• Responding to email notices you receive.
    **************************************************
    In short, DON'T! Email notices are to ONLY alert you of a reply to your private message or your ad on this site. Replying to the email just wastes your time as it goes NOWHERE, and probably pisses off the person you thought you replied to when they think you just ignored them. So instead of complaining to me about your messages not being replied to from this site via email, please READ that email notice that plainly states what you need to do in order to reply to who you are trying to converse with.

  • IMPORTANT! PLEASE READ!! About the Google Adsense ads being displayed

    =====================
    Posted 08/15/2025
    =====================


    Yeah, I know. They are a pain in the butt. But they pay the bills to keep my server running. Just a fact of life, I am afraid.

    Want to get rid of them? Simple. Just become a Contributor level member or above and they will be gone. -> Please click HERE."

    Is that too much for me to ask of you to keep this site running? Well, sorry about that. I too wish I could get everything for free. But alas.....

    =====================
    Addendum: 01/10/2026
    =====================


    Google Adsense ad revenue for December, 2025 was just $30 over the cost of the lease for the server running this site. So, in effect, the money providing the incentive for me to continue running this site is coming SOLELY from the paid memberships and sponsorships here. Which honestly ain't much....

Wisconsin state law issues

NeWisconsin Legislation?

I just read in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal that the Wisconsin legislature is considering a law that would require all animals entering into the state to have a veterinary certificate of health. There is an informational meeting in Madison on Feb 3rd that I am planning on attending. If I find out anything I will keep you posted. If anyone knows anything please pass it on.

Steve Schindler
 
There is also a meeting on the 5th in Green Bay that I plan to attend. I am not totally sure how this ruling will be interpreted but it could very well affect every keeper/breeder in the state. From what I have read it will also require a permit from the Dept of Ag. to import any exotic. (they consider any animal not native to WI as exotic) The law has already been passed. These are hearings to decide how the law should be enforced and how it will apply to specific animals. We need all the support we can get.

Check out this link: http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/core/agriculture/animals/pdf/captive_wildlife.pdf


Wish us luck. We will need it.

Thanks
 
Here is my take on the results of the meeting in Green Bay

On February 5th the following members of the FVHC attended the hearing held by the DNR in Green Bay:

George Gunther
Nancy Gurno
Bill Heindl
Lonnie Moens
Bill Hewitt
And reptile friend Al Guetzkow

Our purpose was to determine the extent of application the Captive Wildlife statute would have on herpers in Wisconsin. The wording in the statute was very ambiguous and many of us were concerned that the implications on us could severely hamper our educational and keeping goals. The representatives from Madison said they would allow a few minutes for questions to clarify the intent of the statute. Those of us present questioned the representatives for over an hour before we felt we had clarified the intent and had all of our questions and concerns addressed. This is the way the statute was explained as I understand it.

1. The requirement for a veterinary certificate will only apply to animals being brought into Wisconsin. This will apply to all reptiles as they are all considered as wild animals. The animals we currently possess will not need this certificate, unless you intend to transport them out of the state and then return with them. You would also need the certificate if you were having someone transport them and were paying for the service. All animal transporters are required to have in their possession a veterinary certificate. Owners transporting their own animals with in the state of Wisconsin would not require the same certificate. Please be aware that animals bought out of the state and brought into Wisconsin do need a vet. cert. Prior to entering the state. This means if you travel to Streamwood and purchase an animal you will need the certificate from the state of origin to bring it back.
2. The animal transport license that is called for by the statute only applies to those transporters who transport animals for hire. This means the if you are paid to transport animals you would be required to have the animal transport license. One of the representatives said this is an area we need to be careful with because in his words if you agree to transport another persons animal(s) for any compensation, you would be required to have this license, even if it is for something other than money. I do think there could be a problem here in as much as many of us have received animals through UPS or Airborne Express. They would now be required to have an animal transport license in Wisconsin. This would mean that any animal you purchase even on line if shipped by a common carrier needs this and I am sure they will want a vet. Cert. also to make them legal. This may significantly increase the cost of shipping an animal to our state.
3. The nest issue we discussed was the Dept. of Ag. permit. We were informed that this permit was not required for all animals. Most reptiles would not require it. The representative explained that they felt it would mainly apply to certain species of venomous herps and may apply to some species considered to carry diseases that humans may easily catch if they contact these animals. Just my opinion but this may apply to turtles and iguanas because they are widely considered as carriers of salmonella.
4. The final issue we discussed was the one requiring the vet. Cert. for swaps, shows and exhibitions. After clarification on this point we were told that it does not apply to those animals we already have in Wisconsin for shows we do in Wisconsin.

