Every news station this week has made mention of new regulations coming into effect soon. The articles all mention that this applies to cages and displays of venomous and large constricting snakes and crocodilians. However, none of the news articles, or their websites (myNC, WRAL, abc11) give any particulars. A search of the City of Raleigh website also doesn't turn anything up.

Does anybody know where the actual statute can be accessed? For the record I don't keep any venomous or dangerous reptiles any more, I'm actually RattlerlessRyan

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 12:53 AM. Reason : ]

11/30/2009 12:53:12 AM

Senate Bill 307
http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2009/Bills/Senate/HTML/S307v4.html

11/30/2009 7:46:52 AM

yay! government intrusion into private life!

11/30/2009 7:56:06 AM

yay! Government protecting the public. No reason any private citizen should own such creatures.

11/30/2009 8:59:45 AM

^Did you even read the bill to see what it includes? Why shouldn't people be able to own large reptiles? wdprice3 is right.

The parts that affect people most:

"§ 14-416. Handling Mishandling of poisonous certain reptiles declared public nuisance and criminal offense.

The intentional or negligent exposure of other human beings to unsafe contact with reptiles of a venomous nature venomous reptiles, large constricting snakes, or crocodilians being is essentially dangerous and injurious and detrimental to public health, safety and welfare, the indulgence in and inducement to such exposure is hereby and is therefore declared to be a public nuisance and a criminal offense, to be abated and punished as provided in this Article.



"§ 14-417.1. Regulation of ownership or use of large constricting snakes.

(a) As used in this Article, large constricting snakes shall mean: Reticulated Python, Python reticulatus; Burmese Python, Python molurus; African Rock Python, Python sebae; Amethystine Python, Morelia amethistina; and Green Anaconda, Eunectes murinus; or any of their subspecies or hybrids.

(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, possess, use, transport, or traffic in any of the large constricting snakes that are not housed in a sturdy and secure enclosure. Permanent enclosures shall be designed to be escape-proof and shall have an operable lock. Transport containers shall be designed to be escape-proof.

(c) Each enclosure shall be labeled clearly and visibly with the scientific name, common name, number of specimens, and owner's identifying information. A written safety protocol and escape recovery plan shall be within sight of permanent housing, and a copy shall accompany the transport of any of the large constricting snakes. The safety protocol shall include emergency contact information, identification of the local animal control office, and first aid procedures.

(d) In the event of an escape of a large constricting snake, the owner or possessor shall immediately notify local law enforcement.


[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 9:25 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2009 9:24:03 AM

There's nothing in this or the original legislation that says you can't own large reptiles. It just says if you're an idiot about it then there will be criminal consequences.

11/30/2009 9:31:49 AM

Quote :

"^Did you even read the bill to see what it includes? Why shouldn't people be able to own large reptiles? wdprice3 is right."

yes, i started reading through it...and deadly reptiles shouldn't be made as pets...too many irresponsible owners

11/30/2009 9:34:51 AM

Quote :

"deadly reptiles shouldn't be made as pets...too many irresponsible owners"

The people who want to have a dangerous pet should be able to own a dangerous pet. It should not be the governments call to make.

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 9:46 AM. Reason : -]

11/30/2009 9:46:03 AM

^^well as far as irresponsible people, it's the same with:

vehicles
knives
ovens
microwaves
gasoline/kerosene
fireworks
computers
phones
rope
pipe
ball bearings
household cleaners
hose
etc



[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 9:47 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2009 9:46:39 AM

Quote :

"The people who want to have a dangerous pet should be able to own a dangerous pet. It should not be the governments call to make."

well unfortunately for all you 'freedom fighters' you don't live alone in this country.

11/30/2009 9:53:26 AM

I don't see what is so wrong with this. From my understanding all this says is.

A.) You better keep your King Cobra in a secure cage.

