# Another side to the propaganda surrounding the everglades.



## kawasakirider (Jan 20, 2012)

I found this really interesting

This what it has come to… ? Student of the Reptile 

[h=1]This what it has come to…[/h] Posted on January 18, 2012 by Ophiuchus 
Since January 16[SUP]th[/SUP], 2012, the entire reptile community has been abuzz with some very devastating news. Our U.S. government, specifically the Department of the Interior, has announced that 4 species of large constricting snakes are now being placed on the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act; this includes the Burmese python, both the northern & southern species of African Rock python, and the yellow anaconda.
What does this mean for anyone who keeps these species? Well, being listed as Injurious Wildlife, this rule, once enacted, makes it illegal to import any of these snakes into the United States from out of the country. That within itself is not big deal. First of all, any of these animals represented in captivity today are the product of captive breeding; the banning of wild collection is not going to affect the market for these 4 species that much in the long run. However, the really bad thing is that this rule also prohibits any interstate transport of these species. This means no more online sales, effectively crippling the market for everyone in the country who commercially breeds them. This also means if you have even one Burmese python as a pet, and you have to relocate to another state, you are very limited in your options! As far as anyone can tell, while it implies that anyone owning these species currently can still legally keep them within their state, this rule does not make any provisions of how to dispose of them if one can no longer keep them.


You could find someone else to keep it. Difficult as the market for large snakes is not that great to begin with. This issue is amplified for the breeders who currently have gravid females that can have anywhere from 20-60 babies in the months to come. That’s a lot of mouths to feed. Ordinarily, the breeder would sell the offspring through various expos and websites. This is no longer a legal option.
The only other legal option is to euthanize the snakes. How does one humanely euthanize a snake? Is there a specific procedure to follow? This rule does not provide one.
 Many snake keepers cherish their pet pythons just as many dog owners love their canine wards. For anyone having to relocate across state lines, this rule change is forcing a lot of pet owners into an awkward position. If they are unable to find a suitable home with another hobbyist, they are faced with the decision of killing their pet, or breaking the law by either taking the snake with them or worse, releasing it into the ecosystem.
This brings me to another point. Why did this rule change happen in the first place? Well, let me tell the story…
——————————————–
For years, reptiles had only been available through wild collection and importation. Very few people were breeding anything in captivity. Burmese pythons, like many snakes, weren’t terribly difficult to breed if you had the space, but like many species, the expense and time it took to condition the animals wasn’t worth the effort when you could just import them straight from across seas for cheaper. But that all changed when in the 1980’s, the first albino Burmese pythons were found and ultimately ended up in the U.S. One snake enthusiast, Bob Clark, got his hands on them, and suddenly it was worth it to breed the species in captivity because everyone wanted to get their hands on the heterozygous offspring of the albino gene. Still the demand was higher than captive breeding could supply, and many wild baby Burmese pythons were still imported from Asia each year.
Fast-forward to the early 1990s. The reptile industry was really taking off. All over the country, more people were getting into the hobby, whether it was breeding geckos or wholesaling warehouses full of imported reptiles from around the world. In 1992, Hurricane Andrew devastated the state of Florida, and incidentally, a warehouse in southern Florida that housed nearly 1,000 freshly-imported young Burmese pythons was destroyed. Unfortunately, many of the snakes found refuge in the surrounding areas, and eventually established themselves in the nearby Everglades National Park. There the descendants of those snakes have been ever since, eeking out a meager existence, making themselves another addition to the invasive species problem in southern Florida along with feral cats, green iguanas, tegu lizards, and countless other exotic species of reptiles, amphibians, birds, insects, fish and plants that seem to survive well enough in the sub-tropical climate of Florida’s southern tip.
Fast-forward another 20 years or so. Until now, no one has really raised a big fuss about pythons in the Everglades. After all, there’s a myriad of other non-native critters around, and I suppose most people assumed that between the top predator of the ecosystem, the American alligator, and our cold winters, the exotic reptiles would be kept in check. But all of that changed when a photo started making its way around the internet. I don’t know who took the photo, but here it is below:



