# Ohio Reptile Laws



## Tcollector (Sep 29, 2008)

Ok I am starting to get worried here. I have been reading something on band of reptiles and some laws. I know that in my state that you need permits for snakes with venom. I was reading something else that says that snakes that get 8 feet or more you need a permit. This is going to be a big problem for me because I am about to have a new addition in my room 

Has this tooken effect yet or what? I just dont want to get busted for having a snake LOL


----------



## pitbulllady (Sep 30, 2008)

You also need a permit for any snake native to the state, and all native snakes 18 inches or longer must have a PIT tag(microchip)inserted, which, in such small snakes(an 18-inch Rat Snake, for example, is about the same diameter as a pencil), often causes serious or lethal injury, having a large "horse" needle inserted into their bodies.  There was a huge "bust" a few years ago in Ohio, resulting from a "sting" operation, to nail ordinary folks who had snakes like Rat Snakes and other native species.  

pitbulllady


----------



## arachnocat (Sep 30, 2008)

Wow. Those are some pretty tough laws. We have all kinds of exotic animal laws here in California but suprisingly they haven't gotten to snakes yet. I have no doubt they will eventually. 
We need a permit to take native snakes here but not to keep them. Though there is a limit to how many you can have of certain species.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Sep 30, 2008)

poisoness17 said:


> I was reading something else that says that snakes that get 8 feet or more you need a permit.


To be fair, this isn't exactly irrational. With any snake over six feet, you're not supposed to even open the cage without a second person present...big snakes can be just as dangerous as venomous ones if you don't know what you're doing.

That thing with the microchips is bullcrap, though. They can't do that with a smaller needle? I don't think they had to use a horse needle when they chipped my family's cats.


----------



## crpy (Sep 30, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> To be fair, this isn't exactly irrational. With any snake over six feet, you're not supposed to even open the cage without a second person present...big snakes can be just as dangerous as venomous ones if you don't know what you're doing.
> 
> That thing with the microchips is bullcrap, though. They can't do that with a smaller needle? I don't think they had to use a horse needle when they chipped my family's cats.


So then not everybody needs somebody present with a 6 foot snake.  If your cleaning that would be more important if you have a 12-15 foot Retic or African rock for sure.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Sep 30, 2008)

crpy said:


> So then not everybody needs somebody present with a 6 foot snake.  If your cleaning that would be more important if you have a 12-15 foot Retic or African rock for sure.


Yes, I realize that AB has hardcore super-owners that could wrestle an anaconda into submission  , but for the vast majority of people, permit laws are kind of a good thing. Anyone who already knows their stuff won't have any trouble doing the hours of training or whatever that you need for a permit, and the inexperienced and/or terminally stupid will either be discouraged from getting a snake they can't handle, or learn to handle it properly.

Accidents with very large snakes have killed the owners of said snakes, and I remember at least one story where someone's kid got killed during an accidental nighttime escape. I'm not trying to fear-monger here, but these ARE large, powerful, still-wild animals, and Joe Moron off the street should probably not have instant access to one at the local chain petshop because he wants to feed it kittens and show it off to his drinking buddies.

To say nothing of the fact that if people have to train and get permits for giant snakes, we'll have less of this "wups I bought a Burmese python at PetCo on a whim and it got too big, I better go dump it in the Everglades" nonsense. Those people won't even be getting the snakes in the first place.

Yes, it sucks that a few smart hobbyists get inconvenienced, but I think overall it's a great idea. There is a lot of awfulness going on, and if the price of stopping it is some training and paperwork, I can get behind that.


----------



## crpy (Sep 30, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Yes, I realize that AB has hardcore super-owners that could wrestle an anaconda into submission  , but for the vast majority of people, permit laws are kind of a good thing. Anyone who already knows their stuff won't have any trouble doing the hours of training or whatever that you need for a permit, and the inexperienced and/or terminally stupid will either be discouraged from getting a snake they can't handle, or learn to handle it properly.
> 
> Accidents with very large snakes have killed the owners of said snakes, and I remember at least one story where someone's kid got killed during an accidental nighttime escape. I'm not trying to fear-monger here, but these ARE large, powerful, still-wild animals, and Joe Moron off the street should probably not have instant access to one at the local chain petshop because he wants to feed it kittens and show it off to his drinking buddies.
> 
> ...


LOL, I get your point, its kind of like Germany where there are very few if any stray dogs. I saw none and I've been all over that place. They made the laws real tough from what my friend there tells me. He breeds Boston bulls and Boxers and he says it costs a ton of bucks (over 5,000)and mounds of paperwork to apply for a dog. The dog ownership laws are similar to adopting a human apparently.


