|
1-10 of 42 messages
|
Page 1 of 5
Next
|
|
South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by SwampY on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm still looking for what this refers to but according to a story about the upcoming legislative session in South Carolina, http://www.thestate.com/politics/story/1032909.html "those who own venomous reptiles and constricting snakes would be subject to stricter regulations."
Anyone know what is up?
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by SwampY on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
On further reading I found...
Rep. Herb Kirsh, D-York, prefiled a bill that would regulate ownership of dangerous snakes and reptiles. Under the bill, owners must house the animals in bite-proof, locked enclosures. If the animal escapes, its owner must call law enforcement immediately.
I haven't read the actual text of the bill, but honestly that doesn't sound so bad on the surface. I've always felt that any animal should be legal to keep and make shoddy caging and bad husbandry and endangering others felonies.
Maybe SC will be one of the few states to do it right. This will be interesting.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by najasuphan on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
Yeah, but in the article he says,"I saw in the paper up here some guy had a big snake, a python, crawling up his leg," Kirsh said. "I felt like that shouldn't be happening." That doesn't sound to good to me. Is he implying that they should never be taken out? Yeah, that's possible. -Jamie
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by Crotalusssp on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I do not object to minimal regulations that protect the public from idiots and them from themselves. My fear is that opening the door, more and stricter legislation will follow. I feel like it can be a double edged sword in that aspect.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by pitbulllady on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I know that Andrew Wyatt had mentioned that USARK had gotten a bill "pre-filed" in SC that is basically the same as the NC law, with caging/housing requirements and written protocols in the event of escapes or envenomations, and that in THIS bill, at least, it specifically spelled out which species of snakes were included. Those were all medically-significant venomous, plus Burms, Retics, Afrocks, Green Anacondas and maybe Scrubs. However, I'm not sure that this bill mentioned in the article is the USARK-backed bill at all, and that "constricting snakes" doesn't include everything from Retics down to Corns.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by pitbulllady on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Here is a full copy of the bill that I found at our legislative resource webpage:
"South Carolina General Assembly
118th Session, 2009-2010
H. 4218
STATUS INFORMATION
General Bill
Sponsors: Rep. Kirsh
Document Path: l:\council\bills\nbd\11586ac10.docx
Prefiled in the House on November 17, 2009
Currently residing in the House Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
Summary: Venomous reptiles
HISTORY OF LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS
Date Body Action Description with journal page number
11/17/2009 House Prefiled
11/17/2009 House Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Natural Resources and Environmental Affairs
View the latest legislative information at the LPITS web site
VERSIONS OF THIS BILL
11/17/2009
A BILL
TO AMEND THE CODE OF LAWS OF SOUTH CAROLINA, 1976, BY ADDING CHAPTER 17 TO TITLE 50 SO AS TO PROVIDE FOR THE REGULATION OF VENOMOUS REPTILES, CONSTRICTING SNAKES, AND CROCODILIANS, INCLUDING SPECIFICATIONS FOR HOUSING AND TRANSPORTATION ENCLOSURES, WRITTEN BITE, SAFETY, AND ESCAPE PROTOCOLS; LAW ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES; REQUIREMENTS TO DETERMINE IF A REPTILE IS REGULATED UNDER THIS CHAPTER AND FOR MAKING FINAL DISPOSITIONS OF THESE REPTILES; ACTIVITIES NOT SUBJECT TO REGULATION UNDER THIS CHAPTER; CRIMINAL PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; AND TO PROVIDE THAT CERTAIN CONDUCT CONSTITUTES RECKLESS DISREGARD FOR THE SAFETY OF OTHERS AND SUBJECTS VIOLATORS TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES IN CIVIL ACTIONS.
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of South Carolina:
SECTION 1. Title 50 of the 1976 Code is amended by adding:
“CHAPTER 17
Venomous Reptiles, Constricting Snakes,
and Crocodilians
Section 50 17 10. The intentional or negligent exposure of other human beings to unsafe contact with venomous reptiles, large constricting snakes, or crocodilians is essentially dangerous, injurious and detrimental to public health, safety, and welfare and is declared to be a public nuisance and a criminal offense, to be abated and punished as provided for in this chapter.
Section 50 17 20. As used in this chapter:
(1) ‘Reptile’ means a venomous reptile, large constricting snake, and crocodilian.