That photo changed a lot of peoples’ perspective on the issue. Here was clear evidence of one of these feral pythons eating an alligator. According to reports, the python in the photo was approximately 12 ft in length, and the alligator around 6 ft. So contrary to claims there was some power struggle for the top of the food chain in the Everglades, it should be noted that this was not a full-grown alligator that fell victim to the python. There was a necropsy done on both animals, and there was evidence that indicated the gator was dead before the python consumed it (presumably shot).
Regardless, this photo was sensational, especially because it happened on American soil, in a national park, no less. Like many such things, it circulated the World Wide Web like a wild fire, spawning all sorts of theories and stories as to what happened and what this could mean for the Everglades, for python keepers, and for the reptile industry as a whole. There was definitely a storm brewing. Needless to say, the state of Florida was taking a new interest in the Burmese python problem.
Meanwhile, another threat to the reptile community had been simmering under the surface. For years, the animal rights movement, led by the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), has fervently attacking any venue that involves animal use: the food industry, the entertainment industry, the fur & skin trade, and the pet industry. Despite what their heartstring-tugging ads imply, these multi-million-dollar non-profit organizations do very little for actual animal welfare. In 2010, HSUS gave less than 1% of its proceeds to helping shelters. Every year, PETA euthanizes 90-97% of the animals they rescue, and somehow only manage to find homes for less than 2%. Meanwhile, they focus their efforts on campaigns like telling children their parents are murderers, and trying to market fish as “sea kittens” so that people would stop fishing. In short, they want to turn everyone in the world into a vegan and are totally against the ownership of any pets that are unconventional, or not “fluffy” and “cuddly.” This means tropical fish, birds, hermit crabs, and of course, reptiles.
Fortunately for the average American with a brain and some common sense, these animal rights groups often fall short of their goals. But they weren’t happy with just encouraging people to stop eating meat and keeping icky reptiles as pets. They wanted to make it a law. But how does a multi-million dollar (cough) kill-shelter, er, I mean, non-profit organization make a law? Simple. You sell your story to the right politicians and pay them to make the law for you. And the photo of a Burmese python with an alligator sticking out of its gut was the perfect exhibit A to sell their case.
Enter the media circus. Soon there were news articles all across the state of Florida, reporting about the growing invasion of giant pythons taking over the Everglades, eating full-grown alligators and going after dogs and children. “Where did these things come from?” was the common question. Florida was no stranger to the reptile industry. There was the National Reptile Breeders Expo that took place in Daytona, FL, every year. The state was already home to a wide variety of native herp species and field enthusiasts often traveled from all over to hike and explore wherever they could to find and photograph their favorite southeastern frog or snake. The general public was dimly aware (emphasis on the word “dim”) of the reptile community, and that many people kept large snakes as pets. So to many, the answer was logical: these pythons often grow too large for the average person to keep, so irresponsible snake owners must be releasing their pets into the wild just to get rid of them.
There are a few things wrong with this hypothesis. While I am not going to say that no one has ever released their pet python anywhere in the country, there are several implications that the feral Burmese python populations in Florida are not the result of escaped or released pets.


