Snake Owners See Furry Bias in Invasive Species Proposal

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloryhound

I don't agree. It is not my place to tell you that you can not keep a primate as long as you keep that primate in such a manner that it does not create a danger to the public, me being the public. If I come over to your home with the understanding that you have a primate running around inside your secure house, I am accepting the risk.

---

My statement was "Some things just do not do well or don't thrive in captivity, such as primates."
It has everything to do with the animal living well and "thriving" not with anyone’s safety per say. Although there not thriving does lead to safety issues. Primates know that they are being kept as a pet and they do not like it. That is why they become violent. They are acting out like a teen will. The difference is that they are 100 times stronger. Unless you can provide said primate with an extensive plot of land with ample things to keep it occupied and secure from the outside populace. No one should own one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloryhound

You really need to quit talking about laws and such when you really have no idea. You do not need a permit to own a weapon. You need a permit to carry a concealed weapon. The only thing you need to own a weapon is passing a quick back ground check that is it and how it should be.



I don't agree. It is not my place to tell you that you can not keep a primate as long as you keep that primate in such a manner that it does not create a danger to the public, me being the public. If I come over to your home with the understanding that you have a primate running around inside your secure house, I am accepting the risk.

Only two arguements can be used against keeping dangerous and wild animals.

1. The owner is just plain stupid and can't or doesn't secure the animal properly which then poses a risk to the public. Can't or doesn't is in refering to mental capacity as well as financial capacity.
2. When children are in the house and parents don't take the steps to protect the kid from exposure to the dangerous and wild animal(s). You can have children and these animals in the same house, but some common sence needs to take place as well. Remember a kid will jump off the roof of a house with a garbage bag as a parachute as their idea of danger is a little differnt due to a lack of understanding and remarkable ability to bounce.

---

Correct, a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Does your neighborhood know youre concealing a massive constrictor? If it was your child hurt or killed by some idiot neighbors ridiculously powerful pet you would sing a different tune. This mentality goes both ways, I dont care unless it affects me. Thats why we have laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TessadasExotics

My statement was "Some things just do not do well or don't thrive in captivity, such as primates."
It has everything to do with the animal living well and "thriving" not with anyone’s safety per say. Although there not thriving does lead to safety issues. Primates know that they are being kept as a pet and they do not like it. That is why they become violent. They are acting out like a teen will. The difference is that they are 100 times stronger. Unless you can provide said primate with an extensive plot of land with ample things to keep it occupied and secure from the outside populace. No one should own one.

---

Not all primates have difficulty in captivity. I'm not the primate expert though so I'm not going to pretend that the requirements you are calling for are correct or not since I bet you are not a primate expert either, I doubt your theory on keeping them is 100% accurate either. Also you failed to read the final section of my last post and decided to quote my section on rights and not caring for the animal in which I stated people shouldn't keep them who can't or don't house them properly. That statement was directed at all dangerous wild exotic animals, not just or excluding primates. Granted of course a full debate on the proper methods of keeping each of these animals could be had, since some people have went as far as disapproval of rack systems for ball pythons, even though almost all if not all major breeders keep them in rack systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slyther83

Correct, a permit to carry a concealed weapon. Does your neighborhood know youre concealing a massive constrictor? If it was your child hurt or killed by some idiot neighbors ridiculously powerful pet you would sing a different tune. This mentality goes both ways, I dont care unless it affects me. Thats why we have laws.

