Indiana: Pythons not welcome

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fishmommy

any laws that restricts people's rights are a bad idea IMO.

although I feel for the animals who end up in the hands of irresponsible owners, legislation is the wrong way to solve the problem.

---

I completely agree :rockon:

What Ohio has proposed, as explained by one poster, seems reasonable to me. A license and restrictions on future ownership if someone scews up is a good start. Some kind of curb, short of a full ban, might also be a good idea for breeding large snakes. They're ubiquitous. Ask any zoo or licensed reptile rescue: There are way too many burms and the like out there that end up on their door steps. I fully agree that getting the government involved sucks, but that already happens in any number of ways that no thinking person complains about. Who could argue against animal cruelty and neglect laws? Many states have laws against puppy mills, with the full support of animal lovers. IMO, reptiles now are suffering because this is an anything-goes hobby/trade, unaffected by animal control laws because animal control officers don't know anything about reptiles, and many probably don't care. Finally, let's be clear here: This isn't going to affect ball pythons. A python is not a python is not a python. There's a big difference between a 20-foot Burm and a 5-foot ball, and these bills in Ohio and Indiana appear to exempt ball pythons, which don't normally get larger than six feet. It can be tough to find a good home for either, but the bigger snakes, I should think, pose the greater challenge in finding appropriate owners. I can hear it now: Today burms, tomorrow, ball pythons. Well, I'll take that chance. And if it comes down to it, I'll jump through the hoops if it ends the days of walking into pet shops and seeing a dozen suffering baby balls stuffed into a cold tank with low humidity.

IMHO, I think they should ban pet stores from selling the big snakes, not ban them from being owned but just from pet stores. Here they sell baby burms like crazy, why, because the pet shop owners tell the people who are looking at them that they will not get big, they will stay under 10 feet. The majority of the time its parents who buy the snakes for their children. When they get too big they dump them anywhere there are reptiles. We have gotten calls from so many people wanting us to take their big snakes and some shelters here are packed with them. A few years ago someone even released the snake into their back yard in the middle of the winter, just because it was too big and our local reptile zoo had to rescue it and it ended up barly making it. :twocents:

I sure hope TN doesnt pass a bill banning reptiles, the reptile laws are extremely silly here. From what ive been told from Will Bird is that its basically illegal to own a native species of snake, included in that is milksnakes, kingsnakes, cornsnakes, etc.... So its actually illegal to own any king, milk, corn, etc.... any type of king snake (cali kings, etc...) any type of milksnake (andeans, etc...) and any type of cornsnake (includeing morphs). Dont know why but thats what ive been told from Will Bird and several others.

I have yet to see any burms or retics at pet shops around here thank goodness! I am scared that one day Louisiana will have the same problem as Florida with people dropping off large snakes so I can see the ban already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digcolnagos

What Ohio has proposed, as explained by one poster, seems reasonable to me. A license and restrictions on future ownership if someone scews up is a good start. Some kind of curb, short of a full ban, might also be a good idea for breeding large snakes. They're ubiquitous. Ask any zoo or licensed reptile rescue: There are way too many burms and the like out there that end up on their door steps. I fully agree that getting the government involved sucks, but that already happens in any number of ways that no thinking person complains about. Who could argue against animal cruelty and neglect laws? Many states have laws against puppy mills, with the full support of animal lovers. IMO, reptiles now are suffering because this is an anything-goes hobby/trade, unaffected by animal control laws because animal control officers don't know anything about reptiles, and many probably don't care. Finally, let's be clear here: This isn't going to affect ball pythons. A python is not a python is not a python. There's a big difference between a 20-foot Burm and a 5-foot ball, and these bills in Ohio and Indiana appear to exempt ball pythons, which don't normally get larger than six feet. It can be tough to find a good home for either, but the bigger snakes, I should think, pose the greater challenge in finding appropriate owners. I can hear it now: Today burms, tomorrow, ball pythons. Well, I'll take that chance. And if it comes down to it, I'll jump through the hoops if it ends the days of walking into pet shops and seeing a dozen suffering baby balls stuffed into a cold tank with low humidity.

---

Just to clarify both the Ohio and Indiana bills DO include Ball pythons. The wording is "any snake with the POTENTIAL to get over 6' ". All you have to do is read any BP care sheet and they say can grow to 6'. To the untrained natural resource officer a python is a python is a python. Regardless if most will never get that big the species has the potential so they are included.

On top of that there are NO hoops to jump through. If you own one today it will cost you $100 per animal to keep it. You are not allowed to breed it and if/when it dies you cannot replace it. You CANNOT get a permit to buy one. (these are specific points in the Indiana law...I am not sure the exact "hoops" for Ohio)

This is a slippery slope to go down. Once it starts in one state they will all start to follow. Precendant of law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord jackel

Just to clarify both the Ohio and Indiana bills DO include Ball pythons. The wording is "any snake with the POTENTIAL to get over 6' ". All you have to do is read any BP care sheet and they say can grow to 6'. To the untrained natural resource officer a python is a python is a python. Regardless if most will never get that big the species has the potential so they are included.

On top of that there are NO hoops to jump through. If you own one today it will cost you $100 per animal to keep it. You are not allowed to breed it and if/when it dies you cannot replace it. You CANNOT get a permit to buy one. (these are specific points in the Indiana law...I am not sure the exact "hoops" for Ohio)

This is a slippery slope to go down. Once it starts in one state they will all start to follow. Precendant of law.

