SB 303 Python regulation and licensing

Update 02.09.10 from USARK
Today the final hearing was held in the Georgia Senate Committee on Natural Resources & the Environment on S303. The bill as written would have made owning any of the Big 5 constrictors prohibitive while failing to address the stated intent of the bill. Jobs would have been lost and Georgia families and businesses would have been hurt. USARK provided a well thought out alternative in the form of our Model State Legislation which addressed issues of secure containment along with public and environmental safety measures. Committee staff drew up a Committee Substitute based on the USARK proposal.

During the hearing the bill's sponsor rejected this proposed Committee Substitute. Vice Chairman Bulloch questioned the decision to reject this proposed alternative. Other Senators commented in favor of the USARK proposal. Several Senators also commented on the number of emails generated to their offices by the USARK grass roots campaign. One Senator said, "I didn't know how many people were interested in snakes. I had hundreds of emails saying 'No on S303' in my mailbox".

Subsequently Senator Bulloch motioned for a 'No Pass' rating for S303. The Committee then voted and S303 received a majority 'No Pass' designation. S303 is now officially dead in Committee.

USARK appreciates the fair treatment and sincere efforts of the Committee Staff, Chairman Tolleson, Vice Chairman Bulloch and Committee Members who worked to improve S303.

BACKGROUND
January 12, 2010 SB 303 introduced by Senator John Douglas (R, 17) states that the following snakes may NOT be imported, transported, transferred, sold, purchased, or possessed unless owners obtain a wild animal license:

Python molurus (Indian or Burmese python);
Python reticulatus (reticulated python);
Python sebae (African rock python);
Morelia amethystina (Amethystine or scrub python); and
Eunectes murinus (green anaconda).

The bill requires that snakes two inches or greater in diameter must permanently be identified by a microchip that the owner may readily be able to locate. Also, any person in possession of any of the listed animals on July 1, 2010 will have until December 31, 2010 to apply for a wild animal license.

In order to obtain a wild animal license an applicant must:
- Be at least 18 years of age;
- Submit documentation verifying that facilities and holding of wild animals is not prohibited by local ordinances;
- Obtain any required business licenses; and
- Prove that facilities for holding or exhibiting wild animals are completely separated from a residence and meet state specifications for humane handling, care, and confinement.

License fee under current Georgia law is $236/year. Licensees are required to carry liability insurance for any wild animal that is classified as being inherently dangerous to people. Such insurance must be maintained in force and effect and cover claims for injury or damage to persons or property in an amount equal to $40,000.00 for each inherently dangerous animal up to a maximum of $500,000.00.

Read the bill.
Read existing regulations

USARK Press Release - Atlanta Business Chronicle

TALKING POINTS

* It is highly unlikely that these snakes can establish a sustainable breeding population in Georgia because of the environmental conditions required for them to thrive. The risk to the general public is extremely low especially when compared to other pets. Furthermore, the fact that these issues have not been realized in Georgia after decades of private python and boa ownership is a strong indicator that they will not be an issue in the future.

* If the intent of this bill is to target irresponsible pet owners with minimal regulation so as to deter impulse purchasing, and not to have the unintended consequence of ending the practice of responsible pet ownership, then the requirements must be reasonable to the community of responsible pet owners in Georgia.

* The current bill will require an annual licensing fee of $236 and insurance premiums. It is an unreasonable expectation for the committee to expect full compliance since many current pet owners will not be able to afford this annual expense. This will either mean that they will have to break the law in order to keep their pet, or discard their pet in the most convenient manner possible.

* The cost of constructing facilities that are separate from the owner’s residence is cost prohibitive and for the majority of owners will not be affordable. The end result will be an increased risk of pet surrenders.

* Cost of the proposed regulations will also be counter productive to efforts to find suitable homes for unwanted or abandoned pets from pet owners and various rescue organizations.

* This bill is not fair to current pet owners who have a responsibility and a moral obligation to their pet that they may have had under their care for years, and in some cases decades.