Last Chance to stop the Python and Boa Ban!

[WingedWolfPsion]

The Deadline for Public Comment on the US Fish & Wildlife Service proposed Rule Change is midnight on May, 11 2010. If enacted this rule could have devastating impact on the Reptile Nation. Damage will not be limited to breeders of the 4 pythons, 4 anacondas and Boa Contrictor. It would have far reaching effect. Most of the Reptile Trade Shows would not be able to continue. Rodent producers, caging manufacturers and shippers would suffer devastating impact. Many would go out of business. Please help USARK challenge the Rule Change! Go to http://www.Kill-RuleChange.com (http://www.kill-rulechange.com/) and follow the instructions!! It is extremely important that everyone pull together and make Public Comment before the deadline!!!

www.kill-rulechange.com/ (http://www.kill-rulechange.com/)


***Place this link on every social networking site, every forum and email list. Put it on Twitter. Put it everywhere. Encourage everyone to participate. Call friends, family and coworkers.

Kill Rule Change! Do it Today!

[Odie]

Going NRA on this "they will have to pry it (garter snake) from my cold dead hands" :eek:

[ConcinusMan]

I feel for you but I don't give a damn. I would like to see many species of boas and pythons get banned. Too darn many of them being bred and suffering at the hands of inexperienced and irresponsible people who buy them. I am quite sick of seeing neglected and injured balls and boas pouring in to the local rescues. It's ridiculous. Bottom line is, they aren't the greatest pet to be having in the first place.

Now how exactly does the proposed change make it so reptile shows won't be able to continue? Doesn't sound right to me.:cool:

[guidofatherof5]

This type of legislation is only the beginning. If it is passed it will be used as the litmus test for future legislation against other animals.
I don't believe a Florida problem is cause for new federal law. The State of Florida can address its problem in its own State House.

The passage of this legislation is strike against all reptile keepers. Just my opinion.

[ConcinusMan]

It's not just a florida problem. Not by a long shot.

I just don't think a snake as powerful and large as some pythons or even a boa constrictor are, have any business in the hands of morons anymore than a venomous snake does.

[guidofatherof5]

It's not just a florida problem. Not by a long shot.

I just don't think a snake as powerful and large as some pythons or even a boa constrictor are, have any business in the hands of morons anymore than a venomous snake does.

Yes, you are right but the main focus has been on Florida.
I should have clarified my statement.

[ConcinusMan]

The problem in florida is tragic, for sure, but that's not my main reason for supporting the change. In florida the damage is already done. The snakes already have a sustainable population in the wild. I already mentioned the main reason I would support a well-written, specific change to the rules.

[jere000]

I feel for you but I don't give a damn. I would like to see many species of boas and pythons get banned. Too darn many of them being bred and suffering at the hands of inexperienced and irresponsible people who buy them. I am quite sick of seeing neglected and injured balls and boas pouring in to the local rescues. It's ridiculous. Bottom line is, they aren't the greatest pet to be having in the first place.

Now how exactly does the proposed change make it so reptile shows won't be able to continue? Doesn't sound right to me.:cool:Bull crap plain and simple they are good pets, and why should i have my rights stripped away do to some idiot who thought it looked cute in the pet store i own 5 boas love them all, and take care of them.

[bkhuff1s]

It's ok the everglades are going to flood then they will go into all the backyards... nope that didn't make me feel any better about the situation either...

[WingedWolfPsion]

Large pythons and boas aren't for everyone, but there are a million of them in the US, and there have been very few fatalities. Fewer people have been killed by giant snakes in the last decade than were killed by dogs last year. Horses and other livestock also have much higher death counts. It's dangerous to own a horse, so why should be people be allowed to own one?

The government isn't our nanny, and should not have the right to dictate what animals we may keep as pets. The 2-year old child being used as an illustration of why these animals are dangerous died under highly suspicious circumstances indeed, and there is good cause to believe that the snake was innocent.

(Examples: multiple bite wounds. Feeding pythons bite once, and then constrict, they do not bite repeatedly except in self-defense. The snake was only 8.5 feet long (barely over the safe handling length), and emaciated--why would it attack a 2 year old child? The snake was killed with two bladed instruments, allegedly used to sever its spine while it had the child coiled...and somehow, the child was never nicked by these blades. The big, burly boyfriend claimed he couldn't get the snake off the child--_I_ could get that snake off of anything, it was thin and not very big. The boyfriend turned away investigators at the door immediately after the 911 call, and would not allow them in without a warrant. The children in the household had been abused. To anyone familiar with pythons, this looks like a scenario where the child was suffocated, then the snake was aggravated and induced to bite her, killed, and posed with her body).

The argument that the animals are mistreated and wind up in rescues is one that can only rightly be made by a person who does not believe that people should be permitted to own pets. You see, there will always be people who are ignorant, or who won't care for their pets properly, no matter WHAT the animals are. If boas and pythons are unavailable, they will move on to the next animal--such as garter snakes (which are often treated far worse due to their low monetary value). The key to this is education, not a ban. You prosecute those who break animal cruelty laws--you don't punish those who are doing things the right way.

You should understand that adding these species to the Lacey Act's injurious wildlife list will NOT make owning them illegal. It will only make transporting them across State lines or importing them illegal. Existing animals that have GOOD owners will therefore wind up in rescues, in the hands of the inexperienced, released, or euthanized if their owner must move out of State. (Though more likely they'll just be smuggled). Adding these species to the Lacey Act will not make breeding or SELLING them illegal, so long as it is within the State. It WILL lower their monetary value dramatically overnight, and it WILL make releases of animals much more likely than they were before. This proposal is BAD for the economy, it's BAD for reptile owners, it's BAD for the environment, and it's BAD for the snakes themselves. It will actually not solve ANY problems--not a single one.

The USDA report being used to justify this proposal is a total fabrication. These species cannot survive a winter outside of South Florida.

And finally, Python molurus includes a dwarf island form which does not exceed 6 feet in length. There are several boa constrictor species that do not exceed 6 feet in length, including the Hogg Island Boa, which is EXTINCT in the wild, and now exists only in the hands of those who care about it and breed it. The super-dwarf reticulated python does not exceed 6 feet in length. All of these animals will become unsaleable across State lines. That's right--I, living in Nebraska, would not be permitted to buy a 6 foot adult dwarf Burm python from Iowa. WHY?

Laws should never be passed unless there is a GOOD reason to pass them. This law simply crushes those who have chosen to invest in breeding these animals, and it does not in any way solve any of the problems it was concocted to address.

[MasSalvaje]

Now how exactly does the proposed change make it so reptile shows won't be able to continue? Doesn't sound right to me.:cool:

The big money getters at shows are not the garter snakes and other colubrids, it is the boids. Show organizers may not be able to fill enough tables if breeders can't come from out of state to sell the animals that make them the most money. If not enough tables are filled, the organizers don't make as much money, attendance drops further limiting profits, and shows all across the country shut down.

It makes perfect sense to me.

-Thomas

[Stefan-A]

Just supposing that the ban becomes a reality, what would you do to adapt to the new situation?

The hobby would definitely change, but people adapt. Reduced interest in the banned species will favour those who breed species that remain unaffected. People settle for the second best thing, if they can't have what they want, they won't abandon the hobby completely. The market will adapt.

I'm not suggesting that I'd support the ban, I'm just saying that if I know people, they will find a way to avoid the problem.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Will the reptile hobby adapt? Eventually, yes. In the meantime, large numbers of people will actually go bankrupt and lose their houses. There is no avoiding the problem for these people--those who specialize in large constrictors will have the rug pulled out from under them, and find themselves with animals rendered nearly worthless overnight. Why? Because some greedy politicians down in Florida wanted a handout.

[Snakeknot]

Is this a breed specific ban? My worry is if they ban boas in general, what about my little sand boas? And what's gonna stop them from making a general blanket ban on all pet snakes in general? What about people with emerald tree boas? There are a lot of boa breeds out there. I don't own the big boas but I have a fit about this law. It will be passed by snake ignorant people ( never a good thing! ) and how rabid ( or not ) will be the enforcement? We need more education about snakes to the general public. And we also need to get stories from responsible snake owners to get out to the general public, not just the exciting, negative stories where someone gets hurt by one of their snakes!


Devon

[Stefan-A]

Is this a breed specific ban? My worry is if they ban boas in general, what about my little sand boas?
9 species total, Boa constrictor is the only boa on the list.

