Indiana: Pythons not welcome

For my fellow Hoosiers I thought I would pass on this sad news :( . Last week Senator Sipes sponsored (well he actually just put through a US Humane Society bill) to outlaw "any python that potentially can reach 6' in length". If passed it would effectively kill the reptile business here in Indiana. This is simply a knee jerk reaction to a moron that got killed by his retic a few months ago when he tried to clean/feed it by himself a few months ago (not to mention the other idiot that got bit by his fer da lance).

If you live in Indiana write your representative:
Senate Bill 0482
House Bill 1472

This bill is currently in commitee lets make sure it stays there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord jackel

For my fellow Hoosiers I thought I would pass on this sad news :( . Last week Senator Sipes sponsored (well he actually just put through a US Humane Society bill) to outlaw "any python that potentially can reach 6' in length". If passed it would effectively kill the reptile business here in Indiana. This is simply a knee jerk reaction to a moron that got killed by his retic a few months ago when he tried to clean/feed it by himself a few months ago (not to mention the other idiot that got bit by his fer da lance).

If you live in Indiana write your representative:
Senate Bill 0482
House Bill 1472

This bill is currently in commitee lets make sure it stays there.

---

Hmm i knew it was coming :mad: .Well lets see how far it goes.

Representative George Distel has introduced legislation here in Ohio and the lovely HSUS is backing it.

HERE is a link to a story on it in the Cincinnati Enquirer (BTW, the man supposedly killed by his python- there were no bite marks hmmmm me thinks it was NOT the python)
It will not outright ban things but this is the first step I am sure and I can only imagine what kind of reaction there is going to be by my neighbors if I have to put signs in my yard stating there are "exotic" animals. I just keep on writing and talking to people as much as I can. I even take my oldest ball python into my daughters class to try to educate and show that snakes are not "evil" as so many think they are.

Being a former and future hoosier myself this is rediculous.

So when will we be able to find out if that legislation passes in Ohio?

yeh i saw that :cens0r::cens0r::cens0r::cens0r: today when i went to pick up my new bp

Yes, no surprise.

Lately, I've been checking craigslist where I live. There are a couple of guys who seem obvious reptile hoarders, who offer to take in any reptile. One is offering a DVD player in trade for a reptile, just get in touch, let him know what you've got and let's make a deal.

It went too far, for me at least, when one of these fools posted an ad for an alligator. It needed a new home, and would anyone have an interesting trade? He said he was open to suggestions. I emailed him, as did others, basically saying, whoa. He told me he was very experienced with herps, had owned retics, anacondas, burms--you name it. He didn't mention whatever became of these animals, but he did say that he'd fallen on hard times and had been forced to move in with relatives who didn't like reptiles, but now he's moved out on his own again and is looking to rebuild his collection.

Egads.

One person notified every local and state animal-control agency she could think of. The end result? Nothing. And this person, and others, are still on craigslist, acquiring and trading and doing lord knows what with whatever reptiles come their way, even though they've been flagged multiple times and had their ads removed. But the ads from the same people keep popping up.

I could start up about a Jackson chameleon that's for sale at the local Petsmart, but that's a somewhat different issue. At least that Jackson chameleon is going to die a relatively quick death.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but when the reptile trade--and that's what it is--has descended to this, it is no wonder that we're seeing proposed legislation like this. Personally, and I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but I can't disagree with moves to limit, or at least control, ownership of large snakes. An outright ban like what is apparently happening in Indiana? No. But requirements that owners of large snakes get licenses and demonstrate their competence to care for these creatures, perhaps with requirements for bonds that would act to screen out folks without the financial wherewithal to care for these animals? You'll get no argument from me. Due apologies, but the ability to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda shouldn't be predicated simply on the ability to come up with $100 or so for a hatchling. That's wrong. That's inviting cruelty and neglect to animals. And anyone who thinks about it for a millisecond would, I think, agree. Yet that's where we're at right now.

From the newspaper article posted, the Ohio legislation seems entirely reasonable. It wouldn't affect ball pythons, nor would it prohibit ownership of large snakes. It would simply screen out folks who shouldn't own large snakes in the first place. I haven't seen the Indiana legislation, but if it's an outright ban like the first poster says, then it should be amended along the lines of the Ohio bill. Come on now: Neither of these proposed laws would affect ball pythons. Does anyone really think anyone with the money to buy one--and it doesn't take much--should be allowed to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda? I submit that anyone who truly loves these species would support this type of legislation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digcolnagos

Yes, no surprise.

