S373 Python Ban-- pls read even if you don't keep snakes!

[Hypancistrus]

Do you all remember the fight this past summer regarding HR 669, the bill that would have put all species on the no-import list and no-interstate trade list unless they were PROVEN safe for the environment?

The pet community beat that bill.

In July, another bill was proposed to the Senate. It is going under the name S373 and was proposed by Senator Nelson of Florida. At first it was a bill to ban Burmese and Reticulated pythons. As a responsible snake keeper, I disagreed with it and thought it the equivalent of a band aid on a gaping head wound. But I could understand where they were coming from and why average non-snake keeping folks saw it as not a bad thing.

Recently, the HSUS and several politicians have added onto this bill. It now includes all 40 species of pythons (including ball pythons, 4' average length, and Children's pythons, 3' average length) along with several species of boa. All of these would be BANNED, 100% forever, if this bill passes as written.

Even if you do NOT keep snakes, please realize that if HSUS gets a bill like this passed, it is only a matter of time before they turn their money, momentum and eyes on other sections of the exotic pet industry, such as bird keeping. You know for a fact that HSUS is gunning for the entire non-traditional pet industry. It's a very slippery slope we are standing on.

Furthermore, it is important for the pet-keeping community as a whole to stand up for our rights in the face of a great many humanist groups that want to do away with our rights to keep animal companions that make us happy.

Please consider calling your senator or sending a letter asking them to reconsider the S373 python ban. It will have a tremendous and reaching impact on thousands of American families if passed as it is written. Try to put yourself in the shoes of a snake owner, even if you don't keep them yourself. Would you want the government to tell you that your pet isn't good enough and is now illegal? Would you want to surrender your innocent pet to be euthanized simply because some of his cousins have caused issues in a very limited section of the country??

Think about it. Here is the info.

Sample:
My name is _____. I oppose S373. Although I support and appreciate efforts to preserve the Everglades, there is NO evidence to show this bill will have any conservation effect on the Everglades. This bill will hurt American families in our state. It would Ban the captive bred trade in 40 species of pythons and destroy thousands of jobs in our state and across the country. Scientists have questioned the USGS report being used to justify this extreme proposal. Science should trump political expediency. Please oppose S373.

Contact: Full Senate EPW Committee
Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), (Sponsor S373)
Phone: 202-224-5274
Fax: 202-228-2183

Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), (Chair EPW)
Phone: 202-224-3553
Fax: 202-224-0454

Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK), (Ranking Member EPW)
Phone: 202-224-4721
Fax: 202-228-0380

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), (Chair Water & Wildlife)
Phone: 202-224-4524
Fax: 202-224-1651

Sen. Mike Crapo (R-ID), (Ranking Member Water & Wildlife)
Phone: 202-224-6142
Fax: 202-228-1375

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
Phone: 202-224-4944
Fax: 202-228-3398

Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
Phone: 202-224-6441
Fax: 202-224-1724

Sen. Max Baucus [D-MT]
Phone: 202-224-2651
Fax: 202-224-9412

Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond [R-MO]
Phone: 202-224-5721

Sen. Thomas Carper [D-DE]
Phone: 202-224-2441
Fax: 202-228-2190

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand [D-NY]
Phone: 202-224-4451
Fax: 202-228-0282

Sen. Amy Klobuchar [D-MN]
Phone: 202-224-3244
fax: 202-228-2186

Sen. Frank Lautenberg [D-NJ]
Phone: 202-224-3224
Fax: 202-228-4054

Sen. Jeff Merkley [D-OR]
Phone: 202-224-3753
Fax: 202-228-3997

Sen. Bernard (Bernie) Sanders [I-VT]
Phone: 202-224-5141
Fax: 202-228-0776

Sen. Arlen Specter [D-PA]
Phone: 202-224-4254
Fax: 202-228-1229

Sen. Tom Udall [D-NM]
Phone: 202-224-6621

Sen. David Vitter [R-LA]
Phone: 202-224-4623
Fax: 202-228-5061

Sen. George Voinovich [R-OH]
Phone: 202-224-3353

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse [D-RI]
Phone: 202-224-2921
Fax: 202-228-6362

If you'd like more info on S373 as a whole, you can google it, or visit the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) website. I'd encourage everyone to do some research prior to contacting their rep, but any help, even so small a thing as an email, will be appreciated by those of us fighting for the lives of our pets.

