related organizations. Pretty sure this was brought up and hashed out on here before...

Again, with the misplaced dislike, frustration or, dare I say, hatred.

You cede so much power to these organizations. No doubt because the blame for their very existence rests with individuals like Terry Thompson

Put another way: you make victims out of the real perpetrators: the sociopaths, the jerks, the people who treat their animals with little regard if not outright cruelty, and their fellow man likewise.

The Terry Thompsons of the world are the problem. The people who dump their pets in the Everglades and elsewhere are the problem. The puppy mill owners are the problem, the excesses of factory farmers are the problem. If not for people like them, this would be a non-issue.

Duh.

"Bad men cannot make good citizens. ...A vitiated state of morals, a corrupted public conscience, is incompatible with freedom. No free government, or the blessings of liberty, can be preserved to any people but by a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; and by a frequent recurrence to fundamental principles."
Patrick Henry

"Again, with the misplaced dislike, frustration or, dare I say, hatred."

Its dislike, it borders on hatred. Its an intense dislike for the way that organizations like the HSUS manage to get people to think they are doing good. Its an intense dislike for the flawed ideology of "animal rights", and the way they convince people to support them and give them money, while they don't actually contribute to helping animals. They work hard to lobby AGAINST animal ownership, farming, and so on.

I am not trying to in any way present Terry Thompson as a victim, nor in any way am I suggesting that people like him should NOT be dealt with legally & appropriately. I agree that animals who dump their pets and abuse animals are problems as well.

I just don't agree that taking everyones ability to keep these animals away because of these bad apples is an appropriate response.

Whats your suggestion then, oh wise one, to make sure the "bad people" don't own animals/drive cars/own guns/have/abuse children, and so on?

Your question to me is illogical and basically irrelevant because of false equivalencies.

Alcohol is regulated, gun ownership is regulated, car ownership and operation is regulated, and child abuse, which is completely separable from parenting, is punishable by law.

But such comparisons also irrelevant because of the false equivalency factor: transportation, self-protection, and being a parent are pretty basic human needs. Even alcohol consumption is a fairly universal practice that has been in place for centuries...remember, drinking water used to be dangerous!

"Hobbies" such as exotic animal ownership are nonessential peripheral CHOSEN activities which, when they present a hazard to society (locally and at large), are also heavily regulated and/or banned.

Wow, StephF. You are such a genus, err I mean subspecies.

And, yet, all those things, regulated, banned, despite whatever duff you are going on about, we see continue to see the very same things Terry did - Abuse. It sucks, but some people abuse things, and some people go nuts.

I'm sure he'd be held accountable and in prison if he let those animals loose and ran off, for endangering public welfare...but he killed himself.

Its like trying to charge the man who offed his whole family & then himself the same day for murder, and suggesting the only way to prevent such horrible atrocities from occurring would be to prevent men from having families that they could kill or abuse in the first place...

You REALLY need to come up with better analogies. For example, ones that actually apply to the circumstances would be helpful...

Teh obtuse is very thick here...

I would argue that keeping wild animals reflects a need to contact nature and therefore contributes to a basic human need. It is not the only way but it is one way to have a contact with nature in todays industrialized nations. Where there is not an explicit reason to prevent it I think it should be encouraged or at least allowed. If it's going cost more to enact and enforce unecessary regulations than it would to enact and enforce reasonable ones that's good reason to spend a little money on research.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

Animal rights organizations are not just against the Terry Thompsons. They may use the Terry Thompsons to further their means but they are not just against bad keepers. They are ultimately against all ownership and all use of any wild animals at the least and in some cases against ownership and use of domestic animals as well.

There is no such thing as a good keeper or a responsible keeper, in their mind when it comes to wild animals so there is nothing that can be done to please them. You could keep a 2 foot garter snake in a 20 foot long naturalistic cage with misters and timers and lights, etc. and feed it organically raised goldfish from your own outdoor pond and you would still not be a good keeper in their minds.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

I disagree: It's jackasses who don't understand how to apply personal accountability and responsibility to the individual, so they attempt make the mistake of trying to penalize the masses for the failures of the few. I suppose you support children dying for the sins of the father, too?

"I disagree: It's jackasses who don't understand how to apply personal accountability and responsibility to the individual, so they attempt make the mistake of trying to penalize the masses for the failures of the few. I suppose you support children dying for the sins of the father, too?"

