H.R. 511 - Letter to the US House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisher

You seem to be missing the bigger picture here - it's about the government controlling rights that have no need to be controlled? The more snakes that get put on the lacey act the more power we give the government to regulate what is and isn't considered an injurious species. This argument is not even being cross examined here - you seem to have an issue with my reference to it be like a tax? We'll suck it up, it is a tax in Texas to own these animals. Look at where the money goes for your registration and you will see that. As someone who keeps animals currently on the Lacy act and more being "fought to add" on the lacey act. I keep up with my local and federal laws constantly.

My point for this entire matter though is we do not need more regulations as was suggested in the written letter - I am for there being alternative ways to handle the situation, but quite frankly there is no situation outside of the southern florida area. There are literally no other populations in the US?! Florida handled the situation within their state for what's going on. That should've been enough. . . The federal government needs to take two steps back and realize that it is not helping the bigger picture, and imposing more rules, regulations, fees, and registrations is not the answer to what "free america" is all about people. That simple.

There is no reason whatsoever to control or pass regulations on large constrictors. The wild population of constrictors has never attacked a single human. It is a localized situation which impacts a localized ecology and there are localized regulations in place which are preventing the problem from being solved. For instance, there is a 3 month hunting season on burms in Florida, if we want to get rid of the animals, simply get rid of the "season" and allow year round hunting of the animals. Get rid of barriers to entry for small business and you will begin seeing Burmese skin sellers which will give the hunters more reason to hunt them and create growth in the local economy. Another large problem which is completely evident here is the problem of the commons, which is best solved by relinquishing public ownership of land over to private hands and allowing the owners of the private land dispute resolution through the courts if their land is damaged (by burmese in this case).

I agree that the legislation should be left up to the states, however I still stand by my opinion that regulaion is not a bad thing. It is no different than haing a posted speed limit or having to get a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle. You have to have your "permit" to drive and to keep certain species of animals as pets that could be dangerous to others. Once driving you are required to follow traffic laws and once you are keeping these species you are required to keep your animals from doing damage to either another person or your local ecosystem. Why am I not seeing you up in arms about having to get a drivers license and use your turn signal? Nothing in the constitution about that, so it is unconstitutional, right? Same with being required to have insurance...

I do not disagree with having speed limits on roads, I do not disagree with having a "permit" to drive on said roads, or being required to have some form of insurance to drive on a road. My issue is with the involuntary nature of all of these "regulations" when they are in the public sphere because of the monopoly that the State holds on these agencies. For instance, I have no choice but to drive on public roads because nothing else is offered to me, so I have to "obey" (like anyone does that) the laws on the road. What I would prefer would be to have the choice to choose the road service that best fit my preferences as a consumer.

I could care less about the constitution aswell, since appealing to it is simply an argument from authority which is illogical. Roads can easily be provided without having a monopoly on the service and safety on said roads (if thats what people want - Which I do) would boost sales for the company that was the safest.

And again, these burmese are not a danger at all, the "problem" is such a miniscule one. If your going to go on a crusade to regulate anything and everything that has killed 10-20 people over 40 years then go right ahead but I can tell you that a central planner could never in their wildest dreams achieve it. Keep in mind too that every law from the State is simply a gun pointed at someone if they do not obey it and resist arrest. So if your going to start talking about regulations and laws you'd better be pretty airtight that what your doing is right and/or worth the amount of violence/power your legitimizing.

My argument in this matter could simply be put that these regulations are laced by the state at the push of the government. You give up certain rights to achieve the benefit of driving. But again these laws are not federal but state. State speeds. State license. We already have state laws in place that protect idiots from owning these animals yes. That should be enough. We do not need federal intervention in any way shape or form for the procession of these animals that pose no threat except to the person who keeps them. Name one death from a snake that was found outside of its owners home or property?? It all happens in the confines of that persons home. Most of the time it's the keeper who is hurt. Other minor instances have been participants in school events getting hurt from a bite but these have been mainly minor (I do know of a major one that resulted in a pretty large law suite but another time).

So am I against speed limits? No that's fine your on public access. But in my home, don't tell me what snakes I can possess at my own risk when it does no harm to others.

For everyone's info: vote has been postponed 24 hours. House now votes on the 30th of November.