Outcome of SB 310; "Dangerous Animals and Restricted Snakes" Bill

Tuesday, May 22nd Ohio state legislators convened to decide the fate of "exotic" animals and it passed 87-9.

There were three speakers for the bill and only one speaking against.

Rep. Terry Boose (R) District 58-Norwalk (Opposed);
1) Pointed out that the bill discriminates against the poor

2) Encourages a black market

3) Not enough teeth in the bill to really be effective anyway

Rep. Brian Hill (D) District 94-Zanesville (In Favor);
1) Stated that the bill would include an "Animal Emergency Team"

2) Will promote proper caging requirements

Rep. Tracey Heard (D) District 26-Columbus (In Favor);
1) Stated that she had a pet monkey as a child and supported exempting those from the bill's scrutiny because they "make good pets, and serice animals" (side note: Opinions are like ***holes, everybody has one. So where's the research sources proving monkeys are better and safer pets than snakes???)

2) Stated that the bill "makes provisions" for those who can't afford the various fees and must "relinquish" those animals. Feels they are "reasonable". (side note: How big of her. Is she offering to adopt all these displaced pets, and cover the costs of their care? No detail given on just exactly how much these fees are, and where this money for their future care is supposed to come from. Are the people who can afford those fees supposed to foot the bill for all those people giving their pets up who can't?)

Rep. Andy hompson (R) District 93-Marietta (In Favor);
1) Stated that the "First Responders" for animal emergencies proposed by the bill is an important feature.

Well, I must say that the impression I was left with after watching this session was that the whole hearing was merely a formality.

There are so many constitutional issues here that this is bound to end up at the Supreme Court level. Perhaps animal-lovers have lost this battle, but we will win the war.

History has borne out again and again that prohibition doesn't work; not in a country that was built on acceptance of individual choices. The original settlers left Europe because they didn't want every aspect of their private lives dictated to them by their government and wanted to be free to pursue what made them happy.

Sure, there are instances when government needs to step in and intervene to level the playing field, prevent people from killing each other, or to make sure society has what it needs to serve everyone in it, there are times when that's appropriate, but not in telling people what pets they can keep.

USARK offered reasonable alternatives, and who better to be involved in the writing of standards for and about snakes than people who have been doing it for years? Who better to write the standards for large cats than people who have made a career doing that.

Society recognizes this in fields such as medicine in which boards are formed to set the standards for their peers, and in fields like medicine government hesitates to let state or Federal legislators decide what is best for doctors and their patients. The reason? Because they recognize that legislators (and along with them, other special interest groups) lack the knowledge, experience, and expertise to dictate "best practices" to doctors, tell them how they should do their surgeries, what drugs to prescribe and not prescribe, and what tests they can and can't do on their patients. (Private insurance companies try to do that, but at least the government in this instance, takes a pretty much hands-off approach).

Life is full of both risks and benefits. There are people who have died from working with animals, but in the grand scheme of things the number of people who have died does not reach the level that requires government intervention. Overall the joys of working with animals far outweighs the risks, and as we become more familiar with a whole range of different species we come to understand them better (just as different races and nationalities of people get better at relating as they are allowed to communicate and meet in the middle). All of these individual differences take time to work out.

Just like people who speak different languages, animals have their own "languages"; different ways of communicating, and different ways of interpreting the actions of species outside their own.

If people are restricted from keeping certain species they will never have the opportunity to get to know them at close range and to work through those language and cultural barriers. That in itself will keep whatever dangers there are ever-present and unpredictable. Wouldn't it be better to be able to predict and prevent those incidents and move past them than to merely table the interactions that will reduce those risks?

Just as in any relationship, humans and other animals need to meet in the middle and learn from one another so that they can successfully achieve a relationship that is mutually beneficial to both species. Money should have no place in such relationships. It is a matter to be worked out between each particular animal and each particular human.

I know that with each dog I have had the relationship and what defines it is unique. We learn along the way how to treat each other, we have special routines between us that are specific to just that relationship, certain special ways of relating that don't necessarily apply to all dogs and all humans. Relationships, whether they are human to human or human to other animal involve compromise, respect, trust, regard for the other, kindness, and most of all, the willingness to work on that relationship to make it better and richer with time. Those objectives cannot be achieved by distance. Those principles are universal and can be applied across the board, regardless of species.

