Every incident brought up to bolster an argument FOR this sort of legislation always seems to have intervening factors. Two incidents in Ohio were used to pass our exotic animal "ban", the zanesville guy who deliberately let all his animals loose, and the Olmsted man whose tiger mauled a volunteer some years back - the volunteer having gone inside the cage to feed it, against the rules. People always make an argument about them getting loose and becoming an invasive problem, but they always specifically exempt those species with the largest impact, like goldfish and domestic cats. Or they talk about Florida, as if Florida's python and lionfish issues are possible in every state.
I"m a longtime lurker on any number of exotic pet forums. Yes, there's the occasional 14yo that wants to have a shark in his tank. And there is the occasional adult that thinks it would be awesome to keep a wolf as a pet. From what I see though, a good majority of exotic pet owners have a real wish to care for their animal properly and become rather knowledgeable after buying, if they weren't already before.
The problems are many:
1. You can't make a blanket statement. Banning pythons always seems to mean you can't keep iguanas or turtles either. Yet I've met a good deal of iguana owners that love their pets and devote entire rooms and part of the back yard to giving them a proper environment. You can't say no one has the ability to take care of wild animals properly. Monsterfishkeepers itself is pretty much the answer to that one.
2. Exemptions. The only exemptions they ever include are for common domesticated pets and livestock. But those are generally the most damaging. Feral cats are a big issue, for example. Goldfish are awesome in the aquarium, and not so much when outdoors in a natural waterway. And too many exempted pets are already not cared for properly either - how many dog abuse cases happen every year and how many deaths from untrained and unrestricted dogs?
3. Invasives. For a project one year, I found a list of all aquatic invasives identified in Lake Erie. Some 90% of them came directly from the shipping lanes or deliberately introduced in a failed government experiment, and of the last 10%, only goldfish can reliably be said to come from someone having them as a pet. I stopped at aquatic because the list was so large, but I'm not sure it's all that different for other species.
There's pretty much no opinion to bolster such legislation that makes any sense. I would much prefer to spend time educating people than passing legislation that would largely affect the people who care for their pets properly, and has miniscule effect, if any, on the intended problems.
Address large-scale breeding, if you must, not unlike the puppy-mill legislation, and enforce what you have properly, but such over-reaching bills don't do anything useful.
Sorry, sore subject, and I missed testifying when Ohio passed their bill.
West Virginia Seeks to Prohibit All Exotic/Wild Animals
Started by
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
, Jan 17 2014 03:31 PM
27 replies to this topic
#22
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 19 January 2014 - 09:47 AM
Same here. Moved to NC one year before it came up.Sorry, sore subject, and I missed testifying when Ohio passed their bill.
I feel exactly the same as you do.
#23
Guest_Matt N_*
Guest_Matt N_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 January 2014 - 02:39 PM
I agree with labgirl with this one. Being a wv native and a keeper of all types of fish and large lizards this topic hit a little to close to home I'll defintly be watching this develoment real close
#24
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 January 2014 - 07:20 PM
The reptile forum where I originally got this from does a lot to protect their hobby. I feel like we should work to protect ours. At least show how what we do specifically should not be lumped in with such broad other things like keeping wild cats and alligators. There should be different laws to fit different needs based on science and facts.
#25
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 January 2014 - 07:25 PM
Labgirl, well put.
#26
Guest_Heather_*
Guest_Heather_*
-
- Guests
Posted 20 January 2014 - 10:01 PM
Here is the part that I read which made me understand it that way:
ARTICLE 17. LIMITING POSSESSION OF WILD AND EXOTIC ANIMALS.
§20-17-1. Intent.
(5) To prevent the removal and use of native wildlife taken from the public domain.
§20-17-4. Possessing Wild and Exotic Animals Limited.
(a) Unless the activity is specifically exempted, no person may own, possess, breed, harbor, transport, release or have custody or control of a wild and exotic animal.
§20-17-3. Definitions.
