RED ALERT! Vote "No" on FWS Python Rule Change

[StudentoftheReptile]

I know this is a tortoise forum, but for any snake keepers out there, click on the link below and send your letters ASAP! This takes about 5 minutes to do. The snakes affected by this rule change make up approximately one third of the reptile industry, which is in the multi-millions. If the rule change is passed, it could impact thousands of people.

Honestly, any herper, snake keeper or not, should send a letter, because the enemy is not going to stop at giant snakes.

http://united-states-association-of-reptile-keepers.rallycongress.com/5799/no-on-fws-python-rule-bad-american-small-business-families-alread/

 

[Weda737]

Done and done.

 

[ShadowRancher]

Done and link posted to FB for my friends, thanks!

 

[ForestExotics]

I love pythons too.

---

As usual looking for little things to ban so that they can say they passed a law. Look for something else to ban like cigarettes, tobacco, and alcohol.

 

[pochito]

RE: RED ALERT! Vote "No" on FWS Python Rule Change

Done!

 

[zesty_17]

done.

 

[Weda737]

lol I facebooked it too.

 

[Madkins007]

Oh, god, am I going to take flack for this. I am going to be perfectly honest and hope that even though we do not see eye to eye, you can respect my stance.

I love animals and reptiles, but I also am a big supporter of the idea that there are good animals to keep as pets, and others that are 'not good'.

There are several aspects to what I would consider a 'not good' pet-
1- Does collecting it impact the wild populations? Does importing it generally result in a good proportion of the animals dying or becoming very ill?
2- What are the risks to the neighbors and community if it gets loose or is out of control for some reason? What are the risks to the keeper and their family?
3- How much do we understand its needs? Do they generally live a normalish lifespan and grow well the way the average keeper would raise them using commonly available information and materials?
4- What is the impact to the local ecosystem if the animals escape or are abandoned?
5- Does this animal require a disproportionate amount of time, money or energy to keep? (Sort of like the guidelines for gambling- does pursuing this interest negatively affect other aspects of your life? If not, great. If it does, there is possibly something wrong.)
6- Is keeping it a fad (like dalmatians or clown fish after the Disney movies), or part of some sort of ego game (like keeping 'macho' animals even though there are real risks or concerns involved)?

Of course, I also have to admit that I am not a big fan of most current or proposed legislation to try to deal with these issues. Uneven enforcement, loopholes, too much 'big brother', etc. mars most of the efforts.

Again, I know this is not a popular stance, but I would really love to see something like a tiered list of animals. Anyone can own anything on Tier 1 (goldfish, hamsters, etc.) Tier 2 takes simple licenses or registrations (dogs, cats...). Tier 3 would require a local certification that would include proper insurance or bonding and evidence you have a clue (most livestock, many exotic animals that do not pose a real risk to others or the ecosystem). Tier 4 would be a federal certification that would be almost like having a personal zoo- standards of care, contingency plans, insurance, etc. (venomous animals, medium-to-large predators, etc.)

I am well aware of the fact that the above will never come to pass for a million reasons, and if it did, it would be just as badly done as most previous laws.

All that said- I hope you understand why I will not actively support the law discussed, but neither will I actively try to defeat it.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

Oh, god, am I going to take flack for this.

Meh, not as much as you would think, at least not from me!

I do respect everyone's opinion, but I would like to comment on your points below on how they relate to this Rule Change.

There are several aspects to what I would consider a 'not good' pet-
1- Does collecting it impact the wild populations? Does importing it generally result in a good proportion of the animals dying or becoming very ill?

This rule change affects 9 species of constrictor snakes. Six of those species (Burmese python, Reticulated python, both species of African rock python, Green anaconda and yellow anaconda) are fairly well-represented in the captive market, if you take into account their popularity and demand. True, some imports of each species still come in every year, but near the numbers they used to, and if international export/import was banned, it likely wouldn't affect any of them much more then it does right now.

The Indian python, a smaller sister species to the Burmese, is already under CITES protection and has been for some time. Basically, all Indian pythons available in the U.S. are captive-bred stock. So there is no affect on wild populations for that species.

The last two species, the Bolivian and the De Schauensee’s anaconda, are EXTREMELY rare and the latter possibly extinct. If I recall correctly, the type specimen is ruminating in formaldahyde in a dusty musuem basement somewhere. If the makers of this rule change did their homework, they'd realize that no one keeps either of these species in the private sector and trying to regulate them in the pet trade is a waste of effort.