[jere000]

9 species total, Boa constrictor is the only boa on the list.Boa constrictor has a few sub species which are also getting banned lets see there is,Bci,Bco,Bcc, and Bca theres others i just don't feel like naming them.

[Stefan-A]

Boa constrictor has a few sub species which are also getting banned lets see there is,Bci,Bco,Bcc, and Bca theres others i just don't feel like naming them.
If the species gets banned, so does its subspecies.

[ConcinusMan]

For some reason, I doubt it's the end of reptile shows just because 9 species get banned. Those tables for the most part, are the one's I skip. Personally I'd be glad to see them go if it meant seeing less of those unwanted, neglected, species ending up taking up ALL the space at other place. You know the place. The place where many of the "big money" babies end up a few years after they are sold to fools. And that's only probably about 1/4 of them. Guess where the other 2/3 end up? (I virtually hear the sound of a toilet flushing)

[jere000]

For some reason, I doubt it's the end of reptile shows just because 9 species get banned. Those tables for the most part, are the one's I skip. Personally I'd be glad to see them go if it meant seeing less of those unwanted, neglected, species ending up taking up ALL the space at other place. You know the place. The place where many of the "big money" babies end up a few years after they are sold to fools. And that's only probably about 1/4 of them. Guess where the other 2/3 end up? (I virtually hear the sound of a toilet flushing)What's the other place please inform me?

[ConcinusMan]

about 10 non-profit reptile rescues in Portland. All of them up to their eyeballs in Boa constrictors, ball pythons, and corn snakes. And yet people are still buying "shiny new" babies from the pet stores. These aren't cut flowers people!

Whatever ban they impose, let's just hope it is well-written. Oregon has better laws than WA. Better for snake enthusiasts I mean, but still, you can have a 9 foot egyptian cobra. Perfectly legal. But you can't have a tame rattlesnake. Go figure. Now which one do you think poses the greater threat to the public? But anyway, their laws have a loophole that applies to anery concinnus or native garter snakes in general. Native wildlife, yes. But if it is out the norm such as an anery, or an albino, etc. it's legal.

[Stefan-A]

about 10 non-profit reptile rescues in Portland. All of them up to their eyeballs in Boa constrictors, ball pythons, and corn snakes. And yet people are still buying "shiny new" babies from the pet stores. These aren't cut flowers people!
I agree. Most people probably don't even know it's an option.

[ConcinusMan]

All very good points. I would also support restrictions instead of out-right banning.

Perhaps a permit. One that requires inspection of the animals accomodations and a significant yearly fee. Some of that money should be used to fund non-profit reptile rescues.

If breeders are making so much money, they shouldn't have a problem with that.

[ConcinusMan]

I agree. Most people probably don't even know it's an option.

Petco has been instrumental in making sure their customers are aware of it. They adopt out far more snakes than they sell.

http://www.google.com/search?q=petco+adoption+events&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

[Stefan-A]

All very good points. I would also support restrictions instead of out-right banning.

Perhaps a permit. One that requires inspection of the animals accomodations and a significant yearly fee. Some of that money should be used to fund non-profit reptile rescues.
Not possible to organize and fund and the extra expenses for the owner would have much the same effect as an outright ban.

The most practical way to deal with it, in my opinion, is to promote responsible ownership. This is something that should be done anyway within the community. It won't actually solve any problems, but it would make the situation slightly more tolerable.

[jere000]

about 10 non-profit reptile rescues in Portland. All of them up to their eyeballs in Boa constrictors, ball pythons, and corn snakes. And yet people are still buying "shiny new" babies from the pet stores. These aren't cut flowers people!

Whatever ban they impose, let's just hope it is well-written. Oregon has better laws than WA. Better for snake enthusiasts I mean, but still, you can have a 9 foot egyptian cobra. Perfectly legal. But you can't have a tame rattlesnake. Go figure. Now which one do you think poses the greater threat to the public? But anyway, their laws have a loophole that applies to anery concinnus or native garter snakes in general. Native wildlife, yes. But if it is out the norm such as an anery, or an albino, etc. it's legal.Yeah i doubt they have the high end animals such as moonglow snows and such.

[ConcinusMan]

Not possible to organize and fund and the extra expenses for the owner would have much the same effect as an outright ban.

The most practical way to deal with it, in my opinion, is to promote responsible ownership. This is something that should be done anyway within the community. It won't actually solve any problems, but it would make the situation slightly more tolerable.

What I suggested has already been applied in one form or another, to venomous reptiles. Sure, it has pretty much the same negative effects of a ban, but would allow for captive breeding of rare or endangered snakes so at least they wouldn't have to perish. Oh wait. The 9 species on the list are anything but endangered. Nevermind.

[Stefan-A]

What I suggested has already been applied in one form or another, to venomous reptiles. Sure, it has pretty much the same negative effects of a ban, but would allow for captive breeding of rare or endangered snakes so at least they wouldn't have to perish. Oh wait. The 9 species on the list are anything but endangered. Nevermind.
We used to have a dog tax. That didn't work, either. Every time you add something to the list that have to be inspected, you increase the work load of people who are usually already under-staffed and insufficiently funded.



To think that captive breeding somehow prevents species from perishing, is to completely fail to understand that there is an underlying cause for them being endangered. But yeah, this is not about endangered species.

[ConcinusMan]

We still do have a "dog tax". Every few years, I must license my 4 dogs. It's discounted (much cheaper) if they are spayed or neutered.

Dogs that come in to the shelters which are not tagged/licensed are unfortunately given very little time before they get the gas chamber. IF an owner comes to claim one of them, they are slapped with a fine, mandatory spay/neutering bill, AND have to pay for tags on top of that.

Seems to be working just fine here.

About the captive breeding comment, I was only suggesting that it's better to have the species exist only in captivity, than to not exist at all.

[Stefan-A]

We still do have a "dog tax". Every few years, I must license my 4 dogs. It's discounted (much cheaper) if they are spayed or neutered.
How much is it, if you don't pay at all?


Dogs that come in to the shelters which are not tagged/licensed are unfortunately given very little time before they get the gas chamber. IF an owner comes to claim one of them, they are slapped with a fine, mandatory spay/neutering bill, AND have to pay for tags on top of that.

Seems to be working just fine here.
I beg to differ. It seems pretty damned messed up, considering that the dog is your property and very likely a beloved family member.


About the captive breeding comment, I was only suggesting that it's better to have the species exist only in captivity, than to not exist at all.Marginally and even then only if something can be done with that captive population.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Unwanted ball pythons and corn snakes is a local issue. Where I am here, you simply do not see them. If they turn up in shelters, they're adopted out fairly quickly.
I have also never had a problem selling my normal male baby ball pythons. There's a high demand here.

I think one of the issues some rescues ignore is the fact that if their adoption fee is higher than the cost of buying an animal from a breeder or pet store, people are not very likely to adopt it. Yes, the rescue has to pay for its activities, but they also need to be realistic, and all too often...they aren't. I saw a rescue recently offering to adopt out a pair of green anoles for a $30 adoption fee. Seriously?

Boas may be more difficult to adopt out, because some subspecies grow larger. I haven't seen any of those in shelters here, either, though.

It's incredibly naive to believe that banning species that are currently popular will stop people from giving animals to shelters and rescues. The species you see most often in the rescues will change, that's all. In the meantime, people are losing their livelihoods, and nothing is being gained from it at all.

Do you know what will happen if this passes? Your rescues will be FLOODED with giant snakes that have been rendered worthless overnight.

I think the idea that a species is better off extinct than in captivity is just reprehensible and selfish, frankly. The notion that captivity is a terrible place for animals to be derives directly from the animal rights movement, and it is anthropomorphic in the extreme. Animals that are healthy and engage in normal breeding and feeding behaviors must be assumed to be reasonably happy. The fact that WE wouldn't be happy in a cage is totally irrelevant. The idea that 'wild animals are only happy in the wild' is just that--an idea, an assumption, and not one that has any REAL justification. It's a completely made-up notion.

[ConcinusMan]

How much is it, if you don't pay at all?

Not sure I understand the question.



I beg to differ. It seems pretty damned messed up, considering that the dog is your property and very likely a beloved family member.