----------



## ThomasH (Sep 30, 2008)

My understanding was that there weren't Ohio reptile or any animal laws in Ohio!
TBH


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Sep 30, 2008)

crpy said:


> LOL, I get your point, its kind of like Germany where there are very few if any stray dogs.


I didn't know that, that's awesome. 



crpy said:


> The dog ownership laws are similar to adopting a human apparently.


Which makes a lot of sense, really. Owning a young dog sure seems to be a lot like caring for a young human sometimes.


----------



## kingfarvito (Sep 30, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Yes, I realize that AB has hardcore super-owners that could wrestle an anaconda into submission


so you've heard of me then? 


also I want to see the adult ratsnake at the diameter of a pencil


----------



## crpy (Sep 30, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> I didn't know that, that's awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> Which makes a lot of sense, really. Owning a young dog sure seems to be a lot like caring for a young human sometimes.


Yes for sure. I was really impressed, also with the fact that you can bring a dog into a restaurant. It was nice eating liver, spatzel and pomfrits with our dogs by our side.


----------



## Tcollector (Sep 30, 2008)

Well I made some calls today. They said that they are not sure if a red tail boa needs a permit. I made 2 calls and they was in ohio. I was told that I need to go by my county laws or city laws. I was also told to call the police station but I cant seem to get in contact. I will also like to use some other sources to be sure that I am doing everything right.  I need to find the answers as soon as possible. Is their anyone on here that might have the info on permits? The permits and what ever is not a problem but I just need to know soon as possible. Allthough im not sure how many people are on here that lives in Cincinnati Ohio, hamilton:?


----------



## Scolopendra777 (Sep 30, 2008)

In uk i dont think we have any laws or permits for pets not what im aware of


----------



## Tcollector (Sep 30, 2008)

Aracnobreed said:


> In uk i dont think we have any laws or permits for pets not what im aware of


The only thing illegal in the UK with pets is feeding live prey lol.


----------



## kingfarvito (Sep 30, 2008)

this is all I could find 

"Sec. 701-42.  Possession or Sale of Wild or Potentially Dangerous Animals; Prohibitions.
(a)   No person shall keep, own, harbor, have charge of, maintain or have control of within the city a wild or potentially dangerous animal.
(b)   No person shall possess with intent to sell, sell or offer for sale, or buy or attempt to buy within the city a wild or potentially dangerous animal.
(c)   For purposes of this section, a wild or potentially dangerous animal is defined as an animal which is wild by nature and not customarily domesticated in the City of Cincinnati and which because of its size, disposition, or other characteristics inherently constitutes a danger to human life or property. A wild and potentially dangerous animal shall include but not be limited to:
(1)   Apes: Chimpanzees (Pan); gibbons (Hylobates; gorillas (Gorilla); orangutans (Pongo); and siamangs (Symphalangus).
(2)   Baboons (Papoi, Mandrillus).
(3)   Bears (Ursidae).
(4)   Cheetahs (Acinonyx jubatus).
(5)   Coyotes (Canis latrans) and coyote-dog hybrids.
(6)   Elephants (Elephas and Loxodonta).
(7)   Hyenas (Hyaenidae).
(8)   Jaguars (Panthera onca).
(9)   Leopards (Panthera pardus).
(10)   Lions (Panthera leo).
(11)   Lynxes (Lynx).
(12)   Pumas (Felis concolor); also known as cougars, mountain lions and panthers.
(13)   Tigers (Panthera tigris).
(14)   Wolves (Canis lupus) and wolf-dog hybrids.
(15)   Wild cats (jungle cat, ocelot, margay, serval, caracal, leopard cat) and wildcat-domestic cat hybrids.
As used in this section, "Wild or Potentially Dangerous Animal" does not include an animal that is in the possession or control of any of the following agencies, organizations, its employees or agents:
(1)   The Division of Wildlife in the Department of Natural Resources;
(2)   The Ohio Department of Agriculture;
(3)   An incorporated humane society;
(4)   A veterinarian holding a valid license under Chapter 4741 of the Ohio Revised Code, who has custody of the animal for the purpose of providing medical treatment of the animal;
(5)   Any organization that is an accredited member of the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums;
(6)   An agency or official of the United States government acting in its official capacity;
(7)   Any research facility within the meaning of the "Animal Welfare Act," 80 STAT 359 (1966) 7 USCA 2131, as amended;
(8)   A common carrier with possession of the animal for the purpose of transportation;
(9)   Any person who is not currently dwelling in the city, who is traveling through the City of Cincinnati with any "wild or potentially dangerous animal," and who is in the City of Cincinnati for no more than twenty-four hours and the "wild or potentially dangerous animal" is maintained in quarters so constructed which are humane and will prevent escape;
(10)   The International Society for the Preservation of Wild Animals;
(11)   Research facilities of the International Society for Endangered Cats; or
(12)   Any circus, exhibitor or professional entertainer, holding a valid license issued by the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States in accordance with the "Animal Welfare Act", 7 U.S.C. § 2134, and the Code of Federal Regulations, 9 C.F.R. § 2.1, present within the City of Cincinnati for the purpose of entertainment to the general public provided the wild or potentially dangerous animal is maintained in quarters so constructed which are humane and will prevent escape.
Whoever violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor of the second degree for the first offense and a misdemeanor of the first degree for each subsequent offense.
When any person is found guilty of a second offense of Section 701-42, such person shall be fined not less than $300.00, which fine shall not be remitted.
In addition, any person found guilty of violating § 701-42 shall be liable to the city for all expenses, whether incurred by the city or advanced by the city, for the shelter, food, veterinary expenses, boarding and transportation of the seized wild or dangerous animal, and such other expenses as may be required in the relocation or destruction of any such wild or dangerous animal.
(Ord. 205-1994, eff. 7-8-94; a. Ord. No. 188-1995, eff. June 16, 1995; a. Ord. No. 106-2008, § 1, eff. April 26, 2008)"


