Disunity: A Warning from Ohio

• Reptile wrote on 2012-10-24 02:56

  Ever since I first entered the reptile industry as a child, Ohio has been a stronghold for herpetoculture. The collections were very diverse, and there have always been many talented keepers there. Over the years, I have visited with some of the people in that state, and have always come away quite impressed by the variety – a variety that rivaled my then home state of Florida.
  
  Throughout the years, as with every state, activists have tried time and again to get their foot in the door and shut down the exotic industry in Ohio, but have continuously failed – until now! So, what happened? How could one of the most open states become a state that is more restrictive than my present home state of California? The new initiative, SB 310, can be used to eliminate the keeping of all exotics very quickly. The Department of Agriculture can, without any further hearings, public comments, or legal involvements can restrict or ban whatever animal they choose! As written, it bans all crocodilians, and the draconian language of the venomous section is basically a thinly veiled, slow elimination. Of course, constrictors over twelve feet are targeted as well – you can have them, but you will pay dearly for it!
  
  The tragedy in Zanesville was to be the catalyst for change. In many cases, in various places, there is a big cat accident, followed by calls to abolish the keeping of all exotics – and this was to be no exception! Wayne Pacelle and his followers, already deeply involved in the python hysteria, were now going to push their agenda in Ohio with a vengeance. Add to this a new governor with a strong desire to rid the state of its exotics, partnered with Jack Hanna of the Columbus zoo, and you have an epic battle to fight. This was an important battleground for them – a state that had little regulation of any kind, and a congress that had no real interest in pursuing any – to gain this state is to set precedence for others. Could we have won? That is a question that is hard to answer, but I assure you, the strategy that they used beat our self-destructive rhetoric hands down!
  
  While PETA, HSUS, the new governor, and other groups came forth with a united front, we had no less than five different groups, all saying something different, trying to fight the impending laws. One group’s leader, always claiming that there would never be a law as long as he was there (oops!), even went so far as to call the legislators “idiots”! Imagine how much favor that won for us! PJAC tried to negotiate a deal, Ohio Association of Animal Owners had yet another version, and USARK (who was the one originally invited to come and speak to the senators) tried to get a law similar to that of North Carolina (and no, despite those who push rumors, it is not restrictive, it merely asks that you be responsible – like drinking and driving!)
  Worse than the disharmony of messages was that some of the group’s leaders were actually making disparaging remarks about the other groups! Who would you listen to? How do you think we were received? How is it that in the reptile industry we think that we can act like this and win?
  
  This won’t be the last battle. HSUS alone has 261 million in assets, PETA has an annual income of $32 million, and the other groups have deep pockets as well. The “warning from Ohio” is this: We have a lot of battles ahead, but if we continue to act as we did in Ohio, we will even lose states we never thought we could! We will learn to stand together, or lose it all. The choice is quite simple – grow up, or be treated like a child by being told what you can and cannot do!

  
  
  http://www.herpnation.com/hn-blog/carl-person/disunity-a-warning-from-ohio/?simple_nav_category=hn-blog%2Fcarl-person
  
  People hate what they don't understand.
  Politicians want to meet some sort of quota, what better way to do it than by banned something people in general tend to fear?
  It's ridiculous to you and I, but to the general public it seems like a good idea to ban something we are spoon fed to think is scary and dangerous. It is far from an excuse, though, we live in an age where we have all of this knowledge to gain at our finger tips, yet some choose to ignore it. It doesn't just have to be about herps, or sharks, but with racism, sexism and a mountain of false stereotypes.
  It's sad, but my future in exotics doesn't seem bright living here in the states.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2012-10-24 03:37
  So raising snakes and other reptiles isn't scary? They do seem like scary pets if they were accidentally let lose into the wild for some reason.
  
  Although, the only time I heard of "herpetoculture" is in Mabination. I don't know anyone that actually own such "non-traditional" pets.
• Reptile wrote on 2012-10-24 03:50

  Quote from EndlessDreams;968057:

  So raising snakes and other reptiles isn't scary? They do seem like scary pets if they were accidentally let lose into the wild for some reason.
  
  Although, the only time I heard of "herpetoculture" is in Mabination. I don't know anyone that actually own such "non-traditional" pets.

  
  
  People think they're dangerous to the public when they really aren't.
  There are zero cases of a non-venomous snake harming someone in public in the US. (resulting in death)
  Florida is probably the only place in the US where these animals could thrive outside of captivity, anywhere else they would die with winter.
  It's not like there's only a handful of "wackos" who own reptiles, there's millions of us, and there'd be more if people understood them more instead of listening to what they see on TV and what other people who don't know anything about them either say.
  
