CNN video about python ban

[Gbusiness]

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/...orting-ban.cnn
If, the new's is going to do a report? At least properly ID the correct species of snakes your displaying in your video's. Near the begginning of this video they named the constrictor a burmese python. When actually it was a reticulated python.
I've watched alot of the animal planet show's on large constrictors. Watched alot of the show's about burmese python's in florida. Not saying there is no footage? But, I've never seen a show or even a small clip within a show? About, any kind of anacondas at all? Let alone a yellow anaconda. The only thing I've seen about anacondas was the "queen of the serpents green anaconda". And, this show was about better understanding of this constrictor in there natural environment. Never, portrayed them as a Monster! The common subject in all of these show's on animal planet was about ONE particular species of a large constrictor? And, that is the burmese python not the AFRP or any Annies! I have nothing against burmese python's. I was going to buy some hypo burm's recently myself.
What they should do is give us hobbiest a place or service that will take our unwanted pet's and properly care for them for the rest of there day's (I know only in a perfect world).

[Skiploder]

ARE YOU SERIOUS? Let's take away motorcycles, anything that's got a sharp edge. You can't take away people's rights because there are a few idiots abroad.
What about the resposible, educated keepers? Where does it end?

Hold on a sec......

As a responsible keeper, I would have no problem applying for a permit and having my snakes chipped if need be.

As a responsible keeper, I also realize I cannot compare a snake to a motorcycle. My irresponsibility with a motorcycle will not result in the suffering of an animal. It could result in my death and the risk of injury to someone else, but that's an ethical argument of a different type.

I do not believe that any Tom, Richard or Harry should be able to buy a rock python. If Tom, Richard or Harry gets killed by his rock python, I could care less.

However Tom, Richard or Harry's inability to properly care for his giant snake will result in a couple of other things - (1) pain, suffering and potentially death to the snake and (2) an assault on my ability to keep my snakes.

No one can argue that giant constrictors should be kept by only keepers with sufficient knowledge and means to properly care for them - so why do we so quickly defend the right of ownership for any idiot who can afford the price of entry?

After breeding snakes for a number of years and after seeing how often those animals ended up forgotten and mistreated, I do NOT support the right for any moron who can afford an animal to keep one.

I fully support the right for responsible keepers to keep whatever they want.

The hobby has put itself in this situation. While it's all fine and dandy to blame the burmese issue on a Hurricane and make a half-a$$ed attempt to remove human responsibility from the equation, it does not begin to explain the countless other invasive species in south Florida that have ended up there as a result of irresponsible idiots in the exotic pet trade.

Do I support bans? No. I do support responsible pet ownership. Sadly, this hobby has proven time and time again that responsibility is not our strong suit.

The Federal Government has just shown that they CAN take away your "rights" with regards to giant constrictors because of a hobby rife with idiots. Continue to shovel your money towards groups that are taking credit for doing something they did not.

In the meantime I predict those efforts will get us nowhere. In fact, I predict things will get a lot worse before they get better. This is a stepping stone to more restrictions and legislation.

[AaronP]

That's even worse then this one..

http://youtu.be/Zom3GGxQ82g

Greg is trying to defend the hobby, but he's censored and then it pans off. They know what they've done, they're just trying to censor everyone who says the ban is bad... It's pathetic.

Okay we're bashing Him but he's saying exactly what everyone has been saying for 10+ years. This is a Florida issue, not a National issue. He was saying they shouldn't have made it a national issue.

[Lopezxx2]

It sound to me like hes focusing purely on the people who over the years made this a problem without knowing what they are doing. But they arent the ones affected by this. Its the passionate ones who lose a chance at something great. He was right about lil kids but thats not the big picture. He even says its not gonna happen out of florida so why ban them everywhere? Congress is just doing wonders right now

[tcutting]

Hold on a sec......

As a responsible keeper, I would have no problem applying for a permit and having my snakes chipped if need be.

No one can argue that giant constrictors should be kept by only keepers with sufficient knowledge and means to properly care for them -

This is what they should ahve done and for the reasoning you stated. I have always said as a way to protect the animals require a permit for large constrictors, but not to take them away completely for those that do the right thing.

[bubblz]

Jack Hanna has always stumbled over his words and contradicted himself since he's been in front of the camera for decades,.. so why would that change now. He doesn't always get it right but he still makes some good points. Unfortunately those good points can and will be over shadowed. Since some people can't and don't take you seriously when you have difficulty articulating those points.

He frustrated the hell out of me when I was younger and I stopped watching him way back then. Steve Irwin is no longer with us so unfortunately they chose Hanna by default.

But seriously I'm on the fence about the whole thing, we need more restrictions but at the same time you can't force people to be responsible and do the right thing. If it was that easy we wouldn't have so many issues in the first place. There's always going to be somebody trying to get over and cut corners ban or not, which eventually screws the people doing the right thing.

It's true,.. it's not a Nation wide issue but it can be with different species. With or with out a ban or restrictions something needs to be done.

[wolfy-hound]

I don't think that I should have to jump through 50 government hoops to own a dog or a horse or a burmese python.

