Ok I found all the committee info. Please write all these people. These are the people on the “Police and Fire” committee that will be hearing arguments concerning this ordinance. First I will post the contact info of every member on the committee, then I will post some sample letters sent to me. Please don’t write in and say this sucks. I was a little upset when I posted yesterday but we must keep this professional or they will not take any of us serious. So use these as drafts letter, please don’t copy and paste because if they receive the below letters 20 times they’ll laugh at us. Just use them as a guide. Also I have started emailing the big supply places Big Apple etc. We need to remind these big companies how large of a market they will lose if this passes and force them to get active. These companies have huge customer bases, thousands of names, emails and addresses that this stuff can be forwarded to. All they have to do is ad a flier into there shipments, that would a be a huge help. Anyone selling/shipping animals, supplies etc. inot Chicago needs to let these people know they oppose because of the large amount of money they stand to lose. If these companies get enough letters from us(their customers) to get active maybe we can persuade them to help. So if you have time please email them as well. I beg every person reading this to do something. I am no different then anyone else I have 3 kids(a 2 week old, 18 month old and 10yr old), a huge rodent colony, snakes, monitors etc all that require my attention. I am taking time to do this and get this info out there. All I want in return is for you to please take 10 minutes out of your day to write or call these people. If you can do more and spread the word, THANK YOU! If all you can do is spend a few minutes writing a well thought out letter, THANK YOU as well!! at the very least please send them an email. Please don’t read this and walk away because your in CA or else where. Someday it could be you and in the last 6 months we have seen more legislation then in the last 10yrs. So whens its your city there may be no one left to help. We have to unite and stop this. So please in return all I want is for you to take a little time and contact these people. Later on I will have the scanned proposal up for everyone to read, were working on that now. The hearing for this will be some time next month a date should be set next week after the next baord meeting. As soon as I have a date it will be posted. Also couple of people asked for reference numbers concerning the ordinance. According the city council people I spoke with they do not assign numbers till after the ordinance passes the committee hearing it. So in other words there will be no reference number till after the “Police and Fire” committee has their hearing about this next month some time. WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THIS NEVER GETS A NUMBER BECAUSE WE DEFEAT IT.
Heres the page all the contact info was taken from
http://www.chicityclerk.com/citycoun...s/listing.html
These are the people on the committee who will be hearing the ordinance
President
Alderman: Isaac Carothers Ward Office: 5937 West Madison Avenue
Chicago, Il 60644 Ward Phone: 773-261-4646 E-Mail:
icarothers@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 203
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-3070
Vice Chairman
Alderman: Virginia A. Rugai Ward Office: 10444 S. Western Ave.
Chicago, IL 60643 Ward Phone: 773-238-8766 Fax: 773-238-9049 E-Mail:
vrugai@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-3072
The rest are all members.
Alderman: Madeline L. Haithcock Ward Office: 449 E. 35th Street
Chicago, IL 60616 Ward Phone: 773-924-0014 E-Mail:
mhaithcock@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-6836
Alderman: John A. Pope
Ward Office: 3522 E. 106th Street
Chicago, IL 60617
Ward Phone: 773-721-1999
E-Mail:
jpope@cityofchicago.org
City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602
City Hall Phone: 312-744-3078
Alderman: James A. Balcer Ward Office: 3659 S. Halsted St.
Chicago, IL 60609 Ward Phone: 773-254-6677 E-Mail:
jbalcer@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 203
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-6663
Alderman: George A. Cardenas Ward Office: 2829 W. Cermak Rd.
Chicago, IL 60623
Temporary Location Ward Phone: 773/843-9955 E-Mail: T.B.A. City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 203
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-3040
Alderman: Edward M. Burke Ward Office: 2650 W. 51st Street
Chicago, IL 60632 Ward Phone: 773-471-1414 E-Mail:
eburke@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 302
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-3380
Alderman: Thomas W. Murphy Ward Office: 8146 S. Kedzie Ave.
