Indiana: Pythons not welcome

[lord jackel]

For my fellow Hoosiers I thought I would pass on this sad news . Last week Senator Sipes sponsored (well he actually just put through a US Humane Society bill) to outlaw "any python that potentially can reach 6' in length". If passed it would effectively kill the reptile business here in Indiana. This is simply a knee jerk reaction to a moron that got killed by his retic a few months ago when he tried to clean/feed it by himself a few months ago (not to mention the other idiot that got bit by his fer da lance).

If you live in Indiana write your representative:
Senate Bill 0482
House Bill 1472

This bill is currently in commitee lets make sure it stays there.

[joepythons]

For my fellow Hoosiers I thought I would pass on this sad news . Last week Senator Sipes sponsored (well he actually just put through a US Humane Society bill) to outlaw "any python that potentially can reach 6' in length". If passed it would effectively kill the reptile business here in Indiana. This is simply a knee jerk reaction to a moron that got killed by his retic a few months ago when he tried to clean/feed it by himself a few months ago (not to mention the other idiot that got bit by his fer da lance).

If you live in Indiana write your representative:
Senate Bill 0482
House Bill 1472

This bill is currently in commitee lets make sure it stays there.

Hmm i knew it was coming .Well lets see how far it goes.

[catawhat75]

Representative George Distel has introduced legislation here in Ohio and the lovely HSUS is backing it.

HERE is a link to a story on it in the Cincinnati Enquirer (BTW, the man supposedly killed by his python- there were no bite marks hmmmm me thinks it was NOT the python)
It will not outright ban things but this is the first step I am sure and I can only imagine what kind of reaction there is going to be by my neighbors if I have to put signs in my yard stating there are "exotic" animals. I just keep on writing and talking to people as much as I can. I even take my oldest ball python into my daughters class to try to educate and show that snakes are not "evil" as so many think they are.

[Entropy]

Being a former and future hoosier myself this is rediculous.

[snakedude56]

So when will we be able to find out if that legislation passes in Ohio?

[will-e-s]

yeh i saw that :cens0r::cens0r::cens0r::cens0r: today when i went to pick up my new bp

[digcolnagos]

Yes, no surprise.

Lately, I've been checking craigslist where I live. There are a couple of guys who seem obvious reptile hoarders, who offer to take in any reptile. One is offering a DVD player in trade for a reptile, just get in touch, let him know what you've got and let's make a deal.

It went too far, for me at least, when one of these fools posted an ad for an alligator. It needed a new home, and would anyone have an interesting trade? He said he was open to suggestions. I emailed him, as did others, basically saying, whoa. He told me he was very experienced with herps, had owned retics, anacondas, burms--you name it. He didn't mention whatever became of these animals, but he did say that he'd fallen on hard times and had been forced to move in with relatives who didn't like reptiles, but now he's moved out on his own again and is looking to rebuild his collection.

Egads.

One person notified every local and state animal-control agency she could think of. The end result? Nothing. And this person, and others, are still on craigslist, acquiring and trading and doing lord knows what with whatever reptiles come their way, even though they've been flagged multiple times and had their ads removed. But the ads from the same people keep popping up.

I could start up about a Jackson chameleon that's for sale at the local Petsmart, but that's a somewhat different issue. At least that Jackson chameleon is going to die a relatively quick death.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but when the reptile trade--and that's what it is--has descended to this, it is no wonder that we're seeing proposed legislation like this. Personally, and I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but I can't disagree with moves to limit, or at least control, ownership of large snakes. An outright ban like what is apparently happening in Indiana? No. But requirements that owners of large snakes get licenses and demonstrate their competence to care for these creatures, perhaps with requirements for bonds that would act to screen out folks without the financial wherewithal to care for these animals? You'll get no argument from me. Due apologies, but the ability to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda shouldn't be predicated simply on the ability to come up with $100 or so for a hatchling. That's wrong. That's inviting cruelty and neglect to animals. And anyone who thinks about it for a millisecond would, I think, agree. Yet that's where we're at right now.

From the newspaper article posted, the Ohio legislation seems entirely reasonable. It wouldn't affect ball pythons, nor would it prohibit ownership of large snakes. It would simply screen out folks who shouldn't own large snakes in the first place. I haven't seen the Indiana legislation, but if it's an outright ban like the first poster says, then it should be amended along the lines of the Ohio bill. Come on now: Neither of these proposed laws would affect ball pythons. Does anyone really think anyone with the money to buy one--and it doesn't take much--should be allowed to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda? I submit that anyone who truly loves these species would support this type of legislation.

[lord jackel]

Yes, no surprise.

Lately, I've been checking craigslist where I live. There are a couple of guys who seem obvious reptile hoarders, who offer to take in any reptile. One is offering a DVD player in trade for a reptile, just get in touch, let him know what you've got and let's make a deal.

It went too far, for me at least, when one of these fools posted an ad for an alligator. It needed a new home, and would anyone have an interesting trade? He said he was open to suggestions. I emailed him, as did others, basically saying, whoa. He told me he was very experienced with herps, had owned retics, anacondas, burms--you name it. He didn't mention whatever became of these animals, but he did say that he'd fallen on hard times and had been forced to move in with relatives who didn't like reptiles, but now he's moved out on his own again and is looking to rebuild his collection.

Egads.

One person notified every local and state animal-control agency she could think of. The end result? Nothing. And this person, and others, are still on craigslist, acquiring and trading and doing lord knows what with whatever reptiles come their way, even though they've been flagged multiple times and had their ads removed. But the ads from the same people keep popping up.

