Attention all herp owners!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitzu

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but they have a reason to ban big snakes. That excuse is not going to work with smaller species, and, short of PETA/HSUS taking over the country, I don't see how any other justification is going to fly.

I'm not really worried at all. Although it is a bit of a bummer because I was hoping to have a retic one day. :mad:

---

This Bill is not just about "Big Snakes." Look at the list. One of the listed animals is "Boa Constrictor." Eight snakes on that list are listed by name, but Boa Constrictor is more of a genus or category of snake, and there are alot of different snakes that fall into that category, with half, if not more, of them staying in the 5-7ft. as adults. Some of those have endangered wild populations and are only thriving in captivity because of breeders and keepers.

They don't need justification. All they need is the paranoia of the majority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spitzu

I'm not saying that I agree with it, but they have a reason to ban big snakes. That excuse is not going to work with smaller species, and, short of PETA/HSUS taking over the country, I don't see how any other justification is going to fly.

I'm not really worried at all. Although it is a bit of a bummer because I was hoping to have a retic one day. :mad:

---

You need to do a little more research. First off, this bill is just a shortened version of HR 669. That is what they are really going for in the long run. A ban of all invasive species.

Second, what is the "reason" for banning big snakes? Just because they are big? Or, maybe it's easier to get hurt from not being responsible? Please. You can say that about any animal. Not just big snakes.

Yes, our hobby is in danger. The "facts" they are using to back this bill are wrong, and skewed to side with H$U$. It wouldn't be hard to do the same with balls, lizards, birds, etc. Come on. This is what they want. They want to split us up. Take down one section of pet ownership at a time.

Read USARK's studies please. Get better informed than you are, and then help spread the word.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dr del

Hi,



This is my first reading of the thread so could you tell me what dissapeared?



That is because the original post used links to google image search results rather than to actual pictures.


dr del

---

Ah! Thank you! :gj: I'm not technologically savvy, so I wasn't sure :P

As Stratus said if you ban one you can do it to others, additionally the only attack cases the owner does something wrong. of course big snakes are a responsibility but what makes owning a burmese or reticulated python () any more dangerous than owning a dog ( large carnivores that are usually nice but when abused can be mean). Plus a dogs teeth are MUCH bigger than any snakes teeth.

P.S. all you need to ban balls corns and other herps is mass hysteria and a sprinkle of sensationalism and you've got yourself a ban.
P.S.S. If this ban passes im moving to Canada.

If you are on this forum and not a USARK member, you need to look into it. IMO

USARK is the best protection for our reptile keeping rights.

If anyone remembers not to long ago it was focused on a crocodilian ban, there was no controversy on snakes and look what happened!

It boggles my mind that a person can't have a slow-moving, docile, totally chilled boa, even if they never take it out of the enclosure, but it's "their right" to own a 180 lb German Shepherd that can run 20 - 30 mph, that will bite a HELL of a lot harder, and that can legally be TRAINED to guard property and attack on command. Wtf?

Speaking of, on this constrictor ban, is there a grandfather clause? Because I'm getting my first boa next week and I'll hide her before I give her up.

What you said is very true and yes the father or grandfather of this bill was the crocodilian ban. African rock python bite: 1/2 in. teeth with 6 ibs. of force. SMALL domestic dog bite: 1/2-2 in. teeth and more than 150 ibs. of force.

BTW, congrats on your new boa if the ban succeeds and i cant get a permit than the the united states of bad politicians has lost another citizen.:snake::snake::snake:

Since 1990, there have been 9 total recorded fatalities related to large constrictors... not to sound insensitive or anything, but that's nothing. Do these people know how many injuries and deaths related to domestic horses and dogs occur? Huge numbers!!

Biased much?

The basis of the ban is the invasive species Everglades problem with the burma.They just use propaganda like ohhh they hurt your kids and animals, oh and my favorite they are going to take over 1/3 of the US with global warming, to gain unknowing supporters. Hell drunk drivers and dogs hurt and kill more people everyday than snakes have in decades. I dont see them trying to ban dogs and alcohol. As others have said there are special intrest groups behind this that don't support reptile ownership at all. And I agree that if we dont stop this in it's tracks They are apt to ban them all. Knowledge is POWER.