(6) “Wild and exotic animal,” “animal” or the plural mean any animals other than those defined as domestic and livestock, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fresh water fish that are either native wildlife or exotic, including hybrids thereof, which, due to their inherent nature, may be considered dangerous to humans, other animals or the environment. A comprehensive list of “wild and exotic animals” shall be set forth by the division, in consultation with the department and the bureau, pursuant to the rule-making authority of this article or the current legislative authority of the division.
The first portion highlighted above gives me some hope. On the latter portion,... I very strongly recommend that you contact your local representatives and in addition... your local fish and game. At the very least - it doesn't sound like the list has been finalized or at least officially made public yet. Taking a step back, as a former Veterinary Technician who also worked with rescue... I also saw first hand why there is a need for some legislation related to removing and attempting to domesticate wildlife. It just rarely ends up working out and there are too many devastating stories as a result (Neglect, abuse, abandonment, miscare, aggression, etc etc etc) FAR more common than with domestics. Not to mention unwanted exotic release issues, not limited to disease.. yes.. Florida's situation with non-native herps, fish, etc. Of course, I do not agree with how it appears this legislation has been written, but I have not seen this comprehensive list yet either.... nor have I spoken with those at the consulting "department/bureau". I'd absolutely pick up the phone and call them first. A while back, there was legislation proposed that could be interpreted as restricting certain types of cichlids from entering the state... I picked up the phone and called NH fish and game. They were excellent, and clarified for me that such was not the case. Of course I wrote down the date, time and who I spoke to...
I wish you the best of luck and will be following this topic closely... I'm a herp fan as much as my Eclectus parrot and fishes... can't imagine not being able to have them.
Labgirl, it's true what you're saying,... but I do see both sides of the situation... just do not agree with this legislation's extreme. Without seeing this list of course.
#27
Guest_gerald_*
Guest_gerald_*
-
- Guests
Posted 21 January 2014 - 01:42 PM
As I read it, this law directs the state agencies to compile a list of "wild and exotic animals" that are considered dangerous to people or to the environment, in other words, a "blacklist". I see nothing wrong with this concept, as long as good judgement, science, and public input are incorporated in creating and revising the list of prohibited species. Given this limited info about the proposed law we dont yet know how long or short the list will be, but I don't see any reason to fear that it will include every non-domestic fish and animal in the pet trade. This is a MUCH better approach than the "whitelist" concept that's been proposed before at the federal level (i dont recall the HB #), where each animal species would have to be reviewed and approved to be allowed in the pet trade. NC has a blacklist approach and it really doesn't have much effect on hobbyists -- the banned species atre things like piranhas, snakeheads, non-sterile grass carp, certain troublesome invasive crayfish and snails, etc. It's a pretty sensible list, and WV could do similar, with input from both scientists and knowledgable people in the pet trade.
Edit: My post above was sent before I got to page 2 and read Heather's excellent comments. I see now she's already stated much of what i was trying to say.
Edit: My post above was sent before I got to page 2 and read Heather's excellent comments. I see now she's already stated much of what i was trying to say.
§20-17-3. Definitions.
(6) “Wild and exotic animal,” “animal” or the plural mean any animals other than those defined as domestic and livestock, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fresh water fish that are either native wildlife or exotic, including hybrids thereof, which, due to their inherent nature, may be considered dangerous to humans, other animals or the environment. A comprehensive list of “wild and exotic animals” shall be set forth by the division, in consultation with the department and the bureau, pursuant to the rule-making authority of this article or the current legislative authority of the division.
#28
Chasmodes
-
- NANFA Member
- Central Maryland
Posted 08 July 2015 - 05:28 PM
The original list had a couple fish on it (mosquito fish, snakeheads), but in July 2014, the board came up with a revised list after much backlash from pet owners. There are currently no fish listed. Here is the link to the latest revision that I could find:
http://ftpcontent.wo...erousanimal.pdf
The board will meet each year to revise the list as necessary.
Kevin Wilson
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
