The Dangerous Animal Initiative-USA

[billewicz]

Hello,

For anyone who wants to keep their reptiles legally, breed them, buy them or sell them; this might be worth your time.

The Dangerous Animal Initiative in Virgina is being watched be most every state with an eye toward legislation to govern, restrict or ban exotic and 'dangerous' animals. That's every reptile we keep ladies and gentlemen.

Those national groups who's agendas are firmly focused on making sure we never see another reptile again have there biggest high paid attorney's present and fighting to pen a recommendation that is not in our favor or best interest.

Why? Because Virginia is the first to put for such a huge effort and create a reasonably well balanced 'work-group' of stakeholders to hammer out what could easily become VA law next year.

Other states will take the easy way out and adopt the Virginia code and use it as their own. That means you could see this same legislation pretty much regardless of what state you live in, if it has not already created updated restrictions and bans, etc.

Please don't hesitate to contact the work-group with any questions or comments at [email protected]. These 30 people may very well hold your rights to own reptiles in the very near future.

You can also follow David Means tread posted here for more information.

Just remember that doing nothing is a vote for those who would see all reptile ownership banned and make it financially and bureaucratically impossible to display for educational endeavors as well.

 

[Lucille]

One problem is the almost automatic negative response from critter keepers to anyone who wants to write any legislation directed at defining and controlling dangerous animals.
There is a good solid point that we do not need legislation for everything.

But this initiative was started after 50 dangerous animals were released in Ohio. From a news article: 'Such questions currently are challenging a state study panel, appointed by Gov. Bob McDonnell after the horrific case last year in Ohio in which the owner of a wild animal menagerie deliberately turned lions, tigers and other dangerous animals loose on the community, and then killed himself. Confronted with roaming, aggressive wild animals, local law enforcement officers shot and killed 49 of them — including rare Bengal tigers.'

I myself love critters, but frankly I don't want a loose stray tiger in my back yard.
So when critter keepers won't figure out safety issues because they just wave their hands and say they do not want government interference, your general public who also doesn't want tigers in their back yard is going to disregard those people.

Right now we have two groups, the government promising safety through legislation (and people deserve to be safe) and critter owners who not only do not want legislation (of course we don't, we want to keep our critters) but who also have not figured out alternative ways to deal with the safety issues (not to mention the expense of rounding up 50 wild animals, just to reference the incident that started it all.)

 

[billewicz]

In general I agree with the stereo-typical 'sides' to this issue.

And what we saw was the knee-jerk proposals from uninformed lawmakers around the country trying to table across the board bans that would have effectively closed most zoos, and most of the exotic pet trade.

Should the average person keep lions, tigers or bears? No. But that is not a reason to ban them COMPLETELY!!!

There is no logic to most of this. You can't fix or legislate stupid! But we can educate our law makers, and in this case, the advisory work-group as to what is really at stake. This is the reason for the post. We as a group need to speak out with our real world concerns.

There is a lot more to this than just 'critter keeping'. (Which by the way is the biggest stake holder in terms of jobs and economy.)

Most of the folks who gave 'testimony' yesterday during the public portion of this process have hundreds of thousands of dollars invested into their businesses. Most are involved in educating the public, working with first responders to deal with situations involving exotics and all do this out of their own pocket. These are not mental cases.

Free roaming exotics (tigers) are a rare and sensational press bonanza. The truth is that a substancial number of deaths and injuries come from loose cattle, horses, and dogs; not exotics. Of the 20 some odd deaths by poisonous snakes in the last 10 years nationally, most were from wild animals being encountered outdoors. 3 were from religious rituals who would not seek medical attention and 2 were from captive animals.

The reason most of use are not fans of 'regulation' is that we run on a very thin profit margin at best. The additional requirements are time consuming. Insurance is being discussed. That's a killer too. Registration of reptiles/exotics leaves us exposed to break-ins, etc.

Again, there is a lot of hysteria fanned by the press and playing on the fear of being bitten by a baboon or tiger. But lumping all exotics into one group does not work. Completely banning most any animal does not work either.

So yes, there is work to be done. And they need to hear from all parties. They need to hear from us too.

One problem is the almost automatic negative response from critter keepers to anyone who wants to write any legislation directed at defining and controlling dangerous animals.
There is a good solid point that we do not need legislation for everything. But this initiative was started after 50 dangerous animals were released in Ohio.
I myself love critters, but frankly I don't want a loose stray tiger in my back yard.
So when critter keepers won't figure out safety issues because they just wave their hands and say they do not want government interference, your general public who also doesn't want tigers in their back yard is going to disregard those people.
Right now we have two groups, the government promising safety through legislation (and people deserve to be safe) and critter owners who not only do not want legislation (of course we don't, we want to keep our critters) but who also have not figured out alternative ways to deal with the safety issues (not to mention the expense of rounding up 50 wild animals, just to reference the incident that started it all.)