2- What are the risks to the neighbors and community if it gets loose or is out of control for some reason? What are the risks to the keeper and their family?

This is always a tricky question to answer. The common response is to counter with some statistic list of how more people are attacked/injured by large dogs, horses, mules, bees, elephants each year than any reptile. However, one could argue that its just simply a numbers game: more people own dogs and livestock than people own large snakes = therefore, more people get injured by dogs and livestock than by large snakes. That very well may be the case.

Regardless, the long and short of it is that the vast majority of pet owners are responsible, whether we're talking about those who keep pitbulls or boa constrictors. Most people who have bully breeds aren't dog fighters and most people who have 15 ft pythons don't keep them in a glass tank with only a blanket draped across the top.

Yes, if a large python escaped its confines and starts roaming around the community, there is a potential risk to other small pets and small children. But on a realistic note, I'd worry more about sexual predators, loose dogs, drunk drivers and teenagers who just got their licenses LONG before I'd be concerned about the guy next door with a 15 ft python.

3- How much do we understand its needs? Do they generally live a normalish lifespan and grow well the way the average keeper would raise them using commonly available information and materials?

IMHO, that's all relative. I could ask the same questions about sulcata tortoises! I mean, there's tons of information out there about these snakes. Most have a lifespan of about 20-30 years, with the record being about 50. In comparison, many parrots can rival humans in longevity, and well, let's not forget about our friends, the tortoises! IMHO, most snakes are, in many ways, easier to keep then other reptiles. Most certainly, a red-tailed boa is easier to deal with than a green iguana or a large tortoise in terms of daily care and upkeep.

4- What is the impact to the local ecosystem if the animals escape or are abandoned?

Unless it's south Florida, impact would be slim to none. There is no REAL scientific evidence that indicates that any of these 9 snake species can establish themselves anywhere else in the U.S. besides southernmost Florida. All of these species come from sub-tropical and tropical, equatorial climates. South Florida is the only area in the country where they can survive. Note that I said they are surviving there. Contrary to sensational media, they are NOT "thriving" with a stranglehold on Florida; they are barely surviving by a toehold. This is according to the commissioned hunters that actually have gone out and captured some of these snakes.

True, an escaped python may survive and eat like a king during a hot summer in say, Alabama. It may eat a cat or two, and give someone a scare. But even here, we get at least a good month or two of freezing temps at nights. Those tropical snakes would not establish themselves here.
----
I would like to point out that new evidence has arose that indicates these pythons that are currently in the Everglades are not the result of irresponsible snake owners releasing unwanted pets. Hurricane Andrew knocked down a warehouse that contained roughly 900+ freshly imported Burmese pythons, and the invasive snakes in the park today are the descendants of those animals. How do we know? A.) To date, no one has found any morphs or color/pattern mutations in the Everglades such as albinos or labyrinths, etc. B.) Genetic testing shows that all captured Burms are from Vietnam stock. Funny thing, Vietnam closed exports of Burms shortly after Hurricane Andrew.

5- Does this animal require a disproportionate amount of time, money or energy to keep? (Sort of like the guidelines for gambling- does pursuing this interest negatively affect other aspects of your life? If not, great. If it does, there is possibly something wrong.)

Again, a very relative question. For example, I spend much more time taking care of my tortoises than I do my snakes.

Our bible study came across this quote a few months back "You can always determine what you worship by what you spend most of your time doing or thinking about."

6- Is keeping it a fad (like dalmatians or clown fish after the Disney movies), or part of some sort of ego game (like keeping 'macho' animals even though there are real risks or concerns involved)?

For the most part, I don't think so. Of course, like every hobby, there's people who get into it for the wrong reasons. But the majority of people I know who keep large snakes take their hobby very seriously and care for their animals very responsibly, just as dedicated as most of the people on this forum are to their tortoises.

Again, I know this is not a popular stance, but I would really love to see something like a tiered list of animals. Anyone can own anything on Tier 1 (goldfish, hamsters, etc.) Tier 2 takes simple licenses or registrations (dogs, cats...). Tier 3 would require a local certification that would include proper insurance or bonding and evidence you have a clue (most livestock, many exotic animals that do not pose a real risk to others or the ecosystem). Tier 4 would be a federal certification that would be almost like having a personal zoo- standards of care, contingency plans, insurance, etc. (venomous animals, medium-to-large predators, etc.)