All of the captured pythons by the license hunters have had genetic testing done on them. The results revealed that these snakes descended from animals imported from Vietnam & Thailand. Now both of those countries restricted export of wildlife very shortly after Hurricane Andrew, so it is very unlikely the feral snakes are coming from the random negligent pet owner.
To date, no color or pattern morphs of Burmese pythons have been seen or captured in south Florida. As mentioned earlier, much of the species’ popularity in captivity is the many mutations that can be reproduced by selective breeding. Some of these morphs are worth thousands of dollars. But regardless of value or appearance, a 15-20 ft python is still a huge expense to care for and house. Yet no albinos or other morphs have been documented in Florida.
The vast majority of the feral pythons captured and seen are in very remote, isolated regions of the Everglades, not easily accessible by the average person. Most of these spots are can only be gotten to airboat. It is unlikely that the typical irresponsible snake keeper is willing to undertake such expense and effort just to release an unwanted pet. Very few, if any, feral pythons are found in urban areas.
 But regardless of the facts, the powers that be believed every word of this nonsense, and one politician in particular, Democratic Senator Bill Nelson from Florida was especially motivated to do something about this problem, and in the years to come, did everything he could to build up the hype of the issue to further himself and his political career,  disregarding real facts and science along the way (and very likely having his pocket padded by H$U$ or some other animal rights lobby group).
In January of 2008, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service issued a Notice of Inquiry, asking pet stores, reptile dealers, and breeders about all pythons, boas and anacondas. This “NOI” involved questions regarding annual inventory and sales, as well as the inquiree’s opinion on the likelihood of any of these snakes establishing themselves in their respective location, and suggested eradication methods, etc. It was a poorly-written document that was basically intended to figure out how many people in the country kept these snakes, sold them, and the economic position they held in the reptile market. This was just the start.
Fortunately for the reptile nation, a grassroots movement was underway called the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK). Lead by one Andrew Wyatt, this organization grew into a lobby group that specifically fought and defended the rights of reptile keepers in America. It was about time the herp industry got official and stood up against these political attacks.
Later that year, a piece of legislation was proposed called H.R. 669, which if enacted, would have made any animals non-native to the U.S. illegal to own, sale, trade, barter, as well as import and interstate travel. Not only would it have encompassed reptiles, it obviously included many types of tropical birds, fish, gerbils, hamsters, and many others. It would have severely devastated the pet trade as we know it. Luckily, the economic impact was taken into consideration and with the help of USARK, this bill was defeated.
In 2009, another bill made the rounds called S.373. This one was a little more specific, but still included all snakes under the genus Python, and later was amended to include other constrictor snakes. It too was defeated, mostly due to the actions of USARK.
Another version of S.373 returned under the new title of H.R. 2811. It essentially was the same bill, suggesting that 9 species of large constrictors be listed as Injurious Wildlife on the Lacey Act. These species were: the Indian python and its sister species, the Burmese python; the reticulated python, the northern & southern species of African rock pythons, both the green and yellow anaconda, and the DeSchauensee’s anaconda, and Bolivian anaconda. Fortunately, like its predecessor, it was defeated.
All this time, several studies emerged regarding the feral Burmese pythons and the potential damage they could do to the environment. One notorious study, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey, proposed that due to the high summer temperatures of much of the U.S., these invading Burmese python could take over the entire lower 2/3 of the country, and make it as far north as Washington D.C. in a matter of a few years! Of course, among many other things, what this paper failed to account for was the harsh, cold winters of much of the nation, as well as factors like humidity, and basic habitat. In reality, a tropical equatorial species like the Burmese python cannot establish itself anywhere else in the United States besides where it already was: southern Florida. If these snakes could indeed survive farther north, why haven’t they migrated in the 20+ years they’ve been there? The answer is they haven’t migrated any further north, because they cannot survive any further north.
USARK attacked these flawed studies with its own arsenal of experts and scientists, debunking each inaccuracy detail by detail. The reptile lobbyists pleaded their own case, emphasizing the economic impact any ban would have on the reptile industry, by now totaling over 1 billion dollars a year. Large constrictors, mostly the color & pattern morph market, make up 2/3 of that industry, and the U.S. is about 80% of that! Restricting interstate travel meant no internet sales, among other things. Many people raise these snakes as their main business, their primary source of income. Others make a living manufacturing cages and other supplies for large snakes, and then there is the feeder business. Big reptiles gotta eat, so many hobbyists make more money raising rodents and rabbits as feeders then they do selling the reptiles themselves.
Eventually, Florida decided to take matters into its own hands. It had first instated a permit system for the giant constrictors. But in 2010, it decided to ban them altogether, making the Burmese python, reticulated python, green anaconda, yellow anaconda, and African rock python, as well as the Nile monitor all illegal to buy, sell, or trade. Those who currently kept those species at that point were grandfathered, but no one could acquire them after July of 2010. A somewhat disappointing turn for Florida herpers, but it seemed that the issue had been resolved. After all, real science proved that south Florida was the only place in the country that the snake could and would establish themselves, so it seemed logical for it to remain a state problem, and not a federal problem.
After defeating USARK bill after bill, things were beginning to look up for the herp community. After all, money talks, and no politician wants to be responsible for damaging our already hurting economy, right?
But a terrible incident had occurred during the summer of 2009. A Florida couple’s pet 9-ft Burmese python escaped its cage, entered the room of their 2-yr-old daughter, and constricted her, ultimately killing her. Now I certainly do not want to downplay this tragedy. It is sad that the little girl died, and I don’t wish that on anyone. But there are a few things people should be aware of about this incident.


