# Thery're at it again! PLEASE READ



## the toe cutter (Jul 27, 2010)

Well they have added 9 large constrictors, including Anacondas, Retics, Burms, African rocks, and Boa constrictors to the injurious wildlife list of the Lacey act (S373). If you value your animals and the reptile hobby as a whole then visit kill-rulechange.com and help support USARK on the front lines of the proposed snake bans by simply writing a letter to your elected officials. This single act would paralyze the reptile market and would be a foothold for other future infringements of our rights as pet owners. And not only that, but it would cost thousands more American jobs in an already unstable economy. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE ACT NOW! Go to the site mentioned and watch the video they have put up on you-tube. This is our hobby and our government, elected by us and for us. We can make a difference, as some of us have time and time again, year after year by supporting USARK and our rights as pet owners. I personally don't own any large constrictors but ALWAYS stick up for the hobby regardless of my own personal preference. This is DEFINATELY one bill that MUST be stopped! Thanks for looking


----------



## LeilaNami (Jul 30, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> Well they have added 9 large constrictors, including Anacondas, Retics, Burms, African rocks, and Boa constrictors to the injurious wildlife list of the Lacey act (S373). If you value your animals and the reptile hobby as a whole then visit kill-rulechange.com and help support USARK on the front lines of the proposed snake bans by simply writing a letter to your elected officials. This single act would paralyze the reptile market and would be a foothold for other future infringements of our rights as pet owners. And not only that, but it would cost thousands more American jobs in an already unstable economy. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE ACT NOW! Go to the site mentioned and watch the video they have put up on you-tube. This is our hobby and our government, elected by us and for us. We can make a difference, as some of us have time and time again, year after year by supporting USARK and our rights as pet owners. I personally don't own any large constrictors but ALWAYS stick up for the hobby regardless of my own personal preference. This is DEFINATELY one bill that MUST be stopped! Thanks for looking


For those that do not receive emails from USARK, August 2nd is the deadline for the public comments.  I'm sure they have a link to it from their site.


----------



## Crysta (Jul 30, 2010)

I dont mind the idea of Anacondas, Retics, Burms, African rocks being on there... but boa constrictors dont even man up to their length (usually) do they have scientific names ? 

I'd be sad if this migrated to the smaller species...


----------



## LeilaNami (Jul 30, 2010)

CentipedeFreak said:


> I dont mind the idea of Anacondas, Retics, Burms, African rocks being on there... but boa constrictors dont even man up to their length (usually) do they have scientific names ?
> 
> I'd be sad if this migrated to the smaller species...


There is *NO* reason any of those species should be on that list.  You may not mind but many people keep, care for, breed, and sell these species.  The issue with this bill is that they are using pseudoscience to try and push the agenda of PETA and other animal rights organizations.  They are using scare tactics to get politicians to vote in favor of this ridiculous legislature.  _Please_ read USARK's website before making such an uninformed decision.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jul 30, 2010)

LeilaNami said:


> There is *NO* reason any of those species should be on that list.  You may not mind but many people keep, care for, breed, and sell these species.  The issue with this bill is that they are using pseudoscience to try and push the agenda of PETA and other animal rights organizations.  They are using scare tactics to get politicians to vote in favor of this ridiculous legislature.  _Please_ read USARK's website before making such an uninformed decision.


Thank you, LeilaNami!  This is not about what people "mind" or "don't mind" or like or don't like.  I dislike a lot of things, many of which ARE dangerous, but that doesn't mean that banning them is the answer.  Given how rare deaths from large constrictors are when compared to many common, mundane, everyday things, like backyard swimming pools, for instance(in the same week that the 18-month-old girl allegedly got "strangled" to death by her mama's live-in crack dealer boyfriend's Burm in FL, *EIGHT* people drowned in backyard swimming pools in South Carolina alone, six of those children), there is no logic behind the inclusion of ANY of those snakes in the Lacy Act's Injurious Wildlife list.  The horrific Rodda-Reed USGS report that supposedly proves that all of these species will spread as far north as San Francisco and New Jersey due to "global warming" has already been soundly debunked by none other than Mother Nature herself, with this past winter's blow to the python population in south Florida, the ONLY part of the US where they are capable of surviving and reproducing, period.  The push to ban these snakes or their commercial trade and interstate transport is backed by none other than our dear friends(*GAGS*), the InHumane Society of the United States and "Don" Wayne-O Pacelli, and the ever-animal-friendly People For The Unethical Treatment of Animals, led by the Butcher of Norfolk, Ingrid Newkirk, who have a lot of politicians and government officials in their deep, deep dirty pockets.  These two groups, the HSUS in particular, have stated clearly that they wish to destroy the entire reptile industry, just one of their steps towards destroying the pet industry as a whole, and they know that these snakes and the supplies for them make up a large part of the reptile industry, and by eliminating them, and the jobs that exist in support of trade in those species, they can effectively bring the reptile industry to its knees.  This is NOT about human safety, it's NOT about protecting the environment-it's about dirty politics and a radical agenda that is intended to hurt all of US.

pitbulllady


----------



## Matt K (Jul 30, 2010)

Ditto on both posts by LeilaNami and pitbulllady.

The fact is that there are NOT many steps from banning boas and burmese to banning tarantulas, scorpions, ball pythons, or anything else quote "exotic" end quote.

PETA wants a dog and cat world, and not even those if they can help it.


----------



## Dyn (Jul 31, 2010)

CentipedeFreak said:


> I dont mind the idea of Anacondas, Retics, Burms, African rocks being on there... but boa constrictors dont even man up to their length (usually) do they have scientific names ?
> 
> I'd be sad if this migrated to the smaller species...


giving them an inch with just those three WILL have it expanded to smaller ones. It will be all or nothing with these snakes. If you dont fight for the big ones the people who keep them wont fight for your smaller ones.

I really only care to keep Retics, Scrubs, Olives and Black Headed Pythons. Not very much outside of those 4 really interests me. With two being on the chopping block already if they do get cut I wont really be interested in keeping snakes because it will only be a matter of time before they start adding a few more here or there or just do a clean sweep of all of them Retics to Anthill Python.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jul 31, 2010)

No, PETA DOESN'T want a "dog and cat world".  They want a "NO ANIMALS, PERIOD" world, a world where the only animals people see are wild animals from a distance, or pictures in books and on the internet, taken long ago, because photographing animals violates their "right" to privacy, after all.

But both Matt K and Dyn are very, very on-the-spot with the fact that the AR's WON'T stop at just Burms, African Rocks, Retics, Boas, etc.  HSUS is adamant that they intend to completely destroy the reptile industry and eliminate the keeping and breeding of ALL reptiles, whether it's a Burm or a Corn or a Leopard Gecko.  It doesn't matter to them.  It's just easier to start with the big snakes, because they know that so many people are afraid of them and are willing to believe anything that is said about them in the media.  It's just like with "pit bulls"; it's easy to ban something if you can give people a reason to be afraid of it.  Create a fear of the animals, AND of the people who own them.  Spread lies about how we steal puppies and kittens and get them for free off Craigslist so we can feed them to our "monster" snakes, about how we are all just a bunch of degenerates who want to attract attention to ourselves by owning such animals, about how we are all "anti-social" and get a thrill by putting others' lives in danger by bringing such "dangerous" animals among them.  It's just like their argument that the only people who have "pit bulls" are drug dealers, gang members, and other dangerous criminals.  It's a message designed to generate hate, not only for the animals, but for the people who own them.  The more people who hate us, the fewer there are to stick up for us, but as they say, every dog has its day.  When the same people who took away our animals go after the little fluffy foo-foo dogs and kitty cats, either with bans, or limits, or mandatory spay/neuter making it impossible to breed anymore fluffy foo-foo dogs or kitty cats, and THEIR owners start crying out for someone to help THEM resist the AR's, there won't be anyone left to help them fight that battle, because they didn't help the rest of us.

pitbulllady


----------



## AudreyElizabeth (Aug 1, 2010)

CentipedeFreak said:


> but boa constrictors dont even man up to their length (usually) do they have scientific names ?


_Boa constrictor_ is the their scientific name. 



			
				Wikipedia; said:
			
		

> Though all boids are constrictors, only this species is properly referred to as "Boa constrictor"; an almost unique instance of an animal having the same common and scientific binomial name. (The distinction is shared with Tyrannosaurus rex.)


----------



## super-pede (Aug 1, 2010)

don't forget _varanus niloticus_


----------



## Crysta (Aug 1, 2010)

AudreyElizabeth said:


> _Boa constrictor_ is the their scientific name.


whoops, sorry i wasnt paying attention, you hit the nail on the head 



LeilaNami said:


> There is *NO* reason any of those species should be on that list.  You may not mind but many people keep, care for, breed, and sell these species.  The issue with this bill is that they are using pseudoscience to try and push the agenda of PETA and other animal rights organizations.  They are using scare tactics to get politicians to vote in favor of this ridiculous legislature.  _Please_ read USARK's website before making such an uninformed decision.



Sorry for making that uninformed decision. I guess your right about the impact of the people that breed and sell these snakes.


----------



## PhobeToPhile (Aug 2, 2010)

I thought people just killed a bill like this earlier this year-or was it last year? At any rate, how is the campaign coming along? How far has word spread?


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 5, 2010)

The last bill of this nature was killed last year. And I believe that more exotic owners are getting behind USARK as the reptile industry has grown into the millions over the past decade or so. Thats alot of votes. Just pay attention to your local laws as well, those are the ones that are a catalyst for this kind of nonsensical BS. We will see about this ban as the time to speak out in support of killing this ban is over as of last Monday. Hopefully it happened or else its gonna happen with MANY other reptiles including venomous and rear fanged which include Hognoses and Garters. Thanks


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 5, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> The last bill of this nature was killed last year. And I believe that more exotic owners are getting behind USARK as the reptile industry has grown into the millions over the past decade or so. Thats alot of votes. Just pay attention to your local laws as well, those are the ones that are a catalyst for this kind of nonsensical BS. We will see about this ban as the time to speak out in support of killing this ban is over as of last Monday. Hopefully it happened or else its gonna happen with MANY other reptiles including venomous and rear fanged which include Hognoses and Garters. Thanks


The thing we really have to watch out for is the USFWS "Rule Change", the proposal to add those same nine snakes to the Lacey Act's prohibition on trade and interstate transport of "injurious wildlife".  This has nothing to do with votes, so the only thing that can "kill" it would be enough scientific evidence to convince the Feds that this isn't a good idea, at least in theory.  Problem is, so many of these people are in the pockets of HSUS and PETA that they tend not to listen to science unless it's from one of their own, i.e., Reed and Rodda.  PETA and HSUS have had their supporters(which include some people here on AB)pack the public comment section of the Rule Change proposal with page after page of anti-snake, anti-exotic misinformation; honestly I believe that's all that some of these people do, and they probably get paid handsomely to do this, just like the HSUS "damage control" team who call themselves "Hillary HSUS" and "Sarah HSUS", who are on every blog, etc., where people are "outing" HSUS for the radical, anti-animal owner, anti-agriculture, force-veganism-down-our-throats racketeers that they are.

pitbulllady

pitbulllady


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 8, 2010)

Man, I think PBL needs a valium LOL! Calm down there, I know its maddening but there is no point getting all worked up over the internet!