---

Yes, and they don't know about the weapons I conceal in my house, the beer and other liquid refreshments, the not so large constrictors I keep, what lingerie my wife has, or if I was to have marijuana or other illegal substances in my house (which I don't) and they shouldn't, it is not their business unless I invite them or their children onto my property. You can have a fully automatic weapon if it is registered, but that doesn't mean your neighbor has any knowledge about that ownership. A crazy person can break into a house that has anything useable as a weapon and use that weapon, chain saw, knife, you name it and kill you or your neighbor or kids playing on the side walk. Is it the person who had the tools fault, the tools fault, or the person using the tool? More homes are broken into every year than large constrictors escape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloryhound

Not all primates have difficulty in captivity. I'm not the primate expert though so I'm not going to pretend that the requirements you are calling for are correct or not since I bet you are not a primate expert either, I doubt your theory on keeping them is 100% accurate either. Also you failed to read the final section of my last post and decided to quote my section on rights and not caring for the animal in which I stated people shouldn't keep them who can't or don't house them properly. That statement was directed at all dangerous wild exotic animals, not just or excluding primates. Granted of course a full debate on the proper methods of keeping each of these animals could be had, since some people have went as far as disapproval of rack systems for ball pythons, even though almost all if not all major breeders keep them in rack systems.



Yes, and they don't know about the weapons I conceal in my house, the beer and other liquid refreshments, the not so large constrictors I keep, what lingerie my wife has, or if I was to have marijuana or other illegal substances in my house (which I don't) and they shouldn't, it is not their business unless I invite them or their children onto my property. You can have a fully automatic weapon if it is registered, but that doesn't mean your neighbor has any knowledge about that ownership. A crazy person can break into a house that has anything useable as a weapon and use that weapon, chain saw, knife, you name it and kill you or your neighbor or kids playing on the side walk. Is it the person who had the tools fault, the tools fault, or the person using the tool? More homes are broken into every year than large constrictors escape.

---

You bring up some valid points, however some of them are also a bit extreme and off topic. Relating anything concievably used as a weapon in your house is exaggerating the issue at hand, in my opinion.

In the end I guess I just look at it like this: The same principle that applies to people not owning lions, tigers, wolves (very few exceptions), and bears is very applicable to 15-25 foot constrictors.

Just my 2 cents, and lol I know these political conversations can go back and forth forever. :salute:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloryhound

Not all primates have difficulty in captivity. I'm not the primate expert though so I'm not going to pretend that the requirements you are calling for are correct or not since I bet you are not a primate expert either, I doubt your theory on keeping them is 100% accurate either. Also you failed to read the final section of my last post and decided to quote my section on rights and not caring for the animal in which I stated people shouldn't keep them who can't or don't house them properly. That statement was directed at all dangerous wild exotic animals, not just or excluding primates.

---

No I am not an expert on primates nor did I pretend to be. I have seen and have been around a few. I’m sure there may be a few of the smaller monkeys that may do ok, but I bet you most primates do not do well in captivity (someone’s home). By that I mean living in ones house or even in a cage at a zoo. Do you think they throw poo and other bodily fluids at or on people because they like them? I also only quoted the section that you wrote that pertained to what I was talking about. That being that IMO people shouldn't own primates. If an animal doesn’t do well in captivity then they shouldn’t be kept in captivity. You only stated that "if you keep that primate in such a manner that it does not create a danger to the public, me being the public." Which has nothing to do with being housed properly.

Not trying to argue this point really. I just made a statement and you decided to try and discredit what I said because you feel that only your opinion is the right one. Remember I didn't try to discredit you I just gave an educated opinion.


Oh and by the way not all states will let someone (if any at all) have a "Fully Automatic" weapon. Registered or not. The ones that do make it pretty hard to do so. There are also federal laws that must be adhered to as well first. It used to be like 36 or 37 states that would let you own one if you met their stringent rules.

couple of points I wanted to make....first of all guns dont kill ppl.....ppl kill ppl with guns. Also you can have all the regulations you want on guns and guess what. The bad ppl will still get them!!!!! You could apply the same thing to reptiles/animals

As far as primates.....lets just say when I worked at the Wildlife World Zoo I had to deal with small monkeys in the small mammal area. Which is the area I worked in extensively. They are all crazy to begin with, it doesn't matter if they are in captivity....they are just whack period. Very unpredictable!!!! If ppl want to have these creatures...then that is their business. They know the risks, and the friends that come over and help them know the risks. There are always risks with ANY animals!!!! To be shocked you get attacked is ridiculous, you should always be looking for signs from the animals. Even my 10 yr old son knows this. I teach kids this all the time when I go to the schools and we talk about reptiles, bugs or any type of animal.