Part of me wouldn't necessarily mind such a system, IF if was set-up correctly, and IF it was actually enforced. However, the first major problem I see is knowledge. You would have to train govt officials on every single species of herp alone, which ones are protected, some are subspecies of others, etc. Its very complex. Then, you have to consider that husbandry methods are always changing. Just look at this whole pyramiding issue! Who decides what's the govt "Tier 3" Official Standard care for Sulcata tortoises? And then of course, it all does matter a hill of beans if no one enforces it anyway. So personally, I could go either way on that one.

 

[Big B]

Done. Please take a moment to vote. What pets WILL our government ban next ?
Thank you

 

[Madkins007]

Student- I did not mean to imply that all of those points would be a factor in this particular issue. When it comes to the BIG snakes, I think the main issues are things like whether or not the person keeping it can do it for the life of the animal and do so responsibly (points 3 and 5), and why the heck are they doing it? (Point 6).

While we both know a lot of great keepers that I would trust to do things the right way, we both also know there there are a lot of bozos out there keeping the big snakes out of some sort of macho BS. These guys are unlikely to join clubs like this and are not really a part of any organized or responsible program. THEY are the ones I want to keep big snakes from.

In my perfect, completely imaginary world, these are also the guys that would never get a permit, while most of the good guys we know would be able to get one easily.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

No worries, Mark. I wasn't 100% sure if you were referring to this issue specifically or not, but I just wanted to comment on those questions you raised just for future readers of this thread.

You are absolutely spot-on on those points. I think every person should ask themselves those questions before owning ANY pet, to be honest. And you are also correct; there are definitely bozos out there that quite simply, should not own animals of any kind.

I don't keep large snakes myself, but as you can tell, this is pretty hot topic for me. It obviously is a very complex issue, and the solution is even more tricky to figure out. I would like to believe that the reptile industry would stand up and start policing itself, so there would be no need for outside interference from the govt or anyone else. However, while there is a decent faction that is getting the hint, I fear we're a little too late.

Like I said before, we certainly have a problem: there is a certain percentage of people who own large constrictors that really shouldn't. While we don't know the exact numbers, most of us can agree that this faction is only a small percentage in comparison to the large snake keepers who are responsible and deserve to keep their right to continue doing so. So what's the solution? How do we arrange it where we can feasibly weed out the people who are responsible from the people who aren't? We could instill a permit system, but who dictates it? And who enforces it, and how?

I don't have the answers to those questions, but I do know that outright banning that particular animal(s) from ANYONE to own them is not the answer.

 

[Madkins007]

Your comment "While we don't know the exact numbers, most of us can agree that this faction is only a small percentage in comparison to the large snake keepers who are responsible and deserve to keep their right to continue doing so." is an interesting one.

Just based on my experiences, which are both limited and local, I would suggest that the idiot keepers outnumber the good guys. That point alone may be worth more investigation and may be an important element in how any legislation is designed.

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

Just based on my experiences, which are both limited and local, I would suggest that the idiot keepers outnumber the good guys. That point alone may be worth more investigation and may be an important element in how any legislation is designed.

Of course, everyone's experiences are different. Each of us know different people and travel in different circles. For instance, I've been mostly a snake guy for the past 20 yrs, and according to a poll, approximately 2/3 of the members on this forum had no idea what USARK was. Just to be clear, I'm not saying that to imply I know more important people than anyone else. Its just all relative. For example, before I joined this forum, the only notable 'tortoise expert" I knew was Tyler Stewart. I had know idea who people like Richard Fife were.

But I'm getting a little off track here. My point is (and Mark, you hit on it as well) is that for the most part, the irresponsible bozos and idiots do not get on these types of forums, or join herp clubs or whatever. Yes, an investigation to determine the "sheep" from the "goats" may be a good start, but how? Paperwork, censuses and forms can be ignored or lied on, as such people are likely to shirk the law anyway. So really, the only REAL accurate way, exhaustive and resource-consuming it may be, is to literally go to every household in America, find out who owns how many giant constrictors, and how responsible/securely they house them. For so many obvious reasons, this won't happen. So it basically falls back on a guesstimate that varies tremendously on who you ask, in regards to the percentage of responsible vs irresponsible.

 

[Madkins007]

It would be interesting to try to develop some sort of process or formula for determining the ratio of bozos to good guys in herp keeping. Such a formula might also help in other areas as well. Of course, I have NO IDEA how one would do such a thing. Police and animal rescue records compared to animal sales? (as provided by commercial breeders, broken down by species and location sold to- NOT asking for personal info that would open a whole other can of worms and invade privacy as well.)