B.) Label that fucker in case you fall off a cliff tomorrow and your cousin does not come to clean your house to get surprised to open a cage that appears to be empty until the copperhead slithers out of the rock.

C.) If you lose it; take some responsibility to take care of your mess.

What is the big deal. Hell I would not think it would be out of line to have to have a permit (a permit which requires you to prove that you have some sort of training) to have some of these more dangerous animals.

11/30/2009 10:13:53 AM

^but then that means the government is meddling in my business

11/30/2009 10:14:55 AM

Honestly I don't give a shit if some idiot hillbilly gets killed while manhandling his gator or picking up his Pit Viper.

The problem I see is when the Burmese Python escapes to invade the everglades. A gator gets intentionally dumped at the neighborhood pond (after it gets to big for the owner) where the little kids go play at during the summer or there is a king cobra slithering around when EMS comes to your house b.c you had a heart attack.

11/30/2009 10:21:06 AM

are dragons reptiles?

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

11/30/2009 10:25:52 AM

Quote :

"Honestly I don't give a shit if some idiot hillbilly gets killed while manhandling his gator or picking up his Pit Viper. The problem I see is when the Burmese Python escapes to invade the everglades. A gator gets intentionally dumped at the neighborhood pond (after it gets to big for the owner) where the little kids go play at during the summer or there is a king cobra slithering around when EMS comes to your house b.c you had a heart attack."

this is exactly how i feel. People are just selfish and think its their 'right' to do what they want when they want with no regards of other peoples safety.

11/30/2009 10:28:00 AM

One of my issues with this is that it is apparently a law that won't affect too many people.

Really...was there some rash of reptilian breakouts recently, killing hundreds and thousands of people? What made this law necessary?

...or is this some BS feel-good crap that some politician decided to come up with to show that they're "doing something" for their next quarterly flier to constituents?

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 10:36 AM. Reason : ]

11/30/2009 10:36:19 AM

Perhaps they are being proactive so that our wildlife refuges do not end up like the everglades.

11/30/2009 11:13:36 AM

Quote :

"There's nothing in this or the original legislation that says you can't own large reptiles. It just says if you're an idiot about it then there will be criminal consequences."

you assholes are completely pathetic readers/comprehenders

11/30/2009 11:41:51 AM

Plz to show me how my reading/comprehension failed.

11/30/2009 3:25:16 PM

Quote :

"Honestly I don't give a shit if some idiot hillbilly gets killed while manhandling his gator or picking up his Pit Viper. The problem I see is when the Burmese Python escapes to invade the everglades. A gator gets intentionally dumped at the neighborhood pond (after it gets to big for the owner) where the little kids go play at during the summer or there is a king cobra slithering around when EMS comes to your house b.c you had a heart attack."

I agree with this.

Quote :

"this is exactly how i feel. People are just selfish and think its their 'right' to do what they want when they want with no regards of other peoples safety."

Except for that fact that you didn't explain this with your initial post or subsequent posts.

11/30/2009 4:03:27 PM

^thats because all the counter-responses make that very very obvious.

11/30/2009 4:05:20 PM

Yea, hindsight is 20/20 I guess.

I could post outrageous ideas on the internet, get flamed outrageously for them, then later hide in the well thought out post of another, criticize the flamers for not getting what I meant to say, and then say that I would have been outrageously flamed anyways.

So fuck it.

11/30/2009 4:40:24 PM

I just wanna say something..


If you own an African Rock Python.... You're out of your damn mind.


Furthermore, yes people are stupid and others want to be protected from their stupidity but I think them getting hurt is punishment enough for messing with a venomous snake, large snake, or crocodile.


(In other news, I'm glad this law is going into effect now rather than earlier because I totally broke one of the rules this year.)

11/30/2009 4:42:23 PM

Thanks for posting the statute gonzo.

