Places With The Least Tarantula Regulations

[Chris LXXIX]

I wish there was a Canadian arachnid association

Well, that's too bad... the entire Italy alone is more little than basically one of the Canada 'area', yet the Italian Arachnids association fought hard for the keeper's rights. I do remember well those days, I know a couple of members.

Happened years ago, but seems the other day. Time is the real tyrant

Anyway, create one, Canadians! Put the words into action, for that something like that is the closest thing to 'beautyness'.

 

[Polenth]

This might be an unpopular opinion (maybe not), but I feel like a city/country restricting what kind of pets you can have is a form of totalitarianism. However, I'm sure there is a thriving underground market as a direct result of the "law", which is REALLY sad because that hurts the animals more than it does the people.

There is a balance in the middle of the two. There's been criticism of some housing associations in the UK for making it hard for people to have any sort of pet. As these areas are the old council estates, it's also targeting working class people only. One of my parents used to live where you had to get written permission just to own a cat or a dog, which still exists in some areas.

On the other side, someone owning black widow spiders in a crowded tower block where there are a lot of families with children is an accident waiting to happen. I can understand why that would worry people.

I'm lucky in that my association is pretty laid back. The only invertebrates explicitly banned are ones covered by the dangerous wild animals act and bees.

 

[EtienneN]

It's like if all exotics owners could be reasonable and responsible individuals there wouldn't be any arguments. However, it seems that some people on the fringes of society 'flock' to exotic animal keeping because they want to be an "edgy outcast" or some such 'rebel' or even to be a bane on society themselves. Humans are totally bizarre. It's too bad we can't normalise invertebrate and reptile ownership to the point of it being just as common as people with cats or dogs. A pet is a pet is a pet, should be the rule, but I understand that this is never going to be practical because of the people that 'poo in the pool' so to speak.

 

[Stormsky]

I mean what I have written. Because as NYAN said, since when do laws make sense. Also, I have personaly met several ignorant people who claimed that arthropods are not animals. I was thinking the same thing as You.

I wonder if this law is related to animal rights involving scientific research. I know most places don't consider invertebrates animals so they don't have to worry about their research being considered animal abuse. The only invertebrate that got animal right laws is the octopus due to their high intelligence. https://loweringthebar.net/2015/05/octopus-honorary-vertebrate.html

 

[Olan]

There is a balance in the middle of the two. There's been criticism of some housing associations in the UK for making it hard for people to have any sort of pet. As these areas are the old council estates, it's also targeting working class people only. One of my parents used to live where you had to get written permission just to own a cat or a dog, which still exists in some areas.

On the other side, someone owning black widow spiders in a crowded tower block where there are a lot of families with children is an accident waiting to happen. I can understand why that would worry people.

I'm lucky in that my association is pretty laid back. The only invertebrates explicitly banned are ones covered by the dangerous wild animals act and bees.

Nah, black widows almost never bite anyone. I grew up in Albuquerque, New Mexico, and they were everywhere. Never knew anyone who got bit. There was a big female living under my dresser in my bedroom for a while, no problem.

 

[Sykomp]

Where I'm from (nordics) we have no restrictions on arachnid keeping apart from what CITES states about brachys etc., but on the other hand you can't keep any wild animals as pets. This means the situation is pretty sketchy, as some animals become "acceptable" if they have been in the pet trade long enough, and because arachnids or other invertebrates, fishes or apparently even most lizards and snakes aren't considered to be "animals" by that standard.
What's the difference between keeping for example tropical finches and our native finches as pets? You can keep the tropical ones but not the native ones, because the tropical ones have been originally imported as pets. How does that make any sense? Don't ask me.

I agree with certain restrictions, since some animals should not be kept as pets - either because it's not really possible to organize proper living conditions or diet for them, they could easily become an invasive species, the pet trade is threatening the native populations and they can't be captive bred, or just because they can cause a lot of harm should accidents happen. For example I think it could be a great idea if highly venomous snakes required special permission to keep. Now basically anyone could get them around here, if they just find a seller lenient enough. Sure, nothing bad has happened yet, but the moment someone gets badly bitten or a venomous snake escapes, people will start screaming that snakes shouldn't be allowed to be kept as pets, at all, and there are enough stupid people to actually try to make that ban happen.

if all exotics owners could be reasonable and responsible individuals there wouldn't be any arguments.

