Wild Animals In New York Against The Law?

[BugToxin]

I hope this hasn't been discussed already, but as I was reading the morning paper here in Denver, there was a section on new laws that go into effect in 2005. The one that caught my attention was one for the state of New York that has made it illegal to own wild animals as pets. Evidently the law lists a whole bunch of odd non-pet-like animals like tigers, lions, hippos, baboons, and hyenas, but also includes racoons, poisonous snakes, and even ferrets. There was a further clause about any "dangerous" animals. Does anyone know if this could poetntially include our beloved invertebrates like scorpions, T's, and pedes?

I think that the new law is A 2684 or possibly S 905-B. I tried to to a search on it, but only got some vague newspaper articles and obviously biased propaganda from the so-called animal rights groups. I did find the text versions of both bills, but haven't had time to try and decipher the legal jargon that these types of things are written in. Plus, I'm not even sure that these are the bills that were passed.

I certainly hope that I am wrong here. I start getting mad every time I hear the word "banned" in just about any context, but expecially when it applies to something that is important to me personally. Obviously this law wouldn't effect me directly, but when one state passes a wacko law it has a tendency to spread.

 

[becca81]

Most of these laws apply to wild-caught animals. However, yes, this sucks. Several states say that there are no natural predators for these animals, so if they got loose, they could cause many problems.

However, I think the US has much more pressing issues right now than banning certain animals...

 

[pitbulllady]

I know it does include T's in NYC, but I'm not sure about the statewide law. The law also includes iguanas, large constrictors, and many monitor species, as well as the afore-mentioned ferrets, which are 100% DOMESTICATED, as much so as Toy Poodles or Labs, and DO have an approved Rabies vaccine with a known incubation period! All of these exotic animal bans, along with breed-specific dog bans, restrictions on breeding pets(like mandatory spay-neuter for ALL animals), limits to the number of animals that can be kept on any property or in any household, are the handiwork of the Animal Rights Wackos. This is how they are rapidly wearing down the rights of people to keep and enjoy the company of ANY non-human animals. As long as people have ideas like, "Why should *I* care if they ban Pit Bulls and snakes; *I* have a Golden Retriever", the Nutcases will win and we will all be affected in one way or another.

pitbulllady

 

[pitbulllady]

These Laws DO NOT Just Apply to "Wild-Caught" Animals

Most of these laws apply to wild-caught animals. However, yes, this sucks. Several states say that there are no natural predators for these animals, so if they got loose, they could cause many problems.

However, I think the US has much more pressing issues right now than banning certain animals...

They apply to ALL "exotic" animals, whether wild-caught or captive-bred for many generations. The laws make absolutely NO distinction between, say, an albino Burmese python and a normal-phase Burm, which even still is VERY unlikely to have been an import. They also do include long-domesticated(is 2000 years long enough to be considered "domestic"?)species like ferrets, for absolutely NO valid reasoning whatsoever!

There are few issues more pressing to me than the loss of our Constitutional rights, and this would include the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If keeping a ferret or tarantulas makes me happy, and I am responsible in my judgement and no one is hurt and the animals are properly cared for, then I should have that right! Yet, the Animal Rights Nuts don't see it that way, since they put the imaginary "rights" of animals-who cannot even fathom what it means to have rights or responsibilities-above that of humans. This is not so much out of a love for animals as it is a deeply-held loathing of their own species; just read some of the statements made by people like Ingrid Newkirk(Pres. and founder of PeTA). Ironically, terrorist groups also seek to destroy the Constitution and the freedoms it provides; they just go about it in more "in your face" ways, while other groups, like PeTA and the HSUS, are more subtle and sneaky about it. The end results, should the efforst succede, are the same. ANYONE who keeps animals, whether these animals are livestock, Labrador Retrievers, scorpions, snakes, or whatever, BETTER be concerned about and aware of the efforts to end this practive forever!

pitbulllady

 

[BugToxin]

Rock on pitbulllady!!! You know, in the city and county of Denver pit bulls are illegal. This includes stafordshire bull terriers which top out at about 45 pounds, American pit bull terriers, American stafordshire bull terriers, and serveral other dogs that stupid people are afraid of. The state of Colorado passed a law that superceded this law, but the supreme court in Colorado struck it down so the wackos won. They do the same thing with guns in a ton of places here in the US. These are all things that are supposed to be protected by our Constitution. Unfortunately the Constitution doesn't seem to carry as much weight as it was intended to. If people don't take this into consideration when they vote, the ignorant fools of the world will win. Just wait untill some kid with a lawyer daddy picks up a pokie or OBT in the local exotic pet store.