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 8, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> Man, I think PBL needs a valium LOL! Calm down there, I know its maddening but there is no point getting all worked up over the internet!


You haven't SEEN me "worked up" yet, trust me.  
Plus, the AR's STAY worked-up over THEIR cause, which is why they are winning and we're losing.  We animal owners and breeders tend to be too complacent and figure that "somebody will take care of it", or "it will work itself out eventually" or "the problem will just go away on its own", or the old Douglas Adams stand-by, "it's Somebody Else's Problem (S.E.P.)". Most of us don't get "worked up" enough until it's too late, while the AR's are playing sides against each other, dividing and conquering, taking our animals and our rights.

pitbulllady


----------



## Tim Benzedrine (Aug 9, 2010)

_Puts on Peril Sensitive Sunglasses(tm)_

Problem? What problem? I don't see any problem.


----------



## Sunset (Aug 10, 2010)

i dont care what law they past about this. but im not giving up my boas or pythons for the stupid law. the only way there get my snakes if they come with a army and they better be ready to fight....... But getting down to it our country is starting to become a country that every one hates.


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 12, 2010)

PBL, Getting all worked up just makes you look like a fanatic like the other side! With the way you go on your rants you seem just like one of those AR people. I wouldn't be surprised to see you in front of the white house with picket signs! We must show that we are not just a bunch of nut-job wierdos who like the odd pets, but reasonable, intelligent calm individuals. And let the other side look like a bunch of nuts! Besides we haven't lost any of our pets yet, so how are they winning? Hundreds of ridiculous laws and bills go in front of the senate and house every year and nothing happens with them. Most people probably dont even know what the Lacey act is honestly. But our pet trades, both inverts and reptiles is steadily on the rise in the US, and as much as they continue on their quest for non-ownership of animals, it will never happen if we simply vote, or contact your representative or senator. But no need to use fear tactics to scare exotic owners into hating certain groups of people, I dont like them myself, but you have to respect their views and we all have freedom of speech. Its fine to be concerned about issues that affect you, but just don't be all fanatical about it and talk a bunch of conspiracy non-sense. Thats a tactic out of their rule book.


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 12, 2010)

CentipedeFreak said:


> I dont mind the idea of Anacondas, Retics, Burms, African rocks being on there... but boa constrictors dont even man up to their length (usually) do they have scientific names ?
> 
> I'd be sad if this migrated to the smaller species...


I totally agree. I agree with those large snakes being banned as few can even properly care for them. Boas should stay though as they are more managable.

Im not saying this becasue of safty reason im saying this from an ethics standpoint. Many of these huge snakes are bought by the inexperienced without  knowing proper care and becasue of this the snake will often suffer. Not many people are able to adequetly house snakes past even 10ft. 

I also keep fish and this opinion is passed from them. I think fish like pacus, ATF... should be banned as mayby 1% of all fish that are 3ft will get an acceptable home and the rest either die, sold so some other noob or are thrown into a lake


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 12, 2010)

LeilaNami said:


> There is *NO* reason any of those species should be on that list.  You may not mind but many people keep, care for, breed, and sell these species.




You don't make a ton of money in the reptile hobby and pretty much all vendors and breeders have a full time job anyways so its not like your leaving them jobless. Many people may cere for these species, but many more neglect them as few people can properly care for such large snakes


----------



## Kaimetsu (Aug 12, 2010)

sean-820 said:


> You don't make a ton of money in the reptile hobby and pretty much all vendors and breeders have a full time job anyways so its not like your leaving them jobless. Many people may cere for these species, but many more neglect them as few people can properly care for such large snakes


I'd be willing to bet that a greater percent of dogs and cats in this country are neglected, abused, and improperly cared for than are large snakes, but no one wants to ban dogs and cats, well except for the more insane individuals within groups like peta and the HSUS.  The nut jobs in these groups will never be able to ban cats and dogs, because they are mainstream pets.  Just because some pet owners are irresponsible and unable to care for their pets does not mean that those pet owners who are responsible should be punished for it, and prevented from living with the animals that they love and care for.  Those who abuse and neglect large pet snakes should be punished for it, just as those who abuse and neglect cats and dogs are.

I own a Boa constrictor and as i understand it i will be unable to move out of state with my pet if this legislation passes with Boas added.  I would also love to own a Reticulated python oneday, i am passionate about large boids and pythons but i won't get one until i am certain that i can provide for it adequately.  It would be unfortunate if i am unable to do so once i am ready to take care of it, because of this legislation.

PitBullLady is passionate about this topic, thats for sure, but that isnt the same as being a fanatic.  I have never seen her present an argument without backing it up with facts and sources.

I have yet to hear any reasonable argument for banning responsible pet owners from caring for these wonderful animals.  I'm gonna list the three arguments against keeping large pets that i have heard.

1. It is difficult or impossible to adequately house a huge snake and provide quality of life to said snake.

This is the strongest argument that i have heard, I'm sure there are plenty of irresponsible pet owners who do not provide their large snakes with enough space, or who buy huge snakes as babies without being prepared for their huge snake and end up giving away or releasing it.  Again as i said earlier tons of dogs and cats are abused and neglected every year, but this isnt an argument against allowing responsible pet owners who can provide for them from living with them.

2.  Huge snakes and other exotic pets are a serious danger to the ecology of North America, as irresponsible pet owners often release their pets, the Florida everglades is already infested with ecologically damaging burmese pythons and they may spread to the rest of the country.

This argument is as far as i've been able to tell completely wrong.  The burmese pythons in the Florida everglades are descended from snakes that escaped a breeding facility in the early '90s because of a hurricane, someone else should be able to provide a source on this.  Also the claim that burmese pythons could spread out of florida is ridiculous, it's been proven than the rest of the country is too cold and dry for burmese pythons to survive.  Even in the everglades they just had an unusually cold winter that killed many pythons.  Cats are far more ecologically harmful than large snakes, a big snake will kill maybe 10 rodents a year, an outdoor or feral cat would probably kill several animals a day, yet no one wants to ban cats.

3.  Huge pet snakes are dangerous to people.

Since 1980 something like 10 people in America have been killed by large pet snakes, and some of these incidents are dubious or are the result of poor husbandry and stupid owners.  Compare this to the something like 40 people who are killed by pet dogs every year.  Granted far more people own dogs than own large snakes, but i've heard that the number of large snake owners in America is close to a million, if large snakes were really dangerous we would see far more fatalities.  The most recent case i have heard of of someone being killed by a large snake was the 3 year old supposedly killed by a pet burmese python.  The truth of this story is that among other things the childs parents were drug dealers and addicts, and they routinely allowed their python to get out.  The snake was malnourished and mistreated, and i find it unlikely that the snake could have stranged the child.  It is my suspicion that one of the parents strangled their child, then blamed it on the snake by throwing the snake into the childs crib and stabbing it to death.

Sorry for rambling so much but i am passionate about this topic.


----------



## Dyn (Aug 12, 2010)

" 1. It is difficult or impossible to adequately house a huge snake and provide quality of life to said snake.

This is the strongest argument that i have heard, I'm sure there are plenty of irresponsible pet owners who do not provide their large snakes with enough space, or who buy huge snakes as babies without being prepared for their huge snake and end up giving away or releasing it. Again as i said earlier tons of dogs and cats are abused and neglected every year, but this isnt an argument against allowing responsible pet owners who can provide for them from living with them. "


I wouldnt say that housing a large snake is very difficult at all. There are plenty of cage manufacturers that have 6x3 and 8x3 cages which is plenty of room for a 18-24 foot snake which most dont get bigger than that anyway. Boamaster has a 10x4 cage as well. It is more expensive but not very difficult and not even close to impossible.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 12, 2010)

sean-820 said:


> You don't make a ton of money in the reptile hobby and pretty much all vendors and breeders have a full time job anyways so its not like your leaving them jobless. Many people may cere for these species, but many more neglect them as few people can properly care for such large snakes


Epic FAIL, Sean, and both Dyn and Kaimetsu have covered the reasons WHY your desire to take away MY friggin' rights, along with those of millions(yes, dude, you read that correctly-MILLIONS)of other Americans, just because you are scared of or don't like something.

I would have to assume that you are pretty hard-core AR, since you're not only in favor of taking away MY animals, but even FISH...other than the ones YOU have, of course.

Now, as to your argument that banning these animals for "ethical reasons" will not have any economic impact, because in your obviously well-researched claim, reptile breeders don't make any money off of them and they all have other jobs, anyway, think again, and make sure you read THIS: http://www.usark.org/uploads/Economic OMB Testimony.pdf
.  You see, it's not just the people who breed and sell these animals, which for many of them IS their job, but the "support industries"-the rodent breeders, the manufacturers of cages and housing, the businesses that sell other supplies like Provent-A-Mite, the venues which host reptile shows, etc.-all of which depend in no small part on people who own and/or breed large snakes to keep their own businesses afloat.  To you it is "unethical"(gee, where have I heard that "ethical" thing before...could it be....OH, yeah, "People For the ETHICAL Treatment of Animals"....yeah, right)to own, keep, breed and sell large snakes because SOME people don't care for the properly or get them for the wrong reasons(just like many people do with cats, dogs or horses...or kids), yet you have no "ethical" issues with putting hundreds of thousands of dedicated people out of work and destroying their livelihoods, not to mention eliminated a really big chunk of money from the economy in a RECESSION-yeah, really "ethical" there, NOT!  Your solution, just like PETA's and HSUS's, is that the only way to prevent possibly abuse of an animal is to ban it, confiscate it, and kill it, all because of what MIGHT happen to it somewhere down the line.

pitbulllady


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 13, 2010)

Kaimetsu said:


> I'd be willing to bet that a greater percent of dogs and cats in this country are neglected, abused, and improperly cared for than are large snakes, but no one wants to ban dogs and cats, well except for the more insane individuals within groups like peta and the HSUS. One step at a time. I doubt cats and dogs will ever be banned, but i think large animals like caimens and some monitors should be as very few can keep a 6ft+ reptile The nut jobs in these groups will never be able to ban cats and dogs, because they are mainstream pets.  Just because some pet owners are irresponsible and unable to care for their pets does not mean that those pet owners who are responsible should be punished for it, and prevented from living with the animals that they love and care for.  Those who abuse and neglect large pet snakes should be punished for it, just as those who abuse and neglect cats and dogs are. Yes but there are no real organizations that even enforce anything to do with reptiles or fish. Im not totally opposed to these large snakes being kept as pets, but i think they should at least require a permit so people dont do an impulse buy and get a retic python from a lps who probably says a 55g tank will be fine for life.
> 
> I own a Boa constrictor and as i understand it i will be unable to move out of state with my pet if this legislation passes with Boas added.  I would also love to own a Reticulated python oneday, i am passionate about large boids and pythons but i won't get one until i am certain that i can provide for it adequately.  I am fine with hobbiest like you, but the majority do impulse buys before even knowing anythign about it.It would be unfortunate if i am unable to do so once i am ready to take care of it, because of this legislation.
> 
> ...


