A Real Conversation About Licensing

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by jossh27

That's ridiculous. Class room time just to be able to own a animal? Of you're going to licence it, go ahead... Make us pay a fee, maybe do a quick online test but i think classroom time is bullspit. I sure as heck don't have time as a father and someone who works 12+ hours a day to spend n a classroom for a day and listen to someone talk about responsibilities as a pet owner and "teach" us to be safe. Should giants be micro chipped and licenced? - i don't think its a bad idea but as for schooling/training i think is going a bit far. I do see what your saying mink, but i just cring at the idea.

There's classroom time for a number of licenses. I believe to become a pilot you need to. Even as a "hobby" pilot.

Pretty much means if you're serious to do it then you'll take the classes. Trust me, we all have time somewhere for an hour here or there.

I believe in the fees. I really like microchipping animals as an idea. Simple scan and people know if you're supposed to have it or not.

Could be as simple as uploading the chip number to a registry everytime you buy or sell an animal. The seller could also "release" the number so it registers as sold/bought. Or traded or whatever.

[jossh27]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

There's classroom time for a number of licenses. I believe to become a pilot you need to. Even as a "hobby" pilot.

Pretty much means if you're serious to do it then you'll take the classes. Trust me, we all have time somewhere for an hour here or there.

I believe in the fees. I really like microchipping animals as an idea. Simple scan and people know if you're supposed to have it or not.

Could be as simple as uploading the chip number to a registry everytime you buy or sell an animal. The seller could also "release" the number so it registers as sold/bought. Or traded or whatever.

Sure. im not against micro chipping but whos responsible for it? the breeders? the buyer? well ultimately the buyer would after the sale costs increase, but dont you think thats enough?

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by jossh27

Sure. im not against micro chipping but whos responsible for it? the breeders? the buyer? well ultimately the buyer would after the sale costs increase, but dont you think thats enough?

I'm fine with the breeder paying for them. And to be fair, chips don't cost too much. I would think bulk discounts would happen and the prices would or should come down. No way to know for sure.

[Minkness]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

There's classroom time for a number of licenses. I believe to become a pilot you need to. Even as a "hobby" pilot.

Pretty much means if you're serious to do it then you'll take the classes. Trust me, we all have time somewhere for an hour here or there.

I believe in the fees. I really like microchipping animals as an idea. Simple scan and people know if you're supposed to have it or not.

Could be as simple as uploading the chip number to a registry everytime you buy or sell an animal. The seller could also "release" the number so it registers as sold/bought. Or traded or whatever.

Also would be a good way to keep track of type and gender. Maybe not 100% but netter than now perhaps.

[Minkness]

MTD does have a point on the US keeping track of things....some things are grossly neglected while others boarder on zero privacy.

And no, it won't stop the criminals, but it will lesson the uneducated, the hoarders, and the outright abusers of these animals dramatically.

It doesn't have to be overly difficult or expensive, but could help protect the animals AND the keepers. Renewing a license every 10 years cpuld be as simple and cheap as taking another 8 hour class tonensure keepers are up to date on husbandry and accept the responsibility of continuing proper care of their animals.

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by Minkness

MTD does have a point on the US keeping track of things....some things are grossly neglected while others boarder on zero privacy.

And no, it won't stop the criminals, but it will lesson the uneducated, the hoarders, and the outright abusers of these animals dramatically.

It doesn't have to be overly difficult or expensive, but could help protect the animals AND the keepers. Renewing a license every 10 years cpuld be as simple and cheap as taking another 8 hour class tonensure keepers are up to date on husbandry and accept the responsibility of continuing proper care of their animals.

Exactly. It's not about control, its about responsibility.

[sophiedufort]

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

What ethical ramifications do you foresee?

[sophiedufort]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

What ethical ramifications do you foresee?

