My Patternless Rock Python

[Benzo48]

I just wanted to share a pic my wife just took of me with Algae, my female "patternless" African rock python. A girl that use to work at the local pet store GAVE her to me. Anywho, I love the snake, she's beautiful and gentle. Unfortunately, my wife wants me to get rid of her ASAP because we have children. We agreed in the beginning to keep her for a year or so or 8', whichever comes first. I understand because our youngest girl is 2 1/2. The problem is that it hasn't been a year, she's only 5' 10", the new law took effect, and my wife is already harassing me to get rid of it. Getting rid of this snake isn't easy. The fact that I like it so much doesn't help.
Anyway, thanks for your time.

---------- Post added 06-05-2012 at 11:04 PM ----------

By the way, when I say I gotta get rid of her, I mean sell. She fairly valuable based on what I've read.

 

[lizardminion]

Well, I believe there is a permit to take the banned snakes across state lines, although expensive.
Should she ever find her way across the border to Texas, I'd sure be interested.

 

[Low]

Based on talks with bob clark, it is 100% illegal to sell or transport across state lines...no permits available...perfectly legal to sell within state or export out of country....i know a great many europeans would be interested in that animal.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

 

[Benzo48]

I've never shipped an animal before.

 

[ScarecrowGirl]

Its always unfortunate to see cool and loved pets go because of the kids... You oughtn't have a problem finding a good home for her, you can buy special shipping boxes for reptiles on a few online pet shops if you have to resort to shipping the beauty. But I don't think that will be a problem, if any thing you could hit up a local pet shop that knows its stuff and see if they can help you, might require some calling or driving but you'll be able to find a nice home for her I'm sure of it. Best wishes!

 

[Benzo48]

Thanks. You do know it's illegal to ship or sell them across state lines. I just don't know if I like the idea of shipping my beautiful snake all the way to Europe.

 

[Terry D]

Ben, Yeah, she's an avvesome snake- Pics definitely DON'T do her justice!! VVhat impressed me most is that she's the first African rock that didn't try to take my hand off! A friendly African rock, vvho'da thunk it!?

Cheers,

T

 

[Benzo48]

I know it. I have corn snakes more defensive than her.

 

[pitbulllady]

I sure wish you were in SC, since I have an eight-foot male AfRock(who is also a very gentle snake)who is supposed to be het for patternless, and I'd love to have her. Getting her would risk a Federal felony charge, though, since there is NO permit, expensive or otherwise, to allow for interstate transport of this species or its eggs. Finding someone in-state to take her will not be easy at all, due in no small part to this species' undeserved reputation for being vicious. Most of the AfRocks I've had or handled have been very calm snakes, no worse than Burms. I think that their rep stemmed from the fact that for a long time, all the specimens available had been wild-caught imports, who'd been treated badly. Once folks started captive breeding of these guys, it was discovered that CB babies were no worse(actually have better dispositions)than CB Burms.

pitbulllady

 

[lizardminion]

It does make me wonder, why were AfRocks and Yellow 'condas added to the list, anyway?

 

[Low]

It does make me wonder, why were AfRocks and Yellow 'condas added to the list, anyway?

As a doorway...so they can eventually list all nonnative species.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

 

[pitbulllady]

As a doorway...so they can eventually list all nonnative species.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

Yep, what Low said is very true. The plan was to ban interstate trade and transport of ALL Boas and Pythons, but there is some stipulation about Rule Changes at the Federal level having to be backed by solid science and evidence if they have an economic impact of 100 million dollars or more. The USFW knew it didn't have a leg to stand on, in terms of science, as the only "scientific" basis they had to defend this was the disgusting Reed and Rodda report, which had been roundly criticized by biologists the world over as nothing more than fear-mongering and trying to use one unproven theory to back up another. A study paid for by USARK showed that the economic impact of banning the trade and transport of all Boas and Python species would far exceed 100 million dollars per year in lost incomes, etc., and so the USFW limited their regulation to just certain species...for now. Those are the Indian and Burmese Pythons(which have now been classified as two separate species, not one being a subspecies of the other), Yellow Anacondas, Spotted Anacondas(which do not exist in any known collection in the US, being extremely rare), and both West African and South African Rock Pythons. They were determined to have Burms on there, since it is the population of Burms in the Everglades that started the whole ball rolling, and they included the others because they are relatively unpopular species that do not make up a large percentage of the large snakes being bred and sold in the US. They have used the ficticious scenario of AfRocks escaping and breeding with the feral Burms in Florida to create a vicious, man-eating "super snake" that gets larger than either species and attacks everything that moves to back up the need to include the AfRocks. Trust me, though, the Feds do not plan to stop with just those limited species. Their goal is to eventually put ALL non-native reptiles and all amphibians on the Lacey Act. A bill was recently introduced to eliminate the need for scientific proof or inquiry and to also eliminate the need for public input in the USFW's ability to add species to the Lacey Act whenver they feel like it. They no longer have to prove that the species is a treat in any way, do not need to take time to gather information or get input from stake holders, should it pass into law. They just have to write the name in, and BAM, that species is included. NO due process at all for people who own or trade in that species, no need to worry about its economic impact if it's banned, no nothing. They can simply pick and choose which non-native plants and animals to put on there and it's done.

pitbulllady

 

[Low]

Very well worded...
And as a corallary, I urge all who are interested in this damaging legislation to join USARK as well as SAVE THE BURMS innitiatives...read all u can and fight for u rights as a free citizen...and dont believe a damn word spewed by the fearmongering media and HSUS!

