# women killed by retic....



## Meaningless End (Oct 26, 2008)

this is realy sad for the hobby.. i can just feel the ban coming..

for anyone who keeps retics and more importanly for anyone planing to keep them.. check this out.

http://www.wvec.com/news/topstories/stories/wvec_local_102308_python_kills_woman_.13f084d54.html

if anyone wonders why im always trying to talk people out of getting large boids.. thats why.


----------



## crpy (Oct 26, 2008)

well atleast NEVER work large boids alone ...dang


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 26, 2008)

crpy said:


> well atleast NEVER work large boids alone ...dang


Especially if you're "giving them medication." Even my little sweetheart ball python started acting a little hateful when the vet had to give him some meds for his respiratory infection a couple years ago. A ten or thirteen-foot (the article lists both) snake would be a lot less cute when they started getting pissed.

I really cannot fathom what she could have been thinking, except that maybe she lost respect for the very large, very powerful, very wild animal she was keeping in her home. Or I don't know if "respect" is what I'm looking for...people just have a tendency to forget that animals are what they are, and giant snakes may seem docile but they aren't dogs.



Meaningless End said:


> if anyone wonders why im always trying to talk people out of getting large boids.. thats why.


Plenty of people can safely own large boids. People who can't practice proper safety and _good common sense_ are another story.  

Stories like this one always tick me off. I LOVE big snakes, and I think albino Burmese are some of the most gorgeous animals around. But I'm five foot one and live alone, and so there will never be a snake over six feet long in my apartment. This woman was apparently doing it right...up until she got comfortable and got lazy and didn't wait until someone else was in the house. It's such a stupid mistake. Ugh.

At least they didn't kill the snake for being a snake.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 26, 2008)

The HSUS already IS, and has been, pushing for a ban on ALL snakes, and they're really ramping it up now.  What is so ironic is that I have NEVER, ever heard anyone suggest a ban on horses, or tell anyone to "get out of horses", in spite of the fact that horses kill an average of 38 people per year in the US, and that does NOT count people who die as a result of falling off a horse.  Compare this to the eleven known cases of a large boid killing a person in this country since 1980:
Facts:
Eleven known cases of people killed by pet pythons in the United States since 1980
• 2008 (Virginia): A woman was killed by a 13-foot pet reticulated python
• 2006 (Ohio): A man died at the hospital after being strangled by his pet python.
• 2006 (Indiana): A 23-year-old man was killed by his 14-foot pet reticulated python.
• 2002 (Colorado): A man died after his pet Burmese python, who was wrapped loosely around his neck, suddenly constricted.
• 2001 (Pennsylvania): An 8-year-old girl was home alone when she was apparently strangled by her father's pet Burmese python.
• 1999 (Illinois): A couple's 7.5-foot African rock python escaped from an enclosure and killed their 3-year-old son.
• 1996 (New York): A 19-year-old was killed by his 13-foot pet python.
• 1993 (Colorado): A 15-year-old was killed by his brother's 11-foot pet python.
• 1983 (Missouri): A man was crushed to death by his 16-foot pet Burmese python.
• 1982 (Nevada): An 8-foot python escaped from his cage and killed a 21-month-old boy in his crib. The snake belonged to an unrelated man who lived in the house.
• 1980 (Texas): A 7-month-old girl was killed by her father's 8-foot pet reticulated python. The snake had forced his way out of a covered aquarium.*

Of these, the case in which the 8-year-old girl in PA was killed was never satisfactorily solved, since there was a great deal of evidence pointing to a human agent as having been responsible for strangling that child, and the blame being put on the 8-ft. python.  On average, 1.5 people in the US are killed by captive snakes per year, including venomous, and while that does not negate the need for caution and common sense when working with ANY potentially dangerous animal, wild or domestic, it does, or rather SHOULD, put the actual statistical risk in perspective.  Unfortunately, when it comes to the Animal Rights movement, there's no such thing as common sense.  They feed on the public's fear and ignorance like some sort of disgusting vampires, turning it to their advantage, with the gleeful assistance of the sensation-driven media. You run a high risk of death by drowning in a bathtub, or falling off a chair, but you never hear dire warnings not to bathe or use a chair, or demands that bathtubs and chairs be banned, since these things don't rely on the fear factor or emotional issues associated with animals, but dead is dead.  It's unfortunate what happened to this woman, but also extremely unfortunate that there are those who would use this unfortunate accident to further their own nefarious agenda.

*information courtesy of Rexano.org

pitbulllady


----------



## Shagrath666 (Oct 26, 2008)

man, i dont work alone with any constrictor over 5 feet, but also I'm a small person. A 10 foot snake should be handled by two maybe three depending on the personality. but of course no one will say on the new "snakes are good pets when handled properly" and no one will blame it on the owner.