 

[becca81]

I see both sides of the argument regarding banning pitbulls. However, I feel that it is certain people who should be banned from owning these animals. Some owners are responsible and make sure that their dogs do not cause harm. However, there are some owners (this goes for Ts also) that are very irresponsible and their dogs (or other animals) causes harm to people. Certain dogs were bred to be more aggressive than others, mainly for protection at that time.

You can't really say, however, that you should be allowed to do ANYTHING that brings you happiness. This could easily be taken to an extreme by saying, "Killing people makes me happy. (Insert your own extreme action) It's my right to pursuit of happiness, so you are violating my constitutional rights by stopping me."

And while I value and enjoy my pets, I am much more concerned about other matters that are facing the nation.

 

[Scylla]

T's are banned within the boroughs of NYC, but they were not included specifically in the state bill, New York State. S. 7616 (and A.11753-A

http://www.aspca.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nyc_s_4_161_01

 

[BugToxin]

I see both sides of the argument regarding banning pitbulls. However, I feel that it is certain people who should be banned from owning these animals.

Who would get to make this decision, the government?

You can't really say, however, that you should be allowed to do ANYTHING that brings you happiness. This could easily be taken to an extreme by saying, "Killing people makes me happy. (Insert your own extreme action) It's my right to pursuit of happiness, so you are violating my constitutional rights by stopping me."

This is the same logic that the wacko groups always use when they want to pass the next law that is both unnessecary and unconstitutional. Killing people would directly violate other peoples rights. However, life does carry risks, and if we ban everything that is poetntially dangerous we will no longer be a free nation. Exotic pets are extremely low on the risk of death, damage, or personaly injury scale, yet the people of New York obviously were so afraid of these horrible monsters that they elected to ban them. We can not ever use this flawed logic to defend politicians or laws that unnessecarily infringe on peoples right to do what they like. This new law, along with the pit bull laws, most new gun laws, and even some drug laws (absinth anyone?) are ridiculously invasive, overly protective, and can not be tolerated in a free society.

 

[becca81]

Maybe it's because I live in the South. In 2004 I know of 2 children in this area who were killed by either a Pittbull or Rottweiler. I was a dog obedience trainer for several years and know that these dogs can be well-controlled.

However, "dog fighting" is still very big in this area, and, although illegal, people still breed dogs to fight. This means that these dogs are VERY aggressive and WILL attack any people who are near. The owners are NOT responsible. Yes, the owners should be held accountable. Once they are caught, they have consequences, but what about the victims?

If people were breeding Ts with medically significant venom and then allowing them to escape where they came into contact with children, the elderly, etc. it would be a problem. If this happened enough times (like dogs in my area), then the government would probably step in.

Unfortunately we have some stupid people who make life more difficult for everyone else. I wish we could have some sort of "stupidity meter" that would allow only certain people to have certain priviledges.

New York hasn't had this problem with Ts, so I don't understand why they are banning them. But if their problem with dogs is anything like the problem in my area, they have good reason for concern.

 

[Lochala]

The way I see it, if the animal causes no problems to any person and is properly enclosed, than there should be no problem but, there are people with unfounded fears who pass such ridiculous laws.

 

[Scylla]

This bill came about in response to some jackass who was keeping a full grown tiger in his one bedroom apartment in Manhattan. When they raided his apartment, they found other animals inside, including a T, and this all added fuel to the fire. In the same time period there was news about a reporter who bought a tiger cub as research for an article. He practically starved the cub and then abandoned it and it caused all kinds of outcry (rightly so). This also brought up the subject of interstate sale. So the talking heads got together and this bill is the end result.