Lately, I've been checking craigslist where I live. There are a couple of guys who seem obvious reptile hoarders, who offer to take in any reptile. One is offering a DVD player in trade for a reptile, just get in touch, let him know what you've got and let's make a deal.

It went too far, for me at least, when one of these fools posted an ad for an alligator. It needed a new home, and would anyone have an interesting trade? He said he was open to suggestions. I emailed him, as did others, basically saying, whoa. He told me he was very experienced with herps, had owned retics, anacondas, burms--you name it. He didn't mention whatever became of these animals, but he did say that he'd fallen on hard times and had been forced to move in with relatives who didn't like reptiles, but now he's moved out on his own again and is looking to rebuild his collection.

Egads.

One person notified every local and state animal-control agency she could think of. The end result? Nothing. And this person, and others, are still on craigslist, acquiring and trading and doing lord knows what with whatever reptiles come their way, even though they've been flagged multiple times and had their ads removed. But the ads from the same people keep popping up.

I could start up about a Jackson chameleon that's for sale at the local Petsmart, but that's a somewhat different issue. At least that Jackson chameleon is going to die a relatively quick death.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but when the reptile trade--and that's what it is--has descended to this, it is no wonder that we're seeing proposed legislation like this. Personally, and I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but I can't disagree with moves to limit, or at least control, ownership of large snakes. An outright ban like what is apparently happening in Indiana? No. But requirements that owners of large snakes get licenses and demonstrate their competence to care for these creatures, perhaps with requirements for bonds that would act to screen out folks without the financial wherewithal to care for these animals? You'll get no argument from me. Due apologies, but the ability to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda shouldn't be predicated simply on the ability to come up with $100 or so for a hatchling. That's wrong. That's inviting cruelty and neglect to animals. And anyone who thinks about it for a millisecond would, I think, agree. Yet that's where we're at right now.

From the newspaper article posted, the Ohio legislation seems entirely reasonable. It wouldn't affect ball pythons, nor would it prohibit ownership of large snakes. It would simply screen out folks who shouldn't own large snakes in the first place. I haven't seen the Indiana legislation, but if it's an outright ban like the first poster says, then it should be amended along the lines of the Ohio bill. Come on now: Neither of these proposed laws would affect ball pythons. Does anyone really think anyone with the money to buy one--and it doesn't take much--should be allowed to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda? I submit that anyone who truly loves these species would support this type of legislation.

---

I am sorry but I don't agree with your logic because in its simplest form you are advocating a prejudicial (sp?) atitude toward python ownership. Why don't they have laws about who can/cannot own a dog? As I am sure you are aware dogs injure more people in one day then all the snake related issues that have ever been recorded....so why not ban dogs?

And who is qualified to say that one person vs another is qualified to own/care for a python? It will more than likely fall to someone with no qualification in python ownership and care to know one way or another.

Also as for the Indiana law it is an outright ban - if you own one today you would have to pay a $100 per animal registration fee, cannot breed them and if they die cannot replace them - and if they have to go to a vet they must be microchipped before they can leave - which could kill them.

Anyway you look at it this is a knee jerk reaction as the law was written by the US Humane Society from Washington DC - this is simply a political agenda and my guess is Senator Sipes has never ever been near a snake to have have formed his own opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digcolnagos

Yes, no surprise.

Lately, I've been checking craigslist where I live. There are a couple of guys who seem obvious reptile hoarders, who offer to take in any reptile. One is offering a DVD player in trade for a reptile, just get in touch, let him know what you've got and let's make a deal.

It went too far, for me at least, when one of these fools posted an ad for an alligator. It needed a new home, and would anyone have an interesting trade? He said he was open to suggestions. I emailed him, as did others, basically saying, whoa. He told me he was very experienced with herps, had owned retics, anacondas, burms--you name it. He didn't mention whatever became of these animals, but he did say that he'd fallen on hard times and had been forced to move in with relatives who didn't like reptiles, but now he's moved out on his own again and is looking to rebuild his collection.

