A Real Conversation About Licensing

[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.

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by bigsnakegirl785

I think that as long as it's not government ruled and there are fair and informed rules and fees (if applicable) in place, I wouldn't mind having to license my animals. I just don't like the idea of the government, who hasn't shown themselves to be all that informed on just about any issue I can think of, having say over how we keep our animals. As long as knowledgeable owners or herpetologists, who know that ball pythons won't take over Wisconsin for example, are in charge I'm all for it.

I appreciate the fact that a licensing system with fees would keep the majority of people away that wouldn't be willing to pay all that extra money. I'm also kind of on the edge where I think if someone is competent and can support what they have, they should be allowed to have what they want, so I'm not fond rules that limit competent individuals' keeping. That said, when the animal is potentially dangerous, I believe there should be harsher restrictions in place to reduce the danger they pose to others.

Education on basic care can also serve as a deterrent, as I've had several friends impulse buy animals and immediately try to re-home their animals once I informed them how extremely insufficient the husbandry they were provided with at the store was. So, although I doubt classes could be established that catered to every single species that we keep, a good general ed class that went over care of groups of reptiles with similar basic care seems good to me.

Beautiful. You hit the nail right on the head.

[eminart]

No thanks. More regulation is seldom the answer. If you make the license too expensive or difficult to obtain, then the hobby will die off to just a few hardcore people. The variety of reptiles will go with it. If you make the license easy or cheap to obtain, all you've done is add an extra headache for everyone.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by eminart

No thanks. More regulation is seldom the answer. If you make the license too expensive or difficult to obtain, then the hobby will die off to just a few hardcore people. The variety of reptiles will go with it. If you make the license easy or cheap to obtain, all you've done is add an extra headache for everyone.

I can respect that thought.

My counter is regulation is coming regardless. So why not be proactive and show them we are serious about being onside?

I get the price thing if it's too high. Too low could be an issue too. I know up here in Ontario we have a fishing license and a boating license. Both fairly easy to get and each one only costs about $40. Not much of a headache to get them.

[SSSSnakes]

I have no problem with licensing, but I see little effect it has had in my state. Most of my snakes fall under a license requirement. There are currently 3 licenses that I have to keep: 1- Collect and Possess Native species, 2- Venomous and Giants and 3- Endangered and Threatened. To have these licenses you have to have a reason to have them: scientific, educational and exhibition. To keep these license each year I have to take and send pictures of my holding facility. showing locked enclosures, proper labeling, transporting protocol and supply a activity report of where and when the snakes were used for these purposes. Only one of the licenses actually cost money.

That said, most of the people that I know keep all the above snakes illegally without a license, or have lied to get their license. The DEC is making it harder in the past few years for those who lied to keep their license, but then they just have their licensed not renewed and continue to keep their snakes illegally.

I was keeping these snakes before licenses were required and I kept them the same way I keep them now. The licensing has not caused me to take better care of or be more responsible of my snakes.

I think the licensing is a way for the government to keep track of what we have, so one day they can step in and take them away from us. The less the government is involved the better. If we had policed ourselves better, then we would not have the problems we have now.

[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.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by SSSSnakes

I have no problem with licensing, but I see little effect it has had in my state. Most of my snakes fall under a license requirement. There are currently 3 licenses that I have to keep: 1- Collect and Possess Native species, 2- Venomous and Giants and 3- Endangered and Threatened. To have these licenses you have to have a reason to have them: scientific, educational and exhibition. To keep these license each year I have to take and send pictures of my holding facility. showing locked enclosures, proper labeling, transporting protocol and supply a activity report of where and when the snakes were used for these purposes. Only one of the licenses actually cost money.

That said, most of the people that I know keep all the above snakes illegally without a license, or have lied to get their license. The DEC is making it harder in the past few years for those who lied to keep their license, but then they just have their licensed not renewed and continue to keep their snakes illegally.

