Anyone in Texas, take a peep

Thought I would give the heads up, this goes into effect April 1st. I know a lot of you had heard about it, but last I checked they were only including Retics. Now it is retics, afrocks, and green annies, as well as any non-native venomous.

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...s/5576910.html

:rage::rage::rage::rage::rage::rage::rage::rage::rage:


*SNORT*

I just don't have a problem with this IF (and that is one big a$$ IF), it stops here. I do not think people should be able to keep animals in excess of 14 feet and hundreds of pounds with no accountability. My concern is it WILL NOT stop here.

I agree. I just posted it to give everyone a reminder. But as with everything, when it comes to the government, too much is never enough.

I have to say I really like how that article was written. It wasn't all about how big, bad, and evil snakes are. The snakes were just one of many problems listed with introducing non-native species where they don't belong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

I have to say I really like how that article was written. It wasn't all about how big, bad, and evil snakes are. The snakes were just one of many problems listed with introducing non-native species where they don't belong.

---

Spot on we do have to admit the damage our animals can be responsible for if released or escaped. The snakes mentioned, Green Annies, Af Rocks and Burms are all snakes that can and do grow over 20 feet. Expecting a person to have a permit to own such animals is not over the line.

My concern is the whole slippery slope thing. Now there is a law so appending to it is a lot easier then passing another one. Just like raising a tax is easier to do then creation of a new one. So how long is it before some bureaucrat sees a big boa or blood python and decides it is "pretty big too". Then they go on the list. Next they need more enforcement agents so the cost on the permit goes up. Then they start telling us what we can and can't feed our snakes (ask a person in the UK if you doubt that, they can go to jail for feeding live prey). I just do not trust the government to stop when common sense says they have gone far enough.

Does this mean they are going to ban fire ants? That would be AWESOME! I hate those buggers.

As far as the large snakes are concerned, I agree that if you own a snake above say 10' you should have some sort of permit. All of those snakes should be tagged with GPS trackers so the owners will be held responsible if they get let out.

I think that if the owner sells the python, and say... the next person lets it out, the original owner of the snake should still be held responsible. Just like a bartender that provides someone too many drinks. :snake2:

That's all I have to say, except. :twocents:


Texas is still the best.

P.S. Is just me, or do they not even mention Burmese pythons in the article? Maybe that's what southern african is, but that's something you'd think they'd mention.

I totally agree with being wary of the slippery slope! I'm right with you!

If I got to write the laws, I'd probably require an inexpensive permit to own and/or sell the biggest and most dangerous species. But, since I don't get to... I'm not sure how I feel about the permit laws, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

I was just really happy to see an article that didn't go with the sensationalist end of things and target snake owners because so many people are afraid of snakes and even if they aren't afraid, they may see wanting to own one as pretty weird, or a sign that you are a gang member or into witchcraft. It was nice to see recreational boat owners lumped into the same category for transporting non-native aquatic plants from one place to the next. And instead of "gosh it might eat your dog or even kill you", it talked about the very real damage done to ecosystems by all non-native species, and the very high $$ costs in damage and efforts to control such things as fire ants and feral hogs.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skoalbasher

P.S. Is just me, or do they not even mention Burmese pythons in the article? Maybe that's what southern african is, but that's something you'd think they'd mention.

---

At the very end of the article, when it starts discussing what has been happening in Florida, it does mention Burmese pythons and says they are Asiatic pythons. However, it really is unclear if that is supposed to be the same as the Asiatic rock pythons it earlier mentioned is covered by the new Texas law.

According to wikipedia, common names of Python molurus include Indian python, indian rock python, black-tailed python, Asiatic rock python, and tiger python. The Burmese python is P. m. bivittatus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kc261

At the very end of the article, when it starts discussing what has been happening in Florida, it does mention Burmese pythons and says they are Asiatic pythons. However, it really is unclear if that is supposed to be the same as the Asiatic rock pythons it earlier mentioned is covered by the new Texas law.

According to wikipedia, common names of Python molurus include Indian python, indian rock python, black-tailed python, Asiatic rock python, and tiger python. The Burmese python is P. m. bivittatus.

---

I saw that at the the end when I went back and double checked, just wasn't sure if they mentioned it in the prohibited species. But I can see that now, thanks for the clear up. :salute:

Well I think the cost of the permit is very affordable, even for breeders, so that's great. But I am pretty sure I've heard that the Florida situation can't happen in Texas as far as those snakes are concerned... so it'd be silly to put all this stuff into effect for the wrong reasons.

Well, whether there is a problem with wild snakes running loose in Texas (which I HIGHLY doubt) I still think the permit is a good idea if only because it might cut down on some of the irresponsible owners that get a big snake just because it's "cool."

Owners that want a giant snake just because it's "cool" aren't gonig to pay for a permit anyway, they'll just keep them illegally... and they probably won't even realize they are supposed to have the permit. It's my humble opinion that usually these permits only punish those who are responsible exotic pet owners.

I was under the assumption that you had to get a permit in order to buy the animal. I know pet stores have to get a permit to sell them. Maybe I'm wrong though.

The article says you have 21 days after you purchase the animal to get the permit. Hopefully they have a way of tracking who buys them and they go after anyone who doesn't get the permit within 21 days. Otherwise Rapture is right, it will end up being a way to punish the responsible owners and do nothing about the problem owners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rapture

Owners that want a giant snake just because it's "cool" aren't gonig to pay for a permit anyway, they'll just keep them illegally... and they probably won't even realize they are supposed to have the permit. It's my humble opinion that usually these permits only punish those who are responsible exotic pet owners.

---

Boy doesn't that sound like gun control! There is one constant in law, only the law abiding obey it.