The one and ONLY python BAN thread (HR511)

[Gungirl]

I wish I could like your post Alessia... I would love it if we had a button for that also!

[Aaron_S]

Alessia, I understand pitbull bans but they aren't the topic of discussion here. I use it as proof that a domestic dog has been banned.

Secondly, I don't get where people say it'll just worsen the problems we're having. If you can't just walk into a pet store and buy any of these animals how does this worsen the problem?

Someone pointed out on another forum I belong to that we had our chance to police ourselves. We failed. The bad apples ruined it for all of you good, responsible keepers. Blame them.

I will say that I have yet to hear someone debate my safety argument if one of these got out on their own and someone ended up in my dwelling and injured myself or a loved one. I will put it out there, if any child died due to someone wanting to keep their pet do you think it's fair to the parents who had to bury that child? No. Put yourselves in those people's shoes before you ONLY think of yourself and YOUR wants when fighting this ban.

[alessia55]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Alessia, I understand pitbull bans but they aren't the topic of discussion here. I use it as proof that a domestic dog has been banned.

I brought it up only because you brought it up as a parallel or similar argument.

Secondly, I don't get where people say it'll just worsen the problems we're having. If you can't just walk into a pet store and buy any of these animals how does this worsen the problem?

With the ban, it won't be illegal to buy burmese pythons within the state. So people can still just as easily acquire them so long as they find a breeder near them. The reason I said banning them would worsen the problem is because it'll create a black market and then regulation really will be out the door.

Someone pointed out on another forum I belong to that we had our chance to police ourselves. We failed. The bad apples ruined it for all of you good, responsible keepers. Blame them.

Just because there are a few bad apples out there, it doesn't mean we should all pay for their actions. As I said, I think it would be better to make stricter rules and regulations about buying/selling/keeping giant snakes (read back to Kim's post) that will enhance the pool of giant snake keepers, and fine/punish the bad apples.

I will say that I have yet to hear someone debate my safety argument if one of these got out on their own and someone ended up in my dwelling and injured myself or a loved one. I will put it out there, if any child died due to someone wanting to keep their pet do you think it's fair to the parents who had to bury that child? No. Put yourselves in those people's shoes before you ONLY think of yourself and YOUR wants when fighting this ban.

No, it is not fair to the parent who loses their child to someone's pet... but neither is the parent who loses their child to that drunk driver, the driver who was texting and driving, the angry man with a gun, etc. That doesn't mean we should ban driving, drinking, or owning a gun all together, does it?

Lets keep it civilized here

[red ink]

Originally Posted by alessia55

With the ban, it won't be illegal to buy burmese pythons within the state. So people can still just as easily acquire them so long as they find a breeder near them. The reason I said banning them would worsen the problem is because it'll create a black market and then regulation really will be out the door.

That's actually a sad social comment on the reptile hobby.....

Just because there are a few bad apples out there, it doesn't mean we should all pay for their actions. As I said, I think it would be better to make stricter rules and regulations about buying/selling/keeping giant snakes (read back to Kim's post) that will enhance the pool of giant snake keepers, and fine/punish the bad apples.

If banning them as you say will create a black market and taking the regulations out the door. Would be fair to say that if people are prepared to create a black market for them a few strict regulations isn't going to amount to anything either....

It would be good for the responsible keepers, but it does'nt solve the peoblems of the bad ones. Which is effectively what the ban is trying to do. It's a bit like throwing the baby out with the bath water, but unfortunately it's a baby they are willing to sacrifice.

No, it is not fair to the parent who loses their child to someone's pet... but neither is the parent who loses their child to that drunk driver, the driver who was texting and driving, the angry man with a gun, etc. That doesn't mean we should ban driving, drinking, or owning a gun all together, does it?

I'm not trying to argue here and I understand the point your trying to make with this... But all thise things you mentioned are illegal, therefore effectively a "ban". All those scenario those people are breaking the law by commiting something they are banned from doing and the result is someone dying.

Lets keep it civilized here

Agreed, hopefully I'm not being rude in my comments, I'm just throwing some points out there.

[KORBIN5895]

Fiscally this ban is rediculous. It is going to be a huge money pit. It will not be enforced the way they have it setup now.

To those that worry about being a felon for transporting these animals interstate: I myself don't see it as a big deal at the moment. Honestly what will they do setup check points on the state borders. Please! They aren't going to be checking to see where they came from.

We all seem to be thinking worst case scenario here. If the idiots amongst us didn't mess it up for us we would be fine. Lets not say poor breeders when it was the breeders who sold the idiot (or sold the to the pet store) the snake you find eating your cat in your basement. Lets blame them who are to blame and long our Congressmen and representatives with useful ways to make this work. The ban is here now like it or not.

[BarelyBreathing]

Everything mentioned except drunk driving are perfectly legal here.

