# US Federal Python Ban



## MikeH (Jan 19, 2012)

I know not all of you are major herp enthusiasts, but this is something that hits home very hard for me:

US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has a proposed rule being considered by the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB). This is the final stage of the rule making process. This rule, if enacted, would ban the import and interstate transport of nine constricting snakes; Burmese python, Northern & Southern African pythons, Reticulated python, all four Anacondas, and Boa constrictor. This rule has been called the "Constrictor Rule". All of these constrictors would be added to the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act. If this were to happen more than 1 million American citizens could be subject to felony prosecution under the Lacey Act. It is the job of OMB to weigh the purported benefits of the rule against the economic impacts. It is also their duty to assure the rule has been given due process under the Administrative Procedures Act, Information Quality Act and all pertinent Executive Orders. USARK has created a clear public record that FWS has failed at every level to make their case for this rule. According to emails obtained by USARK it appears that staff at FWS colluded with staff at the US Geological Survey (USGS) to manufacture "science" to support this rule making after the decision had already been made to pursue a Lacey Act listing. Further, FWS grossly underestimated the economic impact. USGS has justified their flawed "science" by saying they were not required to adhere to information quality standards for science used to support the rule because the rule did not meet the standard for a major rule making ($100 million). An economic assessment of the Modern Reptile Industry commissioned by USARK, and done by Georgetown Economic Services, has since debunked USGS claims by asserting that the rule could have impact in excess of $103 million. USARK believes the actions of FWS and USGS in regards to the Constrictor Rule are arbitrary, capricious and potentially unlawful.

I own a ball python and plan to obtain more snakes this year, but I'm in a position now where that may not be possible. I know most of you think "Well I don't like snakes. They're gross and mean." or what have you, but this is just the start of what could come. Any exotic pets, for instance birds, lizards, mammals, turtles, etc. are next on the chopping block. I love my snake dearly and I would rather not be charged with a felony for keeping him. Please watch and spread this around.



And if you would be so kind to take a few seconds and sign the petition to overturn the ban, that would be great.
https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/!/petition/overturn-python-ban/4wGFbc4Y#thank-you=p


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 19, 2012)

This puts me in a pickle. On one hand, I love snakes. On the other hand, as a sort of Everglades conservationist, I know there is a serious problem with Burmese Pythons in the Everglades.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 19, 2012)

^ You mean to say that there's a ton of escaped pets and their offspring running around the everglades? I figure that's what you mean, just making sure.

I always thought the concept of having pets was strange... especially birds, and I guess even lizards and snakes for that matter, since we rarely give them a home comparable to what they'd have in their natural habitats. Dogs seem be fucking pumped to live with people, and are so far beyond their original form that I don't even know that they have a natural habitat at this point, beyond our living rooms and what not. Anyway, for the sake of all of the owners of pythons that truly take good care of their pets, I hope to see a good outcome from this.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 19, 2012)

Why do we like to ban so many things that were probably here before us? 

Plants... Now snakes... We really could be using our legislative time more effectively.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 19, 2012)

What's even worse is.. we've got enough economic worries in this country, and now they're talking about being able to prosecute snake owners as felons? Crazy..


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 19, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> What's even worse is.. we've got enough economic worries in this country, and now they're talking about being able to prosecute snake owners as felons? Crazy..


 
Exactamundo... 

All we need is for Romney or Santorum to win the next election and I'm leaving this country...


----------



## synrgy (Jan 19, 2012)

The escaped snake problem is very real. The problem with exotic pets is that they are, well.. _Exotic_. In other words, they are "introduced species", which have no natural place in our local ecosystems. When they're set free (intentionally or otherwise) into nature-at-large, they can really wreak havoc on the local wildlife. Mind you, what I'm talking about isn't exclusive to snakes or birds or any other kind of exotic pet, nor is it exclusive to the states. Transplanting _any_ species of animal into a new ecosystem that isn't evolved to handle it, can be devastating to the environment in question.

As someone else mentioned, constrictors loose in the Everglades has been a problem for a while, now. A quick Google search will pull up tons of articles/photos/blog posts/etc all dedicated to the topic. Some were set free once the owners started to realize just how big they really get (almost 30 feet in some breeds), some were accidentally freed during catastrophic events like Hurricane Andrew, and now that the problem has been going on for so long, some are simply born in the wild, as a female constrictor can lay almost 30 eggs in a single clutch.

I think snakes are fascinating. I've always been attracted to them - provided there's that protective sheet of glass between them and me, anyway.  Is making ownership of a foreign constrictor a felony perhaps a bit overboard? Maybe. Still, something has to be done to ensure the preservation of our ecosystems.

I'm sure I don't see the whole picture here, and I'm certainly not saying that I think any responsible pet owner should be made to lose their pets or charged with any crime. I just know that there is a very real problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 19, 2012)

Don't we allow hunting seasons to control numbers of animals that *have* been properly acclimated to a particular area? Could we not come up with something similar rather than just declaring a bunch of people felons? 

Also, would those that already own these animals really be treated as felons? Is that not ex post facto?

Or... Would it be ex post facto assuming the law was passed today and everyone that owned them got rid of them in the "proper" manner but were still prosecuted for having owned them in the past?


