Just a heads up to those who live in or collect in West Virginia. I found this information in a group I follow for reptiles, but if passed as is it would effect native fish enthusiasts as well.
http://usherp.org/20...exotic-animals/
West Virginia Seeks to Prohibit All Exotic/Wild Animals
Started by
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
, Jan 17 2014 03:31 PM
27 replies to this topic
#2
Guest_pepe_*
Guest_pepe_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 07:44 PM
I can speak of few things on this forum with any amount of expertise or experience. Unfortunately this is a subject I know about. I spent close to 22 yrs working in the exotic animal business. I was the head crap shoveler at a few different exotic animal ranches. No vets ,no vet techs, no vet assistants, just crap shovelers. I know some responsible people will be negatively affected by this but this is a good law for the animals. Exotic animal ranches only work for the poacher .The farm owners make no money and get discouraged, basic care ,food quality and hygiene suffer when the bills roll in and still no salable babies.The novelty of having an exotic pet wears off after about two months and the animals are either killed,returned to a farm that doesn't want them or if they are real lucky ,they just die. This bill isn't perfect but if you think beyond yourself it's for the greater good.
#3
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:00 PM
I completely understand what you are saying, however I don't understand why they can't target the specific practices you are describing here such as breeding animals for profit and warehousing them in such a way.
For those who already own these animals (as pets), should they be made criminals? A person is not supposed to put the wild animal back into the wild. What if they are denied the permit or cannot come up with the money?
I agree with making more laws to protect the welfare of animals, but I don't believe it has to be this all or nothing mentality that has permeated our society as of late. If things continue down the path they are heading we will end up being banned from owning anything other than cats and dogs, no matter how we treat those animals in our care.
For those who already own these animals (as pets), should they be made criminals? A person is not supposed to put the wild animal back into the wild. What if they are denied the permit or cannot come up with the money?
I agree with making more laws to protect the welfare of animals, but I don't believe it has to be this all or nothing mentality that has permeated our society as of late. If things continue down the path they are heading we will end up being banned from owning anything other than cats and dogs, no matter how we treat those animals in our care.
#4
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:56 PM
I can speak of few things on this forum with any amount of expertise or experience. Unfortunately this is a subject I know about. I spent close to 22 yrs working in the exotic animal business. I was the head crap shoveler at a few different exotic animal ranches. No vets ,no vet techs, no vet assistants, just crap shovelers. I know some responsible people will be negatively affected by this but this is a good law for the animals. Exotic animal ranches only work for the poacher .The farm owners make no money and get discouraged, basic care ,food quality and hygiene suffer when the bills roll in and still no salable babies.The novelty of having an exotic pet wears off after about two months and the animals are either killed,returned to a farm that doesn't want them or if they are real lucky ,they just die. This bill isn't perfect but if you think beyond yourself it's for the greater good.
I think you are painting with a broad brush and I would really hate to see responsible people punished for the behaviour of the irresponsible. It is however, what usually happens. Pets that I have (several over 15 years old, not 2 months) have not been treated as you outline above. I dont think that we need more laws against responsible behaviour to correct the behaviour of the irresponsible (but then again, I feel that way about many things). We can make pocket knives illegal, and camping on public lands, and walking in the woods... but we will only be separating people further from nature... which will result in them seeing it as having even less value. I think the bill is not perfect, and when I think beyond myself, I think the pendulum is swinging too far... we are not teaching people to be a part of nature, to experience it... we are just trying to isolate them from it.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#5
Guest_pepe_*
Guest_pepe_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 08:58 PM
Honestly for 99..9% of people dogs ,cats ,ferrets and domesticated rodents are the only mammals I ever saw work out for both the animal and it's owner. you say make more laws to protect the welfare of the animals and I agree ,but the laws we have now aren't enforced . I'm not sure what you mean by this all or nothing mentality rhetoric. What do you feel like this law would keep you from? I've delivered Puma kittens to condo's, do you think that's ok?. You start by saying if the animals are bred for profit, why else would they be bred? If you already own a tiger and your my neighbor get rid of it Now! I don't care how long you have had it. Another thing,you got me going, I have had 3 types of lemurs living in my home and vet care is impossible for an exotic I had a Ringedtailed female put her hand in a door jam and have it broken. It was an 1100 mile roundtrip ,2 days of agony,and almost 6 grand.I don't really care what your political view is but please don't use animals as the football!
#6
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 09:18 PM
Well seeing as we are discussing this on a forum about native fish species, that might be what I'm talking about. This law includes those as well as things like Tigers and Pumas. I hardly think they are in the same category, and yet they are all categorized the same by this law. I hardly think that is fair. There should at least be a tier system based on level of danger to the animal and level of danger to the public. What I meant by the "all or nothing" statement is that they include things as simple as a Sunfish and Turtles in with Tigers and Apes.
#7
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 09:22 PM
As for my breeding comment, you focused on one word. I was merely trying to state that there are people who do not breed. Maybe instead of the law focusing on those who merely KEEP animals they should do something about the BREEDING for sale.