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I897 using Tapatalk

 

[lizardminion]

I say, it's time to stop signing online petitions, and time to get off our computers and do some protesting and educating!

 

[catfishrod69]

She is gorgeous. You could try fauna classifieds to get rid of her.

 

[Arianji]

One of the big things that bothers me about the Lacey act is that though the pythons are an invasive species in the everglades they fill an ecological niche left gapped by human encroachment years ago. The pythons primarily feed on the swamp rabbits, raccoons, and other various small mammals, water fowl, and even the occasional deer that have been left relatively untouched by predators to breed prolifically (the media doesn't care about their population explosion because they are fluffy bunnies and deer despite their overgrazing of the everglades). The everglades were once home to many bobcats, puma's, and most importantly the southern red wolves (critically endangered) that once ranked as the apex predator in the region. Theses animals preyed upon the rabbits, raccoons, possums, and other species in the middle ranges of the food chain. Once humans began settling in these areas they quickly exterminated these apex predators, leaving the lower rungs of the ecosystem to explode in population. With the pythons recent introduction we have a species that fills the intermediate predator in the food chain. Another thing is it was not the private owners of these animals that introduced the bulk of the python population to the everglades. It was hurricane Andrew in 1992 that toppled a python farm which spawned the first influx. Lastly florida still has its freak winters where temperatures plummet low enough that it stunts python populations, preventing against the growth and reproduction of these animals, even culling a few individuals unable to escape the cold, namely the larger snakes that can no longer seek shelter in warmer rock piles and leaf-litter. So thus a "monster snake" would have a very difficult time surviving. Perhaps the greatest grievance of them all is this the one place in the continental US where these snakes can thrive. Any further north the winter takes its toll, and west is too dry. These snakes are adapted to a tropical temperature and humidity range. My point being even the everglade argument is riddled with holes, and ultimately the everglades were not worsened by the snakes, if anything they gave a little more balance to a teetering ecosystem that we first invaded. I guess what I am trying to say is I do not see the purpose of this act ultimately. The snakes do not pose a threat to the rest of the country, if the snakes only allegedly effect the southernmost tip of Florida, why would they not just have a local jurisdiction? If the endgame is to stop the exotic pet trade? What benefit(s) does it bring to anyone or any system?

 

[pitbulllady]

One of the big things that bothers me about the Lacey act is that though the pythons are an invasive species in the everglades they fill an ecological niche left gapped by human encroachment years ago. The pythons primarily feed on the swamp rabbits, raccoons, and other various small mammals, water fowl, and even the occasional deer that have been left relatively untouched by predators to breed prolifically (the media doesn't care about their population explosion because they are fluffy bunnies and deer despite their overgrazing of the everglades). The everglades were once home to many bobcats, puma's, and most importantly the southern red wolves (critically endangered) that once ranked as the apex predator in the region. Theses animals preyed upon the rabbits, raccoons, possums, and other species in the middle ranges of the food chain. Once humans began settling in these areas they quickly exterminated these apex predators, leaving the lower rungs of the ecosystem to explode in population. With the pythons recent introduction we have a species that fills the intermediate predator in the food chain. Another thing is it was not the private owners of these animals that introduced the bulk of the python population to the everglades. It was hurricane Andrew in 1992 that toppled a python farm which spawned the first influx. Lastly florida still has its freak winters where temperatures plummet low enough that it stunts python populations, preventing against the growth and reproduction of these animals, even culling a few individuals unable to escape the cold, namely the larger snakes that can no longer seek shelter in warmer rock piles and leaf-litter. So thus a "monster snake" would have a very difficult time surviving. Perhaps the greatest grievance of them all is this the one place in the continental US where these snakes can thrive. Any further north the winter takes its toll, and west is too dry. These snakes are adapted to a tropical temperature and humidity range. My point being even the everglade argument is riddled with holes, and ultimately the everglades were not worsened by the snakes, if anything they gave a little more balance to a teetering ecosystem that we first invaded. I guess what I am trying to say is I do not see the purpose of this act ultimately. The snakes do not pose a threat to the rest of the country, if the snakes only allegedly effect the southernmost tip of Florida, why would they not just have a local jurisdiction? If the endgame is to stop the exotic pet trade? What benefit(s) does it bring to anyone or any system?