I will close this with a link to some pics of my pet pythons and boas interacting with and educating the general public.

Community Outreach

If this bill passes as written, my outreach program will cease to exist for the most part. My most impressive and best loved animal ambassadors are for the most part pythons. Please help us defeat this bill!

Thank you!!!

 

[waterfaller1]

I am so sorry, and sure you are a responsible snake keeper....BUT
There is a huge problem with them now in south Fl because of the irresponsible keepers. I'm sure some escaped during storms and what not, but some are simply turned loose when they "get too big" for people to handle.
Then there is the idiot that let his girlfriend's two year old die because they had a quilt covering theirs to keep it in the tank. Come on..a QUILT?
Recently there is talk of a python that gets even bigger, and is even more prolific that is now in the Everglades. I'm sure you know, I am not familiar with the name of it. This kind of irresponsibility is what has brought about this bill. How do you address these problems?

 

[waterfaller1]

New, nastier python enters Everglades fray - Environment - MiamiHerald.com

New invasive python seen near Everglades - UPI.com

 

[Hypancistrus]

I am so sorry, and sure you are a responsible snake keeper....BUT
There is a huge problem with them now in south Fl because of the irresponsible keepers. I'm sure some escaped during storms and what not, but some are simply turned loose when they "get too big" for people to handle.
Then there is the idiot that let his girlfriend's two year old die because they had a quilt covering theirs to keep it in the tank. Come on..a QUILT?
Recently there is talk of a python that gets even bigger, and is even more prolific that is now in the Everglades. I'm sure you know, I am not familiar with the name of it. This kind of irresponsibility is what has brought about this bill. How do you address these problems?

There is currently a permit system in place in Florida for owners of large constrictors (burms, retics, etc). This system is working to an extent, because in order to sell a permitted species, you must ensure as a seller that the buyer has proper credentials and a permit to house them from Florida Fish & Game. The problem with a permit system is that the folks who will GET the permits done on existing snakes are NOT the folks who release their pets into the Everglades. The idiot who housed his snake in a viv with a sheet thrown over it did not have a permit (he had his snake before that law) and was charged with a violation of that. It is also not really fair to pin the actions of a few idiots on the trade and hobby as a whole. I know there are examples of "bad eggs" in the bird hobby, too. Would it be right for all of us to have to give up our Quaker parrots because a few people released their in California and now they are established? What if I live in Maine, where the temps would certainly kill them if they escaped or were released? Better yet, what if they decide that because Quakers have become established in California, ALL parrot species should be banned across the country, from shore to shore?? That is what this law is-- a total ban on ALL species, even those who have NEVER been proven invasive nor implicated in any human fatalities.

My point is that a blanket ban generally will NOT be effective, because irresponsible people inclined towards criminal behavior won't care. It will encourage a black market trade in these animals that will 1) tie up law enforcement and customs officials, and 2) lead to abuse and neglect of illegally imported animals. In addition, people with animals will probably keep them because they cannot abide seeing them destroyed, thus creating more law breakers. Worse, some people might choose to release their pets rather than see them killed, hoping that they can survive on their own.

If you do not believe this, try a google search on the red earred slider turtle ban in Florida. They banned keeping this turtle and people were supposed to have their pets destroyed if they could not keep them. Rescues are no longer allowed to take them, either. Since the ban went into effect MORE RES have been released than previous years. This blanket ban could create a worse problem than the one this law allegedly tries to fix.

My suggestion for fixing the current problem involve personal responsibility. People need to be properly licensed to keep large constrictors such as burms and retics in the same way you are licensed to keep a gun. England has a great system for this-- very well thought out and organized. People who want to keep ball pythons and other small, harmless animals should not have to jump through hoops, especially in northern states where temps will prohibit these animals from establishing themselves. If you violate the laws, you should be punished and no longer allowed to own animals like this.