  On another note: the snake problem in Florida results from hurricane Andrew, which released several hundred Burmese and African Rock Pythons. It was not a result from owner negligence.
  
  I'd also like to add that constrictors have two types of bites, a defensive bite and a feeding bite.
  They will not constrict you with a defensive bite, and they will not bite you as a feeding bite if they do not think they can eat you.
• EndlessDreams wrote on 2012-10-24 05:49

  Quote from Reptile;968065:

  People think they're dangerous to the public when they really aren't.
  There are zero cases of a non-venomous snake harming someone in public in the US. (resulting in death)

  
  
  So you admit there are cases of a venomous snake killing people? From your statement, you also seem to admit that there there are cases where non-venomous snakes can harm someone in public, but not result in death. How does a non-venomous snake kill a person anyways? The actual cases and truths of such claims are unimportant.
  
  You forgot something important. An average person doesn't go around studying snakes/reptiles/etc., and cannot tell when something is venomous or not. Better to assume the snake is dangerous than not. Don't bother going near it is the better mentally.
  
  The things you say may or may not be true. I just don't know. The average person won't actually know these facts about them. I can't even tell what snakes/reptiles is what. There are a lot of stuff people should learn/be worried about in life, but the reality is that learning about snakes/reptiles/etc. are not a priority in majority of the people's lives.
  
  Sure, you can claim that there is like millions of people who own such things. I can also go claim that millions of people watch anime/read manga as well. However, the general public in the US doesn't know much or care much about those stuff.
  
  Although, looking at your source, the only people that cares is people who keep these stuff as pets. Such news (and topic) doesn't even appear in any of the major newspapers or major news sources. It isn't even an newsworthy issue outside a niche community.
• Reptile wrote on 2012-10-24 17:30

  Quote from EndlessDreams;968159:

  So you admit there are cases of a venomous snake killing people?

  
  Yes, believe it or not, there are venomous snakes in every state but Alaska that are native to the area.
  
  

  From your statement, you also seem to admit that there there are cases where non-venomous snakes can harm someone in public, but not result in death. How does a non-venomous snake kill a person anyways? The actual cases and truths of such claims are unimportant.
  

  Yes, because of the burmese snake problem, every year people kill as many as they can to help save the everglade (despite the fact that we as humans are already destroying it)
  Trying to wrangle a large snake is bound to get you hurt, and by hurt I mean a few stitches hurt.
  
  

  You forgot something important. An average person doesn't go around studying snakes/reptiles/etc., and cannot tell when something is venomous or not. Better to assume the snake is dangerous than not. Don't bother going near it is the better mentally.

  
  I agree, but it is helpful to know your native venomous snakes, because it can mean the difference between killing a harmless colubrid and a venomous snake, or wasting pest control's time.
  
  

  The things you say may or may not be true. I just don't know. The average person won't actually know these facts about them. I can't even tell what snakes/reptiles is what. There are a lot of stuff people should learn/be worried about in life, but the reality is that learning about snakes/reptiles/etc. are not a priority in majority of the people's lives.

  
  does that make it alright to take what's ours away just because you feel like it or are misguided?
  There are people who have bred large snakes like burmese pythons for the last 25 years, and now, they're going out of business because they can't ship their babies across the US.
  They banned interstate transport of then and a few other large snakes, places where if they were freed for whatever reason, they would die in less than a year which is not enough time to grow into a jumbo snake or breed.
  
  

  
  Sure, you can claim that there is like millions of people who own such things. I can also go claim that millions of people watch anime/read manga as well. However, the general public in the US doesn't know much or care much about those stuff.

  I think you'd be pretty pissed if someone spread around bogus information and tried to get anime banned.
  

  
  Although, looking at your source, the only people that cares is people who keep these stuff as pets. Such news (and topic) doesn't even appear in any of the major newspapers or major news sources. It isn't even an newsworthy issue outside a niche community.

  
  You're right, and we're trying to change that, but we can only get so far.
  We have groups like USARK who fight for our rights, but we're against PETA and the HSUS, so we really don't have a chance.
  
  I breed ball pythons, and with the way things are going I may not be able to do that in less than a decade.
  
  
  [video=youtube;Y0g6VgzCCbA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0g6VgzCCbA&feature=player_embedded[/video]
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-10-24 21:31

  Quote from EndlessDreams;968159:

  
  You forgot something important. An average person doesn't go around studying snakes/reptiles/etc., and cannot tell when something is venomous or not. Better to assume the snake is dangerous than not. Don't bother going near it is the better mentally.
  
