Attention all herp owners!

It's not the danger. It's not that they kill people. It's the INVASIVE aspect. That is the MAIN reason why animals are banned, because if they get loose they can be a danger to the surrounding ecosystem and environment.

It's why ferrets, gerbils, etc are banned.

And I know, I know no one in their right mind would release a snake into the wild on purpose, but they can escape and there are really, really stupid people out there.

Devil's advocate over.

I don't support the ban. :P I love my snakes, but I just wanted to say this because since we're all of the same opinion on whether or not the ban should pass, it's always good to have a bit of the other side in to spark conversation.

It seems like banning them would only make the invasive problem worse because thousands of people would still have them, and I bet a lot of them would release them into the glades because they don't want to get in trouble. Maybe somebody has to move to another state and it's their only option. Absolutely not a solution to the problem.

It's not an accident when they are released into the wild. Sometimes it is, but it's mostly from people who bought them on an impulse and couldn't deal with the size.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Homegrownscales

I dont see them trying to ban dogs and alcohol.

---

They tried banning alcohol already. Didn't work out so well. It's what created the American gangster. XD The image of ViperKeeper with a tommy gun is pretty amusing.

And they're working on dogs, too, one breed at a time. I saw a petition passed around my grandfather's old neighborhood to stop legislation aimed to ban pit bulls, German shepherds, dobermans, rottweilers, great danes, malamutes, huskies, mastiffs, akitas, shar-peis, chow chows, and 20-something other breeds, most of which I'd never heard any negative stories about. It's only a matter of time.

Never mind

It's definitely not an immediate solution, but my best guess (and it's definitely a guess :]) would be that they imagine after the initial mass release into the wild after the ban, that since "no one" would be acquiring the snakes anymore the threat would diminish and disappear over time. Maybe the beginning boom of potential release was worth getting rid of that potential for the future?

Just a guess. I really don't know. I just like posting other input into things. :] We're all like-minded so it's fun to throw a little disturbance in there.

Ah, yes but ask any burm or retic or boa breeder. Banning them wont stop people from acquiring as a matter of fact Ive heard many breeders say business wise they'd be better off. Look at guns or alcohol or drugs there a black market for all of them.

Yes, there was a black market, but the amount of people acquiring these things was smaller. I have a burmese python, and I wouldn't unless I had seen and experienced them in a store. I'm not saying people won't get them, I'm saying that less people would get them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Misfit

It's not the danger. It's not that they kill people. It's the INVASIVE aspect. That is the MAIN reason why animals are banned, because if they get loose they can be a danger to the surrounding ecosystem and environment.

It's why ferrets, gerbils, etc are banned.

And I know, I know no one in their right mind would release a snake into the wild on purpose, but they can escape and there are really, really stupid people out there.

Devil's advocate over.

I don't support the ban. :P I love my snakes, but I just wanted to say this because since we're all of the same opinion on whether or not the ban should pass, it's always good to have a bit of the other side in to spark conversation.

---

You are wrong Misfit. The invasive fact is only another excuse. The fact is that all these campaigns are backed by a radical environmentalist group that seeks to end the ownership and trade of all non-native animals.

You are forgetting that there is still no evidence to support any snakes were released into the wild. Most came from hurricane destruction. If it really did stem from a "danger to the ecosystem" it wouldn't be national. The problem would be contained in the lower states. The problem is springing up everywhere across the US. Including cold states that could not support the life of these snakes.

They are just money hungry fools. They think if they cat get rid of everything but the furies, they will have complete control over the pet population and reap the benefits.

I agree. When Andrew hit in 92' I was there and it destroyed many stores that carried those animals. Andrew was the reason my family moved out of Homestead. Many people lost homes, pets, and stores lost the animals they supplied. This ban is backed by the special interest groups, and where there is a ban there becomes a black market. What is truely irritating to me is that anyone caught will be prosecuted for something that shouldn't be a crime and potentially placed in already overcrowded systems for the tax payers to pay for. And how is that helping the ecosystem of the Everglades again?? What needs to happen is more studies, field collection, and figuring out a solution. Why is the ban only being focused on when really banning will create a pet release issue or many beautiful animals being put to death bc the people dont want to pay for the permits. Where will the ban stop? How far will they go? Thats in general why I dont support any of it. If it was based on actual scientific fact that had been proven reproven and gone over by their peers I would take it a little more seriously. But they didn't.

If it really did stem from a "danger to the ecosystem" it wouldn't be national. The problem would be contained in the lower states. The problem is springing up everywhere across the US. Including cold states that could not support the life of these snakes.

Right like Delaware and OHIO??? WTF ya I see you guys having a snake issue anytime soon!! More than irritating to me.