----------



## Randy (Jan 19, 2012)

There's some scumbag in my home town that used to bring his two BIG constrictors with him down to the local park/swimming hole (along with his wife and kids), lay out on the rocks, drink beer and SWIM with them. Swim.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 19, 2012)

That's creepy... What stops them from swimming off and attacking other swimmers should they so choose? Do they make water leashes for snakes?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 19, 2012)

So now all these owners aren't allowed to have constrictors, what are they going to do with them? If they hand them over the snakes will most likely be put down. 

I expect a large majority of owners will end up releasing their snakes, as this has happened multiple times whenever certain animals have been made illegal to own as pets. You end up adding to the problem that you intended to avoid. Hell, here in the UK we had people release big cats when they got put on the DWA list, and some kid got his face mauled by a panther that had been surviving in the forests years later. There have been multiple big cat sightings some 30 odd years on. 

Instead of adding to the problem and harming the exotic pet industry, it would be better to have a system in place to more effectively target irresponsible pet owners and remove any animals that make it into the wild. What about forcing owners to have a tracking tag put in their animals when they buy them? They do it to dogs in case they escape, why not reptiles?


----------



## Randy (Jan 19, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> That's creepy... What stops them from swimming off and attacking other swimmers should they so choose?



Nothing, really. Even worse, it's a really popular spot for people to bring their kids or walk their dogs. Loose, they're certainly not the _safest_ thing for an adult to be around but kids and pets...? That's a meal right there.

I actually stopped going there because I saw the guy and his fucking snakes down there on a few occasions. The last time I went there, the guy was just out getting wasted and one of the snakes took off across the middle of the waterhole and he didn't notice it went missing until it was halfway across.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 19, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> So now all these owners aren't allowed to have constrictors, what are they going to do with them? If they hand them over the snakes will most likely be put down.
> 
> I expect a large majority of owners will end up releasing their snakes, as this has happened multiple times whenever certain animals have been made illegal to own as pets. You end up adding to the problem that you intended to avoid. Hell, here in the UK we had people release big cats when they got put on the DWA list, and some kid got his face mauled by a panther that had been surviving in the forests years later. There have been multiple big cat sightings some 30 odd years on.
> 
> Instead of adding to the problem and harming the exotic pet industry, it would be better to have a system in place to more effectively target irresponsible pet owners and remove any animals that make it into the wild. What about forcing owners to have a tracking tag put in their animals when they buy them? They do it to dogs in case they escape, why not reptiles?


 
You didn't get the memo? Once something is illegal it disappears and all problems surrounding it are solved.



Randy said:


> Nothing, really. Even worse, it's a really popular spot for people to bring their kids or walk their dogs. Loose, they're certainly not the _safest_ thing for an adult to be around but kids and pets...? That's a meal right there.
> 
> I actually stopped going there because I saw the guy and his fucking snakes down there on a few occasions. The last time I went there, the guy was just out getting wasted and one of the snakes took off across the middle of the waterhole and he didn't notice it went missing until it was halfway across.


 
Yea that's very uncool. They dont have park authorities or anything? Seems like there'd be a rule about that kind of thing.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 19, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Don't we allow hunting seasons to control numbers of animals that *have* been properly acclimated to a particular area? Could we not come up with something similar rather than just declaring a bunch of people felons?
> 
> Also, would those that already own these animals really be treated as felons? Is that not ex post facto?
> 
> Or... Would it be ex post facto assuming the law was passed today and everyone that owned them got rid of them in the "proper" manner but were still prosecuted for having owned them in the past?



We do, but they rarely kill that many, I think last year was something around 418, but they just keep coming and eating gators and deer.

I'm pretty sure owners would be protected as persecution would be ex post facto. Not certain how it goes regarding bans, though, they still may have to get rid of them.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 19, 2012)

Yeah, a grandfathering in of current owners. There are already limitations and restrictions in some states on what exotic animals you can and cannot own.

I know Texas has a lot you can own. So long as it's not a pit bull -_-

edit:

I love my state.


BornFreeUSA.org said:


> *Texas*
> 
> *Category:* L
> *Summary of Law:* No person may possess a dangerous wild animal without first obtaining a license (certificate of registration). Dangerous wild animals are defined as lions, tigers, ocelots, cougars, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, bobcats, lynxes, servals, caracals, hyenas, bears, coyotes, jackals, baboons, chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, or any hybrids of the animals listed. However, there are no requirements for a person possessing all other animal not listed above, such as monkeys, wolves etc.
> *Citation:* TEX. HEALTH & SAFETY CODE ANN. § 822.101-116; TEX. LOC. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 240.002(a) and § 240.0025




Motherfuckin' Anteater here I come.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 19, 2012)

We're not allowed to have dangerous wild animals in our homes? Why are we still allowed to have as many kids as we want?


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 19, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Yeah, a grandfathering in of current owners. There are already limitations and restrictions in some states on what exotic animals you can and cannot own.
> 
> I know Texas has a lot you can own. So long as it's not a pit bull -_-
> 
> ...



From that site I found that you can get a license to own a honey badger in Florida. 

State Laws Governing Private Possession of Exotic Animals

Why are those things not Class I(illegal to own)*&#8253;

*


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 19, 2012)

Badgers are a fur bearing animal and cannot be held as pets by Texas residents. You can own them for the commercial harvesting of fur.

But as pets, it's a no-no.


----------



## Pooluke41 (Jan 19, 2012)

Sicarius said:


> Badgers are a fur bearing animal and cannot be held as pets by Texas residents. You can own them for the commercial harvesting of fur.
> 
> But as pets, it's a no-no.



