Guys need help to fight the animal ban

[wht_scorpion]

COULD YOU GUYS HELP ME WITH THIS PETITION ABOUT THE ANIMAL BAN PLEASE

CLICK THE LINK

http://capwiz.com/gwpark/utr/2/?a=61090836&i=117467594&c=

[gen3flygirl]

Done! We won the fight getting pit bulls taken off the "dangerous breeds" list no reason we can't win this one.

[flounder]

Not clicking your link without details

[wht_scorpion]

Its in the link

Do not let Ohio take your rights and your animals! This letter goes to the 2nd half of the committee. It is important that wqe send both so that all committee members receive our opposition to SB 310! Part 2 - SEND YOUR OPPOSITION TO THE OHIO BAN TODAY!

Take Action!

Don't let Ohio take your rights and your animals!

Senator Balderson, under the strict guidance of Governor Kasich, has introduced SB 310 in Ohio to ban so called “dangerous wild animals” and create strict rules for “restricted snakes”. They claim to allow those that currently own dangerous wild animals to keep them and do not want to affect businesses and exhibitors, but a closer look reveals that is not true.

Governor Kasich admitted in a press release that he intentionally made the requirements so strict that the average “casual owner” could not meet them. Legislators have been informed that it would be illegal to take people’s animals away, so they found a way to make owners give up their animals on their own.

The bill creates a propagator license for breeders, but it only allows breeding for a species survival plan (SSP), a registered trademark of the AZA. There is also no exemption for exhibiting other than circuses in the state less than 45 days that do not allow public contact (including elephant rides) or AZA or ZAA accredited facilities.

The bill also gives a lot of power to both private non-profit (AZA and ZAA) and animal rights controlled (GFAS) organizations. They exempt GFAS sanctuaries and AZA and ZAA facilities, require the school mascot to be kept at an AZA or ZAA facility, allow the AZA and ZAA their own spots on the advisory board, and require owners to loose their animals to send them to a GFAS sanctuary or AZA or ZAA facility.

Senator Balderson has repeatedly acknowledged in press releases that there are many responsible owners in Ohio and yet claims that this bill is fair. We need to join together to inform Ohio senators that this bill is far from fair!

Edited March 17, 2012 by wht_scorpion

[Cdubyah]

From the link

Senator Balderson, under the strict guidance of Governor Kasich, has introduced SB 310 in Ohio to ban so called “dangerous wild animals” and create strict rules for “restricted snakes”. The bill allows current owners of dangerous wild animals to keep them but has extremely strict requirements that owners must meet.

Governor Kasich admitted in a press release that he intentionally made the requirements so strict that the average “casual owner” could not meet them. Legislators have been informed that it would be illegal to take people’s animals away, so they found a way to make owners give up their animals on their own.

On top of that, Senator Balderson has repeatedly acknowledged in press releases that there are many responsible owners in Ohio and yet claims that this bill is fair. We need to join together to inform Ohio senators that a ban and requirements that are nearly impossible and even dangerous to meet is far from fair!

[wht_scorpion]

As Introduced

129th General AssemblyRegular Session2011-2012S. B. No. 310

Senator Balderson

Cosponsor: Senator Jones

A BILL

To amend section 1533.71, to enact sections 935.01 to 935.26 and 935.99, and to repeal section 2927.21 of the Revised Code to establish requirements governing the possession of dangerous wild animals and restricted snakes.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF OHIO:

Section 1.

That section 1533.71 be amended and sections 935.01, 935.02, 935.03, 935.04, 935.05, 935.06, 935.07, 935.08, 935.09, 935.10, 935.11, 935.12, 935.13, 935.14, 935.15, 935.16, 935.17, 935.18, 935.19, 935.20, 935.21, 935.22, 935.23, 935.24, 935.25, 935.26, and 935.99 of the Revised Code be enacted to read as follows:

Sec. 935.01.

As used in this chapter:

(A) "Board of health" means the board of health of a city or general health district or the authority having the duties of a board of health in any city authorized by section 3709.05 of the Revised Code.

(B) "Circus" means a traveling show to which all of the following apply:

(1) It is licensed by the United States department of agriculture under 84 Stat. 1560 (1970), 7 U.S.C. 2133 et seq.

