Was a bit worried about a new arrival.

[FunkyRes]

Well, it would have to be the chickens, since ferrets are obligate carnivores. "Strange" that nobody's worried about what the livestock might cause.

Actually there is concern, at least in more recent history. Cattle grazing in some areas is limited and regulated because it is believed that over grazing has contributed to toad declines, etc. But back to Nerodia and invasive species, not all species have demonstrated an ability to become invasive. Nerodia has, hence the ban on them. Three different species have become established, so it is a very adaptive genus. They are working on extirpating one population now and hopefully will extirpate others. With our serious decline in native frogs, several species of garter that are endangered or threatened, several species of fish that are endangered or threatened, the additional pressure of Nerodia is something we do not need. They were not banned in the state until after they demonstrated their invasive nature.

Their invasive nature may also become a problem in states that natively have Nerodia as non native populations would compete with and possibly hybridize with native (like what has happened in CA with our Tiger Salamanders - most remaining populations are actually hybrids). I expect Nerodia may become banned in the pet trade in many states before too long.

[GradStudentLeper]

The HSUS and PETA are pretty much in control of the law makers there when it comes to animal-related law. I'm honestly surprised that cats and dogs are legal, but then, there have been two attempts to force mandatory spay/neuter of all cats and dogs over the age of four months, statewide, ignoring the huge upsurge in shelter uptake and abandonments wherever these laws have been passed locally, so the effort is at least underway to prevent the breeding and selling of those animals within the state of CA, for their own good, of course.

Not to side with PETA (the HSUS does good work and isnt comprised of crazy people), but I would support mandatory spay and neuter laws unless you have a breeding permit. Domestic cats and dogs are some of the most damaging invasive organisms the world has ever seen, and we do not need any more of them running around.

People cannot actually be trusted to make good decisions on their own unless forced or given some sort of incentive. This is the reason we have abandoned animals in the first place, or "house cats" which are let out at night which decimate bird and lizard populations.

Now, to be fair, there are a lot of states back east where it's illegal to own NATIVE snakes, including Georgia. You can't have a Water Snake there, or a Corn, or a Chain King, or an Eastern Garter or Ribbon, not even a captive-bred morph.

You have a copy of the legislation there? In most states that have such laws there is an explicit exemption for captive bred animals.

It's like an insidious cancer, really.

Why? To play devil's advocate, there are a lot of species (like large pythons) which the cast majority of people who get them should never be allowed to touch. If there are mechanisms in place to allow competant people to own these snakes, I see no problem with restrictions on a lot of "exotic" organisms. FOr three reasons:

1) Animals are often not cared for properly. They are NOT property, they are living things with their own interests. As keepers we have an obligation to treat them well, and this SHOULD be legally enforced.

2) Many exotics are collected commercially without regard for sustainable use from their native environments. Many like turtles and snakes do not breed in sufficient numbers to withstand this collection.

3) When people get bored of these animals they get released (or unscrupulous importers decide to release them into the local park), and become invasive. Do I need to go into why this is bad?

It is one thing to say "there ought to be a law" when the interests involved are strictly personal. For example, if someone were to say "there ought to be a law" that restricts my right to conduct my personal life as I choose, or that seeks to enforce something trivial like how I paint my house or let my yard become a mini-nature preserve that is one thing. If however the interests involve extend beyond petty tastes and personal morality, such as the care and maintenance of our environment and enforcing standards of humane care of animals kept as pets; such as protecting local ecosystems from biological invasion, or preventing neglect of animals which cannot defend themselves, then by all means... There ought to be a Law, and that law needs to be enforced.

If that means there are restrictions on what species people can own without specialized permits in particular regions based on species invasiveness, so be it.

Why would it make any sense to ban Nerodia while allowing sales of really exotic snakes and lizards from other parts of the world?

Because a lot of those organisms cannot survive in CA, while nerodia can. Not only can they survive, but they will directly compete with the native garter snakes which are for the most part (sirtalis, ordinoides and elegans not withstanding) aquatic specialists which will get their ecological butts handed to them by water snakes, to say nothing of what introduced nerodia will do to native frogs which are for the most part ALL imperilled.

One of the factors with Nerodia is that they do not make great pets.

