U.S. closes door to four snake species

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I just want to point out they are not banning the snake that is shown in about 75% of that video. The vid shows a few Burmese pythons even a ball python or two... but when anything in that video is over 12-15 feet it is actually a reticulated python, why they are not banning the largest python (reticulated python) I don't understand.

I dislike the ban list all it is going to do is drive up illegal breeding and increase the cost of to obtain these animals.
 
jworth said:
A long and healthy life is much different than thriving... you know that. While I agree that they should not be taking our rights away, a little common sense goes a long way. Unfortunately, Americans and our government lack a lot of that these days. Some of these animals should not be in captivity. Big cats most notably. Increasingly rare in the wild with tons of space to roam and average hobbyists stick them in enclosures. They survive, but those animals are not thriving. I am not sure many people can take care of 30ft snakes... just saying.
Click to expand...

If you'd seen our other thread on the ohio massacre, we pointed out that he was basically breaking every law on the books with his animals and they did nothing. There are good keepers of nearly every animal. These laws are basically lazy and ineffective. They don't stop pet ownership just stomp out good animal welfare. There are people who can and will keep big cats, there are large exotic ranches in texas and other warm places. Do your research, don't say every one who has a big cat is a bad owner. Most fish keepers are far worse yet I do not advocate we ban fish keeping.
 
TaratronVaeVictus said:
I don't see why the US government would have a say in why native Asian turtles are released into their native environment, but that's me. And no, I'm not saying Government Is Good!!!!1! with this all either, but would you agree that some animals do NOT belong in standard captivity? Do you remember what happened in, I believe it was, Ohio, when the guy with large captive exotics like tigers and lions decided to release them? I believe nearly all of the animals were put down due to safety issues.

Then again out here in Arizona there are huge issues with morons not wanting their Sulcata tortoises and releasing them into the desert. They outcompete native desert tortoises and the latter are already in need of help with poachers and the like. Other pet reptiles are found easily too, like bearded dragons, who apparently have been establishing colonies.

The problem is massive and we can't point fingers at just one source. I would far prefer permits needed rather than outright bans but a lot of people want to own whatever animals they can buy, not precisely buy, house, and raise for the animal's life.
Click to expand...

Where to begin...

Ohio was a tragedy but honestly the more research you do on that you'll find that he had broken several, well actually almost all of the prevalent laws regarding his animals and they didn't take his animals away. I know in many initial interviews jack Hanna and the sherif said their was nothing they could do but if you look at the mans record it was apparent that he shouldn't have had them as he had violated almost all standing legislation. Then ontop of that the man demonstrates he was ill and killed himself. I'll tell you the sad truth, someone could have done the same thing in a zoo if they were so inclined and it would have been far more disastrous. If you look at zoo's they actually have a worse record with animal on human violence than the private industry.

Invasive species... yeah its a tragedy, but honestly its already illegal. If you think banning every animal that threatens our natural environments you end up banning, well allot of things first and foremost cats and dogs. If you don't think wild dogs aren't a threat in chicago a man was just nearly killed by two dogs this last month. IN CHICAGO! We aren't talking about some rural town. No other INVASIVE animal kills more wild animals every year than cats.

I advocate against bans, they almost never address the problems they aim at. I think that non commercial permits should become more standard for big/dangerous animals as it generates more revenue for animal welfare enforcement and will create a quick response mechanism for poor husbandry.
 
The Ohio situation was simply an example of someone who clearly had major issues losing it and the government, specifically the police, allowing him to get to that point by not upholding their own laws, simple as that. The guy had been cited for this, that, and the next thing multiple times yet they never did squat to actually prevent the end result from happening (as usual). That brings me to my point about a permit system: You can have some awesome permit system that's set up to be very responsible and fair, but if the government doesn't enforce it by issuing permits and keeping track of the permit holders then it's just as bad as a ban. I think that the required micro-chipping of all animals that are large enough to get one would solve a lot of problems; the chips would be registered, and the owners could be found in the case of an escape/release & would be dealt with appropriately. Yes, that would require the government to actually enforce the policy, but it doesn't stop you from getting the animal if you want it provided that you spend maybe $50 to get the chip.

