CNN video about python ban

[Skiploder]

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.

Theresa, I could care less if 1000 idiots a year kill themselves with giant constrictors. This isn't about protecting the public from giant snakes - at least for me it isn't and it never will be.

As I stated before - I support responsible pet ownership - no more, no less. There is nothing hidden in that statement, no secret allegiance to PETA or HSUS and no hidden agenda to take away your right to own anything. I live in a state with bans on some snakes (a few of which I keep or have kept) and have been required to apply for permits and have my snake house inspected on several occasions in order to legally keep some of my animals.

Do I mind? In the beginning I did, I don't anymore. I've seen way too much irresponsibility with these animals to be able to look anyone straight in the face and say that these animals deserve the fate they often end up getting. I have stated this before on this forum, that when I was heavy into breeding I was seeing over half my animals coming back to me within the first three years.

Why? Because I used to sell with right of first refusal contracts. The incidence rate of poor and abusive care in this hobby is higher than anyone here will ever admit.

Hell, Theresa, most of the people you see getting all frothed up over this amendment will post here like mad for a year or two and then quietly fade out and sell there collections when the novelty of owning a snake wears off. We see it all the time on these forums. Aren't we always seeing waves of new people coming in, then going out just as quickly? What happens to those animals?

Well, as a breeder who made it a cornerstone of my business to take those animals back - I know what happens to them.

I am not an advocate of bans and I am not an advocate of permits or fees. What I have always been is an advocate of responsible ownership and for self governance and control.

While the ongoing bans and legislative attempts have nothing to do with the real issues in this hobby, they ran concurrent and parallel long enough that both PIJAC and USARK began supporting model legislation that set the guidelines for restrictions and permits in order to keep venomous, giants and species of potential environmental concern.

There were minds there that understood that the only way to combat this bad press in our hobby was to head it off at the pass and make an attempt to show that we could regulate ourselves - to deal with the issues, both imagined, hyped and real.

Well, you don't have to go far to see USARK being ripped apart in some quarters for this model legislation. Mark my words, without it, the states will fall - one by one - and within 5 years, more animals will be added to the Lacey Act.

What people don't get is that there is not enough financial or political firepower in the "Reptile Nation" to fight the animal rights and environmental lobbies. The latter is more financially and politically viable than we will ever be. USARK gets it and hence the path towards self "inflicted" legislation. You may not like it, but it is our future.

In the meantime, while USARK - despite their penchant for taking credit where credit is NOT due - understands that petitions and hand wringing isn't going to fix this. This Amendment to Federal Law must be dealt with in court. This is a pointed lesson in why we are always on the defensive..........

We talk a lot about fighting for our rights for a period and think signing petitions and running our mouths is the answer. Well, let's see where that gets us.

In the meantime, I will continue to help people be more responsible owners in my own way. I will continue to track legislation that affects me and do actual research as to who sits on what committees and work from there.

When it becomes harder and harder to obtain these animals without permits, I will do what I need to do to be able to own them - as Theresa I ASSume you will too. Then perhaps we can look back at the last couple of years in honest retrospect and discuss the politics of absolutism and where it ended up getting the Reptile Nation.