The Ohio situation. Read- this may effect us all

[kamikaziechameleon]

Of course. So what do you do? Turn a blind eye? It's obvious imposing more individual regulation doesn't work.

If you look at most laws regarding pet keeping of any kind they are pretty comprehensive and simultaneously ambiguous the government could step up at any time and start doing its job. As seen in this incident the government did absolutely nothing to prevent this occurance with AMPLE cause and opportunity. This incident could have been easily avoided and was practically a bi product of the combo of actions taken and not by the government/sheriff. We don't ban dogs because of dog fighting or neglectful pet keeping we punish those who do so and do what we can to keep animals out of the hands of offenders.

 

[Wiggles92]

The problem here is the lack of enforcement of these regulations rather than the regulations themselves.

In my state (PA), it's a pain in the rear to acquire any sort of exotic mammal: To own an exotic animal in Pennsylvania, a person must have at least two years of hands-on experience with a species, a letter from their municipality allowing the animal, and proper animal housing that is checked by a game inspector before a permit is granted. Do I like that these regulations are so strict? No. Do I think that they're a good balance between a blanket ban and no regulation? Yes. I see my state's policy as a good example for states that lack any sort of regulation since it ensures that the animal is going to be given the best care possible while still keeping these animals somewhat within reach of the dedicated and responsible private individual.

In the end, there will always be those who do want they want regardless of regulations, so it's better to meet in the middle rather than gravitate towards an extreme end of the regulation spectrum.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

It sure is. The world tends to be like that. At the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what I think, or what you think. I think keeping certain exotic animals is wrong. You think it's fine. That's all there is to it. We're not gonna sway each others views.

I understand your fear of bad pet owners. I fear them too, I don't want to discount good pet owners even of "dangerous" animals.

Just look at zoos, they are run by people not some magical entity that is immune to our imperfections. There are many phenomenal zoos and aquariums out there. By extension I think individuals have the same power to have a positive impact on domestic and wild populations of any animal.

I guess I like to think I might be able to help preserve my piece of nature in breeding African cichlids and that some rich guy with a ranch could do the same for an endangered (exotic) animal, maybe tigers or lions, or elephants I don't know. By some means he could both gratify his love of the amazing creature and further its continual existence.

I don't think Banning anything outright helps the well meaning individual to act but furthers the black market trade of such animals and by extension the poor husbandry of them from such individuals because they have to keep them secretly. Yeah they are DANGEROUS! So would the answer be to wipe them out so they don't pose a threat to us??? They don't have a "WILD" "NATURAL" habitat left, to think they did is to believe in a world that hasn't existed in hundreds of years. I guess I just don't see a way forward for any of these animals without some kinda domestic population. Its sad really.

Think if only victorian cichlids had been more heavily exported how many more species of fish would have been saved the introduction of the perch. What we could have saved ya know. Its just sad to me.

 

[rgonzales]

It bothers me that just like with other animals the media won't portray anything but the irresponsible ownsers making the general public think we are all freaks, just look at all the anti reptile and other exotic stuff that's been on animal planet the last 2 years. The same goes with apbt owners and all the ignorance they face. 1 bad thinh can ruin us all. Whether you agree or not with us you need to realize what i and others have said is true. Ban one thing and sit makes it easier to ban others. Don't say they won't do it remember hr 669 ?

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

The problem here is the lack of enforcement of these regulations rather than the regulations themselves.

In my state (PA), it's a pain in the rear to acquire any sort of exotic mammal: To own an exotic animal in Pennsylvania, a person must have at least two years of hands-on experience with a species, a letter from their municipality allowing the animal, and proper animal housing that is checked by a game inspector before a permit is granted. Do I like that these regulations are so strict? No. Do I think that they're a good balance between a blanket ban and no regulation? Yes. I see my state's policy as a good example for states that lack any sort of regulation since it ensures that the animal is going to be given the best care possible while still keeping these animals somewhat within reach of the dedicated and responsible private individual.

In the end, there will always be those who do want they want regardless of regulations, so it's better to meet in the middle rather than gravitate towards an extreme end of the regulation spectrum.

