S
Slateman
Guest
I would be one of them
it finally happened!
- Thread starter Python2011
- Start date
Help Support Aussie Pythons & Snakes Forum:
- Status
saikrett
Well-Known Member
hear hear
just curious though, how much would a baby burmese go for over there?
just curious though, how much would a baby burmese go for over there?
hey_im_sam
Well-Known Member
sh*t all lol, at least thats what they are in america 
saikrett
Well-Known Member
really?
i thought a big snake like that would go for quite a bit.
I guess that our natives must get alot over there
i thought a big snake like that would go for quite a bit.
I guess that our natives must get alot over there
hey_im_sam
Well-Known Member
they are really common as a first snake, mainly due to their price... their size though means they really shouldn't be. a lot of people get sucked into buying them by seeing them as a baby in the shop and a good salesperson working there. one problem of not needing a licence :?
saikrett
Well-Known Member
there emense size would be the think that would make me buy one
(if it was legal or if i was american)
(if it was legal or if i was american)
hey_im_sam
Well-Known Member
yep nic, you can get adults for next to nothing as well, due to the fact that there are an abundance of large snakes, now unwanted, and not too many people are looking to buy something that big!
big burms are awesome, as long as they're placid. i wouldn't want to deal with an agressive snake that looks at me like i'm food... you wouldn't have to smell like rat either
big burms are awesome, as long as they're placid. i wouldn't want to deal with an agressive snake that looks at me like i'm food... you wouldn't have to smell like rat either
hey_im_sam
Well-Known Member
oh and just to let you know, (sorry to jump in here fran ) there were actually about 60 eggs laid. only 20 would fit in the incubator, the rest are being incubated maternally heh, congrats again mate!
) there were actually about 60 eggs laid. only 20 would fit in the incubator, the rest are being incubated maternally heh, congrats again mate!
almaron
Well-Known Member
Yes, they are cheap here. Shopping around, you can get babies for about $100US, and albinos for around $150. It's true that it can be cheaper to get adults. Most areas have local pet "adoption" groups, and adult burmese are easy to come by. I have yet to see an aggressive burmese, adult or otherwise. In my opinion, that makes them more dangerous, because it's way to easy to start trusting them too much. Burmese are responsible for more deaths than any other snake here (although still very rare). I think the reason is because they are normally so docile, and so you aren't expecting it when they do nail you.
As far as licencing them, I still say boo on that. I would point out that dogs cause far more deaths and injuries than snakes, and I don't hear anyone making a case for restricting dog ownership. I have a quite large German Shepard that has the potential to be far more dangerous to anyone, kids or adults, than any non-venomous snake I can think of. With that said, I'll have you know that my dog is quite a big baby, and calm as a hindu cow for the most part. But just ask the cable guy, and he'll tell you that he would rather deal with a full grown reticulated python than my dog any day.
As far as licencing them, I still say boo on that. I would point out that dogs cause far more deaths and injuries than snakes, and I don't hear anyone making a case for restricting dog ownership. I have a quite large German Shepard that has the potential to be far more dangerous to anyone, kids or adults, than any non-venomous snake I can think of. With that said, I'll have you know that my dog is quite a big baby, and calm as a hindu cow for the most part. But just ask the cable guy, and he'll tell you that he would rather deal with a full grown reticulated python than my dog any day.
Licensing
Hey Almaron.
I have to say I don't agree with you re licensing. JMHO, of course! :wink:
The licensing situation here in New South Wales is a pretty strict one with rigid guidelines and regulations. This may seem onerous at first, but it results in greatly reduced impulse buying and people with licenses tend to care for their animals. We don't have the excess dumped, "lost interest in snakes anymore" problem that you seem to in the US.
On the other hand, cats and dogs, which are NOT licensed, are regularly dumped, particularly after Christmas, when the new owners find that the "aw shucks! Ain't he cute" phenomenon wears off and they realise that keeping pets involves responsibility.
The main reason for the licensing of snakes, as far as I know, is to attempt to maintain the purity of the breeds and care for our native wildlife.
Check out http://www.npws.nsw.gov.au/index.html and you'll get an idea of what they're all about.