This was during a time when Florida still had its permit system for giant snakes in place. The owner of the snake, the girl’s mother’s live-in boyfriend, did not have the necessary permit to keep the snake.
This 9-ft python was being kept in a large aquarium with nothing but a quilt draped over the top. Obviously, this was insecure housing for a large, powerful animal, and it is no wonder the snake escaped. Furthermore, this was not the first, or even second instance that the snake had escaped.
The owner had six prior felony charges.
There was evidence that the child was crushed to death, and not actually constricted or asphyxiated as is the typical M.O. of a python dispatching its prey. Also, the child was reported not to have any bite marks on her body. Now, anyone who has worked with snakes can tell that snakes strike their prey with their jaws…THEN they coil around and begin constricting. The evidence was circumstantial at best, but indicates that there is more to the child’s death than just a python.
 But apparently there weren’t any snake experts called to testify for the case. Now ultimately justice was served; the couple was found guilty of manslaughter and child neglect, and both are facing up to 45 years in prison.
This case was handled in Florida, and in regards to the ownership of the python, only Florida laws were violated. Regardless, this tragic event was a major black eye to the reptile community. It didn’t matter that the keepers of the animal were at fault and were breaking the law. It didn’t matter that they were negligent parents. The entire world read in news articles everywhere about how a pet python killed a 2-yr-old girl. As always, it was a perfect example of mainstream media blowing an incident out of proportion and painting reptile keepers everywhere as irresponsible lawbreakers. The animal rights movement ate it up and loved every second of it. This was better for their cause than the photo of the python eating the alligator years before.
In June 2011, in response to recent Congressional criticism over his Administration’s intrusive, burdensome – and often job killing – regulatory regime, President Obama issued a very important move called Executive Order 13563, requiring federal agency review of all rules. This was intended to protect jobs and the economy from excessive and over-zealous regulation. How is this important? I’ll get to it soon…
—————————————————-
Now, in the dawn on 2012, the D.O.I. finally succeeded in pushing through their rule change. The captive market and trade of four species of constrictor snakes will effectively dissolve in a mere 60 days. Thousands of Americans will be affected financially by this change. Thousands of animals will not only become worthless in the economic sense, but also there is no clear way to dispose of them. Next spring, even more of these snakes will arrive in the country by way of captive offspring hatching or being born. That’s thousands more of baby pythons and anacondas that are immediately homeless and worthless from Day 1.
I have told you the story behind this rule change and why it happened. I told you how it will affect us all now. Now we’ll look to the future…
First of all, here’s precisely how this rule change is completely useless.