...............


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 13, 2010)

Dyn said:


> " 1. It is difficult or impossible to adequately house a huge snake and provide quality of life to said snake.
> 
> This is the strongest argument that i have heard, I'm sure there are plenty of irresponsible pet owners who do not provide their large snakes with enough space, or who buy huge snakes as babies without being prepared for their huge snake and end up giving away or releasing it. Again as i said earlier tons of dogs and cats are abused and neglected every year, but this isnt an argument against allowing responsible pet owners who can provide for them from living with them. "
> 
> ...


For actual hobbiests its easy. For noobs that know nothign about a large snake its not so easy and not many people want to spend the $ for feeding, housing, heating... for an animal that they keep for more of a shock factor rather then a pet


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 13, 2010)

pitbulllady said:


> Epic FAIL, Sean,I fail to see how they have with a dobut proved me wrong. Kaimetsu said my point was also the strongest. The weaker reasons were not mine anyways. and both Dyn and Kaimetsu have covered the reasons WHY your desire to take away MY friggin' rights, along with those of millions(yes, dude, you read that correctly-MILLIONS)of other Americans, just because you are scared of or don't like something. How am i scared?  If anything im afraid for some 6ft caimens well being as it lives a life of neglect. But whatever maybe 1 in 10000 will get an adequet setup in a zoo or by soem serious hobbiest. I have no problems with the snakes themselves, its with the irresposible keepers. IMO large snakes should be  left in the wild or in zoos that can care for them. If a normal hobbiest wants one like i said before, i would be fien if people could get one with a permit, but i dont think lps should be selling  baby snakes of species known to excees 15ft to just anybody with the money
> 
> I would have to assume that you are pretty hard-core AR, since you're not only in favor of taking away MY animals, but even FISH...other than the ones YOU have, of course. I also keep fish. Piranhas actually. I know many people cant keep 12" fish let alone 3ft fish. Not many people can buy a 500g aquarium or a pond for them. Did you know petsmart sells pacus for around 7$ and on their care card they have some species that gets only 12" and can live in a 30g tank? I wish this was true, but it isnt. A pacu and other large fish arnt fit for the care of many mere hobbiests as they cant be properly carred for.  I know some guys in the fish community that keep pacus in ponds and one in a 500g tank, but many will die in 10g tanks as people were ignorant and had no idea that the cute 3" pacu wont stay 3" for long.
> 
> ...



................


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 13, 2010)

pitbulllady said:


> Now, as to your argument that banning these animals for "ethical reasons" will not have any economic impact, because in your obviously well-researched claim, reptile breeders don't make any money off of them and they all have other jobs, anyway, think again, and make sure you read THIS: http://www.usark.org/uploads/Economic OMB Testimony.pdf
> .  You see, it's not just the people who breed and sell these animals, which for many of them IS their job, but the "support industries"-the rodent breeders, the manufacturers of cages and housing, the businesses that sell other supplies like Provent-A-Mite, the venues which host reptile shows, etc.-all of which depend in no small part on people who own and/or breed large snakes to keep their own businesses afloat.


In responce to this you can use this defence  for any banning. For any industry there are people who make a living from it. So if I made some new drug to sell to kids you wouldnt want to shut me down becasue my employees would lose their jobs? Every ban will effect some group of people either directly or indirectly.


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 13, 2010)

You know sean, I see where you are comin from, I myself feel that rule #1 in owning reptiles, is the housing issue! I go with the rule that the cage atleast needs to be big enough for the animal to stretch completely out in, so 16ft snake= 16ft cage! I have also seen teenage kids buy burms, retics, anacondas, scrubs and rock pythons just because they have the money to do so from pet stores. It is irresponsible and unethical not to mention the harm that WILL come to the animal. But banning a group of animals all together, even though possibly justifiable, will give certain groups a foot hold for future ammendments. I have never owned a large constrictor, but I have owned and still own quite a few venomous reptiles. And I could not see anyone taking my venomous reptiles from me, but it could happen if things like this aren't stopped. Have you heard the expression give them an inch and they take a mile? We have to stop this crap so that NO foothold might happen that could be a catalyst for other animals being banned. I DO VERY FIRMLY BELIEVE that like most states and venomous reptiles, you should need a permit to own large constrictors. It would be the best "safety net" for large constrictor owners/breeders and for the entire reptile industry. Permits are not that difficult to get! So there is really NO REASONABLE argument in opposition to that. I would not sell any venomous to anyone without experience or under the age of 18 even if the state didn't require it, you have to cover your ass! Plus permits are usually paid to the Dept of Nat resources of your state and would help upkeep of some of your favorite state and National parks. Win win for everyone.


----------



## Dyn (Aug 13, 2010)

sean-820 said:


> For actual hobbiests its easy. For noobs that know nothign about a large snake its not so easy and not many people want to spend the $ for feeding, housing, heating...


You can insert ANY animal into that. So I dont really find that to be a very good arguement either way.



"I go with the rule that the cage atleast needs to be big enough for the animal to stretch completely out in, so 16ft snake= 16ft cage!"

Thats a good rule if you have the room... but they dont really need that much space. I can check my cages 20 or 30 times a day and both of my retics a 10-11fter and a 7fter and they are almost ways in the same spot coiled up. They might move to the warm side from the cool side every now and again but really they arent that active to need full room sized cage. Especially when you take them out anyway.

I dont know about a permit system. Perhaps adding them to usda regulations like exotic mammals. like this http://www.petsugargliders.com/usda/7020.pdf and possibly some kind of waiver explaining how big the snakes get and all of that.

That why we dont need to do a permit system and larger snakes are added to this. Then only usda facilities can breed and sell them. They will are checked by inspectors and if you lose your license you can sell or breed which will keep snakes in good conditions at the breeders and they have records of who bought what kinds of snakes and they can possibly be checked up on.


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 13, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> You know sean, I see where you are comin from, I myself feel that rule #1 in owning reptiles, is the housing issue! I go with the rule that the cage atleast needs to be big enough for the animal to stretch completely out in, so 16ft snake= 16ft cage! Though i think a permit would be good for snakes, i especially think its needed for things like caimens as a dwarf caimen isnt that dwarf and will need a large pond of pool. The nature of snakes means a 16ft snake doesnt need a ton of room, but many people wouldn't even do a 8ft tankI have also seen teenage kids buy burms, retics, anacondas, scrubs and rock pythons just because they have the money to do so from pet stores. It is irresponsible and unethical not to mention the harm that WILL come to the animal. But banning a group of animals all together, even though possibly justifiable, will give certain groups a foot hold for future ammendments. I have never owned a large constrictor, but I have owned and still own quite a few venomous reptiles. And I could not see anyone taking my venomous reptiles from me, but it could happen if things like this aren't stopped.I do agree with you on this, but as of now things are either legal or illigal and anything legal has no real regulations or enfocement. Like i said already i keep piranhas and in many states in the usa they are illigal for no good reason so i know where you guys are coming from.  The problems i see with the law are some thigns are illigal that shoudlnt be while others like caimens, large monitors and 16ft snakes have no regulations on them and selling them to minors is just up to the vendors themselves Have you heard the expression give them an inch and they take a mile? We have to stop this crap so that NO foothold might happen that could be a catalyst for other animals being banned. I DO VERY FIRMLY BELIEVE that like most states and venomous reptiles, you should need a permit to own large constrictors. It would be the best "safety net" for large constrictor owners/breeders and for the entire reptile industry. Permits are not that difficult to get! I agree there should be some regulation especially for hots. Liek i just said the laws are stupid. The govenment is tried to ban all pythons and boas including small 2 ft sand boas, but  the govenrment  doesnt seem to bother with trying to regulate things like lethal scorpions or hots other then mayby on a state wide or city  to city levelSo there is really NO REASONABLE argument in opposition to that. I would not sell any venomous to anyone without experience or under the age of 18 even if the state didn't require it, you have to cover your ass! Plus permits are usually paid to the Dept of Nat resources of your state and would help upkeep of some of your favorite state and National parks. Win win for everyone.


I should also mention i am Canadian so this wouldnt effect me directly, but it would still effect me indirectly. Not too long ago i was at an expo and i overhead a guy talking about  having a caimen (not sure if dwarf or not though dwarfs still get huge) that got out and thrashed up his house. I remember him whining about it ruining his life and things like this.  Point is irrisponsible keepers can get large and potentially dangerous animals way to easy.


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 13, 2010)

Dyn, if you don't have the room don't get the animal! I'm sure in the wild that they dont cram themselves into 6 foot boxes, and I am also sure that you probably dont care anyway! And I wouldnt move much either if I was put into a box half my size. 

