| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Snakesitter |
Posted - 17/01/2012 : 22:38:29
U.S. bans imports of 4 exotic snake species
http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/us/florida-python-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t3 " target="_blank"> http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/17/us/florida-python-ban/index.html?hpt=hp_t3
Bad legislation based on bad science and political money wins another round. Those based in the US, please write your letters and make your phone calls to stop this from getting any worse -- there are still five other species on the hit list! |
| 6 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Snakesitter |
Posted - 23/01/2012 : 21:45:13
I hope not...but suspect you are right. :-( |
| Welly |
Posted - 20/01/2012 : 23:33:09
I most probably don't understand the full impact of the actual ruling. So not going to argue. But based on what you say it only looks like it will pave the way for further problems |
| Snakesitter |
Posted - 20/01/2012 : 22:00:17
I respect your opinion, Welly, but I think you misunderstand: this was never about the Everglades issue. This is about dirty politics and bad science being used to set a terrible example for the pet world, and is mostly funded by fringe AR groups. The fact is that only Southern Florida has the climate where these species could thrive, yet a national law is being pushed though based on "science" showing that big snkes could actually colonize Baltimore. (Have any of you ever seen a Baltimore winter?) That law was *never* designed to control this type of issue, will not solve the problem anyway, and will in fact make it worse: now the species will go undergound, instead of properly registered and tagged. In addition, there is no clear and proven evidence that the snakes are actually *harming* the Everglades. People cherrypick small examples and advertise them like they were true in every case. Who is to say the snakes are not eating and thus helping control the other invasives in that area, of which there are *many*, most of them far more destructive than a snake (feral hogs, feral cats, etc.). Now that the example is set, the next wave of legislation will peel off the next layer of reptiles, all en route to the "no pets except dogs and cats" agenda that AR pushes. Again, this is a sad day for freedom. |
| Welly |
Posted - 19/01/2012 : 23:21:34
Tbh, i can understand this and i have to say i agree.
Those 4 are big ass snakes and aren't quite in the realms of most peoples care. Not saying everyone, but some.
As it is a problem with now wild snakes in the likes of the everglades it needs to be stopped before it starts to effect the localised species.
I suppose it is easy for me to sit here and say this as in the Uk they wouldn't survive in our climate. Where as they thrive over there.
I am also hypcritical as i'd love a retic and aim to get one when space and time permits.
It really does get my back up when i see some really big stuff for sale for the sole reason to make money without the correct info given. On both parties, the sellers and the buyers. I once saw a guy buy a foot long african rock on the basis it was same as a royal!! When it becomes more about the morals and for the right reasons and not for vast profit of "monster" snakes then it will always keep cropping its head up.
I love being a passionate about reptiles and learning more and more everyday, but i do think there has to be a point at which something to big, too harmfull should be banned. It gives us respectable owners a bad name when it goes wrong.
|
| Snakesitter |
Posted - 18/01/2012 : 21:23:10
They list boa constrictor as a general species, which means everything under that as a subspecies would be hit.
Other snakes being considered are the retic and several anacondas, if I recall correctly.
US readers, please take action! |
| gmac |
Posted - 17/01/2012 : 23:03:35
Would be interested in seeing the boa hit list but imagine it would be all boa constrictor species, there are a bloody good few types :( |
|
|
