Banning Snakes in the USA - Next Australia?

[zulu]

re Banning

the model put forward by derekm in post 161 is the same direction I was thinking. although one of the things Im hoping this NRKA can achieve is to help bring in a national licencing system, I feel each state should have representatives to cover their members state interests as well as combining for national interests. each local area reptile/herp club society is probably a good way to assemble members and have a delegate to voice their opinions. these delegattes can meet at a state level to discuss issues and then have a state delegate (or two) to represent them at the national level. the national level could be made up of these state delegates and the experienced keepers, academics etc.

I agree we need to be kept informed of whats going on and that is exactly what our state representatives will be doing and passing on information to their state local herp society members. - just throwing some more ideas and thoughts into this thread.

Im not comfortable with some breeders placing a NRKA surcharge on animals they sell.. we cant force people to join.. but we should encourage them to do so willingly. as ive suggested a starting point at local herp and reptile societies, why dont we start there? and have a surcharge on membership that also includes NRKA.



I also agree there room for both of these groups (pure and morphs) and I have a foot in both camps. petty bickering over these issues is counterproductive and only causing division in the hobby at a time we need to unite together. I suggest these issues be put aside and respect that we all have different views on some issues. It would help though weezer to leave the $ off jags as for some its not about money, its about the animals. sarcasm like this detracts from an excellent post and some intelligent ideas. cheers.

A national licensing system wont happen colin but what a national body lobby group could do is to make singular representation on the behalf of the many societys in australia of issues that have been placed before it. The single most pressing issue is the issueing of takers licenses from the wild,what can happen realistically is that evidence can be brought to influence the outcomes regarding species to be taken on and off takers lists. The way it goes at the moment from what ive seen on the various websites,the WA bhps,womas and stimsons pythons are being sold off at low prices while collecting of wild individuals continues.Ime not against getting some founder stock to start breeding programmes but calm is getting it wrong in my oppinion and ive let them know how i feel about ,they may pay more attention to a collecting representation.At best you may onley infuence descion makers in state governments to make the systems they precide over more user friendly by ironing out the bumps.

 

[wokka]

The legislated control of giant constricting snakes in the US seems a sensible move to me.
A more specific licencing system in some parts of Australia would seem sensible also, but based upon genuine risk rather than fear mongering. Hopefully we will see an Industry Association develop which can harness passion and experience whilst still maintaining the diplomacy needed so as not to offend or "turn off" the powers that be. Perhaps the services of a professional lobbiest may be worth considering as passion and experience dont always correlate with diplomacy.

 

[Pythoninfinite]

Derekm, your suggestions are totally in line with what was envisaged by the 'core group'. The 'core group' that seems to be the problem at the moment was only established because it was the same group of people who were negotiating with NPWS this past year or more, hence we were together in the same room on a few occasions, and we have to start somewhere. The NRKA has a lot of evolving to do, it was never envisaged that it happen behind closed doors, if anyone has constructive comments or suggestions, they are most welcome to participate.

The debate has become distorted, the personal attacks on me are offensive and misplaced, but I'm a survivor. I'm here because of my love of, and 50 year involvement, with reptiles, both professionally and privately. if whatever I may bring to the table doesn't suit the majority of members at any time, then I'm sure they will have an opportunity to remove me from any position of influence. But I'm sorry Ihaveherps, I doubt whether anyone will be available to be your personal representative 24/7, unless you are prepared to pay handsomely.

The money referred to by this member changed hands long before my time, was paid by a few (maybe 10) of the 'core group' only, and is held by one of the 'core group' members. I am not one of those who paid because I was not involved at the time. I did not 'negate' to mention it or deliberately omit mention of it.

The NRKA was incorporated by Peter Johnson recently, so is accountable to Fair Trading for its financial activities. The structure, as I mentioned earlier, is solely interim to allow incorporation, and things like bank accounts etc to be established. Once the foundation stuff has been done, THEN we can ALL sit down and discuss the structure and function into the future, and make whatever changes are needed to the initial format.. That was the way it was always going to be. There has been no power-grab by 'elites' (not my word) and nothing is set in stone.

