# What do you guys think of the python ban?



## Daenerys (Jun 2, 2010)

S373 is a bill that would ban all python species from all states. 

The reason for this bill is because of the "feral" population of large constrictors in southern Florida, primarily Burmese pythons, posing a risk to native species in that area. 

However, they are proposing the banning of ALL species of python without actually assessing the risk factors associated with each species. Burmese pythons reach an adult size of over 20 feet long whereas ball pythons - one of the most popular species of snakes kept as pets - reach a mere 5-6 feet in length as adults. 

This ban would be seriously detrimental to the many breeders, pet stores, and manufacturers that rely on these animals for their livelihood. My friend has a Burmese python that is an absolute sweetheart, and should this bill be passed they would not be able to take him anywhere, even in their own home. They would have to keep the poor snake locked in his cage and he could never leave. They couldn't even move to another state if they wanted to unless they killed him because he couldn't go anywhere.

The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) estimates that millions of pythons from nearly one dozen species have been imported into the United States over the past 50 years, and only the Burmese python has established a feral population. Moreover, PIJAC contends that several factors combined to help establish that population, including a âmassâ escape of pythons from holding facilities destroyed during Hurricane Andrew in 1992, additional but isolated escapes from pet owners and commercial facilities; misguided release by pet owners; the subtropical climate and large area of swampy habitat with relatively little human activity, and ample prey availability in the Everglades region. (Source: http://www.reptilechannel.com/reptile-news/2009/02/20/proposed-python-ban.aspx )

I have also seen many people (including the organization Defenders of Wildlife) claim that these pythons can "make it as far north as Washington, DC", which is total bullcrap as they can barely survive the winters in southern Florida where they are now. Any reptile enthisuast with common sense can tell you that a tropical snake could never survive such winter temperatures that are present in any area farther north than southern Florida or Texas. Proof of such lunacy: http://www.conservationmaven.com/frontpage/cold-weather-limits-potential-range-of-burmese-python-invasi.html

So I think you can see where I, as a reptile enthusiast, stand. My question is do you, as non-reptile people, feel the same or differently and why? 

USARK's (United States Association of Reptile Keepers) blog about the bill: http://usark.org/blog/?p=374


----------



## Myia09 (Jun 2, 2010)

This bill won't pass. I severely doubt if it will. Considering you can still own venomous snakes at will 

I do however, agree that burmese pythons should only be owned with licences, along with other giant pythons and boas. (Along with iguanas and the like (Water dragons, Tegus), water turtles (all), and most tortises)

Large reptiles need monitering because of the abuse and mistreatment AND the risks.

But I am a reptile person..so lol. 

It is like the ban on hedgehogs..they die in moderatley low temps, but yet are kept illegal in some states.

But banning a species is a very hard thing to do; have you signed the petition against this bill?


----------



## JadeIcing (Jun 2, 2010)

*Myia09 wrote: *


> This bill won't pass. I severely doubt if it will. Considering you can still own venomous snakes at will
> 
> I do however, agree that burmese pythons should only be owned with licences, along with other giant pythons and boas. (Along with iguanas and the like (Water dragons, Tegus), water turtles (all), and most tortises)
> 
> Large reptiles need monitering because of the abuse and mistreatment AND the risks.




This says it all to me. I can't own a snake (darn hubby) but love them. With the right person they can be awesome but in the wrong hands so many risk.


----------



## Nancy McClelland (Jun 2, 2010)

We understand the knee-jerk reaction that brought about this bill, but it is totally ill conceived and the writer obviously didn't do the homework first. It's a shame when every responsible owner has to suffer consequences because of a few uncaring idiots. I remember one video segment on a reality/cop show where someones dog going missing led to the capture of a truly giant snake and the comment was "It could've eaten a kid". This was in Florida, and we thought what about alligators--better go round them up too!


----------



## Daenerys (Jun 2, 2010)

I think Florida is handling it very well as it is. People there have to have a permit to own the animals AND it has to be microchipped, just like they do with dogs. I don't understand why they think they need to go and ban them permanently when the state is already taking what I consider to be great measures already to try and stop the problem. 

And yes I have signed the petition


----------



## Happi Bun (Jun 2, 2010)

Domestic Cats that are allowed to roam outside kill plenty of native wildlife despite being well fed, yet no one proposes we ban them. Snakes are _scary_ though!:rollseyes Of course the feral population of large constrictors is a problem due to their size and should be addressed _in the proper way. _I don't believe slapping a ban on _all_ pythons will truly help the problem, so I do not support the bill.


----------



## undergunfire (Jun 2, 2010)

(coming from a non-reptile person)


I don't think certain animals should be BANNED. I think you should have permits to own certain animals that are a risk to the eco system, especially in states/areas where they are commonly "set free". This will hopefully stop the irresponsible being from getting such animals. On a bad note...this would make it harder for the responsible people to get the animal.