Chicago, IL 60652 Ward Phone: 773-471-1991 E-Mail:
tmurphy@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-6856
Alderman: Arenda Troutman Ward Office: 5859 S. State St.
Chicago, IL 60621 Ward Phone: 773-324-5224 E-Mail:
atroutman@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 300
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-6840
Alderman: Daniel S. Solis Ward Office: 2439 S. Oakley
Chicago, IL 60608 Ward Phone: 312-843-1200 E-Mail:
dsolis@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 203
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-6845
Alderman: Margaret Laurino Ward Office: 4404 W. Lawrence Ave.
Chicago, IL 60630 Ward Phone: 773-736-5594 E-Mail:
mlaurino@cityofchicago.org City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 203
Chicago, IL 60602 City Hall Phone: 312-744-7242
Alderman: Patrick J. O'Connor
Ward Office: 5850 N. Lincoln Ave.
Chicago, IL 60659
Ward Phone: 773-769-1140
E-Mail:
poconnor@cityofchicago.org
City Hall Office: 121 N. Lasalle St.
Room 305
Chicago, IL 60602
City Hall Phone: 312-744-6858
Here is a couple of sample letters that can be used as examples, please don’t plagiarize them, just use them as guides. I don’t care if your in Great Britain please write these people.
My name is Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry, I am a US Citizen specialising in research on venomous snakes. I am writing in regards to recent proposed legislation (House bill 1725 and Senate Bill 5729) regarding exotic wildlife as pets. These are pre-packaged pieces of legislation put together as part of a campaign by the "Animal Protection Institute" to ban the keeping of animals as pets. While they operate under the guise of concern for public safety, their motivation is simply outlawing pets pure and simple. They have put the exact same bill (word for word) into legislative debate in other States. Recently sanity prevailed (after much bad press) and the bill was defeated in South Carolina. In regards to the specific proposed legislation to ban exotic animals, on the surface this may appear to be reasonable to protect the public. However, a closer examination reveals that the such protection may not be needed. The incidence of exotic animal related injuries is far dwarfed by that of 'companion' animals such as dogs and cats. In API's selective citing of venomous animal related injuries, the vast majority of cases are due to native species in the wild. The bites to private keepers by exotic snakes is quite low and there has never been an instance of one of these snakes escaping and injuring a member of the public. Further, the habitat is unsuitable so in the case of an escape, the chances of long term survival is very unlikely. They neglect to cite the incidence of injury from cats, dogs or horses. In my personal and professional opinion, a lot of benefit, both scientifically, ecologically and economically, arises from the captive keeping of exotic animals. Rather than ban them and make the permits for the existing snakes prohibitively expensive, why not implement a system similar to the rational one in place in Florida? By allowing private keepers who have demonstrated competence to keep the animals, public safety will actually be improved. Rational regulation such as this allows keepers to be above board and thus seek proper medical care in the event of a snake envenomation for example rather than 'trying to ride it out' so that they don't risk losing their snakes. Further, a system such as Florida's will better ensure that the snakes are kept in secure enclosures rather than banning them. If the snakes are banned, then no system will be in place to make sure they are kept properly. People will still keep the snakes, they just will be more furtive about it. As for the specific species of snakes mentioned, the ones in the colubridae are not accurate as a reflection of potential danger. Other than outsized specimens chewing on children for an hour in Guan, no Boiga species has ever caused a serious envenomation. That said, Rhabdophis species are well known to produce serious envenomation. Thus I would recommend the dropping of Boiga and the addition of the Rhabdophis genus. As for the monitor lizards, while Varanus salvator is one of the largest, it is also one of the tamest of all the Varanus species and thus is of very low danger. The incidence of injury by large snakes is extremely low. This is contrary to the impression given by the API and the proposed legislation. In regards to Zoonosis (diseases spread by animals to humans). I have attached below a letter by veterinarians. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. All the best, Bryan Grieg Fry, Ph.D. Australian Venom Research Unit Department of Pharmacology University of Melbourne Parkville, Vic 3010 Australia ------------------ ASSOCIATION OF REPTILIAN AND AMPHIBIAN VETERINARIANS RESPONSE TO HSUS PROPOSAL FOR BAN ON REPTILE PETS. November 10, 2001 To the editor, We are writing in response to the recent publication by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), "Reptiles as Pets: An Examination of the Trade in Live Reptiles in the United States." While we applaud HSUS for highlighting many of the problems associated with the trade in live reptiles, we cannot agree with their conclusion that the reptile trade must be ended, and that the sale of reptiles as pets should be banned. Maintaining captive reptiles can be a rewarding, educational experience, and in some cases may have significant conservation value. Problems associated with the reptile pet trade have been noted by conservation biologists, herpetologists, and veterinarians for decades. These problems include, but are not limited to, zoonotic diseases such as Salmonellosis, damage to wild populations of rare species due to over- collection, introduction of non-native species or exotic diseases, and animal welfare issues regarding transportation of reptiles and survival of reptiles in captivity. These are serious concerns; however, such problems can be overcome by effective education, legislation, and research. Caring for a captive reptile, like caring for any animal, can provide an understanding of the organism that can be achieved in no other way. It may pique ones curiosity, leading to further, more advanced study. Most professional herpetologists, reptile veterinarians, reptile curators, etc. report that maintaining reptiles as pets was an influential part of their childhood and may have guided their career choice. As habitat loss and urbanization continue, maintaining captive reptiles may provide ones only exposure to these organisms. Individuals that maintain captive reptiles are likely to be more concerned with local, regional, and global reptile conservation issues than individuals that have never seen or touched a live reptile. In her recent book "Why the Wild Things Are: Animals in the Lives of Children", psychologist Gail Melson investigates the potential benefit that animals may provide in childhood development. While the field is largely unexplored, Melson suggests that pets may play a role in the development of nurturing skills, compassion, affection, and "may function as a meaning system through which children make sense of both themselves and their surrounding environments." We believe that these theories are true, and that owning a corn snake as a child can be as developmentally important as owning a dog. Obviously, good judgement on the part of a responsible adult is needed, and one must ensure that children caring for reptiles are mature enough to provide proper care and hygiene for the animal, while maintaining their own safety from zoonotic disease. Owning a reptile requires a commitment of time and money as with any pet. It also requires that an appropriate animal be chosen for a given circumstance, and that ethical concerns be addressed. It is no more reasonable to think that a large aggressive reptile will be a good pet than to think that a large aggressive dog will be a good pet. It is no more reasonable to expect an ill, dehydrated, imported reptile to adapt to captivity than to expect a parasitized, parvovirus-infected puppy from a poor source to thrive in its new home. There are a number of species of reptiles now available in the pet trade that are born in captivity, remain relatively small, have known husbandry requirements, and can be obtained in healthy condition from reputable sources. Examples of species in this category are bearded dragons, leopard geckos, corn snakes, milk snakes, ball pythons, and Mediterranean tortoises. Salmonella is a well-known zoonotic disease associated with keeping captive reptiles. Human fatalities do occur from reptile- associated Salmonellosis. However, we are well aware of the risk of zoonotic disease associated with owning dogs, cats, birds, horses, etc, as well as the threat of fatal trauma induced by some dogs or horses. An estimated three to four million dog bites occur each year in the US, half of which involve children. Salmonella is just one of dozens of zoonotic diseases we may get from our pets. Should we avoid owning all animals to prevent zoonoses? The risk of Salmonellosis can be reduced by following guidelines established by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the Association of Reptilian and Amphibian Veterinarians (ARAV), which are available from the ARAV. Decreasing the massive importation and exportation of reptiles may be desirable, particularly for species whose post- importation survival is known to be poor. As an example, we know that hingeback tortoises (Kinixys spp.), that were imported by the thousands from Africa in the past decade, do very poorly in captivity, as do many, many other species. Ending the trade in such species would likely be met with little resistance, and is