----------



## GiantVinegaroon (Oct 26, 2008)

Too many people in this world are incredibly stupid.  This is why I oppose the keeping of giant constrictors.


----------



## JohnEDove (Oct 26, 2008)

I read another news account of this story that mentioned the snake kept striking at the officers as they tried to capture it, but strangely lacking in all of the reports I've read is any mention of bite marks on the victim.
Has anyone ever seen Retic constrict without first getting a firm hold on the prey?


----------



## crpy (Oct 26, 2008)

JohnEDove said:


> I read another news account of this story that mentioned the snake kept striking at the officers as they tried to capture it, but strangely lacking in all of the reports I've read is any mention of bite marks on the victim.
> Has anyone ever seen Retic constrict without first getting a firm hold on the prey?


she might have been holding its head at the time but that would piss it off even more, anybody other than me thinking about Darwin


----------



## Red Eyes (Oct 26, 2008)

It is unfortunate that a person has lost their life but it's the rest of us who will have to pay the price for their actions (read stupidity). I am amazed at how the snake grows three feet from one story to another (the main story says 10ft long and the 13news video headline says 13ft long).


----------



## Meaningless End (Oct 26, 2008)

im not opposed to people keeping large constricters .. its more the quantity and experience of people doing it that bothers me. everyone makes a big deal about keeping hots but aperently a burm isnt a big deal...a person can say "ya i dont ever hold my burm unless theres someone else with me" but everyone knows thats a load of crap and exeptions are always made.. i dont know any large boid keepers who at least on rare ocations havent admitted to changeing watter on there own and doing cleaning stuff.. its a good rule but it will be broken at some point by nearly everyone who keeps them.

i will preach all day long about all the reasons not to get a burm, retic, conda, rock.. the reason being is that the people i preach too are on a forum asking a question... once they are ready to keep a snake that size they wont need to ask questions and wont give a dam about what i have to say..  i just wish that breeders and shops would take the sale of theise species more seriously and use the hott keeping comunity as a good model for the way we treat newbies getting boids.

i love large snakes.. personaly the largest any snake in my collection will be my scrub.. she will get about 10 feet. and thats all the snake i want to have to deal with.


----------



## Widowman10 (Oct 27, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Plenty of people can safely own large boids. People who can't practice proper safety and _good common sense_ are another story.


totally agree. a bit of good common sense can go a looong way with any animal you own.



Mushroom Spore said:


> At least they didn't kill the snake for being a snake.


yes! nothing hacks me off more than people killing animals for being what they are supposed to be.



pitbulllady said:


> Facts:
> Eleven known cases of people killed by pet pythons in the United States since 1980
> • 2008 (Virginia): A woman was killed by a 13-foot pet reticulated python
> • 2006 (Ohio): A man died at the hospital after being strangled by his pet python.
> ...


thank you pitbulllady for your stats, they are always appreciated :worship: 



LordLycosa said:


> Too many people in this world are incredibly stupid.  This is why I oppose the keeping of giant constrictors.


i don't oppose it at all. i oppose stupid people with no common sense keeping giant constrictors.



crpy said:


> anybody other than me thinking about Darwin


 hahahaha, yes!!!


----------



## ballpython2 (Oct 27, 2008)

This just goes to show that no matter how long you have a wild animal you cant take its instincts out of it at all...this is also why i want a SUPER dwarf reticulated python  or not at all.  

On a different note i wish people would STOP Dressing up their dogs for any reason.

dogs arent meant to wear clothes at all. and just because you think clothes look cute on your dog doesnt mean he wants the clothes on him...

lets be for real its a pet but its still an animal in general. animals werent born to be put into clothes.

sorry had to vent that real quick.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 27, 2008)

JohnEDove said:


> I read another news account of this story that mentioned the snake kept striking at the officers as they tried to capture it, but strangely lacking in all of the reports I've read is any mention of bite marks on the victim.
> Has anyone ever seen Retic constrict without first getting a firm hold on the prey?


This is a good point, one that I've certainly considered, and one that was even brought up on another board by someone who admittedly knew very little about snakes.  I've had constricting snakes start wrapping around me as I was holding their heads, but as soon as _I_ released, the snake took off like a rocket.  In this case, the constricting was just a defense mechanism that replaced the first defense mechanism, which would be to bite.  In a FEEDING response, I have yet to see a constricting snake NOT bite; they inevitably bite first then constrict, and a 10-foot Retic would definitely leave bite marks.  If the scenario of someone gripping a python by the head, and the snake getting its coils around that person's neck played out, as soon as the person started to black out from lack of oxygen, their grip would have relaxed, and as soon as the panicked snake felt that happen, it would have taken off before the person got past the point of no return, unless there was some underlying medical issue.

pitbulllady


----------



## Hedorah99 (Oct 27, 2008)

I wish someone would get numbers for the amount of retics/burms that are purchased vs the amount that actually make it to large enough size to kill a man. I see a lot being bought at shows and know for a fact there are not that many large snakes in the north east. From the sheer amount of bodies I have had to pick up in my tenure at the zoo coupled with the copious amount of people trying to donate them, I am guessing the number is pretty small.