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

Police and animal rescue records compared to animal sales? (as provided by commercial breeders, broken down by species and location sold to- NOT asking for personal info that would open a whole other can of worms and invade privacy as well.)

See, it'd be tricky since animals can change hands many times between the initial purchase to their arrival at a rescue.

I'm reminded of the thread a while back regarding commerical breeders of sulcatas and whether or not that species is over-bred in captivity and perhaps too readily available to the masses (I'd have to go dig up the link). I've been trying to stay on topic, but the memory of that discussion has been nagging at my thoughts during this thread and I can't help but see the parallels. We've both said that there are bozos in all aspects of the hobby. We've seen more than a few in the tortoise world, too. Many people get sulcatas just because they watched the TV show "My Name is Earl" and want a cute baby tortoise...or perhaps they just want a big "turtle" to roam around the yard, the same machoism or yearning to establish a status you may see in someone wanting to get a large python or perhaps a large monitor lizard. We really don't know what the percentage is of bozos to responsible keepers in the sulcata community is either.

True, if a sulcata escapes its enclosure and gets loose, it's not going to attack someone's cat or child. However, we all know that sulcatas are fairly adaptable. I do understand the reproductive cycle of a large tortoise species is a lot slower than any snake, but a sulcata on the loose can be destructive and harmful to the environment as much as any other non-native herp.

Of course, I'm not knocking the ownership of sulcata tortoises at all. I mean, I have one myself! But I just offer all of this as food for thought and to try and broaden everyone's perspective on these issues. I know not everyone here is a snake-lover, and that's fine. But just try to imagine if your feelings on this topic would change if the words "Burmese python" and "Boa constrictor" in that rule change were replaced with "Sulcata tortoise" and "Russian tortoise" perhaps under the pretense of some potential risk of invasive species in the environment or whatever.

---

And another thing I'd like to comment on in regards to main topic, at the risk of opening a can of worms (and I actually hinted at this in the USARK poll thread)...

It is not necessarily the U.S. Govt that are against us in this. These are just politicians and lawmakers trying to get votes and hit hot issues. They are just getting their pockets padded by the real threats are organizations like H$U$ and PETA. Without getting terribly long-winded, these groups are not pet-owner friendly. PETA leaders have stated many times that they are for total animal liberation. This means they are against the keeping of animals in captivity for ANY reason, whether it be for food, pet ownership, or the entertainment industry. This includes service animals like seeing-eye dogs, livestock, and even conventional pets like dogs and cats. Yet many pet owners all over the globe continue to donate money toward PETA under the false impression that they mostly do good by rescuing and adopting out unwanted animals. Nothing could be further from the truth. In 2010, PETA rescued over 2300 animals. Guess how many they adopted back out? 44. Guess how many they euthanized, under the disclaimer that "some animals are just too far gone to be able to rehome"? 2,200. Anyone else see something wrong with this? PETA is just a multi-national non-profit kill shelter that uses most of its money for silly campaigns like trying to re-market fish as "sea kittens" and telling kids their parents are murderers, etc. Check out more info at: http://www.PETAkillsanimals.com

H$U$ is nearly as bad, although they are not as crazy and radical as PETA. Their main MO is allowing donors to believe they are associated with their respective local humane societies, which they are not. Regrettably, like PETA, HSUS is just as stingy about actually helping animals, giving less than 1% of its income to shelters. Rather than changing its ways when faced with recent scrutiny, HSUS's CEO Wayne just sits at home writing on his blog trash-talking all these other groups, including USARK. On a recent podcast, he made some very interesting remarks about the reptile community as a whole. I was so disgusted I couldn't even finish listening to it. In a nutshell, if it's not cute, fluffy and cuddly, the HSUS doesn't like it and doesn't want you to own it, and will do everything in its power to take away your rights to do so. Check out more info at: http://HumaneWatch.org

So if you are donating money to HSUS or PETA, be aware that you are NOT helping animals. You are helping prejudice, ignorant people take away your rights to keep exotic pets.

---

Anyone interested in listening to HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle's podcast (and can actually stomach the entire thing), just click on the following link and listen to podcast #15:

http://www.humanesociety.org/about/podcast/

 

[Redstrike]

Oh, god, am I going to take flack for this. I am going to be perfectly honest and hope that even though we do not see eye to eye, you can respect my stance.

