The one and ONLY python BAN thread (HR511)

[theapexgerman]

Originally Posted by RandyRhoads

You know what else stops a female from breeding? A slug to the head. Just my opinion I haven't been to the everglades so I don't know what it's like but given the opportunity i'd think they could have enough people hunting them out for their skins, like elephants and ivory. I know i'd be out as much as possible if I was there and it was open season no bag limit..

lol i like that slug to the head

[RandyRhoads]

Originally Posted by stephanbakir

Those males you release will do more damage then you ever could hope to, to the population. and thus saving the environment, the damage they do is minor compared to the damage the offspring they will never give a chance to be, will ever do.

The everglades is MASSIVE, do you really think anyone has the manpower to eradicate burms from it? If it was even 20% the size it is now, do you really think that even then we have the power to kill every single one? without changing our mindset and being smarter about it?

How big was Africa and other places animals were hunted out? Pretty big i'm guessing. I'm not saying overnight, and yes devise a plan. I just think it would at least get a good handle on them. Allow native burm leather to be sold, with high prices like ivory,mink, and such, and see how quick people are to harvest it.

[red ink]

Originally Posted by stephanbakir

Those males you release will do more damage then you ever could hope to, to the population. and thus saving the environment, the damage they do is minor compared to the damage the offspring they will never give a chance to be, will ever do.

The everglades is MASSIVE, do you really think anyone has the manpower to eradicate burms from it? If it was even 20% the size it is now, do you really think that even then we have the power to kill every single one? without changing our mindset and being smarter about it?

Yeah I get what your saying... I'm still just having trouble with the reasoning.

Your saying that the damage they do is minor compared to the offsprings they will never have.

What I'm getting at is... It's already in your hands and dead snakes don't eat, dead snakes don't mate is saying.

The money saved from euthanising instead of catching, sterilising then releasing can be put to better use i.e more traps, more hunters.

Think of this as a scenario... your sterilised specimen gets released back into the glades, continues to grow then somehow manages to get back into someones backyard, media gets a hold of the story... what do you think happen then?

Joe public don't care bout no science mumbo jumbo, joe public only cares bout kickin arse and takin names yeeehahhh.

You gotta fight fire with fire on this one as that's the mentality of your enemy.

[red ink]

Originally Posted by RandyRhoads

How big was Africa and other places animals were hunted out? Pretty big i'm guessing. I'm not saying overnight, and yes devise a plan. I just think it would at least get a good handle on them. Allow native burm leather to be sold, with high prices like ivory,mink, and such, and see how quick people are to harvest it.

Yep... nearly wipe out the buffalos from the plains in a few decades.

[RandyRhoads]

LMAO joe public science mumbo jumbo..

[Aaron_S]

You know, I'm going to weigh in here and what thread here on ssnakess would be complete without my opinion?

I will side with that I have my own "dog" in this fight. It isn't for profits or anything like that. I refuse to help this bill be overturned. Here's why. Not only due to the "wrong" people who own these animals make a really bad image for all the good keepers it's because they simply are dangerous. That was proven with the death of a young girl by burmese python. Yes, it happened only once under certain circumstances but we no longer can claim our snakes don't or haven't taken human life. That's huge.

Now maybe I think this way because I have my own child but why should some circumstance EVER happen where my daughter is put in harm's way because YOU decided to bring a dangerous animal into the home/apartment/whatever next/above/under mine? Why should *I* be the one to incur ANY repercussions of YOUR poor decision making should ANYTHING happen to MY child from your animal? I don't just say this in regards to dangerous snakes but ANY other animals or whatever.

I make this similar to drunk driving. Sure I can get into a car drunk(never have and never will)and drive knowingly putting myself at risk but I also have put EVERYBODY around me at risk too! That isn't fair to them. I'm in control of my life but I must show respect for others around me and if I can't drive or own a pet because of that then so be it. It's a small price to pay in the end for my own safety as well those I love and hold dear.

[beardeds4life]

Ok guys I know you will all laugh at me for saying this but come on people. Because your pissed do not go fighting with each other. How do you think we got into this mess? We need to fight the government (politely) NOT each other. Stop saying things like I have guns so they better not try to take my snak away from me. What if they came on and read that huh? This is not the fix. This is why we are portrayed as a murderous dangerous group. Be the solution not the cause.

[stephanbakir]

Originally Posted by RandyRhoads

How big was Africa and other places animals were hunted out? Pretty big i'm guessing. I'm not saying overnight, and yes devise a plan. I just think it would at least get a good handle on them. Allow native burm leather to be sold, with high prices like ivory,mink, and such, and see how quick people are to harvest it.

Suply and demand, if you flood the market the prices wont be so high. When the supply goes down because the population goes down the number of people hunting them will skyrocket, helping your battle. That being said, what happens when the population drops to the point where it stops being financially reasonable to hunt them? People will stop, and do you really think everyone out there hunting them cares more about the glades then their financial situation? I'd be surprised if half the hunters didn't let babies go free instead of killing them on sight, so the hunt can go on.