----------



## Meaningless End (Oct 27, 2008)

as far as being wraped without a bite.. its rare.. unless of course you have the snake by the back of the head.. much like im sure this women did because she was administering medicne to the snake... i can definatly picture it...

bummer


----------



## Skullptor (Oct 27, 2008)

LordLycosa said:


> Too many people in this world are incredibly stupid.


I couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## Tokendog (Oct 27, 2008)

If you go to that link you provided, you can click on her name and it takes you to a myspace page.  I wonder why they would link you to her myspace profile...


----------



## crpy (Oct 27, 2008)

Tokendog said:


> If you go to that link you provided, you can click on her name and it takes you to a myspace page.  I wonder why they would link you to her myspace profile...


last log in was the 25th, the report was the 23rd, but it may have been her husband logging in


----------



## Tokendog (Oct 27, 2008)

Yeah.  She's 25 on the profile and lives in Virginia Beach, so I dunno.  She's pretty.  Not that that makes a difference, but still just sad to have a face put with the story/name you know...


----------



## crpy (Oct 27, 2008)

Tokendog said:


> Yeah.  She's 25 on the profile and lives in Virginia Beach, so I dunno.  She's pretty.  Not that that makes a difference, but still just sad to have a face put with the story/name you know...


yep, I agree, and it is sad


----------



## DrJ (Oct 27, 2008)

pitbulllady said:


> Eleven known cases of people killed by pet pythons in the United States since 1980
> • 2008 (Virginia): A woman was killed by a 13-foot pet reticulated python
> • 2006 (Ohio): A man died at the hospital after being strangled by his pet python.
> • 2006 (Indiana): A 23-year-old man was killed by his 14-foot pet reticulated python.
> ...


However crazy this may seem, it is a result of owner failure to comply with safety precautions.  I am completely surprised that only 11 deaths have occurred since 1980.  One study concluded that there are at least 12 dog-related deaths per year.  Read this article here: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00047723.htm

279 deaths were reported in a 15 year span due to dog attacks.  So, why should anyone care about a snake related death?  Due to the rarity?  I don't know.  But, I'd much rather take my chances with a snake (1 death every 2 years - or less, apparently [11 in a 28 year span]) as opposed to a dog (at least one death per month).  And, dogs are supposedly man's best friend...perhaps snakes are man's "better" best friend.  lol.  

I'm not promoting the banning of dogs, as I like dogs....provided they don't bark at me, shed on me or any of my belongings, drool on me or any of my belongings, urinate or deficate on my floors, or any of that other nasty stuff they seem to enjoy doing from time to time.  Other than all that, dogs are fun and there are people who really love them.  I love my snakes and tarantulas, and probably feel the same way about them as most people do their dogs.  Dogs are more interactive, and I enjoy other people's dogs...just not sure I'd want one of my own.  Personal preferance, and I think everybody has the right to own whatever pet they want.


----------



## J_dUbz88 (Oct 27, 2008)

Does anyone now if this is a reputable news cast/website? something about it seems like a farce to me.  Just the way the website is layed out and how the snake started at 10 feet long and ended up being 13.


----------



## DrJ (Oct 27, 2008)

J_dUbz88 said:


> Does anyone now if this is a reputable news cast/website? something about it seems like a farce to me.  Just the way the website is layed out and how the snake started at 10 feet long and ended up being 13.


When it comes to snakes, many news agencies and reporters somehow seem to change the size of the snake throughout the story...like they don't think people will notice that it grows from one paragraph to the next.  In all reality, the snake probably was 10 feet.  

I know a lot of news will talk about a 12 foot boa constrictor...for once, I'd like to actually see one in real life that is 12 feet long.  Never seen one pass 8 foot.  I know people that I trust say theirs is 10 foot, but haven't made it up to their facility yet....

Moral of that story...stick with the smallest measurement given.  It's usually the right one.  Even though Retics are commonly known to be 18 feet...still, 10 is big enough to kill a person.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 27, 2008)

Did the article get changed overnight? I don't remember the last paragraph about the snake being euthanized "in accordance with the owner's wishes."

Because the snake totally knew what it was doing and it wasn't the woman's fault at all, and the animal is evil and deserves to die. Yep. That's sure what happened here.

I hate everything.


----------



## ballpython2 (Oct 27, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Did the article get changed overnight? I don't remember the last paragraph about the snake being euthanized "in accordance with the owner's wishes."
> 
> Because the snake totally knew what it was doing and it wasn't the woman's fault at all, and the animal is evil and deserves to die. Yep. That's sure what happened here.
> 
> I hate everything.