I love animals and reptiles, but I also am a big supporter of the idea that there are good animals to keep as pets, and others that are 'not good'.

There are several aspects to what I would consider a 'not good' pet-
1- Does collecting it impact the wild populations? Does importing it generally result in a good proportion of the animals dying or becoming very ill?
2- What are the risks to the neighbors and community if it gets loose or is out of control for some reason? What are the risks to the keeper and their family?
3- How much do we understand its needs? Do they generally live a normalish lifespan and grow well the way the average keeper would raise them using commonly available information and materials?
4- What is the impact to the local ecosystem if the animals escape or are abandoned?
5- Does this animal require a disproportionate amount of time, money or energy to keep? (Sort of like the guidelines for gambling- does pursuing this interest negatively affect other aspects of your life? If not, great. If it does, there is possibly something wrong.)
6- Is keeping it a fad (like dalmatians or clown fish after the Disney movies), or part of some sort of ego game (like keeping 'macho' animals even though there are real risks or concerns involved)?

Of course, I also have to admit that I am not a big fan of most current or proposed legislation to try to deal with these issues. Uneven enforcement, loopholes, too much 'big brother', etc. mars most of the efforts.

Again, I know this is not a popular stance, but I would really love to see something like a tiered list of animals. Anyone can own anything on Tier 1 (goldfish, hamsters, etc.) Tier 2 takes simple licenses or registrations (dogs, cats...). Tier 3 would require a local certification that would include proper insurance or bonding and evidence you have a clue (most livestock, many exotic animals that do not pose a real risk to others or the ecosystem). Tier 4 would be a federal certification that would be almost like having a personal zoo- standards of care, contingency plans, insurance, etc. (venomous animals, medium-to-large predators, etc.)

I am well aware of the fact that the above will never come to pass for a million reasons, and if it did, it would be just as badly done as most previous laws.

All that said- I hope you understand why I will not actively support the law discussed, but neither will I actively try to defeat it.

I'm with Mark 100% on his assertions and just wanted to take a moment to elaborate a bit on point number 4 that I bold faced in his previous thread.

Keeping exotic, predatory pets can be very detrimental to ecosystems pending they escape and establish. We are currently facing the sixth greatest species extinction spasm in Earth's history (See E.O. Wilson's "The Diversity of Life"). The top two culprits are habitat loss/conversion and invasive species. Some of these invasives have been the result of irresponsible owners releasing them into the wild when they cannot care for them anymore. I know all of you on the forum would never do such a thing, but others have and will continue to do so.

Snakes present us with a difficult road. Their body design enables them unmatched stealth and god-like escape tactics. Snake invasions have been devastating native ecosystems globally. In Guam, the brown tree snake was introduced and led to the extinction of many endemic bird species. The Florida Everglades are currently under fire from Burmese Pythons that either escaped or were released by previous owners. The list carries on...

http://www.fort.usgs.gov/resources/education/bts/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gian...rida-everglades/story?id=9014015#.TwsbG0qKU7A

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

The Florida Everglades are currently under fire from Burmese Pythons that either escaped or were released by previous owners. The list

carries on...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gian...rida-everglades/story?id=9014015#.TwsbG0qKU7A

Chris, there is no evidence that the Burmese pythons in the Everglades are a result from negligent snake keepers releasing pets. In fact, evidence does indicate that all the pythons in south Florida are descendants of animals that escaped from a single facility that was destroyed during Hurricane Andrew. This is from genetic testing from pythons captured by licensed hunters. I mentioned all of this in a previous post. RECAP: these pythons are all descended from a SINGULAR source. The notion that they are escaped or released pets from irresponsible keepers is merely sensationalized hype generated by the media and anti-pet-ownership groups (like the ones I mentioned in my last post).

It should also be noted that the licensed python hunters are not finding these pythons in urban areas, or crawling right on the side of highways. They are finding them waaayyy out in the 'Glades on these levees that can only be accessed by airboat. One would think that the typical bozo who wanted to release his giant snake would just dump on the side of the road. These kinds of people are not the types to rent an airboat, and crawl through mud and thickets and thorns just to let their snake go, ya know? Something to think about...another indication that these are not escaped/released "pets."

Yes, there are Burmese pythons in the Everglades. However, there are not 100,000 of them, as some inaccurate studies suggest. The bogus study by the U.S.G.S. just took a VERY small portion of the Everglades where a certain number of pythons have been sighted, took that number and multiplied it by the entire square mileage of the park. Rather inaccurate since most of the 'glades is essentially water. Although yeah, these snakes can swim and do travel through the shallows and reeds, they can only really thrive and breed on the levees where there's actual dry land, and only a small fraction of the Everglades consists of that dry land habitat.