 

[Lucille]

But lumping all exotics into one group does not work. Completely banning most any animal does not work either.

So yes, there is work to be done. And they need to hear from all parties. They need to hear from us too.

You are absolutely right. And apathy is our enemy.
You are thoughtful and well spoken, how would you respond to the ordinary citizen who has apprehensions about safety? And to the politician whose performance and safety record may be on the line come election time?

 

[EdwardK]

Of the 20 some odd deaths by poisonous snakes in the last 10 years nationally, most were from wild animals being encountered outdoors. 3 were from religious rituals who would not seek medical attention and 2 were from captive animals.

I'm not in favor of a ban by any means but does the number of deaths actually represent the risk by those who keep hot animals? The number of deaths etc is often compared to horses, however the majority of injuries to people involving horses involve falls from the horses (http://www.phac-aspc.gc.ca/injury-bles/chirpp/injrep-rapbles/irequ-eng.php) so to try and compare the risks from venomous reptiles to the risks from horses, it really looks to be an apples and oranges comparisions.

Now comparing them to the number of dog bites is probably a better metric since dogs are pretty much everywhere in our society and many bites occur in or around the home. According to http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185836, there are approximately 900 new bites/day averaging to about 330,000 a year. Snake bites in the home that resulted in trip to the emergency room are approximately 3455/year (http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1580/06-WEME-OR-080R1.1).... Now our society does have a lot of regulations on keeping dogs (although many are poorly enforced), such as licensing, number of dogs that can be kept in a residence and so forth as well as a number of indirect control methods such as costs or denial to/of home and renter's insurance based on statistical risks of being sued for a bite or other injury.

Just somethings to think about.

Ed

 

[anthicus]

"Now comparing them to the number of dog bites is probably a better metric"

 

[anthicus]

"Now comparing them to the number of dog bites is probably a better metric"
Ed. We are still comparing apples to oranges here, if you wanted to put it that way.

 

[billewicz]

You are absolutely right. And apathy is our enemy.
You are thoughtful and well spoken, how would you respond to the ordinary citizen who has apprehensions about safety? And to the politician whose performance and safety record may be on the line come election time?

There is no short answer here so give me some time and I'll attempt to address this because, really, it's the only two questions that come up the most, and can hurt us the most if not satisfied completely.

.... now back to securing the Tokay Hoard Hurricane Sandy!:

 

[Wayne Fowlie]

Venomous snake fangs and fish spines, nail guns and butcher knives, allergies and risky behavior; we can't just legislate away all the hazards in life!

 

[billewicz]

Venomous snake fangs and fish spines, nail guns and butcher knives, allergies and risky behavior; we can't just legislate away all the hazards in life!

If we could only regulate stupidity!

 

[hitower1575]

Animal Love

I love animals very much. I am a true Amphib guy and certainly appreciate reptiles as well. So people buying gators, caimans, huge pythons or Boas for which they do not have the capability to properly care for the length of their lives, so they are set free. I also have dogs, many species of dogs (not just pit bulls) can be very dangerous and cause severe damage and death frequently. So I guess my point is the term "exotically dangerous" it can fit so many species of "domesticated" animals. I bet you the one set of animals not on the Virginia exotic animal law would be hunting dogs! You cannot regulate nor force idiots to evolve through written law; just does not work. Just please let the responsible breeders continue to do our best to sustain the populations of herps that are so quickly disappearing.

Chris

 

[Lucille]

The advantage to a carefully tailored statute is that it will allow the state to go after those who break the law at the state's expense. Civil litigation is VERY costly, telling someone who has been wronged that they can sue is not adequate when they may have to come up with tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.

Do I want everything we do legislated? Of course not. But I am concerned for kids and even for myself if some idiot should move in next door and for example come over all the time and ask me if I've seen his pet rattlesnake.

I have nothing against properly kept critters, but I don't want to go into the garage to get my garden rake and come face to face with an escaped anything that has large teeth and isn't in a good mood.

One thing I see in threads like these are hundreds of packaged answers about freedom, about government, about sweet pit bulls and vicious yorkies, about idiocy on either side.
Let's not do that to each other here. I want some real, thoughtful answers.

 

[billewicz]

I have to ask how often that there is an actual dangerous captive animal getting loose?

