Click here to visit Classifieds
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You
Click for 65% off Shipping with Reptiles 2 You

Wisconsin town sneaks through exotics ban after keeper is bitten

By Cindy Steinle · April 20, 2011 2:45 pm

In a classic sneak political move, the leaders of the City of St. Francis, Wisc., have rushed through a ban that adds reptiles to their already long list of prohibited animals. The move was spurred on by the bite venomous snake owner, Jeremy Loveland received from his Gaboon Viper last week. They have not included any form of grandfather clause, so if you own any exotic pet, you are now in violation. They have also not provided for keepers to prove they have proper housing. These are the now banned reptiles:
Non-domesticated and/or wild animals; prohibition on keeping. It shall be unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or have in their possession or under their control within the City any venomous/poisonous reptile or any other dangerous non-carnivorous or carnivorous non-domesticated and/wild animal, insect or reptile, any vicious or dangerous domesticated and wild animal or any other animal or reptile of wild, vicious or dangerous propensities. Specifically, it shall be unlawful for any person to keep, maintain or have in their possession or under their control within the City any of the following animals, reptiles or insects: - All venomous/poisonous animals and reptiles. -Crocodilians (Crocodilia), capable of growing to 30 inches in length or more. -Constrictor snakes, capable of growing six feet in length or more. -Snapping turtles.
There is also now a limit on some reptiles:
Exceptions. Section 339.23 does not apply to the following animals which are regulated elsewhere or which the Common Council believes do not pose a potential danger if limited to the number specified herein. All numerical limitations apply to the building structure in which the animal is kept. Nothing in this ordinance is intended to supersede existing regulations governing dogs, cats, and pigeons: -Turtles weighing less than 1 pound, excluding snapping turtles. -Non-venomous snakes capable of growing to no more than 5 feet at maturity, if not more than 2 in total. Snakes capable of growing to more than 5 feet at maturity are prohibited unless permitted under (1) above regardless of the current length of the snake. -Frogs, toads, geckos, salamanders, not more than 10 in total. -Such other animals as the Board of Health may from time to time determine do not pose a danger, probable health risk, or nuisance. All such animals determined by the Board of Health that do not pose a danger shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance on adoption of a Common Council resolution reflecting the Board’s determination.
Those in violation will be fined per animal per day. Of course St. Francis hopes to have the wording up soon, but you can download it here in word format.

Comments

EricWI Apr 20, 2011

Well this should just speak volumes about our whole democratic process, or lack thereof I should say.

Andy Rea Apr 20, 2011

This is RETARDED! Yeah I said retarded because that is exactly what all those fools are in that city! No more than 2 small snakes and 10 geckos? Are you kidding me? I hope the folks there fight this and get this rejected. RETARDED bureaucrats!

Christina Bea Apr 20, 2011

This is how the government tries top stick their nose in everyone business besides helping our country. they will pass as many laws as they can to get more money from us so they pass these stupid childish laws to do so and its extremely sad. they try to take our freedom of speech from us and taking our right to chose what we can keep for a pet

EB Apr 21, 2011

This is completely ridiculous. Just because one owner of a venomous snake gets bitten by his own reptile from his own stupidity, it messes it up for anyone who has a constrictor? Just because he's a keeper who is careless? I agree, this is retarded.

attra91 Apr 22, 2011

Are they prepared to pay for the legally kept animals they have in their area? Not a problem if so.. but I would think they would have to compensate the owners of legally kept animals. What are they to do with them let them go?

Add a comment

Click here for Dragon Serpents
Click here to visit Classifieds
Click to visit Classifieds
Site Tools