Well, I'm in the middle of reading it right now, and the only major problem I've seen so far is the inclusion of 'Boidae' in the defintion of 'wild animal' at the beginning. They specify certain monitor types (and left out others that could have been there), but throw in all of the boids? That's either ignorant or lazy, or perhaps both. There's no logical reason to prohibit rosy boas, ball pythons, etc.
Other than that, from a herp point of view, it prohibits venomous reptiles (which are already prohibited in NY state under an existing law, unless you have a permit), some big monitors, and crocodilians.
There are significant exemptions possible, including not just the usual AZA accredited zoos, but licensed exhibitors of wildlife (under the Animal Welfare Act), and even licensed reptile exhibitors (under this Act, but I haven't gotten too that part yet).
It also exempts people travelling through the state, so it doesn't have much effect on shipping/transporting into other jurisdictions, including Canada.
It allows people with pets to keep them, except for in certain circumstances. No it doesn't allow them to breed them. The point is, they don't want people breeding (and then presumably selling or giving to others as pets) crocodilians, venomous snakes, etc. This isn't surprising, and I think it is not unreasonable. As I said above, what is unreasonable is the inclusion of all boids. I would focus on getting them to specify the prohibited boids (as they've done with monitors). My suggestions: Burmese and Indian Pythons, Reticulated Pythons, Rock Pythons, Green Anacondas, and perhaps some of the longer Australian stuff.
I'll go and read the rest of the bill now...
Last edited by Jeff Hathaway; 07-02-04 at 07:27 AM..