But who'd want a badger as a pet?

A sloth is what you need.

Lazing about all day with those claws...


----------



## MikeH (Jan 19, 2012)

These pets will be put down, as Ross stated. Not to mention this is destroying an estimated $103 million a year industry. Also, if you watch the video, it states that researchers tagged and released 10 wild Burmese Pythons to study them. 8 of them died due to not being able to adapt to the conditions. As well as in South Carolina, where 9 of the 10 specimens died. This is really an hugely over-inflated story. It's all over-analyzed due to the notorious reputation of snakes being these ruthless blood-thirsty killing machines whose only purpose is to feed. And that's far beyond the truth. Snakes are beautiful creatures, and can be the most docile and friendly creatures. Yes, there are individuals who can be particularly aggressive, but that's often a result of malnutrition and bad care. Snakes will not strike out of hunger, unless you smell like food. I have yet to be tagged by my python, but I know plenty of people who have. And that's because they'll get caught up in feeding multiple animals and forget to wash your hands. Therefor they smell like a rodent, and the snake strikes, but pulls away. Any other time is out of defense or fright. They're really beautiful creatures and should be regarded as such. I know they aren't for everyone, but they shouldn't be taken away from those who love them and keep them.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 19, 2012)

Snakes can be very tame if handled and treated correctly. Most of the time they come into contact with people they'll try to escape unless you have them cornered. They aren't any more dangerous than dogs, probably even less so generally. Most of the time they bite people just as a warning, rarely an actual feeding bite. They're not a threat to people, and the information available on their damage to the ecosystem is flawed and not properly researched by the sounds of it.


----------



## Sicarius (Jan 19, 2012)

Pooluke41 said:


> But who'd want a badger as a pet?
> 
> A sloth is what you need.
> 
> Lazing about all day with those claws...


I've thought about it, but I don't think it gets humid _enough_ here in Houston.


----------



## SpaceDock (Jan 19, 2012)

Why ban snakes? Cars, litter, and land "development" is far worse for the environment than snake introduction in the wild. Why must we always scapegoat and ignore the elephant in the room?


----------



## MikeH (Jan 19, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Snakes can be very tame if handled and treated correctly. Most of the time they come into contact with people they'll try to escape unless you have them cornered. They aren't any more dangerous than dogs, probably even less so generally. Most of the time they bite people just as a warning, rarely an actual feeding bite. They're not a threat to people, and the information available on their damage to the ecosystem is flawed and not properly researched by the sounds of it.



Just to further prove your statement, Ross, here are some interesting statistics to think about.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 19, 2012)

^I don't understand that poster - What causes the 31 human fatalities mentioned on the top left?


----------



## MikeH (Jan 19, 2012)

Dogs. It's sort of columned in spots. And they kind of went a little far to say that dogs have no state restrictions, because they definitely do. But not anywhere near banning entire species.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 19, 2012)

MikeH said:


> Dogs. It's sort of columned in spots. And they kind of went a little far to say that dogs have no state restrictions, because they definitely do. But not anywhere near banning entire species.



I'm either real tired, or that would mean that... either nearly 50% of the dogs out there are killers, or a few of them are hardasses and kill several million every year


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Jan 19, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Do they make water leashes for snakes?




What is sentence you'd never expect to hear Alex?


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2012)

I used to raise herps. We all knew that some people were idiots and would release them into the wild without thinking about the consequences. 

Any alien invasive species can have severe consequences for the ecosystem. I understand people feeling that their feelings are more important than the environment, but I don't agree with them.


----------



## AK DRAGON (Jan 20, 2012)

You know it makes sense to a point that snakes do make an impact on ecosystems that are not accustomed to them. .

It would have made more sense to microhip the buggers, regulate breeding, and fine/jail the bastards releasing them into the wild. End of story. not knee jerk it and ban something that will make it worse. 

This makes just about as much sense as the feds going after the states laws to check id's to catch ileagal, undocumented workers


----------



## Blind Theory (Jan 20, 2012)

I have a somewhat hypocritical point of view on this. For one, I don't look at dogs and cats as something that can be considered wild as they have been domesticated for so long. However, I feel animals like snakes, reptiles, birds, etc, should not be kept as pets. I don't think it should be illegal, I just don't see the appeal in it. Especially if they are kept in a glass tank. If you want to properly contain them build a giant ass habitat like you would see in a zoo. Most people couldn't afford it but those that could...that would be badass. 

Also, the loose pet factor is kind of annoying. If they are going to use captive snakes getting into the wild and breeding as leverage to stop them then I say make it illegal to have outdoor cats. They are a hazard to themselves and people alike. Shit, there are a billion of those fuckers in my neighborhood and they are annoying as hell 100% of the time. It is just a stupid law they are trying to pass. Get enough people to protest and it won't happen. The only reason our government passes stupid fucking laws is because the citizens don't participate in protest like the SOPA/PIPA ones. If they did that the citizens would truly control the government...like they should in the first fucking place, god dammit!


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 20, 2012)

^My sentiments on almost precisely, on the first bit, that is.


----------



## Necris (Jan 20, 2012)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm either real tired, or that would mean that... either nearly 50% of the dogs out there are killers, or a few of them are hardasses and kill several million every year


I think you're real tired.  What it's saying is that 31 human deaths a year are caused by Dogs where as 0.4 deaths per year are caused by snakes.