Not as messed up as you might think. Both the registered animal and the owner who cares to pay for such registration, benefits. So does the entire "humane" system. I guess it's something you would have to see in practice, for yourself. It's definitely NOT "messed up". I am not paying without a benefit. It is in my best interest, and in my dogs' best interest, and benefits pet animals in general. My younger brother just acquired an adorable 2 year old Chihuaha/Dachshund mix. That dog was saved from euthanasia. Sent from a very FULL Modesto, CA animal shelter to Portland OR, because portland had the room. All of this is funded by the "dog tax". That dog was saved, and my brother found an awesome pet. Just what he was looking for. The system isn't perfect, and it still depends on donations and public help. They get the help. They get donations. My brother gets a dog. A wonderful dog that otherwise would have been put to death.

We don't live in a third-world country here. We don't have starving cats and dogs running the streets. THAT would be "messed-up". You wouldn't have to worry about that where you live. Any dog/cat/ exotic reptile that finds himself abandoned late in the year will die from cold anyway.

[Stefan-A]

Not sure I understand the question.
Rhetorical question. Meant to imply that it still costs.


Not as messed up as you might think. Both the registered animal and the owner who cares to pay for such registration, benefits. So does the entire "humane" system. I guess it's something you would have to see in practice, for yourself. It's definitely NOT "messed up". I am not paying without a benefit. It is in my best interest, and in my dogs' best interest, and benefits pet animals in general.
Of course you benefit, if the system is intentionally built up so that you'll lose more by not paying. To make such a system and essentially take a family member hostage for ransom and mutilating it, IS messed up.

[infernalis]

To make such a system and essentially take a family member hostage for ransom and mutilating it, IS messed up.


Could not agree more.

If someone were to take one of my dogs and cut him/her up, we would be in court quick!

Cockapoo pups get hundreds of dollars each, I would sue for all lost income. and they produce decent size litters, that's over $1000 a year for every year I can breed them.

[WingedWolfPsion]

HSUS is on the warpath since it was infiltrated and taken over by PETA members. They're attacking not only the reptile industry AS A WHOLE, but also the livestock industry, and the pet industry in general.

Mandatory spay/neuter. Sound like a good idea? What if you are a breeder of purebred dogs, passionate about the breed and striving to improve it? Still sound fair to you? Yes, there are many dogs in shelters, and that is sad, but it is not the place of politicians to dictate that people must adopt shelter dogs and are not allowed to purchase purebred puppies. It is also not justifiable to charge people a big tax or license fee just so they can breed their dog and produce a litter of puppies. Many of the best breeders are small breeders who produce only one litter every year or two. They often do not even break even on their expenses. They cannot afford this type of license, and there is no reason they should have to.

Passionate lovers of purebred dogs who produce occasional litters of high quality puppies and place them into carefully selected homes are NOT responsible for the tons of mutts in shelters, so why on earth should they HAVE to pay for them? Just because they love dogs? I don't see the fairness in that.

HSUS is backing ALL of these bills that seek to place more limitations on animal ownership, and separate people and animals. You SHOULD be suspicious of ANYTHING that the HSUS supports at this point in time. They have declared outright war on the Reptile Nation, and if you own a garter snake, that means YOU.
THIS is the propaganda they are promoting:
http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/Reptiles_as_Pets.html

To find out more about HSUS's underhanded activities, go to www.humanewatch.org (http://www.humanewatch.org)

And please--help Kill the Rule Change. It's bad for the snakes, for the owners, for the industry, and it sets a precedent that is bad news for ALL reptile owners.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I usually stay out of things like this... BUT I am seeing talk of dogs on here and I feel way too strongly on this to keep my mouth shut.


Many of the best breeders are small breeders who produce only one litter every year or two. They often do not even break even on their expenses.

This is correct and this is the ONLY situation where dogs should be bred. If you are going to breed dogs, it should be only to keep the breed going strong. If you are a breeder of purebreds, it's different. You should not be forced to adopt dogs from shelters... BUT.... puppy mills, designer dogs and people breeding two dogs together just because they are cute and they want puppies, that needs to stop. It's adding to the problem and there's NOTHING beneficial about it. Breeders do not make a dime on their animals and if they do, they are cutting corners somehow. Designer dogs are where they take two breeds of dog, slap them together and make some puppies, and combine their two names together to make a cute new name. Puggles, Jugs, Cockapoos, Bichonpoos, are just a few. These are NOT breeds... these are mutts. They are not purebred in anyway, and while they are adorable, the problem lies in where they come from. Animals should never be considered a source of income... ever. And yes, if your dog is NOT a purebred animal that is in a breeding program it should be fixed. We don't need to keep making mutts voluntarily... Strays and escapees do enough of that on their own. If your dog gets out and goes on a little adventure and comes home pregnant, or having gotten another dog pregnant...That's one more addition to an already immense problem. The best dog I own is a mutt but I'll be damned if I'd allow more of him to be made!

Working at PSP has inergrated me very deeply into the whole dog thing, and I feel very strongly about "designer dogs" and people who make puppies seeing it as a source of income. There is this guy who keeps coming into our store. He has a pitbull, it's ears have been chopped off completely, "the breeder did that" he says. He keeps putting up a sign... PUTBULL 4 STUD.... basically, he wants money to get other peoples dogs pregnant to make more useless puppies....no purebreeding, no standards, just using his dog's sperm as a source of income. Oh and he wants the pick of the litter, to sell. I remove this sign time after time once he leaves.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Animals should never be considered a source of income... ever.


Wait, what? And why?
I'm a professional reptile breeder. They are my primary source of income. This is a business for me, and I'm proud of the way I run it, and the way I care for my animals.

I cannot think of a single reason why animals should not be considered a source of income. That's really an incredibly general statement. Do you hate farmers, or something?

I have an issue with people who abuse and neglect animals. I don't have an issue with people who make money by breeding animals, and I don't see why anyone else should.

Your hatred of designer dogs is also without explanation. Someone who wants a puggle doesn't want a pug or a poodle, or the random dog from the shelter. They want a puggle, so why shouldn't they be allowed to buy one?
Most dog breeds started out when someone bred several different breeds together to come up with something new that was more suited to their purposes or more appealing to them. That process has not stopped, new breeds are still being created.
The person selling puggle puppies is not to blame for the shelters being full of unwanted dogs. The dogs THEY produce are wanted--if they weren't, they couldn't sell them.
One dog is not exactly like every other dog. You can't just remove all the puggles, and expect the people who wanted them to go pick up a shelter mutt. It doesn't work that way.

The truth is, there will always be stray dogs and cats, because these animals evolved to live in human environments. We made them into pets and we care for them, but at their most fundamental level, they are species that evolved to scavenge from us. It never ceases to amaze me how folks can proclaim that strays will die horrible deaths from disease if they aren't found, and then turn around and state that those strays are breeding and producing more animals that will succumb to the same fate.

You know, a sustained breeding population in MOST species indicates that they are getting what they need to survive. Feral dogs and cats don't have lives that are significantly worse than those of other wild animals. We just don't think about it that way very often.

It's not really good for us to have packs of feral dogs roaming around, or feral cats all over, because they pose a danger to us--either direct or through disease. But as far as the animals are concerned? They're doing what they evolved to do. They're surviving on our garbage and the rodents we attract...and they're thriving, in urban and suburban environments. An increasing or stable population = success.

Because of this, there will ALWAYS be 'unwanted dogs and cats' in the shelters. There will always be rats and pigeons and squirrels and raccoons and sparrows and starlings all over the place in the US, too. The idea that every cat or dog should have a home with a person is simply outside the bounds of reality. It's a shame that so many have to be euthanized, yes--but attacking professional breeders as if THEY caused it to happen is ridiculous. If everyone stopped deliberately breeding dogs and cats tomorrow, there would still be more of them than people could keep, and that would never change. It's not a tragedy, it's what these animals evolved to be. We did not deliberately create the domestic dog--it evolved to live in the environments we create around us. Considering it to be any different from a deer or a pigeon is just hypocritical.

So tell me...why exactly is it wrong to breed animals for income?

[ConcinusMan]

Yeah, can't say I agree with that statement. I think what she might have meant is that it's not right to view them ONLY as a source of income. They must also be viewed as living things with feelings and treated humanely and with respect.

