(This column was first published in the April 8, 2002 Buffalo News.)
Our state legislature is currently considering a bill
initiated by Assembly member Paul Tonko of Schenectady and co-sponsored by Erie
County assemblyman Paul Tokasz that would prohibit the possession of many wild
animals as pets. I believe that a bill regulating keeping animals that pose a
danger to society is needed, but I strongly oppose the bill that is being
considered. (To examine the bill and its current
status, go to the NY State
Senate website and call up Bill A7375-B.)
Of course few of us want Bengal tigers or crocodiles
looking over or under our back fences. Keeping such animals and a wide variety
of other dangerous pets calls for serious legislation and current laws are
clearly inadequate. I therefore salute Tonko and Tokasz for addressing this
problem and I agree with their initiative to "protect the public health
and safety in relation to the possession of wild animals as pets."
Unfortunately, however, I believe that the complete
prohibition that this draconian bill proposes, wrongly addresses the problem.
There are not, thank goodness, many lions and tigers
kept as pets in this state, but a popular avocation here as elsewhere is
keeping reptiles -- sometimes including poisonous species. With a
one-brush-paints-all approach, this bill treats these animals in the same way
it does large carnivores. I believe that the simple prohibition of these
herpetological activities would have many bad effects, including driving some
hobbyists into secrecy and as a result seriously exacerbating the associated
dangers.
Consider, for example, the following scenario: When a
law enforcement agent shows up at a cobra owner's front door, to avoid arrest
the owner releases the snake out the back. None of the reptile hobbyists that I
know would do such a thing, but a pet store in New York City some years ago
released part of its inventory under exactly these conditions.
Of course, poisonous reptiles are dangerous; however,
I have searched for (non-fiction) examples in this country of escaped reptiles
biting people other than their handlers and I find none whatsoever.
Amateur as well as professional herpetologists extend
our limited knowledge of reptiles. They belong to fine organizations like the
national Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles and the local Western
New York Herpetological Society. They publish research in excellent journals
and books devoted to these little understood animals. I urge that their
recommendations be taken into account.
They propose regulation instead of prohibition.
Interestingly some of the sunset provisions already included in the Tonko bill
support their ideas. To regulate those who keep dangerous reptiles they
recommend such things as: Licensing with reasonable associated fees to cover
administrative costs and very strict requirements including both classroom
activities and a lengthy internship that must include reptile-handling skills.
Substantial insurance liability coverage. Proof of access to antivenin for any
species to be kept. Strict requirements for enclosures. A program of regular
oversight including both reports and visits.
We have, it seems to me, models for this kind of
regulation already in place. Hunting poses dangers and hunter safety courses
have become a widely accepted part of the culture of outdoor recreation. The
herpetologists' proposals go still further to protect the public -- and
themselves. And we also have a state that has addressed these same problems.
Florida has been a leader in developing needed controls on the possession of
wild animals. (For information about their accomplishments, access the Florida
Conservation commission website. An associated Florida antivenin
depository has been set up in the Miami-Dade
area.
I urge that the Tonka bill be carefully revised by a
committee that would include those affected by it. Upon completion of their
task this group might then form the nucleus of a permanent state-wide oversight
board.-- Gerry Rising