Wow, I think this lady forgot about diseases that the domestic house cat can carry. Or how about how people have died eating contaminated foods? Why are you picking on exotics???????? I have had snakes for 17 years and I have never gotten sick but when I have eaten in restaurants while on vacation, I have gotten some sort of food poisoning. Nothing like using scare tactics!!!!!! One should be more afraid of dogs off leash and domestic cats using the kid's sandbox to poop in.

Omg really??? This article is rediculous. I am a proud owner of six snakes. I have owned some kind of reptile for ten years. And guess what? my CATS have done more damage to me before. The crap under their nails can get ya pretty sick. How about rabid dogs?? Huh and all of a sudden these so-called "normal" pets dont seem so safe. I am so sick of this!! Leave us exotic animal lovers ALONE.

Thanks for the piece. These types of animals are a threat to to the general public, and have no reason to be in town among people. Aside from which they are not as potentially social as a dog or cat.

"About 11 percent of salmonella cases in children can be traced to contact with these non-traditional pets".

I would like to know where you are citing this figure from? And does that figure represent all so salmonella contractions from so called "exotic" or "nontraditional" pets, or only reptiles?

What one frequently overlooks (or in some cases conviently ignores if there is an underlying agenda at play) is that many species of domestic animals, including dogs, horses, cats, fish, swine, and even our own species can also be a "threat to the general public" in terms of the diseases they can transmit. Just look at all of the potential zoonotic diseases you can contract from your dog or cat from the CDC website:
http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/animals/cats.htm
http://www.cdc.gov/healthypets/animals/dogs.htm

Regardless, salmonellosis is not, nor ever has been, an exotic animal specific, or even animals in general specific issue. It is a proven fact that most salmonella cases, in fact, are the result of the consumption of raw or undercooked meats, eggs, poultry, or other foods. Chicken Patty bans, anyone?
http://www.rexano.org/FoodKillsFrame.htm

"A threat to the general public and no reason to be in town among people" needs some reality check. have you seen about coyotes in downtown Chicago? Considered all the areas in the US having indigenous species of venomous snakes and other? If you check facts, statistics and common sense you will see there is no need for a ban of any animal, for any reason. Look at statistics for deaths where any said animal is native to, conservation efforts, reasons for such and base your opinion on more than knee jerk reaction. There is a very apparent disconnect amongst animal rights ( "welfare" and "advocacy" is claimed sometimes) from the real world.

Its pretty sad to judge an animal just because its not "cute" and fuzzy. Plenty of people such as myself form very real bonds with reptiles and they certainly have more personality than any dog or cat I have owned. They are very intelligent and beautiful creatures snakes are. If you have never had the pleasure of owning one who are you to judge? How can you even have a clue how social a snake can be? Its just sad how people can be. How they treat innocent things they do not understand.

My snake Honney Bunny is the sweetest, most loving pet that has ever shared my home! She understand me better that any human and our bond transcends time and space. We even share a little vino once in a while! Before you write another misguided column, Ms. Daidone, I suggest you meet my little Honney and get a lesson in reptile love!!!!

Okay folks, let's have a bit of respect for these animals. Stop trying to define your animal's "love" for you in your own personal terms. Reptiles do not possess the same neurological structures as mammals; as a result, they are incapable of the "love" and "understanding" that you claim they possess. You are attempting to qualify their responses to you as care instead of as a meal ticket. They're your pets and you keep them because you feel good about it; don't confuse the issue.

I don't think we are confusing the issue. Perhaps you should read the editorial again. This lady pretty much nixed all pets except dogs and cats. Everything she said about exotics are true for dogs, cats, horses etc. I think many of us would really like to know why people are putting down exotics and trying to get rid of them when more people die from pet dog attacks and get emergency care from domestic cat scratches.

And if you don't have reptiles as pets, how do you know what they are incapable of? I have had pet dogs and in mho, I would rather have snakes:)

I think you all are missing the point with this incident. ALL pets require a certain level of knowledge, training and care, some more than others. All animals carry a potential risk to humans in terms of injuries or disease, again some more than others. The issue is when we introduce nondomesticated animals and/or exotic animals into the home. The level of care, knowledge and responsibility rises higher than that required of a dog or cat. Exotix birds kept by people traditionally are not native to this area and require special care to ensure they are not needlessly harmed. Reptiles, exotic or not carry the same warning. The more dangerous the animal, the greater the warning. No slam against any reptile owner BUT poisonous snakes are illegal to own in this state regardless of whether the sacs are removed or not. A snake such as a cobra is agressive to begin with, an albino cobra even more so.

We have rules in place to protect the human owner, the pet and the innocent bystander. Without them, people and animal run the risk of injury, abuse or disease. Bottom line, ownership of a pet carries a lot of responsibility regardless of it being canine, feline or exotic whatever.

If all 'exotics' owners truly cared about these reptiles, they wouldn't have bought/acquired them in the first place. They belong in their natural environments. Angela Daidone states that "Eric Bortz obviously loves animals." If that were true, given his educational back, he must realize how self-serving it is to keep these reptiles in captivity. If only more people would consider what's best for the exotic, vs what's best for them.
http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/exotic-pet-faq.aspx

That is an interesting comment Kathryn, albeit an astonishingly uninformed one. Using your logic, if we truly cared about cats and dogs, we wouldn't buy or acquire them as well? How much sense does that make really? Do you know that the vast majority of reptiles and many other exotic animal species currently in the pet trade are captive bred and born animals? In fact, many species are produced in many different color and pattern cultivars that do not, nor have they ever even occurred in the wild? When was the last time you have seen a leucistic Texas rat snake in the wild, a hypo pastel pied ball python, or a "sunglow arabesque boa constrictor?

The fact of the matter, is that those "natural environments" you make mention of are rapidly disappering and/or being degraded at an alarming rate as a result of human activities and expansion. They is also, what is left of such anyway, harsh and unforgiving places where animals of all species are rotinely subjected to disease, starvation, parasites, and predators. Far from being the romantic and harmonious environment that you seem to think that it is. How do you think that, in addition to those factors, captive born animal exhibiting albinism or leuciscim for example would fare? I find it interesting that you claim to know what's best for exotics, when in fact, it would be the complete antithesis of such.

The exotic animal hoarders are out in force, I see. Those who subject exotic creatures to forced unnatural lives are mentally ill and selfish to boot.

JT- How do you come to the conclusion that those of us who support exotic ownership are "exotic animal hoarders", as you put it? Or is that just a staw man's arguement because you have none?