greetings from Norway - please help

[obeligz]

Regulation regarding the prohibition that foreign (exotic) animals are imported, bought, sold or kept as pets, companion animals or in captivity in other manner.


§ 1. It is forbidden to bring into the country, sell, buy, give away, accept or keep as domestic animals, companion animals, or in captivity in other manner foreign (exotic) mamals, reptiles, toads, frogs and salamanders.
( http://www.lovdata.no/cgi-wift/wiftldrens?/usr/www/lovdata/for/sf/ld/xd-19761120-0003.html )


The above is the law in Norway and in regard to reptiles and amphibians this law is enforced strictly and without mercy.
The law was passed in 1977 and ever since, most reptiles and amphibians in Norway have been kept against the law. Each year around 1000 exotic animals are confiscated and euthenased, mostly common reptiles such as leopard geckoes, ball pythons and kingsnakes. Owners of illegal reptiles are normally punished by fines in the range of 3000-10000NOK (375-1250Euros).
The petshop industry (www.NZB.no) estimate that there could be as much as 100.000 herptiles in private homes in the country, I'd say probably more.
"Normal pleople" in Norway who keep reptiles and amphibians do so quietly and behond closed curtains. However, some herpetoculturists also do drugs and whenever police have discovered herptiles and drugs in the same appartment, the media always tries to blow up sensation stories where they try to establish a link between drugs and herpetoculture. The media and the authorities are also fond of the statement "reptiles and amphibians are illegal", which brings me closer to my point.

The scope of the above legislation is very broad, prohibiting all "exotic" mammals. Therefore a list of exotic domestic animals was produced which makes it possible to keep as pets "normal" companion animals such as dogs, cats, chinchillas and about 20 more mammals. Birds, fish and invertebrateswere left out of this legislation for reasons I'm not entirely sure of and don't want to bother you with.
It is also a ridiculous fact that no scientific names are mentioned in the above legislation, none the less, it is so.
You may have noticed though, that caecilians (Gymnophiona) are not mentioned in the ban above.
Caecilians are neither frogs, toads nor salamanders, and therefore they should fall outside of the scope of the ban. 15.08.2007 I recieved a letter from our authorities where they confirm that caecilians are not mentioned in the ban and therefore fall outside of it's scope.
Hence herptiles are not illegal, only reptiles, toads, frogs and salamanders.
This is a great aid in our efforts to moderate statements against herpetoculture in the media and I believe it will also prove useful in our dialogue with the authorities.

In the last letter I recieved, the authorities also stated that they intend/wish to include caecilians in the ban in the future.
To the best of my understanding, a law must be necessary in order to be passed. Therefore the burden of proof regarding the necessity to ban caecilians rests on our authorities.
Then I need a good basis to pick apart our authorities arguments regarding the necessity to ban caecilians. My problem is.. I don't know anything about caecilians, I'm a gecko and recently also a poison frog fan.
Anyways. As long as we can keep caecilians legal in our country, we can attack the herptile ban from a new perspective, namely;
"if the responsible keeping of caecilians in vivarium is legal, why is it illegal to keep other amphibians and reptiles?"
One may argue that the ban discriminates animal owners on the basis of their animal interests.
One may further argue that discriminating people on the basis of their animal interests is similar to discriminating them on the basis of age, sex and race.
Since sexism, agism and racism are unethical and immoral, one may argue that the discrimination on the basis of animal interest is also unethical and immoral.
I believe, or at least I hope that this reasoning will prove to be a strong argument in our efforts to influence our descisionmakers to grant us the right to keep reptiles and amphibians in vivariums.

Back to caecilians..
What are the 10 species that are most suitable for the small/mid sized vivarium?
At least one (preferably several) of these should be;
- small (less than 30cm adult length)
- cheap (less than 250 euros per individual)
- bred successfully (not necessarily in large numbers) in captivity to some extent at least
- not dangerous to humans
- terrestrial to some extent at least
- must not be able to survive outside the vivarium, or have the potential to breed in north-european climate/eco-systems
- a pair will do well in a relatively small vivarium (250 liters, 50x100x50cm)

Also, please add links to any piece of legislation concerning the private keeping of caecilians or and amphibians in your country (preferably English texts).