Quite a few. A hobby, particularly one that involves animals, raises too many issues that would need to be regulated. For instance, how one can define the threshold between a responsible owner and one that is not? If we need a license to have a snake, then why not regulate dog/cat ownership, as well as ownership of any other pet? What makes snake owners more susceptible of needing a license? Would one's financial ability to keep a pet be taken into account when issuing a license? Would we have to prove that we can actually provide for these pets? After all, not being able to provide proper conditions can lead to mistreatment. But who is to decide that threshold? And how? Another example: who is right and who is wrong in their definition of snakes' welfare? Handling or not handling a snake? Is that a welfare issue? And the examples are countless.
The animals' well-being and their treatment, are the bases of a perpetual heated debate. What some believe is responsible owner behavior is considered by others to be inappropriate. Defining responsible behavior would be, in itself, a nightmare. That goes for both the treatment of animals and the owner's misdoings that affect others. While it is easier to regulate the way one's behavior impacts on the society (i.e.: release of animals in the wild, and the environmental impact deriving from it), how can we (in practical terms) decide upon the criteria of being a good owner (this being strictly related to the way owners interact with their animals)? If your idea of licensing is about making people more responsible, then would you kindly define that responsibility, and explain how on earth could that be put into practice. Accountability should extend, according to quite a few members of the forum, to the way people treat their pets. Sounds great and sensible, but can anyone put forward a pertinent explanation as to how this can be accomplished?
As I said before, in order for licensing to be effective, it should be regulated by law, otherwise the ensuing penalties would not be legally enforceable, and would make licensing redundant, nothing more than a money black hole. Legalizing a regulatory measure involves studies, debates, submissions, and more debates. That costs a lot of money, which will eventually become the licensees' burden. Then the purpose of licensing must be considered too: is it a measure to protect the animals, and/or a measure to protect the society from the harmful actions of irresponsible owners? or both? If it is the former, the debate would revolve, as I said, around what's right and what's wrong, and what backs it up (ethical debate). If it's the latter, then it should be regulated by law without the need for a license. Whoever does something to abuse a pet should be punished by law, and same goes for someone who, through neglect, mistreatment or malice, knowingly or unknowingly harms the wider population. Let's all remember that such laws exist, and we don't need to re-write them for snake owners. Currently, any animal abuse is punishable by law, be that of a domestic or wild animal, and so is the release of pets in the wild, or the use of pets to produce harm. We don't need to pay an additional tax for that.
I would rather support mandatory requirements for snake breeders to provide their customers with detailed care sheets specific to their purchase, and with explanations about the impact of pet mistreatment. That would be an informative, practical solution, also inexpensive for the breeders.

[prairiepanda]

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

If we need a license to have a snake, then why not regulate dog/cat ownership, as well as ownership of any other pet? What makes snake owners more susceptible of needing a license?

Many municipalities do regulate the ownership of dogs, cats, and other common pets. Every city I've ever lived in has required dog registration which is to be updated annually for a fee, and most have required cats to be registered as well(cats usually only require a one-time registration, though; not sure why they are often dealt with differently). For small animals, the regulations tend to be more relaxed and harder to enforce. For example, having limits set on the total number of caged animals allowed in a household or per square meter of property. Many cities have very specific guidelines for "farm" animals as well, if they're allowed at all within city limits as pets. The city I currently live in has bylaws which go into great detail about the space requirements of specific animals being kept as pets within city limits, including guinea pigs, rabbits, and "small rodents"(rats, mice, hamsters, etc.) among other animals. For reptiles, however, there is very little regulation. They have banned a good chunk of reptiles altogether, but the ones that are allowed have no regulation at all. It would be nice to see reptiles being recognized as much as mammals, but unfortunately people tend not to care about their wellbeing as much.

Would we have to prove that we can actually provide for these pets? After all, not being able to provide proper conditions can lead to mistreatment. But who is to decide that threshold? And how?

Obviously it's unreasonable to expect enforcement of specific care guidelines, especially with the overwhelming variety of different reptile species in the pet trade and their different needs. But these things aren't normally enforced based on the care given. They're enforced when it's brought to bylaw enforcement's attention that your animals are clearly sick and/or dying. "Mistreatment" is judged by the health of the animals. For example, where I live, there is a bylaw describing the kind of enclosure a pet goat must be kept in. If someone is keeping their goat in a different enclosure and the goat is not suffering or ill, they won't be reported and thus nothing will happen. But if the goat is injured due to the poor design of the enclosure and someone reports it, the owner will be fined and can have the animal confiscated. In the case of registered dogs, if the owner is charged for a very serious offense regarding the care of the dog, they will not be able to license any other dogs. That doesn't prevent them from secretly getting a new dog without a license(unlikely since whoever reported him would probably notice), but at least it's a deterrent.