For your information.

Jamie.

 

[derekm]

To my way of thinking a self appointed group no matter how much experience they may or may not collectively have is starting way behind the eight ball.

Much better to ask for nominations for those positions in each state and the list of nominees get put to a vote by herp societies throughout the country.

As a collective voice, herp keepers are by far and away a very small minority and I see more value in trying to align with the birdos. At least that way we have a bigger voice,as well as being able to draw on their past experiences.

I agree. Getting this started should be a careful balance between top-down organisation (just because it works) and bottom-up representation (because it is what keepers and breeders want, I think).

The starting point should be the compilation of a list of the secretaries of all Australian herpetological and reptile/amphibian keeping societies/associations/clubs (hereafter just called 'clubs'). This would be followed by an email or letter to each secretary stating, in broad terms, the plan to create representative state peak associations with an ultimate aim to create a national representative peak association, and seeking their club's willingness to affiliate and elect delegates to such associations.

Our initial purpose for forming the state and national associations should be something we can nearly all agree on and I would suggest that, at least during the formation phase, we limit our purpose to "preserving and extending the privilege of private hobbyists and researchers to keep and breed Australian reptiles and amphibians".

Once the associations are established, they can turn their attention to additional purposes withe the ultimate aim that these associations become the widely recognised focus for engagement among reptile keepers, governments and other interested parties.

If/when sufficient interest from the clubs is obvious, the next step is for each club to send delegates to a state meeting (may need some teleconferencing to ensure easy participation by remote clubs) where the decision to form state associations will be formally made and people elected to draft constitutions, etc. (This is where the bird keeping associations can really help us initially as they should have constitutions that, with very few changes, would probably save us.'reinventing the wheel'.)

Once the state/territory associations have been formed with agreed constitutions, office holders and delegates (I've skipped a huge amount of detail and work here) they can form the national association in a similar manner.

Now for the hard question. Who is going to make this happen? I think that this is going to have to be led by a steering committee that will disband when the state and national associations have been formed, even though members of the steering committee may continue their involvement if they are elected as officers or delegates to the state or national associations.

What we now need is to arrive at a consensus on how the membership of the steering committee will be decided. I have no ideas about this that I'm happy with. Self nomination may work if there is also a process for rejecting nominations where the nominee does not have the respect of the keeping/breeding community. Ideas anyone????

 

[pythonmum]

Just got back to the site after a week off and have spent way too long reading this debate. As someone from the USA who has worked in animal research both there and here, I echo those who encourage everyone to take this threat very seriously. If you simply look at the NSW legislation, which is presented as being about dogs in pet shops, you will have a big surprise. Not clear if it would cover frozen rodents, but it stipulates that you don't sell any mammals unless you are a breeder or rescue organisation. This is a huge bonus for the purebred dog industry and makes intelligent farmbred dogs illegal, not to mention most small mammal pets. The reptile hobby is small compared to the money in crossbreed 'designer' dogs. Don't kid yourself that the money associated with an expanding reptile hobby will make a difference. Well-organised lobby groups like PETA and the RSPCA have many donations from animal lovers who are not familiar with their full policies. They have professional lobbyists and slick publicity campaigns. The reptile hobby has some good herp societies, but nowhere near the organisation, direction and funding of the other organisations. NRKA is a step in the right direction.

 

[derekm]

The NRKA was incorporated by Peter Johnson recently, so is accountable to Fair Trading for its financial activities. The structure, as I mentioned earlier, is solely interim to allow incorporation, and things like bank accounts etc to be established. Once the foundation stuff has been done, THEN we can ALL sit down and discuss the structure and function into the future, and make whatever changes are needed to the initial format.

This is great. I wasn't aware of how much top-down organisation had commenced. The current existence of a national entity (albeit waiting for the blanks to be filled in - a good thing IMO) could provide the clubs with confidence that there is sufficient commitment to a national association and thus encourage them to be a part of the formation and development processes.