It will do nothing to help the environment. As mentioned earlier, the pet trade had nothing to do directly with the feral Burmese python population in the Everglades, so making it harder for people to keep the animals as pets won’t do anything about the feral snakes currently existing in south Florida right now.
If anything, it will create the very scenario it was intended to prevent, which is people releasing unwanted pythons into the environment. This is a real possibility since now, so there is no legal outlet for commercial breeders and dealers to get rid of their captive stock. This wasn’t a huge concern when people were free to sell these snakes online and ship them across state lines as they have been for decades.
It also could create a black market for these four species.
In the grander scheme of things, it is restricting the freedom and right of the average American to own whichever type of pet they choose.
 But there is a glimmer of hope for the reptile nation. First and foremost, this rule change was pushed through with complete disregard to due process, real scientific facts and evidence, and because of its economic impact, it is in direct violation of the Executive Order 13563 issued by the President himself. This alone is enough cause for an appeal, and I’m sure USARK has every intention of doing so.
Secondly, there is the simple issue of enforcement. USFWS is always stretched very thin, and while on the commercial level, those who work with these four species really need to watch their backs, the average American citizen that only has one or two specimens as a pet shouldn’t expect the “python police” to come knocking on their door anytime soon. Be that as it may, I would certainly advise anyone breeding these snakes to start yanking your males away from the females pronto, just to avoid as many unnecessary mouths to feed next spring as possible!
In closing, the war is not over. There were originally 9 species of snake on the original proposal (although 2 are extremely rare and virtually non-existent in the private sector), and you can bet your bottom dollar the powers that be are not satisfied. Remember who is footing the bill: H$U$ and PETA. This is what they want, and they want more. They want all exotic pets banned completely, and I wager that reticulated pythons and the larger green anaconda are next in their crosshairs. But they won’t stop there either. Then, it will be all pythons and boas, including ball pythons, red-tails and carpets. Next, maybe it will be all constricting snakes, which encompasses cornsnakes, kingsnakes, milksnakes, etc. Then lizards…tortoises…parrots…cichlid fish….sugar gliders…
Not only reptile keepers, but pet owners of all types of animals need to fight these ridiculous and draconian laws. Emails and online petitions aren’t enough. Actual mailed letters and phone calls make an impact.
———————–
_*UPDATE: Additional Notes*_
Here are some additional things regarding some inaccurate claims put forth by the USFWS and other groups. At one point, there were claims made that the feral Burmese python population in the Everglades numbered over 100,000. This is a grossly-exaggerated estimate. What they did was take the approximate number of pythons sighted and captured within a very small area of the park, then just multiply that number by the entire square area of the park. Makes a little bit of sense on paper, but anyone can go on Google Maps, take a look at extreme southern Florida and see that the vast majority of Everglades National Park is water and mud! Burmese pythons are not an aquatic species. It is true that they are good swimmers and will travel through water between the small islands and levees within the park, but they are not living in the water.
The media makes it seem like this is a powder keg waiting to ignite, that these pythons are on the brink of a mass population explosion, that at any moment these giant serpents will come slithering out of the marshes to attack household pets and children. Nothing could be further from the truth. The media would have everyone think Burmese pythons have the state of Florida by a stranglehold (excuse the pun). The truth is that they barely survive year to year by a toehold (yes, I know, snakes don’t have toes…but you know what I mean).
It is true that they are a large species, and it is true that a few pythons have been documented to have eaten a few protected species of indigenous swamp rat. But this problem pales in comparison to other invasive species. Feral cats are a much more serious issue all across the country, yet no legislative action has been taken against them. Countless species of exotic fish are established in many parts of the U.S., both competing and hybridizing with native species. But America loves its cats, and lower species like fish, mussels, and kudzu plants don’t make headlines. This rule change was all about powerful people not liking snakes. They didn’t care about the facts or the science or the truth. This is a clear example of how ignorance and prejudice triumphs over knowledge and freedom.



This what it has come to… ? Student of the Reptile

What do you guys think?


----------



## Aussie-Pride (Jan 20, 2012)

I think it's to much to read with my hangover lol


----------



## PythonLegs (Jan 20, 2012)

Another bonkers american going off on an overreaction rant. About time america took a look at their animal laws, but they may have left just a tiny bit too late. Thank god our import laws stop us getting into that mess.


----------



## Bushman (Jan 20, 2012)

I disagree PythonLegs. The animal "liberation" activists are coming to a place near you!