I have to agree with Erika....feral/domesticated cats are a huge issue, probably even more then reptiles being set free.


This ban reminds me of H669 (H699?)...whatever that bill was to ban exotic pets (like short tailed possums, geckos, and even rats!). Will never happen .


----------



## Mrs. PBJ (Jun 2, 2010)

Never owned a snake never will my neighbor has a 15 foot something. Its is spoiled and i feel safe with it right next door. I even feed it sometimes. 

I have held it and she taught me how to hold it I am against it.


----------



## mewlingcricket (Jun 8, 2010)

I seriously seriously seriously dislike reptiles, almost as much as I loathe spiders, but I as long as there is some kind of monitoring system (like the permits and tags) so that only responsible pet owners can purchase one, then that should be sufficient. Broad width bans aren't going to solve the problem, just create new ones when people are obtaining and keeping them illegally.


----------



## BlueCamasRabbitry (Jun 8, 2010)

I wonder if they are thinking this, because another issue is that people are starting to own extremely large snakes that are native to the southern states, especially in Florida in the Everglades, and with global climate change, the USA getting warmer will create more areas for them to roam, so not only will they just be down south, but they'll be all over the lower half of the USA, and creeping further north. 

Just a speculation though....  I don't really know much else about the potential ban, so won't comment on it.  

Emily


----------



## Daenerys (Jun 9, 2010)

The climate change is happening very slowly so I doubt that they will be moving farther north any time soon. Perhaps in several centuries, but not any time sooner. 

Anyways, update: http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/...s-fla-python-ban-ephedrine.html#ixzz0pqFJODQB

The downward spiral begins....also I love how they lump the meth story and the python story together. Do they want people to think all python owners are meth heads?

And the actual bill:

Florida Senate - 2010 COMMITTEE AMENDMENT
Bill No. SB 318

(2)(a) No person, party, firm, association, or corporation
shall keep, possess, import into the state, sell, barter, trade,
or breed the following species for personal use or for sale for
personal use:
1. Burmese or Indian python (Python molurus).
2. Reticulated python (Python reticulatus).
3. Northern African python (Python sebae).
4. Southern African python (Python natalensis).
5. Amethystine or scrub python (Morelia amethystinus).
6. Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus).
7. Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus).
8. Any other reptile designated as a conditional or
prohibited species by the commission.
(b) If a person, party, firm, association, or corporation
holds a permit issued before July 1, 2010, under subsection (1)
to legally possess a species listed in paragraph (a), that
person, party, firm, association, or corporation may possess
such reptile for the remainder of the life of the reptile.
(c) If a person, party, firm, association, or corporation
holds a permit issued before July 1, 2010, under subsection (1)
to legally possess a reptile listed in paragraph (a), and the
reptile remains alive following the death or dissolution of the
licensee, the reptile may be legally transferred to another
entity holding a permit authorizing possession of the reptile
for the remainder of the life of the reptile.

Section 7. By December 31, 2010, the Fish and Wildlife
Conservation Commission shall evaluate the placement of
additional species, such as iguanas, on the list of reptiles of
concern.


----------



## Nela (Jun 10, 2010)

Having worked in a pet store in the past, one of the main things I would love to see is only people with permits owning reptiles or any really exotic animal really. Some people were completely unfit for reptiles and they really do requirea different kind of care than most animals. I don't think they should be banned. They are wonderful creatures and they can do well if they have a proper owner. I just think there should be permits for it.


----------



## Brandy456 (Jun 11, 2010)

I'm terrified of anything with less, or more then 4 legs, and I don't even think this should pass.
Like, if people keep it in their house, thats all that matters.
When people start taking their snakes outside for 'walks' down the sidewalk, THEN people should start to worry. 
Although, 'putting reptiles in cages (or whatever they stay in) if per say a handyman was there, or someone not accustomed to those kinds of animals.
But then again, if a reptile owner was smart, they'd do that in the first place.


----------



## MyLOVEABLES!! (Jun 16, 2010)

I reckon that it shouldn't b banned ( we dont really have many people owning snakes in NZ.. doubt we even have any) but since it sounds like a lot of people in the Us have snakes then they should be treated like dogs as in registration, license etc. People should have to take a test before being able to buy one.


----------



## JadeIcing (Jun 16, 2010)

*MyLOVEABLES!! wrote: *


> but since it sounds like a lot of people in the Us have snakes then they should be treated like dogs as in registration, license etc. People should have to take a test before being able to buy one.




I feel this way about any animal and babies. Some people should not be responsible for any other living thing.


----------



## Daenerys (Jun 16, 2010)

I take my snakes outside and to school....but they're all small ones, and they're not pythons.  Corn snakes, hog island boa, Brazilian rainbow boa, and milk snake. All 5 feet long or less. They're all babies right now actually so they're all under 2 feet....but when they get bigger I shouldn't have any reach more than 6 feet in length.