The point is exactly this. A lot of people are idiots, and if they get dangerous animals in their hands it can become a real problem even for the whole pet keeping in general, especially now because of social media the other, fearful idiots will get their voices heard and cause mass reactions. Which causes idiots in positions of power to try to enforce idiotic restrictions, like that tarantula ban.

 

[FluffyTheSpider]

Where I'm from (nordics) we have no restrictions on arachnid keeping apart from what CITES states about brachys etc., but on the other hand you can't keep any wild animals as pets. This means the situation is pretty sketchy, as some animals become "acceptable" if they have been in the pet trade long enough, and because arachnids or other invertebrates, fishes or apparently even most lizards and snakes aren't considered to be "animals" by that standard.
What's the difference between keeping for example tropical finches and our native finches as pets? You can keep the tropical ones but not the native ones, because the tropical ones have been originally imported as pets. How does that make any sense? Don't ask me.

I agree with certain restrictions, since some animals should not be kept as pets - either because it's not really possible to organize proper living conditions or diet for them, they could easily become an invasive species, the pet trade is threatening the native populations and they can't be captive bred, or just because they can cause a lot of harm should accidents happen. For example I think it could be a great idea if highly venomous snakes required special permission to keep. Now basically anyone could get them around here, if they just find a seller lenient enough. Sure, nothing bad has happened yet, but the moment someone gets badly bitten or a venomous snake escapes, people will start screaming that snakes shouldn't be allowed to be kept as pets, at all, and there are enough stupid people to actually try to make that ban happen.


The point is exactly this. A lot of people are idiots, and if they get dangerous animals in their hands it can become a real problem even for the whole pet keeping in general, especially now because of social media the other, fearful idiots will get their voices heard and cause mass reactions. Which causes idiots in positions of power to try to enforce idiotic restrictions, like that tarantula ban.

The moment snakes are illegal I will flip out and lead a riot

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Where I'm from (nordics) we have no restrictions on arachnid keeping apart from what CITES states about brachys etc., but on the other hand you can't keep any wild animals as pets. This means the situation is pretty sketchy, as some animals become "acceptable" if they have been in the pet trade long enough, and because arachnids or other invertebrates, fishes or apparently even most lizards and snakes aren't considered to be "animals" by that standard.
What's the difference between keeping for example tropical finches and our native finches as pets? You can keep the tropical ones but not the native ones, because the tropical ones have been originally imported as pets. How does that make any sense? Don't ask me.

I agree with certain restrictions, since some animals should not be kept as pets - either because it's not really possible to organize proper living conditions or diet for them, they could easily become an invasive species, the pet trade is threatening the native populations and they can't be captive bred, or just because they can cause a lot of harm should accidents happen. For example I think it could be a great idea if highly venomous snakes required special permission to keep. Now basically anyone could get them around here, if they just find a seller lenient enough. Sure, nothing bad has happened yet, but the moment someone gets badly bitten or a venomous snake escapes, people will start screaming that snakes shouldn't be allowed to be kept as pets, at all, and there are enough stupid people to actually try to make that ban happen.


The point is exactly this. A lot of people are idiots, and if they get dangerous animals in their hands it can become a real problem even for the whole pet keeping in general, especially now because of social media the other, fearful idiots will get their voices heard and cause mass reactions. Which causes idiots in positions of power to try to enforce idiotic restrictions, like that tarantula ban.

Couldn't agree more

Just a note about CITES... here in Europe (Italy, btw) you can own CITES protected arachnids without issues, all you have to do (mandatory) is to have the CITES paper - signed by the CITES authorities - that states the CB origin of the arachnid in question. I suppose that's the same in other EU nations - ok, maybe you are from Norway so not EU

 

[Sykomp]

Just a note about CITES... here in Europe (Italy, btw) you can own CITES protected arachnids without issues, all you have to do (mandatory) is to have the CITES paper - signed by the CITES authorities - that states the CB origin of the arachnid in question. I suppose that's the same in other EU nations - ok, maybe you are from Norway so not EU

No, you are completely correct - it's the same here (EU nation nordic ), and that was what I tried to imply. The CITES doesn't mean you're not allowed to own some species, just restricts the trade by requiring the animals to have papers to prove they're legally bred and sold. That is a restriction still, though obviously not a ban. I think it's one of the good ones, too, since it makes sense to try to protect the endangered species by limiting the pet trade.

Though the EU regulations tend to have some other issues, like the invasive species act that has been discussed. It would have for example banned some pet bird breeds from here too, even though there's no way they could actually create a surviving population because our winters are way too cold for them. Understandable to consider banning them if you're from the southern parts of Europe where they are causing issues already, but around here... just no point. Our pet bird society did their best to convince the authorities that it would be completely unnecessary, and I think they were heard, luckily.

