Has this ever happened to you,,?

The information I am sure is quite easy to obtain, I for one only moved from Denver area a few short years ago, went to college there, lived there for over 10 years, know a lot of people. Would I? Naw. The reason why? Because although Seamus has been rude and crude at times he (as it seems to me) love his animals, he keeps a relatively low profile and I do not believe is hindering the community as a whole. Meaning he doesn't brag, boast, sell (that I know of) or is cruel (at least not to snakes LOL) I would not purposely stir up trouble that way.
I think Seamus needs to admit that he was harsh on you, and he was, but to try to go the path you are trying go..... well, I wouldn't do it, its just not right.

Seamus, I wish it were that easy. Unfortunately it is not. PETA wants some of the same things too, they just go way over the edge and do not even want us to OWN reptile, exotics. Shame.
Unfortunately PETA will not bend, not even a little, which does put the herp society on edge. We do not know who is safe and who is not. As good as the BOI is at helping it can not do it all. One may get a good buy, post then wham......... they are selling bad. Sometimes we have to do something risky, something that may imply PETA yet is not. Example: Marcia owns reptiles, the very thing that PETA wants to ban people from owning. Marcia did something within the limits of the law that already existed, now is she a bad PETA fan, or a good, caring herper? See, it works both sides, it needs to be looked at from ALL sides. There can be good herpers out there who can make a change and not be a PETA fan nor do they even support PETA.
I again am not saying what she did is good or bad, I am saying that even with all you have said these last few posts, and a lot made sense, unfortunately there has to be other risks as well.
Since I have found the BOI my eyes and knowledge has expanded greatly. I see the good and the bad. And I try to look at everything, without looking at all sides you can be gotten.

as far as what he said here:

"Internal control.

Stop giving money to bad breeders.

Start giving money to good breeders.

Make unhealthy animals unprofitable.

Tell new keepers the good people to deal with and the people to shy away from.

Use the BOI and other similar forums.

Explain that long term financial success can only come from a repeat customer base which only arises through having quality animals and good customer service to anyone who seems to be slipping.

When unhealthy animals are no longer profitable, they are no longer produced."

In fact that may be one of the most intelligent statements ever posted here on the BOI. Just my opinion (of course!).

There's a line between wanting to help an animal and wanting to punish the animal's owner

-Seamus

I could not agree with this quote more, and this is probably one of the roots of the heated debate/argument we are having.

I do not think that this will affect the herp industry as much as many think it will. There is a great interest in owning and collecting various herps. I would like to compair it to the "puppy industry" (I know this is a bad comparison but it's the best I can think of), at first puppies were sold as objects, by puppy plantations who only wanted to produce as many as possible for as cheap as possible. Everyone wants a puppy. People started to find out about the deplorable conditions of puppy mills/plantations. Rules, regulations and laws were enacted to protect the saftey and health of puppies and their parents. People still wanted puppies, so they bought them, even though prices went up. I believe that this is compairable to the leo market. I do educational shows at the local schools in my area, and everytime I bring out the leos all the kids sigh and oogle at them. I almost always have one or two kids ask me how they can get one. With the demand as it is, the market will remain.

As for venemous and other rare and more difficult to take care of animals. Why shouldn't we want some regulations on owning them? I don't want a six year old kid owning an anaconda, or a crocodile. These high-demand animals need qualified owners who are commited to keeping them. I am against banning the ownership of animals (unless its affecting the natural population). But not everyone should be able to own one, and not everybody should be able to sell them either. If Petco, and thier supplier, can't take care of their animals, then why should they be allowed to continue to sell them? We need stores that will provide quality animals, and be good role models and resources for prospective owners. Petco doesn't sell rare or dangerous (persay, I know that any animal can be dangerous if provocked and given the upperhand) animals, I, personally, don't see this issue bleeding over into the rare, exotic legal arena. This issue is centered on the care of the animals, not the ownership of them. Petco can continue to sell these animals if they improve the standards at which they are kept. (I am no lawyer, but I don't see why they would be shut down or told to discontinue selling reptiles if they comply with the regulations given to them, they are a largish part in the economy and with the days as they are, we need all the jobs we can get)

Missy
(ps realise that I am stating this from a reasonably educated perspective, but I am not a marketing or lawyer person, simply a well educated teacher who has a very open and logical mind)

As for venemous and other rare and more difficult to take care of animals. Why shouldn't we want some regulations on owning them?

Because it's a silly and unenforceable law, no matter how it would seem to start.

The ownership of anything being regulated only affects the honest people, the ones who would be keeping the animal in the conditions it should be kept in anyway.

I equate it to gun control. The people who use guns illegally also obtain guns illegally and laws that make it harder to own a gun only punish the people who should be allowed to have them to start.

Massachusetts has some odd herp laws. The New England Herp Society has a copy of them on their website http://www.neherp.com (I think) that you can peruse...

Rare animals require permits... rare animals like green tree pythons, emerald tree boas and chameleons. My personal conjecture, knowing the tendencies of the state's legislators is that these animals "Looked rare" and probably allowed the people supporting the restriction of their ownership to claim they were helping the environment and saving the rainforest or something. They are also species that are slightly more delicate, but no more so than a number of animals that are perfectly legal and unregulated and not to the point where they should require a permit to own one.

