Ohio Falls

Originally Posted by natsamjosh

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Compromising solely out of fear is the problem, imo.. *especially* when the party you are compromising with is not acting in good faith. (The entities pushing these laws don't want responsible ownership, they want NO ownership.)

Compromising is not always good or appropriate. For example, say I came up to you and asked you to help me kill someone we didn't like. Would you say no, or would you say, well, killing is too extreme, let's compromise and just break his legs?

My question to you as well as others who agree with you is - why don't you have a problem with a government that comes up with completely ridiculous laws that have no basis in reality, and then bullies its citizens into "compromising" with these intrusive, useless, and laws that only inconvenience responsible owners and do nothing to prevent irresponsible owners??

First of all, I do have a problem with governments doing what you say and I will oppose legislation like this every chance I get. I am not a fan of government control nor am I a fan of permits. The reality is that in many cases we either compromise or we lose our animals or we become criminals. Is it the best situation, not at all, I have always opposed animal bans and will continue to do so but when faced with the choice I'd choose a permit system over a ban any day of the week.

The problem is we will never be able to prevent our legislators from coming up with crap like this. These proposals are almost always knee jerk reactions to some idiot who has allowed his animal or animals to become a problem. They are proposed out of fear and ignorance. Since I highly doubt we will ever be able prevent idiots from owning animals and allowing them to become problems and since I highly doubt we will ever be able to to remove all the fear and ignorance from our politicians we will always be forced to deal with situations like this.

I said in my first post that I don't see anything wrong with requiring people to have permits for certain animals. I stand by that because I do think that there are some animals that people shouldn't own. Not that they shouldn't have the right to own them, I think if you can keep an animal properly you should be able to no matter what it is, its just that there are some animals that very very few people have the ability to care for properly. If they are going to own them they should be able to show they are capable and if for some reason they are not capable they should be able to show they have the ability to take responsibility for them if something goes wrong.

The Ohio plan is a little different in that the permits are only for animals that people own now. No permits for new animals will be allowed. I would not support that at all as essentially it is a ban in progress. Eventually all the exotics being held now will be dead and they will have their ban.

Like I said, I have and will continue to oppose bans and permits when they are applied in an obviously ill conceived manner. I would never support a system that would require a permit for a ball python or a bearded dragon or some other harmless exotic. I would not even support a system that would require a permit for a lion or a tiger or a Nile crocodile UNLESS, the alternative would be a system that would not allow a person to keep one at all.

We are past the point of petitions the bill passed. Unless the govenor vetoes or does not sign the bill, both unlikely, the only recourse is battling in court to have it overturned. That would be expensive and difficult.

Originally Posted by Ed Clark

The fact that the authorities had to come in and shoot roaming dangerous animals means that you do live in a state exactly like I described,if it happened one time it can happen again.

Let me ask you this, Ed, what happens when the 'next time' is a disgruntled AZA zoo employee that lets animals loose? AZA facilities are exempt from laws like these, but I know when I worked at an AZA zoo I had keys to open practically everything I wanted to. It's just as likely to happen there as it is in a private facility, in fact, escapes happen ALL THE TIME at AZA zoos...yet they remain exempt. The point is, this was an ISOLATED incident, involving ONE man and ONE facility. It's like saying because one guy goes on a rampage and slams his car through the front of a crowded McDonalds, killing patrons inside, that we should ban both cars and McDonalds. The difference in this case is NO ONE was hurt except the animals (not counting Terry's suicide, of course.)

Kameron,you just made my point that if it happened once it can happen again,even if its your fictional AZA employee.

Originally Posted by sea-aggie

Let me ask you this, Ed, what happens when the 'next time' is a disgruntled AZA zoo employee that lets animals loose? AZA facilities are exempt from laws like these, but I know when I worked at an AZA zoo I had keys to open practically everything I wanted to. It's just as likely to happen there as it is in a private facility, in fact, escapes happen ALL THE TIME at AZA zoos...yet they remain exempt. The point is, this was an ISOLATED incident, involving ONE man and ONE facility.

I read this analogy then looked over at the albino iguana that is next to my desk looking my way and said this has got to be the grand daddy of all analogys.

It's like saying because one guy goes on a rampage and slams his car through the front, of a crowded McDonalds, killing patrons inside, that we should ban both cars and McDonalds. The difference in this case is NO ONE was hurt except the animals (not counting Terry's suicide, of course.)

We are having new regulations and laws shoved down all our throats and there is little or nothing we can do about it.

Originally Posted by Ed Clark

Certainly not punish anyone,if a permit system is what they propose for anyone keeping exotic animals such as herps I can't see that ever being punishment.

What I read in the first post was

The measure would ban new ownership of exotic animals, while allowing current owners to keep their creatures by obtaining a new state-issued permit by 2014 and adhering to strict new caretaking standards.

The permit is for only current owners. Ban on all new ownership. That certainly is a punishment to all potential future owners. It is in fact a blanket ban on all ownership in the future for private citizens.

Originally Posted by Ed Clark

I think I would strongly consider supporting this bill in Ohio if I lived in a state with dangerous animals roaming loose,tighter regulation is clearly needed.

I can not see a small fee negatively impacting a family that keeps exotic pets,in Jersey we have regulations for keeping exotic pets(reptiles etc.) that require us to purchase a hobby permit $15.00 or an animal dealer permit for $100.00

Let me ask you Ed, Do you really think someone who snaps and kills themselves and sets their animals free would not do it if they had a permit?

I can see it now "I'm going to set free a bunch of bears and tigers today and kill myself! Oh wait, I have permit. I better not do it.

You can't legislate yourself into a safe protective bubble where nothing will ever go wrong.

So how many times in the past as someone killed themselves and set free all sorts of potentially dangerous predators in that state? Can't be many.

If someone decided to do the same next year, I doubt having a permit will be a deterrent.

I'm not going to bother looking it up but I believe that guy operated his place for a very long time before he lost it and did what he did. It could happen anywhere regardless of having to pay a fee keep animals.

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

Let me ask you Ed, Do you really think someone who snaps and kills themselves and sets their animals free would not do it if they had a permit?

Nothing will deter a person like the guy that did this.

Originally Posted by Ed Clark

Nothing will deter a person like the guy that did this.

Exactly!
Thus, this bill/law, that does nothing but hurt responsible owners, is quite overboard, unnecessary, and, once again, ludicrous.
Not every human being is missing a few screws.

Originally Posted by Ed Clark

Kameron,you just made my point that if it happened once it can happen again,even if its your fictional AZA employee.



.

Actually, Ed...I did not 'make your point.' MY point was that this ISOLATED incident should not be the reason for such sweeping regulations. MY point was, that under this regulation (and many others) AZA (and sometimes GFAS, ZAA, etc.) facilities are exempt...yet they have MORE escapes than private sector, MORE injuries, and the few fatalities that have happened to 'innocent' bystanders (tiger in San Fran, anyone?? although I don't really count those guys as 'innocent.') These regulations punish responsible people, contain exemptions for arbitrary 'clubs' and are not necessary.