Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 563

0 members and 563 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,916
Threads: 249,118
Posts: 2,572,200
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, Wilson1885
Results 1 to 10 of 18

Threaded View

  1. #1
    Registered User SpartaDog's Avatar
    Join Date
    08-02-2010
    Posts
    511
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 62 Times in 54 Posts

    Loophole in the Burm Ban?

    Kind of...Probably not, and it doesn't help afrock or anaconda owners, but this thought just popped into my head. Yeah, technically Burms are banned from crossing state lines and there's not much we can do about that that we aren't already working on. Burmese pythons, as you probably know, are Python molurus bivittatus. But does the ban say anything about the Indian python (Python molurus), Ceylonese python (Python molurus pimbura), or any other P. molurus subspecies?

    I mean the US government calls American bulldogs, cane corsos, Alapaha blueblood bulldogs, Olde English Bulldogges, Dogue de Bordeaux, boxers, all different kinds of mastiffs, and just about any mollosser-type dog you can think of a "pit bull" and seize the dog in areas where pits are banned. But as long as the owner can prove the dog is not an American pit bull terrier, American Staffordshire terrier, Staffordshire bull terrier, or any other breeds listed in the law, the gov't is forced to drop charges. So if the Burm ban only bans P. m. bivittatus, if the owner can prove it's not, can the charges be dropped?
    Last edited by SpartaDog; 02-20-2012 at 04:24 PM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to SpartaDog For This Useful Post:

    Giftbearer (02-27-2012)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1