Last Chance to stop the Python and Boa Ban!

[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_affe...s_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_affe...s_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. 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. 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.