(2) It features natural or artificial curiosities and dangerous wild animals, restricted snakes, or both as an integral part of the show.

(3) It does not allow physical contact between the public and the dangerous wild animals or restricted snakes possessed by it.

(4) It is in the state for less than forty-five days each year.

© "Dangerous wild animal" means any of the following, including hybrids unless otherwise specified:

(1) Hyenas;

(2) Gray wolves, excluding hybrids;

(3) Lions;

(4) Tigers;

(5) Jaguars;

(6) Leopards, including clouded leopards, Sunda clouded leopards, and snow leopards;

(7) All of the following, including hybrids with domestic cats:

(a) Cheetahs;

(b) Lynxes, including Canadian lynxes, Eurasian lynxes, and Iberian lynxes;

© Cougars, also known as pumas or mountain lions;

(d) Caracals;

(e) Servals.

(8) Bears;

(9) Elephants;

(10) Rhinoceroses;

(11) Hippopotamuses;

(12) Cape buffaloes;

(13) African wild dogs;

(14) Komodo dragons;

(15) Alligators;

(16) Crocodiles;

(17) Caimans, excluding dwarf caimans;

(18) Gharials;

(19) Nonhuman primates other than the nonhuman primates specified in division ©(20) of this section;

(20) All of the following nonhuman primates:

(a) Golden lion, black-faced lion, golden-rumped lion, cotton-top, emperor, saddlebacked, black-mantled, and Geoffroy's tamarins;

(b) Pygmy, white-tufted-ear, silvery, and black-pencilled marmosets;

© Squirrel monkeys, including Central American squirrel monkeys;

(d) Southern and northern night monkeys;

(e) Dusky titi and masked titi monkeys;

(f) Muriquis;

(g) Goeldi's monkeys;

(h) Brown, white-faced, weeping, and white-fronted capuchins;

(i) White-faced, black-bearded, white-nose bearded, and monk sakis;

(j) Bald and black uakaris;

(k) Black-handed, white-bellied, brown-headed, and black spider monkeys;

(l) Common woolly monkeys;

(m) Red, black, and mantled howler monkeys.

(21) Any other animals designated by the director of agriculture in rules.

(D) "Federal animal welfare act" has the same meaning as in section 959.131 of the Revised Code.

(E) "Felony drug abuse offense" has the same meaning as in section 2925.01 of the Revised Code.

(F) "Health district" means a city or general health district created by or under the authority of Chapter 3709. of the Revised Code.

(G) "Humane society" means an organization that is organized under section 1717.05 of the Revised Code.

(H) "Law enforcement officer" means a sheriff, deputy sheriff, constable, police officer of a township or joint police district, marshal, deputy marshal, municipal police officer, or state highway patrol trooper.

(I) "Natural resources law enforcement officers" means peace officers as specified in division (A)(6) of section 109.71 of the Revised Code and employees of the division of wildlife specified in sections 1531.13 and 1531.14 of the Revised Code.

(J) "Offense of violence" has the same meaning as in section 2901.01 of the Revised Code.

(K) "Restricted snake" means any of the following:

(1) All of the following constricting snakes:

(a) Green anacondas;

(b) Yellow anacondas;

© Reticulated pythons;

(d) Indian pythons;

(e) Burmese pythons;

(f) North African rock pythons;

(g) South African rock pythons;

(h) Amethystine pythons;

(i) Boa constrictors.

(2) Species of the following families:

(a) Atractaspididae;

(b) Elapidae;

© Viperidae.

(3) Boomslang snakes;

(4) Twig snakes;

(5) Any other snakes designated by the director in rules.

(L) "Rule" means a rule adopted under section 935.17 of the Revised Code.

[Simplysix]

Done! We won the fight getting pit bulls taken off the "dangerous breeds" list no reason we can't win this one.

this

[conn-e-rot]

done

[wht_scorpion]

Thank guys we have a meet with a senator on the 24th hoping every thing gos pretty good Ive been involved with animals all my life with farm animals to snakes and big cat. education is the key to have this kinds of animals. Please sign the petition

[snot]

Done

[tyler524]

Done

[DoughnuT]

Done.