As far as children being hurt, apathetic parenting will out. There is no shortage of things idiots will do that will hurt their children. If you are going to ban all things that might potentially hurt children (incidentally, only 12 people have been killed by a pet snake since 1990) then you need to ban dirt bikes, home swing sets, horses, all dog breeds and air soft guns too. You cannot legislate a solution to poor parenting-- all you can do is be on the look out for situations in which it is occurring and try to get the kids help once it is found out. There is no 100% in that regard.

A blanket ban will not solve the problems you list, and may indeed exacerbate some of them.

Edit: One additional thought...

The burmese python issues has so far been isolated into extreme Southern Florida. Yes, they are there and they are having an impact by decimating some native wildlife populations.

That being said, why did the HSUS choose burms to go after? If they truly care about the environmental impact of a given species and its ability to spread across wide varieties of terrain and climates, there is really only one candidate.

The domestic cat.

Feral populations exist in EVERY state and municipality and are responsible for decimating local wildlife and livestock, in addition to carrying and spreading rabies.

So why isn't the HSUS gunning for them? Why aren't the political powers that be concerned?

I have an answer for that, but I'll let it be for now.

 

[Quiverful]

I agree with you and I hope this ban fails and fails big!

 

[Hypancistrus]

I agree with you and I hope this ban fails and fails big!

If you agree, please take a moment to email your representative (if one is listed from your state). It only takes a few seconds and numbers help.

 

[Birdlover]

Thanks for bringing this up, I had no idea. It is frustrating the "solutions" they come up with for everything (pets, guns, etc) the list could go on and on. Their laws rarely have the impact they want to achieve, and it the responsible people that seem to end up paying for it

 

[Hypancistrus]

Their laws rarely have the impact they want to achieve, and it the responsible people that seem to end up paying for it

Truly. I 100% support permitting systems so long as they are well designed and run. I just don't see how this will help any aspect of this issue in the long run. It's a reflexive gut reaction, fostered and pushed by an agenda-driven animal rights group.

I do enjoy a chance to argue my case with people who aren't as into snakes as I am. It helps for when I make my daily calls to the people on the call list.

 

[Archiesmom]

I can agree with the licensing and permitting situation. The extremity of this bill, including no ball pythons, seems a bit invasive to the american family lives, however I can see the sense in perhaps putting heavier restrictions on just who can have these more exotic snakes.
I just want to let you know that here in Minnesota, someone had some exotic snakes at a pet store. I was 15 years old, and had NO credentials whatsoever, and told the lady I had no ideas about snakekeeping but that I wanted a pet snake. This woman sold me an ANACONDA and GREEN BURMESE without even asking how I planned to take care of them. I didn't even know their species, she didn't even tell me, and it wasn't until I had done some research that I found out. Needless to say I contacted some specialists as soon as I found out that I hadn't come home with the average corn snake or ball python because I knew in the years down the road I would not be able to provide adequate housing or care for either of these snakes. As far as I know, they are both still in a snake sanctuary, and I had to pay close to $500 to ship them there. So while I agree with you to some point as you are a responsible snake owner, something does need to be done about the irresponsible snake owners/sellers/breeders out there

 

[waterfaller1]

I am not for the bill. I am not for any bill that takes away the rights of the responsible keepers, because of the ones who are not. I like the answers you gave. It can't be a one way street. There needs to be a workable solution. I am aware also of populations of quakers, they not only exist in CA, but also in NY and I have seen them while living near Clearwater in a colony nest over 100 strong. But also, if the shoe were on our foot, would we as responsible parrot keepers feel different? What if the non-native parrot species living wild in the U.S. started to have an impact so bad on our native birds, that we did not see them anymore? No sparrows, no cardinals, no robins or blue jays......
Just parrots, where parrots do not belong. Would we feel different?

 

[Hypancistrus]

I just want to let you know that here in Minnesota, someone had some exotic snakes at a pet store. I was 15 years old, and had NO credentials whatsoever, and told the lady I had no ideas about snakekeeping but that I wanted a pet snake. This woman sold me an ANACONDA and GREEN BURMESE without even asking how I planned to take care of them.

Yes, and I think this is where a well designed permit system shines.

