New York Anti-Herp Legislation A2869

Heads up! Anti-herp legislation in New York seeks to criminilize ownership of all reptiles “capable of inflicting bodily harm upon a human”

http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A2869

Well I read this as ALL reptiles, no exceptions
"Prohibits the ownership, possession or harboring of a wild animal or reptile;
makes violation a class E felony."

Hit the check mark for "Text" to read the text of the bill.

"Any person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being[, who shall fail to exercise due care in safeguarding the public from attack by such wild animal or reptile,] is guilty of a [misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both] CLASS E FELONY AS DEFINED BY THE PENAL LAW."

Yes, it does say a reptile capable of harming a human being (and isn't every animal capable of that in some way?) but doesn't define "harm" and also says that the person must fail in protecting the public from an attack. You should be fine if your animal never attacks anybody.

Originally Posted by Teatime

Hit the check mark for "Text" to read the text of the bill.

"Any person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being[, who shall fail to exercise due care in safeguarding the public from attack by such wild animal or reptile,] is guilty of a [misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars, or by both] CLASS E FELONY AS DEFINED BY THE PENAL LAW."

Yes, it does say a reptile capable of harming a human being (and isn't every animal capable of that in some way?) but doesn't define "harm" and also says that the person must fail in protecting the public from an attack. You should be fine if your animal never attacks anybody.

The wording in the parenthesis are actually what has been removed from the bill, and is no longer applicable. That means that no matter how secure you make that animal's enclosure, if that animal is capable of causing bodily harm then it's illegal to have. I bet they could still consider it bodily harm should someone jump and hurt themselves in surprise of the animal's movement.

The text, of the bill, is as follows:

A02869 Text:

S T A T E O F N E W Y O R K
__________________________________________________ ______________________

2869

2013-2014 Regular Sessions

I N A S S E M B L Y

January 18, 2013
___________

Introduced by M. of A. CLARK -- read once and referred to the Committee
on Agriculture

AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to prohib-
iting the ownership, possession or harboring of a wild animal or
reptile

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, REPRESENTED IN SENATE AND ASSEMBLY, DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

1 Section 1. Section 370 of the agriculture and markets law, as added by
2 chapter 1047 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:
3 S 370. [Protection of the public from attack by] PROHIBITION OF THE
4 OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION OR HARBORING OF wild animals and reptiles. Any
5 person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable
6 of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being[, who shall fail to exer-
7 cise due care in safeguarding the public from attack by such wild animal
8 or reptile,] is guilty of a [misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment for
9 not more than one year, or by a fine of not more than five hundred
10 dollars, or by both] CLASS E FELONY AS DEFINED BY THE PENAL LAW. FOR
11 THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "[Wild] WILD animal" [within the meaning
12 of this section, shall not include a dog or cat or other domestic
13 animal] IS DEFINED IN ACCORDANCE TO PARAGRAPH E OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF
14 SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION LAW.
15 Previous attacks upon a human being by such wild animal or reptile, or
16 knowledge of the vicious propensities of such wild animal or reptile, on
17 the part of the possessor or harborer thereof, shall not be required to
18 be proven by the people upon a prosecution hereunder; and neither the
19 fact that such wild animal or reptile has not previously attacked a
20 human being, nor lack of knowledge of the vicious propensities of such
21 wild animal or reptile on the part of the owner, possessor or harborer
22 thereof shall constitute a defense to a prosecution hereunder.
23 S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
24 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

They are wanting to change it to the following:

1 Section 1. Section 370 of the agriculture and markets law, as added by
2 chapter 1047 of the laws of 1965, is amended to read as follows:
3 S 370. PROHIBITION OF THE OWNERSHIP, POSSESSION OR HARBORING OF wild
4 animals and reptiles.
5 Any person owning, possessing or harboring a wild animal or reptile capable
6 of inflicting bodily harm upon a human being is guilty of a CLASS E FELONY
7 AS DEFINED BY THE PENAL LAW.
8 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "WILD animal" IS DEFINED IN ACCORDANCE
9 TO PARAGRAPH E OF SUBDIVISION SIX OF SECTION 11-0103 OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL
10 CONSERVATION LAW.
11 Previous attacks upon a human being by such wild animal or reptile, or
12 knowledge of the vicious propensities of such wild animal or reptile, on
13 the part of the possessor or harborer thereof, shall not be required to
14 be proven by the people upon a prosecution hereunder; and neither the
15 fact that such wild animal or reptile has not previously attacked a
16 human being, nor lack of knowledge of the vicious propensities of such
17 wild animal or reptile on the part of the owner, possessor or harborer
18 thereof shall constitute a defense to a prosecution hereunder.
19 S 2. This act shall take effect on the first of November next succeed-
20 ing the date on which it shall have become a law.

