Important decisions in Austria

The Problem is, that all parties have agreed. The application was clearly from the member of the freedom party, but in the speech yesterday also the socialist and the member of the "black party" was against it (remember he mentioned crocodiles in bath tubes. He also mentioned he dislikes boas and pythons in private hands instead of zoos.

Only Mr. Eßl also from the "blak party" talked in a good an reasonable way.

Euthanasia in Austria of vertabrates is not possible according to Peter Zurcher's comments to an earlier post from WW.

That aside as i have no doubht what Peter printed is mostly correct and now what to do with all the "illegal" instruments as they will become known.

i would tend to think this bylaw will not pass this time, because many more amendmants will need addressing such as euthanasia of veterabrates and which ones can be selected or not.

Again this is serious to you a minority , yet just part of a check and balance and curtailing of freedoms as the world economies spiral out of control in a domino effect, more will follow in the name of reform.

Sure the best options have already been mentioned ...Prohibition era ?.

The only trouble is what to do with the sized (confisticated) animals (if they are of course) ????!!! Put them in zoo ? Euthanasied them ? In this last case what a massacre !
R.

So one escaped Boa constrictor brought you all this?? Or rather the press that exploited the news big time. As usual..

I can't imagine they'll use euthanasia, they'll probably ban the trade, import and breeding of these species..

Albert: You and Peter Zürcher are right, killing animals is forbidden. But: §6 of the current law for animal welfare says: 1) Es ist verboten, Tiere ohne vernünftigen Grund zu töten (It is illegal to kill animals without reasonable/weighty reason).
You can be sure that this would be used and maybe changed a bit to make euthanasia possible if they accept to kill these animals just to make their new law possible. Wouldn´t it be easy to declare these "dangerous" animals a threat for the whole neighbourhood?

Best regards,
Rainer

i find this issue in Austria of importance so i will continue my thoughts in the matter and the next one is of " Taxation".

Here in The United States one out of five households has kept or has a reptile be it a red ear slider or an iguana and every prohibition to keep such animals has been followed by a "conditional" relaxaition of the prohibition in exchange for a fee based permit (tax).

Here in Florida we are charged 100.00 usd. to keep venomous and 50.00 usd. to sell or collect more than 10 specimens , and many other example fees these are just some.

The fines are up to 25, 000.00 usd. per charge , third degree felony charges are common.

In this age and time in world history goverments are scrambling to find funds to stay open for business i believe Austrian or EU countries couldnt bare to support a tax hike, so perhaps they are looking for funds through taxing (permits) or fines for something they consider a non essential endeavor or hobby.

These people are not ignorant, tho they may feign to be so , they probally relate keeping and selling reptiles a part of a multimillion dollar black market of wild animals one that they are not receiving there fair share.

If this practice has been safe and civilized all these years and just now in 2011 AD . it is thought to not be so ...this is Austria considered to be a " first world country" and an example of both human and animal rights to the world.

Hello Albert,

In this case I don´t think it´s about fees or tax for permits.

In the part of Austria (and some other ones, in 2 of our federal states keeping venomous reptiles is prohibited) where I live we have to have a permit for keeping "potentially dangerous" snakes (venomous and Boids up from a certain size). We have to have certain safety measures and if we meet these, we get the permit. There is a fee for that. If keeping venomous snakes,... is prohibited, they lose these fees and there can only (and surely will) be an illegal market for these animals then which means loss of tax for the state too.
From this aspect it means as we say here they "shoot into their own knee".

These people ARE ignorant about these problems. They think they can get votes this way. I had many discussions with that kind of politicians upon this subject here. If you can offer them an easy way to get more votes by allowing people to keep tigers,... in your backyard without cages or fence than by prohibiting it, they will propagate to allow it.

Best regards,
Rainer

Thank You Rainer for that explanation , votes are a type of currency too, even though they may lose the taxes from collecting fees from the few people (minority) that are allowed this priviledge , it allows them to continue with their bigger prey the Austrian mainstream.

Rainer with all due respect i do not believe these people are ignorant , i believe you are the means to their ends.

In the United States many people who hold these positions are attorneys aspiring to a higher postions in state or federal goverment and are fully aware with an almost third dimensional vision on basic human rights in the pursuit of happiness and freedoms.

Rainer forget the subject being Exotic Animals it could have been a quagmire of different subjects such as lets for instance say ..a simple book of matches, if every body in Austria released their ball python tommorow what harm would that cause yet if everybody in Austria took a simple book of matches and lit their house on fire what harm could that cause .

