mobile - desktop
Lebanon PA June 8 - Aug 10
News & Events:
Posted by wittsd on April 01, 2003 at 08:13:27:
In Reply to: wash revised bill? posted by herpluver on March 31, 2003 at 21:28:32:
- please forward this, as required. Thanks :)
> i was just given info that wash had revised ther bill to
> exclude boids and iggys. althought i trust this person, i'm
> not totally convinced, here is the link she gave me. she said
> it was the revised one
Latest is now:
You can track the bill's progress at:
Yes, boas and green iguanas *have* been removed from the
explicit scope of this bill *for the time being*.
However, API & co. condemned ALL reptiles at the initial hearing
and have not been complaining that boas and iguanas have been
removed from the list.
As noted, the major reason is probably that this new clause has
been added to 1151 which permits any other "dangerous"
species/animals to be banned without further need for
(And according to API, AZA "experts" have declared the likes of
green iguanas to be "most dangerous" to the public).
Do not doubt API & co. *will* take this as a green light to come
back for the "kill", later... even though it may a long, drawn-
IMO, I'd *really* be a lot happier if more responsible owners
of "innocuous" exotics were supporting responsible owners of
"less fashionable" exotics, otherwise who's going to support them
when all the other owners have been banned?
As stated, responsible ownership of all species is possible.
We *might* need a tolerable degree of regulation, education,
caging, finances, support networks, etc., for *certain* species.
We do *not* need bans driven by out-of-state deep-AR groups such
Please also check out the comments on the front page of the
Pacific Northwest Herpetological Society's site
...what is needed more than anything else on this bill is an
absolute avalanche of calls, letters, faxes, and emails from
people that think this is stupid. Long elegant letters are
pretty, but in his (lobbyist) words they don't account for squat.
Nothing about "don't ban species x, but we don't really care for
species y (*perceived* to be a danger to the public)", just
"please KILL WA HB1151".
Likewise on OR HB3065, but WA is most time-critical as it will be
used to leverage the OR bill, if passed.
Notice also those who testified for/against the last bill.
For: Several deep-AR orgs, someone whose daughter was bitten by
a small exotic cat (and domestic dogs don't bite, huh?), a
wolf "conservation" org which started as a private owner (and
would be banned under 1151!), some animal "sanctuaries" and a
doctor who a total phobia about salmonella.
Against: Various responsible owners groups & owners, including
a rep from PNHS.
*Very* clear cut, indeed, IMO...
What do you all think to this, then?
With sincere best wishes to all owners & herps,
And yes, orgs such as Phoenix *are* fighting alongside herp
owners in other states, too... we're just *very* thinly spread-
out and also need more people to help on cross-species efforts
against such legislation. Strength in unity, indeed...
At present, however, it is the deep-ARs who are most unified, to
remove ALL exotic ownership (so much easier to be against
anything, than for it, no?); e.g.
(CWAPC = API, PETA, HSUS, IFAW, FfA, TAOS, etc., plus a few zoos
who foolishly believe that they can remain exempt from the deep-
" Wildlife should be protected in their natural habitat.
Private ownership of wild animals as pets is dangerous to
people and inhumane to animals.
Wild animals as pets injure and kill children and adults and
can transmit potentially deadly diseases.
Only professionally operated, regulated facilities can provide
appropriate levels of care for wild animals.
Wild animals are not suited to be kept as pets"