Thank you for your time

Best regards
Vålen Gånev
spokesman www.reptilweb.no

 

[dane_zu]

hello, welcome to the forums

the poll question was an extremely difficult one to answer,

at the end it says "human right" i wouldnt say right but privilege, right just sounds kind of selfish, and not thinking of the animals

and the law really does suck and im rooting for you, im not sure if i would be able to live in Norway

 

[John]

Hello Vålen,

I understand your dilemma and I don't have a problem with your post, but I do have a problem with your poll. I've removed it. Good luck with your endeavour.

-John

 

[obeligz]

Dear Dane, John, dear all.
Sorry for drawing up such a controversial poll. Thank you for leaving the post unmoderated.

If one regards animal husbandry to be a privilege, there exists a corresponding duty. In other wordsm If I had the privilege to keep frogs, one may argue that I would have a a moral duty to respect your privilege.
Playing the devil's advocate, I might argue that since I don't have the privilege to keep frogs, you shouldn't have it either. Because.. it is wrong to use animals for human pleasure for instance. This would be very selfish of me but for the sake of the argument, let's say that I'm a very selfish defender of animal rights.
On the other hand, you could argue that you do have the right to enjoy this privilege since the legislation in your country has granted you this right in as long at you respect the corresponding duties that comes with this right.
In conclusion
Other things being equal, it would be immoral of me to deny you to keep frogs unless you break some law that is of relevance to the topic.
Laws are drawn up on the basis of our understanding of ethics and morals, so one may argue that since you have the economical means, physical space and the knowledge to responsibly keep your frog, then it would be your right to enjoy this privilege. That is, unless someone can prove that it is in some way wrong of you to keep frogs.

If you have this right, and all people are born equal, what reasoning suggests that I shouln't have the same privilege (rights and duties) as you?

In respect of animals, intuition many dictate that if humans and animals are equal, then it would be immoral of humans to claim the right to use and own animals for personal pleasure and amusement.
However, if humans don't have the right to use and keep animals, then animals would have a right not to be used by humans, in which case any moral human being should turn vegetarian.

Philosophers argue that since animals cannot have duties, they cannot hold rights either, this doesn't mean that human beings don't have duties towards animals. Of course we have the duty to take good care of our animals and the diversity of life on earth.

However, as long as it's not wrong to eat (some) animals, then it is ethically defendable of humans to use animals to some extent at least. Further, if it's not wrong of me to eat frogs, why should it be wrong of my to breed the frogs I intend to eat?
If chickens are ok to eat (and breed) it would be discriminating to claim that it is immoral to eat frogs. That is after all, a matter of taste. If I am able to breed my own frogs (or chickens), why should I not be allowed to eat them?

It is hard to argue that all people should be vegetarians and that no one has the right to eat, keep or breed animals. This argument leads to the extinction of inuits and eskimos , that live in harmony with nature and rely on the use and eating of animals. Inuits and escimoes are live on mostly frozen ground where it is impossible to survive without the clothes, tools and nourishemnt that arctic animals like whales, seal, fish and shrimps provide them.

Since eskimoes and inuits have managed to survive alongside with whales, seals and the other animals in their native environment, one may argue that these peoples have the right to continue to live in their homelands and continue to use animals in a sustainable manner.
The evidence of eskimoes' and inuits' ability to use animals in a sustainable manner is their survival up to modern times. With the invention of supermarkets they have now the right to choose wether to live in a traditional manner by eating the animals that live on their own lands, or to buy imported food with money earned by honest work.

So, if indigeonus pleoples around the world have a right to responsibly harvest animals off their own lands, they have the right to use animals. In modern times our economy has granted us the possibility to keep animals as companions instead of food sources.
If inuits have the right to responsibly use animals in the manner they do, is it not your right to responsibly use frogs as compnion animals in the manner you do?
Finally, if Americans and Europeans (with the exception of Norwegians) have the right to use frogs as companion animals, why does it feel controversial (to the point where the poll was moderated) and immoral of Norwegians to claim the right to keep such animals in vivariums aswell?