After reading it, I don't have any major objections to the law. There's two major flaws. The first flaw that I see regards baby/juvenile constricting snakes. While a venomous reptile is dangerous regardless of size and/or age, a large constricting snake really isn't dangerous until it is a large constricting snake. The largest wild constrictor I've personally held was a 7 foot, 21 pound boa constrictor in Costa Rica. That snake was probably just large enough to be a threat to my well-being. I had several onlookers as I caught her and it was a good thing because she was cutting off circulation to my arm and I had to have someone physically unwrap her from my arm while I maintained control of her head.

With regards to the world's largest snakes, I've often thought that a little regulation of those species was lacking. I think it's retarded that you can buy a baby green anaconda at the NC Reptile Expo, because that really is crazy.

With regards to the crocodilian statute, the other flaw I see is the exclusion of the American alligator. I could be wrong, but I believe that species is by far the most commonly kept crocodilian. I'm very curious as to why this exclusion is in place, because alligators sure do get huge and very dangerous.

Regarding venomous reptiles, the law only lays out what every venomous reptile keeper should already be doing, and maybe goes a step further with the labeling and locking of cages. As someone that used to keep "hot herps" (as they're called), I can tell you that it's extremely easy and unregulated to purchase and keep venomous reptiles. Compared to states that require permits for these animals like Florida, this new law is still very lax.

The most concerning thing to me is the whole probable cause thing.

Quote :

"In any case in which any law-enforcement officer or animal control officer has probable cause to believe that any of the provisions of this Article have been or are about to be violated, it shall be the duty of the officer and the officer he is hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to immediately investigate the violation or impending violation and to seize the reptile or reptiles involved"

So what is probable cause? Does my screen name alone imply probable cause, allowing any officer that is far less educated on the matter then me to enter my house, seize my snakes, and conduct an investigation? I sure as hell hope not. Because if the officer doesn't know a rat snake from a red-tailed boa from a green anaconda (which I'm sure that 99.9% don't), then I don't think they should have the right to invade my privacy unconstitutionally.

11/30/2009 8:31:36 PM

Quote :

"With regards to the crocodilian statute, the other flaw I see is the exclusion of the American alligator. I could be wrong, but I believe that species is by far the most commonly kept crocodilian. I'm very curious as to why this exclusion is in place, because alligators sure do get huge and very dangerous."

American alligators are native to North Carolina.

11/30/2009 8:35:05 PM

^^

11/30/2009 10:00:14 PM

Quote :

"Yea, hindsight is 20/20 I guess. I could post outrageous ideas on the internet, get flamed outrageously for them, then later hide in the well thought out post of another, criticize the flamers for not getting what I meant to say, and then say that I would have been outrageously flamed anyways. So fuck it."

wtf are you smoking, holmes?

Quote :

"yes, i started reading through it...and deadly reptiles shouldn't be made as pets...too many irresponsible owners"

I didn't post any outrageous ideas
I didn't get flamed for any outrageous ideas, if anything I flamed those who think its ok for anyone to have such dangerous creatures as pets because they're obviously being selfish and are only thinking about themselves.

so again, wtf are you smoking and why aren't you sharing with everyone else?

[Edited on November 30, 2009 at 11:44 PM. Reason : .]

11/30/2009 11:40:48 PM

I've kept my eyelash vipers responsibly for a long time, I'll be fucking damned if I'm gonna go and get rid of them now for some stupid bullshit.

12/1/2009 12:46:54 AM

I realize that some of these critters can be really cool looking and whatnot, but this whole thread still begs the question: Why on earth would anyone want a venomous reptile in your own house with you? It certainly doesn't "like" you, and the biggest hazard it presents is to the person who must clean it's cage, feed it, and otherwise handle/manipulate it.

These types of fanged/squeezing critters belong in the wild on their native continent and not lying in the glass cage in the living room, staring at you while you watch TV.

My personal opinion stated, I can't say as I really have a problem with someone else keeping one of these things as long as they take the risks seriously, are responsible and humane about it, and all proper securities with regard to public safety are taken.

