The Dangerous Animal Initiative-USA

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 animals@virginia.edu. 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.

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.)

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.

Originally Posted by 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.
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.)

Originally Posted by billewicz

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?

Originally Posted by Lucille

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!:

Originally Posted by billewicz

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-bl.../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....ticleid=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/10.158...EME-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

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

"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.

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!

Originally Posted by 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!

If we could only regulate stupidity!