[Stefan-A]

I have an issue with people who abuse and neglect animals. I don't have an issue with people who make money by breeding animals, and I don't see why anyone else should.
I guess it's the notion that breeding for money leads to two things:

1. Neglect or abuse, usually through less than optimal living conditions and overbreeding individual animals. Think: Puppy mills. Naturally, that's not what has to happen and it does not mean that people who don't breed animals for money don't abuse and neglect their animals.

2. Selling to just anybody. The larger the quantities, the bigger the need to "unload". Doesn't mean that occasional breeder don't do this, either.

I'm inclined to agree with you on the "designer dog" issue. I am however going to take it a few steps futher and say that the I find the whole idea of purebred dogs both sad and hilarious. When people brag about having a purebred or prize-winning whatever, I really just want to tell them: "No, you have a disfigured, inbred wolf." This can be applied to designer dogs as well. In some cases, the same principle applies to snakes and other reptiles.

[ConcinusMan]

Wow. We really got off topic on this one. But, let me continue. You know how most people wish puppies would stay that cute forever? I saw some dogs that do!

They were Pomeranian X long hair chihuahua. Man! they were the cutest dang thing I've ever seen!

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I've already said quite enough and I really don't feel the need to elaborate any further. You took one single quote from my entire post and get all up in arms about it. You took it a bit too literal. But I stated my opinion and it's not going to change.... And actually I DO have a problem with the way a lot of farm livestock are raised. But this is a garter snake forum. And I'm on my lunchbreak.... And so I'll leave it at that. I am entitled to my opinion as much as you are yours.
Wait, what? And why?
I'm a professional reptile breeder. They are my primary source of income. This is a business for me, and I'm proud of the way I run it, and the way I care for my animals.

I cannot think of a single reason why animals should not be considered a source of income. That's really an incredibly general statement. Do you hate farmers, or something?

I have an issue with people who abuse and neglect animals. I don't have an issue with people who make money by breeding animals, and I don't see why anyone else should.

Your hatred of designer dogs is also without explanation. Someone who wants a puggle doesn't want a pug or a poodle, or the random dog from the shelter. They want a puggle, so why shouldn't they be allowed to buy one?
Most dog breeds started out when someone bred several different breeds together to come up with something new that was more suited to their purposes or more appealing to them. That process has not stopped, new breeds are still being created.
The person selling puggle puppies is not to blame for the shelters being full of unwanted dogs. The dogs THEY produce are wanted--if they weren't, they couldn't sell them.
One dog is not exactly like every other dog. You can't just remove all the puggles, and expect the people who wanted them to go pick up a shelter mutt. It doesn't work that way.

The truth is, there will always be stray dogs and cats, because these animals evolved to live in human environments. We made them into pets and we care for them, but at their most fundamental level, they are species that evolved to scavenge from us. It never ceases to amaze me how folks can proclaim that strays will die horrible deaths from disease if they aren't found, and then turn around and state that those strays are breeding and producing more animals that will succumb to the same fate.

You know, a sustained breeding population in MOST species indicates that they are getting what they need to survive. Feral dogs and cats don't have lives that are significantly worse than those of other wild animals. We just don't think about it that way very often.

It's not really good for us to have packs of feral dogs roaming around, or feral cats all over, because they pose a danger to us--either direct or through disease. But as far as the animals are concerned? They're doing what they evolved to do. They're surviving on our garbage and the rodents we attract...and they're thriving, in urban and suburban environments. An increasing or stable population = success.

Because of this, there will ALWAYS be 'unwanted dogs and cats' in the shelters. There will always be rats and pigeons and squirrels and raccoons and sparrows and starlings all over the place in the US, too. The idea that every cat or dog should have a home with a person is simply outside the bounds of reality. It's a shame that so many have to be euthanized, yes--but attacking professional breeders as if THEY caused it to happen is ridiculous. If everyone stopped deliberately breeding dogs and cats tomorrow, there would still be more of them than people could keep, and that would never change. It's not a tragedy, it's what these animals evolved to be. We did not deliberately create the domestic dog--it evolved to live in the environments we create around us. Considering it to be any different from a deer or a pigeon is just hypocritical.

So tell me...why exactly is it wrong to breed animals for income?

[ConcinusMan]

Whoh, what upset her? So now you don't approve of reptile breeders such as scott or anyone else? Didn't you you just get an albino flame from him? I'd have to assume you purchased it and therefor do approve of income from animals. I'm so confused.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Actually whats upset me is something that has nothing to do with snakes or dogs or my hobby buts it's rubbing off in my posts and is the reason I've barely touched the forums in the past few days... So if I am coming off like a royal b**ch... I can assure you I have my reasons ;)Xalso I don't have much time as I'm posting from work on my phone.

actually, my albino flame is from Tom. What I MEANT by that statement is that animals are not for our profit.... We breed because we love them... Not to make money. There is a huge difference between what Scott does and what a puppy mill owner does. So please don't put words into my mouth or make extremely generic statements like that. I won't have fingers pointed at me like that. It's entirely up to everyone what ey do with their animals and we all have our own opinions on it. If someone doesn't like what I have to say we can agree to disagree and go our separate ways.

[WingedWolfPsion]

So, according to this, BHB is a great big snake puppy mill...never mind the fact that the animals are cared for meticulously and are thriving in excellent health?

Reptiles are not mammals, and the practices with dogs and cats cannot be extrapolated to all animals. Dogs and cats require socialization and interaction to maintain their mental health. Reptiles simply require the correct environmental conditions, regular cleaning, and feeding. They don't eliminate anywhere near as often, so they're pretty easy to keep clean. You can care for a LOT of reptiles in the time it would take you to care for a single dog.

Yes, big breeders have less control over where the animals they produce wind up--they wholesale them out to distributors or pet stores. The best you can do with that is pick a good distributor, and good pet stores. That's what I did locally--some of my normal male hatchlings go to a local pet store that is knowledgeable and cares for their animals properly.

I breed these animals to make money. If I simply loved them, I could just buy the few I wanted and never breed them. I don't run a puppy mill (or hatchling mill)--all of the animals are cared for properly, and they receive vet care if they should happen to need it. Anything less would be unethical.

People who breed animals for profit are not all 'puppy mill' owners. There is a vast difference between being too cheap to be ethical, and doing things the right way. You can do things the right way and make just as much or more money than those who are cheap. Healthy animals produce a lot better than sick ones.

This isn't me telling you that you can't have your opinions--this is me telling you why I think your opinions are wrong, which is what often happens when you share opinions with others. ;)

When I send my hatchlings out into the world, they are healthy, feeding well, and are well-started. They're fat, healthy little babies that will thrive for their new owners. This is a huge improvement over the heaps of CH babies imported from Africa, that may or may not do well for an owner. I don't see a problem with this. I include care sheets with all the normals I sell individually. In my opinion, this is doing things the RIGHT way, and improving things in the pet trade as a result.

[ConcinusMan]

I was confused as to what you were trying to say shannon. I guess I'll have to just stay that way. Sorry you're not having a good week, day, whatever. Really.:o

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

So, according to this, BHB is a great big snake puppy mill...never mind the fact that the animals are cared for meticulously and are thriving in excellent health?

Yes... BHB is a giant snake puppy mill(sarcasm). Look... nevermind. you are not getting what I was saying earlier at ALL. I want to just poke my eyeballs out right now with frustration because I DON'T feel like getting into it. And you are taking things out of context and putting words into my mouth. Did I even mention BHB??? no! Did I mention anything about big time snake breeders??? NO! I just simply think that if someone is looking to profit.... animals are not your best option. Because 99 % of people in this world will not always put the animal first, 100% of the time.



You can care for a LOT of reptiles in the time it would take you to care for a single dog.

I know! I've got easily 90 snakes by now.... and that's not counting all the babies I'll be tirelessly tong feeding every. other. day. in a few months.



I could just buy the few I wanted and never breed them. I don't run a puppy mill (or hatchling mill)--all of the animals are cared for properly, and they receive vet care if they should happen to need it.


I don't get why you think I ever said that to begin with. I didn't. It's very clear that you do not own a "hatchling mill". I was merely stating that puppy mills SUCK. But somehow, you have taken that offensively and confused it with me saying that if you breed snakes and make money you run a puppy mill and that you don't properly care for your animals. No that's clearly not what I said. But trust me, I've met far too many people who cut corners. people who don't even KNOW they are cutting corners.



People who breed animals for profit are not all 'puppy mill' owners.