The part about the snakes being included seems out of line. 99% of the people that have these animals/reptiles are enthusiast, that take very good care of their "pets."

I will pass this on to some friends, that have snakes, and local pet shops. Personally, I don't see how they can include common constrictor snakes into this category though. Sounds to me, that someone has a fear, that they don't want to deal with.

[Jst2fst]

Done

[wht_scorpion]

Thanks

One day I can help you guys out

[wht_scorpion]

We are very concerned about the bill being introduced in Ohio applying to

the ownership of exotic pets.

This bill will create an illegal monopoly in the state by limiting the

accreditation requirement to only one accrediting agency, the Global

Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, which is not a government agency but a

private non-profit organization. There are other accrediting organizations

available such as the United States Zoological Association (USZA),

UAPPEAL, and the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) who all have

accrediting programs that are equal to or better than the GFAS

accreditation. To limit the acceptance of only one accrediting agency

creates an illegal monopoly. These other accrediting agencies should be

accepted as alternatives to the GFAS for the mandatory accreditation of

these facilities.

The requirement for placing signs on the borders of our facilities may

draw attention from animal activists and put the owners and their animals

in danger. There have been incidents of vandalism from animal activists

and others. Once they are aware of the location of these animals and

placing the signs would encourage vandals. . Placing the signs so public

can see them will draw thrill seekers and children to the locations of

these animals that have been legally and safely kept in privacy for many

years. Owners would be spending unnecessary money for more security to

keep people out. There is no purpose for the requirement for the placing

of signs.

[wht_scorpion]

There is no scientific evidence to prove that non human primates are a

public health or disease threat. According to the CDC, there has never

been a case of disease transmission from a pet nonhuman primate to a human

in the US. Diseases have been found in Nonhuman primates held in research

labs where the animals were imported from other countries but the

importation of nonhuman primates into the US for pets has been banned

since 1975. All nonhuman primates bred for pets come from breeders within

the US who have breeding animals that are not infected by the diseases

associated with health threats to the public Pet exotics are no longer

taken from the wild.

It is no secret that the HSUS has a goal to eliminate all captive

wildlife. Since the horrendous big cat massacre that occurred in

Zanesville, Ohio, last October, the HSUS has used this tragedy as an

excuse to send their lobbyists to every state legislature in session, to

shop their ban bills for sponsors and introduction This is a kneejerk

reaction to Zanesville, Ohio and what went on there.

Edited March 18, 2012 by wht_scorpion

[buildit]

You know with all the news about what happened in Zanesville public opinion is very against the public ownership of "exotic animals"? Yes, I know most people are not nuts who will release their pets and kill themselves but how do you sway public opinion when the media and Jack Hanna are against you? In other words how do you prove your not a fucking moron with an 1400 lb pair of man eating teeth sitting angry in a cage?

On the other side of that is the news showing so many horses and family pets that are mistreated. The stories I've heard from my friend at the Franklin County Animal Control about what people have done to their cats and dogs makes me think that some people should be allowed to own a cockroach! So other than making ownership of exotic pets extremely expensive how do you show the owners are capable and mentally okay to own these animals? Reminds me of the Far Side comic with the dingo farm next to the baby nursery.

[Meanie]

I have a friend in PA that owns a lot of exotic animals, the police and federal agencies have him pick up seized animals. He was very much anti Ohio due to the very relaxed laws on buying and selling exotic and dangerous animals. I can't believe I am saying this but I agree with buildit and Pauly, how do you determine whether or not the person buying the animal is stable/responsible enough to own it. The other issue is people from out of state are able to come in and pick up animals they could not purchase or own in their state of residence and return home with them. Rich I have seen pictures of your animals and I believe you take very good care of them, and also have them properly contained, but not everyone is as responsible as you are.

[serpentracer]

ok some of those animals people shouldn't be allowed to have without a permit or something. but talk about an over reaction by lawmakers. something tells me some 300lb lonely woman that has nothing better to do is the one behind all of it.

it's the same over reaction to pit bulls. when statistics and scientific studies clearly prove pit bulls are actually less dangerous than some of the most common dogs. they even score better on temperament tests than golden retrievers.

