So we're talking about a fine that may be higher or lower relative to the perceived threat that the particular animal would pose in the event that it escaped? Sounds reasonable to me... I guess there couldn't be any criminal penalty unless someone was actually hurt by an escaped animal making it more than an issue of simply posessing an animal that is deemed potentially dangerous and forbidden by municipal legislation...
I think these by-laws are unfair because they presume that anyone that would want to keep a large boid or venomous snake is irresponsible (and probably a weirdo anyway!). We often hear the owners of pitbulls talking about how their pets are discriminated against because of a few bad owners but at least they are able to not only have them legally but can, with a leash, take them out in public. Anyone ever take their burm out for a walk? Ever play frisbee in the park with your retic? Probably not. Both the dogs and the large snakes are potentially dangerous, even deadly and even though the snakes will probably never come in contact with the public only the dog owner is given the benefit of the doubt and is presumed responsible, we trust him to obey the leash law. If he doesn't use the leash or his dog hops the neighbor's fence and mauls a toddler we throw the book at him and rightly so. The snake owner on the other hand isn't even given the opportunity to act responsibly. This is really odd to me because in my experience snake owners appreciate the strength and potential danger that comes with owning a big snake far more than the owners of large dogs. Most large dog owners will not prevent a child from petting the animal. Of any of the people I have ever known that have kept large boids all of them have taken great care to prevent the escape of their animals and none would even consider letting a child stick their hand into an enclosure to pet the snake.
Oh well, I'm preaching to the choir here so I'll leave it alone now... lol!
I feel a little light headed... maybe you should drive...