The licensing isn't so much for the protection of the keeper (although I guess the licensing conditions for venemous species DOES result in the protection of the keeper) as to putting the interest of our wildlife first.
Anyway, not trying to start a flame war here! :lol: Just offering a different point of view. :wink:
Hey Almaron.
I have to say I don't agree with you re licensing. JMHO, of course! :wink:
The licensing situation here in New South Wales is a pretty strict one with rigid guidelines and regulations. This may seem onerous at first, but it results in greatly reduced impulse buying and people with licenses tend to care for their animals. We don't have the excess dumped, "lost interest in snakes anymore" problem that you seem to in the US.
On the other hand, cats and dogs, which are NOT licensed, are regularly dumped, particularly after Christmas, when the new owners find that the "aw shucks! Ain't he cute" phenomenon wears off and they realise that keeping pets involves responsibility.
The main reason for the licensing of snakes, as far as I know, is to attempt to maintain the purity of the breeds and care for our native wildlife.
Check out http://www.npws.nsw.gov.au/index.html and you'll get an idea of what they're all about.
The licensing isn't so much for the protection of the keeper (although I guess the licensing conditions for venemous species DOES result in the protection of the keeper) as to putting the interest of our wildlife first.
Anyway, not trying to start a flame war here! :lol: Just offering a different point of view. :wink:
almaron
Well-Known Member
In my experience, government imposed "fixes" seldom help solve the problem, and/or usually create whole new problems that they are more than happy to try to "fix" with more regulations. I really don't like the idea of someone telling me what I can or can't own. What you seem to be arguing is that because some people aren't responsible, everyone should suffer. That don't sit well with me. I feel the same way about almost all restrictions on personal freedoms. Drug laws. Gun laws.
I guess what I'm getting at is that shouldn't it be enough to make a law that says "You must take care of pets you choose to own." and "You can't dump your pets into the wild." Instead, they make laws to try to enforce the laws that people are already breaking. To me, it's like saying because some people drive when they've had too much to drink, nobody should be allowed to drink. Or because some people murder other people with guns, we should ban guns. I mean, isn't it stupid to think that someone who would commit murder is going to pay any head to a law that says they can't own a gun? The only people that suffer, are those that obey laws in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, the same goes for licensing pet ownership. Only those that are responsible to begin with will go through the hassle of obtaining a licence. Maybe you're right that it would cut down on impulse buying of animals, but as far as I'm concerned, someone elses lack of responsibility is not a good enough justification for limiting my freedom.
Ok, I'm done ranting for the time being.
I guess what I'm getting at is that shouldn't it be enough to make a law that says "You must take care of pets you choose to own." and "You can't dump your pets into the wild." Instead, they make laws to try to enforce the laws that people are already breaking. To me, it's like saying because some people drive when they've had too much to drink, nobody should be allowed to drink. Or because some people murder other people with guns, we should ban guns. I mean, isn't it stupid to think that someone who would commit murder is going to pay any head to a law that says they can't own a gun? The only people that suffer, are those that obey laws in the first place.
As far as I'm concerned, the same goes for licensing pet ownership. Only those that are responsible to begin with will go through the hassle of obtaining a licence. Maybe you're right that it would cut down on impulse buying of animals, but as far as I'm concerned, someone elses lack of responsibility is not a good enough justification for limiting my freedom.
Ok, I'm done ranting for the time being.
Again, just my personal opinion, but I have to side against you on all counts Almaron. Laws to keep exotics and exotic diseases out makes good sense to me. Laws against wild capture of our beautiful native herps makes good sense to me too.
Laws against owning guns makes even better sense to me. Unless you live on a big property, people just don't need 'em and no good can come from them.
Just my opinion!!
Laws against owning guns makes even better sense to me. Unless you live on a big property, people just don't need 'em and no good can come from them.
Just my opinion!!
hey_im_sam
Well-Known Member
Heh, hate to say it, but i'm against you here too Almaron.
I know that other people's opinions rarely sway your own, especially if it's something you feel strongly about, but there's one thing I have to say here.
The point I am going to mention here is only one, of many, yet I'll hold myself to this one because I believe that were it the only reason, it would be enough.
where you said
I can see your point, from one point of view. Mine however, takes into account that those irresponsible people are the cause of death and misery to countless animals that don't deserve it.