 This was a perfectly fine snake. it was just reacting normally as if it was precieving a threat. there is no reason at all why she couldn't wait to do that later until she could have gotten some help. 

What a beautiful snake.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 27, 2008)

ballpython2 said:


> This was a perfectly fine snake. it was just reacting normally as if it was precieving a threat.


This is what gets me. They might as well euthanize a cat for chasing small moving objects, or put down a crocodile because someone walked into its enclosure at the zoo and sat on the ground while hitting its nose with a stick. :wall:


----------



## crpy (Oct 27, 2008)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Did the article get changed overnight? I don't remember the last paragraph about the snake being euthanized "in accordance with the owner's wishes."
> 
> Because the snake totally knew what it was doing and it wasn't the woman's fault at all, and the animal is evil and deserves to die. Yep. That's sure what happened here.
> 
> I hate everything.


Take a deep breath and keep fighting the good fight...now if someone could only tell me that lol


----------



## xBurntBytheSunx (Oct 27, 2008)

when you have personal freedoms the first sacrfice you make is usually your own safety.  i dont' care if people keep these snakes, they should understand the risks.

just out of curiosity has anybody ever been killed by a ball python?


----------



## crpy (Oct 27, 2008)

xBurntBytheSunx said:


> when you have personal freedoms the first sacrfice you make is usually your own safety.  i dont' care if people keep these snakes, they should understand the risks.
> 
> just out of curiosity has anybody ever been killed by a ball python?


it probably could happen if it hasn't already it doesn't take a big snake to asphyxiate you if its around your neck. 

When I was 14 I had a 5 foot rat snake around my neck and my friend tried to get it from around my neck and it tightened so much I couldn't breath. My friend thought I was playing and only when I dropped to the ground did he help get it off but it wasn't easy.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Oct 27, 2008)

crpy said:


> Take a deep breath


I think I may have to take a break from the internet for a bit, that's how mad I am.  



xBurntBytheSunx said:


> just out of curiosity has anybody ever been killed by a ball python?


Like crpy said, it probably COULD happen, but I don't think it has. They don't usually get over five feet (most are around 3-4 feet, especially males), and six feet plus is usually considered the danger zone for larger snakes, although crpy's five foot rat snake sounds like it was pretty enthusiastic.  A big female BP could probably give an adult human a good scare if she was around the neck, though. 

A young child or infant...I dunno, a fatality would be physically possible, but ball pythons are such weenies I can't see one not trying to get away the first time a flailing hand smacked it in the face.

I got my BP as a hatchling so small he couldn't even touch his nose to the tip of his tail if he was around my neck, so I'd let him perch there while I did my homework. I think he only ever startled me once, and that was when he'd wandered so that the middle of his body was against my throat instead of the back of my neck - it was just a mildly uncomfortable sense of pressure, and he was only holding on to his perch, but that was when I knew he was getting too big for neck time.

Now I still let him get on my shoulders, but I've always got a hand on his back half and he is never in a position to wrap anything.


----------



## johnharper (Oct 27, 2008)

Its always sad when someone dies of from a constrictor. All I can say she should been more careful and had her husband or more people helping her with it. I have considered retics before but the amount of space they need and their strength has made me not want to keep them. I am content with my jungles and coastals. I just hope snakes don't become illegal someday.

John


----------



## xBurntBytheSunx (Oct 27, 2008)

honestly as long as firearms are legal i really can't see snakes being illegalized unless they prevent a serious environmental threat somewhere.  

when you look at the numbers, like the ones we've seen on this thread, the amount of people killed by these animals is miniscule compared to the amount of deaths caused by other personal freedoms we enjoy:guns motorcycles, alcohol, and even other animals like horses, as was mentioned.  the list could go on forever.  

the only problem i could see are that people are usually socialized to be terrified of snakes and that fear does not lend itself to logical decision making, whether it comes to government or any type of regulation.


----------



## dtknow (Oct 28, 2008)

Ok, now we have the snake death stats....can someone compare the number of snakes kept compared to dogs?

If everyone had a pet burmese/retic...you'd see alot more of these stories. The appearance of dogs being more dangerous than snakes is simply due to the number of big dogs. Both deserve respect...and its a shame that these uneeded accidents happen.

But in honesty...who needs a pet reticulated python...particularly in some funky color morph? How far do ya havta go to get your critter fix?


----------



## Tim Benzedrine (Oct 28, 2008)

That's a fair observation, and not one often taken into account in these sort of conversations. I've used the "more people are harmed by X annually than people are by Y and yet they want to ban Y!" argument myself. And now that I'm thinking about it, I believe you are right. It isn't a fair comparison.