For simplicity sake, let's exclude owners, keepers and handlers from this piece of the conversation. Also excluded should be wild animals that wander into someone's home or property. What should be left is an actual escapee or intently set free animals like in Ohio.

If we can assume we cannot regulate mental illness, but still including those animals, how often does this happen?

One person at the public meeting was most upset because his neighbor, who has permits to house primates and other 'zoo' type wildlife had a kangaroo loose. He had possible valid claims that they were housing more animals than the permits allowed and he was not impressed with how they handled the capture of the animal on his property. If I recall correctly, he stated that there were animals loose on his property 'all the time'.

To me, he has a real danger of encountering a wild exotic animal capable of doing him or his family harm. I believe there is plenty of regulation already in place to enforce the permits or revoke them. If not, then the work group can make stronger suggestions.

I'm to understand that part of the reason he house these animals is that he is where these unwanted exotics can end up after they have been confiscated.

Now to my point. 1) The state already has some regulations regarding these animals but has no money to enforce or manage the regulations as they are. Most of this work already falls on dedicated keepers and is funded by their own time and money. They actually have to pay the government for all the permits just to handle their needs.

2) Given very limited resources, and how few real events actually occur, how practical is it to add more unfunded regulations to the system?

3) I've heard this time and time again from all the zoo people, "They should leave the reptile people out of this."

The thought occurs to me. Most city ordnance will not allow for livestock like cows, horses, etc. Komoto Dragons and alligators/crocs seem obvious for this list. But if I have a farm or appropriate facility to house and maintain these awesome animals, why not?

I believe there are several injuries every year in most states to people from other folks' livestock that got loose and came onto their property and bit or trampled them. You can go several years before you find an example of an exotic that caused harm to someone other than their owner or handler.

So, I have to ask again, how real, or possible is the likelihood that you will encounter an escaped, previously captive, dangerous animal? What are the chances?

Michael

 

[Lucille]

For simplicity sake, let's exclude owners

No, let's not. Irresponsible owners are something to fear.

Michael, I think you are using canned answers. You have not put any thought into my example, of a neighbor's critter getting loose.

I'm not asking for grandstanding canned goods, I'm asking for some thoughtful responses of what can be done to manage the problems that come up.

 

[weird_science04]

I think our animal control officers need more education on everything. They need more resources available to take control of any situation that can arise. They need to have training on how to handle a wild bear that was released or a wild alligator that crawled on someones property, or snake that crawled into someone's house whether it be released, escapee, or wild. The issue in Ohio could happen from a zoo even without private ownership. Like people have stated, we can't stop mental illness and we can't stop stupidity. However, we can have protocols in place for how to handle situations and we can have consequences in place for when people don't adhere to a certain level of care. I know there are technical consequences for animal abuse and neglect but it doesn't seem consistent. If you were irresponsible and caught, then maybe you need to pay a $5,000 fine for your negligence or the fine be appropriate for the level of what happened. How many people would consider releasing one animal if they were scared to get caught and have to pay thousands of dollars that they didn't have. They might consider a better option. The reality is, we are NEVER going to not have a crazy animal moment in the USA. We just need to be prepared for when something happens. Just like Hurricanes. They are not going to stop coming but each time they hit us, we prepare better the next time. We learn and try to do a better job. This is the same with the animal issues. We need to stop trying to ban everything and have our animal control people become more educated and prepared while arresting those that are being irresponsible.

Star

 

[billewicz]

No, let's not. Irresponsible owners are something to fear.

Michael, I think you are using canned answers. You have not put any thought into my example, of a neighbor's critter getting loose.

I'm not asking for grandstanding canned goods, I'm asking for some thoughtful responses of what can be done to manage the problems that come up.

I'm sorry you think I'm wasting your time with canned answers. I put a couple of hours into writing, and then rewriting that little piece. I've spent days traveling back and forth to sit in on the work groups and then participate in the public input piece. There is nothing canned here. It's exactly how I feel and I will not let someone belittle the fact that many others feel the same way. It's not a canned question. It's a resounding one. Why are we wasting so much time and resources toward regulating reptiles when there is so few actual examples of one harming another person after escaping? I'd have to look again, but I could only find one example of a fatality from a reptile in the US that came from someone coming across an escaped, previously captive reptile.

You have stated several times that you are scared of running into just such a situation and want regulations to protect you from this happening. Please show us the real numbers on escaped dangerous reptiles. Because no one has been able to produce them for the work group either.

_________________________

You asked me to answer those who would be fearful of dangerous animals and what I would tell them and the politicians who are looking to appease them.

There is no one liner here. The work group has been tasked to address everything from elephants, lions, tigers, bears, wolves, primates, reptiles, spiders and everything in between.