Oh my goodness.... I had no idea!!! No but seriously, come on now, I know that as well as any other sane person. If I were a PETA lunatic, maybe you'd need to say that. These are the kinds of things that are ticking me off a bit because it's coming off like you feel that I am uneducated, or misinformed about this hobby. But we will leave that alone, The real problem is that the "puppy mill" owners... they make ALL of us look bad because as we all know... the government only pays attention to that one bad incident. Not the thousands of good keepers and flawless transactions that occur everyday, nope, but that one time that someone's apartment gets raided and hundreds of sickly animals are removed.



This isn't me telling you that you can't have your opinions--this is me telling you why I think your opinions are wrong, which is what often happens when you share opinions with others.

Right. But in addition you are taking what I have said in all the wrong ways and are twisting my words around in order to make me look like some tree hugging nut job. Which I am NOT. You are making assumptions and are generalizing things in ways that just do not make any sense to me and seeing as you don't know me..... I can forgive you for that. But everyone else on here who DOES know me..... knows that I am not a tree hugging anti-pet trade nutter, and knows what I am all about. You are speaking to me as if I am a PETA robot or something. You are trying to reason with me as if I don't agree with a lot of what you are saying... I'm on your side... remember!?!


When I send my hatchlings out into the world, they are healthy, feeding well, and are well-started. They're fat, healthy little babies that will thrive for their new owners. This is a huge improvement over the heaps of CH babies imported from Africa, that may or may not do well for an owner. I don't see a problem with this. I include care sheets with all the normals I sell individually. In my opinion, this is doing things the RIGHT way, and improving things in the pet trade as a result.

Okay.... good! This is what any good keeper, including myself...does with the offspring of their children (snakes). But the reason we are facing the loss of our hobby today is because for every good keeper there is, there's a scumbag who's making all the right mistakes and is slowly fueling the opposition's fire. The whole reason I work with some really off the wall snakes (like striped keelbacks) and will continue to acquire more off the wall species of natricine is to provide another option for those looking for quality and to lessen the need for more snakes to be taken out of the wild. It will never be a business for me.... it's my passion and what little I do get goes right back into it.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Yeah, can't say I agree with that statement. I think what she might have meant is that it's not right to view them ONLY as a source of income. They must also be viewed as living things with feelings and treated humanely and with respect.

Yea. What he said. I wish I saw this post sooner. Would have saved me writing.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

I guess it's the notion that breeding for money leads to two things:

1. Neglect or abuse, usually through less than optimal living conditions and overbreeding individual animals. Think: Puppy mills. Naturally, that's not what has to happen and it does not mean that people who don't breed animals for money don't abuse and neglect their animals.

2. Selling to just anybody. The larger the quantities, the bigger the need to "unload". Doesn't mean that occasional breeder don't do this, either

yeeeesssssss. <3



I'm inclined to agree with you on the "designer dog" issue. I am however going to take it a few steps futher and say that the I find the whole idea of purebred dogs both sad and hilarious. When people brag about having a purebred or prize-winning whatever, I really just want to tell them: "No, you have a disfigured, inbred wolf." This can be applied to designer dogs as well. In some cases, the same principle applies to snakes and other reptiles.


I have to be perfectly honest with you Stefan, I agree... I DO think that the whole purebred dog thing is absolutely silly... and when it affects the animal's well being it's not so great... what I mean is how some breeds are especially prone to certain health issues because of their severe disfigurement (English bulldogs and their breathing problems for one, and great danes with their extremely short life spans)

BUT.... for me it came down to this. You have to pick your poison. At least with the purebred thing, most of the breeders and what not, they have some sort of standard! They have expectations and very high standards and they care about their freaking dogs more than themselves. The GOOD breeders, that is. Oh yes... that lady that comes into my store that breeds those hideous chinese cresteds (those half naked tiny little "dog" things)... oh yesss she drives me nuts with her incessant petty little things about all our products and the way she fusses over those dogs.... but in the end what matters is that she loves them so much, and that they are SO healthy and happy because of the way she cares. We cannot say the same for those who are filling the world's pet stores with as many random combinations of dogs as they can make!

[MasSalvaje]

When people brag about having a purebred or prize-winning whatever, I really just want to tell them: "No, you have a disfigured, inbred wolf.".

I vote this the best quote of all time!!!!!!!!!:D

Stefan, it is too bad that we live half a world apart and will probably never meet in person. I think we would get along you and I.

-Thomas

[WingedWolfPsion]

There are always going to be problems. The question is, how should they be dealt with? Do you punish all of the people who are doing the right thing in order to try to prevent the bad people from having the opportunity to do the wrong thing? Or do you just punish the bad people when they do wrong?

The rule change is about taking away the rights of everyone to transport large snakes with them when they move...and it's being done under the guise of helping to protect the ecosystem. Not only will it not accomplish that goal, but it punishes breeders, and owners who do care about their pets.
This is the kind of legislation we HAVE to fight.
Florida has now passed a ban of the large constrictors, and of Nile Monitors. So the only place in the US where they can legitimately survive in the wild has now prohibited their sale or importation. Why is there a need to alter the Lacey Act?

The Lacey Act is there as means to help protect native wildlife and prevent invasive species from entering into native ecosystems. It's NOT meant to be used as a tool to accomplish ANYTHING else. Even if you think, for some reason, that large snakes should be banned in order to protect people, or protect the snakes--the Lacey Act is the wrong tool to use to accomplish this. We should not support the misuse of a legal act to accomplish some political end it was not intended for.

[drache]

not sure whether this link will work, but it's a little NY Times video about the pythons in the everglades
http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/05/07/science/1247467800544/lord-of-the-pythons.html?th&emc=th

[WingedWolfPsion]

Any mention in there about the utter failure, over a period of 2 months, of any person given a hunting permit to find a single Burmese this spring?

[ConcinusMan]

Sort of. It was implied. Florida did experience a hard freeze last winter, '09 or was it the winter of '08, I don't remember. the freeze extended clear to southern florida. Miami had lows below 32 for long enough to kill tropical species. Most of the pythons did not survive. No pythons, or no abundance of them = no permits or hunts needed.

[Stefan-A]

Just hope that those that did survive didn't do so because they were more cold-tolerant.

[ConcinusMan]

I don't think so. More likely that they were the right size, and in the right place at the right time, to find shelter from the cold. I think the big population boom that has been in the news was due to several years of warm, favorable weather and abundance of prey. That lead to bigger snakes and higher reproductive success.

[WingedWolfPsion]

It's such an embarrassment for the politicians, and Rodda and Reed, who were claiming these animals would be populating Kansas.

[ConcinusMan]

pppttt!! yeah right! I never heard that. That's funny.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Yes, this is the map they used. This is their 'projection' of where Burmese pythons will be able to colonize in the US.
http://blogs.nationalgeographic.com/blogs/news/chiefeditor/Burmese-python-distribution-map.jpg
This is part of the infamous USGS report that is being used as support for these legislative efforts.

[Stefan-A]

Looks like sloppy GIS work. How did they arrive at that conclusion?

[ConcinusMan]

I guess they forgot the small detail that pythons do NOT have an instinct or motivation to brumate and if they get caught in a freeze, THEY'RE DEAD!

[WingedWolfPsion]

They used climate, and climate ALONE. And then they used PROJECTED CLIMATE CHANGES based on current global warming. This is the absurd result.

[ConcinusMan]

They failed to take into account that as the global climate warms, heavier snows and freezes will happen in areas where it wouldn't normally happen. In fact, all manners of extreme weather will happen where it normally wouldn't.

Those snakes would be better off with a little global cooling.:cool:

[WingedWolfPsion]

Absolutely. This is the information that legislators and officials are using as a basis for their Lacey Act rule change, and other related attempts at banning large pythons. I'm glad we have USARK doing all it can on our behalf, because other reptiles will not be far behind. HSUS has an agenda, and it's got the ear of several influential politicians.

Frogs are next--in a move that seems reasonable, a proposed rule change will add all amphibians which have not been 'certified free of chytrid' to the Lacey Act's list of injurious species.
The question is, what will be necessary to certify an amphibian to be free of chytrid?

First they came for the large pythons...
then they came for the dart frogs...


GOOD NEWS, however, for those who meant to put in a comment on the python and boa rule change--USARK has succeeded in securing an extension for comments.
You now have another 30 days to make a comment on this rule change.

[ConcinusMan]

And I suppose if you're not a registered voter, your comment is moot.