Two questions. Is the "Fair Trading" with whom NRKA is incorparated a state or federal body? Does it matter?

 

[AnitaBlake]

This thread was really starting to progress in a calm and logical fashion finally.

Some of the ideas that are being thrown around have some real merit. As I said before, I'm not sure I see the value of only one body given our differing laws, but certainly something similar to Derek's ideas sounds like it would have a good shot of working.

Obviously, if the purpose of this group is to put forward the needs or desires of the herping community, there are going to be a number of differing ideas about what these would be, as we have seen already in this thread. Like a few others have stated, some of the legislation that covers keeping are far too lax, such as that involving elapid keeping. I'd be willing to be that there are any number of people who would disagree. I honestly believe that if there truly will be any bans being brought in on herp keeping, that elapids are where it will start given the higher possibility of real harm coming to keepers of those animals. The last thing on earth I would want is a ban on elapid keeping, I know it'd break my partner's heart to have to part with his animals and I'd be missing out on being able to observe them so closely myself. I would like to think though, that the blocking of such bans would not extend as far as asking for (and being granted) more leniency than is in the laws currently. So how do you achieve a concensus among a group with such wildly diverging ideas as ours?

My other concern is that we're showing a huge knee jerk reaction to a law in another country which in effect is a MUCH softer version of a law already in place in this country. The law in America prevents the sale and transport of 9 species of large exotic snakes. Our laws here currently ban the keeping, selling, importation yadda yadda yadda of ALL exotics. People, the deed here is well and truly done already. Surely if the purpose behind that law in America was some sort of tree hugging conspiracy to prevent people from keeping reptiles in general they would have simply done so? Or at least made a start by banning all dangerous native snakes such as crotalids? As it stands there is no correlation whatsoever between this law and a law (which doesn't even exist) to stop us keeping native species. Further - I agree with come who have posted previously in support of this law in America, I'm sorry if people don't like that, but it certainly doesn't make me less of a snake lover simply because I see the reasoning behind trying to stop further issues being caused by the keeping of these non native species.

 

[derekm]

My other concern is that we're showing a huge knee jerk reaction to a law in another country which in effect is a MUCH softer version of a law already in place in this country.

I think it is not so much the content of the proposed US law that has many of us concerned; it is the way this proposed law has been sneaked into the US leglislative program will little opportunity for informed public debate or organised opposition.

Also this event in the US serves as a useful reminder to us that there are well funded groups with excellent organisational and lobbying skills in Australia that oppose the existence of our hobby. The only reason that we are not firmly in their sights right now is that we haven't reached the top of their priority list - yet.

On that basis, I think it is prudent that we organise our defence of our hobby now while we can do so with calm consideration - before we really need it in a hurry.

 

[chilli]

The legislated control of giant constricting snakes in the US seems a sensible move to me.

isn't it identical to nsw npws restricting keepers from having crocodiles?

regarding a nrka, peter and jamie both exhibit the highest integrity, both are very energetic and are involved for the benefit of the hobby.

an association will always have agendas which people don't believe are worthwhile, you will never have concensus on every topic. either the association is for you or it's not.

instead of trying to undermine the association, if it's not for you, just keep the speculation to yourself because any criticism is totally unfounded.

 

[ozziepythons]

Could we go back to the drawing board for a moment, while someone very well informed with nothing but the facts on here, sheds light on what exactly the proposed legislation in the US regarding 's. 373' aka 'the python ban' stipulates? After reading David Barker's email and the threads following it, there seems to be much confusion on APS as to what exactly it means. Some say it is a trade ban, where as David seems to think many specimens are to be relinquished and destroyed. Someone?

 

[Retic]

The exact wording and meaning of the proposed law in the US is largely irrelevant to this discussion, the crux of the matter is that a law can be introduced with little or no notice that can be amended in the future to include many more species. The implications for us are obvious, it has absolutely nothing to do with banning exotics Boids.

