little snake...

[pitbulllady]

He was too small to take the Jack Russell

As for the snake... For hell's sake, if a person cannot keep their boids contained, they should not have them. Sort of like how that one family who lost a toddler to a python... I have no sympathy for them, as they were polluting the gene pool.

Oh, it gets even better, with that story out of Florida. The guy who owned the snake wasn't even the kid's father; he was just the bf who happened to be shacking up with the mama at the time. The snake had no cage-it was being kept inside a laundry bag inside a 20-gallon aquarium with no lid, just a plastic tarp "secured" with clothes pins. When Animal Control brought the snake in, this nearly nine-foot-long Burm weighed only five pounds. I've had adult Black Rat Snakes that weighed that much! When interviewed by the police, the older children told them that the guy was actually "out buying more weed" when the snake escaped, and that he had not fed the snake in months because "he spend all his money on weed". If anyone can call it like it happens and not hold back, it's a kid! I don't feel sorry for this guy in the least, but I do feel sorry for the toddler and the snake, both innocent victim's of stupidity and neglect here. The child wasn't even related to the guy who brought the snake into the home, and the poor animal, the one who has really been demonized the most, certainly had no choice in how it was treated. The man is a chronic drug abuser with a rap sheet a mile long and multiple convictions who should have never even been allowed near a child, but I'll agree totally that he and the "baby mama" are the lowest life forms in this whole tragedy, along with the politicians and the HSUS who are milking the "fear factor" of this incident to push their agendas through and stop ALL of us from being able to keep snakes. When will the public wake up and see that it's NOT the animals themselves but how they are kept that results in tragedies?

pitbulllady

[GradStudentLeper]

Wow... No wonder it went after the toddler, it was starving.

But people wont get wise. Why? Because snakes are of the Devil and humans can do no wrong (unless they are brown and/or foreign).

[ssssnakeluvr]

maybe we need to clean some of the lawmakers out of the gene pool!

[Didymus20X6]

In all fairness, there have been some pet owners in Florida who really should never have been allowed to own snakes. Some hyperactive spoiled teenager, or some drugged-up hippie who goes to the pet store one day and decides that owning a Burmese is "sooo frickin' kewl, d00d!" A swamp full of thriving, breeding giant snakes that are killing off the local alligator population. Yes, neglegent pet owners are also contributing to the endangerment of a local species.

My solution is quite simple: if someone wants to buy an exotic snake, they must be licensed to own it. Just like dog owners are required to license their dogs, exotic reptile owners be required to license their exotics, especially the dangerous ones, like the Burmese. They would have to be required to show they have adequate ability to care for the animal, including a sufficiently large enclosure, with an internal habitat suitable for the animal's needs, and can readily obtain proper food supplies. They should also be able to prove - perhaps by way of academic credentials, a simple test, or prior ownership of other species - that they can actually provide the right care for the animal.

And how can these policies be enforced? Easy: the pet stores and pet traders who make the sales must verify that those making the purchases are capable of caring for the animals in the right way.

A druggie with no experience of caring for snakes, with no enclosure to keep it safely, and no real concern about the animal or others, who just wants one because "It's soo kewl, man!" should not be allowed to buy one, any more than he should be allowed to buy a gun to rob a liquor store with. But an experienced reptile handler or trained herpetologist with a giant plexiglass enclosure for the animal should be allowed to keep it.

Of course, exceptions can be made for people keeping locally available harmless species, such as garters, corns, or milks.

Bottom line: if the species is dangerous, it should be legally treated the same way a weapon is. Is the owner qualified to keep it? Are they able to keep it safely? And is there some assurance that it won't become a threat to the public? If the answers to all these questions is "Yes", then by all means, allow the person to purchase the snake. Otherwise, do not even allow them to make the purchase, because sooner or later, that snake, through no fault of its own, will become a public nuissance and an environmental threat.

[pitbulllady]

In all fairness, there have been some pet owners in Florida who really should never have been allowed to own snakes. Some hyperactive spoiled teenager, or some drugged-up hippie who goes to the pet store one day and decides that owning a Burmese is "sooo frickin' kewl, d00d!" A swamp full of thriving, breeding giant snakes that are killing off the local alligator population. Yes, neglegent pet owners are also contributing to the endangerment of a local species.

My solution is quite simple: if someone wants to buy an exotic snake, they must be licensed to own it. Just like dog owners are required to license their dogs, exotic reptile owners be required to license their exotics, especially the dangerous ones, like the Burmese. They would have to be required to show they have adequate ability to care for the animal, including a sufficiently large enclosure, with an internal habitat suitable for the animal's needs, and can readily obtain proper food supplies. They should also be able to prove - perhaps by way of academic credentials, a simple test, or prior ownership of other species - that they can actually provide the right care for the animal.

And how can these policies be enforced? Easy: the pet stores and pet traders who make the sales must verify that those making the purchases are capable of caring for the animals in the right way.

A druggie with no experience of caring for snakes, with no enclosure to keep it safely, and no real concern about the animal or others, who just wants one because "It's soo kewl, man!" should not be allowed to buy one, any more than he should be allowed to buy a gun to rob a liquor store with. But an experienced reptile handler or trained herpetologist with a giant plexiglass enclosure for the animal should be allowed to keep it.

Of course, exceptions can be made for people keeping locally available harmless species, such as garters, corns, or milks.