(2) ‘Venomous reptile’ means a snake or lizard capable of spreading a chemical or biological substance dangerous to humans by spitting, biting or secretion from a gland.
(3) ‘Constricting snake’ means:
(a) reticulated python, python reticulatus;
(b) Burmese python, python molurus;
(c) African rock python, python sebae;
(d) Amethystine python, Morelia amethistina;
(e) green anaconda, eunectes murinus; and
(f) any subspecies or hybrids of items (a) through (e).
(4) ‘Crocodilian’ means any of various reptiles of the order crocodylia, including alligators, crocodiles, caimans, and gavials. For purposes of this chapter ‘crocodilian’ does not include the American alligator (American Mississippiensis).
Section 50 17 30. (A) It is unlawful for a person to handle a reptile regulated under this chapter in a manner that intentionally or negligently exposes another person to unsafe contact with the reptile.
(B) It is unlawful for a person intentionally or negligently to suggest, entice, invite, challenge, intimidate, exhort, or otherwise induce or aid a person to handle or expose himself in an unsafe manner to a reptile regulated under this chapter.
(C) It is not unlawful to engage in the safe and responsible handling of reptiles for purposes of animal husbandry, exhibition, training, transport, and education.
Section 50 17 40. (A)(1) It is unlawful for a person to own, possess, use, transport, or traffic in any venomous reptile that is not housed in a sturdy and secure enclosure.
(2) Permanent enclosures must be designed to be escape proof, bite proof, and have an operable lock. Transport containers must be designed to be escape proof and bite proof.
(3) Each enclosure clearly and visibly must be labeled ‘Venomous Reptile Inside’ with scientific name, common name, appropriate antivenom, and owner’s identifying information noted on the container. A written bite protocol must be within sight of permanent housing and must include emergency contact information, local animal control office contact information, the name and location of suitable antivenom, first aid procedures, treatment guidelines, and an escape recovery plan. A copy of the written bite protocol must accompany the transport of any venomous reptile.
(B) If an escape of a venomous reptile occurs, the owner or possessor of the venomous reptile immediately shall notify local law enforcement.
Section 50 17 50. (A)(1) It is unlawful for a person to own, possess, use, transport, or traffic in any large constricting snake that is not housed in a sturdy and secure enclosure.
(2) Permanent enclosures must be designed to be escape proof and must have an operable lock. Transport containers must be designed to be escape proof.
(3) Each enclosure clearly and visibly must be labeled with the scientific name, common name, number of specimens, and owner’s identifying information. A written safety protocol and escape recovery plan must be within sight of permanent housing, and a copy of this protocol must accompany the transport of any large constricting snake. The safety protocol must include emergency contact information, local animal control office contact information, and first aid procedures.
(4) If an escape of a large constricting snake occurs, the owner or possessor immediately shall notify local law enforcement.
Section 50 17 60. (A)(1) It is unlawful for a person to own, possess, use, transport, or traffic in any crocodilian that is not housed in a sturdy and secure enclosure.
(2) Permanent enclosures must be designed to be escape proof and have a fence of sufficient strength to prevent contact between an observer and the crocodilian and must have an operable lock. Transport containers must be designed to be escape proof.
(3) A written safety protocol and escape recovery plan must be within sight of permanent housing, and a copy of this protocol must accompany the transport of any crocodilian.
(B) If an escape of a crocodilian occurs, the owner or possessor immediately shall notify local law enforcement.
Section 50 17 70. It is unlawful for a person intentionally to release into the wild a nonnative venomous reptile, a large constricting snake, or a crocodilian.
Section 50 17 80. (A) If a law enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that a provision of this chapter has been or is about to be violated, the officer immediately shall investigate the violation or impending violation and seize the reptile or reptiles involved and deliver the reptile believed to be venomous or a large constricting snake or crocodilian to the Department of Natural Resources or its designated representative for examination for the purpose of ascertaining whether the reptile is regulated under this chapter.
(B) If the Department of Natural Resources or its designated representative finds that a seized reptile is a reptile regulated under this chapter, the department or its designated representative shall determine final disposition of the reptile in a manner consistent with the safety of the public.
(C) If the department or its designated representative finds that the reptile is not a reptile regulated under this chapter, and no criminal warrants or indictments are initiated in connection with the reptile within ten days of the initial seizure, or if a court of law determines that the reptile is not being owned, possessed, used, transported, or trafficked in violation of this chapter, the law enforcement officer within fifteen days shall return the reptile or reptiles to the person from whom they were seized.