----------



## Pilbarensis (Jan 20, 2012)

Thanks for that! I didn't really know much about this but was worried... Looks like the fat cats in Washington are stuffing their pockets with money again. Pity the media is being so bloody outrageous still that's what they do, take one small story and make it 10 times bigger!


----------



## Fuscus (Jan 20, 2012)

kawasakirider said:


> All of the captured pythons by the license hunters have had genetic testing done on them. The results revealed that these snakes descended from animals imported from Vietnam & Thailand. Now both of those countries restricted export of wildlife very shortly after Hurricane Andrew, so it is very unlikely the feral snakes are coming from the random negligent pet owner.


 This seems to be incorrect. This study http://www.usark.org/uploads/FloridaBurmGenetics.pdf from 2008 claims that they are distinct from samples taken from Vietnam. The population appears to have a limited genetic varablity but possible causes include a limited variably in the captive population or the animals being very mobile and freely interbreeding. 



kawasakirider said:


> To date, no color or pattern morphs of Burmese pythons have been seen or captured in south Florida. As mentioned earlier, much of the species’ popularity in captivity is the many mutations that can be reproduced by selective breeding. Some of these morphs are worth thousands of dollars. But regardless of value or appearance, a 15-20 ft python is still a huge expense to care for and house. Yet no albinos or other morphs have been documented in Florida.


A bright white snake would have trouble surviving in the wild both in catching prey and avoiding being prey. So it is to be expected that they and other morphs would represent a very small portion of the population. Also what happens when an albino is crossed with a normal? You get a het so any surviving albinos (or any recessive genes) will be quickly washed out, Morphs would only be represented in the actual introduced animals and possibly some of their immediate descendants. Lastly you can't prove a negative ( much to the delight of cryptozoologists everywhere), just because we haven't found one does not mean it isn't out there. Of course it doesn't mean it is either.


kawasakirider said:


> The vast majority of the feral pythons captured and seen are in very remote, isolated regions of the Everglades, not easily accessible by the average person. Most of these spots are can only be gotten to airboat. It is unlikely that the typical irresponsible snake keeper is willing to undertake such expense and effort just to release an unwanted pet. Very few, if any, feral pythons are found in urban areas.


Again appears to be incorrect, the same study http://www.usark.org/uploads/FloridaBurmGenetics.pdf on page 15 has a map of collection points both inside and out side the park. Also Appendix 1 lists that animals sampled with a number of samples either DOR or DOF. You don't get run over by farm equipment unless you are on a farm

I haven't bothered reading and checking the rest, poorly researched rants are a dime a dozen on the internet (and I'm sure we will see this posted again and again)


----------



## killimike (Jan 20, 2012)

Thanks for pointing those out Fuscus! I hadn't looked up the genetic study information, but straight away the idea that no pythons are found in "urban" areas is a strange one, where they are now found has little evidentiary value when establishing where and why they were released. Also, African Rock pythons have established in a park in Miami IIRC. 

I think the article makes some other good points tho, the major one being the silliness of making this a federal law, which completely negates the supposed argument from conservation in the Florida Everglades.


----------



## Red-Ink (Jan 20, 2012)

killimike said:


> I think the article makes some other good points tho, the major one being the silliness of making this a federal law, which completely negates the supposed argument from conservation in the Florida Everglades.



The proposed federal ban has got more to do with two year old girls being eaten by their pet albino burmese, not so much ecological protection.


----------



## killimike (Jan 20, 2012)

Red-Ink said:


> The proposed federal ban has got more to do with two year old girls being eaten by their pet albino burmese, not so much ecological protection.



The two justifications given were the dangerousness of the animals, like you say, and the environmental impact. So both arguments were made, and the environmental argument was heavily emphasized.

Turning exclusively to the dangerousness argument, I don't believe any person has ever been consumed by a big constrictor in the US. I understand the emotional appeal here, but it is in no way sufficient to justify the action taken, without considering any given incident in a larger context.