Want to talk about invasive predatory species? Let's talk about cats. Let's talk about loose dogs that form packs. No? Why not? No one seems to want to, yet these do MUCH more damaged to the ecosystem all across the country, than a bunch of pythons in a very small portion of only one state. Then there's numerous plant species that are invasive, as well as fish. Seriously, if you really want to look at the invasive species angle, Burmese pythons in the Everglades are small potatoes compared to a lot of others. But America likes its cats, so that's why you hardly ever see
news articles about how feral kitties are running around, breeding like crazy and killing everything they can get their claws into, because irresponsible cat owners won't spend $100 to get Garfield fixed and keep him in the house. Giant snakes make better headlines, so that's why this is an "issue."

Bottom line: Don't believe every news story you read or hear.

 

[Redstrike]

The Florida Everglades are currently under fire from Burmese Pythons that either escaped or were released by previous owners. The list

carries on...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gian...rida-everglades/story?id=9014015#.TwsbG0qKU7A

Chris, there is no evidence that the Burmese pythons in the Everglades are a result from negligent snake keepers releasing pets. In fact, evidence does indicate that all the pythons in south Florida are descendants of animals that escaped from a single facility that was destroyed during Hurricane Andrew. This is from genetic testing from pythons captured by licensed hunters. I mentioned all of this in a previous post. RECAP: these pythons are all descended from a SINGULAR source. The notion that they are escaped or released pets from irresponsible keepers is merely sensationalized hype generated by the media and anti-pet-ownership groups (like the ones I mentioned in my last post).

It should also be noted that the licensed python hunters are not finding these pythons in urban areas, or crawling right on the side of highways. They are finding them waaayyy out in the 'Glades on these levees that can only be accessed by airboat. One would think that the typical bozo who wanted to release his giant snake would just dump on the side of the road. These kinds of people are not the types to rent an airboat, and crawl through mud and thickets and thorns just to let their snake go, ya know? Something to think about...another indication that these are not escaped/released "pets."

Yes, there are Burmese pythons in the Everglades. However, there are not 100,000 of them, as some inaccurate studies suggest. The bogus study by the U.S.G.S. just took a VERY small portion of the Everglades where a certain number of pythons have been sighted, took that number and multiplied it by the entire square mileage of the park. Rather inaccurate since most of the 'glades is essentially water. Although yeah, these snakes can swim and do travel through the shallows and reeds, they can only really thrive and breed on the levees where there's actual dry land, and only a small fraction of the Everglades consists of that dry land habitat.

Want to talk about invasive predatory species? Let's talk about cats. Let's talk about loose dogs that form packs. No? Why not? No one seems to want to, yet these do MUCH more damaged to the ecosystem all across the country, than a bunch of pythons in a very small portion of only one state. Then there's numerous plant species that are invasive, as well as fish. Seriously, if you really want to look at the invasive species angle, Burmese pythons in the Everglades are small potatoes compared to a lot of others. But America likes its cats, so that's why you hardly ever see
news articles about how feral kitties are running around, breeding like crazy and killing everything they can get their claws into, because irresponsible cat owners won't spend $100 to get Garfield fixed and keep him in the house. Giant snakes make better headlines, so that's why this is an "issue."

Bottom line: Don't believe every news story you read or hear.

I understand your frustration with snakes being a potential scapegoat, I don't doubt it is warranted. Predatory pets are bad news if introduced to the wild. A law regulating ownership to responsible people needs to be enacted, I don't care if it's a reptile, mammal, bird, or insect. Something needs to change.

Your assertions on cats are correct. Those allowing their cats to go outdoors have resulted in a global introduction of a formidable mesocarnivore, the result has been billions of documented migratory bird deaths each year. There is a classic study of a lighthouse keeper off the coast of England whose cat was responsible for the extinction of an endemic sparrow on the island - single-handedly! I think people letting their cats out should be held liable under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. No doubt their cats are killing more than just birds and having serious consequences on native ecosystems (paper attached that you may enjoy).

I'm not accusing snake keepers of spreading invasive snakes around the globe, most probably hitch-hiked on shipping-cargo, etc. I'd like to see a bit more caution from the pet industry (all the pet industry, not just reptiles), that's all.

 

[DeanS]

Done!