[Aaron_S]

Originally Posted by BarelyBreathing

Everything mentioned except drunk driving are perfectly legal here.

Really? I don't need a background check to buy a gun or a permit to conceal to carry one? That's just legal eh? Those are variations of bans. Just as I have mentioned my stance is for. Amendments to an outright ban.

[KORBIN5895]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Really? I don't need a background check to buy a gun or a permit to conceal to carry one? That's just legal eh? Those are variations of bans. Just as I have mentioned my stance is for. Amendments to an outright ban.

When I lived in IL a black powder rifle or pistol was not considered a firearm. So technically you didn't need a background check, a permit or be a certain age to purchase one.

[red ink]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

Really? I don't need a background check to buy a gun or a permit to conceal to carry one? That's just legal eh? Those are variations of bans. Just as I have mentioned my stance is for. Amendments to an outright ban.

As I understand it is a constitional right to "bear arms"... it is however not to bear a burmese python. In the legalities of what they can and can not ban... banning a species and ammending constitutional law are'nt even in the same league let alone the same ballpark.

[BarelyBreathing]

Let me elaborate. Obviously it isn't legal to go around shooting people. However, I'm sure there are more guns in America than snakes.

[Aaron_S]

Red Ink, you make very valid points.

I believe that the reptile hobby is already a bit of a black market. To my knowledge there already are regulations set in Florida for dangerous animals, may be for giants but I know for venomous snakes they do.

Guns are banned here in Canada. Driving is heavily regulated and you goto jail for breaking those 'regulations'. Drinking is also heavily regulated here in Canada. You need to pass a course to serve alcohol and be able to cut people off. As Red Ink says, all of that is technically banned already. Just as I said earlier. The giant keepers had their chance, they blew it. Time to pay.

[BarelyBreathing]

There is a difference between permitted and outright banned.

I've already mentioned where I stand on this. I don't agree with large constrictors being "banned". I do, however, feel a permit system wouldn't harm the hobby.

[millertime89]

Giants are already banned in Florida, they had a permit system until a year or two ago but went to an outright ban all together.
I don't feel like typing my entire rebuttle out again, but this article contains all the info I use already. Aaron I respect your opinion but really think you should read this.
This what it has come to… « Student of the Reptile

[Aaron_S]

I read through that Kyle and again it's the same stuff over and over. I get it. I really do. Giants should be banned. They say it wasn't people releasing snakes but they haven't tested every single snake, have they? If it wasn't for people wanting them so much as pets then why would they be imported?They talk about how no albino or mutation has been found in the wild. Pretty hard for any albino to stay alive with that kind of colouring in a very green/brown environment. This was swayed to show one side. Just like the politicians.

They were banned for good reason. I'm not opposed to amending this but I still stand by the fact at least green anacondas,retics, burmese, african rock pythons should all be banned. Out right. Barring possible dwarf variants.

In the first couple paragraphs it states the market is very difficult for giants as it stands so why should they be allowed to be kept still and bred? Hmm, too hard to find people to GIVE away these eventual "unwanted" pets but yet everyone still wants to keep/breed them? Kind of odd.

Lastly, at the end it was all about scare tactics again. My sugar gliders and giant danios will be banned next!

[red ink]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

I read through that Kyle and again it's the same stuff over and over. I get it. I really do. Giants should be banned. They say it wasn't people releasing snakes but they haven't tested every single snake, have they? If it wasn't for people wanting them so much as pets then why would they be imported?They talk about how no albino or mutation has been found in the wild. Pretty hard for any albino to stay alive with that kind of colouring in a very green/brown environment. This was swayed to show one side. Just like the politicians.

They were banned for good reason. I'm not opposed to amending this but I still stand by the fact at least green anacondas,retics, burmese, african rock pythons should all be banned. Out right. Barring possible dwarf variants.

In the first couple paragraphs it states the market is very difficult for giants as it stands so why should they be allowed to be kept still and bred? Hmm, too hard to find people to GIVE away these eventual "unwanted" pets but yet everyone still wants to keep/breed them? Kind of odd.

Lastly, at the end it was all about scare tactics again. My sugar gliders and giant danios will be banned next!

Looks like the issue of banning these snakes have been going on for years and USARK has been fighting them at every step....

What I would like to know is... was a compromise ever proposed by USARK?

Now on this thread we are also talking about stricter guidelines, has USARK proposed something like this to congress or did they just rally on the emotions of reptile keepers?

Giants are already banned in Florida, they had a permit system until a year or two ago but went to an outright ban all together.
I don't feel like typing my entire rebuttle out again, but this article contains all the info I use already. Aaron I respect your opinion but really think you should read this.
This what it has come to… « Student of the Reptile

What was the reason for Florida scraping the permit system and moving to an outright ban?