becoming more practical as more captive-born animals of other species become available However, we are not in favor of complete shut-down of the international reptile trade. There are many very motivated, dedicated private reptile keepers that have made tremendous contributions to herpetological taxonomy, husbandry techniques, and conservation based on the availability of imported animals. As an example, the endangered radiated tortoise (Geochelone radiata) from Madagascar was first bred in the US by a private individual in the 1970s. The progeny of this individuals group formed the basis of much of the captive-breeding program for this species later adopted by zoos throughout the country. More recently, the worlds known population of the endangered McCords box turtle (Cuora mccordi) has been nearly doubled by the breeding groups of private individuals. Completely eliminating the availability of imported specimens may prevent the development of captive assurance colonies of species that are being driven to extinction in their native habitats. While collection for the pet trade has undoubtedly damaged some species populations, habitat destruction and consumption in the international food trade remain the most significant threats to most reptile species. Concerns regarding the welfare of animals in transit and in captivity are valid. Improper shipping techniques and improper husbandry can result in mortality. However, I believe that the best approach to this is not to stop the trade in reptiles, but to work to constantly improve shipping regulations, inspections, penalties for violations, and dissemination of proper husbandry information. We have developed techniques to allow the humane movement of other species, and such techniques can be developed for reptiles. This may involve decreasing the numbers of animals moved in a given shipment, and may mean that prices of animals will increase; but such changes may be inevitable if the demand for healthy, ethically shipped animals increases. Husbandry techniques have improved greatly in the past decade and many excellent texts exist for most of the commonly kept reptiles. Owners that do not provide adequate husbandry simply have not done their research. This should not motivate a ban on reptile pets any more than the dog owner who calls their veterinarian on the day their [bleep] whelps and asks "what do I do?" should motivate a ban on dog ownership. Finally, regarding the issue of the introduction of exotic disease by imported reptiles, we are quite concerned. It is clear that the potential for exotic disease entering the US with reptiles exists. The case of African tortoises imported to Florida, found to be infected with ticks carrying the causative agent of Heartwater disease, brought this risk to the attention of many interested parties. However, this is another situation where research, rather than banishment, is needed. Since the original incident, and stimulated by the incident, an effective and safe acaracide has been identified for use in tortoises. By thinking about the problems, identifying risks, and increasing the vigilance of monitoring, it is possible to discover and address previously unrecognized diseases. If certain diseases are found that cannot be controlled, then an importation ban on the involved reptile species may be warranted. In conclusion, we believe that reptiles should be available as pets. It is desirable to greatly reduce the large-scale sale and importation of reptiles in favor of supporting the more selective sale of domestically bred reptiles of relatively easy to maintain species. The path to this end will involve participation of many groups, but at the forefront should be individual state governments. State governments have control over allowing collection of native animals, as well as which species may be sold in pet stores. In the past, many states have taken the approach of banning a few undesirable species, while allowing the sale of all other species. Perhaps states should consider instead allowing the sale of only certain species that have been captive bred and have known husbandry requirements. Provisions for more serious keepers to obtain permits to maintain restricted species could be issued based on guidelines established by each state. We encourage the veterinary and herpetological communities to voice their dissent to the conclusions of the HSUS Live Reptile Trade report. Sincerely, Charles J. Innis, VMD President, Association of Reptilian and Amphibian Veterinarians Teresa Bradley. DVM Belton, MO Mark Mitchell, DVM, PhD Louisiana State University Elliot Jacobson, DVM, PhD, DACZM University of Florida Dale DeNardo, DVM, PhD University of Arizona Kevin Wright, DVM Phoenix, AZ William Griswold, DVM Tempe, AZ
These were forwarded to me by Bryan and he gave me permission to use as I see fit, so to him I want to say thank you.
ban on reptiles
Linear Mode