I don't see a problem with keeping most species in captivity provided that they are given proper care. The idea that some species are only able to be maintained by zoos is ridiculous considering that some zoos don't know very much about their animals and/or just don't care to care for them properly. A good example is the reticulated python at a zoo that was being overfed (something like four goats a month) & kept in an enclosure that was far too small; it had become obese & very irritable as a result yet it took the zoo a long time to actually figure out what the problem was despite it being an incredibly simple solution. They eventually did cut back the food and get it more exercise, and it's weight & behavior greatly improved as a result. And don't get me started about the cobra that got loose in the one zoo for a few days...
 
Wiggles92 said:
The Ohio situation was simply an example of someone who clearly had major issues losing it and the government, specifically the police, allowing him to get to that point by not upholding their own laws, simple as that. The guy had been cited for this, that, and the next thing multiple times yet they never did squat to actually prevent the end result from happening (as usual). That brings me to my point about a permit system: You can have some awesome permit system that's set up to be very responsible and fair, but if the government doesn't enforce it by issuing permits and keeping track of the permit holders then it's just as bad as a ban. I think that the required micro-chipping of all animals that are large enough to get one would solve a lot of problems; the chips would be registered, and the owners could be found in the case of an escape/release & would be dealt with appropriately. Yes, that would require the government to actually enforce the policy, but it doesn't stop you from getting the animal if you want it provided that you spend maybe $50 to get the chip.

I don't see a problem with keeping most species in captivity provided that they are given proper care. The idea that some species are only able to be maintained by zoos is ridiculous considering that some zoos don't know very much about their animals and/or just don't care to care for them properly. A good example is the reticulated python at a zoo that was being overfed (something like four goats a month) & kept in an enclosure that was far too small; it had become obese & very irritable as a result yet it took the zoo a long time to actually figure out what the problem was despite it being an incredibly simple solution. They eventually did cut back the food and get it more exercise, and it's weight & behavior greatly improved as a result. And don't get me started about the cobra that got loose in the one zoo for a few days...
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree permits are a difficult proposition but I see them as a solution to potentially dangerous animals. Again I agree done wrong they are a ban, we have probably a 3 to 1 comparison of bad to good permit systems in the US but when dealing with something like a poisonous snake or dangerous animal I would be inclined to suffer through poor permit process to reassure people though the ability to designate an animal as dangerous is extremely subjective. Chipping and registering animals to people is probably the most feasible and fair solution on the whole though. It ensures a level of accountability as the animal is tied to you.

Its funny though knowing as many large reptile owners/breeders as I have I have to say that large animal owners are in my experience more responsible than most pet owners. Large rep owners are probably the best I know, atleast in the Midwest. I've known many burm owners, I notice that up here those snakes get traded allot and rarely stay with one owner for long but I've never seen systemic neglect or anything. I've seen large Adult Burms to be very desirable and as such many people who get them when they are 2 or 3 feet have had little problem passing them off at 7 or 8 feet assuming they don't expect to collect lots of money for their animals. I see the potential problem with chipping being the transfer of ownership in such an informal cash only hobby.
 
I feel like people to often take legislation at face value. SOPA, PIPA, this animal regulation... its hard to promote and articulate informed perspective so we loose to the "Dangerous animal banned ACT" "Stop Online Piracy Act" people don't want to know what it actually means in practical terms.
 
kamikaziechameleon said:
Yeah, I agree permits are a difficult proposition but I see them as a solution to potentially dangerous animals. Again I agree done wrong they are a ban, we have probably a 3 to 1 comparison of bad to good permit systems in the US but when dealing with something like a poisonous snake or dangerous animal I would be inclined to suffer through poor permit process to reassure people though the ability to designate an animal as dangerous is extremely subjective. Chipping and registering animals to people is probably the most feasible and fair solution on the whole though. It ensures a level of accountability as the animal is tied to you.