Just like a gun shop having to do background checks, I think there would be a lot less irresponsible sales going on if people could lose their business if they sold to a non-permitted person. I also believe that animals such as burms should NOT be available at pet stores. The vast majority of responsible snake owners agree as well! Something like a burm requires care so far outside the realms of a "normal" pet that it should only be available from very specific breeders, and then only to homes that are CLEARLY prepared for it. I have thought about having a burm in the future for my educational outreach program, but that's as far as it has gotten. The task of housing and caring for one is too daunting at the moment. If I do decide to get one, and it's still legal to do so, I'd likely take in a rescue. Lord knows there's enough to go around.

For the record, Tara and I are 100% in support of permit systems for many species, and especially those who can potentially be dangerous. You will find no argument from us over well designed permit systems.

 

[Hypancistrus]

Just parrots, where parrots do not belong. Would we feel different?

I guess I am selfish to an extent. Or it could just be that I believe supremely in personal responsibility and NOT in government control and regulation. I mostly don't think government regulation solves problems. It might push them under the rug, but for the most part, it just creates situations in which new problems are generated.

For example, in Maryland it is almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to get a hand gun due to a poorly designed permit system with too many hoops and whistles. Yet criminals can still procure hand guns VERY easily, and they murder innocent civilians with them every day. The permitting process did nothing to fix that.

As far as workable solutions, USARK had sat down with Senator Nelson earlier this year to attempt to work out a compromise. They had gotten his word that he would include only wording about the three python species that have been proven invasive, and that this would ban the import of this species, but not the interstate trade of it. There was talk then of restructuring the permit system in Florida to account for snakes purchased prior to the systems initiation (with things like amnesty days). Somehow these discussions have disintegrated and now Senator Nelson and others have ramped this back up to an all out ban, probably due to the urging of the HSUS.

The Humane Society of the United States Urges End to Python Trade | The Humane Society of the United States

What the HSUS says and does is so clearly false, it's laughable. They are concerned about people killed by snakes, but again, they say nothing about horses, cattle, or dogs, all of whom kill many more people in a YEAR than snakes have killed in the past 20.

 

[ferdinand]

I guess I am selfish to an extent. Or it could just be that I believe supremely in personal responsibility and NOT in government control and regulation. I mostly don't think government regulation solves problems. It might push them under the rug, but for the most part, it just creates situations in which new problems are generated.

For example, in Maryland it is almost impossible for a law abiding citizen to get a hand gun due to a poorly designed permit system with too many hoops and whistles. Yet criminals can still procure hand guns VERY easily, and they murder innocent civilians with them every day. The permitting process did nothing to fix that.

As far as workable solutions, USARK had sat down with Senator Nelson earlier this year to attempt to work out a compromise. They had gotten his word that he would include only wording about the three python species that have been proven invasive, and that this would ban the import of this species, but not the interstate trade of it. There was talk then of restructuring the permit system in Florida to account for snakes purchased prior to the systems initiation (with things like amnesty days). Somehow these discussions have disintegrated and now Senator Nelson and others have ramped this back up to an all out ban, probably due to the urging of the HSUS.

The Humane Society of the United States Urges End to Python Trade | The Humane Society of the United States

What the HSUS says and does is so clearly false, it's laughable. They are concerned about people killed by snakes, but again, they say nothing about horses, cattle, or dogs, all of whom kill many more people in a YEAR than snakes have killed in the past 20.

I'm trying to be sympathetic to your cause, but your are being a bit simplistic and over-reaching in your argument about "too many hoops and whistles" to get guns yet criminals get guns and kill etc....I don't know about you, but I am glad that there is some time to make sure the person buying the gun is responsible enough to own one and I have nothing against background checks..and your first point has nothing to do with the second point of criminals getting guns easily (surely you are not saying if it was easier to get guns the criminals would have a harder time getting them)...and your point about the humane society not caring about dogs killing people...and using livestock (not anything like having a pet) as an argument against the Humane Society lessens your good and valid points. Don't try to demonize who you feel is the enemy...just state your arguments and facts and you would come off better for your cause....