MikeH said:


> Any exotic pets, for instance birds, lizards, mammals, turtles, etc. are next on the chopping block. I love my snake dearly and I would rather not be charged with a felony for keeping him. Please watch and spread this around.


I know as a bird owner that in nine states Quaker Parrots (Monk Parakeets) are illegal to own as pets and in some states will be confiscated and put down if found in a persons home due to their negative impact on the existing wildlife and their habitats. 
They also tend to like to nest in powerlines. 

I can't think of any species that are banned nationwide though.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 20, 2012)

Necris said:


> I think you're real tired.  What it's saying is that 31 human deaths a year are caused by Dogs where as 0.4 deaths per year are caused by snakes.



Dude, not even shitting you: I read that as "31 Million Human Deaths Every Year"... I just couldn't believe it 

Anyway, moving along here...


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2012)

Necris said:


> I can't think of any species that are banned nationwide though.



28 species of snakehead fish are banned, aren't they? And that's because of their possible impact on the environment if they are again released. (The last "outbreak" was in a limited area, but since some of the species have sacs which act as lungs, it would be a nightmare if they were again released into the wild, as they would threaten the ecosystem, in the same way released pythons and boas do. 

BTW, just because it's so obviously inconsistent to me, I have to observe:

As there are clearly many who feel proposed laws and regulations are unfair even when there is a demonstrable harm, I find it interesting that very few in this and in the "OMG SOPA will ruin everyone's rights!" thread have commented in the Gay Documentary thread about a real systemic discrimination. 

(Incidentally, I'm not gay, and I did raise herps, in case anyone wants to figure out how those facts affect my view on these things.)


----------



## Necris (Jan 20, 2012)

I should have made it clear that I was referring to birds specifically.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 20, 2012)

AK DRAGON said:


> You know it makes sense to a point that snakes do make an impact on ecosystems that are not accustomed to them. .
> 
> It would have made more sense to microhip the buggers, regulate breeding, and fine/jail the bastards releasing them into the wild. End of story. not knee jerk it and ban something that will make it worse.
> 
> This makes just about as much sense as the feds going after the states laws to check id's to catch ileagal, undocumented workers



Pretty much. If snakes were chipped, if they were found in the wild then you could find out who the owner is and fine them. The snakes would be easier to find and you don't harm the industry. It just seems like the most logical way to go.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 20, 2012)

MikeH said:


> Just to further prove your statement, Ross, here are some interesting statistics to think about.



To add to that, snakes are only really a problem around the Everglades, not even the entirety of Florida. 

The thing is, though, for larger snakes, I really think there should at least be a vague licensing requirement. Just a simple test to see whether someone knows what they're doing.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 20, 2012)

dragonblade629 said:


> To add to that, snakes are only really a problem around the Everglades, not even the entirety of Florida.
> 
> The thing is, though, for larger snakes, I really think there should at least be a vague licensing requirement. Just a simple test to see whether someone knows what they're doing.



Yeah that would be a good idea too, especially in the case of larger animals such as anacondas and retics, which could easily kill and consume an adult human.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 20, 2012)

Necris said:


>



After my power went out because of Hurricane Wilma a few years ago, I saw the worst thing. There was a huge nest around one of the transformers and when the power came back on it burst into flames.  

I heard their little cries for help.


----------



## Necris (Jan 20, 2012)

dragonblade629 said:


> After my power went out because of Hurricane Wilma a few years ago, I saw the worst thing. There was a huge nest around one of the transformers and when the power came back on it burst into flames.
> 
> I heard there little cries for help.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 20, 2012)

Necris said:


>


 
This...

Also, I agree that a licensing system would be a good idea. And for breeds that end up growing to be too large couldn't there be some kind of system that once the snake reaches a certain age they're to be donated to a local zoo or something? Or perhaps some sort of organization that will transport them to zoos in need of such animals? Maybe that's a bit farfetched... Not sure.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 20, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> This...
> 
> Also, I agree that a licensing system would be a good idea. And for breeds that end up growing to be too large couldn't there be some kind of system that once the snake reaches a certain age they're to be donated to a local zoo or something? Or perhaps some sort of organization that will transport them to zoos in need of such animals? Maybe that's a bit farfetched... Not sure.



Not a lot of zoos are capable of taking in large reptiles, especially retics and green anacondas which can grow close to 30ft. Unfortunately a lot of reptile owners underestimate how big their animals will get, and have to load them off on someone else. They're expensive and difficult to maintain, and potentially very dangerous. But people don't always think about this, and just pass them on once they're too big. A license with a decent fee would put off owners who aren't serious about owning a large reptile. You need to be able to care for it for it's entire life, even when they're fully grown. Zoos aren't always going to have room for a fully grown large python or anaconda, so owners need to take responsibility for them and make sure they can care for them effectively.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 20, 2012)

Well if that's the case then part of me wants to agree with the ban. It doesn't even really make sense to try to keep a 30ft snake in a typical human home. Are the stories true about snakes sometimes attempting to swallow their owners whole?


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 20, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Well if that's the case then part of me wants to agree with the ban. It doesn't even really make sense to try to keep a 30ft snake in a typical human home. Are the stories true about snakes sometimes attempting to swallow their owners whole?



Bare in mind retics and anacondas are special examples. A lot of the snakes proposed in the ban are significantly smaller and far less of a threat. Also, snakes don't need as much room as other animals. They don't move around much being cold-blooded, and tend to keep to themselves. Larger snakes are of course going to need a decent amount of space, but nothing you couldn't set you in a typical home if you had the money and dedication. 

