• Looking to buy a cephalopod? Check out Tomh's Cephs Forum, and this post in particular shares important info about our policies as it relates to responsible ceph-keeping.

obtaining a blue ring

I couldn't have said it better myself!

Well, yes, I probably could, if I could just figure out what the heck you said.

:lol:
 
I know this is gonna sound silly but in the US most states and every major city there is a dangerous/poisonous/lethal animal law that prohibits selling, keeping or transporting them period except for academic purposes with permits ect ect ect. Every time this comes out "once a month" I see Colin post that link on them which is a very good thing. If you mention to someone in law enforcement in your area that you have one or they find out expect a knock on your door possibly with out a warrent due to probable cause because you stated possession of a dangerous animal end of story. This is not a flame its a fact because god only knows if this happens once....just once and it shows up in newsweek how it could effect the whole fish trade and if someone dies..... well I just don't wanna go there.
 
stits, good point --

While I am unable to find any laws that specify blue rings, there are some states that have sweeping "dangerous animal possession" laws, and so this is definitely yet another thing to consider with regard to blue ring ownership. As just one example, here's an excerpt from Connecticut's law on possession of dangerous animals -- while blue rings aren't mentioned, they could be easily inserted into this existing clause:

Code:
Sec. 26-40a. Possession of potentially dangerous animals. For the purposes of this section, the following shall be considered as potentially dangerous animals: The felidae, including the lion, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, ocelot, jaguarundi cat, puma, lynx and bobcat; the canidae, including the wolf and coyote; and the ursidae, including the black bear, grizzly bear and brown bear. No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal. Any such animal illegally possessed may be ordered seized and may be disposed of as determined by the Commissioner of Environmental Protection. Any person who violates any provision of this section shall be fined not more than one hundred dollars for each offense. The provisions of this section shall not apply to municipal parks, zoos and nature centers, or museums, laboratories and research facilities maintained by scientific or educational institutions; to a person possessing a Bengal cat certified by an internationally recognized multiple-cat domestic feline breeding association as being without wild parentage for a minimum of four prior generations which cat was registered with the Commissioner of Agriculture on or before October 1, 1996, provided no such cat may be imported into this state after June 6, 1996; or to persons possessing animals legally on or before May 23, 1983. In any action taken by any official of the state or any municipality to control rabies, a Bengal cat shall be considered not vaccinated for rabies in accordance with accepted veterinary practice.

(1967, P.A. 344; P.A. 83-191, S. 2, 9; P.A. 96-243, S. 5, 16.)
History: P.A. 83-191 applied provisions to "potentially dangerous" animals rather than to "potentially dangerous wild animals", eliminated municipal authority to issue permits for possession of such animals, transferring authority to seize and dispose of them to environmental protection commissioner, and exempted persons legally in possession of such animals on or before May 23, 1983; P.A. 96-243 added provisions allowing certain Bengal cats to be kept provided they are to be considered not vaccinated, effective June 6, 1996.

Cited. 230 C. 916. Cited. 231 C. 939. Held statute not unconstitutionally vague and list of felidae prohibited by statute not exclusive; judgment of appellate court in State v. DeFrancesco, 34 CA 741, 744, reversed in part. 235 C. 426−430, 432−435, 437, 438, 440−442, 445−448.

Statute not unconstitutionally vague as applied to hybrid bobcat; statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to jungle cat and bengal cat. 34 CA 741−745, 748; judgment reversed in part, see 235 C. 426 et seq.

You can conduct your own searches here:

AnimalLaw.com
 
Right there 6th line down No person shall possess a potentially dangerous animal. The DA could in your area interpret that to cover just about anything under the sun, that kind of language is put in them just so they don't have a fourteen page law where 99 percent is the animals listed.
 
Right, we're generally in agreement... :smile: If I were a blue ring owner and someone tried to fine me based on that language, I would contest it, given the fact that they ventured to define a dangerous animal on the preceeding lines -- however, I wouldn't necessarily win, and if I did, as stated the clause itself could be easily changed... point being, the precedence is there, and your point is quite a valid one. And that's just one random state example! I don't know what some of the other states' languages look like, but it's definitely something to look into if you're still considering a blue ring.
 
The UK has a DWA license needed for all Dangerous Wild Animals. But there are holes all over the place and some are just silly!

BRO's are not mentioned anywhere and neither are snakes that can reach 25 feet in length etc etc etc.

Let me stick my neck right out and say that any discussions about keeping BROs always ends up in a discussion about human rights and 'who has the right to say i cant keep one?' ( i am not refering to tonmo.com but other websites where i have become engaged in debates about BROs)

Is there not enough evidence to see that we shouldn't all be keeping them because of the the problems and survival rates of the octopus? I feel that this is the most responsible thing we have to be aware of here. Not the fact that 'I have the right to keep one if i want'.

Only experienced, dedicated aquarists or experienced scientists should be working with these animals.

DWA rules are there for the animals protection as much as your own! Remember all the people that used to keep pet jaguars and other big cats until the DWA license came out? The horrible conditions they were made to live in? Some getting their claws removed and all this was just a fashion accesory.

Granted, some people do still break the law and keep animals they shouldn't. In my line of work i have seen caimans, alligators, mongoose, venemous snakes etc etc all kept illegally. But there is a hefty fine for people who do this and people can be banned through the courts from even caring for a hamster after that!
 

Shop Amazon

Shop Amazon
Shop Amazon; support TONMO!
Shop Amazon
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon and affiliated sites.
Back
Top