#8
Guest_pepe_*
Guest_pepe_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 09:56 PM
You make very good points and if it was about people like you and Mr.Wolfe I would agree ,however you are not the average exotic owner. For example, have you ever walked down the street and seen young men with their pit bulls and studded collars as some sort of sign that they are tough guys.? The people drawn towards exotic pets tend to have that same need of standing out.I don't want to pant with too broad a brush ,that's just what I saw.The tier system you mentioned is good except for one major flaw. You would be asking Gov. employees to make judgement calls ,they won't do it ,that would require independent thinking and risking their pensionWell seeing as we are discussing this on a forum about native fish species, that might be what I'm talking about. This law includes those as well as things like Tigers and Pumas. I hardly think they are in the same category, and yet they are all categorized the same by this law. I hardly think that is fair. There should at least be a tier system based on level of danger to the animal and level of danger to the public. What I meant by the "all or nothing" statement is that they include things as simple as a Sunfish and Turtles in with Tigers and Apes.
#9
Michael Wolfe
-
- Board of Directors
-
- North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:00 PM
And thus the people that make good decisions are held hostage by those that cannot. This saddens me.
Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin
#10
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:08 PM
How does it affect native fish keeping? I clicked on the link but it's really long and maybe I missed it.
#11
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:15 PM
Me too Michael Wolfe.
I currently reside in a state that has laws like the ones being proposed in the link I posted. I know the effects they can have. The laws do not usually stop at the exotics/wild animals either, they are just the beginning. There was a city here in 2011 that tried to ban the sale and purchase of Goldfish. Goldfish. The most domesticated fish in the hobby.
Erica, from what I could tell by reading this, people there would require a permit if it were to pass. I am not 100% fluent in legalese though, so maybe someone else can interpret it better.
I currently reside in a state that has laws like the ones being proposed in the link I posted. I know the effects they can have. The laws do not usually stop at the exotics/wild animals either, they are just the beginning. There was a city here in 2011 that tried to ban the sale and purchase of Goldfish. Goldfish. The most domesticated fish in the hobby.
Erica, from what I could tell by reading this, people there would require a permit if it were to pass. I am not 100% fluent in legalese though, so maybe someone else can interpret it better.
#12
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
Guest_Erica Lyons_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:28 PM
They'd have to have a permit to keep native fish in aquaria?
But they're not exotic. They're sorta the opposite.
But they're not exotic. They're sorta the opposite.
#13
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
Guest_flier82sunfish_*
-
- Guests
Posted 17 January 2014 - 10:50 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.
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.
#14
Guest_Gavinswildlife_*
Guest_Gavinswildlife_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 January 2014 - 12:19 AM
Sue 'em. Go to court and say they are ruining a passive and eductional hobby.
Edited by Gavinswildlife, 18 January 2014 - 12:21 AM.
#15
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 January 2014 - 07:52 AM
So my parrots would become illegal to own in WV? I left NJ when some of my inanimate possessions suddenly became illegal, and I didn't have an emotional bond with the individual possessions, albeit perhaps I do with the idea of being able to possess them. Such a stupidly broad law it could only come from the PETA types.
#16
Guest_Subrosa_*
Guest_Subrosa_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 January 2014 - 08:22 AM
I missed the kickoff? Hell I don't even remember the coin toss!Honestly for 99..9% of people dogs ,cats ,ferrets and domesticated rodents are the only mammals I ever saw work out for both the animal and it's owner. you say make more laws to protect the welfare of the animals and I agree ,but the laws we have now aren't enforced . I'm not sure what you mean by this all or nothing mentality rhetoric. What do you feel like this law would keep you from? I've delivered Puma kittens to condo's, do you think that's ok?. You start by saying if the animals are bred for profit, why else would they be bred? If you already own a tiger and your my neighbor get rid of it Now! I don't care how long you have had it. Another thing,you got me going, I have had 3 types of lemurs living in my home and vet care is impossible for an exotic I had a Ringedtailed female put her hand in a door jam and have it broken. It was an 1100 mile roundtrip ,2 days of agony,and almost 6 grand.I don't really care what your political view is but please don't use animals as the football!
#17
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 January 2014 - 10:45 AM
It's pretty funny that a state that has little problem with extensive mountaintop coal mining would move forward with an ambitious exotic animals control law.
#18
Guest_tomterp_*
Guest_tomterp_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 January 2014 - 11:19 AM
It's pretty funny that a state that has little problem with extensive mountaintop coal mining would move forward with an ambitious exotic animals control law.
True that. Better get to work eradicating the guppies infesting Berkeley Springs, then.
#19
Guest_Usil_*
Guest_Usil_*
-
- Guests
Posted 18 January 2014 - 09:41 PM
"...those defined as domestic and livestock, including mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians and fresh water fish that are either native wildlife or exotic."
I thought that this topic might be heading into an area not related to our needs but if I am reading the proposed rule right then it does relate to keeping native fish which directly impacts our charter. Am I reading this correctly? If so, then does the forum have a duty to get involved in the legislative fight to protect the keeping of non threatened native fish?
Usil
I thought that this topic might be heading into an area not related to our needs but if I am reading the proposed rule right then it does relate to keeping native fish which directly impacts our charter. Am I reading this correctly? If so, then does the forum have a duty to get involved in the legislative fight to protect the keeping of non threatened native fish?
Usil
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