Snakes that big can kill and eat humans, but they tend not to. You can tame reptiles if you're around them enough. You have to know that individual snake's personality, get them comfortable around you. There are certain times you just don't handle a snake, like when they're in shed or hungry, but most of the time they will not attack. I've worked in a small space with barely enough room to move, and had two young green anacondas and an adult boa constrictor right next to me. They didn't attack, and were a little curious but stayed out of my way, as snakes tend to do. I've ever handled a 16ft Burmese python and didn't even feel threatened in the slightest. Snakes are no more dangerous than dogs, it's just we're more comfortable around dogs because we're exposed to them more. We know how dogs behave and how to treat them. You just have to take a similar approach with reptiles. If you know what you're doing, you can tame very large snakes and they will not attack you. Even if they do attack you, it's generally only a quick warning bite because they're scared or moody. Feeding bites are much rarer if again, you know what you're doing.


----------



## Randy (Jan 20, 2012)

Special attention should always be paid to animals capable of killing human beings. All this talk and justification for opposition to a ban because "dogs kill more people" is a silly. Are chihuahuas killing people? Poodles? Dachshund? Corgi? Beagle? No. Unless we're referring to rabies, it takes a BIG dog with a predisposition to aggression to kill a person.

Whether it's a dog or a snake, if it's BIG or poisonous, it should either be banned or wrapped in enough red tape that owners take their responsibilities seriously. Local law enforcement and animal control should have a list of people who own such animals incase anything should arise, as well.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 20, 2012)

Randy said:


> Whether it's a dog or a snake, if it's BIG or poisonous, it should either be banned or wrapped in enough red tape that owners take their responsibilities seriously. Local law enforcement and animal control should have a list of people who own such animals incase anything should arise, as well.


 


I dunno if it works this way everywhere but if you own over a certain number of dogs here you have to have a permit. I think the cut off is 5 which is still rather generous.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 20, 2012)

If you know what your doing, you'll be fine. I handle a gator on a regular basis and I've never even gotten snapped at, though when he was younger he tried to look at me menacingly with an open mouth which didn't work because baby gators are adorable, because I know exactly what to do and what not to do. To be honest, I think there should be a licensing for most pets as they can get really overwhelming for some people, especially the large(10ft.+) snakes that seem so popular with the punk aesthetic.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 20, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> I dunno if it works this way everywhere but if you own over a certain number of dogs here you have to have a permit. I think the cut off is 5 which is still rather generous.



It depends on the place, I think over here the limit is three unless you have a permit to be a breeder. It's a good idea to prevent hoarding.


----------



## MikeH (Jan 20, 2012)

Explorer said:


> 28 species of snakehead fish are banned, aren't they? And that's because of their possible impact on the environment if they are again released. (The last "outbreak" was in a limited area, but since some of the species have sacs which act as lungs, it would be a nightmare if they were again released into the wild, as they would threaten the ecosystem, in the same way released pythons and boas do.



All Snakehead importation and keeping is banned in the US because they're also considered an invasive species. And god dammit, I want one. They're such beautiful, monstrous fish. But I feel like they're a bit more adaptable as they come from lukewarm-cold water rivers, as where pythons come from Asian and African jungles. The only place they could thrive would be in the Everglades because of the temperatures and humidity level. And even still, if you watched the whole video, it explains that 8 of 10 tagged pythons died over the winter due to not being able to handle the conditions.


----------



## MikeH (Jan 20, 2012)

And just to add to my argument, I was planning on getting a Red Tail Boa later this year, and now I won't be able to do that. I am very knowledgeable about the animals I bring in to my home. I know what size terrarium I would need, what amount of food, the right temperatures and humidity, the right way to handle them, etc. I agree that a lot of people get them to go "Oh look, I have an Anaconda. Look how big my dick is.", but in reality, there's a much larger portion of people who know what they're doing and love their snakes (like myself). I already have a ball python breeding project in the works, and if this bill passes, that potentially puts ball pythons at risk, which will in-turn cost me a lot of time and money. And to add to the "build a huge fucking enclosure" argument, a lot of constrictors prefer confined spaces because that's how they live in the wild. The only reason they ever move is to feed, or because they feel in danger. And with a controlled living environment of endless food, no predator threat, and precise temperature monitoring, they thrive quite well.


----------



## Xaios (Jan 20, 2012)




----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 20, 2012)

MikeH said:


> And even still, if you watched the whole video, it explains that 8 of 10 tagged pythons died over the winter due to not being able to handle the conditions.



That video is from this year. I'm almost certain that the studies they're citing come from the past two years, both of which were unusually cold, unlike this winter, that were detrimental to many native species as well.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Jan 20, 2012)

I have a friend that lives in the mountains and used to have a pack of dogs (7 or so) that were 50% wolf, 25% german shepherd, and 25% husky. They were truly pack animals, were the size of wolves, and would violently tear apart any animal that accidentaly wandered into their yard. Out of the 10+ years that my friend owned dogs like these, there may have been two instances where somebody was bit by one of these dogs, and it was not really more serious than a typical bite. They would get loose all the time but usually not cause any harm at all. With those odds, especially if you'd have seen what they did to rabbits and such, I'd say a snake couldn't be too much of a threat over all. I mean.. sure, 30 offspring of a burmese python isnt on my list of things I want to stumble upon in the wild, but a pack of wolves is even farther from that list. Animals don't typically cause disasters - stupid people do - whether they're releasing giant exotic snakes into the wild, or passing laws that make criminals out of a harmless majority.

