How would like feel having to give up your treasured pet due to someone passing a law stating your pet is now illegal? This has happened to Pit Bull owners and it is now happening to reptile and fish owners.
The State of CT passed a bill giving one person, the Commissioner of the state the right to decide what animals are and are not legal to own. If you are caught with any of these animals it can be up to $1000 fee for each one. So if you have 3 fish tanks with 10 fish each..watch out. The Beardley Zoo is holding an Animal Amnesty Day in response to the final legislation that passed outlawing primates and some other exotics.
Follow over the flip for more info:
I would like to draw attention to a group that deals with Reptile and Fish Keeping political issues. It is call the US Association of Reptile Keepers and they are
a science and education based advocacy for the responsible private ownership of, and trade in reptiles. We endorse caging standards, sound husbandry, escape prevention protocols, and an integrated approach to vital conservation issues. Our goal is to facilitate cooperation between government agencies, the scientific community, and the private sector in order to produce policy proposals that will effectively address important husbandry and conservation issues. The health of these animals, public safety, and maintaining ecological integrity are our primary concerns
If you are interested in or keep fish or reptiles please read this diary and go to the US Association of Reptile Keepers site and join or at least look at the bills that are being proposed that would make it illegal to own ANY reptile or fish.
Another group is the PIJAC The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council Their mission statement is to
promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, fosters environmental stewardship, and ensures the availability of pets. It is a nonprofit, service-oriented organization comprised of Members who care about pets and the pet industry.
According to the 2009-2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey (April 2009):
• 14,000,000 US Households (42,600,000 people) maintain freshwater and
saltwater fish;
• 6,000,000 households (18,000,000 people) maintain pet birds;
• 4,700,000 households (16,000,000 people) maintain reptiles; and,
• 5,300,000 households (19,100,000 people) maintain small mammals (non
dog/cat).
The above data are conservative because they do not take into account multi-pet household ownership (i.e., a dog owning household with fish, bird or reptiles).
Not nearly as many as dogs and cats but the numbers are growing each year. As people have less time and live in dwellings where dogs and cats are not allowed they turn to the fascinating world of reptiles or fish to find a new companion.
The reptile trade in the last 20 years has progressed in HUGE leaps and bounds not only in learning better husbandry but also in trying to become more ethical in how they obtain their pets. Many people in the trade try only to buy captive bred reptiles so to lower the impact on the environment, also species like the Crested Gecko has been saved from extinction because of the pet trade.
Not to say there are not still plenty of people in countries that have bad economies that harvest too many lizards to sell to the pet trade to try to survive; but there are many people working to try to achieve a more eco friendly approach to collection wild reptiles.
The state of Connecticut passed the following bill: Passed through their Senate and House Unanimously on 06/03/09
Full text of bill here
Sec. 3. Section 26-55 of the general statutes is repealed and the following is substituted in lieu thereof (Effective October 1, 2009):
[No] (a) Except as provided in subsection (c) of this section, no person shall import or introduce into the state, or possess or liberate therein, any live fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate unless such person has obtained a permit therefor from the commissioner. [, provided nothing in this section shall be construed to require such permit for any primate species that weighs not more than fifty pounds at maturity that was imported or possessed in the state prior to October 1, 2003.] Such permit may be issued at the discretion of the commissioner under such regulations as the commissioner may prescribe. The commissioner may by regulation prescribe the numbers of live fish, wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates of certain species which may be imported, possessed, introduced into the state or liberated therein. The commissioner may by regulation exempt certain species or groups of live fish from the permit requirements. The commissioner may by regulation determine which species of wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates must meet permit requirements. The commissioner may totally prohibit the importation, possession, introduction into the state or liberation therein of certain species which the commissioner has determined may be a potential threat to humans, agricultural crops or established species of plants, fish, birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates. The commissioner may by regulation exempt from permit requirements organizations or institutions such as municipal parks, zoos, laboratories and research [laboratories, colleges or universities] facilities maintained by scientific or educational institutions, museums, public nonprofit aquaria or nature centers where live fish, wild birds, wild mammals, reptiles, amphibians or invertebrates are held in strict confinement.