So it is my opinion that we are not going to be severely impacted by this statute or at least not as severely as we had originally expected. We did manage as I said to take over an hour of their time but I feel it was worth it to reach an understanding and give us some assurances that we are not putting ourselves in jeopardy every time we leave with our animals to attend a show. There are some aspects of this statute that I think will benefit the public and us, and some that I feel will hurt the reptile community. I did get the feeling that most of this was pushed through because of the recent CDW and Monkey Pox outbreaks in Wisconsin. There was one other thing I feel is worth mentioning and that is that the representatives informed us that the DNR is currently drafting another bill that may impact us even more than this one. We will need to be on our toes and watch for it over the next several months. The representatives didn’t really have much information on this new threat but just by their mention I feel we should be concerned. I would like to thank those members and Al for coming to help support us at this hearing.
 
The law has already been passed. These are hearings to decide how the law should be enforced and how it will apply to specific animals.


It was my understanding that this is separate from the captive wildlife bill that was enacted in the summer of 02 and had not been passed yet. If you are correct, I got nothing out of the madison hearing that indicated anything of the sort of enforcement or animal specifics.

Al;

You have presented a very good synopsis of the situation, and it would seem that the GB meeting was better attended than the Madison one. I had considering closing down for the day to attend the GB meeting and voice my concerns and ask questions that were raised at madison one but it just wasn't practical. In essence I would agree with your comments, but there is just one that got to me. Its not so much that I disagree with the comment, In I fact agree with it completely. It's just that the comment itself sounds like you (and others, including myself, who have voiced the same thing) are getting ready to throw in the towel.

So it is my opinion that we are not going to be severely impacted by this statute or at least not as severely as we had originally expected.

As long as you never intend to purchase an animal from out of state again, or travel with your animals out of state and plan on returning with them, then no, you won't be impacted by this statute. That comment sounds much like the one that went out to many people from Ed Stone from Madison. He was very concerned about this untill he found out that his breeding and selling of snakes within Wisconsin would not be hampered. All of a sudden, this turned into a good thing.

All this bill will do is serve to kill any sort of variety available at any Wisconsin swap meet. Take a look at the vendors at any swap, and now remove any that travel here from outside Wisconsin. If they have to go through all the trouble of getting permits for each and every animal they bring into the state, many will say the heck with it and not even bother.

Part of the problem is that the herp comunity is still so divided. Its still, breeders VS importers, VS pet shops, VS swap vendors VS etc. etc. A lot of people are looking at this as "oh, it will only affect pet shops and since all pet shops suck anyway this is not a bad thing" The truth is that while some people may benefit from this most will not.

I speak as someone who lives close to the Illinois border. I travel to the Streamwood swap regularly (I don't really buy much there because I can't find what I want very often) but I do buy feeders from there. I would assume that this will affect me and my neighbors more than it will affect those of you from farther up north, but it will affect us all. And I would venture to guess that way up nort dere there are not as many people selling locally raised snakes so more have to be purchased from farther ranging sources which I would assume would involve out of state purchases. (before you get on me about the up nort thing, I was born and raised in Chippewa Falls and I still consider myself a Northerner.) It will not affect those of you who are into the expensive stuff as much as it will affect the beginner. If you are paying $1000.00 for a snake whats another $25.00 or so for a vet cert. but what about the people who are starting out on the 20.00 corn snakes and leopard geckos.