For those who choose to keep exotic venemous snakes, I do think it might be a good idea for the owner to be required to keep/maintain a supply of antivenom for that particular species, to be supplied to the local hospitals/doctors in the event it bites someone.

12/1/2009 12:04:35 PM

Quote :

"So what is probable cause? Does my screen name alone imply probable cause, allowing any officer that is far less educated on the matter then me to enter my house, seize my snakes, and conduct an investigation? I sure as hell hope not. Because if the officer doesn't know a rat snake from a red-tailed boa from a green anaconda (which I'm sure that 99.9% don't), then I don't think they should have the right to invade my privacy unconstitutionally."

i am pretty damn sure some beat cop is not goign to run into your house in this kind of matter

just like in forensics they have officers that are specialists for just about everything including reptiles, hell they could use DNR officials

just because you think cops are dumb doesnt mean they dont know how to conduct investigations

12/1/2009 12:12:09 PM

Quote :

"Why on earth would anyone want a venomous reptile in your own house with you? "

If they hadn't used the snakes that were on my project after I was finished, I would have taken in a few of them (copperheads) for the simple fact that otherwise they would be put down. They had been in captivity for way too long and wouldn't be able to be released back into the wild, apparently. I would have just had to get a permit for it.

However, that being said, I would never allow anyone to touch them or even open their enclosure. Even though they weren't deadly per say, it's still a freaking copperhead and would still hurt to get bit.

If they get rid of the snakes after the project they're doing now, I'll probably still try to adopt them. I got a little attached after working with them for almost 2 years. :\ (Well, some. Others were total bitches and would strike if you simply walked by their cage.)

Quote :

"These types of fanged/squeezing critters belong in the wild on their native continent and not lying in the glass cage in the living room, staring at you while you watch TV."

I agree with this in the cases where people just go out and catch the snakes for fun. Also, like I said before, if you own something like an African Rock Python.. You're just fucking crazy.

Sorry, but I don't want this in my house:

12/1/2009 1:05:16 PM

people can own whatever animals they want as long as they are within the law

who gives a shit whether you think they should own some animal, its not your household

i dont think people should be keeping dogs inside the house personally

but who the fuck cares what I think, right?

you cant tell some mutherfucker what kind of animals he should have and why

just make sure you doin things the right way

[Edited on December 1, 2009 at 1:07 PM. Reason : f]

12/1/2009 1:07:24 PM

Quote :

"i am pretty damn sure some beat cop is not goign to run into your house in this kind of matter just like in forensics they have officers that are specialists for just about everything including reptiles, hell they could use DNR officials just because you think cops are dumb doesnt mean they dont know how to conduct investigations"

I think the concern is the provision which allows them to be taken on probable cause. Wasn't there some case just a few months ago where some guy had his turtles taken by the state on "probable cause" and when he was cleared of all charges, half his turtles had died in the care of the state and the other half were sick or injured?

12/1/2009 2:23:03 PM

well whether or not they were right or not has nothing to do with there was initial probable cause to investigate

also, the fact that the turtles died has nothing to do with the procedure for investigation, the animals simply could have been more properly cared for which is a fault of that investigation no doubt, but it lends no credence to a probable cause argument

that was a fucked up situation no doubt, but i cant remember the details of why they nabbed the guy in the first place so i cant comment on it

i just know that they had no clue how to handle the animals once they did their thing

12/1/2009 2:28:09 PM

Quote :

"just like in forensics they have officers that are specialists for just about everything including reptiles, hell they could use DNR officials just because you think cops are dumb doesnt mean they dont know how to conduct investigations"

I'm saying the cops are undeducated on the subject of reptile identification. They absolutely don't have officers that can make identifications, that's why it says that they take it to the museum or the zoo. So how the hell can an on-scene/arresting officer make the call to begin an investigation when they themselves aren't sure if the reptile is subject to the new law? That's my biggest issue here.

12/4/2009 11:56:44 PM