I won't bother since I know the outcome has already been decided. If you disagree, you're living in fantasy land.:cool:

The comment period is just their way of throwing you a bone, and saying "good dog" for laying by your dish.

The comments will change nothing.

Present an overwhelming majority of voter power who also happen to love pythons, and think they shouldn't be banned, and the story takes a different turn altogether.

Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that's going to happen. If that was going to happen, we (the minority) wouldn't have any need to comment and we wouldn't be here right now discussing it.

[Stefan-A]

And I suppose if you're not a registered voter, your comment is moot.

I won't bother since I know the outcome has already been decided. If you disagree, you're living in fantasy land.:cool:

The comment period is just their way of throwing you a bone, and saying "good dog" for laying by your dish.

The comments will change nothing.

Present an overwhelming majority of voter power who also happen to love pythons, and think they shouldn't be banned, and the story takes a different turn altogether.

Call me a pessimist, but I don't think that's going to happen. If that was going to happen, we (the minority) wouldn't have any need to comment and we wouldn't be here right now discussing it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWhLSORCwW0

[drache]

I liked that
thanks Stefan

[ConcinusMan]

That was very interesting. Just drives home my point. The letters pouring in calling for the ban have been piling up for years. Now there's a just relatively few, at the last minute calling to stop the ban. Unless the president of the United States decides to get a pet burmese python...

[WingedWolfPsion]

Why would you not be a registered voter?

[ConcinusMan]

There are a variety of reasons. My reason is I don't give a damn. Politics is a joke. Look where voting has taken us so far. Yeah, America is in real good shape. Thanks voters! good job! :rolleyes:

I figure that my help is not needed. Things can go to hell in a handbasket with or without me.

I'm going to go out on limb here. Mark my words, the ban will happen. Maybe not this time, but it will happen, with or without your vote or comment.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Politics is a joke. Look where voting has taken us so far. Yeah, America is in real good shape. Thanks voters! good job! :rolleyes:


/agrees

politics is the biggest joke in the world. I never have and
never will get tied up in the notion that wasting my time and thoughts on a bunch of greedy old white guys who are in it for themselves is going to do any sort of good. Because it's not... I see people that are SO tied up and so concerned with politics and to me it's a damned shame that they are wasting their time and energy like that... But to each his own I suppose.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Well, if any of this stuff gets passed, it won't be MY fault that it happened, then. Look in the mirror.

USARK and the efforts of everyone in the herp community stopped these bills the FIRST time through by speaking out. This means...you're wrong. Sorry.
When enough people make a stink, Politicians actually pay attention to that. The fight isn't over, but it is long and exhausting, and that's what HSUS and the promoters of these bills will use. As people lose interest and stop speaking out, the apparent resistance to the bill will evaporate--that's when it can become a law. Not now. We have several politicians on our side, and we have to keep showing them support, as well as blocking and delaying the things our opponents are trying to slip through.

This is the last thing I expected to be doing when I decided to breed reptiles for a living. If I don't do it, it's like giving up my future without a fight. I hate politics, too, but if I want to continue to keep reptiles, I have no choice. Obviously you two are willing to give up yours without saying a word. Trust me, your garter snakes aren't even remotely safe from all of this. HSUS has them on the chopping block, too. They know how to play the politics game, and they're getting things done.

People who think this is all useless...are frankly uneducated in how the system actually works, and what's more, they haven't been paying any attention at all (well, the latter does lead to the former). We wouldn't still have the right to keep Burms in most of the US right now if it weren't for USARK and the reptile community's small efforts at letter-writing and commenting.

I'm sorry you think that our only chance to continue legally keeping reptiles in the US is a waste of your time.

[ConcinusMan]

"USARK and the efforts of everyone in the herp community stopped these bills the FIRST time through by speaking out."

I think you're referring to HR669. (?) That one wasn't going to pass anyway. It was so stupid it never would have made it to the house or senate anyway, unless every committee member happens to be a complete idiot. If you choose to believe the public comments and protesting is what stopped it, then you don't have to know you've wasted your time. It didn't make it past that point because it was idiotic. Again, this time around, it is still too broad. A ban on constrictors that get over 15 feet is not a bad idea. Besides, this bill is about adding them to the "injurious species" list. Obviously not all pythons fall into that category and THAT is why it won't pass as-is.

All this talk of a ban on burmese pythons will destroy "our only chance to continue legally keeping reptiles in the US" is just nonsense. That statement reeks of the kind of sensationalism that Senator Bill Nelson used by trying to ban all pythons by showing the size of ONE of the species. Basically, it's a lie, but if people hear it enough, they begin to believe it, and you have their support.

"...your garter snakes aren't even remotely safe from all of this. HSUS has them on the chopping block, too."

I don't think so. That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Anyway, it was just like I said before, some kind of ban, in one form or another is going to happen with or without comments and protests.

I think maybe it's better for your cause if I don't vote or comment, because I would have to say that I would support the bill if they narrow it down to a few species that really do belong on that list of injurious species. I think the reptile hobby and trade, and related industries are not going to suffer from banning 20 foot, face biting, child killing snakes. Burmese pythons are terrible choice as a pet.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

"...your garter snakes aren't even remotely safe from all of this. HSUS has them on the chopping block, too."

I don't think so. That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Anyway, it was just like I said before, some kind of ban, in one form or another is going to happen with or without comments and protests.

I think maybe it's better for your cause if I don't vote or comment, because I would have to say that I would support the bill if they narrow it down to a few species that really do belong on that list of injurious species. I think the reptile hobby and trade, and related industries are not going to suffer from banning 20 foot, face biting, child killing snakes. Burmese pythons are terrible choice as a pet.

I'm using my phone... I've got About 2 mins but I agree with mostly everything you said... Except for you last sentence. That's like generalizing that since some pitbulls bite people they should all be banned! I mean, have you ever worked with a cb properly raised Burm? They are among the most docile snake there is. They make great pets. Just not for everybody. Punish the deed, not the breed!!!!

[mustang]

same as shannon (litterly even da phone part....but i got more battery :) ) punish the deed not breed...if this thing gets passed anyway i can assure u checker has gotten nearly a whole high school on the pro-snake side! iv made everyone listen to herp rants lol

[ConcinusMan]

! I mean, have you ever worked with a cb properly raised Burm? They are among the most docile snake there is. They make great pets. Just not for everybody. Punish the deed, not the breed!!!!

Actually, I have. That's why I say they have a tendency to unpredictable and will bite. Just a bite from a large one is quite injurious. The only exception to that I've seen is when they are way overfed and overweight. There are so many better choices for pet snakes.

[WingedWolfPsion]

"USARK and the efforts of everyone in the herp community stopped these bills the FIRST time through by speaking out."

I think you're referring to HR669. (?)

No, I was not. I was referring to S-373, and other bills you probably aren't even aware of. They don't want you to be aware of them.



A ban on constrictors that get over 15 feet is not a bad idea. Besides, this bill is about adding them to the "injurious species" list. Obviously not all pythons fall into that category and THAT is why it won't pass as-is.

You think not? They're using the bogus USGS report as 'evidence' that these animals are injurious species. Meanwhile, Senator Nelson tried to slip S-373 BACK through, to add them to the Lacey Act WITHOUT going through proper channels, while people were focusing on the PROPER attempt. Thankfully, 2 Oklahoma senators are on our side and have agreed to block S-373 from being added to the unanimous consent roster.

This doesn't have anything to do with 'animals over 15 feet'. Boas rarely get to 12 feet! Island subspecies of boas, burms and retics stay under 6 feet!


All this talk of a ban on burmese pythons will destroy "our only chance to continue legally keeping reptiles in the US" is just nonsense. That statement reeks of the kind of sensationalism that Senator Bill Nelson used by trying to ban all pythons by showing the size of ONE of the species. Basically, it's a lie, but if people hear it enough, they begin to believe it, and you have their support.

No, peoples' failure to act on this and other bills they're trying to slip through will end our chance to legally keep reptiles in the US. Not this specific bill, but peoples' apathy and unwillingness to spend a couple of minutes sending an e-mail...peoples' unwillingness to give a bleep about what's going on in the world around them.



"...your garter snakes aren't even remotely safe from all of this. HSUS has them on the chopping block, too."

I don't think so. That's a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Oh, really? If you don't believe me, get the information STRAIGHT FROM HSUS.

