Loophole in the Burm Ban?

Kind of...Probably not, and it doesn't help afrock or anaconda owners, but this thought just popped into my head. Yeah, technically Burms are banned from crossing state lines and there's not much we can do about that that we aren't already working on. Burmese pythons, as you probably know, are Python molurus bivittatus. But does the ban say anything about the Indian python (Python molurus), Ceylonese python (Python molurus pimbura), or any other P. molurus subspecies?

I mean the US government calls American bulldogs, cane corsos, Alapaha blueblood bulldogs, Olde English Bulldogges, Dogue de Bordeaux, boxers, all different kinds of mastiffs, and just about any mollosser-type dog you can think of a "pit bull" and seize the dog in areas where pits are banned. But as long as the owner can prove the dog is not an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, or any other breeds listed in the law, the gov't is forced to drop charges. So if the Burm ban only bans P. m. bivittatus, if the owner can prove it's not, can the charges be dropped?

A)
Python molurus has now been split from Python bivittatus.

B) The Indian Python is already restricted, and has been for a long time. I believe it's a CITES 1 animal, correct me if I'm wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

A)
Python molurus has now been split from Python bivittatus.

B) The Indian Python is already restricted, and has been for a long time. I believe it's a CITES 1 animal, correct me if I'm wrong.

---

A) I didn't know that. I'm by no means a giant expert, and I was just going off one website I found.
B) I didn't know that either XD So I guess my idea is kind of out.

But what about the Ceylonese python? Are they grouped with Burms, categorized as CITES 1, or unrestricted?

Ceylonese Pythons were considered to be a subspecies of molurus. I'm not sure whether they have subspecific status at all, any longer.

Dwarf burms are now Python bivittatus progschai

I know one loophole. If it is legal to breed them within the state, people could still breed them, and since they are so prolific, only incubate a few eggs. Then they would be able to sell them easier than trying to sell a whole clutch in the state.
Also, a few people would illegally transport the newest morphs over state borders, spreading the morphs to new states. Once they have a single animal (like albino), to breed from, they could make more in the next state. After a while it would be too hard to track back inheritance to the single illegally-transported animal.

Is it illegal to transport fertile eggs?

Those are not actually loopholes.

Yes, it is illegal to transport fertile eggs.

Here is a copy of how the final ruling is worded.

http://www.mnherpsoc.com/sites/defau...s-Wildlife.pdf

Quote:

---

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is amending its
regulations under the Lacey Act to add
Python molurus (which includes
Burmese python Python molurus
bivittatus and Indian python Python
molurus molurus), Northern African
python (Python sebae), Southern
African python (Python natalensis), and
yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) to
the list of injurious reptiles.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

Those are not actually loopholes.

Yes, it is illegal to transport fertile eggs.

---

They are not loopholes around the law. I was saying that if people still wanted to breed them, even for pets, they could incubate fewer eggs so that they would be able to sell the babies that they did hatch within their state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genetics Breeder

They are not loopholes around the law. I was saying that if people still wanted to breed them, even for pets, they could incubate fewer eggs so that they would be able to sell the babies that they did hatch within their state.

---

They are not loopholes at all, as a loophole would constitute taking advantage of a technicality WITHIN the law. Sneaking new morphs across state lines just doesn't fall into that realm.

As far as breeding and incubating fewer eggs, sure people could do that. Still would not be long until the state is over saturated and said breeders would be left with a lot of snakes they don't necessarily want to keep on their hands.

loopholes only exist in tax code, but if a billionaire asked they might put one in the lacey act.

It all depends on how many clutches per year will find homes in a State. Those who specialize in Burms cannot make a living at it, unless they're exporting almost everything. Those who have a small Burm project in addition to other projects can still work on their project...just more slowly, and with lower volume.

Very few people in each State will be able to do this, but there will still be a market for Burms in each State, just as there was before the ban--it's just going to be smaller. There will be some mistakes, and some markets will crash--others will have spikes in the price of the animals, as there prove to be fewer producers than there are folks looking for the animals.

I think the rescues are going to have a lot of trouble, too, and many are going to be maxxed out in no time.

Quote:

---

I know one loophole. If it is legal to breed them within the state, people could still breed them, and since they are so prolific, only incubate a few eggs. Then they would be able to sell them easier than trying to sell a whole clutch in the state.
Also, a few people would illegally transport the newest morphs over state borders, spreading the morphs to new states. Once they have a single animal (like albino), to breed from, they could make more in the next state. After a while it would be too hard to track back inheritance to the single illegally-transported animal.

---

Incubating select eggs probably isn't the best solution. First of all, making less product doesn't help the business owners relying on out-of-state sales at all. It's limiting your product on top of limiting the market. I think the key to solving that would just be to breed less often so you don't end up with too much surplus. Plus, if you're working with some higher-end recessive morphs, especially paired with hets, you don't want to risk discarding the the morphs and ending up with all hets.

I like to think the people working on new morphs will be responsible enough to abide by the law and keep their snakes within state. Granted, where they go after sale is out of their control, but.

Quote:

---

Here is a copy of how the final ruling is worded.

http://www.mnherpsoc.com/sites/defau...s-Wildlife.pdf

SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) is amending its
regulations under the Lacey Act to add
Python molurus (which includes
Burmese python Python molurus
bivittatus and Indian python Python
molurus molurus), Northern African
python (Python sebae), Southern
African python (Python natalensis), and
yellow anaconda (Eunectes notaeus) to
the list of injurious reptiles.

---

Okay, so the Ceylonese is still fair game. I may just have to go that route if the ban isn't lifted in a few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SpartaDog

Okay, so the Ceylonese is still fair game. I may just have to go that route if the ban isn't lifted in a few years.

---

No it's not. Ceylonese are a subspecies so they are still Python molurus, I think the wording is pretty plain to mean ALL subspecies of Python molurus, including P.m.molurus and P.m.bivittatus (but not exclusive to those two subspecies)

I was saying that they could incubate less eggs if they just wanted them for pets. I don't know how long Burmese pythons live, but 20 years from now, someone might want to continue the line/species and just incubate the few eggs that they would need, to be able to have them for future generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MarkS

No it's not. Ceylonese are a subspecies so they are still Python molurus, I think the wording is pretty plain to mean ALL subspecies of Python molurus, including P.m.molurus and P.m.bivittatus (but not exclusive to those two subspecies)

---

Oh, I misread it. I thought it specified P. bivittatus and P. molurus molurus.


Well crap, nevermind.

Or we could not worry about loopholes and just continue to fight it.... There is still a fight going on over this and I still have faith that we will "eventually" win. It will come in effect the 23rd but I dont think it will stay in effect

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Denial

Or we could not worry about loopholes and just continue to fight it.... There is still a fight going on over this and I still have faith that we will "eventually" win. It will come in effect the 23rd but I dont think it will stay in effect

---

I agree. I don't believe it will stay this way permanently. It may take some time to make all the points that need to be made to the right people who can reverse this, but I do think it will happen, whether in some high court, through counter-legislation, or through changing how the Lacey Act can and can't be used.