I don't think there has been a documented case of parthenogenisis in burmese pythons, so lets pretend its impossible. Do you honestly think that you can kill ALL of the males, and or females in the wild population? I doubt you can even find them all, hollow standing trees, tunnels, dense vegetation, its not feasible to eradicate them, but your best bet when it comes to decimating the numbers as fast as possible to is to reintroduce infertile males.

Originally Posted by red ink

Your saying that the damage they do is minor compared to the offsprings they will never have.

What I'm getting at is... It's already in your hands and dead snakes don't eat, dead snakes don't mate is saying.

The offsping the MALES will never have, you are killing the females. Be not releasing infertile males the females are forced to breed with males who are almost 100% likely to be fertile... its a losing battle.

[Aaron_S]

Alright guys let's stay on topic here. There's an entire thread dedicated to off-topic chatter. Please take your police training/gun laws talk there.

[red ink]

Originally Posted by stephanbakir

The offsping the MALES will never have, you are killing the females. Be not releasing infertile males the females are forced to breed with males who are almost 100% likely to be fertile... its a losing battle.

How about we don't release any back at all (male or female) is what I'm getting at. I understand what you are saying the infertile male will compete with the fertile males for females... in the meantime the infertile male is still having an impact on the local ecology.

There's no guanrantee the infertile male will win courtship rights with the female... Females can mate with multiple males during the breeding season, one infertile the other fertile.. results still more snakes.

Easiest way let the public have their way and let them go on a invasive species killing spree... win win. They feel like they're doin something and there's a dent in the population. If we were going to spend money on the operation for sterilisation, half that and use it as a bounty for the snake. Quickest way to make a natural resource scarce.. put a value on it and don't restrict the take. Even at 10 bux a pop, there will be hunters out there who will take 10-20 a weekend to make that kind of cash.

It's the same tactics we are trying to use here... "shoot all ferals". Hunters wil hunt and rednecks will kill for kicks. Why not use their idiocy to your advantage, shift their mentality to go hunting and killing invasives.

[marvelfreak]

Originally Posted by Aaron_S

You know, I'm going to weigh in here and what thread here on ssnakess would be complete without my opinion?

I will side with that I have my own "dog" in this fight. It isn't for profits or anything like that. I refuse to help this bill be overturned. Here's why. Not only due to the "wrong" people who own these animals make a really bad image for all the good keepers it's because they simply are dangerous. That was proven with the death of a young girl by burmese python. Yes, it happened only once under certain circumstances but we no longer can claim our snakes don't or haven't taken human life. That's huge.

Now maybe I think this way because I have my own child but why should some circumstance EVER happen where my daughter is put in harm's way because YOU decided to bring a dangerous animal into the home/apartment/whatever next/above/under mine? Why should *I* be the one to incur ANY repercussions of YOUR poor decision making should ANYTHING happen to MY child from your animal? I don't just say this in regards to dangerous snakes but ANY other animals or whatever.

I make this similar to drunk driving. Sure I can get into a car drunk(never have and never will)and drive knowingly putting myself at risk but I also have put EVERYBODY around me at risk too! That isn't fair to them. I'm in control of my life but I must show respect for others around me and if I can't drive or own a pet because of that then so be it. It's a small price to pay in the end for my own safety as well those I love and hold dear.

The most intelligent post in this whole thread.

I do have a couple questions about this whole Ban.
1) Why Yellow Anacondas but not Greens? Greens get 3 times the size.
2) Does the ban appeal to Dwarf Burmese Pythons and SD Retics?

IMO the ban Should not apply to Boas. I understand why Yellows are on there. Because female can reach 16 feet, but i never seen a male over 9 feet.

[Strutter769]

Are boas now banned, or on the list of species that could *possibly* be banned in the future. As of now it's Burns and African Rocks that have been specified. Is my understanding correct?

[marvelfreak]

Originally Posted by Strutter769

Are boas now banned, or on the list of species that could *possibly* be banned in the future. As of now it's Burns and African Rocks that have been specified. Is my understanding correct?

And Yellow Anacondas.

[Strutter769]

Ok, Yellow Anacondas, Burmese and African Rock Python. When this BS goes into effect, all others are still "business as usual," right? Until further notice?

[stephanbakir]

Originally Posted by marvelfreak

The most intelligent post in this whole thread.

I do have a couple questions about this whole Ban.
1) Why Yellow Anacondas but not Greens? Greens get 3 times the size.
2) Does the ban appeal to Dwarf Burmese Pythons and SD Retics?

IMO the ban Should not apply to Boas. I understand why Yellows are on there. Because female can reach 16 feet, but i never seen a male over 9 feet.

1: no idea
2: it covers Python reticulatus and Python molurus bivittatus, the locales of these species, while smaller share the same scientific name.