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/Reptiles_as_Pets.html
Read for yourself. It could not be more clear, and it is absolutely not open to any other interpretation. It is a 100% unambiguous attack on keeping any reptile as a pet. And they're backing with their multi-million dollar budget devoted primarily to lobbying. You have a powerful enemy that you didn't even realize was your enemy.


Anyway, it was just like I said before, some kind of ban, in one form or another is going to happen with or without comments and protests.

And you say this based on your vast pool of experience with politics? If that were true, HR 669 would have passed months ago. They wouldn't have even needed to write S-373, much less try to go back and use the proper channels to add the animals to the Lacey Act. It's amazing to me that you feel you know everything about politics, but you have avoided learning about it completely.


I think maybe it's better for your cause if I don't vote or comment, because I would have to say that I would support the bill if they narrow it down to a few species that really do belong on that list of injurious species. I think the reptile hobby and trade, and related industries are not going to suffer from banning 20 foot, face biting, child killing snakes. Burmese pythons are terrible choice as a pet.

Child killing? I hope you realize that the Florida Burm was innocent. Unless you honestly believe that an 8 foot long snake decided to try to eat a 2-year old.
That poor, emaciated, neglected snake was framed by its drug-abusing, child-murdering owner.
Ever hear of a python striking its unmoving, sleeping prey several times before constricting it? Oh, yeah--how did it manage to bite the child several times without waking her? And how is it that a large grown man couldn't remove the snake from her, but had to stab it in the back of the neck...without once missing and hitting the kid?

Ever stab snake in the back of the neck? Probably not. Ever see someone cut off a snake's head? Do you think it would remain coiled around its prey if you did? Or would it writhe around for a long time, dying slowly?

They found the snake coiled around the child, dead, with a knife in the back of its neck. She had multiple bites on her. Of course, they didn't find her for HOURS after the 911 call, because druggy boyfriend refused the police admittance to the house without a warrant. Did you know that?

The man suffocated that poor child, goaded the snake into biting her--possibly even just forced its mouth open to make it leave tooth marks on her--and then he killed it. Then he posed it with the child. Then he called 911. Then he realized he had drugs in the house, so he shouldn't let the cops in...what a genius.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

Actually, I have. That's why I say they have a tendency to unpredictable and will bite. Just a bite from a large one is quite injurious.

Yes.... so have I and I find them to be quite the opposite. Every snake in the world has a tendency to be unpredictable.... that's part of what makes a snake, a snake! I don't find them to be any less predictable than my natricines. Actually, I have a lot of garters that are 100 times less predictable. A bite from any large animal is injurious.... dogs injure an infinitely larger amount of people every year than large pythons. Even cats... if you get bitten by a cat and it punctures you, you are basically guaranteed an infection. Even if you attempt to sterilize the wound!




The only exception to that I've seen is when they are way overfed and overweight. There are so many better choices for pet snakes.


Then whoever was keeping those snakes was doing it wrong.... there are methods in place to feed animals that size so that it does not associate you with food every time you work with it. If you don't stick to the routine, if you are inconsistent, then it's your fault if you get bit. (It's ALWAYS your fault if you get bit...) Maybe for some people, there are better choices, but That's just the point, they are choices that people can make for themselves. They are not the best choice for everyone, but some choose them, and love them to pieces and get many many years of enjoyment out of keeping snakes like that. What is the best choice as a pet snake is strictly opinion and varies greatly from person to person.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Keeping giant snakes has proven to be a fairly low-risk choice compared with keeping other large animals such as big dogs, cattle, pigs, horses, etc. And it's true, many more people have died of infections from cat bites than from large snakes.

A bite from a large burm might require stitches in extreme circumstances, but it would be nowhere near as damaging as a bite from a large dog.

But again, this isn't about giant snakes--this is an attempt to cripple the TRADE in these species without regard to their adult size. There is also no regard here for public safety, because nothing about this will prevent people from owning or breeding these snakes. They're already bred in ever State in the US except for Hawaii. Florida, the only State where they've actually caused a problem, has just banned their ownership. So what exactly will be accomplished by adding them to the Lacey Act?

This is an attack on breeders and on the pet trade, and it has nothing to do with the merits of the Burmese as a pet, nor even its potential to invade parts of the US. It would do absolutely nothing to change either of those things.

[mustang]

reptiles are in my opinion less dangerous than dogs...also when a family has a big snakeif snake and it kills a child id blame the parents for not securing the snake correctly...happend in florda and the parents lost both their girl and the snake (killed snake tryn to save girl) ....they didnt put the lid on right and didnt blame snake but the media did.if a snake kills someone everyone goes into shock....if a dog kils some one noone even knows about it because it happens so often.ALSO stupidity is common in pet trade in my opinion everyone should be subject to a test to determin if they can care for any animal they want to purchase when it gets to adult size, if they cant then they cant have it until they can!

[ConcinusMan]

http://www.hsus.org/pets/issues_affecting_our_pets/Reptiles_as_Pets.html
Read for yourself. It could not be more clear, and it is absolutely not open to any other interpretation. It is a 100% unambiguous attack on keeping any reptile as a pet. And they're backing with their multi-million dollar budget devoted primarily to lobbying. You have a powerful enemy that you didn't even realize was your enemy.

The only thing I get from that link is that they strongly discourage it and you had to dig deep just to find that. Sure didn't seem like an attack to me and that page alone does not equal an all out campaign to ban reptiles as pets. They also make very good points.




Child killing? I hope you realize that the Florida Burm was innocent.


What animal isn't? Piranhas are innocent. Deadly venomous snakes are innocent. Does that mean just anyone should have the right to buy and keep them?



Unless you honestly believe that an 8 foot long snake decided to try to eat a 2-year old.
Wasn't the first time, and won't be the last.



That poor, emaciated, neglected snake was framed by its drug-abusing, child-murdering owner.
Ever hear of a python striking its unmoving, sleeping prey several times before constricting it? Oh, yeah--how did it manage to bite the child several times without waking her? And how is it that a large grown man couldn't remove the snake from her, but had to stab it in the back of the neck...without once missing and hitting the kid?

You've got to be kidding me. Yeah, poor snake. You weren't there. "unmoving" you say, was she asleep? you don't know that. Also, a grown man couldn't remove the snake for obvious reasons. If you don't know what that reason is, you shouldn't own a large python. Never seen a snake immobilize a prey item, let go and bite again? C'mon.




Ever stab snake in the back of the neck? Probably not. Ever see someone cut off a snake's head? Do you think it would remain coiled around its prey if you did? Or would it writhe around for a long time, dying slowly?


Same thing happened right here in Portland, OR. So called "tame" burmese python laying with it's owner. Pet for almost 20 years. Snake bit the guy on the *** and started constricting. 5 firefighters could not get the snake off of the guy. They cut off it's head, and this caused the snake to constrict even more, and muscles locked that way.



They found the snake coiled around the child, dead, with a knife in the back of its neck. She had multiple bites on her. Of course, they didn't find her for HOURS after the 911 call, because druggy boyfriend refused the police admittance to the house without a warrant. Did you know that?

The man suffocated that poor child, goaded the snake into biting her--possibly even just forced its mouth open to make it leave tooth marks on her--and then he killed it. Then he posed it with the child. Then he called 911. Then he realized he had drugs in the house, so he shouldn't let the cops in...what a genius.

Definitely not a genius. I believe this is a case of "believing is seeing". You don't want to believe the snake did that to the child, and you want anyone but the snake to blame so therefore, the "evidence" can only support your belief. There cannot be another possibility because that would threaten your sense of reality.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not drawing conclusions as to what really happened. You shouldn't either. The fact that the guy was a druggie doesn't make any difference, it just makes it easier for you to justify blaming him. You're right though, in any case, the snake is just being a snake and is therefore innocent. So is a pool of piranhas if they devour a child that falls in.:cool: I suppose everyone should have the right to have a pool of piranhas in their house, with small children present?

Those snakes are dangerous by nature and therefore innocent. People are stupid by nature and therefore must be governed. Yes, I know, the stupid ones are ruining it for the responsible owners. What else is new.

I'm sorry but I don't think there is anything responsible about keeping a 20 foot snake capable of swallowing a human being, and then calling it a "pet".