----------



## pitbulllady (Oct 29, 2008)

dtknow said:


> Ok, now we have the snake death stats....can someone compare the number of snakes kept compared to dogs?
> 
> If everyone had a pet burmese/retic...you'd see alot more of these stories. The appearance of dogs being more dangerous than snakes is simply due to the number of big dogs. Both deserve respect...and its a shame that these uneeded accidents happen.
> 
> But in honesty...who needs a pet reticulated python...particularly in some funky color morph? How far do ya havta go to get your critter fix?


That's a very AR argument-we don't actually _need_ MOST of the animals we keep, therefore it's unethical/cruel/stupid/wrong/etc. to keep them.  Do we need fluffy little dogs with short legs and pug noses?  Do we actually NEED to keep bunny rabbits?  Fish?  Llamas?  How many of us keep animals, from Leopard Geckos to tarantulas, because we _need_ them?  I don't need tarantulas, snakes, dogs or cats in a sense that I can't survive without them, but having them certainly makes my life better in that keeping them provides me with enjoyment, with something to take my mind off the less-pleasant aspects of life, so if that constitutes a need as such, then yeah, I need Retics, and Colombian Boas, and other large snakes, with or without "designer" morphs.

So, not accurate to compare the captive snake-related deaths to those caused by dogs, because dogs are much more numerous, eh?  OK, I'll buy that one-so lets compare deaths caused by captive snakes to those caused by an animal whose current numbers in the US are closer to those of snakes, the horse.  According to the latest horse census in the US, taken by the American Horse Council in 2007, there are 3.9 million horses kept in the United States.  The American Veterinary Association conducted a general pet census last in 2001, seven years ago.  At THAT time, their statistics showed there to be an estimated 2.8 million snakes kept in captivity, excluding accredited zoos and aquariums, in the US, and given that reptile popularity has increased markedly since then, it is not at all unreasonable to estimate that the number of snakes kept as pets in the US currently rivals te population of horses, if not exceeding it.  Of those snakes, constricting snakes six feet or longer make up a fairly large percentage, if numbers at reptile shows, plus advertising on the internet, are any indication.  Looking at the Classifieds on Kingsnake.com, for instance, ads for large constrictors far outnumber those for Corns and other Colubrids, and certainly form the real  base of the reptile industry, so I don't feel in the least out-of-line for suggesting that the current population of privately-owned snakes in the US is roughly 3 to 3.8 million, with a significant percentage of those snakes being boids.
Now, as I stated before, there have been *11* human deaths attributed to large snakes since 1980, _a 28-year period of time_, and at least one of those deaths is suspicious, NOT counting the most recent incident.  Horses, meanwhile, account for an average of 34-38 human fatalities *PER YEAR*.  I'll let you do the math and figure out what the statistical likelihood of being killed by a horse, vs. being killed by a constrictor snake, are per year, given that the populations of both are pretty darn close.  No, I'm not suggesting banning horses, but using that same argument, do we really NEED them?  I'm sure that if you're the owner of one or more of those 3.9 million horses, that answer will come pretty easy, just as the response from anyone who owns or breeds large snakes will not hesitate to answer that question as it pertains to OUR animals.

pitbulllady


----------



## snakequeen1978 (Oct 29, 2008)

i used to own a retic and she was very cool untill she got about seven feet and became very agressive i had to get rid of her.


----------



## xBurntBytheSunx (Oct 30, 2008)

i think you make some good points pitbulllady.

my opinion has been that personal freedoms are always more important than personal safety.  so regardless of how dangerous these snakes may be i believe people should have the right to keep them.


----------



## dtknow (Oct 30, 2008)

XBurntbythesunX: I like that opinion/philosophy, and it works in theory, read down for my worries though.


Hello pitbullady.

Good arguments all around. In fact, you're far more qualified to have an opinion on this than me, but nevertheless.

The numbers thing first. I will definetly concede that horses are quite dangerous. But this topic is not about horses vs snakes. It is about dogs, which are the most normal pets(I think it is just as novel when someone tells me they keep horse(s) as it when they tell me they keep snake(s) if not more so). Since you know quite a bit about dogs, a comparison would be most interesting.

On the need argument, yes, we do not need these animals(actually, I agree with you that I need animals around!). But I think it is quite odd the quantity of these snakes being produced. Are that many people out there capable of taking of them? You'll have to have a friend or two around that is also very into snakes that will be willing to help you during maintenance. I won't be surprised if we get a gamut of retics being chucked at zoos/shelters the way Burmese pythons are now. At least Burmese don't get quite as big, and I hear tell are calmer. With designer morphs, their are going to be a lot of "bum normal snakes" being passed around that are produced while making a morph. I'm just worried that these guys, while they are suitable only for dedicated and experienced people(with a lot of extra time and money that will be around for a while!), are going to become too easy to get. It is my opinion that this is simply a pretty far length to go to scratch that pet/cool/specimen snake itch...you get what I mean? Whats wrong with an African house snake, or a BP, or one of the cool smaller snake species? Or if you need a big snake...maybe one of those FL Everglades Burmese pythons? Or to quote Johnharper"I am content with my Jungles and Coastals."