----------



## Red-Ink (Jan 20, 2012)

killimike said:


> Turning exclusively to the dangerousness argument, I don't believe any person has ever been consumed by a big constrictor in the US. I understand the emotional appeal here, but it is in no way sufficient to justify the action taken, without considering any given incident in a larger context.



Agreed mate, unfortunately that's the angle their using to push for the federal ban...as always - fear mongering.


----------



## benjamind2010 (Jan 20, 2012)

If they're serious about protecting children, then they'd outlaw things like fireplaces, gas ovens, even cars.

How many 2-year-old children are killed in car accidents? Or by their pet dog or their neighbors pet dog?

Maybe the USA should go the whole hog and ban cars and dogs and fireplaces. If not, then they're just a bunch of hypocritical twats.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jan 20, 2012)

benjamind2010 said:


> If they're serious about protecting children, then they'd outlaw things like fireplaces, gas ovens, even cars.
> 
> How many 2-year-old children are killed in car accidents? Or by their pet dog or their neighbors pet dog?
> 
> Maybe the USA should go the whole hog and ban cars and dogs and fireplaces. If not, then they're just a bunch of hypocritical twats.


Wow your crazy mate.


----------



## Pilbarensis (Jan 20, 2012)

They don't have to ban them though, wouldn't it just be better to bring in a licencing system for large constrictors and anacondas like here in Aus? I mean that way they could keep an eye on which snakes are where and when they die, get sold etc. Whilst it may not always work (people will always brake the rules), it would be a better idea then just banning them from importation and exportation.


----------



## SteveNT (Jan 20, 2012)

Did someone mention guns? Maybe a bit more effort in controlling those items would save a lot more Americans than banning the big nasty snakes.

Thanks kr, it was worth a read, your response too f.

I hate beaurocrats but I hate ignorant, fantasy driven animal activists much more. Where can I get a gun?


----------



## benjamind2010 (Jan 20, 2012)

abnrmal91 said:


> Wow your crazy mate.



Actually, not really. I'm looking at the logic, which is really, really, really stupid and makes no sense to me.

I think the government would do a much better job of protecting children by outlawing things like circumcision, but of course, we're never going to see that happen because there is too much money being made off it.

Surely the number of children who have died from complications from this fairly common so-called "harmless" procedure would be far higher than any who have died from being crushed to death by giant boids...oh BTW it isn't harmless, in fact it does serious damage, the likes of which research has proven time and time again.

I still am gobsmacked as to why the government thinks it has any right to dictate to me what medicines I'm allowed to introduce into my body. I guess this is another facet of the stone that is labeled "Control Freak"...


----------



## longqi (Jan 20, 2012)

As a breeder from US pointed out in another forum it is great news for small breeders
Bob Clark and other large breeders sell retics and burmese in US for $20/50 dollars unless they are good morphs which fetch higher prices
Now they can no longer send interstate or import wc
So small local breeders are the only ones who can supply each state
This will increase the price for them quite substantially
Bob etc will simply have to export more to Europe etc

Totally agree that this law does nothing to protect the environment in Florida
But banning the imports is a great thing in my opinion


----------



## Red-Ink (Jan 20, 2012)

SteveNT said:


> Did someone mention guns? Maybe a bit more effort in controlling those items would save a lot more Americans than banning the big nasty snakes.
> 
> Thanks kr, it was worth a read, your response too f.
> 
> I hate beaurocrats but I hate ignorant, fantasy driven animal activists much more. Where can I get a gun?



Now wait a darn tootin minute there mista....

They have the constitutional right to bear arms... It does not say anywhere that they have the right to bear burmese pythons. If you take away their guns however are they goin to protect the children from the big bad nasty snakes.


----------



## abnrmal91 (Jan 20, 2012)

Ben before you ban all modern things in fear that they may kill a child. Consider fixing world hunger first


----------



## benjamind2010 (Jan 20, 2012)

abnrmal91 said:


> Ben before you ban all modern things in fear that they may kill a child. Consider fixing world hunger first



+1,000,000,000

I agree wholeheartedly with that sentiment. We really need to eliminate world hunger, the only question is, how do we really do it without applying the solution inconsistently?