Edited March 18, 2012 by serpentracer

[buildit]

something tells me some 300lb lonely woman that has nothing better to do is the one behind all of it.

No, the lonely 300lb woman was picked up for hording kitty cats and her 250lb third grader was sent to the fat farm.

Let's see, I don't trust the government, but I don't trust you, but I'm to lazy to handle it myself so my taxes are going up so the government, who I don't trust, will handle it for me. And so it goes......

Edited March 18, 2012 by buildit

[wht_scorpion]

This bill also has several other serious flaws.

Several of these exemptions are not really exemptions at all. Those who only possess the listed monkeys would be forced to give up their monkeys because they are required to have a USDA breeder or dealer license, which are not issued for pets. Wildlife sanctuaries would not be exempt because they are required to be accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, an organization heavily controlled by the Humane Society of the United States (the group responsible for this legislation in the first place). Even the sports mascot exemption that was written for Obie is not a real exemption because it requires the facility that houses him to be AZA or ZAA accredited.

There are also concerns about the types of entities that are exempted. This ban exempts AZA and Zoological Association of America accredited facilities, which are both private non-government corporations and have no power to enforce their standards on their members. Only the USDA has enforcement power to ensure that facilities meet their standards. The bill also exempts sports mascots for schools, but not USDA licensed exhibitors that use these animals in educational programs. Education is crucial to preserving some species of exotic animals, and without public awareness some of these species may become extinct.

In addition, the bill language is conflicting for so-called “restricted primates”, making it difficult for owners to comply. The bill goes from calling them “dangerous wild animals in C (20)” to “animals in (20)”, making it difficult to understand the requirements for restricted primates.

Only those who are breeding for a species survival plan (SSP) are allowed to obtain the Wildlife Propagator License. Since the SSP is a registered trademark of the AZA, this means that only AZA certified related facilities may obtain this permit since AZA accredited facilities are already exempt.

Some of the species listed were not recommended by the work group and should be removed. Small cats, such as servals, caracals, lynx, and domestic hybrids, are included in this ban. Domestic cat hybrids are considered domestic animals by the USDA and should be exempt. This bill also includes the Iberian lynx, which does not even exist in this country at all. Small cats like servals, caracals, and lynx should not be included with large cats like tigers. These cats are flight cats by nature and naturally run away from people.

There are also some very dangerous requirements in this bill. Owners are required to microchip dangerous wild animals at the time of registration, giving them only 60 days from the date this goes into effect to comply. Health issues have been known to occur in exotic animals from microchips, and inserting a microchip requires anesthesia, which is dangerous for exotics. The anesthesia risk is also a concern for the requirement to neuter all male dangerous wild animals with no exceptions for older males or those with medical problems. In addition, the requirement to place signs every 10 feet along the property line even for restricted snakes would draw attention from animal rights groups and members of the public to them, putting both the animals and the public at risk.

Edited March 18, 2012 by wht_scorpion

[buildit]

Are beavers exotic animals? I mean I'd hate for all the women in Ohio to have to give up their beavers if the law passes.

Edited March 18, 2012 by buildit

[baptizo]

I can see both sides of the issues here but I'm against any and all encroachments by the government into issues that have clearly not been fully investigated by those who have written the bill (anything recent come to mind at the federal level???).

Rich clearly knows the subject matter and is passionate about protecting the rights of not only the citizens who own these "pets", but the "pets" themselves from ignorance based on misinformation, fear, and misguided political agendas (to name only a few that come to mind).

Done.

[jagr]

Done.

[Jst2fst]

Souds like some of these people making these laws were the ones sheltered from reality from an over-protective parents. Even if they use the incident in Zville how would that justify other owners of doing the same? I can understand a bit about this law but its just not necessary. Its sterotyping at its finest and all must be punished to "protect" the fear mongers. I agree that education is key to the population on handeling animals of this nature. Why come crashing down on the owners that have a clean record and healthy and happy animals just because law makers think it will help. For instance who's gonna take these animals in most zoo's are already at capacity. So which means you've gotta be will willing to find a new home for all animals taken which means more man power we don't have and some could be deemed to dangerious to live amoungst others and wanna be killed due to no where to go and they were just fine before in a sence.