UPDATE: HR2811 Amendment

[Denial]

Mike, you are 100% correct regarding the burms in south florida HOWEVER once we start allowing them to bypass the steps necessary to make a fully educated risk assessment, we give up the right to ask for a full and fair fight when they come after anything else. I'm only arguing that they play by the rules they themselves established. We start handing out rubber stamps that then dictate how we live our life's and we are asking for a world of hurt. I don't argue that they may actually deserve to be on the list (not for 99% of the hype that is out there) I do argue that tossing out a sacrificial lamb is wrong.

I do not contend they only gave a guy a pizza. Call bob clark, call prehistoric pets, call anyone who breeds burms for a living, they will tell you, that they just gave up their right arm. They may get it back after back door maneuvering during the august recesses and get a pass to breed and sell across state lines but I don't think any of them are not going threw a good deal of pain right now.

I could not agree more!

[Mike Cavanaugh]

Mike, you are 100% correct regarding the burms in south florida HOWEVER once we start allowing them to bypass the steps necessary to make a fully educated risk assessment, we give up the right to ask for a full and fair fight when they come after anything else.

How are we doing this? How are we allowing them to bypass the steps necessary to make a fully educated risk assessment? Once the bill is updated to specifically list only Burmese pythons and Rock pythons, why can't we at that time force expert testimony on the subject before the updated bill is passed?

"The ranking member, Rep Gohmert, called for scientific testimony so that he could make an informed decision. He stated that no one on the subcommittee was a reptile expert."

Why do you think this Rep will change his stance on this just because the bill has changed from a proposed ban on all pythons to a ban on 2 specific pythons?

We are on the same team here Neil... I guess I am just not explaining myself well enough.

[neilgolli]

How are we doing this? How are we allowing them to bypass the steps necessary to make a fully educated risk assessment? Once the bill is updated to specifically list only Burmese pythons and Rock pythons, why can't we at that time force expert testimony on the subject before the updated bill is passed?

"The ranking member, Rep Gohmert, called for scientific testimony so that he could make an informed decision. He stated that no one on the subcommittee was a reptile expert."

Why do you think this Rep will change his stance on this just because the bill has changed from a proposed ban on all pythons to a ban on 2 specific pythons?

We are on the same team here Neil... I guess I am just not explaining myself well enough.

Mike, I completely agree we are on the same side and even believe the same thing and in the inevitable conclusion. I simply fear we are giving to much credit to our representatives. The best example of that is actually reducing the bill to only include burms and rocks. There are many many more species of reptiles that fit the bill that (dare I say should be included on the list). By them expanding or narrowing the bill BEFORE looking at the scientific evidence they are already making mistakes.

[West Coast Jungle]

Hey Mike I dont know is your read this study by Tracy Barker that someone posted recently.

http://vpi.com/sites/vpi.com/files/O...compressed.pdf

It says that the burmese is not an invasive species. That is just a tag that has been put on them by the folks who want to ban them.

Yes they are in the everglades as well as 100's of non native animals(and plants for that matter) whom are also in the Everglades but that does not make them invasive and yet the burm is the only one getting any attention

This term is being used without any scientific proof to advance an agenda. Just because it is there does not make it a threat. That is what they want you to believe but REAL scientific research says different.

[Mendel's Balls]

from the barker's paper

"Presidential Order 13112, signed into law by President
Bill Clinton on February 3, 1999, and titled Invasive
Species, provides the following definition [Section 1 (f)]:
“invasive species means an alien species whose introduction
does or is likely to cause economic or environmental
harm, or harm to human health.”"

No scientific study I am aware of shows this is likely as well.

"Invasive" species can be overly vilified as well...see this thread as well...I discuss much of it there.....http://www.ball-pythons.net/forums/s...threadid=96935

[wolfy-hound]

We're not signing the death warrant for our industry because a ball python will never kill a toddler. Period. Polititians aren't going to actively go looking for stuff to ban without some sort of event to cause the search. Maybe some poorly kept retic will do the same thing and they will throw another fit and add them to the Lacey act, God forbid.

They don't need a event to get them headed to ban things. The legislationw as in the works long long before the child was killed.

Remember that HR669 was against ALL exotics, and I dont' remember any canary related deaths, or feral populations of hamsters destroying wildlife.

The politicians and animal rights groups do NOT need legitimate events to try to ban our pets. All they need is the ability.

[rabernet]

Hey Mike I dont know is your read this study by Tracy Barker that someone posted recently.

http://vpi.com/sites/vpi.com/files/O...compressed.pdf

It says that the burmese is not an invasive species. That is just a tag that has been put on them by the folks who want to ban them.

Yes they are in the everglades as well as 100's of non native animals(and plants for that matter) whom are also in the Everglades but that does not make them invasive and yet the burm is the only one getting any attention

This term is being used without any scientific proof to advance an agenda. Just because it is there does not make it a threat. That is what they want you to believe but REAL scientific research says different.

Thanks for that link Raul - I really hope that gets into these guys hands, and that Dave and Tracey are called upon to give expert testimony.

[Russ Lawson]

"The ranking member, Rep Gohmert, called for scientific testimony so that he could make an informed decision. He stated that no one on the subcommittee was a reptile expert."

Why do you think this Rep will change his stance on this just because the bill has changed from a proposed ban on all pythons to a ban on 2 specific pythons?

The only problem with this is that the bill was on the table for voting today. I hope more than anything that the committee follows Rep. Gohmert's lead and get their scientific testimony before voting on this issue. I find that outcome unlikely though.

[Mike Cavanaugh]

I am going to bow out of this conversation now because it is starting to go all over the place.

IMHO, updating the bill to only propose a ban on the animals in question and not ALL PYTHONS is clearly a victory for the world of reptile keepers.

This victory does NOT mean that we can't continue to fight the bill as we have to date. It does not mean that we are giving up our right to force expert testimony on the subject to the deciding parties. All it does is remove animals completely unrelated to the issues at hand from the chopping block.

Thanks for chatting with me Neil! I have purchased 5 snakes from you so far and look forward to buying MANY more in the future. they are some of my favorites!!!

P.S. Thanks for that link Raul, I had not seen that. Great write up!!!!

[Wh00h0069]

I see both sides of the argument. It is sad to say, but I believe that it is inevitable that the largest of the constrictors will eventually be banned. I do think, however, that before banning the government should have scientific research, so that they can made educated votes on the matter. I do see them taking all other pythons except for the largest two off of the list as a victory. I feel sorry for all of the keepers that keep these constrictors. I know that if it were snakes that I keep, I would be devastated.

BTW, if it is only a ban of importation, then I am all for it, but am against it if it is a ban on breeding or transportation.