Out of curiosity, what animals ARE fine to release to non native areas? Cats, dogs? If you take a snake from the wild, keep it for a month or two, and then release it, you are still releasing it contaminated from everything in your home. You don't need to just check the Everglades, see how Australia fares with 'oh just release it!' aftermath.
U.S. closes door to four snake species
- Thread starter JasonsPlecosCichlids
- Start date
Out of curiosity, what animals ARE fine to release to non native areas? Cats, dogs? If you take a snake from the wild, keep it for a month or two, and then release it, you are still releasing it contaminated from everything in your home. You don't need to just check the Everglades, see how Australia fares with 'oh just release it!' aftermath.
That was a general "can and can't release" and wasn't aimed specifically at native or exotic species rather it was just in general.
I'm fine with controlled releases of native animals, e.g. it's been quarantined long enough, is disease free, is in good health, and can handle living in the wild, more in the sense of reintroduction projects being helped by hobbyists who follow a strict code that's been put in place. Think of the good that could be done if a certain number of healthy threatened/endangered/extinct-in-wild animals out of a clutch/litter/etc. were reintroduced to their native lands after proper quarantine and such.
Which is, as far as I know, what is done with certain animals like condors and wolves. But for the standard person, it's a bad idea. Unless you have hard data to show that the animals will be fine re-released, and that no contaminants are going to ruin other ecosystems, and the like, it's a bad idea. The wolves and condors and other animals that have been re-introduced weren't done so by private breeders, as I understand, but by ecological teams funded by the government.
Look, I don't love the law as much as others, but sometimes **** laws like this get started because someone along the line was a moron and now we all pay for it. Arizona used to, in the 70's, have huge ads posted about using crawdads for fishing bait, because they're great and cheap! And a lot of them escaped, and now they are an invasive species and are totally banned from the pet trade. It isn't any one person's fault. But we all pay for it.
Look, I don't love the law as much as others, but sometimes **** laws like this get started because someone along the line was a moron and now we all pay for it. Arizona used to, in the 70's, have huge ads posted about using crawdads for fishing bait, because they're great and cheap! And a lot of them escaped, and now they are an invasive species and are totally banned from the pet trade. It isn't any one person's fault. But we all pay for it.
I guess a better way to put what I meant is to give an example, namely the Asian Turtle Consortium. These people are a group of breeders who breed and maintain assurance colonies of Asian turtles with the purpose of the turtles being introduced back into their natural habitat eventually; all of this is done without the help of the U.S. government or any other U.S. institutions. I don't know if they've reintroduced any turtles yet, but I imagine that they may be called upon to do so eventually.
I could go on and on about government agencies and certain businesses promoting the introduction of certain invasive species; ringneck pheasants, chukar partridge, rainbow trout, largemouth bass, peacock bass, and a few other species come to mind when I think about how two-faced they are when it comes to regulating these animals.
I agree with not importing any more Burmese pythons, there are already too many in this country already. The existing trade in large pythons should have better regulated to avoid the disaster we got in the everglades.
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.
I disagree. There is no animals besides whales, that I feel dont belong in captivity.
And dont bring up a mentally disturbed man, who released his animals. He had mental issues. For gods sake he commited suicide.
There are many of those animals with no problens. Tons of people keep lions tigers and bears(oh my) with no problems and the animals live long healthy lives.
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.
To all you who say, "its an invasive species so banning the domestic ownership of this is some how logical, or good." You obviously have no real comprehension of pet ownership. There is a moral and legal backing to generally make poor pet ownership illegal. But for some reason we don't find it worth while to fine people or educate pet owners on a broader scale. We instead generate legislation that doesn't really do anything to harm the bad pet owners but rather only effects the good law abiding ones among us. Banning anything is stupid, if you are so inclined... a permit process for private ownership with chipping is far more practical, and more profitable to governments than having to enforce bans. It is not up to us to say what others can do or not assuming they are willing to take the proper steps.
I think this is horrible news, and it ultimately does nothing for the problem in Florida. The correlation they try to make between importing and wild populations is sad even by the reporters own admission it was the hurricane that introduced large breeding populations into the wild.
I think this is horrible news, and it ultimately does nothing for the problem in Florida. The correlation they try to make between importing and wild populations is sad even by the reporters own admission it was the hurricane that introduced large breeding populations into the wild.