And there DEFINATELY needs to be a permit system. Permit systems are implemented in many US states for hots, and the USDA has nothing to do with captive breeding hots, so that point is completely bogus. And I also believe, as I stated in the myriapods section here, that there does need to be regulations implemented on the invert industry as well concerning hots, and I believe Fla has something like that already. It is simple protection for the entire reptile industry from irresponsible pet owners who don't know what they are getting themselves into. Its a simple checks and balances system with insurance! I firmly believe that the issues in Fla and a few deaths could well have been diverted and these mass bans never an issue in the first place if regulations were put into place to protect the hobby! Permits, possibly a tagging system inserted into reptiles for owner identification like they do for other house pets, would not only get these people off our backs, but also ensure someone was VERY serious and completely understood the care and housing requirements needed for the animals welfare and our hobby. Its pretty cut and dry. PIT  tags have been used for finding the location of certain wild snakes for study and observation for years. It is completely feasible to require the same be done for these particular animals just in case they escape or someone lets one go into the wild! Its our responsibility to protect our hobby and be adults here and take measures that keep the public and certain groups off our backs within reason. If you dont have the money to take your animal to the vet to get micro-chipped, you obviously don't have the financial means to care for that animal anyway, so money is not even an issue there. If you dont have the time or money to get a permit, then you cannot possibly spend the time and money required it takes to have one of these animals! We have to be smart about this and not just act like children here and think that saying no repeatedly(parents out there know what I am talking about lol) will stop these ridiculous laws. If we protect ourselves with a few simple regulations, they will have no reason to screw with us. Plain and simple most of life is a comprimise, so you are either gonna kick and scream and throw a fit and never been seen as rational pet owners, or be proactive and comprimise and get these people off of our backs. If we don't fix the issue, they will! And I'm pretty sure no one here wants that.


----------



## Dyn (Aug 13, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> Dyn, if you don't have the room don't get the animal! I'm sure in the wild that they dont cram themselves into 6 foot boxes, and I am also sure that you probably dont care anyway! And I wouldnt move much either if I was put into a box half my size.


Then you might as well ban all snakes because most people arent going to have 5-6 foot cages for balls, kingsnakes, or small boas let alone a retic burm or scrub python. My 7 foot retic curls up in a spot probably 6" x 12" and hes in a 4' x 2' cage I seriously doubt hes cramped at all.

The standard accepted caging requirements for most snakes is 1 squarefoot per foot of snake. Usually in half their length by a quarter length is standard. 3x2 for 6 foot snakes and 4x2 for 8 footers. I'm going with 6x3 (good for up to 18 feet) caging for snakes I have male retics which usually top out at 16 foot max and scrubs that again most likely wont even get 16 let alone over that.

How wide would your 16 foot cage be? 16 foot as well? wouldnt want them to get too cramped when they are turning around.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 13, 2010)

the toe cutter said:


> Dyn, if you don't have the room don't get the animal! I'm sure in the wild that they dont cram themselves into 6 foot boxes, and I am also sure that you probably dont care anyway! And I wouldnt move much either if I was put into a box half my size.
> 
> And there DEFINATELY needs to be a permit system. Permit systems are implemented in many US states for hots, and the USDA has nothing to do with captive breeding hots, so that point is completely bogus. And I also believe, as I stated in the myriapods section here, that there does need to be regulations implemented on the invert industry as well concerning hots, and I believe Fla has something like that already. It is simple protection for the entire reptile industry from irresponsible pet owners who don't know what they are getting themselves into. Its a simple checks and balances system with insurance! I firmly believe that the issues in Fla and a few deaths could well have been diverted and these mass bans never an issue in the first place if regulations were put into place to protect the hobby! Permits, possibly a tagging system inserted into reptiles for owner identification like they do for other house pets, would not only get these people off our backs, but also ensure someone was VERY serious and completely understood the care and housing requirements needed for the animals welfare and our hobby. Its pretty cut and dry. PIT  tags have been used for finding the location of certain wild snakes for study and observation for years. It is completely feasible to require the same be done for these particular animals just in case they escape or someone lets one go into the wild! Its our responsibility to protect our hobby and be adults here and take measures that keep the public and certain groups off our backs within reason. If you dont have the money to take your animal to the vet to get micro-chipped, you obviously don't have the financial means to care for that animal anyway, so money is not even an issue there. If you dont have the time or money to get a permit, then you cannot possibly spend the time and money required it takes to have one of these animals! We have to be smart about this and not just act like children here and think that saying no repeatedly(parents out there know what I am talking about lol) will stop these ridiculous laws. If we protect ourselves with a few simple regulations, they will have no reason to screw with us. Plain and simple most of life is a comprimise, so you are either gonna kick and scream and throw a fit and never been seen as rational pet owners, or be proactive and comprimise and get these people off of our backs. If we don't fix the issue, they will! And I'm pretty sure no one here wants that.


Actually, the situation with the Burms in the 'Glades has already pretty much been proven NOT to have resulted from the "irresponsible owners dumping unwanted pets when they got too big", as 99% of the captured Burms have virtually identical DNA and are all closely related, something that could only have happened if the original snakes all came from a single source.  This would not be possible if that population resulted from many different snakes, from different genetic backgrounds, being released over a period of several years or decades.  That is a myth that is being spread and used by the AR's to further their cause and gain the needed support of politicians.  As for the death of the child in FL(which experienced snake owners still highly doubt was caused by the animal at all), this took place AFTER Florida had already imposed their "Reptiles Of Concern" permit system, and the owner of that snake, a convicted drug dealer with a criminal rap sheet a country mile long, did not have a permit to have the snake in the first place(like he would be concerned with that, anyway-what's one more law to break, after all).

If we need a permit system to own large constricting snakes, do we also need permits to own other potentially dangerous animals, especially those which have demonstrated a far GREATER potential to harm or kill people than these snakes have?  Which animals would you propose having a permit for?  Dogs over what weight?  Horses?  Cattle?  Sheep and goats?  All of them have killed more people than constricting snakes have, and yes, that DOES include sheep and goats!  Who is to decide who should get a permit and who is denied, and based on what criteria?  The HSUS?  The lawmakers?  Other large snake/dog/horse/cattle/sheep/goat/pig/etc./etc. owners? PETA?  Some state agency?  Should the US or each state create additional bureaucracies just to oversee permits to own virtually every single kind of animal on the planet, because they have some potential to hurt us?

Also, are you aware the PIT tags have, in many species, been linked to a growing number of serious animal health issues, especially several forms of cancers?  Has it ever occurred to anyone that if a sweeping ban on animals is put into place once the mandatory PIT tag laws were past, it would be an easy task to simply look up who has what animals, and go through with massive animal seizures?  IN a rare situation like FL, they can prove useful in actually tracking the criminal act of abandoning such an animal(and the AR's love to do this, to draw attention to their cause; many of the more recent large snake "finds" in FL were most likely "planted" animals, as they were very tame, had no scars or other indicators of animals that had been living in the wild), but this is a double-edged sword which is more likely to result in a useful tool for finding out exactly who has banned animals and taking them away, whether those animals are snakes, dogs, whatever.

One of the biggest problems I have with anyone who claims to be an animal keeper, etc. is that most only see their little corner of the universe and honestly don't give a rat's you-know-what about other animal owners, breeders, sellers, etc.  They are all for passing laws to take away MY animals, and kill them, and they don't want ME to be happy, but God forbid anyone come after the animals that THEY choose to own!  They are so eager to throw ME and MY animals under that proverbial bus, but should the AR's come knocking on THEIR door, they will naturally expect me to stand up and fight for THEM.  They want MY animals dead and banned and they are naive(or just plain stupid...yeah, I said STUPID)enough to believe that "it will never happen to me; the AR's will never try to ban MY animals, so I don't have anything to worry about".  That's exactly what all the breeders of little "foo-foo" dogs in Ohio thought when the state implemented their "Vicious Dog" law declaring ALL "pit bulls and dogs of pit bull type" to be vicious by default, and many cities in Ohio banned those dogs outright.  The owners of the foo-foo breeds were happy to see those "monsters" gone, and they knew that of course, their dogs were safe.  NOW, part of Gov. Strickland's deal with the Devil(Wayne Pacelli)is to put into effect an executive order under which MOST dog breeders in Ohio would be considered "puppy mills" and would not only be forced to stop breeding and selling dogs, but could face confiscation of their animals under policies put into effect by people who do not own dogs, do not breed dogs, do not WANT anyone to own or breed dogs.  The proverbial shoe is now on that other foot, so to speak, but if you anger and alienate the people most likely to help you stick up for your animals by helping the AR's get rid of those people's animals, who is going to stand up for YOU when that inevitable payback comes around?

pitbulllady


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 14, 2010)

#1 1sq ft per ft is reasonable, but I have personally seen 16-18ft retics in 4'x2'x18" enclosures by quite a few people including a few breeders, whom I wont mention. Human failure again, my entire point on that.

#2 PIT tags were used as an example, micro chipped methods that would be more condusive to reptile physiology is what I was talking about there. And I have seen water snakes with fish bones sticking out of their sides, so I dont think that would really be much of a health issu! for some anyway lol!

#3 A Permit system like most states already have for exotic venomous reptiles, does not restrict whom can own venomous animals, the only criteria you must meet is to be 18yrs of age, and been educated in the handling and care of hots. And many places like glades herp, for example,  down in Fl have apprenticeship programs that teach you how to properly care for them and you can get your state license. None of this is new here?! PETA, or HSUS or USDA have nothing to do with that! So none of you has even a hint of a good point against that. 

And on another note, deer are the most hazardous animals living today to human beings in North America. These silly fears some of you have about the HSUS and PETA coming to your home and kicking your door in to take your animals and then immediately take them and kill them is ridiculous. If we properly protect ourselves by passing OUR OWN regulatory standards we would not have these problems. And if you know anything about genetics, there is no real, non-guessing difference genetically from any one species to one of the same species?! We are 96% genetically identical to house flies and 98.9% identical to chimps? From a burmese from its most western natural geographic range to its most eastern, is so alike we cannot yet tell the slightest difference. So that point about they all may have came from just a few is not a well founded argument. I love reptiles and have been in the hobby for over 20 years and breeding for over a dozen. I have kept just about every kind of Asian, African and American type of snake on the market including a number of venomous every once in a while except for large constrictors. I have caught snakes and kept them since I was about 6 years old, and read every piece of literature about their habits and evolution that I could get. And no other reptile has had this kind of attention before, and if we don't do something pro-active about it and make our own regulations someone else less desireable will. That is my point, we have to police up ourselves. Its not that the HSUS or PETA are targeting ALL snakes, because there is no real issue with the other ones that has been brought to such a serious light as to require a ban. I am not saying they wont in the future if the rules that they want are installed, I'm saying because of irresponsible PEOPLE/OWNERS our beloved pets are now being scrutinized by the govt. If they were regulated in the first place, this would never have an issue of its current magnitude and more than ikely swept under the rug. Irresponsible exotic pet owners GAVE them the fire to try and burn down our hobby! And you cannot argue against that, its the absolute truth. So in essence, we did this to ourselves by not imposing regulations on ownership qualifications of large constrictors. Do you hear any venomous reptile owners/breeders under so much scrutiny, I didn't see any venomous on the list so I will say probably not! Even with the Animal Planet special on invasive species special that claimed within 10 years there will be wild rampant king cobras running around all over the south east they are not under as much scrutiny as the large constrictor debate all because of a few simple regulations. And most hots out there are far more dangerous to us. They are protecting their hobby, why can't large constrictor owners pull their heads out of their @#$ stop whining like children and do the same? Comprimise is a part of life, so you might wanna get used to it before there is no ledge left to support a comprimise and we lose everything! I don't own large constrictors, but I think that they are awesome animals and do rightfully have a large place here in our hobby, and that it should stay that way! But we have to be smart here and protect OUR hobby from people who wish to see it gone all together and stop selling retics and like animals to children or people who do not understand nor have the ability to care for them. We have to cut the fat, and we have alot of it I'm afraid! Thats why permits are a completely viable proponent to get what everyone wants, well minus the HSUS and PETA lol, a safe and happy future for ALL REPTILES, owners and all of the growing number of businesses that depend on the reptile trade.