Again, absolve the Terry Thompson's of the world and blame the rational citizens for wanting to prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future. That demonstrates a lack of personal accountability and responsibility on your part.

And how exactly does one enforce said personal accountability and responsibility to the individual? One does it by applying a framework of acceptable behavior to EVERYONE.

Face it, you are not being penalized by lawmakers, you are being penalized by the Terry Thompson's of the world. If he hadn't done this, tougher rules would not be contemplated.

No, I don’t accept it, I unequivocally reject it. Clearly your lemming-like thought processes render you incapable of understanding the basic concepts of individual accountability and responsibility, that much is obvious. I imagine you’d find a bubble-wrapped existence in a world where a magical ruling class provides one-size-fits-all solutions for the sheeple masses that are all too eager to be treated like homogenous commodity citizens highly desirable. Therefore, our differences go far beyond to-ban or not-to-ban reptiles. I value individual liberty made possible by holding individuals accountable for their own actions over widespread social oppression championed by irrational fear-mongering collectivists, such as you. I spare you no indignation.

LOL you keep contradicting yourself on a fundamental philosophy.

The fact remains that it is the Terry Thompsons who are the fear mongers.

Oh, and nice try with the lemming and sheep analogies, which are especially inappropriate, since your assumption that I support any proposed ban is erroneous.

Have a nice day.

If you don't support the ban then why are you saying that we deserve it? You're argument has been that since the collective hobby was unable to ferret out Terry Thompson that the hobby should expect knee-jerk reactions that punish with a broad sweep from lawmakers. You're basicly saying we need to expect and accept unreasonable restrictions on our hobby simply because we are a small group and the majority doesn't have the time or incination to understand us and treat us fairly.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

That's absolutely ludicrous. We don't make rules extra nonsensical simply because we are mad at one person, or one type of person. We are not talking about extra tuff rules here. We are talking about nonsensical rules. Banning "any type of constricting snake" is not an extra tuff rule. It's a nonsensical rule because it seeks to ban something that poses no danger. We don't ban nondangerous animals to show how tuff we are on dangerous animals.

If we were just being extra tuff we would simply ban the dangerous ones and provide extra tuff penalties, or make it extra difficult to obtain the dangerous ones. Rules either stand on their own merit or they don't. Banning "any constricting snake" simply doesn't stand up to logic. It's blatently obvious that it's only there out if ignorance of what constricting snakes are and convenience of wording and/or enforcement. The government is solely responsible for that ingorance and for lack of wantig to do it's job properly.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

The root cause may be "some jackass" but that doesn't give the government carte blanche to do whatever it wants.

This bill proposes to declare "any constricting snake" to be a "dangerous exotic" and, among other things, ban new ownership of them all. That shows a lack of basic knowledge of herps on the part of it's author and sponsors, ie "the government". The proposed regulations are complete overkill and it is totally within reason and within their rights for hobbyists to speak up on behalf of themselves and to demand that the regulations be fair.

As you pointed out, it costs money to enforce laws and it is a part of the governments responsibility to not make proposals that waste taxpayer money. When they do, it's a good thing for people to be critical as long as it's done through proper channels and with respect for the rule of law, so to speak.

-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

You really should take the time to determine the legal definition of "Dangerous Exotic Animal" before jumping to conclusions.

For example, the word 'Exotic' frequently is defined as 'non-native', but does it mean non-native to the state or non-native to the region or non-native to the US.

The word 'Dangerous' can also be defined in different ways, and to different degrees, so that too is a definition that warrants investigation.

I did not coin the term "dangerous exotic animals", StephF. If you take issue to this definition, then I suggest you take it up with drafters of this bill rather than me...

I never implied that you had coined the term...

What you need to understand is that LEGAL definitions are often different from what individual citizens may consider to be the definition.
So before you get upset about proposed legislation, it is important to first have a good understanding of what the legislation actually means.

Did you read the bill?

(1) "Dangerous exotic animal" means any of the following:
(a) A large cat other than a cat commonly known as a house cat;
(b) A nonhuman primate, except a nonhuman primate that provides support or assistance for a mobility impaired person;
(c) An alligator;
(d) A crocodile;
(e) A constricting snake;
(f) A venomous snake;
(g) Any other animal designated by the chief in rules adopted under this section.

Yes I did read the *proposed* legislation, which, strictly speaking is not a proposed ban anyway.