Update on Snake Bans

Things have been heating up in Ohio, and we in the hobby are on the cusp of another bout of knee-jerk legislation as follow-up to the Lacey Act. The outcome of that original act amendment was that at least there was going to be a 2 year maratorium on adding any more than the 4 species of snake that were proposed. Now comes an amended version on the state level that seeks to undermine those few protections put in place and threatens to open it wide up and without a vote!

This new piece of legislation in Ohio; called SB 310 in its current version would be one of the most restrictive on reptile keeping of any in existance Nationwide.

Representative Jim Buchy proposed some changes recommended by USARK (United States Association of Reptile Keepers) which were rejected by Governor Kasich, Senator Balderson, and others. These changes included a proposed $25.00 registration fee instead of permitting of animal facilities, would institute safety and secure housing protocols instead of requiring cost prohibitive surety bonds and liability insurance.

Although the conterproposal was supported by several in the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee, it was rejected by the above mentioned leaders.

HSUS, the Columbus Zoo, and Jack Hannah oppose USARKs suggested alternatives, and with elections coming up in November for all House Committee Members, alot of them are under pressure to hurry this bill on through just so that it doesn't interfere with their campaigne plans.

This comes down to a vote today! Please write one of these people in the Ohio legislature and ask them to vote no on SB 310 .

We need to nip this in the bud before this type of extreme restriction comes rolling into all our towns, States, and cities.

I wrote Representative Debbie Phillips and asked that she write back to keep me informed on the vote. She has a background in mediation, so I figured that she would be more likely than some of the others to see the logic in working with USARK and the alternate solutions they proposed instead of the current version.

If this does not work, and the opposition gets its way, many people would be financially unable to keep their beloved pets due to inordinate fee requirements, (and that seems to be the bill writers' objective in adding the requirements). This would be a real shame.

Imagine a child crying because he had to give up his favorite snake he has had for years. And imagine there is no shelter that can take this snake that up until now has been loved and cared for, safe and secure, and a part of the family just like the dog and cat that share the home with it. It gets shuttled around from one temporary place to another where nobody really has experiece with snakes, it gets stressed out, stops eating, and tragically dies.

All this unecessary turmoil would be because of some bureaucrats who are trying to get re-elected, because of political power games between people fighting over money, many of whom have no idea what kind of added problms this legislation will cause snakes like this, little children, and taxpayers, and worse, they could care less! These are people who see snakes as nothing more than vermin to be reviled and driven out of our communities and the eco-system. They are ignorant people who insist on keeping their ignorance; sucking on it like a mother's teat.

Earlier I saw a video on Youtube that really took the cake showing to what lengths HSUS and PETA will go to further their anti-animal agenda. From all the warm and fuzzy TV commercials the general public would never guess that these "animal rights" organizations resort to such militant and unethical tactics. It has truly reached a new low and has gotten way out of control! It is long but please watch the whole thing. It is done in several segments put together;

Stop The Exotic Ban (SB310)

Save animals by protesting this travesty!

Mass Hysteria; Stop the Bans...Virginia Follows Florida's Lead

As if the Python Ban in Florida isn't bad enough now Virginia has followed suit! HB 1242 Takes SB 477 even further and bans a whole laudry list of animals considered "exotics", and it strictly regulates even the temporary moving of animals through the state.

The Ball-Pythons.net forum lists the legislators who are introducing this bill and those on the committee it is slated to be heard in; Committee on Agriculture, Chesapeake and Natural Resources.

In addition to many types of snakes, this list includes, primates (except for humans, LOL), wolves, african wild dogs, elephants, bears, Aligators, crocodiles, caimans, gharials, all cats except domestic and hybrid domestic.

If it weren't so crazy I'd think it was a joke! Now come on; how many people are really going to keep most of those animals in a state like Virginia!

I think this was probably done because the state doesn't think the Federal ban coming from the situation in Florida is going to get shot down eventually.

I watched President Obama's State of The Union Address tonight and from what I could glean it doesn't look like he supports such bans. In his speech tonight he clearly stated that there are some things government should not regulate (those issues citizens can handle themselves), and he made a point of saying that he did not support standing in the way of "American ingenuity". I certainly interpret that to mean that he would not go along with these kinds of blanket bans.

He clearly is in favor of businesses that provide jobs, income, and bring money into the US from other countries, and the reptile industry does bring in alot of revenue.

For the most part breeders in this industry aren't in it purely for profit. They do care about preventing these animals from escaping, and they do alot of education on how to take proper care of them.