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 14, 2010)

PBL, I have had many completely wild caught animals before from all over the world with no scars either. So that is not a good way at all to determine if something is wild.


----------



## Dyn (Aug 14, 2010)

I'm glad you see how ridiculous a foot of cage per foot of snake is. It's completely unreasonable. Yes some people cram really large snakes into really small cages. I've also just read about someone doing that and breeding a 14 or 15 foot female scrub in a 4x2 cage so she couldnt have been THAT uncomfortable with it. I dont agree with that but for it to be feeding and breeding the snake had to have been comfortable. Like I said though I'm going 6x3 caging for my snakes 12-18 feet and if they get 20 or more I'll get some 8x3 caging. 


Honestly permits and bans are really only going to keep responsible owners from keeping these animals.

The people who are not caring for these animals properly and releasing them are probably still going to keep/breed and abuse them. So this really wont solve anything. See the drug war for reference.


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 15, 2010)

Breeding in a small container doesn't mean the animal is comfortable at all! That would just make it easier for the male since he wouldn't have to chase her or pin her down, the cage is doing it for him.


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 15, 2010)

And responsible pet owners would not at all be kept from owning the animals they want by getting permits? That doesn't even make any sense? Its joe schmoe that goes to the local pet store and sees an anaconda and says,"man I saw that movie and that would really show my friends that I was a tough guy," and buys a large constrictor on impulse, that has no idea how to properly care or house that animal that either kills it or possibly lets it go by accident or on purpose when it gets too much for him to handle. Zoos and rescue are so overwhelmed with large constrictors that they wont even take them 98% of the time. And reselling an animal of that size is VERY hard to do. Getting the permit would ensure that this would no longer happen to such a large extent simply by having to go through the process of getting a permit. And adding the apprenticeship requirement for a permit would possibly deter such a person when they see what is actually required to care for one. Plus usually an apprenticeship program by local breeders/importers has a small fee involved, and helps that business monitarily. Florida already does this with venomous reptiles. Its kind of like an insurance policy for the whole hobby, if you go through all that trouble and still want the animal and something happens to you or anyone else or the animal is released and recovered all responsibility is no longer on the reptile industry or the people who sold it to you, but on you the owner solely. For those of you who are simply too lazy to get a permit, which you can do online at most state Dept of Nat Resources websites for the ones that require it, then you do not need that animal anyway! I have to have a permit to sell cornsnakes here in VA. and it cost all of 10$ a year and most of that money goes right in with all other state taxes. Its not that big a deal to save these animals from getting banned in my opinion.


----------



## Dyn (Aug 15, 2010)

It all depends on who gives the permits and who makes the requirements. What if there are no local breeders or importers around? How do you get your apprenticeship completed?


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 15, 2010)

I can pretty much GUARANTEE you that there is a large breeder/importer/dealer in your state that could easily facilitate this!


----------



## Dyn (Aug 15, 2010)

I dont believe there is after trying to look some up.

In Mississippi as well as needing a permit for inherently dangerous animals you have to have a 100,000 dollar liability insurance policy for every animal up to a million dollars. No idea how much that would be a month but I'm willing to bet it isnt cheap.


----------



## Dyn (Aug 15, 2010)

Also this site seems to have some good information.

http://www.rexano.org/Federal_Canada/Constrictor_Snake_Flyer.pdf

http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/Death_Odds_Exotic_Animal_2005.pdf

http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/Constrictor_Captive_Snake_Fatality.pdf


These snakes really dont seem that dangerous... and after a quick search (didnt put a ton of effort into it) I couldnt find any deaths from scrub pythons.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 15, 2010)

There are no importers here in MY state, and if you cannot get the experience to become a permitted breeder, then how would you expect to FIND one?  Nice little catch-22 there.  

Toe Cutter, you seriously need to check into the HSUS and their purpose, if you think my idea of them busting down doors and seizing people's animals are "silly".  How about go through the archives at http://humanewatch.org/ or join Yahoo's Pet Law group, and find out what is REALLY going on, and just what a reality that "silly" notion actually is, how many people it's happened to already.  It's because of people like you, who bury their heads in the sand and refuse to see what is going on around them that groups like HSUS and PETA get by with what they do and are as successful as they are.  It's why more and more animals are being banned and restricted every day and more and more animal owner right go down the drain.  You think it's fine and dandy to ban/restrict animals that YOU do not own, but I'd bet you'd be the first to come whining and crying when some bill or regulation comes down the line that will negatively affect YOUR animals and YOUR rights to own them.

pitbulllady


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 16, 2010)

PBL you are a silly person, but it is quite amusing to hear your paranoid ramblings. I read alot of these same things you are posting, and though I do not keep large constrictors, I fully advocate people owning them as I have said in every reply to this thread. I am against any ban on nearly all pets, other than rhinos, tigers and other such animals. You get far too worked up about things, you have turned into a monster to fight the monster and that in itself makes you no better than the nuts at the HSUS just another person that will go on kicking and screaming you just happen to be on the opposite side. I do remember something...hmmm...what was it... oh yeah I posted this thread to get other pet owners here attention and a chance to speak up before this went into the hearing! So you obviously are not reading what I am saying just reading a few lines and then throwing a hissy fit. I have been involved with USARK for quite a few years now and have wriiten more letters to representatives than I care to count. I do stick up for a large constrictor owners as I have alot of friends who keep/breed these animals. So every assumption you made previously is ridiculous. Be an adult here and stop your attacks on me, and I have seen much more whining on your end here on this thread. And how about Low Country Exotics in Summerville SC? They breed burms I do believe or possibly Wildside inc in Oakwood GA, you may not be too far from there either just off the top of my head. And I'm sure there are quite a few private breeders around your state. There are also numerous pet stores here in VA that breed large constrictors. I'm in the US Army and we have to do command preventive maintenance every monday morning, to ensure our vehicles in the motor pool are serviceable and safe. Right now we need to do the same stuff in this hobby, preventive maintenance. For instance, if you do a preventive maintenance service and check on the vehicle and sign off on it and due to carelessness something happens to that vehicle YOU are responsible for it! This is my point about the permit system. Why are you so opposed to doing something that will only help OUR cause and keep those people off of our backs? There is no reason other than paranoia, and you need to get over it! You need a permit to own a hand gun right? And does that stop people from owning them? Not at all unless you are a felon(in most cases anyway), not comparing the two just making a point about having to get permits! Its not that difficult and will save large constrictor owners in the long run. So what if you have no one to give you a permit like a breeder/importer the state would more than likely have to accomodate this issue. You have alot of good info on the subject you just need a bit more tact. I understand your passion for the subject and it is appreciated, but at some point kicking and screaming isn't going to solve anything. And in any right the permit system is an idea that quite a few people I know in the industry and USARK have been throwing around for the last few years, its just a matter of getting certain stipulations in order to accomodate people who live in certain states the oppurtunity to get these permits. Thanks again though, I do thoroughly enjoy the banter


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 16, 2010)

Dyn I love those statistics! And good info as well, thanks


----------



## Dyn (Aug 16, 2010)

There was also one on venomous snakes.

Most deaths were pet rattlesnakes and crazy religious serpent handling displays


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Aug 16, 2010)

pitbulllady said:


> ..but I'd bet you'd be the first to come whining and crying when some bill or regulation comes down the line that will negatively affect YOUR animals and YOUR rights to own them. (to user T C)


It would be too late at that point but that's always how it works.
 My governor is about to use an executive order to ban exotics, apparently the Humane Society has had some trouble getting legislation passed so they're using 'deals' to get executive orders. I'm surprised they haven't made Obama ban everything with an executive order. The ironic part is the Humane Society probably gets most of its donations from pet owners.


----------



## Tim Benzedrine (Aug 17, 2010)

That's because people believe (are misled to believe?) that the HSUS is affiliated with their local animal rescue organizations. Tip: If it's flashy, comes in the mail with free address lables and stuff, do not donate, just toss it.
 Local animal welfare organizations do not have (and would not squander if they did) the resources to send tons of crap in mass mailings.

 Me, I use any HSUS freebies they send that are usable after clipping off their logo.


----------



## Widdle (Aug 20, 2010)

*Be patient, I'm a noob*

I'm a noob, and don't really understand what is going on with this anti-snake legislation, but I don't like any part of the government controlling any part of what I can and can't have.  I don't own snakes, but I am against any law that prohibits people from having something just because it makes a small minority of the population "uncomfortable." (If that's what's going on.) Somebody mentioned PETA, so I have a feeling that _is_ what's going on.  It's the same with anti-gunners who learn about guns from "Die Hard," and they want to ban guns...  What happens, only criminals have guns.  The same will happen.  People will still bring in the "ILLEGAL SNAKES" anyway.  That will ALWAYS happen.  If they banned cigarettes, they would still find their way here, opening black markets.

A brief summary of the problem, and the name(s) of who I can complain to, would be greatly appreciated.  Or, who I can help by making a donation.  USARK was mentioned.  I'll start there...  

We all must help protect each others' rights, even if we don't have pet snakes, or own firearms, etc.


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 21, 2010)

Isn't it ironic that people are more concerned about losing their rights (what "rights" do humans even have to own other animals anyways?) then they are about the actual well being of many of the actual animals. 