 

[becca81]

The way I see it, if the animal causes no problems to any person and is properly enclosed, than there should be no problem but, there are people with unfounded fears who pass such ridiculous laws.

This is the problem. Stupid people don't take care of their animals and don't properly enclose them, and they end up hurting someone, and then laws get passed.

As for Ts, there is no reason for it be passed, except for unfounded fears (THANK YOU HOLLYWOOD) and urban legends.

 

[HorridumAngeli]

Is it still a free country ?

I am a breeder of venomous lizards, Mexican Beaded Lizards(Heloderma horridum). I also keep several rattle snakes. I just paid the city of Sacramento $504.00 dollars for a yearly exotic animal permit. I am glad to pay the money for the fact that it insures me that some government yo yo will not come into my house and so called "protect me" from doing what I love. Granted some people are not responsible enough to keep these types of animals, how ever I feel it is mine and your constitutional right to keep what ever animal we like as long as we can prove we have the ability to do so in a safe manner for both the public and the animals. I was raised all of my life that this is a free country, we should all try and keep it that way.
Take care,
Steve"Horridum"Angeli www.Helodermahorridum.com

 

[becca81]

I am a breeder of venomous lizards, Mexican Beaded Lizards(Heloderma horridum). I also keep several rattle snakes. I just paid the city of Sacramento $504.00 dollars for a yearly exotic animal permit. I am glad to pay the money for the fact that it insures me that some government yo yo will not come into my house and so called "protect me" from doing what I love. Granted some people are not responsible enough to keep these types of animals, how ever I feel it is mine and your constitutional right to keep what ever animal we like as long as we can prove we have the ability to do so in a safe manner for both the public and the animals. I was raised all of my life that this is a free country, we should all try and keep it that way.
Take care,
Steve"Horridum"Angeli www.Helodermahorridum.com

Do other states/cities have exotic pet permits? This sounds like a good idea in many respects, because as you stated, it's showing that you CAN take care of the animals.

 

[Windchaser]

Do other states/cities have exotic pet permits? This sounds like a good idea in many respects, because as you stated, it's showing that you CAN take care of the animals.

The problem with this, though in theory it is a good idea, is that with most permits very little is required for someone to get them. Take driver's licenses for example. There are TONS of drivers that should not be on the road, yet they easily get a license. Permits don't really solve the issue of ensuring responsibility of the holder of the permit.

With respect to your earlier comments, if someone has a pitbull that unfortunately attacks someone, that person should be held responsible. Don't pass a law banning them for my protection. I will take care of my life, and others should take care of theirs. Americans as a whole, have given up on the concept of personal responsiblity. People need to be held accountable for their own actions. I wish the government would stop trying to protect me and let me take care of my life.

And yes, I do believe some things should be regulated, but not many. The types of things I think should be are items that have been shown to affect large numbers of people or areas negatively, such as disposal of hazardous materials. Pitbull attacks or attack by exotic animals, when you look at the numbers, are VERY low on the list of affecting large numbers of people.

 

[demolitionlover]

I am currently living in New York and I am waiting for my venomous interim license to come in the mail. Im waiting for the letter to come and say that now in 2005 we are no longer allowed to keep the venomous animals we are responsibly taking care of. My boyfriend commented earlier that all we need is one venomous bite in NY, and our rights will be gone. Some kid is gonna buy a rattlesnake from someone and try and handle it. If selling and keeping was more regulated, we wouldn't have problems like these from uneducated, irresponsible people.(I am not saying all keepers are irresponsible, I have just seen the worst stuff lately. You know tuff guys who want a alligator to impress his girlfriend but in actuality knows nothing about how the alligator lives or how to take care of it when it reaches 14 feet.)

I guess im just agreeing with the idea that these laws are rediculous. They have been threatning to do this for years and haven't.. but I guess it will just be motivation for me to move out of this state.

 

[Scylla]

I am currently living in New York and I am waiting for my venomous interim license to come in the mail.

I'm guessing that you don't live within the 5 boroughs of NYC? I know that a permit for T's are not issued for ANY reason.