Only when not taken care of... but that describes the majority of people who keep reptiles.

[pitbulllady]

Not to side with PETA (the HSUS does good work and isnt comprised of crazy people), but I would support mandatory spay and neuter laws unless you have a breeding permit. Domestic cats and dogs are some of the most damaging invasive organisms the world has ever seen, and we do not need any more of them running around.

People cannot actually be trusted to make good decisions on their own unless forced or given some sort of incentive. This is the reason we have abandoned animals in the first place, or "house cats" which are let out at night which decimate bird and lizard populations.


You have a copy of the legislation there? In most states that have such laws there is an explicit exemption for captive bred animals.



Why? To play devil's advocate, there are a lot of species (like large pythons) which the cast majority of people who get them should never be allowed to touch. If there are mechanisms in place to allow competant people to own these snakes, I see no problem with restrictions on a lot of "exotic" organisms. FOr three reasons:

1) Animals are often not cared for properly. They are NOT property, they are living things with their own interests. As keepers we have an obligation to treat them well, and this SHOULD be legally enforced.

2) Many exotics are collected commercially without regard for sustainable use from their native environments. Many like turtles and snakes do not breed in sufficient numbers to withstand this collection.

3) When people get bored of these animals they get released (or unscrupulous importers decide to release them into the local park), and become invasive. Do I need to go into why this is bad?

It is one thing to say "there ought to be a law" when the interests involved are strictly personal. For example, if someone were to say "there ought to be a law" that restricts my right to conduct my personal life as I choose, or that seeks to enforce something trivial like how I paint my house or let my yard become a mini-nature preserve that is one thing. If however the interests involve extend beyond petty tastes and personal morality, such as the care and maintenance of our environment and enforcing standards of humane care of animals kept as pets; such as protecting local ecosystems from biological invasion, or preventing neglect of animals which cannot defend themselves, then by all means... There ought to be a Law, and that law needs to be enforced.

If that means there are restrictions on what species people can own without specialized permits in particular regions based on species invasiveness, so be it.


Because a lot of those organisms cannot survive in CA, while nerodia can. Not only can they survive, but they will directly compete with the native garter snakes which are for the most part (sirtalis, ordinoides and elegans not withstanding) aquatic specialists which will get their ecological butts handed to them by water snakes, to say nothing of what introduced nerodia will do to native frogs which are for the most part ALL imperilled.



Only when not taken care of... but that describes the majority of people who keep reptiles.

Actually, there have been several court cases in which it has been proven that animals ARE property. We are guaranteed the right to own property in the Constitution, by limited the government's ability to take said property without due process or compensation, and indeed, this very thing has been the basis on challenges in courts of law in which the state of animals as property has been upheld.

As for the HSUS "not being comprised of crazy people", you obviously know little of the HSUS! They are currently working to BAN ALL REPTILES, nationwide-did you know that? They are every bit as radical in their beliefs as PETA-no pets, no animal agriculture, no animal research, no animal breeding, no consuming of any animal products. Wayne Pacelle is on record as stating, "One generation and OUT. We have no problem with the extinction of domesticated animals" and "If I had my choice, I would not want to see another cat or dog born". HSUS is solidly behind the proposed python bans now in the US Senate and House, and make no mistake, they are NOT our allies if we choose to keep herps of any kind. They do not operate any animal shelters, nor do they provide any funding for local shelters/humane societies, and THIS is why so many people believe that they "do good things for animals" when they are about MAKING MONEY for themselves and their lobbiests, period.
You can find out plenty about this radical Animal Rights/Animal Liberation organization, which has been accurately described as "PETA with nicer suits and more-expensive watches" at AnimalScam | Activist Groups or join the Yahoo Group, Pet Law, which tracks anti-animal, anti-owner laws, including BSL and laws aimed at prohibiting the keeping of all "exotics"(not cats or dogs), including reptiles. Anyone who supports the HSUS and keeps, breeds, sells, or buys herps is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Here's a site with some of the quotes from the Animal Rights leaders, including Mr. Pacelle of the HSUS, and his right-hand man, convicted felon arsonist and former(?) member of the domestic terrorist group, AFL, John Goodwin: http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...ghtsquotes.htm .