According to some of you, I should be able to keep lions in my spare room, mayby a caimen in my backyard and how about a komodo dragon in my bathroom? We can't have any animals at all banned becasue then the govenment will ban everything! We should also stop the government from making laws as if we let them make a law give it a week and they will make it a dictatorship and we won't have any "rights". THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US!!!!!!!!!


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 21, 2010)

sean-820 said:


> Isn't it ironic that people are more concerned about losing their rights (what "rights" do humans even have to own other animals anyways?) then they are about the actual well being of many of the actual animals.
> 
> 
> According to some of you, I should be able to keep lions in my spare room, mayby a caimen in my backyard and how about a komodo dragon in my bathroom? We can't have any animals at all banned becasue then the govenment will ban everything! We should also stop the government from making laws as if we let them make a law give it a week and they will make it a dictatorship and we won't have any "rights". THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US!!!!!!!!!


Sean, IF you are able to care for and properly contain a lion, a caiman or whatever, I don't see any reason WHY you shouldn't have it.  It's very, very clear that you're a hard-core Animal "Rights" supporter who does not believe that humans should keep ANY animals, am I correct on this?  If not, then please tell me why YOU should decide what someone else can or cannot keep?  

And yes, Sean, we DO have a right to keep animals, at least here in the US.  It's called the Fourteenth Amendment, of a little document known as the US Constitution, which guarantees us the right to own property here in the US.  While it does not, specifically, spell out just what "property" is or isn't, there have been several court cases here in the US in which it was ruled that animals ARE property, and therefore we have a right to OWN them.  You are also making the ASSumption that none of us care about the animals, only about our rights, which also isn't true.  THAT is the deliniation between you AR's/Peta/HSUS supporters and Animal WELFARE supporters.  We DO, in fact, care a lot about the animals, and see a grave conflict between what YOU want-a ban on keeping animals-and animal care.  Banning animals results in animals being seized and KILLED, or put into worse conditions than they came out of in the first place.  Anyone who actually knows anything about animals(and most AR's don't know squat, since you can't know much about something you've had no first-hand experience with) can look at the so-called "animal rescues", especially of "exotic" animals, and see that they basically went from the frying pan to the fire, IF they were even in the "frying pan" in the first place.  Many AR's, having no clue how to actually care for an animal, mistake commonly-accepted husbandry methods as "cruelty" or "abuse", and then ascribe anthropomorphism to the animals in question.  On varous reptile forums, I've read of high-profile raids in which snakes were seized on the basis of there being dead rodents in the freezer! To an AR supporter, this is horrible!  To someone who owns snakes or carvivorous lizards, it's no different than having a bag of dog food in the pantry for your dog.  Dogs are seized and KILLED(again, please tell me how this benefits the animal)because the owner had a treadmill and spring pole, which to the AR's(not knowing anything about animals), these two things are clear signs that the owner was a dog-fighter.  They fail to realize that Cesar Milan also advocates the use of those things to excersise dogs, and that many professional show dog handlers have them, as well, but of course, the AR position is that these folks shouldn't be showing or training dogs in the first place, since the dogs aren't "property".

I have to ask you Sean, and you still have not answered this:  who are YOU to decide what another person can or cannot keep, take care of?  By what authority or better yet, by what EXPERIENCE?  AND, who do you think will stick up for YOU should laws negatively impact YOUR right to keep YOUR animals, IF you have any, that is?  Do you honestly believe that your choices should be kept sacrosanct, while the rest of us should not be able to choose what kind of animals we keep or don't keep?  If so, I'd sure love to know what makes YOU so special that you should not be held to the same bans, restrictions, etc. that the rest of us are facing.  Your attitude is so perfectly an example of the AR mentality:  _"If I don't like it, or wouldn't want to have it, NO ONE should be able to have it.  They can take away everyone else's animals, but don't DARE come after MINE!  I am better than everyone else, so I can therefore decide what everyone else can or cannot keep.  The government is my friend and they would never pass any law to hurt me or MY animals and I don't care what they do to yours.  We need MORE laws...as long as they don't affect me, of course.  People who don't want more laws against owning animals are just being paranoid while I don't have anything to worry about since I don't keep those kinds of animals anyway, and I'm better than those other people so I know I'm safe no matter what laws are passed.  I'm above all that.  Who CARES about the other peoples' rights?"_

pitbulllady


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 21, 2010)

pitbulllady said:


> Sean, IF you are able to care for and properly contain a lion, a caiman or whatever, I don't see any reason WHY you shouldn't have it.So, it's your opinion that I should be allowed to keep say a pitbull in a crate 24/7 as you said it was practically my right. I don't know about you, but if i kept pitbulls id prefer to get a permit if available to insure irresponsible and cruel owners can't do this and that irrisposible owners can't get HOT snakes without having experience so they arn't putting themselves and those around them at risk  It's very, very clear that you're a hard-core Animal "Rights" supporter who does not believe that humans should keep ANY animals, am I correct on this?  If not, then please tell me why YOU should decide what someone else can or cannot keep?  I'm a hobbiest recognizing this industry needs some regulation, not banning. The regulation prevents irrisponsible keepers from obtaining certain animals not knowlegeable hobbiest from getting a speices. This is the main thing you havn't realized. If you have a plan for the animal once it's past the "cute" baby stage im fine with that keeper, but not those who didnt even realize a dwarf caimen isn't small and their huge 30g tank doesnt seem so huge anymore.
> 
> And yes, Sean, we DO have a right to keep animals, at least here in the US.  It's called the Fourteenth Amendment, of a little document known as the US Constitution, which guarantees us the right to own property here in the US.  While it does not, specifically, spell out just what "property" is or isn't, there have been several court cases here in the US in which it was ruled that animals ARE property, and therefore we have a right to OWN them.For starters im not american. Secondly, im not talking legally, im talking ethically. IMHO one should have no rights to posess an animal unless they have the proper resources to take care of it. If you can financially afford to keep it, house it and feed it i'm fine with that. Do you think its ok for petsotres to sell caimens to people who consider 100g aquariums to be huge? Is it ok to send animals practically to their death as it's obvious most people can't take care of a full grown caimen.  Based on your retorts, i'll assume you will reply what about those responsible keepers? They can still get a caimen. A permit prevents inexpereinced keepers from obtaining such animals not  people who have the resorces to properly take care of it. Im sure you will wonder what makes somebody qualified? Since this is just an opinion i havn't formulated all the rules and regulations so obviously a basic idea will have loopholes.   You are also making the ASSumption that none of us care about the animals, only about our rights, which also isn't true. I'm not making that assumtion at all. I know people do care for animals and thats why im saying some regulation is needed to prevent people from owning certain animals for the wrong reasons (aka a lion to be cool...) while still allowing experienced keepers to keep those animals they love.THAT is the deliniation between you AR's/Peta/HSUS supporters and Animal WELFARE supporters.  We DO,You talk as if everbody in the world cares about their animal's well being as much as you. Many people get into the hobby on impulse and end up with some neglected animal that  is in inadequet housing as they didn't realize that the little starter kit some lps employee suggested will only last them a month. in fact, care a lot about the animals, and see a grave conflict between what YOU want-a ban on keeping animals-and animal care.  Banning Did i say ban all animals with no exceptions?animals results in animals being seized and KILLED, or put into worse conditions than they came out of in the first place.  Anyone who actually knows anything about animals(and most AR's don't know squat, since you can't know much about something you've had no first-hand experience with) can look at the so-called "animal rescues", especially of "exotic" animals, and see that they basically went from the frying pan to the fire, IF they were even in the "frying pan" in the first place.This would be alot better of an argument if I was with one of these oranizations, but im not. I don't beleive I ever even suggested that it should be PETA to dictate who has what credentials to keep which animals  Many AR's, having no clue how to actually care for an animal, mistake commonly-accepted husbandry methods as "cruelty" or "abuse", and then ascribe anthropomorphism to the animals in question.  On varous reptile forums, I've read of high-profile raids in which snakes were seized on the basis of there being dead rodents in the freezer! To an AR supporter, this is horrible!Thanks for this info., i'll go take it back with me to PETA headquarters...O wait... I'm not in any animal rights groups, im just a hobbiest like you  To someone who owns snakes or carvivorous lizards, it's no different than having a bag of dog food in the pantry for your dog.  Dogs are seized and KILLED(again, please tell me how this benefits the animal)because the owner had a treadmill and spring pole, which to the AR's(not knowing anything about animals), these two things are clear signs that the owner was a dog-fighter.  They fail to realize that Cesar Milan also advocates the use of those things to excersise dogs, and that many professional show dog handlers have them, as well, but of course, the AR position is that these folks shouldn't be showing or training dogs in the first place, since the dogs aren't "property".
> 
> ...


..................


----------



## Tim Benzedrine (Aug 21, 2010)

Wow. Try the quote tags next time! Your response was a little hard to follow, despite the use of underlining. At least it was for me.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 22, 2010)

Yawn Pitbulllady once again owns the thread.


----------



## Earthworm Soul (Aug 22, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> Yawn Pitbulllady once again owns the thread.


Pitbulllady seems a bit... unhinged and longwinded.


Also, I love your name, Tleilaxu. 

The spice must flow.


----------



## pitbulllady (Aug 22, 2010)

Most of you here don't own the actual animals that are directly under attack, at least for NOW you don't.  You tend to look at the AR movement through pretty rose-colored glasses and say, "it will never happen to ME...they won't ever bother coming after MY animals".  I breed large constrictors, so MY freedom to do so IS being directly and immediately challenged by people who DO ultimately want to abolish all animal ownership, whether or not you head-in-the-sand types want to admit it.  Yeah, I'm worked up about it-these are MY animals that some of the people here want to ban.  It's just as if those people were breaking into my house, telling me, "I'm here to take away your animals and destroy them, and there's nothing you can do about it because I'm right and you're not".  I don't know which group I have more contempt for, the people who really want to do that, and not just to MY animals, or the ones who believe it can't happen to them and so it's no big deal.

pitbulllady


----------



## sharpfang (Aug 22, 2010)

*Fight 4 your right - 2 Party!*



sean-820 said:


> Isn't it ironic that people are more concerned about losing their rights (what "rights" do humans even have to own other animals anyways?) then they are about the actual well being of many of the actual animals.
> 
> 
> According to some of you, I should be able to keep a komodo dragon in my bathroom?