If I have to pay an extra few dollars a year, and write what animals I keep on a piece of paper, then I am more than willing to "limit my freedom" if it means saving some of those animals from ending up with the irresponsible element in society. Good enough justification for me.
I know that other people's opinions rarely sway your own, especially if it's something you feel strongly about, but there's one thing I have to say here.
The point I am going to mention here is only one, of many, yet I'll hold myself to this one because I believe that were it the only reason, it would be enough.
where you said
I can see your point, from one point of view. Mine however, takes into account that those irresponsible people are the cause of death and misery to countless animals that don't deserve it.
If I have to pay an extra few dollars a year, and write what animals I keep on a piece of paper, then I am more than willing to "limit my freedom" if it means saving some of those animals from ending up with the irresponsible element in society. Good enough justification for me.
Hawkeye
Well-Known Member
Almaron,
It's just a different cultural aspect that you are seeing. Americans believe in fairly minimal government involvement in most things wereas in Australia/New Zealand and the UK, there is already a large government involvement with things like health and social welfare and therefore we are a little more accepting of government edicts.
There are advantages to both sides and it is annoying that we cannot purchase exotics here but then again its nice that we have a good selection of natives that are thriving in Australia and introduced animals are not competing with them (look at the problem we have with rabbits and foxes in Australia and Opossums in New Zealand).
Horses for courses.
Cheers Hawkeye :wink:
It's just a different cultural aspect that you are seeing. Americans believe in fairly minimal government involvement in most things wereas in Australia/New Zealand and the UK, there is already a large government involvement with things like health and social welfare and therefore we are a little more accepting of government edicts.
There are advantages to both sides and it is annoying that we cannot purchase exotics here but then again its nice that we have a good selection of natives that are thriving in Australia and introduced animals are not competing with them (look at the problem we have with rabbits and foxes in Australia and Opossums in New Zealand).
Horses for courses.
Cheers Hawkeye :wink:
almaron
Well-Known Member
Ok, I didn't mean to start the exotics argument again. Really I was only trying to argue the licensing thing. We've argued the exotics topic before, and even though I would debate the merits of the ban on exotics (which we have to great lengths before ), it is one thing to make a law that says you can't own exotics. My biggest problem is when the government realizes that the first law is being broken (which every law is at some point), and they start making new laws to try to "fix" the fact that people are breaking the original law. It would be like saying the some people are still owning exotics, so now nobody can own any snakes. Well, hello! Why would someone who is already breaking the first law, obey the second, or third, or so on. That's the one extreme, but I think everything else is just various degrees of the same logic.
Not to change the subject (and it is related), but as far as guns go, I strongly disagree Nicole. I think all you have to do is look at the crime rate before and after sweeping gun bans to prove you are wrong. I've seen the numbers for Canada, the UK, and yes even good old Australia. All of their crime rates skyrocketed after major gun bans took effect. As someone who carries a handgun on a daily basis, I would say that you are mistaken about them not having any usefulness. My gun has saved my life, the lives of my family, and my property more than once. I've have yet to have to pull the trigger in those circumstances, as the mere fact that I had it in my hand was enough to solve the threat. Maybe it's a nice Disneyland fairy tale idea that the whole world is free of guns, and everyone gets along. Yet one only needs to look back through human history to see that the reality is far different. In the lack of some equalizing force (like a gun), the strong dominate the weak. Often in quite brutal ways. I would not like to be young, old, sick, weak, or a woman in such a society.
To sum it up, when my wife goes to the grocery store after dark, I worry. I worry much less knowing that even some 300 pound gorilla of a thug would have a very hard time dealing with her if he tried to infringe on her personal freedoms. She is armed. She is competent. She is safer. Without her gun, she is a victim waiting to happen.