Here, you can read the HSUS position on keeping reptiles as pets, or in captivity, period-for yourself: http://www.highbeam.com/doc.1P3-87110160.html and see the USARK's blog on the HSUS here: Home of the Reptile Nation — Reptile Nation Blog - USARK . HSUS counts on people being mislead by the "humane" word in their name, when in fact, they're nothing of the sort. Keep in mind that they, along with PETA, DEMANDED the deaths of the Michael Vick dogs, stating that they could not be rehabilitates, and indeed, have slaughtered every "pit bull" they've gotten their filthy hands on, even newborn puppies, as being "too vicious"-check out Blue Dog State for updates on how well they "take care" of dogs. I know of people who personally witnessed HSUS death squads, following Hurricane Katrina, killing animals by the thousands, while soliciting money to take care of the poor, abandoned animals left behind when their owners fled the storm's waters, and of course, in the days immediately following the seizure of Michael Vick's dogs, they were busy soliciting donations to help care for them, too, even though they did not have custody of the dogs! When several dog advocacy groups called them out on this, THEN they insisted that the dogs be destroyed! Do not be scammed by this, the richest Animal Rights organization on the planet.

[GradStudentLeper]

Actually, there have been several court cases in which it has been proven that animals ARE property. We are guaranteed the right to own property in the Constitution, by limited the government's ability to take said property without due process or compensation, and indeed, this very thing has been the basis on challenges in courts of law in which the state of animals as property has been upheld.

There is a difference between what is legal and what is right. There are a lot of laws on the books (my lack of civil rights for one) that are flat out wrong.

There are also laws which have been held up as constitutional demanding fair and humane treatment of animals. Or have you not noticed that many municipal law enforcement entities have special units for dealing with animal cruelty cases. State and federal governments also have laws protecting animals from mistreatment.

So yes. While legally animals are property, morally they are not (unless you want to get into an argument about that with me), and even though they are considered property that does not stop governments from imposing restrictions on what you can do to them. Nor does it restrict governments from putting a priori restrictions on what animals you are allowed to own in the first place.

As for the HSUS... the More i Know. As for the rest, i am well aware of them. I do animal research and if the local PETA/ALF etc chapter knew about what I do for a living, they would want my head posted on a pike.

[MichaelSmith]

One of the best things herp hobbyists (everywhere, not just in the US) could do would be to form an organization that would truly work to educate members and the public and put together a strong set of ethical standards. The standards should specify that herps must never be released after being in captivity, except as part of organized repatriation efforts. They should spell out some sort of limits on collecting from the wild that allow some personal collecting but severely limit commercial collecting. They should also spell out some categories of herps that could only be kept after some sort of certification that weeds out all the idiots that keep a Burmese python in a busted crate from which they inevitably escape and constrict the family's toddler (also weeds out those with a few bucks to get a cobra or puff adder but too few IQ points to safely keep it).

Voluntary self-policing might save us from being regulated in ways we don't like.

[GarterGeek]

The standards should specify that herps must never be released after being in captivity, except as part of organized repatriation efforts. They should spell out some sort of limits on collecting from the wild that allow some personal collecting but severely limit commercial collecting.

There are actually laws in places that do that! In my state, it is legal to collect native wildlife, but illegal to sell any creatures native to the state.

[MichaelSmith]

There are actually laws in places that do that! In my state, it is legal to collect native wildlife, but illegal to sell any creatures native to the state.

I think there are laws in a number of states along those lines. However, they are not particularly enforced (as far as I know) and probably widely ignored. My point was to cultivate the belief among herpers that that sort of thing is unacceptable.

[GarterGeek]

I think there are laws in a number of states along those lines. However, they are not particularly enforced (as far as I know) and probably widely ignored. My point was to cultivate the belief among herpers that that sort of thing is unacceptable.

Sure. I just thought I'd mention it - in case you weren't aware. I didn't know about it 'till a couple months ago.

[drache]

You have a copy of the legislation there? In most states that have such laws there is an explicit exemption for captive bred animals.

not so - most states have as few exemptions as they can get away with, because . . .

I think there are laws in a number of states along those lines. However, they are not particularly enforced (as far as I know) and probably widely ignored.

. . . most states have no budget for this sort of thing