 

[Quiverful]

I'm trying to be sympathetic to your cause, but your are being a bit simplistic and over-reaching in your argument about "too many hoops and whistles" to get guns yet criminals get guns and kill etc....I don't know about you, but I am glad that there is some time to make sure the person buying the gun is responsible enough to own one and I have nothing against background checks..and your first point has nothing to do with the second point of criminals getting guns easily (surely you are not saying if it was easier to get guns the criminals would have a harder time getting them)...and your point about the humane society not caring about dogs killing people...and using livestock (not anything like having a pet) as an argument against the Humane Society lessens your good and valid points. Don't try to demonize who you feel is the enemy...just state your arguments and facts and you would come off better for your cause....

I don't think he's trying to say gun regulations shouldn't be in place. I think he's just making the point that tons of restrictive laws do not keep guns out of criminals' hands....therefore, making all kinds of very restrictive laws about snake ownership isn't going to stop the law breakers from getting them. There needs to be reasonable restrictions/permitting procedures...that allow honest people to own the snakes and that weed out the "bad" people.

 

[Sharpie]

The only part of the original post I disagree with is that HSUS is gunning for the entire non-traditional pet arena. Their long term goals are just like PETA's- to ban ALL pet keeping (or 'enslavement' as they view it) of all species, right up to and including the domestic dog and cat. They're gunning for everyone, long term, it's just that the can only 'get away with' non traditional pets at the moment as so many people fear them or know next to nothing about them.

I think any bill that outright bans any species is foolish to the extreme. I believe in reasonable controls, but outright bans don't fall under that heading.

 

[ferdinand]

I don't think he's trying to say gun regulations shouldn't be in place. I think he's just making the point that tons of restrictive laws do not keep guns out of criminals' hands....therefore, making all kinds of very restrictive laws about snake ownership isn't going to stop the law breakers from getting them. There needs to be reasonable restrictions/permitting procedures...that allow honest people to own the snakes and that weed out the "bad" people.

I agree with your point about reasonable regulations, I probably disagree with you about what those reasonable regulations are when it comes to guns - as it is now I don't see having regulations in place to prevent felons or those who are emotionally unstable or to have background checks or to prevent the sale of assault rifles as bad or restrictive, but that is just me...I would think a policy like you described getting snakes should be in place re: guns..I don't feel that is restrictive at all. I think this all boils down to perspective...if you haven't seen the absolute destruction caused to innocent people's lives by easily obtained guns, you probably think regulations are restrictive...if you have, your perspective will be quite different. If the OP had just stated his argument without trying to scapegoat gun regulations or the Humane Society....I know I would have been more sympathetic to the cause.

Tell us how you intend to keep babies and pets and native wildlife safe instead of demonizing those who are also trying to keep babies and pets and native wildlife safe.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but I don't need the "then they will come after you" threat played either.

..and for crying out loud using livestock like cows and horses that people need to be around for their livelihood in an argument regarding exotic pythons...do you want the humane society to go after the horses and cows that the farmers and and ranchers need...really, seriously? Beware the argument that relies on a scapegoat/demon.

 

[Quiverful]

I agree with your point about reasonable regulations, I probably disagree with you about what those reasonable regulations are when it comes to guns - as it is now I don't see having regulations in place to prevent felons or those who are emotionally unstable or to have background checks or to prevent the sale of assault rifles as bad or restrictive, but that is just me...I would think a policy like you described getting snakes should be in place re: guns..I don't feel that is restrictive at all. I think this all boils down to perspective...if you haven't seen the absolute destruction caused to innocent people's lives by easily obtained guns, you probably think regulations are restrictive...if you have, your perspective will be quite different. If the OP had just stated his argument without trying to scapegoat gun regulations or the Humane Society....I know I would have been more sympathetic to the cause.

Tell us how you intend to keep babies and pets and native wildlife safe instead of demonizing those who are also trying to keep babies and pets and native wildlife safe.

Maybe I'm just in a bad mood, but I don't need the "then they will come after you" threat played either.

..and for crying out loud using livestock like cows and horses that people need to be around for their livelihood in an argument regarding exotic pythons...do you want the humane society to go after the farmers and ranchers..really, seriously? Beware the argument that relies on a scapegoat/demon.