Section 50 17 90. If an examination made by the Department of Natural Resources or its designated representative conducted pursuant to this chapter shows that the reptile is a reptile regulated under this chapter, the officer, making the seizure with probable cause to believe that the reptile is being owned, possessed, used, transported, or trafficked in violation of this chapter, shall arrest all persons violating any provision of this chapter.
Section 50 17 100. This chapter does not apply to the possession, exhibition, or handling of reptiles by employees or agents of licensed veterinarians, zoos, serpentariums, museums, laboratories, educational or scientific institutions, public and private, in the course of their educational or scientific work or to employees or agents of the Department of Natural Resources who are engaging in conduct within the scope of their authority.
Section 50 17 110. (A) Except as provided for in subsections (B) and (C), a person violating a provision of this chapter is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction must be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than thirty days.
(B) A person who violates Section 50 17 70 is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined not more than twenty five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than six months.
(C) If a person, other than the owner of a reptile regulated under this chapter, the owner’s agent, employee, or a member of the owner’s immediate family, suffers a life threatening injury or is killed as the result of a violation of this chapter, the owner of the reptile is guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction must be fined not more than five thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one year or both.
Section 50 17 120. A violation of this chapter pursuant to Section 50 17 110(B) or (C) constitutes reckless disregard for the safety of others and subjects the violator to punitive damages in any civil action that may be brought as a result of the violator’s actions.
Section 50 17 130. Civil or criminal liability imposed on a person for a violation of this chapter does not apply to a violation that resulted from:
(1) an act of God;
(2) war;
(3) other catastrophe; or
(4) an act or omission of a third party, who is not an employee or agent of the defendant or in a contractual relationship, directly or indirectly, with the defendant, that the defendant could not have prevented or avoided by exercise of proper care and due diligence.”
SECTION 2. This act takes effect upon approval by the Governor.
XX "
Note that is NO exception for reptile shows/sales open to the public, such as the Repticon shows, that would allow venomous reptiles and/or the specific large Boids to be sold or exhibited, unless they are in locked, inspected enclosures, so this would effectively mean that no more Burms, Retics, Afrocks, Green Anacondas, Scrubs or hot snakes can be sold there at these shows, since no one can bring the required enclosures to each show for each animal. I can't see hauling around a locked enclosure for each Copperhead or baby Super Dwarf Retic to each show.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
The proposed bill, as written, has several sections that leave inturpentation of the law up to the individual law enforcement officer.
"It is unlawful for a person to own, possess, use, transport, or traffic in any venomous reptile that is not housed in a sturdy and secure enclosure."
That part does not sound too bad, IF a taped DELI CUP is considered a sturdy and secure transport or traffic container, and is considered escape proof & bite proof. That would still allow shows to use deli cups for sales. However, who knows how a Game & Fish officer would interpret the law.
"Each enclosure clearly and visibly must be labeled ‘Venomous Reptile Inside’ with scientific name, common name, appropriate antivenom, and owner’s identifying information noted on the container."
OK, that sounds like more information would be required for each Deli Cup, IF Deli cups were considered legal for transport or traffic containers.
Actually, I would like to see both Common & Scientific Names on Deli Cups. Having the appropriate antivenom listed is fairly easy, CroFab, SAIMR, etc should work.
This is a situation where USARK needs to get involved, and help them draft a more definitive law. Right now, as written, it has obscure points, and leaves interpretation up to the local law enforcement & game & fish officers.
They need to define if a DELI CUP is considered a appropriate container for transport & traficing. Or, perhaps deli cups that were housed in a sturdy transport box, etc.
And, they need to define if a locking cage would be required for large constrictors at reptile shows.
I think it should be required, as most of the escapes from shows have been constrictors in non locking cages.
Overall, the bill is not terrible, but it sure needs some direction and clarification.
Go for it, USARK !
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by MoccasinMan on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
pitbullady- "Transport containers must be designed to be escape proof." the shows will still go on.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by MoccasinMan on November 18, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
also- "(C) It is not unlawful to engage in the safe and responsible handling of reptiles for purposes of animal husbandry, exhibition, training, transport, and education."
AW
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