 

[ozziepythons]

The exact wording and meaning of the proposed law in the US is largely irrelevant to this discussion, the crux of the matter is that a law can be introduced with little or no notice that can be amended in the future to include many more species. The implications for us are obvious, it has absolutely nothing to do with banning exotics Boids.

This thread was instigated by prospect of the proposed legislation 's 373' and therefore absolutely believe it is relevent to further discussion. Due to evident confusion that seems to have arisen of the proposed legislation on this thread, I would like someone informed to clarify what it is that this proposition entails? Therefore what are we arming ourselves with a national representative body against (yes I'm aware of the unique jurisdiction being placed in the US has no bearing on what exactly could happen here) ?

Also I mistakenly referred to Dave Barker as 'David' Barker in my previous post....

 

[derekm]

Could we go back to the drawing board for a moment, while someone very well informed with nothing but the facts on here, sheds light on what exactly the proposed legislation in the US regarding 's. 373' aka 'the python ban' stipulates? After reading David Barker's email and the threads following it, there seems to be much confusion on APS as to what exactly it means. Some say it is a trade ban, where as David seems to think many specimens are to be relinquished and destroyed. Someone?

My understanding is that, as a proposed federal law, it is limited by states rights to only matters on which federal law has primary jurisdiction. In this case, by amending Title 18 of the United States Code to define pythons as "an injurious animal", it will ban the import, export and interstate movement in a yet to be finalised list of python species.

Sufficiently interested people can read the actual content at Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) and US CODE: Title 18,42. Importation or shipment of injurious mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibia, and reptiles; permits, specimens for museums; regulations.

 

[derekm]

Therefore what are we arming ourselves with a national representative body against (yes I'm aware of the unique jurisdiction being placed in the US has no bearing on what exactly could happen here) ?

IMO, we are "arming ourselves":

• for the preservation and extension of the privilege of private hobbyists and researchers to keep and breed Australian reptiles and amphibians, and
• against those people and organisations that would lobby governments to remove these privileges.

I see the activity in the US as a strong reminder to us that we should not take these privileges for granted and should prepare our defence while we can do so without undue time pressure and the stress of imminent focussed attack.

 

[AnitaBlake]

I think it is not so much the content of the proposed US law that has many of us concerned; it is the way this proposed law has been sneaked into the US leglislative program will little opportunity for informed public debate or organised opposition.

Also this event in the US serves as a useful reminder to us that there are well funded groups with excellent organisational and lobbying skills in Australia that oppose the existence of our hobby. The only reason that we are not firmly in their sights right now is that we haven't reached the top of their priority list - yet.

On that basis, I think it is prudent that we organise our defence of our hobby now while we can do so with calm consideration - before we really need it in a hurry.

If it truly were the case that our legislative system would allow for such a Machiavellian play as the one seen in the U.S., and the organisations which are against keeping reptiles were so influential, then I would have thought that there would have been a great deal less consultation with reptile demonstrators when the new legislation governing demonstrations was being proposed in Queensland. Since it's not something that affects a great many members of this site I wouldn't expect it to be well known - but when the governing of native wildlife demonstrations was handed over to Biosecurity Queensland, they approached all demonstrators expressed an interest in learning about what was involved in demonstrating wildlife. They suggested the formation of an association with which they could liase to accurately gain information on not only what is involved in the process, but what the concerns of demonstrators were in regards to the standards and legislation which would be imposed on them.

That being said, there will always be value in having a voice (or several voices) to make our desires known, I simply think we are ascribing too many American values on our own system. Flawed as it may be, it's still a different beast.

 

[ozziepythons]

My understanding is that, as a proposed federal law, it is limited by states rights to only matters on which federal law has primary jurisdiction. In this case, by amending Title 18 of the United States Code to define pythons as "an injurious animal", it will ban the import, export and interstate movement in a yet to be finalised list of python species.

Sufficiently interested people can read the actual content at Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress) and US CODE: Title 18,42. Importation or shipment of injurious mammals, birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibia, and reptiles; permits, specimens for museums; regulations.