Bottom line: if the species is dangerous, it should be legally treated the same way a weapon is. Is the owner qualified to keep it? Are they able to keep it safely? And is there some assurance that it won't become a threat to the public? If the answers to all these questions is "Yes", then by all means, allow the person to purchase the snake. Otherwise, do not even allow them to make the purchase, because sooner or later, that snake, through no fault of its own, will become a public nuissance and an environmental threat.

In Florida, you ALREADY must have a state permit to own, sell, buy or keep, even on a temporary basis, a Burmese, African Rock, Retic, Iguana or Nile Monitor. This guy ignored that law, so MORE laws will NOT solve the problem! He also has an extensive criminal record, mostly drug-related, so if he chooses to ignore those laws, what makes anyone think he's going to obey another one? Not everywhere requires dog licenses, by the way, and places with the most-stringent licensing requirements and even BSL prohibiting certain breeds also happen to have the highest number of serious dog bites reported, so clearly, MORE government is NOT the solution.

As for the Burm situation in Florida, while a problem does exist, it has been greatly blown out of proportion by the politicians, the so-called "animal rights groups"(most especially the HSUS)who want to ultimately see ALL animal ownership prohibited, and the news media. DNA analysis of the feral pythons captured and studied thus far does NOT, in fact, bear out the theory that these snakes are descendants of pets that were released, over a period of many years, when their irresponsible owners got tired of them, but that the population as a whole in the Everglades is descended from just a handful of snakes, and has actually been traced to two sources: the snakes at the Miami-Dade Metrozoo and a nearby breeder's facilities, which escaped when their homes and enclosures were damaged by Hurricane Andrew. As for the alligators, rest assured, there is a lot of give and take here, with alligators successfully killing and eating probably far more pythons than the other way around! Feral hogs, raccoons, predatory birds, possums and other animals in the 'Glades certainly consume plenty of python eggs and hatchlings, too.

I always find it extremely problematic when people suggest more government controls and restrictions on animals that they themselves do NOT own, but are always in favor of THEIR animals being exempted from any such restrictions. "Go ahead and require licenses for Boas Constrictors and pythons, but leave my Garters/Corns/Milk Snakes alone" or "Ban the Pit Bulls and the Rottweilers, but don't touch my German Shepherd"-those ways of thinking do not sit well with me at all, and sooner or later, that mentality will come back around to "bite" the people who think it's OK to put more government on the backs of "those OTHER people", but not themselves. Keep in mind here, that there are extremely well-funded, powerful groups who want to put an end to ALL reptile-keeping, all ANIMAL keeping, period, and every time they succeed in pushing through more laws, somewhere, that makes it harder and harder to keep a snake, or a lizard, of any sort, it gives them a strong foot in the door towards taking away another, and another. It's unfortunate that we do have people like this guy in Florida, not only who have large snakes, but who are around CHILDREN. This guy openly smoked pot and did other drugs around his girlfriend's kids; what is that teaching those kids? There is an old saying, "you can't legislate common sense", that is so true. When it comes to more laws, more often than not, the people who are causing the problems will simply ignore them, and the responsible people will be the ones who bear the brunt of the law and its negatives.

pitbulllady

[Didymus20X6]

If there already are laws in place, then that is all that is required. As you say, more laws will not help. And if people break the law, that should not infringe on the rights of those who abide by it.

But in regards to non-native species, there is a distinction, and that is we are speaking of an animal that, under natural conditions, the populace at large will not be in contact with. I can get a garter snake in my back yard (19 so far, in fact), but I can't get a Natrix there, much less a Burmese python. So if someone is keeping a species that is not native to the area, care should be taken that it is adequately cared for and will not escape. And if someone is keeping a dangerous species - one that can cause a significant medical threat - then there should be some reasonable expectation that there won't be a danger to neighbors. If such reasonable expectation is already required by law, that is sufficient.

It is unfortunate that stupidity - like that demonstrated by that drugged-out idiot - cannot be adequately legislated. Or that by those who oppose all animal keeping, even that seasoned with reason and good experience.

[Corinne33]

As a very responsible pit bull owner, and a new snake owner i am NOT in favor of stricter laws. It won't solve anything. Prohibting a breed or an animal will only take that animal from loving caring owners. I follow the law. If BSL creeps up from Cinci to my little suberb and they tell me i can't own my dogs anymore, i'm either going to have to move, or euthanize my dogs. But i can guarentee you the drug dealer my fiancees brother grew up with will not be getting rid of his. My dogs are big marshmallows, utd on their shots, licensed, insured, working on their canine good citizen certifications, the whole nine yards. The drug dealers dog has never even seen the inside of a vets office and would bit you as soon as look at you. People who are irresponsible owners usually aren't the type to worry about ownership laws. The people who would follow the laws are the ones who are responsible enough to care for a "higher maintenance" pet.

[Stefan-A]

As for the snake... For hell's sake, if a person cannot keep their boids contained, they should not have them. Sort of like how that one family who lost a toddler to a python... I have no sympathy for them, as they were polluting the gene pool.

Eugenics for the win, eh?

[GradStudentLeper]

Eugenics for the win, eh?

Hell yeah. Some people are just too stupid to reproduce.

[Zephyr]

Eugenics for the win, eh?

I see what you did thar. lol