UPDATE: HR2811 Amendment

[neilgolli]

How are we doing this? How are we allowing them to bypass the steps necessary to make a fully educated risk assessment? Once the bill is updated to specifically list only Burmese pythons and Rock pythons, why can't we at that time force expert testimony on the subject before the updated bill is passed?

"The ranking member, Rep Gohmert, called for scientific testimony so that he could make an informed decision. He stated that no one on the subcommittee was a reptile expert."

Why do you think this Rep will change his stance on this just because the bill has changed from a proposed ban on all pythons to a ban on 2 specific pythons?

We are on the same team here Neil... I guess I am just not explaining myself well enough.

Mike, I completely agree we are on the same side and even believe the same thing and in the inevitable conclusion. I simply fear we are giving to much credit to our representatives. The best example of that is actually reducing the bill to only include burms and rocks. There are many many more species of reptiles that fit the bill that (dare I say should be included on the list). By them expanding or narrowing the bill BEFORE looking at the scientific evidence they are already making mistakes.