One other factor that is overlooked. What about people like Rich. I don't know how many of his customers are from Wisconsin, but this will have an impact on him as well. I bought 40 or so snakes from him last year. If I have to get a certificate of health for each one, I will probably look elsewhere. This bodes well for Jim at SW Wisconsin reptile, but it sure cuts into my options, not to mention Rich's customer base.

This will not only affect reptiles. It will affect ALL animals, and while we may not give a rats patoot about a rats patoot, all animal lovers have to stick together. There was a petition at streamwood yesterday about a bill that bans interstate trade of all small mammels or something to that effect. Aside from feeders we may not have concerns about small animals, but when they get their foot in the door with small animals the next step just may be reptiles.

I don't know what the answers are. I don't know If I will get answers to the questions I raised in my letter or not. All I know is this. This industry (the pet industry) is hurt more by people who are out to make a quick buck by selling crappy animals than anything else. You may not be in the market for those animals, and if you get ripped off for $2000.00 on the next hot morph snake it may not seem like it to you, but face it. That scam artist who got to you will not have as much of an impact on the hobby (or business, or whatever you call it) as the guy who imports the next $25.00 exotic rodent that was not properly quarantined and causes the next outbreak of whatever pox. In most instances I am preaching to the choir here. For the most part people who come to these forums are pretty much of a like mind set when it comes to this. The sad part is that the people who have the most negative influence on us are the ones that don't care. if things close down they will either move on to something else or continue underground making criminal out of even more unsuspecting people and further damaging the hobby. As bad as it sounds, Sometimes I wonder why I even stay in this hobby.

Sorry about the rant, I hope you can make heads or tails out of what I wrote.

Steve Schindler
 
sorry George

Sorry George, for some reason I thought your comments in the second post were made by Al. I saw his name on the list.

Steve Schindler
 
La Crosse WI - County board puts exotic animal ban on hold

Looks like you guys made it through the first hurdle, good job. It's not over, but hopefully there will be an equal or greater turnout in April and you can end up with some sensible legislation if any at all.
Don't let the uninformed dictate your freedom.

Here's a news story on the issue:
---------------------------------------------

Exotic animal lovers flocked to La Crosse County's Health and Human Services Board on Tuesday to plead with officials not to ban their pets.

"Permits and licenses are wonderful, but stop there," said Joyce Schneider of Holmen, Wis.

She was among the 21 people who testified against a proposed wild and exotic animal ordinance, sharing stories about their beloved boa constrictors, sugar gliders and zebras.

Three people, including two associated with the Coulee Region Humane Society, testified in favor of the ordinance.

About 100 people attended the hearing, and the public outpouring clearly made an impact on the board, which voted later to delay action until its April meeting.

Before the April meeting, Health Department staff will re-examine the possibility of permits and removing some animals from the banned list.

"They have some very compelling arguments," said Supervisor Sharon Hampson, one of the ordinance's authors.

She said staff initially rejected the idea of permits because they are too hard to enforce. "We'll certainly take a look at it again," Hampson said.

Other board members said they are concerned about taking animals — and rights — away from people.

One common theme from the testimony was that a few irresponsible people who don't take care of exotic pets are ruining things for the vast majority, who are responsible owners.

Another theme was that domestic animals like vicious dogs and agricultural livestock like bulls do more damage to humans than exotic animals.

And finally, people said they couldn't bear to give up the companions they've come to love.

Dawn and Dan Leitzke of Holmen testified that they own three Grant's zebras on their acreage in Long Coulee, and have been granted county zoning permits to build a housing facility for them.

"I obtained them as bottle babies and have loved and pampered them every day of their lives," Dawn Leitzke said. "They are regularly hand fed, watered, vaccinated, de-wormed, exercised, groomed, massaged and clothed in horse blankets and scarves when the weather dictates."

"My horses are disguised in a referee suit," said Dan Leitzke, adding that zebras are closely related to horses.

The majority of comments came from snake and reptile lovers.

"I've never had the urge to own a tiger," said Ellen Severson of La Crosse. "My family has pet snakes and each lives alone in a locked cage."