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 1, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> To be fair, this isn't exactly irrational. With any snake over six feet, you're not supposed to even open the cage without a second person present...big snakes can be just as dangerous as venomous ones if you don't know what you're doing.
> 
> That thing with the microchips is bullcrap, though. They can't do that with a smaller needle? I don't think they had to use a horse needle when they chipped my family's cats.


I've had lots of Rat Snakes and even a Corn Snake at six feet in length, and it's not uncommon for members of the genus _Elaphe_ and related snakes, or for _Pituophis_,  to reach 8 ft. in length.  I therefore have to disagree on the rationality of banning snakes that can reach 8 ft in length.  Many members of the Coachwhip/Whipsnake/Racer complex, such as _Masticophis flagellum_ and their well-known cousins, the Indigo/Cribo snakes(_Drymarchon sp._) commonly exceed eight feet, and they aren't even constrictors.  I don't need or want the government, who can hardly stand as a stellar example of common sense, deciding whether I'm capable of handling a Black Rat Snake, or a Boa.

All microchips are the same size, and require a large-bore needle to insert.  In mammals, the chips are inserted between the shoulder blades, where the skin is loose and pliant and has fewer nerves, due to this being where mmany mammalian species moms pick up and carry their offspring.  In reptiles, it's inserted into the abdominal cavity.  Try doing that with a struggling small snake the diameter of a pencil without piercing a vital body organ.

pitbulllady


----------



## Skullptor (Oct 1, 2008)

crpy said:


> Yes for sure. I was really impressed, also with the fact that you can bring a dog into a restaurant. It was nice eating liver, spatzel and pomfrits with our dogs by our side.


I'm not sure I'd like the restaurant idea, but I'm impressed with the fact that they took care of a problem that we need to address over here. All one has to do is look on your local craigslist in pet section, and there are just as many strays as there are items for sale in the general section.


----------



## crpy (Oct 1, 2008)

forensics said:


> I'm not sure I'd like the restaurant idea, but I'm impressed with the fact that they took care of a problem that we need to address over here. All one has to do is look on your local craigslist in pet section, and there are just as many strays as there are items for sale in the general section.


imo, one of the reasons we are incapable of solving the stray problem is because with our "system" there is very little regulation compared to German laws. People are afraid of that term regulation because they fear they will be "taken over" by the Gov. And to a degree I understand, but when we start to tell people to get their dog spayed/neutered if they are not breeding they get all defensive and think it because the government is taking them over. In my opinion if you want breed dogs , show you have the resources and are Competent enough to do it, why should one be upset to do that. Germany just did it because the people realized the potential for the problem we have. The Germans I know and met are very passionate about their animals, imo much more than Americans. They cant believe that so many dogs get killed on our roads and walk around sick and dying. I believe there was quite a synergy on the subject of animal ownership regulations in Germany. Im not bashing America but we need to wake up. If we dont like something we can change it, its tough sometimes but it can be done.

I was a Humane officer/Animal cruelty investigator for many years and little ole me made a big change in my town.


----------



## Skullptor (Oct 1, 2008)

I completely agree. Bob Barker-ism is no match to a well written law.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 1, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> I don't need or want the government, who can hardly stand as a stellar example of common sense, deciding whether I'm capable of handling a Black Rat Snake, or a Boa.


Except that they aren't just pulling the "who's qualified?" list out of their butts, it's people who prove it by doing the hours or whatever.  