Egads.

One person notified every local and state animal-control agency she could think of. The end result? Nothing. And this person, and others, are still on craigslist, acquiring and trading and doing lord knows what with whatever reptiles come their way, even though they've been flagged multiple times and had their ads removed. But the ads from the same people keep popping up.

I could start up about a Jackson chameleon that's for sale at the local Petsmart, but that's a somewhat different issue. At least that Jackson chameleon is going to die a relatively quick death.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but when the reptile trade--and that's what it is--has descended to this, it is no wonder that we're seeing proposed legislation like this. Personally, and I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but I can't disagree with moves to limit, or at least control, ownership of large snakes. An outright ban like what is apparently happening in Indiana? No. But requirements that owners of large snakes get licenses and demonstrate their competence to care for these creatures, perhaps with requirements for bonds that would act to screen out folks without the financial wherewithal to care for these animals? You'll get no argument from me. Due apologies, but the ability to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda shouldn't be predicated simply on the ability to come up with $100 or so for a hatchling. That's wrong. That's inviting cruelty and neglect to animals. And anyone who thinks about it for a millisecond would, I think, agree. Yet that's where we're at right now.

From the newspaper article posted, the Ohio legislation seems entirely reasonable. It wouldn't affect ball pythons, nor would it prohibit ownership of large snakes. It would simply screen out folks who shouldn't own large snakes in the first place. I haven't seen the Indiana legislation, but if it's an outright ban like the first poster says, then it should be amended along the lines of the Ohio bill. Come on now: Neither of these proposed laws would affect ball pythons. Does anyone really think anyone with the money to buy one--and it doesn't take much--should be allowed to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda? I submit that anyone who truly loves these species would support this type of legislation.

---

Who should "screen" these possible buyers of soon to be large snakes? The State? I will give you a perfect example of how if this law goes into affect will be a total joke if the state is in charge of choosing who has them and who does not.I had a reptile rescue a short time back.In order to have one you are inspected by a state agency,ok no problem right? Well the person whom inspected me was "upset" because he could not find ANYTHING wrong with my enclosures or such.He nit picked because a FEW wood chips were on the floor,and told me no one should rescue reptiles as they all are worthless.Would you want someone like him telling you what you CAN have and can not have? NO!

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.

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

To be honest with you guys I think every one is getting worked up over some thing that will NEVER happen. They tried to pass a law like this one but banning Pit Bulls (due to :cens0r: hole people who fight them). Being a pit owner I can tell you that those people (much like the idiots who try to handel a 25' snake by them self while drunk) only make up a small %. Don't get me wrong there are "people" out there who should never be in charge of another living thing but you can't group every one in with that bunch. Especialy since there are sooooooooo many loving responsable large snake owners just in this form (I'm just waiting for them to chime in). Any way I'll get off my :soapbx: and say that the Pit Bull ban never passed and I don't see this one passing.

Thunder Kat, while I want to agree with you I must ask if you have done some looking around in Indiana lately. I left in September, and the majority of towns have bully breed banning. This also includes non bully breeds like Dobes, Rotts, Boxers, German Shepherds, Mastiffs.

So while it might not have taken hold on a state level it did in smaller ways.

I think with any sort of bill like this so many people get the idea that 'it'll never happen' and so don't bother letting the people in charge know they're against it and when it does happen they're shocked.
Nope, not taking any chances with this. I might currently be residing in WA but IN is my home and I'm going to voice my opinions to the people in charge.
No matter what happens I can at least say I tried.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder Kat

To be honest with you guys I think every one is getting worked up over some thing that will NEVER happen. They tried to pass a law like this one but banning Pit Bulls (due to :cens0r: hole people who fight them). Being a pit owner I can tell you that those people (much like the idiots who try to handel a 25' snake by them self while drunk) only make up a small %. Don't get me wrong there are "people" out there who should never be in charge of another living thing but you can't group every one in with that bunch. Especialy since there are sooooooooo many loving responsable large snake owners just in this form (I'm just waiting for them to chime in). Any way I'll get off my :soapbx: and say that the Pit Bull ban never passed and I don't see this one passing.