/end wake up time rant


----------



## Explorer (Jan 20, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> Pretty much. If snakes were chipped, if they were found in the wild then you could find out who the owner is and fine them. *The snakes would be easier to find *and you don't harm the industry. It just seems like the most logical way to go.



Since at least two people have been mistaken about this, I'd like to clear it up.

Chips in pets do not broadcast. They can be read when you run a scanner over the locations where pets are generally chipped, but you can't just sit down and say, where are the chipped animals within 2 feet?, let alone larger distances. 

It's not like a cell phone. 

And, in case anyone is curious, do a little reading on how large the tracking devices are which send out pulses regarding an animal's location. There's no way to fit something like that under the skin of anything smaller than an elephant. *laugh*



Konfyouzd said:


> Are the stories true about snakes sometimes attempting to swallow their owners whole?



We used to read death reports for laughs when we'd get together (the herp socieity when/where I was active). The details varied, but the one-word description of cause of death was almost always the same: Misadventure.

"Owner was sitting in rocking chair, rocked back on tail of snake. Snake constricted and smothered owner."

The few I remember being different were awful.

"Minor child was sitting on the floor in living room watching television when python attacked from under the couch. Python was family pet and had run of the house. Mother was in kitchen on the telephone and didn't discover the situation until after child had suffocated and python was in the process of swallowing the body." That one was something like criminal neglect. 

The rule of thumb we always used was, never handle or be near a snake alone which is bigger than your wrist. We all had stories where even smaller serpents had gone for us. I remember having to fill a bathtub and submerse the head of one snake when I was feeding it and it thought my hand was what it smelled, launching itself surprisingly quickly up and across to grab me. 

----

Another thing which keeps coming up is the idea that only the really big snakes are the problem. Any invasive predator is a problem. Here's a webpage dealing with the problems faced in Florida, but which mentions other locations where invasive snake species have established themselves. 

Giant Constrictor Snakes in Florida: A Sizeable Research Challenge

Mike, I understand you feeling bad about a lost economic opportunity and investment, but I don't know how I'd balance a few people's economic situations over the ecological impact which the proposed rules are to either prevent or mitigate.


----------



## ilyti (Jan 20, 2012)

But.. what will happen to these guys? I love this show.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 21, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Since at least two people have been mistaken about this, I'd like to clear it up.
> 
> Chips in pets do not broadcast. They can be read when you run a scanner over the locations where pets are generally chipped, but you can't just sit down and say, where are the chipped animals within 2 feet?, let alone larger distances.
> 
> ...




I'm pretty sure I've seen tracking chips used to find animals that are pretty small before. Granted they can only be read up to a short distance but I'm pretty sure I've seen it done when tracking endangered animals for research.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 21, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> I'm pretty sure I've seen tracking chips used to find animals that are pretty small before. Granted they can only be read up to a short distance but I'm pretty sure I've seen it done when tracking endangered animals for research.



I believe they're usually ear tags, though. It would be kind of difficult to do that to snakes, who share almost the same build as a tube.


----------



## McKay (Jan 21, 2012)

Shit like this has soured my opinion of snake owners. If someone posted a video on youtube of someone picking up an animal and slowly peeling its skin off, all hell would break loose. Upload a video of someone feeding live prey with the purpose to have it digested alive? OH HEY THAT'S FINE EVEN THOUGH IT'S ACTUALLY MORE PAINFUL AND COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.





Now with that said, it shouldn't be illegal to own snakes. I might detest a lot of the people who do but it's their right to keep them. What should be banned? Actions like thos of the sadistic fucks above.


----------



## MikeH (Jan 21, 2012)

You're mad that someone feeds live prey to snakes because it seems inhumane, despite the fact that in the wild, their main source of food is a live animal? A lot of snakes have serious trouble with taking pre-killed animals. A lot won't even take a dead animal. I agree that it seems a bit barbaric for someone to upload it to YouTube in hopes of people thinking they're cool, but that's how you feed a snake. Get a python and try feeding it salad. You will soon have a dead snake. They have very specialized diets. I have a video of my snake eating a pre-killed mouse because I find it very intriguing and interesting to see a snake eat its food the way it does.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 21, 2012)

That's how snakes eat their prey in the wild. It's not sadism, it's proper feeding. You can use pre-killed, you can use live, it's the same.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 21, 2012)

MikeH said:


> You're mad that someone feeds live prey to snakes because it seems inhumane, despite the fact that in the wild, their main source of food is a live animal? A lot of snakes have serious trouble with taking pre-killed animals. A lot won't even take a dead animal. I agree that it seems a bit barbaric for someone to upload it to YouTube in hopes of people thinking they're cool, but that's how you feed a snake. Get a python and try feeding it salad. You will soon have a dead snake. They have very specialized diets. I have a video of my snake eating a pre-killed mouse because I find it very intriguing and interesting to see a snake eat its food the way it does.



This. Some snakes are very picky and won't eat pre-killed animals. I find it fascinating to see these predators at work, but there are some people who get a kick out of seeing animals in pain and that is fucked up.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 21, 2012)

MikeH said:


> All Snakehead importation and keeping is banned in the US because they're also considered an invasive species. And god dammit, I want one. They're such beautiful, monstrous fish. But I feel like they're a bit more adaptable as they come from lukewarm-cold water rivers, as where pythons come from Asian and African jungles. The only place they could thrive would be in the Everglades because of the temperatures and humidity level. And even still, if you watched the whole video, it explains that 8 of 10 tagged pythons died over the winter due to not being able to handle the conditions.



Be careful not to spit on 'only' 20% surviving. That is a hell of a lot, not to mention those ones have something special in them to survive, which could likely be passed off to their offspring. That is actually a pretty high number in my books, especially as it could as easily be a breeding pair.

As far as banning the import/selling of these pets, I have no issue. I think current owners should be exempt, permitting they hold onto their pets, and have exacting tolls made if they were to set them free, under any circumstances. 

As far as the business revolving here, that is not an issue in the least, business establishes itself where it can, something else will fill the void.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 21, 2012)

What exactly are the proposed effects these snakes could have?


----------



## MikeH (Jan 21, 2012)

I believe the main problem they're worried about is taking out already endangered species. I know there's one type of mouse and a type of stork that they feed on that are endangered. Plus the typical "OMG da big snake is gonna eat peepel!" overreaction.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 21, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> What exactly are the proposed effects these snakes could have?



Without predators in the area they could be as prolific as humans, I thought we all understood how frightening that could be.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 22, 2012)

They swallow gators whole, some explode in the process, but not all of them.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 22, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> Without predators in the area they could be as prolific as humans, I thought we all understood how frightening that could be.



But they do have plenty of predators, especially when young. That's why I was confused. It seems like there are plenty of other predators around to stop them becoming too much of a problem.



dragonblade629 said:


> They swallow gators whole, some explode in the process, but not all of them.



That's pretty rare though. It's a very dangerous prey item for a snake to go for and often an alligator will win. Especially fully grown gators, a python wouldn't have much of a chance.


----------



## SirMyghin (Jan 22, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> But they do have plenty of predators, especially when young. That's why I was confused. It seems like there are plenty of other predators around to stop them becoming too much of a problem.



What predators do you suppose they have in the areas they are released that are not their native? Just as top carnivores are in the area doesn't mean that these new creatures will be bothered in the slightest, that is the problem with introduced species, none of the locals know how to react. Take for example rabbits in Australia, a pretty harmless species, lots of predators, right?


----------



## McKay (Jan 22, 2012)

MikeH said:


> You're mad that someone feeds live prey to snakes because it seems inhumane, despite the fact that in the wild, their main source of food is a live animal? A lot of snakes have serious trouble with taking pre-killed animals. A lot won't even take a dead animal. I agree that it seems a bit barbaric for someone to upload it to YouTube in hopes of people thinking they're cool, but that's how you feed a snake. Get a python and try feeding it salad. You will soon have a dead snake. They have very specialized diets. I have a video of my snake eating a pre-killed mouse because I find it very intriguing and interesting to see a snake eat its food the way it does.



No, I'm mad that someone feeds their snake a dead rat to trigger its swallowing mechanism and then stuffs a live chick in there for their sadistic pleasure. I'm mad that this is viewed as fine rather than sadistic, despite it causing more pain than pinning said chick to chipboard and slowly skinning it alive.

Some snakes need live prey, the vast vast majority don't. Manipulating a constrictor's swallowing mechanism to force it to eat live prey without killing it first is NOT natural and people using that premise sends me into a blind rage over how ridiculous it is.


----------



## MikeH (Jan 22, 2012)

Ah. I didn't notice that was the case. I thought it was just the live chick. In that case, you're right. That's pretty fucked up. But that's why a snake license should be enacted. Not a ban. I think people should be required to hold a license if they're keeping a snake over 6' in length. That's a small majority of people that treat animals this way, and it's not just with snakes. They could do it with a dog, cat, mouse, bird, etc. It's not the animal's fault. The owner just has sociopathic intentions and needs professional attention.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 22, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> (A gator)'s a very dangerous prey item for a snake to go for and often an alligator will win. Especially fully grown gators, a python wouldn't have much of a chance.



Two thoughts - A python doesn't think about size or potential swallowing problems, so it won't think about the danger in that way. Also, since a python isn't from around there, it doesn't have any instincts about what prey might be a bad idea.



MikeH said:


> About people being cruel) But that's why a snake license should be enacted. Not a ban.



Er... you do know that the proposed ban has nothing to do with owners being sadistic, right? I'm fairly certain the problems from an introduced species have been raised in this topic already, being the reason for the ban.



MikeH said:


> I think people should be required to hold a license if they're keeping a snake over 6' in length.



With that scenario, no license is required until a snake grows to that size, and nothing is being done to prevent introduction of these things into the wild, the whole reason for the ban.


----------



## MikeH (Jan 22, 2012)

I'm well-aware of that, thanks. I just think it would help the situation more because those people would have to go through a long process and may turn away from it. And it should be required for any snake that has the capability of reaching that length. Even non-venomous, non-constricting, native snakes. Not snakes that are already that length.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 22, 2012)

SirMyghin said:


> What predators do you suppose they have in the areas they are released that are not their native? Just as top carnivores are in the area doesn't mean that these new creatures will be bothered in the slightest, that is the problem with introduced species, none of the locals know how to react. Take for example rabbits in Australia, a pretty harmless species, lots of predators, right?