I was keeping these snakes before licenses were required and I kept them the same way I keep them now. The licensing has not caused me to take better care of or be more responsible of my snakes.

I think the licensing is a way for the government to keep track of what we have, so one day they can step in and take them away from us. The less the government is involved the better. If we had policed ourselves better, then we would not have the problems we have now.

Your last comment really stands out Jerry.

Unfortunately, we didn't do a better job and now they are coming regardless. Sure we can win some fights but I think it would go a long way if people were willing to "play" in the sandbox.

I applaud you for having and keeping your licenses/animals legally.

[Minkness]

Now that sounds like too much to me. A medium ground should be met. A license shouldn't be controling. =/

[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?

[lady_bug87]

Originally Posted by SSSSnakes

I have no problem with licensing, but I see little effect it has had in my state. Most of my snakes fall under a license requirement. There are currently 3 licenses that I have to keep: 1- Collect and Possess Native species, 2- Venomous and Giants and 3- Endangered and Threatened. To have these licenses you have to have a reason to have them: scientific, educational and exhibition. To keep these license each year I have to take and send pictures of my holding facility. showing locked enclosures, proper labeling, transporting protocol and supply a activity report of where and when the snakes were used for these purposes. Only one of the licenses actually cost money.

That said, most of the people that I know keep all the above snakes illegally without a license, or have lied to get their license. The DEC is making it harder in the past few years for those who lied to keep their license, but then they just have their licensed not renewed and continue to keep their snakes illegally.

I was keeping these snakes before licenses were required and I kept them the same way I keep them now. The licensing has not caused me to take better care of or be more responsible of my snakes.

I think the licensing is a way for the government to keep track of what we have, so one day they can step in and take them away from us. The less the government is involved the better. If we had policed ourselves better, then we would not have the problems we have now.

I think that's a bit paranoid but i respect it. Maybe I'm seeing the world through rose coloured glasses. BUT it has to be better than outright bans.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by sophiedufort

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?

I know you aren't. I put that as a warning to participants in general.

How many of those current laws are enforced? It's all over fauna how many times people get away with things.

Why add something? When a population has some skin in the game (money) they generally partcipate and do a better job. If I have to pay into a licensing to keep my passion I'm all for it. I'd prefer some of the money going into conservation programs and funding the process.

[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

[prairiepanda]

Originally Posted by lady_bug87

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

I appreciate breeders who do that. Sure, it might get ignored, but some people just want to be spoon-fed information rather than doing their own research, and this habit makes sure that those kinds of people are getting the right(by your standards) information.

Back when I bred gerbils, prospective adopters had to pass a knowledge test in order to have one of my babies. They were not informed of this until they showed up to receive the animal. They had to complete it once without any references, and if they got less than 100% correct they were allowed to repeat it once with the use of a cheat sheet of my making(forcing them to read the information they were missing). If they got less than 100% the second time, they left without a gerbil. If they did get 100% the second time, they had to agree to let me inspect the animal's living conditions after one month. (Those who got 100% on the first try, proving they had taken the initiative to do proper research, did not need to make any such agreement)...of course, that would be impossible for any large-scale breeder to do, especially with customers across the country. It was easy for me because I was in a small town and only produced a few litters.

[AlexCrazy]

Im not sure if i have a say in this cos i kinda got my BP illegally.. (through friends in the neighboring country.. got him across the border no problem in a bus) but only cos there was no other way.. and the law don't say anything about not native snakes.. my country is a third world country.. so the hobby is almost only me and 2-3 other people somewhere.. but non the less i would really like him to have a license.. to do things right for the hobby.. I what to fight to have this wonderful hobby grow cos its great.. and if that would mean to put a chip in my BP.. then i would do it no matter the cost. I would personally volunteer to be a teacher for a license and make sure they go to right hands.. it wont keep bad owners from doing what they do.. but it will show that good owners take it seriously and have control.. like any other tipe of pet owner.
Are government wants to suck money out of everyone and in any way.. but i think it would be for good that they charge for the license.