• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

HR 511 ‘Python Ban’ Goes To Hearing

Oh these Guam panelists are making me nuts. Luckily I'm feeling the board members opposing the ban seem to be maintaining the upper-hand debate wise.
 
Why in the world is Guam involved? They have their own snake problem to deal with...
Also, an Island ecosystem is not comparable to a continental ecosystem...
 
I would guess that anyone supporting the AR agenda, or the ban in general, would want them involved because they can speak about the difficulties a "snake invasion" can produce for native wildlife.
 
They're not speaking well, I'm kind of glad they're there.

kathylove said:
I would guess that anyone supporting the AR agenda, or the ban in general, would want them involved because they can speak about the difficulties a "snake invasion" can produce for native wildlife.
Click to expand...
 
obboi34 said:
You said good things there, Ms Love. I'm glad to hear that the burm population is having distinct troubles in expanding its new range, though i'm sorry to hear about the studies on snakes involving freezing them to death. This legislation won't help much in our country, though i do support the ban on many of these species simply because of their size. I know that they are not quite the same as large warm-blooded predators, but these animals should not be living in private homes, if only because they require a staff of people to care for each one.

Please do not mistake this as an insult to personal skill or talent with animals. I expect that many of the experts currently working in reptile areas of zoos would have their husbandry butts kicked by members of this forum. These animals, though, do not belong in private residences, no matter how cool they may be. It's not an aggression thing, nor an expense thing, but simply a matter of the size and nature of the animal. A hungry rock python could eat me, and though I have no fear of one (I save my fear for crocodilians), large predators should not be in the home, no matter the securities in place.

That being said, the frick is the problem with boa constrictors? These snakes can be a handful, but are certainly not dangerous to anything more than a child's rabbit or perhaps a newborn human. I'm surprised to see an animal half, or a third in some cases, the size of the rest viewed as a threat. It's simple fear mongering.

As to the police state idea hovering in some of this, this is hardly an infringement of civil rights. This is mainly the state deciding which goods you can and cannot buy, which has happened since government first began establishing trade with other nations and managing out domestic economy. Free economy has always meant being free to buy into the system that has been set up for us. This is not the first step to a police state. I believe that, if passed, it will be a highly restrictive measure on a small portion of our population, which is unfair. It won't keep the rest of us safe either, but that's an argument for another day.
Click to expand...
As to the bold portion you do realize Ms Love wrote the book on snakes right. I mean literally wrote the book not just figuratively.

As to the underlined portion any gov restriction of rights is one more step to control of the people. Whether you label it police state or sugar coat it as a decision made for us and our betterment by our government it's still less rights more control.
 
obboi34 said:
You said good things there, Ms Love. I'm glad to hear that the burm population is having distinct troubles in expanding its new range, though i'm sorry to hear about the studies on snakes involving freezing them to death. This legislation won't help much in our country, though i do support the ban on many of these species simply because of their size. I know that they are not quite the same as large warm-blooded predators, but these animals should not be living in private homes, if only because they require a staff of people to care for each one.

Please do not mistake this as an insult to personal skill or talent with animals. I expect that many of the experts currently working in reptile areas of zoos would have their husbandry butts kicked by members of this forum. These animals, though, do not belong in private residences, no matter how cool they may be. It's not an aggression thing, nor an expense thing, but simply a matter of the size and nature of the animal. A hungry rock python could eat me, and though I have no fear of one (I save my fear for crocodilians), large predators should not be in the home, no matter the securities in place.

That being said, the frick is the problem with boa constrictors? These snakes can be a handful, but are certainly not dangerous to anything more than a child's rabbit or perhaps a newborn human. I'm surprised to see an animal half, or a third in some cases, the size of the rest viewed as a threat. It's simple fear mongering.

As to the police state idea hovering in some of this, this is hardly an infringement of civil rights. This is mainly the state deciding which goods you can and cannot buy, which has happened since government first began establishing trade with other nations and managing out domestic economy. Free economy has always meant being free to buy into the system that has been set up for us. This is not the first step to a police state. I believe that, if passed, it will be a highly restrictive measure on a small portion of our population, which is unfair. It won't keep the rest of us safe either, but that's an argument for another day.
Click to expand...

You would be wise to remember that the arguement you use to take away someone's rights today, may be used to take away your rights tomorrow.

Considering that these snakes are far less dangerous than dogs, horses and most farm animals, maybe we should start by banning those first?

I do not ever want the government to "protect" me. I am an adult and can take care of myself, thankyouverymuch!!!!!
 
Here is a nice summary of why it is stupid to waste time and money banning something as RELATIVELY harmless as reptiles - even giant snakes. Of course, I do realize that by getting sensationalistic media attention by solving the "problem" of scary snakes, politicians hope to distract voters from the fact that they are doing little or nothing to solve the problems that the feds are SUPPOSED to be working on, such as the economy ("fiscal cliff"??) and immigration. It is much easier to ban snakes than to accomplish something that will really help the country. I guess they hope we will be too stupid to notice - which seems to be the case, since we keep sending the same incompetent incumbents back to their high paying jobs, year after year.

This is part 3, but you can read the earlier parts by clicking on links near the end.

http://erikanwalsh.wordpress.com/20...g-fact-from-fiction-about-constrictor-snakes/
 
And by incompetent incumbents, I mean Bill Nelson, AKA Satan, who I hold responsible for this entire debacle...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top