For what it's worth, I have no interest in banning any modern things, even very dangerous things (like cars, machinery, etc, if used inappropriately), in fact under my rule most things would be 100% legal - even high powered firearms would be legal. The only things that would be illegal would be those things that are deliberately designed to harm children/people, things like circumcision which is done to an infant without any regard to their most basic human rights - which is the right to one's own bodily integrity. If you understand the logic you can easily agree to banning it because it is a deliberate act of violence either by parents or by doctors, I don't care who it is - it should be illegal and punishable by lengthy prison terms. Unfortunately for countless children, it is still perfectly legal for someone to mutilate them permanently.

Any change for the better is a good one, but outlawing things like cannabis isn't a change for the better, in fact it's no different to alcohol prohibition which has fueled massive and rampant criminal gang activity. Anyone should read up on the 1920s in the USA, the place was a craphole because of the crime brought about by prohibitionists and their fascist propaganda. Once they repealed the laws, the USA returned to a time of sanity once the gangs and their overlords were wiped out. Why they can't do the same thing with heroin and cannabis (which are in fact even less harmful than alcohol) is beyond my comprehension.


----------



## kawasakirider (Jan 20, 2012)

abnrmal91 said:


> Ben before you ban all modern things in fear that they may kill a child. Consider fixing world hunger first



You're taking his point too literally. He is saying if you ban them, you may as well ban anything else which has the potential to cause harm. 

[video=youtube;7dE4UgY7lgI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dE4UgY7lgI[/video]


I fail to see the point of restricting those snakes over there now, a big bredli could constrict a 2 year old if it had the opportunity. They've established themselves in certain areas and it seems unlikely that they would survive elsewhere. It's the old case of too little, too late.



benjamind2010 said:


> only things that would be illegal would be those things that are deliberately designed to harm children/people, things like circumcision which is done to an infant without any regard to their most basic human rights - which is the right to one's own bodily integrity. If you understand the logic you can easily agree to banning it because it is a deliberate act of violence either by parents or by doctors, I don't care who it is - it should be illegal and punishable by lengthy prison terms. Unfortunately for countless children, it is still perfectly legal for someone to mutilate them permanently.
> .




Settle pettle, I'm glad I don't have an ant eater, so are the women  hahaha. That video I posted talks about everything you have, I agree with it. Not a bad vid.


----------



## Mayo (Jan 20, 2012)

You seem to have something against circumcision there Ben, I was circumcised as a child and have had no issues. No quite a few that had to have it done as an adult for various reasons that would strongly disagree with you.

As for the point of this thread there are many sides to an arguement and many stretch the truth a little to get there point across so take everything you read with a grain of salt. Was a good read though thanks for sharing


----------



## kawasakirider (Jan 20, 2012)

Mayo said:


> As for the point of this thread there are many sides to an arguement and many stretch the truth a little to get there point across so take everything you read with a grain of salt. Was a good read though thanks for sharing



Never let the truth get in the way of a good yarn


----------



## benjamind2010 (Jan 20, 2012)

Mayo said:


> You seem to have something against circumcision there Ben, I was circumcised as a child and have had no issues. No quite a few that had to have it done as an adult for various reasons that would strongly disagree with you.
> 
> As for the point of this thread there are many sides to an arguement and many stretch the truth a little to get there point across so take everything you read with a grain of salt. Was a good read though thanks for sharing



Of course, but just because some people have dealt with it fine, some people haven't. Abolishing it will not affect the former, but will most certainly help out the latter. It is a form of abuse, that is permanently modifying someone else's body against their consent without medical necessity. It is nothing more than a 200+ year old barbaric practice than needs to be drawn to a close.


----------



## whyme (Jan 21, 2012)

I had problems with circumcision at birth. They circumcised me and I could'nt walk for a year:lol::lol:


----------