It's okay to block people from owning burms... because why? Because SOME people get them and neglect them or get hurt by them?

So ONE person every TWO years is way too many folks killed for you? Giants are so dangerous that only .5 people have been killed per year... and that's a reason to ban ownership?
So a few people neglect their burms while most take decent care of them.

So you're saying the government should force anyone who wants to buy a dog, cat, horse or any other pet to jump through 50 hoops and pay fees in order to own a pet?

That's ONE step away from "No one owns pets."

Go join Peta. You're almost there when you say it's okay for "most" people to not be able to own exotics/pythons/insert animal here. Because you are labeling the general public as incapable of owning a pet, while saying you yourself are okay to own one... so the general public should be blocked from owning pets. Guess what? You are the general public. Everyone on BP.net here "are" the general public. If you don't own a acreditted zoo, you are just a member of the public, just like all the schmos out there who think giant snakes will live in Canada next year.

In 20 years, no one in the "general public" will be able to own even a dog. Enjoy your pets now, your grandkids won't be able to.

[CCfive]

Hold on a sec......

As a responsible keeper, I would have no problem applying for a permit and having my snakes chipped if need be.

As a responsible keeper, I also realize I cannot compare a snake to a motorcycle. My irresponsibility with a motorcycle will not result in the suffering of an animal. It could result in my death and the risk of injury to someone else, but that's an ethical argument of a different type.

I do not believe that any Tom, Richard or Harry should be able to buy a rock python. If Tom, Richard or Harry gets killed by his rock python, I could care less.

However Tom, Richard or Harry's inability to properly care for his giant snake will result in a couple of other things - (1) pain, suffering and potentially death to the snake and (2) an assault on my ability to keep my snakes.

No one can argue that giant constrictors should be kept by only keepers with sufficient knowledge and means to properly care for them - so why do we so quickly defend the right of ownership for any idiot who can afford the price of entry?

After breeding snakes for a number of years and after seeing how often those animals ended up forgotten and mistreated, I do NOT support the right for any moron who can afford an animal to keep one.

I fully support the right for responsible keepers to keep whatever they want.

The hobby has put itself in this situation. While it's all fine and dandy to blame the burmese issue on a Hurricane and make a half-a$$ed attempt to remove human responsibility from the equation, it does not begin to explain the countless other invasive species in south Florida that have ended up there as a result of irresponsible idiots in the exotic pet trade.

Do I support bans? No. I do support responsible pet ownership. Sadly, this hobby has proven time and time again that responsibility is not our strong suit.

The Federal Government has just shown that they CAN take away your "rights" with regards to giant constrictors because of a hobby rife with idiots. Continue to shovel your money towards groups that are taking credit for doing something they did not.

In the meantime I predict those efforts will get us nowhere. In fact, I predict things will get a lot worse before they get better. This is a stepping stone to more restrictions and legislation.

I agree not everyone should, but my point is everyone should have the right. Permits don't weed out idiots. There are plenty of people who own guns that shouldn't. As far as my point goes about the motorcycle, what I'm saying is you can't take away rights of people to make their own choices based on the fact that a minority of people might make bad choices.

[CCfive]

Jack Hanna has always stumbled over his words and contradicted himself since he's been in front of the camera for decades,.. so why would that change now. He doesn't always get it right but he still makes some good points. Unfortunately those good points can and will be over shadowed. Since some people can't and don't take you seriously when you have difficulty articulating those points.

He frustrated the hell out of me when I was younger and I stopped watching him way back then. Steve Irwin is no longer with us so unfortunately they chose Hanna by default.

But seriously I'm on the fence about the whole thing, we need more restrictions but at the same time you can't force people to be responsible and do the right thing. If it was that easy we wouldn't have so many issues in the first place. There's always going to be somebody trying to get over and cut corners ban or not, which eventually screws the people doing the right thing.

It's true,.. it's not a Nation wide issue but it can be with different species. With or with out a ban or restrictions something needs to be done.

More along the lines of what I was thinking.

[CCfive]

I don't think that I should have to jump through 50 government hoops to own a dog or a horse or a burmese python.

It's okay to block people from owning burms... because why? Because SOME people get them and neglect them or get hurt by them?

So ONE person every TWO years is way too many folks killed for you? Giants are so dangerous that only .5 people have been killed per year... and that's a reason to ban ownership?
So a few people neglect their burms while most take decent care of them.

So you're saying the government should force anyone who wants to buy a dog, cat, horse or any other pet to jump through 50 hoops and pay fees in order to own a pet?

That's ONE step away from "No one owns pets."

Go join Peta. You're almost there when you say it's okay for "most" people to not be able to own exotics/pythons/insert animal here. Because you are labeling the general public as incapable of owning a pet, while saying you yourself are okay to own one... so the general public should be blocked from owning pets. Guess what? You are the general public. Everyone on BP.net here "are" the general public. If you don't own a acreditted zoo, you are just a member of the public, just like all the schmos out there who think giant snakes will live in Canada next year.

In 20 years, no one in the "general public" will be able to own even a dog. Enjoy your pets now, your grandkids won't be able to.

x2 Thank you