I really don't understand the THE MAN CAN'T TELL *ME* WHAT TO DO attitude when permits are one of the few sure ways to cut down on all the people who *aren't* like AB folks and should *never* have access to large snakes. There is no magical way for the government to just know that you or I or anyone else here is qualified to safely manage a large reptile...except that there is. Proving you can by proving you're competent enough to qualify for a permit.  

I'm not trying to start anything here, I *like* your posting overall, no joke.  But this just deeply confuses me. Why is the fairly mild inconvenience of getting a permit bad enough that it outweighs stopping all the things I mentioned in my other post? Asking nicely sure won't keep irresponsible owners from buying that baby Burmese python at PetCo.



crpy said:


> but when we start to tell people to get their dog spayed/neutered if they are not breeding they get all defensive and think it because the government is taking them over.


This kind of thing exactly. There are people who will willfully make the overpopulation/poor breeding issue worse, or leave their animals to die of the various medical problems that can crop up in unfixed animals, and anyone trying to tell them otherwise is OPPRESSING THEIR RIGHTS. Quite frankly, if these people can't do the decent thing on their own, I see no reason why they shouldn't be made to do so. Just like I see no reason why the people who DO NOT have the ability to safely own large reptiles (but buy them anyway) should have some God-given right to do so.

The responsible dog breeders or the responsible huge snake owners can continue to do their thing...but with a permit. That's not really that bad in itself, although some other regulations like microchipping snakes with a process most won't survive are definitely a step in the wrong direction.

In crpy's example, the German dog owners who actually cared were glad to shoulder the inconvenience of permits, because it meant their country wouldn't end up like ours. I think that says a lot.

Freedom is great, freedom is wonderful, but absolute freedom at the cost of a living thing's well-being (or millions of them on a nationwide scale, see: stray dogs and shelter overcrowding) for no reason but "you can't tell me what to do!" doesn't feel like freedom at all.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 1, 2008)

The problem with permits for owning or breeding animals is that the issuing of said permits is more often than not controlled by people who are opposed to keeping/breeding animals, period.  Now, do you think that they will make it reasonable for people to obtain permits to do something that they don't want people to be able to do in the first place?  The HSUS is trying VERY hard to integrate themselves into state, local and Federal government, with quite a good bit of success.  The whole rationale of "permits" for such people, and the government officials in their very well-stocked pockets, is to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to keep animals, of any kind, for any reason.  By making their requirements for owning/breeding animals so difficult or so expensive to obtain, they effectively eliminate animal ownership for all but a small, select minority.  Most of the people in charge of making, and enforcing, such laws, are of a mind-set that animal owners, and especially anyone who breeds or sells animals, of any kind, are the scum of the earth, anyway, and most of these people actually know very little about animals, so they are in no position to honestly determine who can, and who can't, keep animals, based on the potential keepers'  knowledge or expertise.  Ultimately, it comes down to who can afford to jump through the legal hoops, and being rich and having "connections" does not indicate how much you know about animals, or what experience you have, or how responsible you will be.

pitbulllady


----------



## crpy (Oct 1, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> The problem with permits for owning or breeding animals is that the issuing of said permits is more often than not controlled by people who are opposed to keeping/breeding animals, period.  Now, do you think that they will make it reasonable for people to obtain permits to do something that they don't want people to be able to do in the first place?  The HSUS is trying VERY hard to integrate themselves into state, local and Federal government, with quite a good bit of success.  The whole rationale of "permits" for such people, and the government officials in their very well-stocked pockets, is to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to keep animals, of any kind, for any reason.  By making their requirements for owning/breeding animals so difficult or so expensive to obtain, they effectively eliminate animal ownership for all but a small, select minority.  Most of the people in charge of making, and enforcing, such laws, are of a mind-set that animal owners, and especially anyone who breeds or sells animals, of any kind, are the scum of the earth, anyway, and most of these people actually know very little about animals, so they are in no position to honestly determine who can, and who can't, keep animals, based on the potential keepers'  knowledge or expertise.  Ultimately, it comes down to who can afford to jump through the legal hoops, and being rich and having "connections" does not indicate how much you know about animals, or what experience you have, or how responsible you will be.
> 
> pitbulllady


I dont know pbl, I have an alligator permit for exhibit, it is difficult to get an alligator permit for exhibit. But I gained the experience necessary for it, it took a long time. I am open to inspections and have to follow caging requirements and file travel permits. I dont mind this because I have nothing to hide and I can perform my presentations with peace of mind. The law helps from "yahoos" getting out of control and ruining it for everybody else. Sure, you have the occasional twit that is ignorant but they are dealt with.


----------