Severson said her daughter just got a five-foot boa named Jupiter, who might grow beyond the six-foot limit in the proposed ordinance.

"He's a mellow, gentle fellow," Severson said. "I hope you'll exempt nonvenomous snakes."

"I love snakes and lizards," proclaimed Todd Hunter, a morning radio host. "There are so many responsible owners you never hear about. ... There's a story about an irresponsible owner with a giant snake that lets it hang around a 3-year-old, which is stupid.

"It doesn't sound as though we have an epidemic of rabid snakes running the streets of La Crosse, zebras trampling down people's doorways, exotic cats leaping onto the heads of little children," Hunter said. "But what does sound like an epidemic is 800,000 dog bites per year in the United States."

Mary Vinson, executive director of the Humane Society, said the society can't afford to rescue and keep all the exotic animals that people abandon in the county. Few people can afford to care for these animals well, she said.

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/03/10/news/01animals.txt
 
Slinger, WI - Proposed Exotics ban

Slinger considers ban on keeping exotic pets
Ordinance patterned after Thiensville's
By PETER MALLER
[email protected]
Posted: April 21, 2004
Slinger - Yet another community in southeastern Wisconsin is preparing to prohibit ownership of alligators, monkeys and venomous snakes and most other exotic pets.

The Slinger Village Board is considering an ordinance that would ban residents from keeping wild animals and wolf-dog hybrids in their homes.

No undesirable pets appear to be living in the community, but village officials want residents to know that crocodiles, prairie dogs and Gambian rats are among the species considered unwelcome, Village Administrator Patrick DeGrave said.

"We wanted to have the ordinance before we have a kid walking down the street with an 8-foot boa constrictor wrapped around his neck," DeGrave said. "It's just time to be proactive rather than reactive."

Slinger's ordinance, patterned after one adopted by Thiensville in February, would also ban caimans, lizards longer than 5 feet, non-venomous snakes longer than 6 feet and venomous amphibians and invertebrates.

Such a ban is needed, DeGrave said, because exotic pets can pose a danger as the village continues to become more densely populated.

The ordinance was introduced at a meeting this week. Trustees will review it at meetings May 3 and 17 before voting on it, DeGrave said.

Slinger's proposed ordinance was drafted after DeGrave examined samples of similar rules adopted by 15 municipalities. Residents have recently been banned from keeping various types of exotic pets in Germantown, Waukesha, Muskego and other communities.

Germantown's ordinance, approved in summer, is among the most detailed. It makes the village off limits to hippopotamuses, hyenas, jaguars, leopards, lions, lynx, pumas, cougars, mountain lions, panthers, ocelots, tigers and "other wild felines."

Slinger's proposed ordinance says that the ban "includes, but is not limited to," the animals listed.

"I remember when I was (the town administrator) in Mount Pleasant in the late '70s, there was an individual there who had a lion, and he was asked politely to get it out," DeGrave said.

"If I remember correctly, he took it up north, and it mauled a child. We want to prevent something like that from happening here."

http://www.jsonline.com/news/ozwash/apr04/223980.asp
 
Do we know if those who already own these animals (specifically the snakes and large reptiles) are forced to "get rid of" their animals, or are they grandfathered in?

Brian Skibinski
 
La Crosse tables exotic pet law

Jennifer Dahl of La Crosse will be able to have other exotic animals to accompany her Columbian boa constrictor and Savannah monitor (a lizard) now that the La Crosse County Board on Thursday tabled a proposed wild and exotic animal ordinance.

"I am overly thrilled. I could not be happier," Dahl said after the vote and Board Chairman Steve Doyle's explanation that a tabling at the county board effectively kills a proposal. Tabled items can be brought off the table and considered at a later meeting, but Doyle said that usually is not done by the board.

"I would not have been able to buy any more exotic animals, or if my female produces, I would not have been able to keep her young," Dahl said of the proposed ordinance that would have banned exotic animals. It had been amended to include a grandfather clause that would have allowed people who currently own animals restricted by the ordinance to keep them, as long as they registered them with the county Health Department.

