Newspaper editorial - we need you to act today

Today's Orlando Sentinel newspaper has an editorial about the "invasion" of non-native snakes into Florida. I need each of you to read the opinion and then go online and vote on the editorial board's opinion . . . which I hope is a thumbs DOWN. The link to vote is http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/

They post the results in the paper tomorrow. So far less than 50 have voted but the vote is like 92% in favor of banning our snakes. Lets make sure they hear from us!

Text of the editorial follows:

"What we think: Stop the invasion
June 22, 2009
Let's say a snake, originally imported from another country as a pet, gets loose and starts breeding in the wilds of Florida.

Under current law, the federal government can declare that species "injurious," which means it would become illegal to import it. But in typical bureaucratic fashion, such a declaration can take up to four years to complete.

By then, the snake has had plenty of time to become well-established in a place where it doesn't belong.

That's what's happened in the Florida Everglades, where the state is considering putting a bounty on the thousands of hungry Burmese pythons now on the loose in the River of Grass, eating rabbits and even the occasional alligator.

Strangely enough, the government has yet to decide that the Burmese python is "injurious," so U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson has introduced a bill that would bypass the bureaucracy and add pythons to the list of banned wildlife.

We're glad Mr. Nelson is on the case, but his measure is way too little and way too late.

Florida and the rest of the nation need a far more comprehensive law to stop the invasion of exotic species into natural places.

A proposal in the U.S. House of Representatives is a move in the right direction.

Introduced by a delegate from Guam, where the non-native brown tree snake has wreaked havoc on native bird populations, the bill would bring some desperately needed logic to animal-import laws.

Instead of waiting until after a non-native species has gotten out of control, the species' risks would have to be assessed before it can be imported into the United States.

This approach might well have saved the Everglades from the python, the Potomac River from the Chinese snakehead fish, and the Mississippi River from the Asian carp.

Predictably, those who make big money from importing and selling exotic wildlife, and who care much less about their products' harm to the environment, are up in arms. Even by today's low standards, their campaign is particularly noxious, implying that the feds are going to kick in doors and wrest away a child's pet gerbil.

No such thing is true. The bill doesn't apply to most domesticated pets, and people who already own snakes, gerbils and other critters would be allowed to keep them. They just couldn't breed them or import more of them until the species' risks for harm were assessed. Even before that determination is made, the bill allows the government to include common and domesticated non-native wildlife on a list of approved species.

Also dubious is the claim that the U.S. pet industry would collapse. Please. We doubt the industry will suffer greatly if a few exotic animals are banned. This is a common scare tactic, one that also conveniently ignores the billions in economic damage and other costs from non-native plants and animals.

It's hard to take the exotic-pet industry seriously when it opposes even Mr. Nelson's modest proposal to ban the import of pythons. The industry's reasoning? Aside from the Burmese python, other types have yet to populate in the wild.

Yet. Implying that we should wait until there's another environmental crisis before doing something.

Florida's Legislature already has shown it doesn't have the stomach for meaningful controls of exotic species, even in a state where the warm climate increases the risk from invaders.

That's why Florida's congressional delegation in Washington needs to get behind a federal law that will get a grip on this growing problem."

done :)

done! :D

Done!!!!!

#

Thumbs up (46 responses)

59.7%

Thumbs down (31 responses)

40.3%

* 77 total responses

Done it :gj:

Done.;)

It now says: Thumbs Up - 49.5% Thumbs Down - 50.5%

They've undoubtedly logged my IP . . . and we're pulling ahead!

~Bruce

A letter to the editor would probably be more useful......winning an unscientific poll doesn't mean much.

You would be surprised how many may glance at a stupid pole result and if they have no knowledge or opinion follow suit with whatever is popular.....i wonder sometimes if that isnt how half the belief's in our society are formed lol....

Done. Thumbs down is ahead (60+%).

Maybe I'm blind, but I can't find anything about reptiles on that page. :P

Nevermind, I found it. I am blind. :D

Alice thanks for posting this. I posted it over at the BLBC and we are now at almost 60% Thumbs Down. The Paper has moved the article so it is a bit harder to find but here is a direct link.
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/opinion/orl-edped-exotic-wildlife-062209062209jun22,0,5087549.story

I don't know how much one un-scientific poll matters, but I voted anyway. 61.3% thumbs down.

