Anything to be done about city adopting "6ft snakes prohibitted" ordinance?

FOund this out by accident, looking for another ordinance.
SO long story short, my city made "non venomous snakes 6 ft and over PROHIBITTED"

The Code Enforcement officer, I know, and he's the old ANimal controlofficer..
I went to him first, he assured me I'd be grandfathered in.
and he himself was like "nah just don't say anything? andthey won'tknow!"
I said well if I"m going to be grandfathered in, I'd rather do that and be done with it.
( I do take snakes out around town, and do a "Children's Day" in the park yearly, with a snake table..)
SO I went to the lady he said to go to about that, and she (the one who wrote in the ordinance) said in fact NO, there are NO grandfather clauses for snakes.
ONly with past livestock ordinances.

THe Code Enforcement officer, before, had said I could go before City Council
to see if they would change it. maybe to 10 ft.
I"m thinking that and maybe a weight limit?
I know they won't go all out but 6 feet is insane.
SO far I haven't gotten any replies from USARK for help,
or anyone else I've contacted.
My thoughts so far are to collect info and talk to various city council members individually (as I know a number of them personally)
then collect signatures, and businesses/ individuals,
and then go before City Council with some ideas for less (nonesensical) ordinances from other areas.
thoughts?

Good Luck with that.

I don't have any answers for you Amanda. I am a long ways from ya' & I live in the country outside any city limits, but this does not surprise me one bit. My personal thoughts are: Since the federal government passed their restrictive law on the burms that many cities will be putting similar types of laws into effect.

All the non snake folks needed was to get their foot in the door to keep us from enjoying our hobby.

So if there are no snakes allowed over 6 ft then that will pretty much wipe out a majority of the lawyers and government officials in your town

But on a serious note find out when the vote is to be passed and get all signatures and people you need to say no to this bill and show up at the city council meeting to dispute it to their face. Most politicians will back down to an angry crowed in their face. And remind them who votes to keep them in office. Banning snakes over 6 ft is like trying to ban dogs over 70Lbs. Show statistics of deaths related from non venomous reptiles as compared to deaths related from dogs such as Rottwiellers, Dobermans, Pit Bulls, German Shepards and Mastiffs.

Originally Posted by EastCoastArboreals

So if there are no snakes allowed over 6 ft then that will pretty much wipe out a majority of the lawyers and government officials in your town

Sec. 6.01.009. - Prohibited, wild animals or wildlife.


(a) No person shall possess, keep or have care, custody or control of a prohibited animal, wild animal or wildlife within the city except as provided herein.


(b) All persons shall be prohibited from selling, giving, transferring or importing into the city any wild animal.


(c) This section shall not apply to approved zoological parks or circuses. Nor shall this section apply to primary and secondary schools, colleges and universities, zoological parks owned or operated by a governmental entity or any animal assisting physically handicapped persons.


(d) It shall be a defense to prosecution under this section that the animal being kept was an infant or injured animal that was not capable of surviving on its own and that such animal was kept for three (3) days or less, or for such reasonable time as was necessary before giving the animal to a licensed wildlife rehabilitator.
(Ord. No. 2011-O-11A, § II, 1-3-2012)

http://www.ci.marble-falls.tx.us/ani...nance_2011.pdf




Amanda, are you within the city limits?

Sorry I can't help you and I hope you can get things changed but this is a perfect example of what I meant with my comment in the Ohio thread about purposefully vague laws. IMO the animals that are prohibited should be spelled out. If "wild animal" includes snakes it should say snakes. If the list of prohibited animals is too long they should list the ones you can keep. If the only rodents you can keep are hamsters, gerbils guinea pigs rats and mice (no degues, soft furred rats, spiny mice etc.) it should spell that out. I'm sick and tired of laws that outlaw things but no one knows exactly what the outlaw. I'd be tempted to call them three or four times a day and ask "is a ball python considered a wild animal" "is a corn snake considered a wild animal" "is a bearded dragon considered a wild animal" "is a chipmunk considered a wild animal" and keep pestering them.

Steve, the animals included in the prohibition are spelled out under 'prohibited animals' in the definitions in the link I included.

The CDC publishes statistics on dog bite injuries and fatalities in the US.
I put together some good statistics and links in a blog posting titled "Politically Correct Pets" on kingsnake.com, go check it out if you need facts to back the argument that dogs are more dangerous than snakes (they are).
- Mike

Originally Posted by Mike_Sargente

The CDC publishes statistics on dog bite injuries and fatalities in the US.
I put together some good statistics and links in a blog posting titled "Politically Correct Pets" on kingsnake.com, go check it out if you need facts to back the argument that dogs are more dangerous than snakes (they are).
- Mike

Unfortunately snakes are counted as wild animals and harm from them can carry more liability that some dog bites.

Originally Posted by Lucille

Steve, the animals included in the prohibition are spelled out under 'prohibited animals' in the definitions in the link I included.

I do see that now and I must say that this is one of the most detailed laws I have seen. Most laws are not even close to this specific. This law is fairly comprehensive and not nearly as vague as some others but there are still several vague terms including, under the "wild animal" definition the use of "common cage birds and rodents" what is common? Still, it seems to me that when communities take the time to enact ordinances this complete they are open to suggestions. The ones that are filled with vague terms that are left open to interpretation are the ones that give the impression that they don't want to be bothered with details.




Perhaps with some detailed facts and stats you could get the limit increased to 8 or even 10 feet. Show them that a 6'1" kingsnake is no more dangerous than a 5'11" one.