I have seen the destruction guns can do and I still have the same opinion, but this thread isn't about guns so I don't want to continue down that line


However, I do think we need to be very careful how much power we allow the government to have over us...ie, the subject of pet ownership laws and bans like the OP talked about. There is definitely truth to the statement that if these "smaller" bans get passed, it makes it easier for "them" to push through more sweeping laws. We, as citizens, must always be vigilant as to what our legislators are doing. Large and powerful organizations like HSUS and PETA have made clear that they have a more radical idea of what our country should be like in regards to pet ownership. I think most of us here would disagree with that idea so we should keep a very close eye on what these organizations are trying to lobby. I don't think it's using scare tactics or creating an enemy..it's being realistic and knowing what these groups wish to do and then fighting them on it.

 

[Hypancistrus]

Yes, exactly my point. (I am a "she" by the way)

 

[Hypancistrus]

I had a very lengthy response to this typed out. It was erased accidentally and I am too tired to retype it-- oops.

I'll touch on a few points before bed.

First of all, the gun example was a parrallel reference. And yes, I do have experience with how gun crimes can tear up a person or a whole community. Two of my friends were killed in the VT massacre. I don't blame the gun-- I blame the SOB that wielded it.

It is not a threat on my part that bird owners will be next. In fact, I truly hope that if this ban DOES pass, that it stops here and the HSUS and other AR groups are content with their win. I hope that no other group ever has to feel like they are battling for the lives of the pets they hold dear.

I do think there is a reason why HSUS and the .gov are going after snake owners in this clearly ridiculous manner (i.e. by targeting species that are of no harm to anyone) and that is because we reptile keepers are still the "fringe" of the pet owning community. It is not hard for non pet owners to empathize with someone who loves a dog or cat, or even a fluffy bunny or bird to an extent. But someone who loves a 15' python is a little too weird for most people. Humans by nature are not inclined to defend what they don't understand. There is a reason why no group has tried to pick up where they left off with HR 669. It targeted too many mainstream pets and their owners. The pet industry was easily able to defeat it because sheer numbers were on their side. There's a lot fewer of us reptile people out there, and we are much less organized and poorly funded compared to HSUS.

If we are being 100% honest with ourselves, then we know exactly why this particular issue is being fought right now. It's because of fear. A little girl died because the man who was supposed to be responsible for her wasn't, and it's tragic and sad and awful. We are reacting out of FEAR without stopping to consider science, economics, or the rights of a small group of American citizens to find happiness in their own way, on their own accord. This law, as written, will serve only to economically ruin people whose entire net financial worth IS wrapped up in breeding and raising pythons, cause the deaths of a lot of perfectly healthy and nice pet pythons of a variety of species, and still won't have an impact on an issue that is already out of control in the Everglades. The barn door is open... the horses are already out, and we're arguing over whether to close the door... and not just one door, but 40. It's idiotic.

In any case, I enjoy responding to points offered by people who don't agree, but morning will come far too soon and I've got a PA herp show to attend. Good evening, all.

 

[Shadera]

I 100% agree with Sharpie. I have been fighting these agendas as they come up, with all the means I have available to me. I am a member of both Pijac and USArk.

People fear snakes. What better way to start this sweep of all pets, since the much broader 669 failed?

What those of us responsible reptile owners want is an amendment to the bill. Something they've agreed to do but so far haven't. Most of the animals that the bill includes as it is now written are completely harmless to man and would pose a negligible threat to the environment. No one is advocating letting the current state of things in Florida go. Something definitely needs to be done. But a blanket ban of an entire genus across the entire US based purely off fears and conjecture is NOT the answer. Why do those of us who are responsible have to suffer, because of the idiocy of a few? I won't even get into what this would do to my family financially, with a huge sum of money tied up in harmless ball pythons that would under this bill be banned from sale across state lines. Put the fear of snakes aside - how would you feel as a responsible bird owner if a ban was proposed on all parrots because of the quakers people have turned loose that are colonizing, and there would be no arguing of any point you could come up with? It is no joke. They will eventually be coming for all of us, no matter what species we have in our households. This is just a foot in the door.