[Stefan-A]

The only thing I get from that link is that they strongly discourage it and you had to dig deep just to find that. Sure didn't seem like an attack to me and that page alone does not equal an all out campaign to ban reptiles as pets. They also make very good points.
They bring up the worst aspects of the hobby and some extreme examples and present them as if they're the norm. That qualifies as an attack in my book.

It's fundamentally dishonest. Sure, they have some good points, but the end result is a half truth and an enormous leap to the conclusion that "reptiles as pets are hazardous to your health and theirs. No ifs, ands or buts". All of their arguments against reptiles as pets, could easily have been counter-balanced with a simple "Buy captive bred only and educate yourselves", but for some reason they've left that out. :rolleyes: The result is that they condemn the worst aspects (as they should), but without even suggesting that there is an alternative way of doing things.



I'm sorry but I don't think there is anything responsible about keeping a 20 foot snake capable of swallowing a human being, and then calling it a "pet".I could not agree more, but again, I'd take it a few steps further. Frankly, I dislike the whole mentality behind calling an animal, ANY animal a "pet". It's synonymous with "toy" in my view. If anyone can come up with a good alternative term for these animals, that'd be great.

But should animals be banned because some people view them as pets? It's clear that the animal isn't the problem, it's how people view them and the focus of all efforts need to be on changing that. Keeping reptiles, or any animal, should be taken a lot more seriously.

Funny how they don't seem to care that much about people keeping wolves in their homes. That must be a safe, natural environment for them, where they pose no danger to humans, unlike those nasty snakes that want nothing more than to kill your baby and give you salmonellosis.

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

What animal isn't? Piranhas are innocent. Deadly venomous snakes are innocent. Does that mean just anyone should have the right to buy and keep them?
Sorry but I have to LOL at this!!! Piranhas?!?! oh goodness you can't lump those in there.... Piranhas are the biggest wussy fish there is. We have a school of 9 piranhas that are about 4-5 in long so far. The moment you put anything in the tank (your hand) that is unfamiliar they SCAT! They flip out and run for dear life! They hide in the plants and lay on their sides.... even if it's a new and large food item they've never seen before. It takes them about a half hour to work up the courage to swim over to it. Piranhas are incredibly harmless unless you slit your wrists and go for a swim in their native habitat where there are hundreds of thousands of them. They are not bloodthirsty and angry. There is simply no comparison between piranhas, large constrictors and venomous animals.



Also, a grown man couldn't remove the snake for obvious reasons. If you don't know what that reason is, you shouldn't own a large python. Never seen a snake immobilize a prey item, let go and bite again?
an 8 foot, emaciated snake??? Of course he could have removed it. It was only 8 foot. and emaciated. Hell, I could do that. I HAVE done that... Maybe let go and bite one more time to get a better grip....but 3... 4... 5 times? no they don't do that... they bite and hang on for dear life!!!!

[ConcinusMan]

OK Shannon, not every piranha is a wuss just like I have heard that not every burmese python is mean. Seriously? wussy piranhas? Personally I've never seen a tank of piranhas that wouldn't jump out of the tank and latch on to your hand. And those were "pets" purchased in Oregon, but outlawed in WA at the time.(1989 or so?)

From what I understand there is one species that prefers colder water and is fairly large and they are somewhat "wussy". These were tiny mean little red boogers. anyway, that's not the point.

Maybe this particular incident in FL involved a weak emaciated snake. maybe the druggie did commit murder and used the snake as an escape goat. The point is, healthy, well cared for, "tame" pythons have turned on their owners and killed or seriously injured their owners or others. And still, many more snakes suffer from poor care or end up homeless due to inability or unwillingness on the part of the owners. I'm sure more snakes suffer than humans injured by them.

One might argue that dogs are also more dangerous than others. Is that any reason to ban all dogs? heck no. But clearly some breeds are more dangerous than others and the pet trade can thrive without those breeds.

[Stefan-A]

One might argue that dogs are also more dangerous than others. Is that any reason to ban all dogs? heck no. But clearly some breeds are more dangerous than others and the pet trade can thrive without those breeds.
If banning needs to start anywhere, it's with breeds with health problems. That's because it causes suffering to the animal, the owner cannot have any control over that type of problem and there are not really any ways to eliminate the negative aspects of it.

Dangerous animals are a different matter. The owner can actually take measures to make sure no harm is caused and it is ultimately the owner's responsibility to make sure that even a dangerous animal doesn't cause harm, whether that requires more intensive training or even cages for some types. It's not much of a reason to ban an entire breed or a species and it's not much of a consolation that the pet trade can thrive without them. It's overkill. Like trying to prevent breast cancer through mandatory mastectomy.

[WingedWolfPsion]

How about the government NOT getting involved in telling people what they can't keep as a pet? A horse is a large animal that can kick your skull in with one blow of its hoof. People keep them as pets all the time. People get killed by horses. My aunt's arm was broken by her horse. THAT is a dangerous animal.

Let people decide what risks THEY want to take. No one's neighbors are in danger from their pet python.
And no, it really seems vanishingly unlikely that the Burmese in Florida actually killed the child. The man had a history of child abuse--it doesn't take a genius to work out what really happened, particularly given the small size of that snake. If it was a bigger snake, maybe...but not an 8 footer. The entire scenario is hard to buy. This has nothing to do with my wanting the snake to be innocent--this is about the facts of the case. They do not add up.

HSUS is supporting every reptile ban or restriction bill that comes into being. They're also busily attacking the livestock industry, and they're working on putting dog breeders out of business, too. They're support mandatory spay/neuter bills.

We can all live without pets, so should they ban them for our protection? I'm allowed to bungee jump off a hot air balloon, but I can't keep a 6 foot dwarf Burmese because some Senator in Florida said it was going to invade Texas, and the CDC says it might possibly carry salmonella (so might your dog). You think this is right? This is what you want to happen? Let them ban everything that might be remotely dangerous.

Let them take away all of your freedoms, one tiny little thing at a time. You can do that, or you can fight them every step of the way, and make them work for it.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"
--Benjamin Franklin

[aSnakeLovinBabe]

One might argue that dogs are also more dangerous than others. Is that any reason to ban all dogs? heck no. But clearly some breeds are more dangerous than others and the pet trade can thrive without those breeds.

This is all I need to read to see that you have been seriously misinformed about dogs...:confused:

[ConcinusMan]

@ aSnakeLovinBabe: Well I sure as heck don't see any pomeranians attacking and killing children.

@ WingedWolf: Jeez, as far as that goes, why do we need any law at all? We don't need the govt. telling us what we can and can't do.

[ssssnakeluvr]

dogs kill more people each year in the U.S. than snakes.....

[Stefan-A]

dogs kill more people each year in the U.S. than snakes.....
Well, which kills more people is not really a measurement of how dangerous they are. The focus should be on how large a percentage of dogs and snakes kill people each year. It probably doesn't change the situation, but if they don't exist in equal numbers, they can't be compared directly.

[ssssnakeluvr]

good point.... people kill more people than anything... but they wont ban people :eek::rolleyes:

[ConcinusMan]

Well, which kills more people is not really a measurement of how dangerous they are. The focus should be on how large a percentage of dogs and snakes kill people each year. It probably doesn't change the situation, but if they don't exist in equal numbers, they can't be compared directly.

I agree.

[jere000]

Well if were banning things that are dangerous lets throw cars, guns, and everything else in the world too, screw it lets all live in plastic bubbles.

[ConcinusMan]

Hey! while we're at it, let's make cocaine and heroin legal!

[Stefan-A]

Hey! while we're at it, let's make cocaine and heroin legal!
You know, that has been proposed and some countries are actually implementing it right now. The idea behind it is that the consequences of these drugs being illegal are far more serious and damaging to society, than the effects they have on the users. And so far, it actually seems to improve the situation, with fewer people using and more users seeking treatment.

I know your post was rhetorical, but if we start debating this, we'll be going far off topic.

[WingedWolfPsion]

I don't mind laws that protect me from the actions of other people--I mind when they create victimless crimes. I see no reason why the government should have the right to tell us whether or not we can risk our lives. These laws are hypocritical--as I said, I can bungee jump off a hot air balloon, go free climbing, or hang-gliding, but they want to protect me from keeping a large snake for a pet?

Giant snakes aren't really dangerous if safe handling practices are observed. Hang gliding is dangerous no matter WHAT you do.

[ConcinusMan]

BAN HANG GLIDING NOW!! (just kidding)