County board committees have been considering since March the proposed wild and exotic animal ordinance, introduced by Supervisor Sharon Hampson of La Crosse. Opponents, including members of the newly formed Coulee Region Herpetological Society, argued that no danger has been reported to warrant the ban.

"I appreciate what the health and services committee is trying to do," said Eric Severson of La Crosse, society member who owns six snakes. "But it needs to be more focused, not so broad-brushed. This was overly restrictive, unenforceable and unnecessary."

The ordinance would address public health and safety concerns, Hampson said. Several diseases are transferred from animals to humans, and the United States only loosely regulates the exotic animals trade, she said. Some states ban large cats and large snakes, she said. In addition, Hampson said many exotic animals end up in poor condition and have a high mortality rate, and some end up dumped on roadsides because there are not enough sanctuaries for them.

Dave Geske, county vector control and humane services manager, suggested amendments including permitting exotic animals including ostriches, which are used in agriculture. A effort to refer the proposal back to committee to consider those amendments failed.

"They do not have enough votes," said board member Charles Spiker of Holmen, predicting the proposal would be so watered down by amendments in order to pass that it would be meaningless.

The proposal is unenforceable and unfair, said board member Jim Berns of Onalaska. Most of the problems are with wild-caught animals, and the ordinance does not differentiate between them and captive-bred animals, he said.

The vote to table was 23-12.


http://www.lacrossetribune.com/articles/2004/06/18/news/z02pets.txt
 
Thanks for beating to the punch Clay! I was editing out my statements because the lady screwed it up. But then again she is a reporter it's in her blood. lol
To think my headach started because one board member hates snakes! And believe it or not that is the truth. It came out of her own mouth. But we won!! For now anyways, i'm sure we will be dealing with this crap again real soon.
 
Stupid Baraboo Law

I am planning to enter the UW Baraboo/Sauk County in the fall 2005. The problem is that the city has ridiculous anti-reptile laws. The law is listed under orderly conduct (how is owning snakes considered disorderly conduct?) and it states that snakes over three feet and are not native to Wisconsin cannot be kept, yet they allow ball pythons up to 5 feet and boa constrictors up 8 feet both of which are obviously not native? What is the justification for this?

I am not ridding myself of my snakes (cali. king, western hog, pueblan milk, and bullsnake), so I will live outside city limits!
 
Good News

Local snake fancier wages ongoing battle to educate public, Onalaska officials about reptiles

By PAUL SLOTH/Staff writer
Mike Bechtel has a thing about snakes. He loves them. In fact, he's so interested in snakes that besides keeping them as pets, he also raises them.

Bechtel, who lives with his wife and two daughters in Onalaska, is also trying to raise awareness about keeping snakes and other reptiles as pets, in an attempt to educate the public about these animals.

Last week, Bechtel asked the city's Administrative and Judiciary Committee to consider relaxing the city's ordinance regulating animals, specifically reptiles.

"I have no problem with the ordinance, I just want to make sure we know what we're talking about when we get into this," Bechtel said.

The ordinance prohibits owning any constrictor snake longer than 6 feet, along with 25 other types of animals, including bears, monkeys and hippopotami.

The ordinance is similar to those drafted by many communities throughout the state, Bechtel said. In fact, for the most part it is a boiler plate ordinance borrowed from the state statutes.

But that's not why he asked the city to reconsider the ordinance.

A little known fact

Boa constrictors often get lumped into the list of snakes that can be problematic - anacondas, rock pythons and reticulated pythons - mainly because of their size, he said.

The most common snakes kept by reptile owners are the many and varied constrictor species; boas, pythons, rat and milk snakes; and the racer, gopher and garter species.
Mike Bechtel helps his 3-year-old daughter, Abby, as she holds a Hogg Island Boa. Both of Bechtel’s daughters are learning, like he did, to care for animals from an early age.
Photo by Paul Sloth
The care and dietary requirements for these types of snakes vary considerably. Furthermore, some of the same species, notably the boa constrictors and pythons, can reach very large sizes in captivity.