Voted. Thumbs down is now 65.2%.

VOTE

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,5087549.story


Vote on our editorial *

Do you agree with our opinion?

Thumbs up (48 responses)

34.3%

Thumbs down (92 responses)

65.7%

140 total responses (Results not scientific)

Done. 66% thumbs down.

Quote:

---

Thumbs up (48 responses)
34.0%

Thumbs down (93 responses)
66.0%

141 total responses

---

Done! 69% Thumbs Down.

Done. :gj:

Quote:

---

Do you agree with our opinion?

Thumbs up (49 responses) 29.3%

Thumbs down (118 responses) 70.7%

167 total responses (Results not scientific)

---

Did it.

We are slaughtering the "Thumbs Up" now!:cool:

For those unaware, you can vote again on a different browser :). I voted on Firefox and IE.

Voted from home and work!

For as strong as the opinion letter was written, I would be curious if they post the results as they said they would, keep us informed if the post the results they dont care for lol...

done!

Vote on our editorial
Do you agree with our opinion?

Thumbs up (50 responses)

24.8%

Thumbs down (152 responses)

75.2%

202 total responses (Results not scientific)

Return to the previous page

Done

Vote on our editorial
Do you agree with our opinion?

Thumbs up (51 responses)

24.6%

Thumbs down (156 responses)

75.4%

207 total responses (Results not scientific)

Check out what they list as the results. What a bunch of crap. Scroll down after the new one.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7035309.story

Do you agree with our opinion?

Thumbs up (52 responses)

24.8%

Thumbs down (158 responses)

75.2%

210 total responses (Results not scientific)

and they post this...

Monday's results
Our editorial: Florida and the nation need a stronger law to stop the invasion of exotic species.

Thumbs up: 95.1%

Thumbs down: 4.9%

def not scientific.... :D

Lying mother :cens0r:
Where is this papers contact info.
This really pisses me off.
The completely changed the results to suit their agenda.

I contacted them.
This is BS!

Don't just vote, leave a comment too!!

Done :D

I think voting at this point is useless. What they need now is a flood of letters pointing out how blatantly they LIED about the poll results.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Albey

Check out what they list as the results. What a bunch of crap. Scroll down after the new one.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/...,7035309.story

---

If you are talking about this:
Monday's results
Our editorial: Florida and the nation need a stronger law to stop the invasion of exotic species.

Thumbs up: 95.1%

Thumbs down: 4.9%

That would be yesterdays poll.

***********************
After my vote:

Do you agree with our opinion?

Thumbs up (55 responses)

21.7%

Thumbs down (199 responses)

78.3%

254 total responses (Results not scientific)

Quote:

---

Vote on our editorial

*

Do you agree with our opinion?

Thumbs up (68 responses)

16.6%

Thumbs down (342 responses)

83.4%
o 410 total responses (Results not scientific)

---

They better not fudge the results!

I emailed the editor about the results they posted and got this as a response:

"Thank you for your note. The published results of our poll are based on the results as of about 4 p.m. each day, which is about the time we have to have our work finished for the printed product.

On occasion, as was the case this time, the results change later in the evening, after our deadline. If we truly wanted to game the results, as your note suggests, we would kill the poll if it later changed to reflect disagreement with our opinion. Instead, we leave it up so people like you can continue to monitor the results as they evolve. That way the results remain transparent."

It makes sense since the articles need to be written and prepared the day before. Is this newspaper also printed? I ask because it would be easy to change an online poll, but if it is also in print I understand why they want their online results to match the printed results for consistency's sake.

yes,it is printed

lol Did I not say they would print what they wanted lol, like above call, write a letter for the editorial section, doubt they would print that either...."shakes head"

Thanks everyone for voting. I also called when the results were published and got the same "we cut off at 4:00 pm" response. Of course, the 4:00 pm response seems a bit ridiculous for a printed paper . . . especially when they don't publish that rule anywhere.

I'm monitoirng other polls at the paper to see if they follow the same 4:00 pm rule. I'll let you know what I find if it is different.

what do i do?i cant find wher you vote?