Narrow minded or am I asking too much?

[mackynz]

Cool.

Find someone who captive breeds them and hasn't been proven a liar......................good luck with that search as well.

Now that's a whole different ball game

And popping is reliable when they are very young. But it doesn't help with adults.

Point is, those of us who know, know.

It's odd since I was talking to my vet the other day and he felt that probing is usually more accurate. He used to breed balls and now keeps 12 retics.

[Stewart_Reptiles]

Do I agree with the ban? No I don't, I don't think that a few crappy keepers should be able to ruin it for everyone.

That shows your ignorance about the real issue ( might want to do some research on that ), if you think it's only about invasive species think again, hr669 was not about invases species and it was a very real threat to exotic's owners and animals were targeted for what they were snakes of all species and sizes not because they were invasive. The only mistake that was made by our opponent was to target other exotics as well. (Went from geckos to hamsters to goldfish to parakeets). Now they are smarter they divide to conquer first the large snakes then anything can happen and you'd have to be foolish to think it can't happen because you have a milk or a BP. There is a big agenda here that apparently some of you do not understand.


Do you think if it was only about invasives species they wouldn't try to do something about wild iguanas in the everglades? They don't seem to care too much about that why is that? Because snakes are a much better target.

[PsychD_Student]

If the reason for burmese pythons to be banned was "they are an invasive species" then explain why lionfish aren't banned? Or cats? Pigs? Because the money behind those are larger than the AR can target right now. Burmese are NOT invasive to any place other than South Florida. So what was that reason for banned import and transport across state lines again? Please... tell me all about how Florida doesn't have laws about burmese, retics and anacondas on the books. Since it's a FLORIDA only problem. I may not be a big headed scientist like ya'll are.. but I know all about this, I live here and I've been involved with all this garbage since before Florida even passed the regulations that required you to get a permit to own the giants, much less banned them, much less the national ban work.

If you don't think that Congress will easily pass the ban to include "all pythons" after HSUS starts saying "Well, ball pythons are still pythons, just like the ones in the Everglades..." you're ignorant of how they work. All it takes is the facts that people who USED to own/breed/sell burmese are now turning to the non-banned smaller species and you'll see the USFW add them in. Geckos will probably get another 5-10 years maybe. All "exotics" are on the chopping blocks. They'll get them eventually. Burmese owners thought "They'll never pass it...." too.

You're right, it's only Florida's problem--as far as the invasive species aspect is concerned. The "injurious" label is an issue everywhere. It wasn't only an invasive species issue... it was a multifactorial situation that resulted in the species selected for the list.

You seriously think little geckos have 5 years left to be legal? That is a GROSS overestimation of the issue at hand. Before you start discussing how ignorant people may be of the situation at hand, I would do a bit more research and skim the actual bills passed to get a better idea of the reasoning behind the bans.

Using your own evidence as a counterargument--- if Florida began requiring permits for ownership of the animals at hand, why don't they require permits for red eyed tree frogs or rosy boas? Because they're not dangerous to humans. It has nothing to do with their exotic label. IMHO

[Skiploder]

Now that's a whole different ball game



It's odd since I was talking to my vet the other day and he felt that probing is usually more accurate. He used to breed balls and now keeps 12 retics.

So Dr. Wenninger has experience probing rhamphiophis?

That's what we are discussing - not ball pythons.

As him why thrasops (yet no other dispholidine) produces a strong smell when shedding...............hope he's got the answer because you're not going to find that one on Google either.

[PsychD_Student]

So Dr. Wenninger has experience probing rhamphiophis?

That's what we are discussing - not ball pythons.

As him why thrasops (yet no other dispholidine) produces a strong smell when shedding...............hope he's got the answer because you're not going to find that one on Google either.

Who cares? This was an original tangent of yours... are you implying that you helped discover a way to sex these better? Would you like a cookie? Should I await the article in the journal Nature or Science?

[mackynz]

So Dr. Wenninger has experience probing rhamphiophis?

He very well might.

As him why thrasops (yet no other dispholidine) produces a strong smell when shedding...............hope he's got the answer because you're not going to find that one on Google either.

Will do.

