"No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session." Judge Gideon J. Tucker

For many years now, a distinctly noticeable, and deeply disturbing trend has been occurring (and continues to occur)in all branches of our government, from local and municipal, all of the way up to state and sometimes even federal levels. This trend, in essence revolves around a government's ability to place prohibitions, regulations, or other restrictions on particular activities, objects, or commerce with the underlying perception that the personal and/or public health and safety risks of such activity far outweigh the liberties and/or benefits derived from said activity/object/commerce. In essence, it is the same age old mis-notion, that keeping reptiles poses a "significant public safety threat or risk. This “public risk-based” argument (which shall be how I will refer to it for the purpose of this blog), seems to be a favorite justification of the animal rights, and other activists in favor of reptile prohibition to court (and mislead) the public and our elected officials with, in the attempt to outlaw ownership and trade in reptiles and other exotic animals completely. But is this particular issue, the keeping of reptiles, or other exotic animals for that matter, actually of sufficient magnitude to warrant overriding our liberties in the name of the "common good"? Let us examine the facts, rather than the fear, hype, and misunderstanding that prohibition activists regularly utilize and exploit to shape public opinion.

Taken at face value, outlawing "giant, man eating constrictors", "venomous" reptiles, or other “exotic animals” would seem like a reasonable measure in the minds of much of the public to ensure their own protection/safety, and if one examines only the sensational, anecdotal, and often agenda driven news and media reports (and other misinformation and false claims of risk to personal and public health/safety) that Animal rights and other prohibition advocates would quickly have said members of the public believe. After all, who wouldn't oppose a measure to outlaw "deadly crocodiles" and "giant man eating constrictors" as a means of quelling our primal fears of predatory animals? However, we must dig deeper into the issue than this, by examining the actual statistics (and other published risk based assessments), statistical trends, and scientific information that is relevant to these animals and the subsequent keeping of them.

Contrary to popular public misconception and belief, snakes, as well as other reptiles in general, are not evil, slimy, viscous, or bloodthirsty killers which habitually or routinely stalk or seek humans out as prey. Even most crocodilians and the largest species of boas and pythons are naturally wary of humans, and typically opt to avoid humans rather than regard them as a staple food source. While many members of the public may hold especially negative perceptions of venomous reptiles in particular, we must realize and understand, that the fact that an animal possesses venom does not inherently render that animal as a "bad animal", or as an animal in which presents no legitimate use or purpose, whether in nature or in captivity. Because venomous reptiles have evolved with venom specifically as a means of quickly and efficiently subduing prey in their oftentimes harsh environments, it therefore make no biological sense for any venomous animal to expend its valuable resources (such as its venom and energy) on an animal far too large to ingest (such as a human). Thus, the public should be realizing and understanding that the possession of venom is simply a unique adaptation that these animals have evolved with in order to survive in a given environment. In fact, this very trait that venomous reptiles possess is among the many that fascinate, motivate, and captivate the minds of many researchers, herpetologists, educational/environmental education institutions, and private and public keepers and venomous herpetoculturists to keep, study, and interact with these animals all as a means of developing breaking life saving medicine and research, as well as greatly furthering our knowledge and understanding of these animal's biology and reproductive habits.

As I am sure we all know and have heard by now, the risk associated with keeping these animals is therefore one which is largely voluntary and occupational in nature. It is fundamentally no different than the myriad of other objects and situations we are often surrounded by in routine life including lawn mowers (oops, where did my toes go?), swimming pools, chainsaws, garden shears, plastic bags, automobiles, domestic dogs, or engaging in contact with other humans to name only a few. All of these statistically contribute to far greater numbers of accidents involving human death or injury every year among members of the public than does the keeping of so called “exotic pets”. But despite this fact, we as a society seemingly continue to allow and tolerate the use of many of these activities, of which can be considered as equally non-essential to our survival as their claim is that reptile keeping is not. Simply put, if "dangerous" exotic pets are so widespread and commonplace amongst the public in the numbers that Animal Rights and other prohibition activists so often state and depict that they are, why then are we not seeing more published and documented statistics involving these animals? In my opinion any way, the very fact that we are not seeing such evidence should clearly indicate that the issue of keeping "exotic animals" is not actually of sufficient magnitude to warrant a complete prohibition of their ownership.

I must acknowledge for the purposes of this blog, that our freedoms and our liberties are not, in fact, limitless or endless. For example, we are of course not free to harm or murder others, or to engage in theft, arson, property destruction or to otherwise infringe upon the rights or liberties of others as we see fit. In these cases, government is obligated to act upon the behalf of the "common good". That all should be a given. Many legislators, however, are often quick to overstep their governmental power in regulating or outright prohibiting activities conducted within the privacy of our own residences, and which do not infringe upon the rights of any other non consenting member of the public. Such is typically the case when maintaining reptiles, or other "exotic animals" in secure and controlled environments at our own residences or facilities. That is what "privacy" means when the topic is Constitutional law, that consenting adults who are acting in private and not infringing on the rights of others will be free of government intrusion. The fact that government CAN regulate or outlaw us and our hobby, does not, and should not negate this principle. Granted, accidents can and do occur in every activity, occupation, or profession we engage in. However, individuals who commit acts of recklessness, irresponsibility, and/or other violations undoubtedly are to be, and should be, the individuals held accountable and responsible for the incident in question rather than an entire sub-community or industry.

In conclusion, these aforementioned concepts (as well as numerous others as they pertain to our liberties and the Constitution) are discussed in even further depth in Andrew Napolitano's "A Nation of Sheep", a book I recommend on this very topic. The entire underlying (and incorrect) notion and perception that maintaining reptiles or other "exotic" animals is far too great of a detriment to the "common good" to be allowed to continue to be enjoyed by the hundreds of thousands of responsible individuals worldwide by their respective governments seems to sadly be simply another advancement in the perpetuation of age old fears, myths, and misconceptions or pre conceived notions that many members of the uninformed general public still hold towards animals that they either do not fully appreciate or understand. In my opinion, only when we are successful in raising understanding of, and in reshaping the attitudes, notions, and mindsets of the greater percentage of the public when it comes to reptiles and the herpetocultural hobby/industry will we ultimately be successful in stemming this, what I have come to refer to, as "persecution through legislation."