---

If this bill only dealt with snakes I might agree with you...but unfortunately in this bill pythons are grouped along with bears, crocodiles, hippos, elephants, etc. They are just going to ban any large persumed dangerous animal that might show up in the state. They aren't thinking just throwing everything together assuming no one will pay atttention. It is very much a political move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lord jackel

If this bill only dealt with snakes I might agree with you...but unfortunately in this bill pythons are grouped along with bears, crocodiles, hippos, elephants, etc. They are just going to ban any large persumed dangerous animal that might show up in the state. They aren't thinking just throwing everything together assuming no one will pay atttention. It is very much a political move.

---

Just so I am on the record I have already contacted my senator, congresswoman, the bills sponsor and the governor and Lt. governor. I hope all the other hoosiers out there will too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Thunder Kat

To be honest with you guys I think every one is getting worked up over some thing that will NEVER happen. They tried to pass a law like this one but banning Pit Bulls (due to :cens0r: hole people who fight them). Being a pit owner I can tell you that those people (much like the idiots who try to handel a 25' snake by them self while drunk) only make up a small %. Don't get me wrong there are "people" out there who should never be in charge of another living thing but you can't group every one in with that bunch. Especialy since there are sooooooooo many loving responsable large snake owners just in this form (I'm just waiting for them to chime in). Any way I'll get off my :soapbx: and say that the Pit Bull ban never passed and I don't see this one passing.

---

Pit bulls are illegal in several cities, Denver being one. So don't say that can't happen. A lot of folks never dreamed smoking would be banned in bars. That's happened in New York, California, Arizona, Ohio, Washington and several other states. At one point, no one dreamed of a mandatory seat belt law. Now, it's illegal to be in a car without a seat belt in all 50 states. And there are no shortage of silly laws. Anyone remember dwarf tossing? Well, it's against the law to toss a dwarf in several cities and at least one state--evidence that knee-jerk reactions to non-issues can quickly turn into laws given the way our system works.

Ignore the Legislature at your peril. While it's true that whoever is sponsoring these bills might be backbench grandstanders, one never knows. Strange things can happen in the world of politics.

I'll say it again: People who love snakes and other reptiles should see these bills as an opportunity, not a threat. If the end result is raising the bar so that irresponsible owners can no longer keep snakes and other reptiles--and that's precisely what the end result could be if the responsible reptile community works with lawmakers--then that's a good thing. Not necessarily for us, but for the animals. And isn't that what's most important?

Finally, to whoever said he should have the right to own a copperhead or any other breed of snake without restriction, sorry, but you're wrong. Reasoning like that is why there are so many fools on craigslist offering up alligators and any other stripe of reptile that has no business on the open market. It's also why Petsmart has that doomed Jackson chameleon that's looking sicker every time I see it. That's why every reptile rescue in the land is stacked to the rafters with iguanas. You can't equate a reptile with a dog or cat. It just doesn't work. From visiting this Web site, I'm convinced that there are responsible, dedicated owners of large snakes who are doing the right thing. I don't think these folks have much to worry about--surely the government can pass reasonable restrictions that these folks can live with, and surely they will submit to some government regulation if that regulation benefits the species. It's the others, the ones who see ownership of reptiles, no matter the breed, as an inalienable right that should worry.

I live in IN, and I'm as worried as everyone. And, I will be writing my representatives.

On the birght side, it could be argued that BP's do not have the potential to exceed 6 feet. My understanding is that BP's RARELY even reach 6 feet, let alone exceed it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nebby3103

I live in IN, and I'm as worried as everyone. And, I will be writing my representatives.

On the birght side, it could be argued that BP's do not have the potential to exceed 6 feet. My understanding is that BP's RARELY even reach 6 feet, let alone exceed it.

---

This is true,to the unknowing snake haters a snake is a snake.If the wrong person words the law just right it could mean NO pythons allowed period!

well that sucks.i'd hate it if frickin' arnold here in cali were to ban pythons like that.the only "big" snakes that i've seen sell here locally are baby rtb's once in a while.i havent seen anything regarding the banning of snakes here in cali,but i'll keep an eye out.

It doesn't matter that most ball pythons don't exceed five feet let alone six but because they have the 'potential' to they would be banned.
I emailed, wrote and my phone calls begin Monday.