All of these points, while having been brought up here before, are still excellent ones, and I for one don't believe that they can be mentioned too often. People, even people here on AB who own animals that most people consider "exotic" and that many people fear, often still buy into that "pythons are destroying the Everglades" garbage and thus believe every snake they see in their backyard is an escaped/abandoned Python or Boa. And yes, to anser your question, the endgame IS to stop the exotic pet trade, thus providing yet another "foot in the door" towards the REAL endgame-stopping ALL pet trade, period. HSUS and the other AR groups have made that point quite clear. In addition to a bill to make it easy for USFW to simply add any species to the Lacey Act as they see fit, circumventing the due process of animal owners, breeders, importers and dealers, there is another rule change being considered by the US Dept. of Agriculture's APHIS(Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service) that will make virtually everyone who sells animals be required to have a USDA license, and comply with their very stringent rules, including submitting to detailed inspections of your property 24/7, 365 days per year, whenever they feel like dropping in. If you sell ANY vertebrate for any purpose other than human consumption over the internet, or by phone, and the buyer does not actually come to your home and take possession of the animal in person, you will be required to be USDA licensed, and failure to comply with their rules can mean confiscation of your animals, other property, extensive fines and Federal jail time. The purpose, or so it's claimed, is to eliminate "puppy mills" that sell puppies online and ship puppies to pet shops, etc., but it's far more broad-reaching. A dog owner who has four or more intact female dogs, for instance, would have to be USDA licensed, as would practically all reptile breeders, since the bulk of their business is internet sales. If you think it's no big deal to become USDA licensed, think again. I know people who were fined for having things like ONE cobweb in a corner of their facilities, or having ONE rabbit dropping underneath a rabbit's cage...on the OUTSIDE, and things like having a garden hose with duct tape repair visible on it. Keep in mind that one of the higher-ups at APHIS, a woman named Sarah Conant, also still works as an attorney for the Humane Society of the United States...conflict of interest much? So yes, it is all part of a much-bigger and broader plan to phase out the keeping, breeding and selling of pets of any species, to gradually just regulate it out of existance, and it is most helpful if you can create a fear and hatred of the animals you intend to get rid of first, painting them as dangerous and unpredictable and their owners as sociopathic weirdo-types.

pitbulllady

 

[lizardminion]

I feel this discussion is much like how Ron Paul's campaign failed. (excuse me for a political reference, but I'm just making a comparison) All we are doing is stating the problem.
We should start talking about how we're going to fight this. They've got a game plan. Shouldn't we?

 

[pitbulllady]

I feel this discussion is much like how Ron Paul's campaign failed. (excuse me for a political reference, but I'm just making a comparison) All we are doing is stating the problem.
We should start talking about how we're going to fight this. They've got a game plan. Shouldn't we?

Are you a member of USARK? Are you aware of how much time and effort they've spent trying to fight this, to no avail? We have had reps at every hearing possible. We had science on our side, but the AR's are well-armed with MONEY. HSUS alone takes in over 2 million dollars per year in donations, mostly from people who see their tv spots and think that their money is going to fund local animal shelters and save all those pitiful, sad-eyed dogs and cats. Money talks. The ARs' biggest weapon, though, isn't money. They are masters of the "divide and conquer" battlefield technique. They play different factions of the animal-owning puplic against one another to convince us that it's the "other guy's" animals who are a problem and should be eliminated. Dog owners see reptiles and other "exotics" as dangerous. Exotic animals point out how dangerous dogs are. Livestock owners point out that dogs and reptiles don't feed hungry people; cows do. You can see that in effect in Ohio, where the state's ag board wholeheartedly supported the exotic animal ban because it kept the HSUS off THEIR backs, for now. Very few animal owners/breeders see the "big picture", and they think it's just about them, so they resent people who own/breed different types of animals, so they're quick to say, "but what about (insert animal name), they kill way more people and get loose way more often-why not go after them?" We're too quick to throw the other guys under the bus, and that is why the AR's are beating us. THEY are united in their goal, if not the means of achieving it, while most of us only see OUR little piece of the puzzle, and feel that if we allow the AR's and the government to take away the exotics, or the "pit bulls", or the "puppy mills", or the venomous reptiles, or the hog farmers, they will leave US alone, but that simply is not true.

pitbulllady

 

[lizardminion]

I'm doing my share of research on the subject as well, and I'm reading some articles posted on USARK's website.
I'm curious though, how can the reptile nation get support as well? Maybe we can promote reptiles as a new trend in pet keeping. I'm sure that, although some of you would protest, may convince industries such as PetSmart to get involved. I do know they don't make all their money from dog and cat supplies, or they wouldn't be holding a reptile promotion month. I know hobbyist and businessmen are doing their part in supporting USARK with donations and educational shows, but I think if we upped our game, it may help. HSUS is always quick to pressure the government into regulations, and the reptile nation is always quick to defend ourselves. Maybe USARK can do the first move and pressure the gov to stop pulling rights from reptile keepers.
Nonetheless, back to money issues, the more reptile keepers out there, the more supporters USARK has. Promoting reptiles beyond safe animals, but also as unique pets when holding reptile shows would push people to buy a reptilian pet. And that would mean there's more people to support our cause.
Another thing, I do think it's quite low of HSUS to get domestic pet keepers to support them, considering HSUS wants to stop the keeping of dogs and cats as well. Raising the curtain on HSUS' cause to the public, however, could also get supporters from domestic pet keepers as well.

P.S. I'm a little tired, so sorry if this sounds a little confusing. I need to take a nap...