You do have the right to keep whatever animals are legal by law in your country, with this right comes the duty to respect the animals you keep and to take good care of them. That is your privelige as a moral member of your society. Your duties towards your frog is written in your country's animal welfare legislation.
My duties towards animals, according to the animal welfare legislation in my country extend to the point where I have no corresponding rights.

My purpose with this post is not to point fingers at anyone, but merely to try to better understand the reasoning and emotions behind this controversial topic. I respect the fact that this is a controversial topic and I agree that it is difficult to answer.
It is hard to defend that no humans have the right to use animals and even harder to defend that all humans have an equal right to use all animals. So I try to search for the answer in between these extremities, but the answer has proven difficult to find.
This is not the first place I defend the human right to keep animals and to my experiance, in most places where I have defended this point of view, people intuitively "have a problem with it".
I try to understand why.
For starters it is a complex topic and there are alot of feelings involved. Feelings, as I understand, are present in each and every choice we make throughout our entire lives, without them we would not have a favorite pair of shoes. Were it not for feelings, we would be indifferent in regards to what we eat, in which case the logical choice would be for all of us to become vegetarians, so that we could sustain more people on the planet, or use our natural recources (animals) in a more sustainable manner than we do today.
However, we cannot build our legislation on feelings alone, otherwise we would have overexploited the planet and wiped ourselves out already.
So, there must be a balance between emotion and reason, as well as ethics and morals, in our legislation and in our minds.

Contemporary philosophers have argued that only moral beings such as humans can have rights because they can grasp the cocept of duties.
Contemporary philosopher have also argued that animals have rights.
All philosophers I read on this topic agree that humans have duties towards animals and that it is wrong to abuse animals.
Some pholisophers argue that all use of animals is animal abuse, but this is a also a very controvercial topic. Most herpetoculturists in here should agree to the statement "I do not abuse the animals I keep in my terrarium(s)". Otherwise there would be more animal lovers than animal keepers in this forum. Yet, this is a forum frequented largely by animal owners, if I'm not mistaken.
If we felt that we abused our animals by keeping them in captivity we wouldn't keep them, because we consider ourselves to by friends with the animals, or animal lovers, right?

In conclusion
Please reconsider the poll for the sake of gathering of knowledge. When we know how we feel, perhaps we will better understand why we feel this way. Please allow the members to cast their vote
Perhaps the poll could be expanded with a third, fourth and even a fifth option --> "to some degree" "uncertain" and "no comment".
Depending on the result, we may find a better answer to this controversial question. For sure, we are not indifferent with regard to the results it may yield?
The answer of the poll will measure the difference in opinions of people all over the world, and in a sence we will measure whether humanity feels that it has a human right to keep frogs as captives.
In the case that the poll shows that most people are uncertain, the subject surely deserves further investigation by more people in the future in order to lead us towards a more sustainable future.


Thank you for your time
Your input is most valued

Kind regards
Vålen

 

[Ed]

quote "Laws are drawn up on the basis of our understanding of ethics and morals, so one may argue that since you have the economical means, physical space and the knowledge to responsibly keep your frog, then it would be your right to enjoy this privilege. That is, unless someone can prove that it is in some way wrong of you to keep frogs.

If you have this right, and all people are born equal, what reasoning suggests that I shouln't have the same privilege (rights and duties) as you?"endsquote

There is a disjunct in the reasoning here..
Currently (in most countries) laws are actually drawn up by a community to enforce what the community determines is desirable (while there are some standards that are potenitially an issue when viewed by the global community (genocide for example... being able to own certain herps is certainly not a universal right.) not what the infividual wants.. To change the law you need to change the will of your community.

Over here, it can not only depend on the laws of the country but the state, county and town muncipality.. In one of our states, you would have to own an acre of land to own any caudates or other reptile or amphibian but there isn't anything regulating the pet stores from selling them. The purchaser has to apply for the permit and demonstrate that they have the acre of land. Unfortunately most people do not and the animals end up having to be placed....

Ed