Thanks Derekm, I checked out the links. I myself understand that a trade ban is part of the legislation, but wonder if there is any merit in Dave Barker's comment that millions of specimens will be destroyed as a result? He also stated that even possession of certian species will be made illegal.

 

[derekm]

Can I just ask how many of you here study law? :lol:

I don't study law in any formal sense. However, I am on the committee of a sporting club and a voting delegate to the sport's state association. This sport, target shooting, has a long history of well organised opponents trying to have it banned, and a long history of representative state and national associations presenting sound arguments and policy recommendations to governments to help keep the sport alive and flourishing. I therefore have a deep appreciation of the potential problems facing the reptile keeping community.

 

[derekm]

Thanks Derekm, I checked out the links. I myself understand that a trade ban is part of the legislation, but wonder if there is any merit in Dave Barker's comment that millions of specimens will be destroyed as a result?

Probably. If the trade collapses, breeding stock and unsold juveniles will be destroyed by people who can no longer afford to sustain large populations just as pets - even though it will probably tear their hearts out to do it. Think about a cattle station. If interstate and international trade in cattle and beef was banned, how many graziers would keep their cattle as pets?

He also stated that even possession of certian species will be made illegal.

Not as a direct result of this legislation, but the passage of this law at a federal level could encourage further federal or state legislation in that direction.

IMO Dave is painting a reasonable worst case scenario - probably the most effective way to quickly generate the irate opposition required, but will need tempering if/when their immediate crisis passes. We don't have an immediate crisis - yet.

 

[moosenoose]

I don't study law in any formal sense. However, I am on the committee of a sporting club and a voting delegate to the sport's state association. This sport, target shooting, has a long history of well organised opponents trying to have it banned, and a long history of representative state and national associations presenting sound arguments and policy recommendations to governments to help keep the sport alive and flourishing. I therefore have a deep appreciation of the potential problems facing the reptile keeping community.

That's good to know, but what you'll also appreciate, after what you saw with Australian gun reforms, is the similarity between the actions of a few jeopardizing the privileges of many.

This action taken by the US legislators has been brought about as a reaction to something that has occurred, like Port Arthur did to our gun laws, all we need here is a trigger of equal magnitude to dive us down the same path. With that in mind I really don't know what you guys think you're going to achieve with this last stand battalion front thingy you're trying to put together, because when an act of sheer stupidity (and amazing there are lots of stupid people in this hobby :lol stuffs up - we're all going to wear it NO MATTER WHAT! The RSPCA and PUBLIC OPINION will just knock whatever twig you attempt to wave at them and you'll be left scratching your heads and wondering where it all went wrong!

Lemme see, there was a guy up North recently who got done for road rage and threatened a lady with a carpet snake - telling her it was a death adder! Gee, some people are hard to protect, yet this is what may very well kill this hobby! How can you argue a case in his defense?? You can't!

Point is: There is nothing anyone will be able to do if people holding these reptiles do stupid/careless things with them! You could have Jesus Christ heading this amazing committee and he still wouldn't save it!- end of story!

 

[ozziepythons]

Hmmmm, as much as it is important that we set up a NRKA as insurance for the future of our hobby/ interest, how likely is it that any type of ban on keeping any species of native reptile could come to pass here, in a retroactive sense? WA finally lifted its draconian laws on reptile keeping several years ago, and womas are now available in NSW. The raids and tyranny imposed by fauna permit representatives many years ago in the east have come to pass as the hobby gained strength and respectability over time. Australia seems to be moving forwards into the 21st century, not backwards if history is anything to go by (however, lets us not forget the Tasmanians, a state whos laws are slow to catch up).
The other thing is most Australians have first hand experience with reptiles, whether it be brown snakes and blue tounges in suburban Adelaide or carpet pythons and water dragons in Brisbane. Most of our lives are entwined with such fauna, not divorced from it, so such jurisdictional legislation banning keeping even captive bred specimens would be seen as extremist nowdays, and few people would stand for it.