I wonder how we'd feel if Aliens captured us, and put us in cages - suppose we would have a difficult time debating their "right" to, w/ them.......anyone out there that can Translate Martian ?  Oh nevermind....they use Telepathy 

What's wrong w/ a Komodo Dragon in the Bathroom :? I support that "right" 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOF4YPdYELg
Mine Helps me wash off Bacteria -oh- I mean the "venom" that is splashed @ me Daily  *Tee-Hee* Peace - Jason


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 22, 2010)

Another thing for your (PBL) property argument... It wasnt logn ago that slaves were concidered property and people had a "right" to own them.  "Rights" are made by humans and humans change their views.


----------



## Kaimetsu (Aug 22, 2010)

Alot of really stupid arguments here, I'm sort of surprised to see them on a forum meant for people who keep arachnids that some people could consider dangerous.  Calling putbulllady unhinged for being protective of her pets is ridiculous. Theres nothing wrong with being passionate about wanting to protect your family, and for many people our pets are a part of our family.

PBL made another good point, what happens when they come for the animals you love? Certainly dogs and cats are too mainstream to be banned anytime soon, but this is primarily an arachnid forum, what happens when it comes time to ban tarantulas, because of their "deadly poison" or whatever uneducated lawmakers want to say, and because some people are not responsible for them.  Afterall it's only a matter of time before an irresponsible owners 3 year old gets bitten by a P regalis or whatever and has a bad reaction, i doubt the media will handle that very well.  We shouldn't allow the worst of us to force legislation on the best of us, Abusive pet owners and the sort of people who would attempt to keep komodo dragons in bathrooms or whatever are going to find ways to abuse animals no matter what the laws say.

On the subject of ownership and rights, the slavery comparison is kind of warped and disgusting.  I don't think of my pets as possessions, they are more like children  who i am the guardian for and who will never grow up.  I think of them as family and provide for them as such.  I am a naturalist and i have strong feelings for these animals and their natural environment, if it were possible i would live my life in the rainforest observing them everyday.  Unfortunately i can't afford to do that, but luckily i can keep a piece of the rainforest inside my own home.  I think i care about the animals i live with much more than the so called animal rights wackos who usually don't know the first thing about the animals they claim to want to protect.  It's a shame that groups that should exist to protect the well being of animals, in the wild and as part of human families, have been hijacked by vegan wackos who seem to hate animals so much that they don't want them around.


----------



## dtknow (Aug 22, 2010)

And that is the folly of many animal rights activists, comparing animal rights to human rights.


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 22, 2010)

The slavery comparison is in responce to  the "right" to own animals as they are considered "property". I was in no way implying everybody keeps them as mere objects as I myself genuinely care for the animals I keep. The point was to say "rights" are human made and change as the views of society change and are not set in stone as PBL seems to be implying.


----------



## andrews1 (Aug 22, 2010)

I gave up when i was forced to band smoking in my private business. As well as other things. Hey they are just protecting u from yourself right? Is that not the govcos job? Or should the government be butting out?


----------



## Tleilaxu (Aug 23, 2010)

andrews1 said:


> I gave up when i was forced to band smoking in my private business. As well as other things. Hey they are just protecting u from yourself right? Is that not the govcos job? Or should the government be butting out?


So your saying the mere act of keeping a pet harms the people around you, just by having that said pet?


----------



## andrews1 (Aug 26, 2010)

Tleilaxu said:


> So your saying the mere act of keeping a pet harms the people around you, just by having that said pet?


Once you decide you dont agrea with what your neighbort has done with his on belongings and or his private property.  What step do u take next? If you strongly diagrea with it. You try to OUT LAW IT! does not matter if there is no reall evidence suprting the band. If you create mass histeria then BAM! Its a done deal! People are sheeple?? so many times the one carrying the torch becomes then one chased y the torch. shoes on the other foot. 
Dont worry there isnt much controll of dogs that kill people.
   If you dont like the selling of this snake or spider or even smoking in that resturant. Dont go! The market will correct its self. giving that its still a free market. 
   Let me clarify i do not suport the pet band, but at some point we alowed some out of touch A$$hole step into or private life. Hate to say it someone invited them. Depending on someone for something is not good! Give a man a fish.  he eats for one day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time. I think that came frrom the bible. anyway nock nock


----------



## Kaimetsu (Aug 27, 2010)

andrews1 said:


> Once you decide you dont agrea with what your neighbort has done with his on belongings and or his private property.  What step do u take next? If you strongly diagrea with it. You try to OUT LAW IT! does not matter if there is no reall evidence suprting the band. If you create mass histeria then BAM! Its a done deal! People are sheeple?? so many times the one carrying the torch becomes then one chased y the torch. shoes on the other foot.
> Dont worry there isnt much controll of dogs that kill people.
> If you dont like the selling of this snake or spider or even smoking in that resturant. Dont go! The market will correct its self. giving that its still a free market.
> Let me clarify i do not suport the pet band, but at some point we alowed some out of touch A$$hole step into or private life. Hate to say it someone invited them. Depending on someone for something is not good! Give a man a fish.  he eats for one day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a life time. I think that came frrom the bible. anyway nock nock



This comes down to what you think the role of government is, i don't think the government has a role in protecting people from themselves necessarily but it definitely has a role in protecting people from other people.  Second hand smoke is proven to be really bad for people, and if your an employee or a customer going to a business out of necessity and someone's smoking then your being forcibly exposed to something thats harmful.  Let me ask you if your against the civil rights act that said that business's were banned from discriminating against race?  This isnt the forum for debating political issues but it sounds to me like your espousing libertarian mumbo jumbo which has no bearing on reality and i had to correct that, market forces alone cannot prevent businesses from harming people.

If people were being killed left and right by their pet snakes, and their neighbors were being attacked, then i would be for banning large snakes.  As an example i don't think people should keep chimpanzees as pets for a number of reasons but one of them is that adult male chimps have a tendancy to attack strangers, and bite off their faces, fingers, and genitals.


----------



## Widdle (Aug 27, 2010)

sean-820 said:


> THE GOVERNMENT IS OUT TO GET US!!!!!!!!!


DUH! :?  Where have you been??


----------



## Widdle (Aug 27, 2010)

Anybody who thinks that banning something will fix a problem is living in a fantasy world.  Murder is already illegal, so banning tools that can be used to kill is pointless.  The only people that follow safe-driving laws are the people who wish to drive safely.  I wouldn't drive drunk even if it were legal because I don't want to harm myself or others.  It IS illegal, but people STILL do it.  Why?  *Because they don't care.*  The only people that follow the laws are the people predisposed to do such.  For example, wearing your seatbelt...  I'd wear it even if I didn't legally have to.  People who want laws to tell them how to behave properly and/or safely are clearly too immature to handle the responsibility of driving a car, shooting a gun, owning a pet, etc.  If you can't handle cooking without burning the house down, should we ban stoves?  Laws (or lack thereof) ARE NOT THE PROBLEM.  It's a people problem.  End of story.  

Name one incident where something bad happened (besides perhaps a tsunami), and I can prove it was human error that caused and/or contributed to that bad event.  Even if you have a tire blowout and hurt someone, you must consider the fact that 1) the tire may have not been properly checked for air and/or wear, 2) a person made the tire, or at least the machine that made the tire, and 3) a person may have been driving under conditions for which the tire was not rated.  So much human involvement, even with the selection of the material and tire-making process, hence a freak accident tire blowout is anything but a freak accident.  Human error was a factor.  Bottom line.

Start with the "5 whys."  A child was killed by an exotic snake.  Why?  Because the snake was by the boy's sandbox.  Why?  Because the snake escaped.  Why?  Because the owner didn't latch the cage.  Why?  Because he forgot.  Why?  Because he was high.  <<There you go.  Human error.  So because that stoned exotic snake owner screwed up, people shouldn't be allowed to have those snakes??  

I have a 4000 pound car that can go over 100 mph.  I could be the deadliest thing on my street, except I DON'T WANT TO BE DEADLY, so I choose to maintain my car, check the tires frequently, drive a safe speed (compensate for weather if necessary), follow traffic signals, etc.  That red octagon is just a suggestion.  There is no superior being forcing my foot to the brake pedal.  I don't want to get T-boned, hit another car, or hit a kid, therefore I choose to stop.  If I don't stop, and I kill somebody... HUMAN ERROR.  No law could prevent that.  I have all kinds of potentially dangerous stuff.  My chef's knife is made of German steel.  I could cause some serious damage with it, but I prefer to chop produce with it.  Is it starting to make sense now? 

I have concluded that repetition is a highly effective (though not the only) way to learn.  I have done a lot of math problems, and have proven many times to many people that I have a firm grasp of math.  Maybe if I keep repeating that it's not a law problem, but a people problem, then maybe y'all will get it...

*If somebody can prove to me that a lack of a law caused a problem, rather than a human, then I will most definitely admit that I am wrong.*


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 27, 2010)

Like i said before i agree humans are the problem not the animals nor laws, but a law can detur most people from breaking it if it has a severe enough punishment.

Sure people will do crimes regardless of being legal or not, but with a harsh enough punishment you can probably prevent 95% of those people from committing a crime. If littering was punishable by death im sure there would be very few that would still litter where if it was punishable by a 100$ fine or just community service, the amount of people littering would be much greater as even if they got caught its just a slap on the wrist.


----------



## Widdle (Aug 27, 2010)

Before I get called an anarchist, let me clarify that I do agree that things like murder and rape should be illegal, and punishable, but simply making them illegal does not prevent them from happening.  Just wanted to clarify that.  Tackling those problems is a whole other can of worms.


----------



## Widdle (Aug 27, 2010)

sean-820 said:


> Like i said before i agree humans are the problem not the animals nor laws, but a law can detur most people from breaking it if it has a severe enough punishment.
> 
> Sure people will do crimes regardless of being legal or not, but with a harsh enough punishment you can probably prevent 95% of those people from committing a crime. If littering was punishable by death im sure there would be very few that would still litter where if it was punishable by a 100$ fine or just community service, the amount of people littering would be much greater as even if they got caught its just a slap on the wrist.


Missed your post before I posted my last reply...  So you are saying we have to threaten people with death to get laws to work properly?  Murder is punishable by the death penalty in many states.  Murder still occurs.  Try again...

And do you have any proof of these statements:


> but a law can detur most people from breaking it if it has a severe enough punishment.





> but with a harsh enough punishment you can probably prevent 95% of those people from committing a crime


Never mind, you said it yourself:


> people will do crimes regardless of being legal or not


----------



## pouchedrat (Aug 27, 2010)

Wow...  I'm trying not to keep up with this thread, heh.   I'm vegetarian, liberal, and all that fun stuff.  However, when it comes to exotic pets, I've always been 100% against ALL bans on them.  As someone who DID own an exotic that was banned for a while (DURING the ban, mind you), and lived in fear of having my pet confiscated from me and immediately euthanized like others DID have happen to them, I don't believe any animal should be banned as a pet.   If the person does their research, has the money, the time, the resources, the space, the knowledge to keep an animal, then by all means keep it.  That includes everything from hamster to tiger, in my opinion.  