 

[MikeyD]

These hypothetical situations described above are exactly why there is the ban in Toronto Ontario Canada. In 2006 a hobbyists pet cobra escaped and caused the evacuation of multiple housing units and a lot of negative attention. The individual was eventually fined ($17,000), jailed, and then the ensuing mess resulted in stricter Bylaws within the city and discussions across the province about exotic animal ownership and restrictions.

 

[BrokenLegBaboon]

Laws mean nothing until you get caught. Buy your Ts! Live the dream! When your day comes, at least you have some cool stories to tell to your fellow inmates bout the day your T almost killed you or the day your T showered you with needle like hair

 

[FluffyTheSpider]

Laws mean nothing until you get caught. Buy your Ts! Live the dream! When your day comes, at least you have some cool stories to tell to your fellow inmates bout the day your T almost killed you or the day your T showered you with needle like hair

That’s How got my T Davus Pentaloris

These hypothetical situations described above are exactly why there is the ban in Toronto Ontario Canada. In 2006 a hobbyists pet cobra escaped and caused the evacuation of multiple housing units and a lot of negative attention. The individual was eventually fined ($17,000), jailed, and then the ensuing mess resulted in stricter Bylaws within the city and discussions across the province about exotic animal ownership and restrictions.

Was it 5 years ago that’s when the ban in Winnipeg happend

 

[Scarge]

Lol it’s too cold in Canada for bats . . .

FYI, we have multiple species of bats native to Canada.

 

[Vanessa]

Ontario is very strict when it comes to by-laws restricting certain animals and it is only going to get more strict. Just in the last few months, several municipalities in the Niagara region have banned venomous animals. It happened right after some idiot had his venomous snakes stolen in the area.
By-laws put in place to ban venomous animals have not been as a result of a mishap with tarantulas, scorpions, or other arachnids - they are always as a result of snakes. However, due to laziness and lack of knowledge, the by-laws are always all encompassing and include invertebrates.
There has been recent talk about implementing a province wide ban on venomous animals, but I am not sure where that stands at the moment. I'm sure we'll hear more about that with the next venomous snake incident. They keep finding venomous animals in already by-law restricted areas and that is prompting discussion of a more widespread ban. Keep your collection quiet, and don't let any mishaps occur, and chances are that you won't be caught. By-law officers only get involved if a complaint is made directly to them.
If you're thinking of relocating out of Ontario, I would suggest you go to Quebec. Their animal laws are far more relaxed than any other place in the country.

 

[FluffyTheSpider]

FYI, we have multiple species of bats native to Canada.

Oh I did not know here in Manitoba it was -30 a few days ago so I thought they won’t be able to survive in the weather but I forgot about hibernation

 

[weibkreux]

The authorities here in the Philippines is pretty lax, I don't know if there is a ban or a law whatever but they only bat an eye with reptiles or mammals on the endangered list. As long as you buy from legit sources, you won't get into problems.

 

[FluffyTheSpider]

The authorities here in the Philippines is pretty lax, I don't know if there is a ban or a law whatever but they only bat an eye with reptiles or mammals on the endangered list. As long as you buy from legit sources, you won't get into problems.

Ur lucky

 

[weibkreux]

Ur lucky

The problems are those irresponsible breeders who flood the market with slings even if the demand is low. And newbies who want to get into the hobby but are unwilling to spend on Ts that they want.

 

[RezonantVoid]

All tarantulas are fine but you need a DWA license to keep the following scorpions/spiders:

Any Buthidae
Hemiscorpius lepturus
Phoneutria spp.
Atrax spp.
Loxosceles spp.
Latrodectus spp.

Just want to inform you, there's no license required for the keeping of Atrax species. Just an age reccomendation of 18+
[Edit]
I didn't see the later post with the screenshot. I have no idea how Sydney funnels made it outside our borders to a level that they require a permit to legally own overseas, but I wouldn't put it past smugglers to illegally do so. Who would want to keep them anyway knowing such, and without access to antivenom

 

[Chris LXXIX]

Just want to inform you, there's no license required for the keeping of Atrax species. Just an age reccomendation of 18+

Yep, in Australia

He lives in England and he was talking about England/UK regulations. Anyway, as far as I know, no one in Europe can keep (privately) A.robustus, for that Australia doesn't permit and never permitted the export of that spider for the trade