Yeah my thoughts exactly. Especially when considering more immediately dangerous animals (large predators and poisonous animals) I think its a compromise pet keepers need to make with their neighbors as much as with the animals.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

It bothers me that just like with other animals the media won't portray anything but the irresponsible ownsers making the general public think we are all freaks, just look at all the anti reptile and other exotic stuff that's been on animal planet the last 2 years. The same goes with apbt owners and all the ignorance they face. 1 bad thinh can ruin us all. Whether you agree or not with us you need to realize what i and others have said is true. Ban one thing and sit makes it easier to ban others. Don't say they won't do it remember hr 669 ?

oh gosh. yeah I don't think in any for that Banning makes a positive difference, even for invasive species the majority of the time its something that people who did it originally(released the animal, snake head or giant snake, whatever) did it knowing they where breaking a law and adding another law doesn't change that fact.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

I understand your fear of bad pet owners. I fear them too, I don't want to discount good pet owners even of "dangerous" animals.

Just look at zoos, they are run by people not some magical entity that is immune to our imperfections. There are many phenomenal zoos and aquariums out there. By extension I think individuals have the same power to have a positive impact on domestic and wild populations of any animal.

I guess I like to think I might be able to help preserve my piece of nature in breeding African cichlids and that some rich guy with a ranch could do the same for an endangered (exotic) animal, maybe tigers or lions, or elephants I don't know. By some means he could both gratify his love of the amazing creature and further its continual existence.

I don't think Banning anything outright helps the well meaning individual to act but furthers the black market trade of such animals and by extension the poor husbandry of them from such individuals because they have to keep them secretly. Yeah they are DANGEROUS! So would the answer be to wipe them out so they don't pose a threat to us??? They don't have a "WILD" "NATURAL" habitat left, to think they did is to believe in a world that hasn't existed in hundreds of years. I guess I just don't see a way forward for any of these animals without some kinda domestic population. Its sad really.

Think if only victorian cichlids had been more heavily exported how many more species of fish would have been saved the introduction of the perch. What we could have saved ya know. Its just sad to me.

Reflecting on this post I guess I would really like government to step up and do something about bad pet owning practices for once! The current way they react to stuff is the punish everyone method and that simply has never ever once worked to curb bad behavior, not in a middle school class room and not in the world.

 

[Wiggles92]

Yeah my thoughts exactly. Especially when considering more immediately dangerous animals (large predators and poisonous animals) I think its a compromise pet keepers need to make with their neighbors as much as with the animals.

Oh, I can get venomous reptile no trouble at all; there are no laws regarding venomous reptiles (or any reptiles for that matter) here beyond natives. Want an alligator? Go to a pet store or reptile show and buy one. Want a burmese python? Same deal as with alligators. Want an eyelash viper? Go to a reptile show with proof that you're 18 (or 21, depending on the show), and you're golden. Want a hedgehog? Sorry, those are more illegal here than illegal drugs (no joke). Doesn't make much sense but that's how it is.

I always thought that it was an odd situation when compared to the situation for exotic mammals in PA, but apparently in brings a decent number of people to PA since they're able to keep their venomous snakes and other reptiles with no government intrusion. There are few, if any, injuries and fatalities due to exotic reptiles here plus most of the species that people keep are unable to survive here year-round, so maybe that's why reptiles haven't been extensively regulated.

 

[jcardona1]

The problem here is the lack of enforcement of these regulations rather than the regulations themselves.

In my state (PA), it's a pain in the rear to acquire any sort of exotic mammal: To own an exotic animal in Pennsylvania, a person must have at least two years of hands-on experience with a species, a letter from their municipality allowing the animal, and proper animal housing that is checked by a game inspector before a permit is granted. Do I like that these regulations are so strict? No. Do I think that they're a good balance between a blanket ban and no regulation? Yes. I see my state's policy as a good example for states that lack any sort of regulation since it ensures that the animal is going to be given the best care possible while still keeping these animals somewhat within reach of the dedicated and responsible private individual.

In the end, there will always be those who do want they want regardless of regulations, so it's better to meet in the middle rather than gravitate towards an extreme end of the regulation spectrum.

Ok, so the problem is enforcement of the regulations. But think about it, how feasible is it to really enforce these things? Who is responsible for checking up on the keepers? How do you determine when a violation exists? How do you handle these violations? Keeping giving out fines and citations? What is that gonna fix? At what point do permits need to be revoked and animals confiscated? Confiscating presents a whole new set of issues. What the heck do you do with them? We're talking large dangerous animals here, not inanimate objects that can be confiscated and sold at auction later. Pawn them off an another keeper or facility that may already be overloaded, or not have the resources to take on additional animals? Transporting, who pays for that? Stuff them in poorly managed zoos? Sell them to the circus clowns? These are difficult questions that are not easily answered.

At what point does the well being and suffering of these animals take precedence over your own personal enjoyment?

 

[Jimmy16]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...imal-tragedy/2011/10/20/gIQAUgAX0L_video.html