But some people(and I can see why, I have my own tastes, such as preferring other plants even if pothos would work just fine) are just drawn to retics, and have the ability to keep them well. Just remember y'all is a minority, but the market soon may not reflect that! Actually, the poster above's story(no offense) is something that I hope doesn't start happening more often. 

In no way am I suggesting banning retics, but the story with Burmese pythons could be repeating itself...and retics are a more dangerous snake than a burmese. Also, unlike a horse, anyone can buy and keep one for a short time, and then sell it when it gets too big(and with the demand now, perhaps even turn a profit doing that...which will make the problem worse).


----------



## Crusaderwithgat (Oct 30, 2008)

Title says womEn killed. Was it more than one womAn killed?


----------



## xBurntBytheSunx (Oct 30, 2008)

dktnow i'm sure there are enormous problems by allowing these type of animals in the pet trade, but you can either allow them and have problems and human fatalities or not allow them and take away that freedom.  i don't think you can have it both ways.

the big problem with regulation, imo, is where do you draw the line?  how do you decide what snakes are acceptable to keep, and which aren't.  its like saying is it ok to allow people to keep full automatic machine guns, or semi-automatic machine guns.  they both kill people, and neither one or safe, so where do you draw the line on those sort of things.  and when you do draw a line, its always someone else setting that regulation for you, not you deciding for yourself what is safe and what isn't.  

there is just no such thing as personal freedoms and safety both.  

the main thing that bothers me about reading that list is the children that were killed by the snakes.  i know even responsible pet owners have escapes, and if you have children, the possibility of a large snake killing a child in the home is always a danger.  even a much smaller snake like a rat snake etc could represent a serious threat to a small child.  but on the same token a person is statistically far more likely to shoot a family member with a gun than with an intruder.  we can't outlaw everything that is dangerous and problematic.


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 30, 2008)

*Unfortunately it will be an issue in State!*

:wall:  
http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_snakedeath_1025oct25,0,7735638.story 
I'm very upset right now. No need to panic now because it's not even a government proposal but as the op posted, you can feel it coming. With Tim Kaine in office now I may really be screwed. Hey out of statee's I would strongly suggest you to fight this as well. The trade is going strong in VA and if it gets illegalized you will see the impact on whatever they illegalize in your own states. We NEED a strong central hobby and we need to help each other. They will illegalize much more than the 5 largest's.

Hey PBL I really love your points. May I please use them with the state government in case of a bill? 
Thanks,
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 30, 2008)

xBurntBytheSunx said:


> the main thing that bothers me about reading that list is the children that were killed by the snakes.  i know even responsible pet owners have escapes, and if you have children, the possibility of a large snake killing a child in the home is always a danger.


That really bothers me too. But if you look at most dog and horse death victims you will notice a higher percentage of child deaths. The problem is that when people die of horse or dog death it isn't a human interest story. It's pretty much casual with little to no attention given. With snake fatalities you really hear about them because it plays on people's fears and destroys the image of snakes. The image is so distorted that it is automatic attention. 
"When one person dies it is a tragedy, when a hundred do it is just a statistic." 9/11 for example. Did all of those or even a few get personal media attention? No. All the media did was show the images of the burning, who suspectedly did it, why they think they did it, evidence, eyewitness accounts and a projected death/missing number at the bottom. Little to no attention from the media was projected to the personal victims. If one man was killed by an Al Queda member that person's life, family and friends would be playing all day on every news channel and shown all over the internet.
TBH


----------



## crpy (Oct 30, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> :wall:
> http://www.dailypress.com/news/dp-local_snakedeath_1025oct25,0,7735638.story
> I'm very upset right now. No need to panic now because it's not even a government proposal but as the op posted, you can feel it coming. With Tim Kaine in office now I may really be screwed. Hey out of statee's I would strongly suggest you to fight this as well. The trade is going strong in VA and if it gets illegalized you will see the impact on whatever they illegalize in your own states. We NEED a strong central hobby and we need to help each other. They will illegalize much more than the 5 largest's.
> 
> ...


UUUggghhh, this dailypress piece is pure hysterical dribble.  They threw in the salmonella bs to panic the herds of sheep. Heck as we know, you can get salmonella anywhere. Ive always thought the salmonella thing was overrated crap. Ive been working reptiles literally my whole life, I have eaten lunch AFTER palpating crocs and forgotten to wash my hands and ate a hamburger one more than one occasion. My daughter has held snake after snake, lizard after lizard and not gotten it. Im not saying one cant contract salmonella but sheesh.


----------



## crpy (Oct 30, 2008)

Another thing, i dont think its "our best interest" they are looking out for. What it is, is job security for the HSUS.