I have taken my 7.5 foot red tail boa to school before too but that was for a special event.


----------



## Flash (Jun 20, 2010)

I think something should be done about the pythons either getting a license or something. Florida has a serious problem with these Burmese pythons hurting the eco-system in the everglades. There's even been snakes wrangler's going out there to capture and kill the snakes to keep the population down.


----------



## Luluznewz (Jun 29, 2010)

To be 100 percent honest I seriously question the wisdom in anyone owning a 15 foot snake. 

I'm not saying I support that law AT ALL but I would not be saddened if they were no longer allowed to be sold. I just dont see how its fair to keep those creatures in captivity. They simply are not allowed to have enough space (even if they have a HUGE tank). 10 feet is not enough room for an animal to live its entire life in. I think its very sad. They seem like wild animals and should stay that way.

That being said I would never want the ones that are already pets to be taken away or banned. That would not be fair at all.

I have a tortoise, so I love reptiles. But my tortoise is very small and has a very large outdoor enclosure as well as an indoor one. Shes 6 inches, not 15 feet, and I hardly feel okay about her being caged. I just think keeping exotic animals as pets is usually unkind, even if you are the best of pet owners.


----------



## RandomWiktor (Jun 30, 2010)

Nothing is hurting the everglades more than human beings. I like how Florida lawmakers act like environmental crusaders when it comes to a well hated animal like a snake, but continue to allow permits for new housing developments to eat up the vanishing wild places in Florida. Do I smell an election year coming up?

I am an abolitionist vegan at the core of my ethics, which is pretty funny considering that I'm married to a man in the process of buying a huge reptile breeding facility. I do not agree with the pet trade so I certainly don't agree with the exotics pet trade, which has even more problems. HOWEVER, I 110% oppose this ridiculous ban primarily on the grounds that it prohibits the interstate _transport_ of the snakes. I'm sorry, but the snakes already here need to be dealt with humanely, and that can't happen if we ban interstate transport. Why?
1. There are very few facilities equipped to take on adult specimens of these snakes. If a 18 foot Burmese python is confiscated in a state lacking such a facility, the animal will be destroyed instead of properly placed, or placed in a substandard facility.
2. Reptile resuces OFTEN use out of state resources for placement. What are rescues to do if the placement pool suddenly shrinks from nation wide to just one state?
3. Currently, many individuals have these snakes, and I'd guess that at least some of them might eventually want to move out of state. This puts snake owners in the position of being a criminal for being responsible and keeping their pet when they move, or having a beloved and well cared for animal put down or abandoned because they respect the law. 
4. Reptile specialist veterinarians are few and far between. For major events like say, surgery, it isn't rare for herp owners to find a vet out of state. If they can't transport the snake across state lines, they risk having their pet die or receive sub-standard care.

I'm actually totally fine with bans that have a grandfather clause for animals already here for ANY species, though I acknowledge that there are serious financial rammifications for even responsible keepers and that my ethics shouldn't necessarily be imposed on others. However, if a ban harms the animals like this bill does, it has my firm opposition.


----------



## tamsin (Jun 30, 2010)

I think there should be more control over animals that need more specialist care and handling that's it's likely the average person can provide.. I'd include a 20' snake in that. 

I don't think an outright ban is the solution though... I'm not sure how that would help if there is already an established feral population. 

There are options that could achieve basically the same thing... no breeding without a licence.. a condition of the licence to be all snakes microchipped. Strict regulations on what is suitable housing. If you want to restrict movement make a chip mandatory for it.


----------



## Flopsy (Jul 1, 2010)

Just updating this for everyone but they passed the bill.


----------



## JadeIcing (Jul 1, 2010)




----------



## RandomWiktor (Jul 2, 2010)

Source please? Everything I've read only suggests that it has made it out of committee in its current form, and thatthe public comment period isbeing extended yet another 30 days.That is not the same as it being passed into law.


----------



## Flopsy (Jul 3, 2010)

nope its law started on the 1st of July I believe. And source I live in FL its on every news station.


----------



## RandomWiktor (Jul 3, 2010)

Oh, you mean specifically the Florida bill; sorry! There is national legislation as well, which I think was my point of confusion - the national restrictions under the Lacey Act have not been passed yet.

It looks like folks who obtained their pythons before the July 1st deadline at least get to keep their current snakes. Still, I wonder how many unscrupulous sellers will release their stock since the animals are now basically financially worthless.


----------



## fuzz16 (Jul 3, 2010)

snakes that get over 8 ft long shouldnt be sold to people..same with alligators and crocs. people think they are so cool having them...and they end up homless and let go.

and they tried to pass a bill banning rabbits, gerbils, and hamtsers...among some other small animals, in the midwest awhile back. that definately didnt pass. there are so many snake entusiats to let this pass


----------