That shows your ignorance about the real issue ( might want to do some research on that ), if you think it's only about invasise species think again, hr669 was not about invases species and it was a very real threat to exotic's owners and animals were targeted for what they were snakes of all species and sizes not because they were invasive. The only mistake that was made by our opponent was to target other exotics as well. Now they are smarter they divide to conquer first the large snakes.

Do you think if it was only about invasives species they wouldn't try to do something about wild iguanas in the everglades? They don't seem to care too much about that why is that? Because snakes are a much better target.

Wait wait wait, you are trying to tell me that the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act had nothing to do with invasive species?

And contrary to what you said above, when I was responding to this post:

Sooo...you think Burms and African Rocks were targeted for a reason other than being snakes? .

I guess you mis-read my response I don't think it's only about invasive species, I was saying that was part of it.

I understand HR669 is terrible and extremely flawed. I am not for it. I do however understand what they are trying to get at.

[Skiploder]

Who cares? This was an original tangent of yours... are you implying that you helped discover a way to sex these better? Would you like a cookie? Should I await the article in the journal Nature or Science?

Your need to be right is clouding your understanding of where this tangent is going. Either that or you are particularly dense.

The point was being made that just because something isn't on the internet doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

The OP is seeking to replicate something that has been replicated several times. The comment was made that several of these studies exist. A retort was provided in which someone claimed that since they couldn't find it on the internet, it's existence may be in doubt and a challenge was made to provide those links.

Now do you get where this thread is going? People know how to sex rhamphiophis rubropunctatus, people know why a thrasops smells like anise when it sheds and people know where the word "cribo" came from yet amazingly none of those answers exist on Google.

As long as we are baking cookies, go ahead and bake a few dozen. Then carefully pile them on the counter, find a hammer and pound all those cookies up your rectum.

[wolfy-hound]

You're right, it's only Florida's problem--as far as the invasive species aspect is concerned. The "injurious" label is an issue everywhere. It wasn't only an invasive species issue... it was a multifactorial situation that resulted in the species selected for the list.

You seriously think little geckos have 5 years left to be legal? That is a GROSS overestimation of the issue at hand. Before you start discussing how ignorant people may be of the situation at hand, I would do a bit more research and skim the actual bills passed to get a better idea of the reasoning behind the bans.

Using your own evidence as a counterargument--- if Florida began requiring permits for ownership of the animals at hand, why don't they require permits for red eyed tree frogs or rosy boas? Because they're not dangerous to humans. It has nothing to do with their exotic label. IMHO

You do realize that the "injurious" label means "injurious to the environment" pretty much.... right? Defined by the USFWS "injurious to the interests of human beings, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States" not that they are DANGEROUS to humans. In other words, the lionfish is injurious, because it eats game fish and food fish. The Burmese is invasive, but it does not impact crops, etc. They could stretch Burms to say they eat native wildlife... but since they're eating native wildlife that is not game animals and is not harvested for food, it'd be a stretch.

[Stewart_Reptiles]

Wait wait wait, you are trying to tell me that the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act had nothing to do with invasive species?

That's only the tip of the iceberg. YOU are still no grasping the bigger agenda and why there is no surprise when it comes to the herp community not wanted to help such a research made by an unknown outsider.

Or maybe you are right maybethe research does not get a warm welcome simply because people in the herp community are just a bunch uneducated, narrow minded individuals against progress and enlightment from the new generation of keepers.

[Skiploder]

That's only the tip of the iceberg. YOU are still no grasping the bigger agenda and why there is no surprise when it comes to the herp community not wanted to help such a research made by an unknown outsider.

Or maybe you are right maybethe research does not get a warm welcome simply because people in the herp community are just a bunch uneducated, narrow minded individuals against progress and enlightment from the new generation of keepers.

Deborah, the systemic state by state introduction of bans continues and people still think this is about injury to the environment or the proliferation of non-native species.

Were Wisconsin and Ohio worried about the environment or proliferation? Was Pennsylvania? Connecticut?

Some people haven't boned up on whose agenda is being pushed here and why.

Now you see why we can't ever mount a cohesive response to the flood of legislation - they are still so many people who have no idea why these bans are really being proposed.