I would rather support mandatory requirements for snake breeders to provide their customers with detailed care sheets specific to their purchase, and with explanations about the impact of pet mistreatment. That would be an informative, practical solution, also inexpensive for the breeders.

Great idea; many breeders do it already, or at least provide care sheets on their websites. But how would you enforce such a thing? It's good practice for breeders, sure, but not something I can see being applied as a law.

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by prairiepanda

Many municipalities do regulate the ownership of dogs, cats, and other common pets. Every city I've ever lived in has required dog registration which is to be updated annually for a fee, and most have required cats to be registered as well(cats usually only require a one-time registration, though; not sure why they are often dealt with differently). For small animals, the regulations tend to be more relaxed and harder to enforce. For example, having limits set on the total number of caged animals allowed in a household or per square meter of property. Many cities have very specific guidelines for "farm" animals as well, if they're allowed at all within city limits as pets. The city I currently live in has bylaws which go into great detail about the space requirements of specific animals being kept as pets within city limits, including guinea pigs, rabbits, and "small rodents"(rats, mice, hamsters, etc.) among other animals. For reptiles, however, there is very little regulation. They have banned a good chunk of reptiles altogether, but the ones that are allowed have no regulation at all. It would be nice to see reptiles being recognized as much as mammals, but unfortunately people tend not to care about their wellbeing as much.


Obviously it's unreasonable to expect enforcement of specific care guidelines, especially with the overwhelming variety of different reptile species in the pet trade and their different needs. But these things aren't normally enforced based on the care given. They're enforced when it's brought to bylaw enforcement's attention that your animals are clearly sick and/or dying. "Mistreatment" is judged by the health of the animals. For example, where I live, there is a bylaw describing the kind of enclosure a pet goat must be kept in. If someone is keeping their goat in a different enclosure and the goat is not suffering or ill, they won't be reported and thus nothing will happen. But if the goat is injured due to the poor design of the enclosure and someone reports it, the owner will be fined and can have the animal confiscated. In the case of registered dogs, if the owner is charged for a very serious offense regarding the care of the dog, they will not be able to license any other dogs. That doesn't prevent them from secretly getting a new dog without a license(unlikely since whoever reported him would probably notice), but at least it's a deterrent.


Great idea; many breeders do it already, or at least provide care sheets on their websites. But how would you enforce such a thing? It's good practice for breeders, sure, but not something I can see being applied as a law.

Every time Aaron and I sell an animal a caresheet is sent alongside the COG. But there's no guarantees that the new owner reads it

[bigsnakegirl785]