They are being asked to address disease, invasive probabilities, public safety, first responder safety, management between existing federal and state laws and then weigh in the concerns of all other stakeholders.

From what I can see, the work group is looking at an animal by animal basis because no blanket ruling seems to fit to even a sub-species. The work is very complex. So the answer is not going to be simple.

My motivation is to find a workable plan that addresses real issues in the hopes that this will quell hysteria over unfounded fears.

I would have never invested several years and over $200,000 into reptiles for genetic conservation and development, and for profit if I knew that someone could sway our lawmakers to make my venture illegal, not because there was an alarming number of actual cases of dangerous escaped reptiles being let loose, but on the idea that there is a one in several million chance that it might happen. (Fact: The US averages about 12 fatal snake bites a year. Almost all are from wild animals, not captives.)

Additionally I have posting this to help people be informed as best as I can and engage in dialog to motivate them to take action and be heard. To be slammed with your negative 'canned' remark was hurtful and not appreciated in the least. I'm wondering if you have anything here at stake? What do you have to loose?

Michael

 

[Lucille]

You have stated several times that you are scared of running into just such a situation and want regulations to protect you from this happening.

You do not appear to be reading what I am saying, I have never said I wanted regulation. Your answers are canned if you are providing replies to something I didn't even say. You appear to be seeking a soapbox to step up on. It ain't me, babe.

I do think that irresponsible owners are a safety hazard, and I do not want one next door to me.
There are advantages to some regulation, in that enforcement expenses are born by the state. But that is not necessarily the answer. I specifically asked for answers, so far you have given none that would address my concerns, or the concerns of others that may be similar. You've merely said that answers are complicated. Of course they are. Are you leaving it at that? If the state is not the one to enforce safety, who should bear the time and expense to do so?

 

[billewicz]

You do not appear to be reading what I am saying, I have never said I wanted regulation. Your answers are canned if you are providing replies to something I didn't even say. You appear to be seeking a soapbox to step up on. It ain't me, babe.

I do think that irresponsible owners are a safety hazard, and I do not want one next door to me.
There are advantages to some regulation, in that enforcement expenses are born by the state. But that is not necessarily the answer. I specifically asked for answers, so far you have given none that would address my concerns, or the concerns of others that may be similar. You've merely said that answers are complicated. Of course they are. Are you leaving it at that? If the state is not the one to enforce safety, who should bear the time and expense to do so?

I'm truly sorry for I thought we were having a conversation and I thought this forum would be a good place to have this discussion.

I was not aware that the rules for engagement were to only answer a specific question directly.

With the continued accusatory tone, this thread does not seem to be serving the original purpose of asking folks to submit to the work group, their thoughts on the matter. I'll take my canned, grandstanding and find a soapbox from where I might be able to some good.

All the best,

Michael

 

[Lucille]

I'm truly sorry for I thought we were having a conversation and I thought this forum would be a good place to have this discussion.

I was not aware that the rules for engagement were to only answer a specific question directly.

With the continued accusatory tone, this thread does not seem to be serving the original purpose of asking folks to submit to the work group, their thoughts on the matter. I'll take my canned, grandstanding and find a soapbox from where I might be able to some good.

All the best,

Michael

You do the reptile world no favors, in my opinion, if you disappear when the hard questions are asked. Sometimes, it seems to me that those who purport to look for answers are actually preachers having conversations with the choir.

I refuse to be a part of that. Some people have issues with various exotics including reptiles, some of them valid, some of them not. The valid issues cannot simply be brushed off with canned answers.
To tell someone who is justifiably afraid of the dangers associated with some critters that the problem is inconsequential and doesn't occur often is not going to decrease their fear.
The reason I present the difficult questions is because I do love critters, and I know that those are the questions that politicians are going to be faced with from their constituents.

I'm not the choir.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2l0xYc8zXvw

 

[billewicz]

No, you may not be the choir, but you are not the only person reading this thread, (I hope!)

As to the disservice to reptile owners, name calling is truly unwarranted here. I'm wondering how the hand picked work group of 30 would appreciate their hundreds of hours being labeled as 'not having put any thought into it', when they have not as of yet been able to answer the very questions that you are asking here?

I agree that it is the very fear people have, real or imagined, that will drive our lawmakers to do whatever it takes to appease these folks. And this is were we could easily loose our rights to own 'our critters' of choice.

I will attempt to craft a set of examples and issues that are in the 'way' of a simple answer in the hopes that it will spark positive, constructive dialog. My goal with this is to paint the picture, as best as I can, that shows what the work group is up against. And maybe some real answers will start to formulate.