The book of matches being the instrument of danger, will Austrians need a permit for matches or a lighter ?.

Martin Metlicka wrote:: Hi,

the Austrian council has decided today:

Item 26: Prohibition of the sale of exotic animals at fairs (14-82): 100% agreed
Item 27: proof of expertise for exotic animal keeper (14-83): 100% agreed
Item 29: Prohibition of keeping Giant snakes and poison snakes (14-84): 100% agreed

Kind regards

Martin

Perhaps the Austrian authorities are oblivious to the Human Rights Act? As members of the EU the Austrian government is bound by the HRA and it may be a pertinent time to remind them of this!

In respect of item 26 - prohibiting private keepers my denying the ‘right of assembly’ is contrary to article 1 protocol 1 of the European convention on human rights, which was given further effect by the Human Rights Act 1998 and sets out the conditions which must be met by a state which seeks to restrict or control the use a person may make of his own property. It also conflict with enjoyment of person property as may 27 and 29. The state may restrict such matters but only if such are action are reasonable and proportionate, which may well not be the case in this instance!

Very sad is the fact that unfortunately every day people decide on such things we are dealing with which is sad (politicians) which are not having anything to do with it. In Poland e.g. he is accessing the provision where poisonous snakes are in the first category and it isn't possible at all to keep them, we have 6 months to in order to give them back. to give back not to sell. Unfortunately no zoological garden is adapted to in order to accept poisonous snakes - snakes which we will give back will be killed. It is sad very much. Fortunately everyone the breeder which I know isn't going to surrender Poland of one's snakes to the death only because some you at the government this way decided it. In polsce breeding will go underground from the moment when this regulation comes into effect...

We must probably escape to other country where breeding and the care of venomous or big animals are limited but is also possible. World has it to itself, that on it both wise and stupid people live. Damage, that for you stupid are filling the wrong places... and clever on it always suffer.

;(

Peter Zucher wrote: will declare some ten thousands Ball Pythons as illegal.....

Let's do some numbers on the Ball Python market alone in Austria and i imagine just like every where else in the modern world this phenomonon of "morphs" has occured, these are not forty five dollar common Python Regius but instead upwards of tens of thousands of Euro/Dollars captive born albino strains etc. imported from the United States or Noah in Ghana.

These are not pets these are Herpetocultural investments complete with receipts and documentation, wire transfers and legal importation of property , some breeding loans are drawn up by attorneys and it's reasonable that many people have fifty thousand Euros/Dollars or more invested in their collection.

It's inconceivable that the Austrian Goverment would confiscate your captive born inoffensive herp investment and euthanise them, that would be totally inhumane according to modern Federal and State legal language and of all CITES party as well as I.A.T.A regulations.

The only option available is to create a permit and fine system forcing ten thousand Python Regius owners to comply yearly and not allow further importation , commercialization or reproduction to occur, these people would be "Grand Fathered " in and no more permits would be granted.

Guys, this whole thing is not about venomous snake keeping or dangerous animal keeping or such at all. This is the result of the lobbying of animal rights and Nature first activists, and the aim is to eventually ban ALL 'wild' animal trading or keeping - regardless of the potential danger that these may pose. It therefore does not make a whole lot of sense to try to argue with the docility of ball pythons or to signal our willingness of self-restriction by accepting licences or limitations. THESE PEOPLE JUST DO NOT WANT OTHER PEOPLE TO HAVE ANY NOT-DOMESTICIZED ANIMALS. It is just that - to convince the two neurons of a average politician - it is more easy for them to single-out venomous or 'giant' snakes since the keeping of these is so arcane to many uninduced that argumentation against our case becomes simple. There is really only one way around this: We have to show them that we are many and that we are not willing to give up our private herpetoculturing just because a bunch of sh**heads wants us to.

Klaus

Absolutely agree, this has been a major issue in the UK for the passed twenty years. Animal Rights is a cancerous blight on humanity.

This may be of some interest:

Animal Rights & the Future of the Pet Industryhttp://the-shg.org/OATA.htm

Thank you, Klaus, you really came to the point with your statement.

And yes, we are many, but we ain't enough.

One of our duties is the "recruitment" of more combatants amongst other reptilekeepers.
They must comprehend that these actions won't be the last ones and their geckos or cornsnakes will become a target too in future.
regards
Peter

Chris Newman wrote:: 'Animal Rights is a cancerous blight on humanity'.

An extreme statement, in my view, and not helpful to the discussion. Also, I believe that it is unwise to assume that all individuals engaged in public service- such as politicians, as in this case- are corrupt and self serving. The ownership of animals involves a clear ethical dimension. All reasonable people are outraged and saddened when a particularly horrific puppy mill is discovered, yet there is a very large segment of the pet reptile keeping community who feel that it is acceptable to keep snakes and other reptiles in the same kind of conditions that the puppy mill owners keep their animals- that is, in tiny isolation type cages that often times have no natural light or light source and are scarely large enough for the animal to turn around in, etc., etc. Additionally, and more to the point in this discussion, the private ownership and keeping of live venomous snakes involves a far geater responsiblity than owning a Ball Python or Colubrid. In my view, the private ownership of venomous snakes entails a personal responsibility very much like owning a firearm, as the lethal nature of both the venomous snake and firearm cannot be ignored in relation to public safety. The community of private venomous snake owners has an obligation to itself to get organized, get 'political'- however reluctantly- and establish a manifesto(for lack of a better word) detailing the appropriate and responsible protocols for keeping live venomous snakes in private setting. The failure of the community to take responsibility for its interests in realtion to the general public perception of private venomous snake keepers will result in that responsiblity being taken away from us by the people who are in a position to propose and inact greater and more punitive private animal ownership regulations. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

Albert J. Montejo wrote:: The only option available is to create a permit and fine system forcing ten thousand Python Regius owners to comply yearly and not allow further importation , commercialization or reproduction to occur, these people would be "Grand Fathered " in and no more permits would be granted.

I would support such a proposal as it may be the only practical way in which to address the deliberate and wanton destruction of a snake species. Do we really want to be only able to show future generations a Ball Python with purple eyes, yellow skin that is unable to move properly because it is so far removed from its natural genetic identity due to deliberate inbreeding because some money could be made in the pet reptile keeping community...? Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

Couldn't agree more with what Jon Davidson said. Of course the animal rights people (and everybody with a heart, for that matter) got a point when they publicly condemn, for example, misstreatment of animals - don't know any reasonable person who would not agree on that. What I am expecting of my fellow contemporaries though is being rational. I guess no reasonable human rights person would want to ban cars just because there are more than 4000 deaths in car accidents per year here in Germany, for instance. What we instead should strive for is make driving safer. Similarly, I would have no problem to ask whatever it needs from people to make snake-keeping safer, and to assure the animals are maintained appropriately. But, as I said above, I'm afraid this is not the issue here. This is more about religion than science.

Jon, im not offering this statement as a solution , it's just that many quagmired prohibitions end this way.

To all : somewhere in all that has been printed lies the truth , honestly i can not see this bylaw passing just yet , as too much legal language needs to be rewritten , the threat alone may be enough to justify the means in which they present this argument and earn these indiviual's their ends.

Austria bowing down to animal rights activist would be a coupe' de grace or a feather in the cap of these ecoterrorist organizations that advocate violence should they not get their way as so many international " show of force" court cases have shown .

Jon Davidson wrote:

Chris Newman wrote:: 'Animal Rights is a cancerous blight on humanity'.

An extreme statement, in my view, and not helpful to the discussion. Also, I believe that it is unwise to assume that all individuals engaged in public service- such as politicians, as in this case- are corrupt and self serving. The ownership of animals involves a clear ethical dimension. All reasonable people are outraged and saddened when a particularly horrific puppy mill is discovered, yet there is a very large segment of the pet reptile keeping community who feel that it is acceptable to keep snakes and other reptiles in the same kind of conditions that the puppy mill owners keep their animals- that is, in tiny isolation type cages that often times have no natural light or light source and are scarely large enough for the animal to turn around in, etc., etc. Additionally, and more to the point in this discussion, the private ownership and keeping of live venomous snakes involves a far geater responsiblity than owning a Ball Python or Colubrid. In my view, the private ownership of venomous snakes entails a personal responsibility very much like owning a firearm, as the lethal nature of both the venomous snake and firearm cannot be ignored in relation to public safety. The community of private venomous snake owners has an obligation to itself to get organized, get 'political'- however reluctantly- and establish a manifesto(for lack of a better word) detailing the appropriate and responsible protocols for keeping live venomous snakes in private setting. The failure of the community to take responsibility for its interests in realtion to the general public perception of private venomous snake keepers will result in that responsiblity being taken away from us by the people who are in a position to propose and inact greater and more punitive private animal ownership regulations. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

What would you call fantastic’s who agenda is to divorce humans from contact with or interacting with the natural world? Animal Rights is a blight, they have no concern for the welfare of animals, merely that humans should not interact with them – is this a stance you support?