(d) Any such fish, bird, mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate illegally imported into the state or illegally possessed therein [shall] may be seized by any representative of the Department of Environmental Protection and [shall] may be relocated or disposed of as determined by the commissioner. [Any person, except as provided in section 26-55a, who violates any provision of this section or any regulation issued by the commissioner as provided in this section shall be guilty of an infraction. Importation, liberation or possession of each fish, wild bird, wild mammal, reptile, amphibian or invertebrate in violation of this section or such regulation shall be a separate and distinct offense and, in the case of a continuing violation, each day of continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense.] The Department of Environmental Protection shall issue a bill to the owner or person in illegal possession of such animal for all costs of seizure, care, maintenance, relocation or disposal for such animal.
(e) Any person who violates any provision of this section or any regulation adopted by the commissioner pursuant to this section shall be assessed a civil penalty not to exceed one thousand dollars, to be fixed by the court, for each offense. Each violation shall be a separate and distinct offense. In the case of a continuing violation, each day's continuance thereof shall be deemed to be a separate and distinct offense. The Commissioner of Environmental Protection may request the Attorney General to institute an action in Superior Court to recover such civil penalty and any amounts owed pursuant to a bill issued in accordance with subsection (d) of this section and for an order providing such equitable and injunctive relief as the court deems appropriate.
Now the disturbing thing about the language is outlawing ALL reptiles and fish. Most people do not buy their reptile from Petco or Petsmart, most reptile sales are done by small hobbyist breeders like my housemate is or breeders who started small and became large but are still individuals, not corporations. Take Allen Repashy for instance. He went to New Caledonia and caught some crested geckos and other members of the Rhacodactylus family 15 or so years ago and started to breed them. He now has branched out into creating food, medicines etc. specifically for crested geckos and reptiles that allows people to keep their lizards healthier and happier. In doing so he has created allowed 1000s of people to enjoy these lizards and start their own breeding projects. To top it off he and others may help to save the Crested Gecko and other New Caledonian lizards from extinction due to captive breeding. They were thought to be extinct until rediscovered after a tropical storm in 1994 which is when Repashy and others found them. They are no longer exported from the islands but are under threat from a non native ant. Many reptiles such as alligator snapping turtles, Shinisaurus crocodilurus and others have a higher population in captivity than in the wild.
There are currently several bills working their way through various state legislatures and one that keeps getting reintroduced in the US House of Rep that would ban keeping reptiles. Much of this is due to sensational stories of people who keep their animals in substandard housing being "attacked" by their reptile. Many of the larger pythons have this issue when people house them incorrectly. There are also concerns where people get tired of having them and just let them go wherever they are currently living. I agree that releasing non native species into places where they should not be is an issue. However, this is not something that we should punish a whole segment of the pet trade for. This is not only a bad move from the social standpoint but also an economic one. Many hobbyist breeders, tank builders etc. rely on the extra money brought in buy this second income to make ends meet or save up for needed things. To outlaw keeping and/or breeding of reptiles and fish would decimate 1000s of people and wipe out a whole industry that markets tanks, food, decorations, lights etc for the keeping of these animals.
Currently there is a bill pending in the US House. It keeps getting proposed by a legislator from Guam who lost all it's native birds to a non native snake. The snake was not imported by hobbyists but was brought on shipping boats.
The bill is HR 669 and it is proposed under the guise of The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Sounds like a good idea, it has a lot of flaws though.
Per PIJAC The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
• We support the development of a strategic, risk-based process to prevent the introduction of invasive species (harmful nonnative species) into the United States.
• We do not support the approach taken in HR 669. Among other things, HR 669 fails to be strategic in that
(a) it does not adequately take socio-economic issues and risk management
options into account;
(b) it requires funds and staffing not currently available nor likely to be available in the current economic climate to the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS);
(c) the timeline is not achievable given the thousands of species that would need to be assessed by an under-resourced Service;
(d) because so many species would be in limbo awaiting assessment, or
lacking sufficient data to enable an assessment, it would have a substantial economic impact on the pet industry and other industries and the pet owning public;
(e) and it could result in significant unintended consequences of mass releases and/or euthanasia of pets, as well as dramatically increase harvest of some species of native wildlife – native tortoises for example.
• We believe that a constructive risk-based process could be developed and
implemented in a timely manner. We need a process that strategically takes into account, scientific, socio-economic, animal welfare, resource management, and human and institutional issues.
We, the pet industry, and I believe I can speak for other interest groups involved with
nonnative species, are willing to work with you to craft such legislation.