Prohibition never works, and it is not a solution to the world's problems.

Even if you don't have pet reptiles this trend to ban more and more species should bother you if you own any pets because then where does it end? Where will they draw the line if legislators begin to see this as the way to handle animals they fear and don't identify with.

It seems a mass panic is sweeping the country. Please pass this information on and get involved by writing, calling, and speaking to elected officials.

Extreme Legislation Threatens Individual Freedoms

This week has been one of great uncertainty with 3 new bills looming which would significantly limit some of the freedoms US citizens have enjoyed for a long time.

In the misguided knee-jerk attempt to prevent the perceived peril to human life and liberty these 3 bills actually cause or worsen that which they seek to prevent.

The first two are SOPA; the Stop Online Piracy Act (House Bill 326) introduced on October 26, 2011 by Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) and PIPA; Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 (Senate Bill 968) introduced on May 12, 2011 by Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT), proposed to address internet piracy and intellectual property violations, the driving force coming from the film industry, led by 20th Century Fox's Rupert Murdoch, The Motion Picture Association of America and NBC Universal. Edward Sheperd, a guest writer for About.com points out that the intended target of these was originally overseas sites making a profit from US copyrighted merchandise, but that the impications could even impact bloggers in that it could require them to adhere to impossible requirements.

Unfortunately the nebulous wording of the bill draws in alot more than just those committing true internet piracy and copyright infringement. It could block customer access to selling sites such as Etsy, Ebay, and others if the government even suspects anything of that sort is going on, and umbrella sites which house alot of small businesses could be unfairly targetted without due process or recourse. The effect on the small business/microbusiness owner such as an artist could be catastrophic if he or she relys on that income for a necessary part of their income with which to make ends meet.

Such websites should be doing everything they can on their end to get rid of those businesses from their website who are infringing on intellectual property, but on a large umbrella site it is virtually impossible to clean that up completely, and it wouldn't be fair to the rest of us honest proprietors creating original works for the government to come in and restrict customer traffic to us via a large umbrella site like Etsy because of the rogue actions of a few.

What is particulary concerning here aside from the obvious risk of lost future income is that although public protest may have slowed these bills down, it seems the proponants have not given up, that they come armed with bigger bazookas than all of the big internet players combined and that they are more united in their beliefs than are those on the side of internet commerce.

Microsoft for instance may have competing interests although it does tend to fall into the same category with Google and the rest of those who generally oppose these bills. It is just this lack of unified voice which is often the fatal flaw in any movement.

Says David Tere Schchuk of the Huffington Press "The digitally-based newcomers can no longer be seen as strangers to the lobbying game, especially not now with Facebook's most recent hires, Joel Kaplan and Myriah Jordan, both previously in George W. Bush's White House. And Facebook is joined by Google, Yahoo and Amazon in a representative grouping called NetCoalition, which has dug itself in well, now moving from North Capitol Street to the heart of lobbyville, K Street. Google itself is spending $6 million a year, now to be rocketing higher, we can be sure, on D.C. lobbying efforts in its own interests.

But all this pales compared with the amassed forces and sheer weight of dollar numbers brought into play when Hollywood, network television and the recoding industry all join forces, as they have over this issue.


Among the bills' industry supporters there's greater unity (and even richer lobbying clout) born out of having an overriding common interest -- i.e. profits -- to defend."


According to Adam Dachis of Lifehacker, President Obama has apparently tabled SOPA indefinitely, but January 24th is the date PIPA comes up for a Senate vote and so appears for at least the forseeable future to be the bigger imminent threat.


The internet blicking clauses were removed from both of the bills because a number of sites have workarounds to render such blocks useless, but "The other, still-active measure present in the SOPA and PIPA bills would allow rights holders to cut of the source of funding of any potentially infringing web site. This means any other companies doing business with this site would have to stop. Whether that means advertising, links in search engines, or any other listings would have to be removed."


According to Mercurious blog this funding clause would include restricting payment processing systems such as Paypal to any site the deem as being in violation (a vital service many artists rely on to recieve most online payments through as well as purchases made online).


That would in effect render any business (and and businesses it houses) defunct at least as far as their internet presences are concerned. Even though many artists also earn income from shows and brick and mortar stores, finding enough stores/galleries to replace the internet profitshare is not always feasible and shows' entry fees can be prohibitive for alot of artists.