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

Quite a few. A hobby, particularly one that involves animals, raises too many issues that would need to be regulated. For instance, how one can define the threshold between a responsible owner and one that is not? If we need a license to have a snake, then why not regulate dog/cat ownership, as well as ownership of any other pet? What makes snake owners more susceptible of needing a license? Would one's financial ability to keep a pet be taken into account when issuing a license? Would we have to prove that we can actually provide for these pets? After all, not being able to provide proper conditions can lead to mistreatment. But who is to decide that threshold? And how? Another example: who is right and who is wrong in their definition of snakes' welfare? Handling or not handling a snake? Is that a welfare issue? And the examples are countless.
The animals' well-being and their treatment, are the bases of a perpetual heated debate. What some believe is responsible owner behavior is considered by others to be inappropriate. Defining responsible behavior would be, in itself, a nightmare. That goes for both the treatment of animals and the owner's misdoings that affect others. While it is easier to regulate the way one's behavior impacts on the society (i.e.: release of animals in the wild, and the environmental impact deriving from it), how can we (in practical terms) decide upon the criteria of being a good owner (this being strictly related to the way owners interact with their animals)? If your idea of licensing is about making people more responsible, then would you kindly define that responsibility, and explain how on earth could that be put into practice. Accountability should extend, according to quite a few members of the forum, to the way people treat their pets. Sounds great and sensible, but can anyone put forward a pertinent explanation as to how this can be accomplished?
As I said before, in order for licensing to be effective, it should be regulated by law, otherwise the ensuing penalties would not be legally enforceable, and would make licensing redundant, nothing more than a money black hole. Legalizing a regulatory measure involves studies, debates, submissions, and more debates. That costs a lot of money, which will eventually become the licensees' burden. Then the purpose of licensing must be considered too: is it a measure to protect the animals, and/or a measure to protect the society from the harmful actions of irresponsible owners? or both? If it is the former, the debate would revolve, as I said, around what's right and what's wrong, and what backs it up (ethical debate). If it's the latter, then it should be regulated by law without the need for a license. Whoever does something to abuse a pet should be punished by law, and same goes for someone who, through neglect, mistreatment or malice, knowingly or unknowingly harms the wider population. Let's all remember that such laws exist, and we don't need to re-write them for snake owners. Currently, any animal abuse is punishable by law, be that of a domestic or wild animal, and so is the release of pets in the wild, or the use of pets to produce harm. We don't need to pay an additional tax for that.
I would rather support mandatory requirements for snake breeders to provide their customers with detailed care sheets specific to their purchase, and with explanations about the impact of pet mistreatment. That would be an informative, practical solution, also inexpensive for the breeders.

The only problem with that is, most animal abuse laws do include reptiles, but animal control couldn't give a single care in the world how badly they were treated they won't do a thing to help them or penalize the owners. Reptiles are seen as lesser by the general public, and seen as a set of animals that can't be abused because they supposedly feel no pain or emotions. They're not worth bothering with, because they aren't suffering from the abuse!

I personally think a licensing that educates and simply shows you know at the least the basics, as well as that gives special training for hots and giants is what we need. Nothing that says "you can only have X animals" or "you can only keep X group of reptiles" should be implemented, as that brings in unnecessary complications and makes people have to maintain unnecessary multiple licences to keep a variety of animals. I can understand there being special licenses for keeping hots or giants (or crocodilians and large montors, etc), though as they are potentially dangerous animals. They need to be housed and handled differently than other reptiles as they could potentially kill people or pets.

I don't think the license itself should control how you keep pets, but it should put basic guidelines in place. Imo, an animal should be able to exhibit all natural behaviors, so I personally would support a license that went something along the lines of "Length+Width is equal to or greater than the snake's length," "enough height should be offered that they can get off the ground," "no dangerous or unsanitary bedding should be used" etc. as far as general housing. I'm not well-versed on lizard-keeping so can't go much into detail there. But there is a lot of things most keepers seem to agree on that is generally accepted as harmful that could easily be included on licenses, such as sand is an unsuitable substrate for the majority of reptile species kept and that pine/cedar is harmful to reptile respiratory systems.

I think a general ed class would encourage new owners to do their own research. If they're willing to go through the pain, most will probably be willing to do the extra leg work to research the care of their specific pet.

So basically I think for non-dangerous reptiles the licenses should be more education-based and lenient, but the dangerous ones should have policies in place to reduce dangerous keeping and lessen the danger they pose to others. The licenses should not be overly controlling and should have reasonable fees.

So I basically agree with Tsubaki here.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by bigsnakegirl785

The only problem with that is, most animal abuse laws do include reptiles, but animal control couldn't give a single care in the world how badly they were treated they won't do a thing to help them or penalize the owners. Reptiles are seen as lesser by the general public, and seen as a set of animals that can't be abused because they supposedly feel no pain or emotions. They're not worth bothering with, because they aren't suffering from the abuse!

I personally think a licensing that educates and simply shows you know at the least the basics, as well as that gives special training for hots and giants is what we need. Nothing that says "you can only have X animals" or "you can only keep X group of reptiles" should be implemented, as that brings in unnecessary complications and makes people have to maintain unnecessary multiple licences to keep a variety of animals. I can understand there being special licenses for keeping hots or giants (or crocodilians and large montors, etc), though as they are potentially dangerous animals. They need to be housed and handled differently than other reptiles as they could potentially kill people or pets.

