|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by CChadwick on November 20, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
I see the point from both sides but agree with "Denial"... I think anytime you give "law enforcement" the power to make decisions you are asking for trouble. If this goes through then I know for a fact that a lot of things and people will go further and further "underground"... The locked cage thing is a little loose in its interpretation... For example, what about the thousand or so people that use rack systems that are located in a building or room that has a lock on the door to building or said room? Someone can make the mistake of locking the cage back but with a rack, there isn't any way for escape if the tub is slid back in place... That is one of the reasons why I went to using mostly racks (that and space, and ease of cleaning ofcourse). Maybe if EVERYTHING in the legislature was spelled out completely so to leave no guess work, but even then I think this could still be that proverbial first "good intention" brick in the path to hell.... If you're wanting to make up laws in regards to reptile ownership in order to get something on the books first, then how about getting a herp law passed stating that you can keep anything period, as long as you're over 21 and if not over 21, then under adult supervision??? Laws pertaining to venomous reptiles will eventually trickle over to venomous fish, i.e. lionfish, rabbitfish, many many corals, etc., and I think it's ridiculous to put locks on a fishtank, lol... The only thing that imposing herp laws will accomplish will be making it harder for those who want to keep these animals to keep them and or sell them... Any law certainly won't keep people from keeping things illegally, as it will only allow the state to make a buck if they get busted doing so... As states across the US scramble for ways to get money in this "new economy" to cover current deficits and budgetary requirements they'll impose more and more laws and more and more expensive permits... I'm one of those few that believes that less government interaction is best for the people, as more laws, restrictions, permits, etc. have never made anyone any safer.... Just look around if you disagree.... If you wanna be the ones to get certain laws passed first, then pass laws that are completely transparent, completely for the people, and completely sensible. The model legislation I just read is anything but....
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by SCatheris on November 20, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I'm in the same mindset as Chadwick. It's good because it seems like theres finally compromise with these laws. But at the same time you don't see many headliners about exotic animal incidents here in SC. I know the past few years there have been a few. I'm not against the law by any means but at the same time why fix what isn't broken? But the law is much more "loose" than most of the states.
- Justin
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on November 21, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
OK, first let me say that I was glad to see USARK didn’t throw Burmese pythons importers and breeders to the wolves in Andrew’s HR 2811 speech in early November 2009.
Now regarding the passed NC and prefilled SC USARK bills, I don’t like it and worry.
In every state that has some regs on exotics, AR (animal rights) and legislators just keep piling up more BS on the existent rules (see FL, WA, OR,…)
It is easier to add crap to an existing bill, than to pass a brand new bill, so WHY make it easier for our enemy to add more crap later on?
In most localities, it is already illegal to have animals at large, aka releasing them…
I prefer these USARK bills disappear, but if not:
Anyway, some of my issues with the SC bill are :
- Required locks for large constrictors don’t discriminate between sizes : I can see why you want to have 20 feet Anaconda securely padlocked, but hatchling Burmese is less dangerous than full grown Boa. Locks are an overkill for hatchling pythons or even crocs.
- What is the definition of SAFE and UNSAFE handling? Judging from how exotic cat bites are treated, if an idiot jumps the fence to join you in your free handling croc or cobra show, are YOU responsible or not? In can or monkey cases, it is really who has the best lawyer, so you might want to write “suicidal idiot” clause to that section, or else all the FL, TX and Dakota and wherever else herp shows might be deemed unsafe if USARK introduces this bill there too...
- Make provisions for terrorist AR or crazy ex wife or husband ,friend, mother in law,…etc…acts, aka, somebody who intentionally releases your animals, it is easy to buy 30 dollar bolt cutter and cut locks. Owner shouldn’t be responsible if suicidal idiot or terrorists do this.
- -I have serious issue that other than owner, IF family member or friend suffers injury or death, it is misdemeanor,…not practical. So if you are the owner but not your wide, and you need help removing unruly python from your neck or u get bitten by hot, (accidents happen that is why we call them accidents),and your non owner wife helps you and gets injured too in the process, you go to jail??? That is insane!
- It says the chapter doesn’t apply to veterinarians, DNR and scientific employees, but doesn’t mention animal control , AC, agency , so if local AC confiscates your hots and gets bitten, you the owner are still responsible?
- Section 50-17-80. is scary, local AC can take the animals and then see if DNR decides it is legal or not? Also, many local govs don’t like to enforce state laws as that means money is going to the state not loc gov, so local govs often are not too driven to go there unless it is part of the local ordinance as well. Anyway, I have work to do….
Z
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by pictigaster1 on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
As with any state mandated control we loose power to decide for ourselves what is the correct way to live.To me it is a simple limit of freedom.I know that our local state and federal goverments have done so well at inforceing and interpriting law that we should feel free to give them all our rights.We should even write laws telling them exactly how to limit our freedoms.Sometimes I think people have lost there f&^%ing mind.The days of freedom in this country are limited just as much as the wave of laws comeing our way are trying to limit us.The words by the people and for the people are only words.All these young people I know do not even vote and yet they complain.If you look at history when we give the power away it stays gone .I am against this bill anywhere.Only time will tell if it does what it is supposed to do.There are towns in this great country where you can not keep any reptiles at all.The power has been given away.If money hungry idiots would not sell gaboon vipers to someone as there first snake this may of never happened but it did and will keep happening .I am for a lot of radical ideas such as ,this is the scarry one FREEDOM.Ok I am done..........