I could start up about a Jackson chameleon that's for sale at the local Petsmart, but that's a somewhat different issue. At least that Jackson chameleon is going to die a relatively quick death.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but when the reptile trade--and that's what it is--has descended to this, it is no wonder that we're seeing proposed legislation like this. Personally, and I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but I can't disagree with moves to limit, or at least control, ownership of large snakes. An outright ban like what is apparently happening in Indiana? No. But requirements that owners of large snakes get licenses and demonstrate their competence to care for these creatures, perhaps with requirements for bonds that would act to screen out folks without the financial wherewithal to care for these animals? You'll get no argument from me. Due apologies, but the ability to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda shouldn't be predicated simply on the ability to come up with $100 or so for a hatchling. That's wrong. That's inviting cruelty and neglect to animals. And anyone who thinks about it for a millisecond would, I think, agree. Yet that's where we're at right now.

From the newspaper article posted, the Ohio legislation seems entirely reasonable. It wouldn't affect ball pythons, nor would it prohibit ownership of large snakes. It would simply screen out folks who shouldn't own large snakes in the first place. I haven't seen the Indiana legislation, but if it's an outright ban like the first poster says, then it should be amended along the lines of the Ohio bill. Come on now: Neither of these proposed laws would affect ball pythons. Does anyone really think anyone with the money to buy one--and it doesn't take much--should be allowed to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda? I submit that anyone who truly loves these species would support this type of legislation.

I am sorry but I don't agree with your logic because in its simplest form you are advocating a prejudicial (sp?) atitude toward python ownership. Why don't they have laws about who can/cannot own a dog? As I am sure you are aware dogs injure more people in one day then all the snake related issues that have ever been recorded....so why not ban dogs?

And who is qualified to say that one person vs another is qualified to own/care for a python? It will more than likely fall to someone with no qualification in python ownership and care to know one way or another.

Also as for the Indiana law it is an outright ban - if you own one today you would have to pay a $100 per animal registration fee, cannot breed them and if they die cannot replace them - and if they have to go to a vet they must be microchipped before they can leave - which could kill them.

Anyway you look at it this is a knee jerk reaction as the law was written by the US Humane Society from Washington DC - this is simply a political agenda and my guess is Senator Sipes has never ever been near a snake to have have formed his own opinion.

[joepythons]

Yes, no surprise.

Lately, I've been checking craigslist where I live. There are a couple of guys who seem obvious reptile hoarders, who offer to take in any reptile. One is offering a DVD player in trade for a reptile, just get in touch, let him know what you've got and let's make a deal.

It went too far, for me at least, when one of these fools posted an ad for an alligator. It needed a new home, and would anyone have an interesting trade? He said he was open to suggestions. I emailed him, as did others, basically saying, whoa. He told me he was very experienced with herps, had owned retics, anacondas, burms--you name it. He didn't mention whatever became of these animals, but he did say that he'd fallen on hard times and had been forced to move in with relatives who didn't like reptiles, but now he's moved out on his own again and is looking to rebuild his collection.

Egads.

One person notified every local and state animal-control agency she could think of. The end result? Nothing. And this person, and others, are still on craigslist, acquiring and trading and doing lord knows what with whatever reptiles come their way, even though they've been flagged multiple times and had their ads removed. But the ads from the same people keep popping up.

I could start up about a Jackson chameleon that's for sale at the local Petsmart, but that's a somewhat different issue. At least that Jackson chameleon is going to die a relatively quick death.

Sorry for the soapbox here, but when the reptile trade--and that's what it is--has descended to this, it is no wonder that we're seeing proposed legislation like this. Personally, and I am sorry if I offend anyone here, but I can't disagree with moves to limit, or at least control, ownership of large snakes. An outright ban like what is apparently happening in Indiana? No. But requirements that owners of large snakes get licenses and demonstrate their competence to care for these creatures, perhaps with requirements for bonds that would act to screen out folks without the financial wherewithal to care for these animals? You'll get no argument from me. Due apologies, but the ability to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda shouldn't be predicated simply on the ability to come up with $100 or so for a hatchling. That's wrong. That's inviting cruelty and neglect to animals. And anyone who thinks about it for a millisecond would, I think, agree. Yet that's where we're at right now.

From the newspaper article posted, the Ohio legislation seems entirely reasonable. It wouldn't affect ball pythons, nor would it prohibit ownership of large snakes. It would simply screen out folks who shouldn't own large snakes in the first place. I haven't seen the Indiana legislation, but if it's an outright ban like the first poster says, then it should be amended along the lines of the Ohio bill. Come on now: Neither of these proposed laws would affect ball pythons. Does anyone really think anyone with the money to buy one--and it doesn't take much--should be allowed to own a burm or a retic or an anaconda? I submit that anyone who truly loves these species would support this type of legislation.

Who should "screen" these possible buyers of soon to be large snakes? The State? I will give you a perfect example of how if this law goes into affect will be a total joke if the state is in charge of choosing who has them and who does not.I had a reptile rescue a short time back.In order to have one you are inspected by a state agency,ok no problem right? Well the person whom inspected me was "upset" because he could not find ANYTHING wrong with my enclosures or such.He nit picked because a FEW wood chips were on the floor,and told me no one should rescue reptiles as they all are worthless.Would you want someone like him telling you what you CAN have and can not have? NO!

[fishmommy]

any laws that restricts people's rights are a bad idea IMO.

although I feel for the animals who end up in the hands of irresponsible owners, legislation is the wrong way to solve the problem.