I have to agree with Glory....you have to take personal responsibility. You have these animals...and if something happens its not the animals fault ....its your fault. If you have children and do not take the proper procedures......its your fault. If it gets loose....its your fault and you should be held accountable accordingly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gloryhound

2. When children are in the house and parents don't take the steps to protect the kid from exposure to the dangerous and wild animal(s). You can have children and these animals in the same house, but some common sence needs to take place as well. Remember a kid will jump off the roof of a house with a garbage bag as a parachute as their idea of danger is a little differnt due to a lack of understanding and remarkable ability to bounce.

---

First of all very well said!!! Secondly...the bolded area has to be one of the funniest things I have ever read!!! Sorry to derail!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BPelizabeth

couple of points I wanted to make....first of all guns dont kill ppl.....ppl kill ppl with guns. Also you can have all the regulations you want on guns and guess what. The bad ppl will still get them!!!!! You could apply the same thing to reptiles/animals

As far as primates.....lets just say when I worked at the Wildlife World Zoo I had to deal with small monkeys in the small mammal area. Which is the area I worked in extensively. They are all crazy to begin with, it doesn't matter if they are in captivity....they are just whack period. Very unpredictable!!!! If ppl want to have these creatures...then that is their business. ThlOey know the risks, and the friends that come over and help them know the risks. There are always risks with ANY animals!!!! To be shocked you get attacked is ridiculous, you should always be looking for signs from the animals. Even my 10 yr old son knows this. I teach kids this all the time when I go to the schools and we talk about reptiles, bugs or any type of animal.


I have to agree with Glory....you have to take personal responsibility. You have these animals...and if something happens its not the animals fault ....its your fault. If you have children and do not take the proper procedures......its your fault. If it gets loose....its your fault and you should be held accountable accordingly.

---

...and thats the other side of the coin. Well put, Elizabeth.

I wanted to say something, regarding the whole 'Burmese are devastating the Everglades' assumption.

No. They're not. They are there, and they are reproducing, yes. They do eat birds and mammals, and they do grow large.
HOWEVER--they're eating a lot of opossums and raccoons, and appear to have filled in for the native predators of those animals, as the native mid-sized predators haven't been doing well (prior to their arrival), and the 'coons and bunnies and 'possums are now more than a bit overpopulated. Is it a stretch to say they're actually benefitting the Everglades ecosystem right now? Yes, but it's not a stretch to say they aren't doing any apparent harm there.

Egg-laying species benefit when 'coons are kept under control, including box turtles and birds.

The other often-repeated bit of nonsense is that adult Burmese have no 'natural predators'. This is true only if you take it very literally, since Burmese can't have any 'natural predators' in an environment that isn't their natural environment, right? That claim is simply disingenuous. There are plenty of native (and introduced) species that are chowing down on Burmese of all sizes in the Everglades. Everything from wading birds and hawks to indigo snakes are taking them as hatchlings. The adults are happily devoured by alligators (who win that fight far more often than not). You're not going to find giant adult Burms out there very often anyhow, because the cold kills the big ones much faster and in greater numbers than it does the smaller ones.

As for the threat to people, that's laughable. When's the last time you heard of a Burm attacking a human (who wasn't trying to catch it)...even in Burma? Chickens, yes--humans, no.

The threat to the Everglades from Burmese pythons doesn't look much more significant than the threat from green iguanas, and is 99.9999% less significant than the threat from feral cats, Melaleuca, climbing fern, feral hogs, walking catfish, and Brazilian pepper. The Everglades currently has over 26% introduced species. The Burmese python makes a more impressive poster child for this problem, but it's the human activities that are truly responsible for the most problems, and introduced plants are the biggest non-native ecological threat apart from the humans. People just don't find a shrub as scary as a giant snake, no matter how relatively benign the snake is.