---

Thanks for clarifying--all I know about these bills is what I'm reading on this thread and accompanying links.

To the person who recommended not allowing pet shops to sell snakes, a desireable idea, to be sure, but also impractical. I'm fairly sure equal-protection clauses would make it impossible to discriminate against sellers that way.

I suppose it is possible for a BP to reach six feet, but that's a rare snake. Neither laws nor cars nor doorways nor beds nor any number of other things are made with seven-foot-nine humans in mind, or folks who live to be 120, yet we all know such people exist. If I lived in Indiana or Ohio, what I would do is contact the appropriate lawmakers, i.e., the bill sponsor as well as your elected representative in each legislative chamber, and ask that ball pythons be specifically excluded from the law in writing. That sort of thing is done all the time, usually in definition sections at the beginning of statutes. Something along the lines of "Dangerous snakes defined: All snakes with the potential to reach six feet in length, with the exclusion of python regius." Bingo--no more worries. If someone would PM me the bill, or post a link to it on this thread, I'd be happy to draft a sample letter with suggested language to exempt BPs from any snake ban. It's important to remember, though, that lawmakers tend to ignore form letters. If anyone wants to prevent this from happening, I'd suggest writing a letter in your own words as opposed to flooding the Legislature with carbon copies. Education is important. It would help immensely, I should think, to enclose articles (from reputable sources such as zoos or academicians as opposed to hobbyists) about ball pythons that say this species has never killed or seriously injured a human being. It might also help to invite an elected representative to visit with your snake, or enclose a picture of a fully grown ball python interacting with a child so that the uninformed lawmaker can get some perspective. And lawmakers take much more seriously folks who live in their jurisdictions, or at least in their states, than someone like me, who has no connection to Indiana or Ohio.

A lot of work? Well, yes, it can be work. But the facts are on the side of BP owners--these snakes are entirely different deals than the big ones. Demonstrate that to elected officials with professionalism and courtesy and you stand a fighting chance. Just screaming "No!" and asserting that folks have the right to own any kind of snake they want, with no restrictions of any kind, isn't going to work. There's a middle ground here, and that's what your goal should be.

One other thing: Don't forget the media. It wouldn't be a bad idea for BP owners in Indiana or Ohio to organize a "snake-in" at some public place in front of lots of people. TV news LOVES stories like these, and it gives BP owners a chance to hand out fact sheets to reporters and get the truth to thousands of people. Nothing like a five-year-old surrounded by a couple dozen well-cared-for BP's, nuzzling a perfectly harmless snake and telling a reporter how much he/she loves Monty and would really really miss him if the big, bad Legislature snatches him from my loving home. But don't, I suggest, mix apples and oranges and bring in retics and burms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digcolnagos

To the person who recommended not allowing pet shops to sell snakes, a desireable idea, to be sure, but also impractical. I'm fairly sure equal-protection clauses would make it impossible to discriminate against sellers that way.

---

As it should be. Poor care taking should not be considered acceptable, but neither should arbitrary decisions by the government on who is or who isn't allowed to do what. It would be far more fair (and effective) to ensure that animal cruelty laws are being carefully administered against big box pet stores.

Quote:

---

If I lived in Indiana or Ohio, what I would do is contact the appropriate lawmakers, i.e., the bill sponsor as well as your elected representative in each legislative chamber, and ask that ball pythons be specifically excluded from the law in writing. That sort of thing is done all the time, usually in definition sections at the beginning of statutes. Something along the lines of "Dangerous snakes defined: All snakes with the potential to reach six feet in length, with the exclusion of python regius." Bingo--no more worries.

---

A snake is only as dangerous as the ignorance of its owner. And your definition of "dangerous" is not only arbitrary, it's senseless. The Angolan python is hardly dangerous, but certainly has the potential to reach 6 feet. So why descriminate against owners of Angolians? Or Boas, Rectics and Burmese? They aren't dangerous snakes, unless their environment allows them to be dangerous.

What I'm most curious about is the terminology used in the OP. Any python that can potentially reach 6 feet in length? So apparently, Boas are okay? Coral snakes... you bet! Copperhead? Why not! Not only arbitrary and senseless, it gives a false sense of security. Given the choice between a coral and a rectic bite, I'd whole-heartedly take my chances with the rectic.

In effect the state is outlawing the most docile species, but from what I've found on the proposed bills, some of the most dangerous snakes in the world won't be covered by the law. To me, it appears some ignorant fool got himself killed by a constrictor, and a bunch of ignorant politicians are going to outlaw them in an effort to get votes in the next election cycle.

My advice to the folks being affected by this: don't worry about it. My guess would be that both the the House and Senate bills were proposed by the politicians from the districts that the deaths/bites occurred. This just seems like political showmanship to ensure they get reelected. I'm going to say now: I doubt it makes it out of committee.

Sometimes politicians need a reminder that it is much easier to see with their head removed from their :cens0r:.

I haven't seen the official bill but from what everyone has been typing they're saying any SNAKE of potential getting over 6'. To me that rules out every snake I'd want to own especially if it includes ball pythons.

But it doesn't have anything to do with as I'm in canada. But to all the americans it could cause a slide of laws going from state to state. I don't think doing nothing is the right way to go about it. But I also don't think singling out ball pythons as the only acceptable snake is a good idea either. What about the people who keep BRB's or red tail boas. all snake that get over 6' but won't kill you. You should stick together and maybe see if they can change it to something in the order of needing a permit to own a snake over 10'. just my 2 cents

Thats our good ol Government at work. They need to tell us how to live