You still don't get it. Sigh.

I did some further checking which more specifically describes the constrictor snakes in question as "Large constrictor snakes".

Again, you jump to conclusions.

It is a ban, Steph under the first section:
Sec. 1531.40. (A) On and after the effective date of this section, no person shall acquire by any means a dangerous exotic animal.

Nowhere in the current language of this bill can I find "constricting snakes" as being defined only as "large constricting snakes". Where in the bill are "large constricing snakes" defined further? Again, it goes back to the legal definitions you mentioned earlier.

By using deliberately ambiguous wording and definitions, and throwing in phrasing like "Any other animal designated by the chief in rules adopted under this section", it pretty much means that they can ban anything they feel like banning, once the legislation is passed.

There was no mention made of venomous lizards, but you can bet that if you're found with Heloderma, you'll quickly find the law amended to include them, if that's what they feel like doing at the time. I imagine they'll include "dangerous" arthropods, too, if they feel like it.

That is a **proposed** ban on future purchases, not a ban on current ownership.

As the very next line states: "A person who owns a dangerous exotic animal on the effective date of this section shall register the animal with the division of wildlife not later than sixty days after that date."

Do not assume that the proposed law defines all exotic animals as dangerous, but rather that they propose regulating private possession of those exotic animals that ARE dangerous. Like large constrictor snakes.

Check the Ohio DNR website for more information.

This is why this bill is not actually law yet. Legal definitions will have to be clarified.

"That is a **proposed** ban on future purchases, not a ban on current ownership."

I understand that. But what happens to the hobby in OH after no further acquisitions or sales can be made after the effective date, which in this case, is effective immediately upon passage? Wasn't it the ceo of the H.S.U.S who stated something to the effect of "one generation, and out" all those years ago?

Until these legal definitions are further clarified, this remains a dangerous bill for all in Ohio to monitor very closely...

All owners of potentially dangerous exotic pets in Ohio, you mean.

Meanwhile, just because a fog is rolling in does not mean that the sky has fallen.

No all owners and prospective owners of any animal need to watch this law. The current definitions do include nondangerous animals and if we are lax they will probably stand. We can't just trust them to change those definitions on their own. NOW IS the time to get involved and spread the word. You're just trying to lull us into a false sense of security.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

Eric, you are being played. Don't bother trying to reason with an unreasonable entity.

I agree Ed, this has been a time waster. I have only ever seen impugnce and hair splitting from Steph. I am getting the impression that he/she/this entity did not come on to here to respond to my posts out of constructiveness.

With that said, I am done with this conversation.

Usually the law defines the terminology it uses. That's exactly what this law does. It defines dangerous exotic as any constricting snake. So there is no question about what the legal definition is in this case. It's not that we don't understand the legal definition, it's that we disagree with it. It is what we should do, argue that the legal definition they are using is flawed.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/

Did this guy let loose? Oh yea... 0 as far as I know. Funny how they are quick to regulate snakes even though they werent even involved. That guy Pacelli or whatever his name is was at my local library on his book tour, almost went down and protested with signs! But I didnt, Im civil. Any way, Making animals illegal will just make people hide them which is more dangerous then allowing permits and knowing where they are. Imagine if this guy was HIDING them because they were illegal! Then he let them loose and noone knew, thats alot more dangerous to me. And on a side note I have to say that keeping a burmese python in your basement is not even in the same league with keeping a Lion or Tiger. Not even by a comparison! In my opinion that is. Any how I am now looking into investment garter snakes lol.
-----
Pythons.Net
StuInfo.org

You bring up a ver good point in that Tigers are magnitudes of order more dangerous than Burmese. Burmese aren't really so much dangerous to the public as they are simply scary to those uninformed. Burmese could be dangerous to their owners but if they got loose they actually move very slowly and are very easy to run away from. Yes there is a minescule chance of one ambushing you but that's minescule. How much money do we want to spend on a minescule problem? Mostly a loose bumese would present a danger to small to medium sized pets and wild animals. They are not likely to even be where people will go, they will sit deep in the bushes most of the time. And this is Ohio we're talking about, even if it doesn't get retrieved it's going to die in the winter time.

It is appropriate for bumese owners to point these things out because this law doesn't so much regulate dangerous animals as it is a knee jerk reaction to scary and unfamiliar animals.
-----
www.hcu-tx.org/