U.S. set to approve python ban

[WarriorPrincess90]

What does this mean for people who already own these species? Will they be forced to get rid of them, or potentially be persecuted?

[Driver]

Alot of people blame pet owners that let their snakes go when they got to big for the snakes in the everglades but there is a lot of research out that that doesn't support this. For one snakes that have been raised in captivity and only know how to eat what is dropped into their container and has grown that big wouldn't be able to survive in the wild for very long. Granite they would survive for a while but not long enough to start a population. They wouldn't be able to hunt as well to stay alive they are too used to be handed food. Now im not saying that some wouldnt survive but not enough to reproduce and to the number we have today.

What is more likely is the there was a large shipment of a few thousand baby Burmese pythons that came in Florida just before Hurricane Andrew in 1992. A very large snake breeding facility was destroyed during Hurricane Andrew in 1992. This breeding facility was located just 5 blocks from the Florida Everglades. This is one of them that just received one of the shipments of Burmese. As babies they would be able to start fresh just as they would in the wild and wouldnt know any better or be lazy.

Now im not saying bad owners don't release their snakes which they do and they shouldn't. Just not enough to contribute to what we have today.

[Kinra]

IF this is approved then it wouldn't take effect immediately they would set a date for it to take effect in the future.

That is true, but as an owner of the banned species I don't like it. I will be forced to choose between my pets or breaking the law if I ever want to move to a different state.

What does this mean for people who already own these species? Will they be forced to get rid of them, or potentially be persecuted?

It basically means you can't legally move with them out of state. This bill only bans the interstate transport of them.

Alot of people blame pet owners that let their snakes go when they got to big for the snakes in the everglades but there is a lot of research out that that doesn't support this. For one snakes that have been raised in captivity and only know how to eat what is dropped into their container and has grown that big wouldn't be able to survive in the wild for very long. Granite they would survive for a while but not long enough to start a population. They wouldn't be able to hunt as well to stay alive they are too used to be handed food. Now im not saying that some wouldnt survive but not enough to reproduce and to the number we have today.

While I don't believe the problem is from released pets, I don't entirely believe this argument. Snakes are more primitive than dogs or cats and they do just fine when dumped by their owners. I think released snakes would be able to feed themselves. They don't lose those instincts no matter how long we have been keeping them as pets and that is part of why some people don't understand why we keep them.

[KingObeat]

Is there still a way to fight this?

[Xotik]

Is there still a way to fight this?

You see that big red banner at the top of the whole forum? Follow it. The first page of that thread is a link to the petition. Sign it. Print it out. Send it to all of your legislators.

[Dabonus]

The more I think and read about this issue, the more conflicted I get. Both the Burmese and Rock python are a huge responsibility as a pet- much more so than any other reptile. I know the fear is that the passing of this law could set a precedent under which the government would eventually ban all reptiles, but I would like to believe that that isn't the case. I gather that the majority of members of this forum could handle the responsibility of keeping a large snake (or at least make a more informed option about owning one), but try and consider the general population. We all agree that there is a point at which a certain species should not be kept in captivity, but where do we draw the line? If it looks like we’re losing the battle, when do we take a step back and draw our line somewhere else? That being said, let me stress that I think the current legislation proposition is ridiculous, and should be revised.

[BigJ]

The more I think and read about this issue, the more conflicted I get. Both the Burmese and Rock python are a huge responsibility as a pet- much more so than any other reptile. I know the fear is that the passing of this law could set a precedent under which the government would eventually ban all reptiles, but I would like to believe that that isn't the case. I gather that the majority of members of this forum could handle the responsibility of keeping a large snake (or at least make a more informed option about owning one), but try and consider the general population. We all agree that there is a point at which a certain species should not be kept in captivity, but where do we draw the line? If it looks like we’re losing the battle, when do we take a step back and draw our line somewhere else? That being said, let me stress that I think the current legislation proposition is ridiculous, and should be revised.

...we are drawing the line RIGHT HERE!

[Mike Cavanaugh]

This is what happens when the people aren't educated, don't know how to think for themselves, and don't know how to resist propaganda. Solve those problems, and the size of the government would be irrelevant.

I got news for you... that government that is getting too big is who is feeding those that aren't educated, don't know how to think for themselves, and don't know how to resist propaganda. If you want to solve some problems, eliminate the enabler.

This is just another example of a too big government trying to take more control of its people.

[WingedWolfPsion]

Yes, big Burms, Afrocks, and mainland retics are a huge responsibility.

My super-dwarf retics, on the other hand, are pretty much like skinny ball pythons with a big appetite.
Don't forget that boa constrictors are part of this too.

This law doesn't care that dwarf Burmese exist, or super dwarf retics. It doesn't care that Hog Island boas stay small. They're all restricted as well.
This law doesn't care what happens to your animal if you have to move from one State to another, so long as you don't take it with it.

[john c]

This is bad news! Our country is in a sad state when ridiculous political agendas and incorrect science, beat the peoples opinions. (Which our government is supposed to represent)

The more I think and read about this issue, the more conflicted I get. Both the Burmese and Rock python are a huge responsibility as a pet- much more so than any other reptile. I know the fear is that the passing of this law could set a precedent under which the government would eventually ban all reptiles, but I would like to believe that that isn't the case. I gather that the majority of members of this forum could handle the responsibility of keeping a large snake (or at least make a more informed option about owning one), but try and consider the general population. We all agree that there is a point at which a certain species should not be kept in captivity, but where do we draw the line? If it looks like we’re losing the battle, when do we take a step back and draw our line somewhere else? That being said, let me stress that I think the current legislation proposition is ridiculous, and should be revised.

You could say the same thing about guns. Something many people own, and can handle responsibly but still some of the population could not handle one safely.

Yes, Burms aren't for everyone - Yes, guns aren't for everyone, but it is NOT up to the government to decide for us.

As stated before, "We draw the line here." If a person accepts less freedom and draws their line further and further, from freedom, that person will lose their freedom all together.

Sorry for the long comparison. Just the best one I could think of.