----------



## BCscorp (Oct 30, 2008)

they did euthanize the snake at the husbands request. it says that in the clip....


----------



## dtknow (Oct 30, 2008)

Haha, what a load of bull. Facts can lie, I say.

I'm betting their will be a push for a complete ban(by HSUS) pretty soon. And general public will support this. I think snake hobbyists and whatnot need to be very careful with the image of the hobby they present. Which is why I think that problems with constrictor snakes are not your own thing. You aren't in your own bubble and the things you do do affect others. 

XBurntbythesun: Yes, it is very hard to draw a line. But by allowing for personal freedom one must assume that people know what they can handle.


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 30, 2008)

dtknow said:


> I'm betting their will be a push for a complete ban(by HSUS) pretty soon. And general public will support this.


 I know and I'm not closing my ears for a second.
TBH


----------



## xBurntBytheSunx (Oct 31, 2008)

i guess that is where i disagree.  look at all the fatalities drunk driving and firearms cause.  i just read an article about a 9 y/o child who died after losing control of an uzi at a gun show that boasted "no age limit required to shoot guns" 

obviously tons of people do not know what is best for them in all sorts of different areas.  that is a problem that is literally unfixable.  

i think since there is no such thing as safety there is no reason to take freedoms away from people when they are the ones putting themselves (more often then not) at risk.


----------



## ballpython2 (Oct 31, 2008)

xBurntBytheSunx said:


> i guess that is where i disagree.  look at all the fatalities drunk driving and firearms cause.  i just read an article about a 9 y/o child who died after losing control of an uzi at a gun show that boasted "no age limit required to shoot guns"
> 
> obviously tons of people do not know what is best for them in all sorts of different areas.  that is a problem that is literally unfixable.
> 
> i think since there is no such thing as safety there is no reason to take freedoms away from people when they are the ones putting themselves (more often then not) at risk.


if we are talkin about that little boy at gun range he was 8yrs old and i dont care who is supervising these kids.

 plain and simple NO ONE under 21 yrs of age should be allowed to shoot a good legally anywhere thats just my opinion..  and i think if his parents approved of  him going to this gun range at 8yrs old they need the rest of their kids taking away from them. for good. that is the DUMBEST choice a parent or any adult could ever make.

They wasnt even helping the little boy HOLD/SHOOT the gun what did they expect to happen?

Sick.      :? :? :? :?


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 31, 2008)

ballpython2 said:


> if we are talkin about that little boy at gun range he was 8yrs old and i dont care who is supervising these kids.
> 
> plain and simple NO ONE under 21 yrs of age should be allowed to shoot a good legally anywhere thats just my opinion..  and i think if his parents approved of  him going to this gun range at 8yrs old they need the rest of their kids taking away from them. for good. that is the DUMBEST choice a parent or any adult could ever make.
> 
> ...


I believe in responsibility and proper teaching. Not regulations. Many families live off of hunting. What if dad gets sick? Why can't the fourteen year old support his family. However if he shoots someone or himself I believe in a court case. If he's causing no commotion than why make it illegal? A large portion of our military is under 21 and they get right into the military after high school. You're going to tell them they can't protect their bothers and sisters? You're going to tell them that they will get a shortage of soldiers and have to enforce a draft pick of people without their hearts and souls into the military? Seriously where the heck are you getting 21 from?
TBH


----------



## xBurntBytheSunx (Oct 31, 2008)

i've shot firearms safely since i was 11 or 12 years old.  just b/c some idiot let their child die doesn't mean the rights of other people should be taken away.  if i had children i wouldn't want your or the government or anyone else telling me if i should let my child shoot a firearm.  this is my whole point, there is no safety in this world but there is a serious difference between having personal freedoms and not having them.


----------



## ballpython2 (Oct 31, 2008)

BoaConstrictor said:


> I believe in responsibility and proper teaching. Not regulations. Many families live off of hunting. What if dad gets sick? Why can't the fourteen year old support his family. However if he shoots someone or himself I believe in a court case. If he's causing no commotion than why make it illegal? A large portion of our military is under 21 and they get right into the military after high school. You're going to tell them they can't protect their bothers and sisters? You're going to tell them that they will get a shortage of soldiers and have to enforce a draft pick of people without their hearts and souls into the military? Seriously where the heck are you getting 21 from?
> TBH


Live off of hunting? so lets just say everything they need to kill to live off of huntin dies what they gonna shoot next? different animals? we aint gonna  have many animals left we left them shoot the wild ones we have..everything going to be on an endangered list lol.....

When they go into the  US forces they are TRAINED and they are very much NOT 8yrs old or are 10, 11,  12, or 13 or 14  yrs old... they are at least 18.