The bill states that this applies to those animals as defined in Paragraph E Of Subdivision Six of Section 11-0103 Of The Environmental Conservation Law. Those are as follows:

N.Y. Environmental Conservation Law 11-0103 (Paragraph E of Subdivision Six)

e. "Wild animal" shall not include "companion animal" as defined in section three hundred fifty of the agriculture and markets law. Wild animal includes, and is limited to, any or all of the following orders and families:

(1) Nonhuman primates and prosimians,

(2) Felidae and all hybrids thereof, with the exception of the species Felis catus (domesticated and feral cats, which shall mean domesticated cats that were formerly owned and that have been abandoned and that are no longer socialized, as well as offspring of such cats) and hybrids of Felis catus that are registered by the American Cat Fanciers Association or the International Cat Association provided that such cats be without any wild felid parentage for a minimum of five generations,

(3) Canidae (with the exception of domesticated dogs and captive bred fennec foxes (vulpes zerda)),

(4) Ursidae,

(5) All reptiles that are venomous by nature, pursuant to department regulation, and the following species and orders: Burmese Python (Python m. bivittatus), Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus), African Rock Python (Python sabae), Green Anaconda (Eunectes maurinus), Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), Australian Amethystine Python (Morelia amethistina and Morelia kinghorni), Indian Python (Python molurus), Asiatic (water) Monitor (Varanus salvator), Nile Monitor (Varanus nilocitus), White Throat Monitor (Varanus albigularis), Black Throat Monitor (Varanus albigularis ionides) and Crocodile Monitor (Varanus salvadori), Komodo Dragon (Varanus komodensis) and any hybrid thereof,

(6) Crocodylia.

Memo of the bill on the link OP posted

BILL NUMBER:A2869

TITLE OF BILL: An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in
relation to prohibiting the ownership, possession or harboring of a wild
animal or reptile

PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:

SUMMARY OF SPECIFIC PROVISIONS: This bill amends section 370 of the
agriculture and markets law, as added by chapter 1047 of the laws of
1965, to prohibit the ownership, possession or harboring of wild animals
and reptiles as defined in accordance to paragraph e of subdivision six
of section 11-0103 of the environmental conservation law, and to classi-
fy violations of section 370 as class E felonies. This bill does not
alter existing exemptions in section 11-0512 of the environmental
conservation law that allow certain persons and entities to possess wild
animals.

JUSTIFICATION: Current law regulates certain ownership of wild animals
and reptiles by making owners who fail to exercise due care in safe-
guarding the public from attack by such animals guilty of a misdemeanor,
punishable by up to one year imprisonment and/or a fine of up to $500.
As the recent tragic attack by a wild animal on a woman in Connecticut
made clear, however, wild animal owners may not always recognize, under-
stand, or be equipped to adequately handle the physical and behavioral
needs of these animals. As a result, owners may not be able to safeguard
the public by preventing attack by the animal.

By prohibiting certain ownership of wild animals and by penalizing
violations of the law as a felony, this bill will help to ensure the
well-being of both wild animals and the public by ensuring wild animals
are only owned by persons and entities properly equipped to recognize
and meet their physical and behavioral needs.

PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
4/28/09 - A.7935, referred to Agriculture
1/6/10 - A.7935, referred to Agriculture
01/19/11 - A.2564 referred to agriculture
01/04/12 - A.2564 referred to agriculture

FISCAL IMPLICATIONS: To be determined.

EFFECTIVE DATE: The first of November next succeeding the date on which
it becomes law.

So what do we do this time ? Someone posted a link on Cl that lets you fill out a form to voice my opinion.
But, its cl and i will not use a link there. And,it wants my full address and i dont just throw it out to the gov. saying i own this many of this reptile.

Any info would be nice.
Thanks
Rich

I know USARK and that new group are doing online petition letters, but personally I don't like those because they state that I am a reptile owner (don't want to give them power if this passes) and I don't fully agree with some of the wording. One thing that I am going to do was an idea someone posted on iHerp, which is basically writing your own letter and mailing it: http://www.iherp.com/Public/Blog/Detail.aspx?UID=141484

I am typing up my letters and will send them to my area Assemblymen/women
Thank you for the link.

Funny thing is, NY already has this law in a less generic form. That's why burms, afrocks, retics, anacondas, amethystines, and several monitors cannot be kept here. Venomous and crocodilians were already regulated prior to that. I will be making that point when I contact them...