One could theoretically start one's own website, but again, the cost of creating one and its ongoing maintenance is not always a realistic option for many artists.


It is anybody's guess how all this will turn out once details are reviewed and adjusted or thrown out, but it is not something to assume others will handle. Every voice counts. I contacted my Representative at the Federal level yesterday in opposition of these bills and hope every one of you will do the same. (I'll leave a link at the end of this post so that you can easily contact the powers that be).


As this these two assaults on our personal freedom aren't enough, now there is a snake ban; a re-make of (Senate Bill 373) originally sponsored by Senator Bill Nelson (D-FL). It has failed to be passed for the past 3 years but has now been re-worked and presented again, much to the dismay of many who love these species. If you would like to tell him how you feel on this issue here is where you can call.


Phone: 202-224-5274


Fax: 202-228-2183


(Source; Pacific Northwest Herpetological Society ) regarding the banning several types of Pythons from crossing state lines (those of you who have kept informed on all the breed specific legislations levied against Pit Bulls will be painfully familiar with this sort of thing already).

The current version is HR2811 is referred to as the Lacey Act, and the Committee on the Judiciary, The Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism & Homeland Security claim they have "research" proving that these 9 constrictors; pythons, boas, and anacondas pose a danger to humans and to the ecosystem.


Posted on the above herpetological forum is a letter written by several experts disputing the legitimacy of the research on which the act is based. Apparently the study was not peer reviewed and departs from a number of best practices required in good sound research. They make some very good points that should really make people think twice about whether this is such a good move!


I am primarily a dog person but have always had a special place in my heart for reptiles and have in recent months been gaining an increasing interest in snakes. I would like to get a pair of Ball Pythons and have been liesurely looking around planning to take my time and really do my homework in choosing just the right ones, but this bill is disturbing in that its introducers appear to be starting with just a few species as a means to gain a foothold in order to ban more and more species in the future. I may have to get my Ball Pythons alot sooner (while I still can), as I do not know of any breeders in the Atlanta area or even anywhere in Georgia.


I don't like the precedent this bill is setting because its stated purpose (to address the growing problem of non-native species loose in the everglades) is not the only affect it would have and there looks to be deeper hidden agendas inherent in its inception that will only hurt related industry jobs and the enjoyment of these beautiful animals. I can't help but think that some of these hidden agendas are connected to the panic about outsourcing and money leaving the US (because Pythons generally originate from other countries) because the wording prohibits interstate transfer, breeding, and "importing" but not "exporting". It could be that some in Congress feel that American snake breeders are draining American money by purchasing breeding stock from these originating countries. Even so, such worries are probably unfounded because these species have been here in captivity long enough that there are plenty of US sources now from which breeders can obtain their breeding stock.


Apparently Interior Secretary Ken Salizar achieved this ban in sort of a backdoor way bypassing the need for the usual due legislative process;


"By enacting a rule and declaring the snakes “injurious,” Salazar bypassed the need for congressional approval of a ban. It goes into effect in 60 days and does not affect current snake owners.


Read more: http://www.cbs12.com/articles/snakes-4738118-everglades-banned.html#ixzz1jxE52Zf4


CNN U.S Kim Segal reports that the species currently covered by the ban are the following species;


Burmese Python
Northern Python
Southern Python
Yellow Anaconda

While some Parks and Wildlife people are in favor of this ban, I think they fail to see that it misses the mark and is based on alot of faulty assumptions.


A much better approach to the problems in the Everglades would be for everyone to work together to solve those specific issues (in Florida). Breeders and snake enthusiasts should not be left out of the decision-making process. This is not a Federal problem and should not be treated as such, yet since those who have introduced this ban have now "gone there" it has pulled the rest of the country into it and made it our business.


The focus should be on capturing the loose snakes in the Everglades and/or possibly spaying/neutering them to prevent them from reproducing out of control. That would be a much better solution than resorting to this buckshot approach of an overall ban on those species, because the problem is not with the ones in captivity.

As a pet owner I see the far reaching ramifications of this type of extreme legislation. It is like using a sledgehammer when a scalpel would do and it causes way too much collateral damage.


Even if you don't like snakes or are disinterested in them people should have the right to keep them responsibly just as they would other animals. We cannot allow fear to dictate laws in this country. If we do then we run the risk that any of our favorite pets might one day be deemed illegal and that would be a tragic day in America.


To write your Representative in Congress about either or both of these issues go here;

Write Your Representative Now!