S.b. 310

[StudentoReptile]

Originally Posted by hellosugaree

I simply said that the Ohio thing did not seem particularly unreasonable. Did you happen to read any of it, or did you simply oppose it because you feel it will lead to unreasonable things later even if it isn't unreasonable to begin with?

I opposed the version that passed. It had redundancies (among other things, mentioning the already mentioned venomous snakes and the already severely protected Komodo dragon) which demonstrated an extreme lack of preliminary research during the bill's construction. It really had no real foundation for even involving the giant constrictors, when there is no real risk to public safety. I also don't agree with many specific restrictions, either. You can disagree with that, but I really do not care. I genuinely felt it was unnecessary.

I also opposed it because I know USARK and other organizations proposed to amend the bill for more realistic guidelines. For the most part, the officials rejected all of it. This again demonstrates unreasonable behavior from unreasonable govt officials. The bill itself is arguably a domino effect from previous legislation, and I genuinely feel other states may potentially follow suit in Ohio's example.

So to answer your question, I most certainly did oppose it, and that is why.

I also never said it's about time they started regulating big snakes,

It was implied. I apologize if I misinterpreted you. This subject is a touchy one with me. Sometimes, I feel like its bad enough that we have a minority of our hobby that's irresponsible. Its even worse when another faction is so willing to roll over and acceot any leglistion that comes our way.

I just said I can see where they are coming from when this whole thing got started. There have obviously been problems with them, and even you can't deny that.

(sigh) I could write pages about this one....first let's do a impromptu survey of how many people in the U.S. keep giant snakes and how many serious accidents/deaths have occured as a result of giant snake ownership. We've all heard the statistics. There are so many things the average person can get injured or killed by before a giant snake, take your pick: struck by lightning, bees, dogs, horses, car accidents, the list goes on. I'm not denying that a large 20 ft python is potentially dangerous, but so is a motorcycle or a riding lawn mower for that matter. The realistic danger presented simply does not warrant the severe restrictions.

If by "problems" you are including the invasive Burmese in south Florida, I suggest you take a look at that blog again. The snakes are present in only 3 counties. They are barely surviving, not getting ready to migrate northward to start gobbling up poodles and kindergarters like the media would have us believe. I hope you are not naive enough to believe that.

Opposing legislation that is not unreasonable just because you say it will lead to legislation that is unreasonable is not a very strong argument.

Since you and I seem to have different views of what is unreasonable in this matter, let's just agree to disagree on this one, heh?

Since you seem to be the master of judging naivety, please tell me: is that not naive? How can you expect the other side not to take an all or none approach when that is the same approach you condone? Is that not naive?

It's naive when the "other side" base their law-making decisions on hysteria, fear-mongering and pseudo-science, and not actual facts. I consider it a little naive (among a few other choice adjectives) when USARK and other herp organizations try to work with officials for a more reasonable approach to the percieved problem based on real facts, and the ideas are outright dismissed.

Furthermore, you previously stated: "I don't see how it is fair to categories leopard geckos, ball pythons and tortoises along with lions, tigers, and bears." Since you brought up the topic of naivety, I find it extremely naive to make this ridiculous conclusion that could not be farther from the truth. If you actually spent 5 minutes reading the bill before jumping to extreme conclusions you might have seen that.

I already admitted my mistake for not reading the text from the current bill. If you took 5 minutes to see my first post on the top of the 2nd page of this thread, you would see this.