Article: Florida To Snake Owners -- Microchip Your Python

[Rich in KY]

This type of law only effects the legitimate consumer.

The avid hobbyist, buying from a legitimate dealer will pay the extra fees and follow the law.

The idiots, will still be able to buy any snake they want from the idiot down the street who accidentally bred his snakes.

What is the fine gonna be when someone is caught with an unpermitted snake? My guess is that some people will take their chance that they won't be caught rather than pay the $100 annual registration.

In the end, I do not think this law will have any effect on the number of snakes released in the wild. It will only cost many snake owners lots of money.

 

[jessicalb]

Thinking of this in a little more detail, it really bothers me. A law that tells me I have to do something to my animal that is harmful is a bad law. If they can provide convincing evidence that this is safe, they should. If they can't, I hope that there are some activists in Florida who fight the law, not on convenience or cost, but on safety for the animal.

And I agree, it's a symptom of a government that would rather regulate in bizarre, controlling, overstepping ways than find real solutions. This alone wouldn't have me crying "big brother" but in concert with many other issues affecting medical choices about humans, it does seem to be problematic.

 

[Dale]

All of this nonsense makes me happy to be under the umbrella of education. One of my few perks. We can bypass a few pieces of red tape, but not all. And the ones we can't we can "usually" gain permits needed fairly easily.

But yes, the law sets a scary precedent... i.e. where it may go in the future. My collection is Boa heavy, and I exhaled big time when I didn't see them mentioned on big brother's list.

That said, I will go through the hoops necessary, and fees required once a pair of Leucy Burms become available I've had a sickness for them ever since Bob Clark's snap shot of his was circulated in the early 90's. I WILL have them.

 

[Cegninedorf]

All of this nonsense makes me happy to be under the umbrella of education. One of my few perks. We can bypass a few pieces of red tape, but not all. And the ones we can't we can "usually" gain permits needed fairly easily.

As far as I've found out, as an educator & strictly for educational purposes am I allowed to own a red-eared slider turtle; otherwise, at least in IL, I wouldn't be able to. Needless to say, I don't own one, but it does give me a privileged thrill to know that I have that opportunity. (One of the very, very few...!)

 

[Dale]

As far as I've found out, as an educator & strictly for educational purposes am I allowed to own a red-eared slider turtle; otherwise, at least in IL, I wouldn't be able to. Needless to say, I don't own one, but it does give me a privileged thrill to know that I have that opportunity. (One of the very, very few...!)

Most definitely! Now if I can only convince the SOB's to let me keep at least one Eastern Indigo!

 

[Hypancistrus]

What makes me nervous is that one day PETA or some other well meaning group of morons is going to gain public sympathy and get a bill passed to outlaw these types of snakes. Now that they are registered, the authorities will know right where to go to pick them up.

Who do you think is encouraging the legislators to back and push for these types of laws????

And really, what good will come of this?? Do you really think the type of person who releases their snake into the everglades because it gets too big is going to run right out and get their snake chipped???

I find it hard to believe that anyone really thinks this will solve anything....

 

[danvega]

I understand the reason for the law. I think it might make many people think twice about getting a snake only to let it go free in the wild later. In theory I agree with it.

However, my constitutional arguement is not for the snake, but the snake owner. Is it constitutional to force the owners of certain animals to have the chips placed in the animal? And, as many have questioned here, is it safe?

Thinking of this in a little more detail, it really bothers me. A law that tells me I have to do something to my animal that is harmful is a bad law. If they can provide convincing evidence that this is safe, they should. If they can't, I hope that there are some activists in Florida who fight the law, not on convenience or cost, but on safety for the animal.

And I agree, it's a symptom of a government that would rather regulate in bizarre, controlling, overstepping ways than find real solutions. This alone wouldn't have me crying "big brother" but in concert with many other issues affecting medical choices about humans, it does seem to be problematic.

I'm not really sure where any 'Constitutional' argument can be made against the mandatory chipping of animals. By law, animals are considered personal property and laws concerning chipping are analogous to requiring a license plate, registration, or inspection on a car--the law does not take into account that animals are living creatures.

By no means am I saying that this is a good law. I feel the government should stay out of our lives as much as possible. In many municipalities in North Carolina, it is required to register (not chip--just fill out a form) stating how many dogs and/or cats you have, which after being received is then followed by a tax bill (I don't think it is called a tax, but that's what it is).

As for the chipping process, I've read the chips are inserted beneath a scale. In fact, some reputable breeders in the ball python trade offer microchipping to buyers so high-end morphs can be identified if stolen and also as proof to the genetic guarantee of hets.

 

[Rich in KY]

I'm not really sure where any 'Constitutional' argument can be made against the mandatory chipping of animals. By law, animals are considered personal property and laws concerning chipping are analogous to requiring a license plate, registration, or inspection on a car--the law does not take into account that animals are living creatures.

I agree that lawmakers can require permits for snakes. Pets, such as cats and dogs, have been regulated for years. That is not my argument.

I believe the attempt to require chips is more like the lawmakers trying to require all cars be made with 'black boxes'. This has been discussed in the courts for years. Even though the 'black boxes' are helpful in accident reconstruction, it is argued that it is not constitutional to require the device.

The same is true here. Even though it would be helpful to identify lost or stolen snakes, can the chips be required? And, in the end, will this law be effective as a deterrent against releasing exotics into the wild?

 

[Susan]

We'[ve been microchipping pets at our clinic for several years and have never seen, or even heard of, a single case of cancer being caused by a microchip. In dogs and cats, the chips are placed under the skin between the shoulder blades and the newer microchips have been "reformulated" so that they don't migrate anymore. I've also seen birds microchipped (4 ounce screech owls to golden eagles) and those chips were placed over (or perhaps in - it was over 10 years ago and I didn't pay too much attention at the time) the breast muscle. The procedure is quick and no more painful than when a person is stuck by the size needle used during blood donation. I'm sure placing a chip in a snake is more than just under a scale. They probably try for subcutaneous, but in the muscle should work as well. And if a 3 pound Chihuahua can handle being microchipped, so can a 10 foot python. It's a great theory, but as Nanci already mentioned, it's a bit late as Florida already has a large wild population of these exotic herps. And I would like to see how the state plans on enforcing their new law. I feel sorry for those owners that have had their permits for years, but there are alot of owners that do not have permits and never will get them, let alone chip their snakes. And the state will never know those snakes are out there. My county doesn't know I own a cat, which is required to be licensed. But since he's strictly an indoor cat, and my vet refuses to tell the counties about every pet he vaccinates that doesn't buy the county tag, the county will never know I have him.