Friendly fire in the army and so on is sometimes unavoidable  and its expected to happen because soldiers go crazy and shoot their teammates or kill their self. or they become traitors and do it. that kind of stuff can happen and usually does a one or two time before a war is over.

Giving any CHILD a gun more likely than not he is going to  kill/hurt his self or someone else...Cause you can bet if i ever see a lil kid with a real gun he wont be standing near me....

This little boy wasnt anywhere near 18 yrs old and as I said again..This was my opinion I didnt say they HAVE to make it 21 years old...but thats just  like why i dont understand why alcohol and ciggerettes carry   age  difference to buy either way teenagers are going to get their hands on both. minds well lower the  drinking age to 18 but they arent gonna do that no time soon...





Clearly this little boy had NO training at all and of course he didnt cause he is still a child that needs to be doing child activities  and shooting REAL guns for any reason isnt what kids should be doing just because they see  their dad, mother etc doing it.  

See you even said your self there is a chance he may shoot his self or another person why let him risk the chance of shooting another person? and a 14 yr old boy cant take care of a whole family thats just not realistic this day in age.


----------



## ballpython2 (Oct 31, 2008)

xBurntBytheSunx said:


> i've shot firearms safely since i was 11 or 12 years old.  just b/c some idiot let their child die doesn't mean the rights of other people should be taken away.  if i had children i wouldn't want your or the government or anyone else telling me if i should let my child shoot a firearm.  this is my whole point, there is no safety in this world but there is a serious difference between having personal freedoms and not having them.




No safety in this world? what are you talkin about? lol..... that little boy could have been SAFELY out of harms way had he not even been around that gun range. this WHOLE situation could have been avoided.

and if people like our vice president can shoot others by accident and he is an adult we definitely dont need kids doing it....regardless of any age unless they are 18 or above...

But again thats just my decision....And i have also noticed that MANY fire arm accidents in the home happen because parents dont lock up their guns and ammo well enough and kids get into them and shoot each other or their self.

Because some parents (not all) think "of my son doesnt know where the gun is at"  very niave....Then they end up with accidents.....I feel bad for every child/gun related accident but  the less  guns that are around children on purpose (in the home for "protection", hunting, to use at a gun range) the less accidents will happen.


----------



## ThomasH (Oct 31, 2008)

ballpython2 said:


> Live off of hunting? so lets just say everything they need to kill to live off of huntin dies what they gonna shoot next? different animals? we aint gonna  have many animals left we left them shoot the wild ones we have..everything going to be on an endangered list lol.....
> 
> When they go into the  US forces they are TRAINED and they are very much NOT 8yrs old or are 10, or 13 or 14  yrs old... , 11,  12they are at least 18.
> 
> ...


Dude, do all of us a favor and do some research. Never will everything die off. Deer in my state have no predators so hunters actually are the main cause of the healthy populations. Historically about 150 years ago the Gray Wolf became extinct here and as soon as the settlers came the Cougars in VA became extinct here. All were because the settlers felt threatened by the imposing and strange predators. The settlers didn't have anything like that in Europe. Deer populations aren't getting preyed upon. In rare circumstances a large male Black Bear may take a baby but a healthy herd could easily run the bear off. Black Bears are scared of everything. I've had experience with young males on my property. I have a natural male stature and have easily run off 200 pound plus bears. So in short, it is up to us to hunt the deer. All the people in VA history that have died from weapontry would have been about 10% of who would have died from deer if we were regulated. So it benifited even with the tragedy. Deer kill over two times as many people in the U.S. than all the native predators combined. This is due mainly to vehicular accidents caused by the deer. A U.S fish and game survey taken in the registered federal forests actually found that populations of the forests that didn't allow hunting actually had less wildlife than those that did. Hunting keeps populations healthy if done in the legal seasons. 25% more of bear cubs in hunted populations actually make it to adulthood than those that aren't hunted. This is contributed to the adult males [The most prized by hunters.] overpowering the mother, killing and eating the cubs. Your little facts are typical of a city boy. Next chance you get go into the country and talk to the ole' country bumkins and get to know them. We really are nice people! 
I know you have to be eighteen for the military. I said that when you said know one under 21 has any business with a gun.
What does any of this have to do with friendly fire? Are you actually implying that the military shouldn't use weapons? :wall: The benifits of military weapons definitely outway the risks.  
Children don't get guns because they don't register. They use their parent's. I do believe there already are rules of moderating children and weapons. Once again, its a responsibility of the people thing. The boy failed to be moderated. It is very rare for that to happen and I'm sure people have been charged. I'm saying it is responsibility of an adult to moderate not responsibility of government. Please read more about hunting. It is a good thing. Take some ventures into the wild and talk to people. You'll like it. We are really laid back people.
TBH


----------



## Hedorah99 (Nov 1, 2008)

I've got an idea, talk about guns in The Watering Hole, talk about the snakes here.


----------