), it is one thing to make a law that says you can't own exotics. My biggest problem is when the government realizes that the first law is being broken (which every law is at some point), and they start making new laws to try to "fix" the fact that people are breaking the original law. It would be like saying the some people are still owning exotics, so now nobody can own any snakes. Well, hello! Why would someone who is already breaking the first law, obey the second, or third, or so on. That's the one extreme, but I think everything else is just various degrees of the same logic. Not to change the subject (and it is related), but as far as guns go, I strongly disagree Nicole. I think all you have to do is look at the crime rate before and after sweeping gun bans to prove you are wrong. I've seen the numbers for Canada, the UK, and yes even good old Australia. All of their crime rates skyrocketed after major gun bans took effect. As someone who carries a handgun on a daily basis, I would say that you are mistaken about them not having any usefulness. My gun has saved my life, the lives of my family, and my property more than once. I've have yet to have to pull the trigger in those circumstances, as the mere fact that I had it in my hand was enough to solve the threat. Maybe it's a nice Disneyland fairy tale idea that the whole world is free of guns, and everyone gets along. Yet one only needs to look back through human history to see that the reality is far different. In the lack of some equalizing force (like a gun), the strong dominate the weak. Often in quite brutal ways. I would not like to be young, old, sick, weak, or a woman in such a society.
To sum it up, when my wife goes to the grocery store after dark, I worry. I worry much less knowing that even some 300 pound gorilla of a thug would have a very hard time dealing with her if he tried to infringe on her personal freedoms. She is armed. She is competent. She is safer. Without her gun, she is a victim waiting to happen.
:-(
Hey guys, I'm sorry if my comments started a flame war! :shock: [Borrows asbestos undies from Hawkeye and hunkers down behind Africa!]
As Hawkeye wisely said, it's probably a different cultural aspect we're seeing here, and we'll probably never persuade each other to the differing point of view.
If we compare the situation between America and here, the laws seem to be working well for us and suit us, and equally, the lack of regulation in America seems to be working for our good mate Almaron et al [pun intended].
Let's agree to disagree, eh? :lol:
Hey guys, I'm sorry if my comments started a flame war! :shock:
[Borrows asbestos undies from Hawkeye and hunkers down behind Africa!]As Hawkeye wisely said, it's probably a different cultural aspect we're seeing here, and we'll probably never persuade each other to the differing point of view.
If we compare the situation between America and here, the laws seem to be working well for us and suit us, and equally, the lack of regulation in America seems to be working for our good mate Almaron et al [pun intended].
Let's agree to disagree, eh? :lol:
Python2011
Not so new Member
hey guuys, thank you for your congratulation. anyway as sam said, I've about 60 eggs, 20 of them I put in the incubator, and I left the other 40 or more to the mother! in italy a burm costs about 130? and 200? for an albino one(? is=to american dollar).
in italy we have a law on dangerous animals, including all dangerous mammals(lions, tigers, ecc), all venomous reptiles(except some rear fanged) all crocodile, all monitors, 3 species of turtles( chelidra serpentina, macroclemmys temmincky and mauremis caspica), green anaconda(eunectes murinus) and the reticulated python. all the other reptiles can be buyed normaly in a pet shop. they need only the CITES paper (Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species).
ciao!
in italy we have a law on dangerous animals, including all dangerous mammals(lions, tigers, ecc), all venomous reptiles(except some rear fanged) all crocodile, all monitors, 3 species of turtles( chelidra serpentina, macroclemmys temmincky and mauremis caspica), green anaconda(eunectes murinus) and the reticulated python. all the other reptiles can be buyed normaly in a pet shop. they need only the CITES paper (Convention on International Trade on Endangered Species).
ciao!
Hey Almaron.
I agree with what David said, perhaps our cultures are just too different on these types of issues, and I doubt we could get consensus on it.
We'll have to agree to STRONGLY disagree.
Nothing or no one could make me carry a handgun.
The laws in Italy are interesting..
Weird how most exotics are ok but no retics or anacondas allowed... obviously laws in place to protect citizens, rather than our laws which mostly protect wildlife. Very interesting. Thanks for posting on this Fran!
I agree with what David said, perhaps our cultures are just too different on these types of issues, and I doubt we could get consensus on it.
We'll have to agree to STRONGLY disagree.
Nothing or no one could make me carry a handgun.
The laws in Italy are interesting..
Weird how most exotics are ok but no retics or anacondas allowed... obviously laws in place to protect citizens, rather than our laws which mostly protect wildlife. Very interesting. Thanks for posting on this Fran!
- Status
Similar threads