"A lot of people don't realize that snakes grow depending on how well they're fed," Bechtel said.

Bechtel has been involved with exotic animals since he was a young man. Growing up on a farm in Waukon, Iowa, Bechtel used to supply exotic animals and farm animals to Myrick Park in La Crosse.

He wants to make sure that local ordinances make it possible for people to own reptiles and take care of them responsibly. He doesn't want to see a situation where people might buy a 6-foot snake locally and see it grow longer than the law allows and then not know what to do with it.

"That's one of the big things about the herp society," Bechtel said, making note of the newly formed Coulee Region Herpetological Society. "People now have a place they can call."

Bechtel, who moved to Onalaska two years ago from Iowa, teaches science at Central High School in La Crosse as well as at Western Wisconsin Technical College. He is an active member of the Coulee Region Herpetological Society, a group that formed in response to La Crosse County's attempt to pass an exotic animal ordinance.

Bechtel represented the group before the La Crosse County Board and addressed some of the board's worries, such as disease and animal care.

According to the Centers for Disease Control, 3 percent of U.S. households own at least one reptile - which includes lizards, snakes and turtles. The statistic is accompanied by a warning about the one disease reptiles can carry: salmonella.

It's a statistic that many reptile owners, including Bechtel, think instills an unwarranted fear in people. The CDC lists 11 diseases that cats carry and 13 diseases that birds carry.

The county did not succeed in passing its proposed exotic animal ordinance, which many area animal owners considered restrictive and uninformed.

While the exact number of reptiles owned as pets is not known, it is clear that ownership of reptiles is on the rise, according to the United States Department of Agriculture.

It is estimated that 1.5 million to 2.5 million U.S. households owned one or more reptiles in 1996, with snakes and turtles being the most frequently owned type of reptile.

Most pet reptiles and amphibians are purchased from pet stores or pet superstores, with the average price ranging from $15 for frogs to $91 for snakes in 1998. Owners spent an average of $67 to $451 in a year for the feeding and care of their animals, depending on the species owned.

When he learned of Onalaska's ordinance Bechtel said the first thing he did was go around to see what species of snake were available at local pet stores. Two stores in the city sell Columbian red tail boas, a snake that can grow up to 10 feet long, well beyond the 6-foot limit stated in the ordinance.

Jeff Zilliox, who manages Marineland Pet Center in Onalaska, sees a problem with ordinances like Onalaska's, which he considers too vague and often difficult to enforce.

"I'm against any generalization laws," Zilliox said. "They're banning snakes that make perfectly good pets."

Zilliox said the store has been selling reptiles since the early 1970s.

Local regulation of reptiles varies, but often falls under larger ordinances regulating a much wider variety of exotic animals, similar to Onalaska's.

The city could have a new, more relaxed ordinance in the near future.

"Our committee did not believe there was an issue," said Alderman Diane Oldani Wulf, who chairs the Administrative Committee. "We did not see a reason why we couldn't relax the ordinance."

During the past two decades, there has been an upsurge in the popularity of reptiles as pets. Reptiles are currently the fastest growing segment of the pet trade, according to the Wisconsin Herpetological Society. The group, a nonprofit organization of amateur and professional herpetologists dedicated to the conservation of reptiles and amphibians (collectively referred to as herptiles or herps) formed in 1973.

The increased availability of reptiles and other exotic species has given rise to some unfortunate situations. As with any issue, the actions of a few cast a negative image on the many responsible reptile owners. Negative publicity from incidents - such as a recent cobra bite in Waukesha County earlier this month - often lead communities to draft ordinances that ban exotic animals without regard to the species.

"I want to come in here with the idea of educating people and trying to work something out," Bechtel said. "I'm going to try and see if we have any options."
 
LaCrosse/Coulee Region Herpers

Any LaCrosse WI or Coulee region area herpers who may be currently on here, please contact me or send an email to [email protected]
This is especially for anyone who may have previously been a part of the Coulee Region Herp Society and/or been involved in fighting the ordinance there in 2004.
Thanks!
 
Back
Top