 

[Tony]

I am a breeder of venomous lizards, Mexican Beaded Lizards(Heloderma horridum). I also keep several rattle snakes. I just paid the city of Sacramento $504.00 dollars for a yearly exotic animal permit. I am glad to pay the money for the fact that it insures me that some government yo yo will not come into my house and so called "protect me" from doing what I love. Granted some people are not responsible enough to keep these types of animals, how ever I feel it is mine and your constitutional right to keep what ever animal we like as long as we can prove we have the ability to do so in a safe manner for both the public and the animals. I was raised all of my life that this is a free country, we should all try and keep it that way.
Take care,
Steve"Horridum"Angeli www.Helodermahorridum.com

I prefer Gila's but beadeds are nice too...
Anyway, your lizards pose very little risk, yet now that you are licsensed, you are guarenteed a visit when they decided to stop licsensing....These 'dangerous animal' laws are about as assine application of goverment interferance there is....So if we had one in Roselle, a neighbor could get my stuff confiscated?. Yet there was zero I could do about the guy down the street who harrassed me about my political yard signs? The beeping, parking and screaming/obscenities? "Did he specifacally threaten you?" ...I guess the IDEA of a spider that could break out meander out of a NY house, into another and maybe bite someone is considered dangerous, but my kooky neighbor wasnt, unless he threatened me???? Sigh......Glad he moved to CO, you guys keep him..
T

 

[WingedDefeat]

The notion that the city of new york, and soon the state feel the need to ban such "exotic" animals as iguanas, poisonous snakes, and potentially tarantulas and other venomous inverts under the premise of environmental protection is dumb. If a tarantula escapes from it's owner in texas, it will go into the wild and join it's buddies. If a tarantula escapes in New York city, it has probably less than 3 months before weather sets in and the tarantula just dies. There is no risk of foriegn species introduction of tropical, subtropical, or desert dwelling critters in such a temperate region. I don't mean that the probability is low, I mean that the chances of such a species introduction in such an environment, let alone a city, is an improbability that we would have to invent a new mathmatical equation to calculate! Why can't they just come out and say it when they're pandering to public fears?

Grr! Me angry! Nathan Smash!

 

[pitbulllady]

The problem with this, though in theory it is a good idea, is that with most permits very little is required for someone to get them. Take driver's licenses for example. There are TONS of drivers that should not be on the road, yet they easily get a license. Permits don't really solve the issue of ensuring responsibility of the holder of the permit.

With respect to your earlier comments, if someone has a pitbull that unfortunately attacks someone, that person should be held responsible. Don't pass a law banning them for my protection. I will take care of my life, and others should take care of theirs. Americans as a whole, have given up on the concept of personal responsiblity. People need to be held accountable for their own actions. I wish the government would stop trying to protect me and let me take care of my life.

And yes, I do believe some things should be regulated, but not many. The types of things I think should be are items that have been shown to affect large numbers of people or areas negatively, such as disposal of hazardous materials. Pitbull attacks or attack by exotic animals, when you look at the numbers, are VERY low on the list of affecting large numbers of people.

A wiser statement I haven't heard or read in a long, long time! THIS is indeed the root of the problem-personal responsibility. Unfortunately, children are being taught from a very young age that the government is supposed to look after all of us, and that someone else is always accountable for what happens to YOU. The whole issue with animal bites is just one aspect-look at what's going on with the frivolous lawsuits and such. This has become a society where a person can spill hot coffee on themselves, KNOWING it was hot, and successfully sue the restaurant that sold them the coffee, and where tobacco companies have to compensate financially for idiots who smoke cigarettes, KNOWING the risks involved and KNOWING how addictive tobacco is, and then develope lung cancer. All of these quick-fixes do nothing but remove an individual's responsibility to himself and to his community.
People who let potentially dangerous animals run loose(and MOST animals are potentially dangerous, in one way or another)or deliberately train an animal to be aggressive towards humans then fail to control it are the problem, not the animals themselves. The animals are no more the problem than automobiles in the many instances of where drunk drivers kill or injure people. Idiots will still find a way to be idiots, with or without animals or cars, and people will get hurt as a result, until the PEOPLE who cause the problems are held accountable, big time!

pitbulllady