Its funny though knowing as many large reptile owners/breeders as I have I have to say that large animal owners are in my experience more responsible than most pet owners. Large rep owners are probably the best I know, atleast in the Midwest. I've known many burm owners, I notice that up here those snakes get traded allot and rarely stay with one owner for long but I've never seen systemic neglect or anything. I've seen large Adult Burms to be very desirable and as such many people who get them when they are 2 or 3 feet have had little problem passing them off at 7 or 8 feet assuming they don't expect to collect lots of money for their animals. I see the potential problem with chipping being the transfer of ownership in such an informal cash only hobby.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with a permit system that requires some sort of experience to get the permit, but it all comes down to whether or not they'll actually issue the permit once you have met the requirements; I really don't trust them to follow through with a good system based on their track record which is why I'm against one being put in place. It's one of those things that looks great on paper, but often never gets properly executed and is a failure as a result.

Yes, burms and certain other snakes do get sold and traded pretty regularly. I think one thing that contributes to the responsibility of the owners and good health of the animals is that most buyers are at least somewhat responsible adults rather than children (nothing against the responsible children who can handle the animals); I would imagine that a typical kid coming home with a burm is going to be in a sticky situation with the parents that could lead to a release as an end result. These animals typically are at least $100 for morphs or hets, and it's tough to find plain old normals any more, so that elevated cost is somewhat prohibitive for the typical impulse buyer. I personally sold my young pair a couple of days ago because of the ban just in case I have to move out-of-state (considering that I might upon graduation from college); I would have kept them had that ban failed to pass. They went to a couple who was just getting back into large snakes after a few years hiatus during which they set up their current business (a deer farm); I sold the snakes and their equipment for slightly more that what I paid for the burms themselves, and I know that they went to a good home that's going to take care of them. Heck, I'm going to be getting picture updates of them on Facebook. :) Stuff like that is what makes me have faith in the large reptile community at large.

As for the chipping, the informal nature of the hobby could make it problematic, but I would think that the former owner would want to make sure that his/her name was no longer tied to the animal for liability reasons; think of it being along the lines of a legal handgun transfer in which the buyer and seller have the seller's name transferred to the handgun at the sale.
 
Wiggles92 said:
As for the chipping, the informal nature of the hobby could make it problematic, but I would think that the former owner would want to make sure that his/her name was no longer tied to the animal for liability reasons; think of it being along the lines of a legal handgun transfer in which the buyer and seller have the seller's name transferred to the handgun at the sale.
Click to expand...

Yeah, guns have found a way to flourish. I'm sure that chips could find some sort of easy resolution that would arise.

I'm so annoyed by bans on anything it is extremely frustrating. As someone who is getting into breeding of African cichlids I would perhaps someday like to branch out but fear of the government easily axing my business is really terrifying. I saw what the snake head ban did to allot of breeders, only one species was a problem... say p-bass become invasive in florida, what if they ban all cichlids ya know.

Its stupid and these laws rarely ever make much sense or even address the threat at hand. If a man was killed by stray dogs in a city people wouldn't think to ban dogs but if a Burmese attacks a crocodile its suddenly a Federal ban. Pets are pets and elevating them to separate tears is not fair or realistic. They are novelties. They all have separate requirements, and the fundamentals of good husbandry are universal.

I honestly don't understand this intolerance you see on these boards towards the more liberally minded. I don't want a tiger or a lion, I don't see any practicality in having one... still no desire to ban them. I see a bad pet owner I don't think ban his pets I think prosecute him or confiscate the animals. I just don't understand the thought process most people go through.

Edit: If neglect as sighted by some prior posters is a basis for a ban then we need to ban dogs, cats, goldfish... ok most... no all fish, small lizards, anything cute. Well I guess pets in general. Seriously, someone sighted people who mistreat their big cats as a justification for a ban, it is a logical fallacy to make such a assertion in light of reality without sighting the requirement that all animals be banned as pets, or for trade... I agree with the sentiment it is wrong but I don't see how Banning such an animal is going to resolve the crime? Banning animals won't stop the poor treatment of them, how do most black market animals fair?
 
jworth said:
A long and healthy life is much different than thriving... you know that. While I agree that they should not be taking our rights away, a little common sense goes a long way. Unfortunately, Americans and our government lack a lot of that these days. Some of these animals should not be in captivity. Big cats most notably. Increasingly rare in the wild with tons of space to roam and average hobbyists stick them in enclosures. They survive, but those animals are not thriving. I am not sure many people can take care of 30ft snakes... just saying.
Click to expand...

Lets see more of certain big cats in captivity then in the wild. Yep no reason to be in captivity.....

Facepalm.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom