Say it ain't so...
Lizard.org
Snakes were banned as pets in Columbia for about 15 minutes Wednesday.
But it proved to be a slippery issue, and City Council flinched.
The amendment banning ownership of "venomous and constricting" snakes was part of a comprehensive animal-control ordinance passed by council.
Council member E.W. Cromartie insisted the snake ban be included because the reptiles could escape and endanger neighbors.
"I have a real, great concern about these snakes," he said. "We have a public-safety responsibility."
But questions arose about what to do about people who currently own snakes, or pet shops that
currently have snakes for sale. Should those snakes be grandfathered under the new ordinance?
Because of the questions, members struck the amendment over Cromartie's objections and instructed staff to study the issue for 60 days.
A law making it illegal to display a snake in public remained law, however. "Snakes should not be worn in public places," Cromartie said.
City Council member Frannie Heizer, who ramrodded the new animal-control ordinance into existence, said she was flexible on the snake issue.
"It may be a legitimate concern, but it's not fair to ban them without giving public notice," she said.
If Columbia city staff recommends an outright ban or other restrictions such as registration fees, the city will have a public hearing, Heizer said.
The state Department of Natural Resources is working on its own regulations for owning exotic animals, a process that herpetologist Steve Bennett said will probably take a couple of years.
If the city doesn't take a thoughtful approach, Bennett said, science teachers who keep
corn snakes in their classrooms will end up breaking the law. "That just doesn't make sense to me."
Corn snakes are nonvenomous, gentle snakes native to South Carolina. They're appreciated by people who like snakes because of their bright orange or red color. But they are also constrictors, Bennett said.
Snake hobbyists called the proposed ban extreme, although some said restrictions may be warranted.
Council members apparently "haven't done their homework on what is dangerous and what is not," said Scott Pfaff, curator of herpetology at Riverbanks Zoo and Botanical Gardens.
Problems with pet snakes in the Midlands have been minimal compared to those with dogs, he said. If properly handled, snakes are no more dangerous than dogs and cats, snake enthusiasts said.
"Like any problem with pets, it boils down to irresponsible ownership," said Albert Persons of Cayce, who owns four snakes.
Snakes "haven't gained a reputation of respectability" even though their popularity is growing, said Randy McKnight of Irmo, a former snake breeder. "They didn't put a reptile house in the zoo because people don't like to look at snakes," he said. "There is an interest."
McKnight favors barring ownership and sale of snakes dangerous to people -- those that are venomous and those nonpoisonous snakes 10 feet long and longer that constrict.
Most snakes are harmless, and only a few species that can become large should be barred to protect people, Pfaff said.
Mark Heflin, manager of George's Jungle pet store in Harbison, is no snake aficionado. But he thinks the reptiles should be allowed with proper precautions. A ban on their sale "wouldn't be devastating, but I wouldn't be thrilled with it," he said.
EEK..what would that mean to one of the biggest herp shows?