HR 669 is set up for failure – it would be a managerial nightmare for the Service. Given limited staffing and biological data, how will the Service conduct adequate risk assessments on more than 10,000 species currently in trade? How will the Service meet the statutory deadlines set forth in Sections 3 and 4? Upon failure to do so, will the Service be forced to shut down a number of industries dependent upon nonnative species -- such as the pet industry, food aquaculture, and sports fishing?
HR 669 is an overly simplistic approach to a very complex problem which involves much more than running a series of risk assessments in order to publish a list of approved species.
HR 669 needs to be redrafted to direct a risk analysis process rather than a risk assessment. According to the definitions adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (and supported by the US), "risk analysis refers to: (1) the assessment of the consequences of the introduction and of the likelihood of establishment of an alien species using science-based information (i.e., risk assessment), and (2) the identification of measures that can be implemented to reduce or manage these risks (i.e., risk management), taking into account socio-economic and cultural considerations."
Unless socio-economic considerations and a comprehensive set of risk management options are adequately accounted for in this process, the vast majority of nonnative species will land on the "in limbo list" (Section 5(b)(3)(C)) due to there being "insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination" as to whether the species should be on the Approved or Unapproved lists. Nor should it be overlooked that there are already management measures in place for some species that reduce the risk of invasiveness.
Congress must also carefully consider both the financial costs and benefits of imported species. The loss of certain high-income fish, for example, could result in the collapse of the entire ornamental fish industry and have significant repercussions for product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers throughout the country
I know this may not seem to be a major issue with Health Care and everything else going on the country, certainly not as entertaining as watching the various Rethugs self destruct but I wanted to draw Kossack attention to this issue because the more people know about this that care for reptiles and fish the more we can try to get intelligent legislation re: the sale, keeping and releasing of these animals.
For an example of intelligent legislation on these issues see This bill from North Carolina.
The truth of the matter is the majority of snakes and reptiles that are sold and owned are utterly harmless to people. The Poison Dart Frog for instance is only poisonous in the wild because it synthsizes the poisons from the ants and insects it eats to make it's own. In captivity they are fed crickets and worms so they are not poisonous to anyone. People do choose to own "hot" or poisonous reptiles and usually when you hear of someone getting bit by those it is because the human made a mistake, not that the animal is vicious. There was a recent case of a 2 year old child was killed by an 8 foot python that got out of it's tank. The people were using a quilt tied down as a lid, not an actual locking enclosure.
The owner of a snake that strangled a toddler may soon face neglect charges after deputies discovered the snake was kept in its enclosure using a quilt and some rope, FLORIDA TODAY news partner WKMG Local 6 reports
From another article
The snake's owner 32-year-old Charles Darnell is Jaren Ashley Hare's, the child's mother's, boy friend. Darnell told deputies he secured the snake before going to bed. Around 12:30 a.m. he found the snake outside of its aquarium and in the living room. Darnell told deputies this time he put the snake in a bag secured it and placed the snake in the aquarium. When he woke up this morning around 9:00 a.m., Darnell says he noticed the snake had slithered away again. He ran to the 2 year old girl's bedroom.
I don't think we should be selling huge snakes to just anyone but out and out outlawing all reptiles is not the right path to take.
Fish and reptile keepers for the most part want to protect their native ecosystems as much as the ecosystems their pets came from so it is not fair for the legislatures to assume that because we keep the animals we are going to release them and cause damage. Most people that do release these animals are either uneducated on what their fish or reptile would turn into (they buy the little turtle not realizing that red eared slider turtles are some of the messiest creatures in the world and are hard to take care of) or they had to move and didn't want to take their animal with them. When that happens with dogs or cats they get turned into the pound or Humane Society. When it happens to reptiles they get dumped because there are not that many rescue groups for reptiles.
If you have a fish or reptile please consider signing up for the newsletters from USARK and/of PIJAC to keep up to date on legislation that may affect your ability to keep your pet.
Thank you for reading,
Chaos
For those who are interested as to why I am interested:
My MySpace page with videos of all our leopard geckos and a few of our Crested Geckos
We currently have several leopard gecko eggs incubating. Next year we wil be breeding the crested geckos as well. We do not want to be in a situation where we cannot sell these completely harmless, very fascinating and friendly reptiles due to some incompetent legislation pushed by someone with an uneducated bias towards reptile keeping.