I don't think the license itself should control how you keep pets, but it should put basic guidelines in place. Imo, an animal should be able to exhibit all natural behaviors, so I personally would support a license that went something along the lines of "Length+Width is equal to or greater than the snake's length," "enough height should be offered that they can get off the ground," "no dangerous or unsanitary bedding should be used" etc. as far as general housing. I'm not well-versed on lizard-keeping so can't go much into detail there. But there is a lot of things most keepers seem to agree on that is generally accepted as harmful that could easily be included on licenses, such as sand is an unsuitable substrate for the majority of reptile species kept and that pine/cedar is harmful to reptile respiratory systems.

I think a general ed class would encourage new owners to do their own research. If they're willing to go through the pain, most will probably be willing to do the extra leg work to research the care of their specific pet.

So basically I think for non-dangerous reptiles the licenses should be more education-based and lenient, but the dangerous ones should have policies in place to reduce dangerous keeping and lessen the danger they pose to others. The licenses should not be overly controlling and should have reasonable fees.

So I basically agree with Tsubaki here.

The part I have trouble with is you say the license shouldn't control how I keep my pets but then go on to describe how to control how I keep my pets.

You want the height to be enough to get off the ground. So you're telling me I need branches in every enclosure. What about burrowing snakes or ground dwellers like ball pythons? Does it harm them to not have a branch in their enclosure? Sure they can climb but it is not needed for them to thrive.

I agree with your sentiment about the license that should give guidelines to the health of the animal. I wouldn't put it on the enclosure exactly. I'd put it something like "during inspection the animal can't look unhealthy or in distress."

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

I'd rather spend my money on making it better for my snakes. The amounts that you are all willing to give away for a piece of paper would go a long way in feeding your snakes, or perhaps improving their habitats. A mandated license would only pave the way for other complications, that would affect good owners as much as it would affect irresponsible owners. As I said before, everything comes at a price. Once a rule/requirement is implemented, there come the consequences, and in most cases they would be of financial nature (such as: why not make the license renewable, or why not impose an additional fee for each snake added to the collection?) I don't believe in accountability that is the result of forced measures or restrictions. I believe in sensible laws that should penalize irresponsible owners. Good people shouldn't have to pay for others' misdoings (in my view, this is what a license represents). And, Aaron, if licensing is not regulated by law, it is entirely ineffective, as there would be no legally available grounds to penalize someone for breaching rules. The implications of a license are very complex. Just like with any other regulatory measure, this issue would require time, effort and finances that no government is willing to afford, at least not without having a guaranteed financial benefit. So, I much prefer to enjoy my freedom, rather than having to pay an ever increasing price for a cause that has too many ethical ramifications to be translated into law.

I feed my snakes just fine as well as maintain their habitats. I would be willing to spend additional money on a license with no qualms.

This is a life long passion for me. Money is almost no object for my passion. Lori knows this and knows it would never be in question to apend money on a license if we needed to.

Too bad you don't really have freedom. Laws are here, more will come, this would bode well for fighting against them.

Are yoj suggesting if this came to be you'd shun the license and not be a contributing member of your hobby/community? Could USARK not somehow voice this and get xx amount of dollars allocated to defending against laws? Surely the government getting money LEGALLY (and votes) would help keep them from our walls.

Why not use the political game instead of fight it?

Also, I will say this here and now. Politics are not allowed on the forum so keep this GENERAL and not about parties or who is on what side to keep from being banned. I will not be gentle in this manner and Jason can ban me if I step over this line too.

[sophiedufort]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Also, I will say this here and now. Politics are not allowed on the forum so keep this GENERAL and not about parties or who is on what side to keep from being banned. I will not be gentle in this manner and Jason can ban me if I step over this line too.

Aaron, I am not trying to do a political debate. I am just saying that a license that is not legally regulated is not enforceable, and that in fact we already have animal laws that extend to snakes, be that in the event of mistreatment, or misuse of pets to harm the wider public. Why add a tax to it (a license) for snake owners?