08/22/2026
There has been a lot of discussion recently within the reptile community regarding potential changes to laws and regulations in Maryland regarding the ownership of reptiles. It definitely is something that we should all keep an eye on but I think it’s also important that we separate what is documented vs speculation about what might happen.
In November 2025 the Maryland Wildlife Advisory Commission (WAC) meeting minutes referenced verbiage to include “…eliminating the collection or possession of native and non-native herps…” which has understandably caused concern and spread like wildfire, spawning many theories and speculation, especially with how broad and nonspecific the language is. (See Meeting Minutes https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/WAC/01-21-2026-WAC-minutes.pdf)
In January 2026 the MD WAC met again and mentioned that DNR staff were working on proposed changes that “…involve moving forward to prohibit the collection, possession, breeding, and trade of native reptiles and amphibians, with exceptions for the bullfrog and red corn snake.”. Additionally it mentioned “…broad support for prohibiting collection from the wild, while there was considerably more pushback regarding prohibiting possession of captive-bred animals…” but it did not elaborate on the “non-native herps” verbiage previously mentioned. (See Meeting Minutes https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/WAC/02-18-2026-WAC-PACKET.pdf)
Fear and outrage are definitely feelings many folks can have and express, and it’s totally understandable, we felt them ourselves. But they can also make it harder for legitimate stakeholders and folks in discussion to be able to make decisions and to be taken seriously. What I believe we should be doing is respectfully asking questions, requesting clarification, participating in the regulatory process, and making sure that regulators understand the practical consequences of overly broad restrictions.
Maryland already regulates collection, possession, breeding, and commercial trade of Maryland herps (see the Captive Reptile & Amphibian Permit/License https://dnr.maryland.gov/wildlife/pages/licenses/captive.aspx) There are already possession limits, permit requirements, restrictions on wild collection, protected species, recordkeeping requirements, and penalties for violations. And while that doesn’t mean those regulations can never be revisited, conservation concerns should be addressed and supported with evidence.
Regulations should always be proportionate and realistic to the problem they are trying to address or solve.
I also think it is important to distinguish legitimate concern from assumptions about intent. Based on the information currently available, we have not seen anything indicating that the intent is to confiscate and euthanize everyone’s animals, or that this represents the beginning of some broader agenda targeting dogs, cats, or other household pets. Those are significant claims, and without documentation supporting them they should be treated as speculation. BUT this doesn’t mean we shouldn’t take the proposed changes seriously. It does mean we should focus our efforts on what is actually being proposed and make sure our concerns are heard while those decisions are still being developed.
With all this in mind: I encourage all of us as a community to connect and reach out to work with the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, the Wildlife Advisory Commission, your state delegates and senators, and other relevant officials. We should not allowing speculation and fear to drive the discussion, we should be facilitating discussion, expressing legitimate concerns, asking for clarification, and helping those responsible for these decisions to make informed decisions.
Talking points to include in our discussions could be:
- Maryland pet stores and reptile-related businesses could lose substantial portions of their trade.
- Responsible breeders could be prevented from producing captive-bred animals despite captive breeding reducing demand for wild collection.
- Reptile rescues and sanctuaries could face difficulties accepting surrendered animals.
- Educational organizations, nature centers, zoos, and outreach programs could be affected.
- Existing owners would need clear answers regarding grandfathering and continued possession of animals they obtained legally.
- Enforcement would become significantly more complicated when animals can be legally purchased only a short drive across state lines.
- Overly restrictive laws can unintentionally encourage an underground market rather than improving animal welfare or conservation.
Questions for us to ask could follow along the lines of:
- What issue is this regulation attempting to solve or contain that is not being addressed via current regulation?
- Will regulations distinguish between wild-caught and captive-bred animals, even to include species native to Maryland?
- How will individuals tasked with enforcement be able to differentiate between captive specimens and wild collected specimens?
- Which species would actually be affected? Native species? Non-native species? Both?
- Would legally possessed animals be grandfathered?
- How would breeders, pet stores, rescues, educational organizations, zoos, and nature centers be affected?
- What scientific criteria would determine whether a species presents an ecological or invasive-species risk?
- Could targeted permitting, documentation, possession limits, or species-specific restrictions accomplish the same conservation goals without a blanket prohibition?
The most important thing is that we as a community approach this with professionalism, level-headedness, and maturity. If and when legitimate concerns become mixed with unsupported claims or worst-case speculation it damages the credibility of the community and make constructive engagement with regulators more difficult.