Loads of people own them anyway and simply ignore the permit, driving to New Hampshire or Rhode Island in order to obtain the animals, I do not know of a single instance where anyone has been caught or fined or had the animals removed except a few pet stores, but even then it was just "Send them out of state and get them off the sales floor."

It's designed to protect "rare" species but all it does is charge the people who own them legitimatly money without having any effect.

"Dangerous" species are regulated too... like 'condas, 'tics and african rocks... But not burms. Someone explain that one to me please... because I just don't see the point.

All varanids require a permit because of the danger of owning one, what with all those ackies eating entire day cares full of children... but iguanas and tegus are legal.

The point is... regulation for the most part is pretty useless... it only impedes the people most likely to be doing what they should be doing to start without stopping the problem in the least. I do believe hot species (front fanged anyway) should require a permit, but that's something of a separate issue.

Animal welfare laws are already in place, animal protection laws to prevent cruelty... But they are punitive, not preventative. They don't actually stop anyone from kicking their dog, they just punish them after the fact IF they get caught. The laws are also pretty subjective, the application will change based on the knowledge of the individual animal control officer. Heck, there's one who frequents another MB system who thinks rack systems are cruel to use for any reptile. Do you want that person to be wandering around your home, making idiot comments "Lookie here, we gots ourselves some geicos in boxes, y'all're goin' t'jail mister."

As to the issue being centered around the care rather than the ownership of the animals... it's only a step away. Petco is actually having their ability to sell the animals attacked, their ability to have animals in the store... Petco owns those animals until they are sold. A big chain store is a step away from a small store is a step away from a breeder is a step away from a hobbiest.

Fact is... the reptile industry operates under a constant threat from PETA and HSUS types... from people who think snakes, any snakes are dangerous or "icky" and from local governing bodies that don't know better. Inviting legislation only punishes the good people and doesn't hurt the bad guys in the least.

Internal regulation, the power of the dollar, education and industry pressure towards quality are what will keep the industry safe and what will keep the animals healthy. Everything else is just punishment.

All I know is, that if this thread continues... PeTA will come and get us ALL for beating a dead horse!

PETA and thats ethical treatment of animals not People Eat Tasty Animals....

The premise is that the conditions of how exotics are raised, shipped, bred, or even smuggled is against what they call ethical treatment. And yes we all know that there are entities out there that raise and breed herps that fit into this catagory. PETA simply believes that if owning them is illegal then the breeders, shippers, smuglers wouldnt be able to make a profit therefore no bad treatment. The comparison to making guns illegal means only criminals would have guns comes to mind.

The fastest and surest way to avoid a PETA style interference is to have the industry and hobby take the steps to "police" itself. Some of the things that Seamus has said are valid. And PETA and Seamus seem to agree "take the profit out of the mistreated animals" then only the ethical breeders are used (the last is Seamus not PETA). Are you sure your not a secret PETA member Seamus?? LOL Joking hope someone is laughing!

We need to be sure animals are treated well, we need to promote the purchases from reputable breeders, and retailers. Petco may not be one. And above all we need to educate both the prospective buyer as well as the retailers who cut too close to the grey area.

We need to be sure animals are treated well, we need to promote the purchases from reputable breeders, and retailers. Petco may not be one.

There's a difference between encouraging people to buy from a better source and supporting legal action against a company.

There's a difference between encouraging people to buy from a better source and supporting legal action against a company.

Agreed, but I would not rule out legal action against a company.

Sometimes the brick wall needs to come to the head not the other way around.

There are several rearfanged species that are more dangerous than several frontfanged species of venomous snakes, which once again points out how hard it is to make a fair regulatory law to protect the public from itself. The thing is that I don't think there are any less bites from pet hots in states that do require hot permits than there are in states that don't, but that would have to be adjusted for the actual populations of captive hots.

Erin B.

There are several rearfanged species that are more dangerous than several frontfanged species of venomous snakes, which once again points out how hard it is to make a fair regulatory law to protect the public from itself

An excellent point, I was generalizing in my statements to some degree...

I don't believe all colubridine hots should be permit free across the boards, but the ones that are dangerous enough to be a problem are few and far between, so can usually be covered by laws regulating the individual species and/or genus.

The difficulty lies in two major concerns;

The first is... Where is the line drawn for what is and is not an acceptable rear fang. Most people will agree that Boomslangs are dangerous and Lyre snakes are not... but the toxicity and yeild ranges through everything in between.

The second is that... Most people responsible for making laws... not suggesting or supporting or rallying for or against, but the people actually responsible for the yes or no and specific words...

[I[Usually[/i] don't know their ass from a hole in the ground when it comes to reptiles.

Laws regulating animals "Over six feet" or "Anything venomous" or "Constrictors" are all made by well intentioned but seriously brainless individuals. A six foot pine snake isn't a danger to anything other than maybe a smallish rat. An asian vine snake is totally harmless (in practical terms anyway). Corn snakes are technically consitrictors (the term only indicates constricting behavior and is often mistakenly used as being synonymous with Boidea, but even that's absurd, has anyone ever been seriously injured by a sand boa?).

The pressure to introduce laws is dangerous because laws are easily changed once they exist... and they set dangerous precidents for other communities, all without ever once actually correcting the "problem" they were implimented to solve.

I was in the chat for a few minutes earlier, talking to someone who lived in New York City who isn't allowed to keep BALL PYTHONS.

But there's no danger of our ability to own animals being damaged, that's just some paranoid delusion of mine.