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by Ptk on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
First, I am glad we have people like USARK that dedicate their time and energy to uniting reptile keepers with the common goal of safe and responsible husbandry.
I do feel that, with no prior warnings or convictions seizure of a SUSPECTED animal solely based on one officers "probable cause" is a bit harsh. This sort of power often can be abused and lead to intimidation style tactics stemmed from political pressures or one officers personal vendetta.
This "on the spot" seizure also begs the question - are they going to confiscate the enclosures, lighting/heating equipment, bowls, hooks, etc. too?
Like other animal code enforcement (potentially dangerous dog ordinances) - I am not sure why a SUSPECTED animal could not stay quarantined with the owner (if properly caged) until a DNR officer could determine if a violation has in fact occurred. The initial reporting officer issues a warning that a complaint has been made and an investigation is underway. The SUSPECTED violator is made aware that they are now under investigation and the animal is not being seized at this time providing they quarantine said animal in a secured, at all times, enclosure away from the general public and do not transport said animal off premise without law enforcement permission. Any attempt to tamper, impede or defraud the investigation would be met with additional charges, fines or imprisonment, etc.
This keeps lawful owners from being victims from "complaint Mary" next door. It gives law enforcement and DNR time to obtain proper warrants, and make preparation for keeping said animal in custody with someone knowledgeable with the safe handling and keeping of that particular specie of animal (venomous/Large constrictor).
Ultimately I see the animal suffering from "on the spot" seizures regardless of how the investigation concludes. That is a LOT of power to give one officer when NO violation has been proven. With no other alternative the uninformed officer is also placed in a situation of; to seize or to not seize. If they do not seize they themselves could become liable. So there for it stands to reason that anytime a complaint is made a lawful reptile keeper will have their animals seized with out a warning, recourse or appeal.
In good conscience I could not support a bill that provides no other alternative. Bare in mind most violators of this proposed bill would be welling meaning reptile keepers that either by ignorance or impatience did not obtain proper permits or follow proper procedures (enclosures, etc.) not these Billion dollar black market reptile Kingpins, I have yet to meet.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by pictigaster1 on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
|
USARK.Is by far a good orginazation its the fact that we empower the city state and federal goverments beyond reason.Freedom is not a double sided coin it is FREEDOM.eVERY DAY OUR RIGHTS AS AMERICANS ARE DEMINISHED AT WHAT POINT DO WE SAY STOP.Well we are giveing that right away as well.
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Apparently, the SC Legislature wants a bill of some sort to pass this year. If that is the case, and they are bound and determined to pass something, then it would be in the best interest of the reptile folks to help them draft a reasonable bill.
What bothers me though, is that Andrew has stated that this is basically the NC bill, with only a few changes.
There is still a lot of very ambiguous wording in that bill as it is written. As Patrick and Zuzana have stated, it leaves a lot of leeway for law enforcement folks to decide just what the bill means. It is lacking of many specifics that I think should be in there.
I do not agree that it guarantees business as usual at the SC shows. The way it is written now, it would allow a law enforcement person to confiscate animal first, then decide it they were legal or not. Surely USARK can craft a bill with better working and more specifics than that ? Again, I ask, why is the bill not specific in stating if a deli cup is a safe container under the law or not ? And as Zuzana pointed out, the provision about locked cages for constrictors would have very different meaning if say a Burmese python was 3 feet long, or 15 feet long. Why is size not specifically stated ?
If this is mostly the law as crafted by USARK, I think they need to work on it some more. And, if the SC Legislature is planning to use it, then USARK needs to get together with the folks drafting the bill, and help make sure it is crafted in a more workable format.
If passed as is, all it would take is one individual from SC Game & Fish, using his own interpretation, to shut down the reptile shows in that state.
I think we can do better.
Best Regards
John Z
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by southerncat on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I will be contacting Steve Bennett (SCDNR) this week on this subject.
If you have a specific question that needs to be clerified..Please email it to me by Tuesday of this week. And I will make sure we get a answer from the man himself.
carolinareptileshows@gmail.co
Thanks,
Cathy
|
| |
|
RE: South Carolina law change?
|
Reply
|
|
by MoccasinMan on November 22, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I propose we put together an ad hoc committee with Cathy, Chad, John Z and Theresa Bearden to look this bill over and make improvements so that everyone is protected. We must resist trying to completely re-write it... it will take too much time and they won't go for it. We can accomplish our goals with a few subtle language tweaks. If this is a model then it should continually improve. Once we get it the way we want it i will vet it through some other key SC folks, Steve Bennett at SC DNR and our attornys. Then I will take it to Rep Kirsch and ask him for a committee susbstitute. He may even be able to amend it out right even now since the session has not even come into session. Comments?
Andrew
|
| |
|
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.
|