  The things you say may or may not be true. I just don't know. The average person won't actually know these facts about them. I can't even tell what snakes/reptiles is what. There are a lot of stuff people should learn/be worried about in life, but the reality is that learning about snakes/reptiles/etc. are not a priority in majority of the people's lives.

  
  What the general public may perceive as a threat is irrelevant for this. The common citizen may not be easily able to look up whether the animal he has encountered is dangerous or not, but we are talking about the legislators creating laws in advance, and they do have the possibility to ask for specialist support to determine which animals are best kept away from public. Therefore, a generalising ban can not be justified with this assumption, as this is no emergency, in which case a rash act may be necessary, after which the relevant laws may be fleshed out a bit more or completely revised (this DOES actually happen, I refer you to e.g. the Australian anti-terror laws).
  
  However, looking at the actual bill reveals that little sweeping generalisations have been made (a specialist on the animals listed would know better though), and furthermore there are exceptions for registered animals, so unless I misread something or read too little (easily possible as I couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing) it is still very much possible to keep any of the listed animals if you can show that you can effectively keep them away from public.
  
  I think mostly this bill is okay. Non-crocodilian reptiles and most/many (?) snakes are exempt from this ban, and while the bill mentions a right to expand the list of snakes, I don't see that being used very often. It doesn't infringe on basic human rights, but only on a particular hobby, which is deplorable, but not nearly as deplorable as idiots not being able to keep their animals properly and thus causing harm that could have been very very very very easily avoided (not the case with wildlife, unless you want to completely obliterate the local natural balance, which is a very bad idea, and therefore the comparison is not fair - it's a bit like comparing traffic accidents with lollipop choking deaths, where one is due to the existence of a necessary part of life or society that can't be easily outlawed with very heavy repercussions, the other merely a nicety that can be lived without if need be).
  
  How much the trade and breeding of dangerous animals as defined by this bill is necessary to this level is something I can not personally answer. If each of these causes harm to a handful or little more of people a year, I fail to see a justification for destroying the income of several possibly hundreds people - which tends to be very harmful. If one causes a bit more damage, including several deaths per year, then the ban of the trade of this animal is clearly justified and supported by me. In the end, you can still choose to trade a different kind of exotic animal.
  
  Though where I do see a problem is with the people who already have one of the listed animals, don't want to register it, and thus instead kill it or -very possibly- release it into the wild. This would be caused by the bill though and would not be a very good argument for it.
  
  And in the end, nullo actore, nullus iudex, if you catch my drift. Of course this will undoubtedly create a black market, not sure if it'll be of note though.
• Reptile wrote on 2012-10-25 17:18

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;968543:

  What the general public may perceive as a threat is irrelevant for this. The common citizen may not be easily able to look up whether the animal he has encountered is dangerous or not, but we are talking about the legislators creating laws in advance, and they do have the possibility to ask for specialist support to determine which animals are best kept away from public. Therefore, a generalising ban can not be justified with this assumption, as this is no emergency, in which case a rash act may be necessary, after which the relevant laws may be fleshed out a bit more or completely revised (this DOES actually happen, I refer you to e.g. the Australian anti-terror laws).
  
  However, looking at the actual bill reveals that little sweeping generalisations have been made (a specialist on the animals listed would know better though), and furthermore there are exceptions for registered animals, so unless I misread something or read too little (easily possible as I couldn't be arsed to read the whole thing) it is still very much possible to keep any of the listed animals if you can show that you can effectively keep them away from public.
  
  I think mostly this bill is okay. Non-crocodilian reptiles and most/many (?) snakes are exempt from this ban, and while the bill mentions a right to expand the list of snakes, I don't see that being used very often. It doesn't infringe on basic human rights, but only on a particular hobby, which is deplorable, but not nearly as deplorable as idiots not being able to keep their animals properly and thus causing harm that could have been very very very very easily avoided (not the case with wildlife, unless you want to completely obliterate the local natural balance, which is a very bad idea, and therefore the comparison is not fair - it's a bit like comparing traffic accidents with lollipop choking deaths, where one is due to the existence of a necessary part of life or society that can't be easily outlawed with very heavy repercussions, the other merely a nicety that can be lived without if need be).
  
  How much the trade and breeding of dangerous animals as defined by this bill is necessary to this level is something I can not personally answer. If each of these causes harm to a handful or little more of people a year, I fail to see a justification for destroying the income of several possibly hundreds people - which tends to be very harmful. If one causes a bit more damage, including several deaths per year, then the ban of the trade of this animal is clearly justified and supported by me. In the end, you can still choose to trade a different kind of exotic animal.
  