I had an emin's pouched rat during the monkeypox fiasco.  It's a species of african rat, smaller than the gambian rat, but also included in the ban.  He was an amazing pet and I would have done anything for him.  When the ban went into effect, those with pet prairie dogs and gambians had veterinarians recommend putting them down immediately, and even some people had animal control come in and confiscate their animals from their homes.  That ban was lifted  a few years back finally, but it has definitely left a dent in the exotic rodent hobby, and no one can even find pouched rats again (and don't get me started on Florida.  If you knew how many of us have gone down there ourselves to look for them, have offered huge sums of money to individuals to catch them for us, NO one's seen them since they were FIRST reported as being there, and they were poisoned long ago).  These rats have been used to sniff out tuberculosis, land mines, and are crazy intelligent.  Mine used the toilet to go to the bathroom, walked on his hind legs, jumped through hoops, etc. in mere minutes of teaching him.  

Now that the ban had been lifted (and my pouchie passed away), I keep three prairie dogs...  I went with one of the other species that was banned during that ordeal, since pouchies are non-existant now in the USA. 

The scary part about it is that the SOLE person who was responsible for the monkeypox ordeal?  HE STILL IS IN Business!!!  I feel that he should have been further punished, not allowed to sell exotics again.  it's human error that caused it. 

You should read the crazy instances of dog, horse, and cow related human deaths every year in the US.  Are those animals going to be banned?  Of course not.  The exotics are a scapegoat IMO...  and much of these laws are put forth by those who don't understand what the hell they're talking about, or just don't care to learn about them.  When a place bans keeping something like a short tailed opossum of a fennec fox, I mean wtf.  What can a 2 lb. hyperactive little fox do to you that a ferret or terrier dog can't?  And I've NEVER heard of STO's harming a living soul... they're so calm, but because it's an opossum it's illegal in many places.  

I'm also just rambling here.  so ignore what I said for the most part.  I still stand by that exotic bans are stupid.  That I've seen MANY owners of exotic pets go well above and beyond what even zoos do to provide for their animals.  i've also seen these same people have a pet confiscated for legal reasons and put down.  For some of us, they're our lives, they mean the world to us.  Pouched rats were my life, so yes i know what it was like to have a ban happen and have to live in secrecy with an illegal pet, even my veterinarian wouldn't let me bring him in anymore after he rubbed his nose on the cage bars one night while I was away.  I brought him in to treat the nose rub, and she told me it could very well be "lesions" from monkeypox, so i was no longer allowed to bring him in, regardless of the fact he was 4th generation captive bred, had NOTHING to do with the gambians nor that exotic vendor, and I knew exactly where the nose rubbing came from and what it was.   she gave me antibiotics and sent me on my way.... so my boy basically was no longer allowed at his regular veterinarian anymore....  

Once again rambling about nothing.  Sorry.  This is what happens when you're 37 weeks pregnant and always sleep deprived, lol.


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 27, 2010)

Widdle said:


> Missed your post before I posted my last reply...  So you are saying we have to threaten people with death to get laws to work properly?  Murder is punishable by the death penalty in many states.  Murder still occurs.  Try again...
> 
> And do you have any proof of these statements:
> 
> ...


When did i say threaten murder for all law? Murder was just a synonom for a move severe type of punishment that people wont want to receive as opposed to a slap on the wrist. Murder occurs because of the murderers who would do it regardless of any punishment. If there were no laws against murder are you saying there wouldnt be more murders? I think not. Laws dont nessisarily prevent something. All laws do is detur those unsure of their possible actions. 

There will always be those who will commit crimes regardless of the punishment (ex those who just dont care), those who may commit a crime in the right situation and those totally against crimes. Laws are ment to stop those in the middle who may commit a crime given the right situation, not those who are dead set on commiting a crime regardless of what it costs them


----------



## andrews1 (Aug 27, 2010)

LOL Its so hard for some people to not tell other people what to do??? 

Little boy went to the doctor. He says to the doctor. It hurts when i hit my hand with the hammer. WHat did the doc say............................
stop hitting your thumb with the hammer.

My point is u think you can have your cake and eat it too. TIl you  see your pice of cake on the other guys plate. I really dont think there is any evidene ec showing that 2nd hand smoke killed anyone just anoyying. prove me wromng witha reall source. 

anyway the point i was trying to make to the greater open minded side over there to the left is  duh. YOu infringe on ones rights you can expect to have ur poor feel good propertry taking as well. OH YEAH BY YOUR ON FEEL GOOD LOOK ALIKES. lol 

WIDDLE IS THE MAN!


----------



## sean-820 (Aug 27, 2010)

^I can't understand half of what you wrote.


----------



## Dessicaria (Aug 28, 2010)

PouchedRat, I am totally with you here!  (Okay, I'm not a vegetarian, but otherwise I'm totally there with you.  )  I love African rodents too, and I've only recently been able to find some of the species I had years ago.  Some others, I despair of ever finding again. No one has zebra mice, dormice, or jerboas anymore.  I never had a pouched rat, but I did see and admire them on several occasions, and they sound wonderful.  It's a loss to the entire hobby that they're no longer available.

Positive, loving interaction between pet-keepers and pets is beneficial to all species involved.  Well-cared-for animals benefit from the mental and emotional stimulus of interaction, there's no question.  And they help their conspecifics still living in the wild, simply by interacting peacefully with humans.  How will people care about saving animals in the wild, if they've had no personal experience with them?  How will people dispell the myths and negative stereotypes that they may have learned - for instance about snakes, or wolves, or any number of species that are so misunderstood by so many humans?  The best thing we can do to promote the conservation of a species, as well as to keep hands-off our rights as pet keepers, is to allow people to interact with a friendly representative.  Then they realize, "Gee, this python isn't vicious at all, she's somebody's pet, somebody's family member."  Maybe the next time they hear about a pet python, they'll have a positive response, rather than a knee-jerk negative.

We in the exotics community do have a responsibility to present our animals in a positive light and dispell the negative fairy tales.  And of course, to vigorously oppose any species- or breed-bans, even if they're animals we ourselves don't keep.  Because when they start banning some, it just keeps growing from there.


----------



## Dyn (Aug 28, 2010)

pouchedrat said:


> I've NEVER heard of STO's harming a living soul...


I was once bitten by a STO and it slightly hurt because it got me on the tip of my finger.


----------



## the toe cutter (Aug 28, 2010)

WOW!? I am thoroughly enjoying the continuous chaos here! So many opinions and emotions. We should get everyone here together in a room with the HSUS and PETA, maybe on the Dr. Phil show and see what happens.


----------



## Widdle (Aug 30, 2010)

sean-820 said:


> When did i say threaten murder for all law?


You quoted my post.  I asked if that's what you were saying.  ? = Question Mark.  


> Murder was just a synonom for a move severe type of punishment that people wont want to receive as opposed to a slap on the wrist. Murder occurs because of the murderers who would do it regardless of any punishment. If there were no laws against murder are you saying there wouldnt be more murders? I think not.


I think you mean that people need to be held accountable for their actions.  Is that what you're saying because if so, we've already agreed on that.  In fact that was the basis of my human error argument.  Accountability and responsibility; I think we both agree that people need to practice more of both.  Remember this thread is not about murder, but the ban of certain snakes.


> Laws dont nessisarily prevent something. All laws do is detur those unsure of their possible actions.


No, they don't prevent or deter anything.  Rather, they create it.  Laws create crime.  Bear with this over-simplified example: You have two countries, Country A and Country B.  Country A has 5 laws.  Country B has 500 laws.  Which one has more crime?  Don't get hung up on what the "laws" are, just look at the numbers.  B has 100 times the amount of laws that A does, and while that does not imply that B has 100 times the crime, it most certainly guarantees it will have more crime because more things are illegal.  (Please ignore things like population, income, and all those other things that could contribute to crime, for that is not the point.  In fact, assume the countries are exactly the same except for the amount of laws.)  My point is that once you start making things illegal like having a snake, or having a gun, you have to have more government agencies to enforce those laws.  By having more laws, the government creates a need for itself.  It may already have a bureau that deals with exotic pets (I do not know), but I do know that it has a very big organization enforcing its unconstitutional firearms laws (which, do you agree that making certain guns illegal, or restricting where you can have gun does not prevent murder/gun violence?  Schools are gun-free zones, so think about that before you answer).



> There will always be those who will commit crimes regardless of the punishment (ex those who just dont care), those who may commit a crime in the right situation and those totally against crimes. Laws are ment to stop those in the middle who may commit a crime given the right situation, not those who are dead set on commiting a crime regardless of what it costs them


That's an awful lot of speculation on your part.  I was amused by your death penalty for littering joke, but what's not a joke is that you have a say in what the government says is or is not a crime.  And again, this thread is about exotic snakes, which I feel should not be illegal because it will create a need for more government officials to enforce the law, AND the law WILL NOT stop the problems associated with these snakes.  Obviously if there were none of those snakes in this country, then there would never be an exotic snake to escape from its cage, but do you really think that a law could rid this entire country of all the exotic snakes?  But that brings me back to the fact that it should not be the business of the government to regulate that.  

Furthermore, one must look at the ramifications of the law.  It will open a black market.  Say "Joe" illegally imports millions of dollars worth of illegal snakes to sell, illegally, to various people in this country.  Joe is now a seasoned criminal, and like the illegal drug cartels, he has millions of dollars invested in his operation.  Joe then hires big, scary henchmen to protect his operation, and pretty soon, he's got his own government lobby, just like the drug lords.  But wait, that couldn't happen, those snakes are illegal!  

What the government could do is allow the snakes to be sold in stores, and at least in my state, we pay almost 10% sales tax, so if I bought a $100 snake, ten bucks could go to my state, and y'all know CA could use an extra buck or two...  You think Joe the illegal snake smuggler pays his fair share of taxes on his multi-million dollar operation?  But no, instead the tax dollars that are already spread so thin will have to fund another organization that's trying to hunt down those cold-blooded criminals; the people that is, not the snakes.  

All this snake talk kind of makes me want an exotic snake so I can have a pre-ban snake to go with my pre-ban rifle...  Then I can really do this to my big brother. ;P


----------

