Quote Originally Posted by PsychD_Student View Post
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.