  Though where I do see a problem is with the people who already have one of the listed animals, don't want to register it, and thus instead kill it or -very possibly- release it into the wild. This would be caused by the bill though and would not be a very good argument for it.
  
  And in the end, nullo actore, nullus iudex, if you catch my drift. Of course this will undoubtedly create a black market, not sure if it'll be of note though.

  
  The thing is, only twelve or so deaths have happened in the last thirty years, and thats from morons who didn't house them properly (which it isn't hard) and didn't feed them right.
  
  As for the registering animals thing, you don't have to register them, but you cannot take them past state lines.
  So lets say I live in New York, and I decide to move to New Jersey, I can't take my snake with me without committing a felony.
  It's a state issue, I don't disagree that the Burmese python is a huge problem in the everglades which is only in southern Florida.
  They can't even survive in northern Florida, where I live.
  Why the hell ban something that isn't as dangerous as people make them seem to people or the environment.
  Keep Burmese pythons out of Florida, but don't make the rest of the country suffer because of an accident.
  
  The Burmese pythons have been traced back to ONE location, a breeding facility that was destroyed with Hurricane Andrew.
  It was not because they were released by owners.
  
  You can have a Burmese python in Florida, but it has to be registered as a grandfathered animal.
  Meaning you had to have had the python before the ban was passed or else it will be destroyed.
  
  It's destroying thousands of people's careers and income.
  And you said they could always just get into another exotic, but keep in mind, these snakes aren't cheap.
  My snake collection is worth about 8,000 dollars, and I only have 12ish, imagine people who have hundreds of adults and thousands of babies they can't get rid of because they can't transport them to reptile shows across the country.
  Their collections might have taken them 10-20 years to completely, and without the funds coming from their babies, there's no way to feed several hundred snakes.
  
  It's not as simple as
  "Oh, Burmese pythons are banned, time to switch to Corn snakes"
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-10-25 17:59
  That makes it appear as a positively moronic bill if the reason is threat against life.
  
  I guess then the actual reason is trying to stop poaching and animal smuggling, but I don't think it's very severe with snakes... and certainly not possibly the case with snakes bred in the US.
  
  Probably then these organisations just think it's icky and obscene ( whining about natural habitat and bla bla bla), and put together some bullshit reason to make the politicians nervous about not agreeing with it. They are self-proclaimed "x" rights organisations anyway, and I am very wary of those since I've come to known about the data juggling and conjuration of various feminist and child protectionist organisations.
• RealityBreak wrote on 2012-10-25 18:00
  [video=youtube;Tx1XIm6q4r4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tx1XIm6q4r4[/video]
• Reptile wrote on 2012-10-25 18:02

  Quote from Sumpfkraut;969283:

  That makes it appear as a positively moronic bill if the reason is threat against life.
  
  I guess then the actual reason is trying to stop poaching and animal smuggling, but I don't think it's very severe with snakes... and certainly not possibly the case with snakes bred in the US.
  
  Probably then these organisations just think it's icky and obscene ( whining about natural habitat and bla bla bla), and put together some bullshit reason to make the politicians nervous about not agreeing with it. They are self-proclaimed "x" rights organisations anyway, and I am very wary of those since I've come to known about the data juggling and conjuration of various feminist and child protectionist organisations.

  
  It's most to get the HSUS and PETA off of politicians backs, since they're both against the ownership of pets, and right now they're focusing on the easiest target which is exotic pets. But they make it seem like it's all for public safety and the environment, which it's not.
  
  They were initially trying to ban 9 species, but there's a loophole where they don't have to have congressional approval if it's under a certain number of economic impact.
  So they threw some out and are planning on doing the same thing with the other five.
• Sumpfkraut wrote on 2012-10-25 18:07

  Quote from Reptile;969288:

  It's most to get the HSUS and PETA off of politicians backs, since they're both against the ownership of pets, and right now they're focusing on the easiest target which is exotic pets. But they make it seem like it's all for public safety and the environment, which it's not.
  
  They were initially trying to ban 9 species, but there's a loophole where they don't have to have congressional approval if it's under a certain number of economic impact.
  So they threw some out and are planning on doing the same thing with the other five.

  
  Hah. Put them all into a sack and hit it with a baton, you always hit the right one.
  
  
  [SIZE="1"]I really love this saying. Mostly because it fits so often.... which is kind of depressing.[/SIZE]
• Osayidan wrote on 2012-10-25 18:57
  I don't see how a non-venomous snake is any more dangerous than a decent sized dog.
  And snakes don't get rabies.
  
  Maybe they should ban dogs instead, see how people react to that.