Klaus Roemer wrote:: 'I guess no reasonable human rights person would want to ban cars just because there are more than 4000 deaths in car accidents per year here in Germany, for instance. What we instead should strive for is make driving safer. Similarly, I would have no problem to ask whatever it needs from people to make snake-keeping safer, and to assure the animals are maintained appropriately. But, as I said above, I'm afraid this is not the issue here. This is more about religion than science'.

I'm inclined to agree that 'politics' is often based more on emotion rather than on facts or science- especially when it concerns the rights or perceived 'rights' of the individual. A politician skilled at debate could argue that while cars can be dangerous if misused they are nonetheless an essential part of our modern society, whereas keeping live animals- venomous snakes in particular- in a private setting is a luxury- not a necessity. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

Chris Newman wrote:: What would you call fantastic’s who agenda is to divorce humans from contact with or interacting with the natural world? Animal Rights is a blight, they have no concern for the welfare of animals, merely that humans should not interact with them – is this a stance you support?

My point of view on this issue is clear. Perhaps you could explain to us what exactly you find so objectionable about the concern that many(but certainly not all) of these 'animal rights' groups have with how it is that we, as a Society, treat animals? What is wrong with having a concern about the humane treatment of the animals that we consume for food or farm for leather or house in laboratories for medical research or keep as pets, etc.? I too would like to 'divorce' Humans from any form of contact with the natural world if they are going to destroy the genetic integrity of a given species merely for fun and profit. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

We are getting far away from the initiation point of a " blanket ban" of certain reptiles in the country of Austria.

Austria and Germany are very different in image on a world wide base even though both are fairly small countries, there history is rich with advances in the enginereal , architectual , transportation , medical and of late human rights that have literally changed the world after a "shaky start " in that direction some seventy years ago, at that time the means would not justify the ends.

Today most manufactures look to Austrian /German advances in technologies including Japan and the United States , companies such as Bayer Pharmaceuticals and Porsche technologies are some of the firms that call these countries home.
'
Countries such as these , that have a history in technological dominance, could not put their image at risk by being manipulated by some strategically placed politician with an agenda .

Some how this will pass as a distraction of sorts , perhaps a bit of tightening of the regulations .

Jon, animals do not have rights , at best we have a moral obligation to them as ruled by the Supreme Court of The United States of America.

Albert J. Montejo wrote:: '... at best we have a moral obligation to them...'

My point exactly. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

Jon Davidson wrote:

Chris Newman wrote:: What would you call fantastic’s who agenda is to divorce humans from contact with or interacting with the natural world? Animal Rights is a blight, they have no concern for the welfare of animals, merely that humans should not interact with them – is this a stance you support?

My point of view on this issue is clear. Perhaps you could explain to us what exactly you find so objectionable about the concern that many(but certainly not all) of these 'animal rights' groups have with how it is that we, as a Society, treat animals? What is wrong with having a concern about the humane treatment of the animals that we consume for food or farm for leather or house in laboratories for medical research or keep as pets, etc.? I too would like to 'divorce' Humans from any form of contact with the natural world if they are going to destroy the genetic integrity of a given species merely for fun and profit. Sincerely, Jon Davidson .

Animals do not have ‘rights’ as in the context of humans, with rights comes reasonability, animals do no share responsibilities as humans do. Animals do not have rights, but we humans have an obligation to them or as I prefer - a duty of care. I was luck to be brought up in a household with all kinds of animals, I have 4 children, all boys, they have been brought up with animals and have a deep passion for animals and their welfare, and for the wider environment. What scare’s me are the children who never have contact with animals. My kids, I say kids my eldest is now 23, but they bring their friends home who have never kept or interacted with animals, many exhibit little or no compassion for the natural world. If we divorce humanity for interacting with animals the consequences would be disastrous.

Returning to the issue in hand, what is driving this? Concern for the welfare of the animals or animal rights? Are we suggesting that events were hobbyist meet and exchange, buy and sell animals is a hot bed of animal suffering, I don’t think so. Are we suggesting that reptiles cannot be kept in captivity without suffering, again I would suggest not. Is the keeping of venomous reptiles by hobbyist in Austria threatening the safety of the general public? I don’t know the answer to that one but I am not aware that there has been an issue with members of the public being bitted by venomous snakes kept by hobbyist!

So what is driving this, concerns for animal welfare, or an animal rights agenda. I would respectfully suggest the latter!

» US Government Accountability Office Finds Illegal Political interference in Endangered Species Decisions Is Widespread
» Greetings from Austria
» hello from austria
» Hello from Austria
» Hello from Austria