» Site Navigation
1 members and 891 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.
» Today's Birthdays
» Stats
Members: 75,908
Threads: 249,107
Posts: 2,572,125
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
|
-
The Consumerist:
guys i think the reptile community could use a bit of support in the comments section of this post!!
Get Your Giant Snakes While They're Still Affordable
-
Re: The Consumerist:
I posted my opinion, I sure hope it helps to make people think about the ramifications that this ban could have!:(
-
Re: The Consumerist:
What I don't understand is for the few snakes that are out and about what damage to the local eco system are they doing ??? I don't believe there has been a study with any concrete data.
-
Re: The Consumerist:
I put up my reply. Here it is:
Quote:
The first thing that's important is to not think about these animals as snakes. The general public has a fear of snakes for no reason other than someone told them they should be scared. For evidence of this, take a kid who has not been indoctrinated to fear these animals to a zoo. They're enchanted by these animals and wish to interact with them. These animals make fantastic pets that are VERY low maintenance, but they do require research prior to purchasing them (just like any pet). My 1 Siberian Husky takes more time to care for than my entire collection of boas. So, think of these animals as pets. In fact, think of these animals as your pets, then read my comments below and tell me if you think this "ban" makes any sense.
This "ban" is so misunderstood that it's ridiculous.
The "ban" is on the importation of these animals (the incredibly vast majority of which is legal as they're relatively inexpensive so it's not worth it to smuggle them) as well as the movement of these animals across state lines.
The two practical implications are that:
1) if you own one, you could not move to a new state with your pet and you'd either have to:
a) not move and remain landlocked in your current home state - forever. For any reason. Including needing to move to care for a sick family member, evacuating due to disaster, or being relocated for work, or military service (MANY members of the armed forces have these animals).
b) sell the animal
c) give it to a shelter that doesn't want it and doesn't have the money to care for it
d) release it into the wild
e) euthanize it
2) if you sell these animals, you can no longer sell across state lines which is the activity that supports the vast majority of the industry via the internet.
This is important because the reptile industry is worth approximately 3 billion dollars to the US economy and these 9 species of pets represent approximately 1/3 of the industry. An analogy would be a 3-legged chair - each leg is 1/3 of the support for the chair. If you cut one leg out from under the chair, what happens? It falls over. That's what will happen to the industry. Millions (yes, I said MILLIONS) of responsible pet owners will be land-locked within their home state for simply owning a pet, legally I might add. And tens of thousands of business who sell the animals as well as the supplies to care for them will be literally bankrupted overnight due to diminished demand and thus a unsustainably low price.
The worst part of it all, the legislation will have no direct positive impact on the animals that are in the Everglades. To prove that, I would like for someone to illustrate how moving a pet from Maine to Nebraska will have any effect on a wild animal living in S. Florida. Can't be done.
How about a person doing business in Florida selling a new pet to someone in Washington. Anyone??
These two activities would be a felony should this legislation pass. Punishment could be as severe as 5 years in prison and a $20,000 fine, per infraction of the law. Interestingly, each animal, and each state line crossed is a new infraction.
This legislation does not solve the problem, it only creates more problems. Responsible owners and sellers will only be negatively affected. Irresponsible owners will continue to be irresponsible, just like they are with all pets. But irresponsible owners are not the bulk of the problem. Yes, animals have been in the Everglades for years. But there were never significant numbers until Hurricane Andrew destroyed multiple facilities containing these animals back in 1992, and blew the contents of the facilities into the Everglades. The very first breeding populations weren't found until 3 years later in 1995. Science and a logical timeline support the conclusion that Hurricane Andrew is the cause of the MAJORITY of the non-native animals in the wild. But 20 year old hurricanes don't grab headlines, irresponsible people do, so that's the villain that our legislators have decided to villify.
Also of note, this legislation makes no provisions, implied or otherwise, to remove these animals from the Everglades. This legislation also provides no penalties for releasing these animals into the wild (it's actually already illegal to do so).
So just HOW does this legislation help? I can't figure it out. Perhaps someone more intelligent than I am could figure this out.
Interestingly, there has been a rash of "released pets" in the last 120 days. Amazing that it's never happened before in such numbers. I think it's important to know that The HSUS (Humane Society of the US) is pushing this legislation and they do not want people to own any reptiles of any kind, for any reason. This statement can be verified with a simple search on the internet. Anyone think it's possible they're trying to further this legislation by purposely releasing animals into the wild so they get caught and grab headlines and create hysteria? It's happened before with radical animal rights groups releasing cobras in NC. These extremists are NOT above such actions which endanger the public to further their cause.
Almost done here..., it should be known that EVERY reptile owner would support legislation that actually did something to help the Everglades situation. Every single one of us believe that these animals should not be in the Everglades and we all hate that they're there. But there has yet to be a proposal that will address the situation in any way. The only legislation proposed has been proposed by Animal Rights activists intent on destroying pet ownership. We can not support such legislation.
Finally, it should also be noted that feral cats do FAR more damage to wild environments across the US, not just S. Florida that these other pets. However, no legislation has been proposed to regulate the movement of cats across state lines. Why? It would be political suicide. However, politicians who are being funded by animals rights activists see reptile owners as easy targets and they've decided to attack us. Don't support these attacks. However, feel free to support legislation that WILL impact the wild populations of these animals while simultaneously protecting the rights of millions of Americans to keep their pets responsibly, and for small businesses to stay afloat in these hard economic times.
Thank you.
I did my best to minimize the use of the word snake, python, boa, anaconda. Just reading those words will make many people cringe so I tried to use the words "pet" and "animal(s)".
I did see this screen afterwards:
Quote:
Thank you for commenting.
Your comment has been received and held for approval by the blog owner.
We'll see if it makes it through the censoring process...
jb
-
Re: The Consumerist:
FANTASTIC POST Jonathan Brady! (hope i spelled that right)
i'm not sure if any of you actually follow that blog. i do every now and again, there are interesting stories on there sometimes.
i don't think their "comment censoring" is very harsh, thankfully. yours will for sure make it through. i think it's more to check for blatant unnecessary swearing and name calling.
i really like the site because a lot of opinions and different POV's get thrown back and forth on various things.
thanks everyone for posting!
|