True, but rabbits breed a lot faster and eat a lot more. I would've thought in this case the snakes would've had a bit more trouble getting a foothold in that area, but you're certainly right. No one expected cane toads to be an issue in Australia either



Explorer said:


> Two thoughts - A python doesn't think about size or potential swallowing problems, so it won't think about the danger in that way. Also, since a python isn't from around there, it doesn't have any instincts about what prey might be a bad idea.



They're not stupid though. They know what is a threat to them and they will try to avoid it if possible. A small gator might be a fair prey item, but larger ones are a no go and would make a quick meal of even a large python.


----------



## Explorer (Jan 22, 2012)

vampiregenocide said:


> They're not stupid though. They know what is a threat to them and they will try to avoid it if possible. A small gator might be a fair prey item, but larger ones are a no go and would make a quick meal of even a large python.



Are you saying they would instinctively know, or that they would think it out, like saying, hmm, teeth, dangerous? 

Anyway, it's besides the point. Dragonblade posted about one having difficulty swallowing prey, and so the prey is dead at that point. Clearly avoidance wasn't part of the deal.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Jan 22, 2012)

Actually it could be rather easy for a large constrictor to kill a gator if it knows where to strike just behind the head. Seriously, they can't do anything if you're right there.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 22, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Are you saying they would instinctively know, or that they would think it out, like saying, hmm, teeth, dangerous?
> 
> Anyway, it's besides the point. Dragonblade posted about one having difficulty swallowing prey, and so the prey is dead at that point. Clearly avoidance wasn't part of the deal.



Animals tend to recognise danger, or they don't survive very long. I'm sure it's a combination of things that enable them to see an animal and think 'this isn't a meal worth risking harm for'. I'm not saying they will always avoid them, some snakes misjudge and either get killed by the prey or during digestion. Most of the cases where snakes eat gators or caimans concern smaller animals. A fully grown gator would probably be too much for even the largest constrictors to handle. More often than not, the gator would most likely win and kill the snake.



dragonblade629 said:


> Actually it could be rather easy for a large constrictor to kill a gator if it knows where to strike just behind the head. Seriously, they can't do anything if you're right there.



I'm not sure about 'easy'. A fully grown, thrashing alligator is tricky to wrap your coils around, and if it manages to get it's jaws onto you even once then you're not going anywhere. Large crocodilians often make a meal out of pythons and boas. They're high risk prey items for any snake to go after and that's why they avoid them generally.


----------



## synrgy (Jan 31, 2012)

Sorry for the bump, but I just randomly stumbled upon this, and found it relevant enough to share here:

This Is Why Pythons Have Eaten All of the Animals in the Everglades

Of important note: 



> it's not surprising that a new report found the python infestation in the Everglades, caused by lazy pet owners releasing their snakes there, has decimated nearly all of the most common animals: A recent count found 99 percent of raccoons and 88 percent of bobcats had vanished, along with practically all the rabbits and foxes.



Poor, adorable bobcats.. 

For the skeptics, here's another article from a more reliable source (The Washington Post) claiming the same percentages, and adding a few more species to the list:

In Florida Everglades, pythons and anacondas dominate food chain - The Washington Post

I do feel sympathy for responsible owners who may be affected by potential legislation here, but if these sources are to be believed, the local small animal populations simply can't survive with the situation as it's been. It's a sad but true case of the irresponsible ruining things for the responsible.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Jan 31, 2012)

Wow, that's way more dramatic than I would have expected. Are they not hunting them?


----------



## Konfyouzd (Jan 31, 2012)

Yea those numbers are nuts. The Everglades are ab to be Australia 2.0


----------



## synrgy (Jan 31, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Yea those numbers are nuts. The Everglades are ab to be Australia 2.0



EFF THAT.  Constrictors are one thing, but can you imagine if all of a sudden we had populations of tiger snakes, brown snakes, king brown snakes, death adders and the like, just.. Cruising around?


----------



## noob_pwn (Jan 31, 2012)

Explorer said:


> Are you saying they would instinctively know, or that they would think it out, like saying, hmm, teeth, dangerous?
> 
> Anyway, it's besides the point. Dragonblade posted about one having difficulty swallowing prey, and so the prey is dead at that point. Clearly avoidance wasn't part of the deal.





synrgy said:


> EFF THAT.  Constrictors are one thing, but can you imagine if all of a sudden we had populations of tiger snakes, brown snakes, king brown snakes, death adders and the like, just.. Cruising around?



haha come on guys.
When i was at school we used to share our footpaths with lace monitors.
I think you guys will be just fine in florida


----------



## AK DRAGON (Jan 31, 2012)

Maybe it would help if there was a year round open season on Pythons in the glades. 
From what I understand they are good eating.


----------



## MikeH (Jan 31, 2012)

See, even I would be for that. Just to keep numbers low. And at the same time, you're protecting those who want to keep and sell large constrictors.


----------



## Hemi-Powered Drone (Feb 2, 2012)

Konfyouzd said:


> Yea those numbers are nuts. The Everglades are ab to be Australia 2.0



The season is only a few weeks and you need a special permit. It seems that Fish and Wildlife doesn't quite get the severity of the situation.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Feb 3, 2012)

dragonblade629 said:


> The season is only a few weeks and you need a special permit. It seems that Fish and Wildlife doesn't quite get the severity of the situation.



I guess they need to address that then, as it would be a better option than harming the pet industry.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Feb 3, 2012)

Burmese Pythons Exterminating Everglades Mammals | The Onion - America's Finest News Source | American Voices


----------

