I am about as pro-gun as any person can be so I consider it appalling that people in the UK have been stripped of their right to protect their life and property.  Criminals don’t abide by laws so the gun-carrying thief breaking into somebody’s home in the UK must feel pretty confident about his chances; he knows that the odds are in his favor that any opposition he encounters is going to be unarmed.  If a UK citizen owned a gun in defiance of the law and used it against the thief he would be in as much (or more) trouble as the robber.  In the UK, they would both be considered criminals.  I find this to be very, very sad:  defend your family and your property and become a criminal for doing so.  Rest assured that if that same guy broke into my house here in Virginia he would have a six-pack of Coke can sized exit wounds in his back.

But how did guns become illegal in the UK?  Was it done in one fell swoop?  Nope.  It was done in stages, a tactic often used to disarm (literally in this case) the opposing voices.  Despite my pro-gun position I didn’t sit down to write about gun control.  I continue to be concerned with the fate of reptile ownership in the United States.  But the history of gun control in the UK serves as a excellent timeline that illustrates our likely fate unless we get our act together in very short order.  Here’s how things went down in the UK:

• 1988 -  In the wake of the “Hungerford Massacre” the Firearms (Amendment) Act of 1988 was passed.  This law made it illegal to own semi-automatic rifles, pump-action rifles and military weapons that shoot explosives.  The law also implemented registration requirements and a requirement for “secure storage” of allowed shotguns.  Handguns (pistols) were not impacted at all by this law.
• 1997 – In the wake of the “Dublane Massacre” ownership of almost all handguns was banned.  One of the key selling points of the law was that a very limited number of people would be impacted (fewer than 1 in 1,000).
• 2006 – The Violent Crime Reduction Act was passed and this made it illegal to buy/sell air weapons by mail order.  This includes things like Airsoft guns.  Yep, in the UK it is even illegal to own a fake gun because it looks too much like a real gun.  Hilarious.  Tragic.  Sad.

The path from there to here was implemented through a simple concept:  divide and conquer.  In the late 1980′s UK pistol owners were apathetic about the proposed ban on rifles because it didn’t affect them.  “Why should I care if they ban shotguns?”, they said.  “I only keep pistols and bolt-action rifles.”  In an act of self-preservation they stayed silent, letting their rifle-owning neighbors have their rights extracted through the legislative process.  Those same people who thought they were safe found their rights removed less than a decade later.  The politicians who pushed this law through the UK’s legal system were smart to leave pistol owners out of the fight in 1988.  Attacking the whole gun-owning population of the UK would have been tantamount to the Humane Society of the United States trying to make pet dogs illegal in the wake of an escaped Nile Monitor killing someone’s Terrier.  Patient and resolute the anti-gun movement capitalized on high-profile tragedies to further their agenda.  Baby steps.  Little-by-little they got it done.  And look at the UK now…

Now let’s turn our attention to things here in the USA.  Large constrictors are under attack.  Most of us know that.  And many bearded dragon breeders, ball python breeders, corn snake breeders and leopard gecko breeders could care less.  Why?  Because they don’t keep large constrictors, of course.  That should sound eerily similar to the same apathetic mindset held by UK pistol owners back in 1988.  And look what happened to them less than a decade later.  Every time there is an isolated incident in the exotic animal community the anti-pet movement gains a little more traction to push through another limiting piece of legislation.  Whether it is done state-by-state, the Lacey Act or through the federal law making process, they are as patient and as resolute as the anti-gun zealots in the UK were.

I know how the end of reptile ownership is going to happen.  If we continue on our current path it will mirror what happened in the UK.  The voices of opposition in the UK screamed, “you can’t legislate a madman”, meaning that a ban on firearms would not stop the next massacre from happening.  If someone wants to get a gun and go on a shooting spree it will happen.  No law is going to prevent that.  My screams as a reptile owner have been of a similar vein.  I oppose any legal limitations on the rights of responsible pet owners.  No matter how responsible a pet owner I am there will always be someone out there who is not.  That person will do something stupid and my rights will be removed as a result.

But why?  Why do the actions of a few lead to restrictions on the many?  The answer is simple:  Legislation is a bludgeon tool.  It lacks finesse.  Laws have not, can not and will not deal with subtlety and nuance.  They are a widely cast net that frequently catches huge numbers of unintended victims.  I have already heard it said.  “Our inspectors are not trained tell the difference between a Burmese python and a Boa Constrictor so the most simple course of action is to ban them both.”  If that’s the case then how would a local law enforcement official tell the difference between a blood python and a burmese python?  Simple: He can’t.  Well, we better ban blood pythons too …just to be safe.  And when the time comes to ban ball pythons you can rest assured that Angolan pythons will be thrown out with them.  They look too similar.  And so it will happen; our compartmentalized herpetocultural community will fall in small group after small group.  And each group will remain silent as the others are attacked.  It will probably take the next decade or two to happen but the writing is on the wall.  The anti-pet movement is more than ready to wait us out and I have not seen evidence of the community having the stomach for a long fight.

Is there an alternative to legislation?  Yes!  It’s called self-regulation.  And this is where there is a fundamental divide within society.  Proponents of large government believe that it is the government’s responsibility to take action to provide for and protect its citizens.  Supporters of small government believe that protection is indeed the government’s responsibility but ‘providing’ is the realm of private industry and government should stay out of it.  The government should not regulate the commercial interaction between provider and consumer.  In a system of self-regulation the industry controls itself from within; it’s a commercial ecosystem that has its balance upset when the dirty fingers of legislation are inserted.  Whether we are talking about banking, exotic animals or pharmaceuticals the concept is the same; the industry regulates itself and acts in a responsible manner, no government intervention needed.  In the end the consumer is the real regulator because it is only where there is mutual benefit in a transaction that the transaction can take place.  Even though I would rather not pay $130/month for my iPhone I still do because I find value in the trade.  If my iPhone bill were to double to $260 I would no longer see the value and I would discontinue my service.  The provider is always going to push the edge of course; they are a for-profit entity and will always work to get as much as they possibly can without pushing me past the limits of my perceived value.  In this delicate balance between consumer and provider we don’t need the government to come in and control mobile phone price plans.  Doing so screws up the natural balance of commerce.

When an industry fails to self-regulate it provides a powerful foothold for the supporters of government regulation (banking and health care come to mind here).  And that is where we are today in the reptile world.  There is no shortage of idiocy in the reptile trade.  Someone out there is not securely keeping their reticulated python or rhino viper.  Another guy is selling Burmese pythons and eyelash vipers to 14-year old kids at a trade show.  And let’s not forget the guy who is keeping hundreds of snakes in horrible filth with no food, water or climate control.  None of these people are you, right?  Of course not.  It always seems to be someone else that is screwing things up for the hobby.  The problem is that the consumer:provider mechanism for self-regulation is seemingly absent.  The only thing an individual can do is take care of his/her own business; keep their animals secure, well-fed, watered and in a suitable climate.  They cannot control what another keeper is doing.  This appears to suggest that government regulation is a viable solution, doesn’t it?  Without changing what we do as a community, the answer, unfortunately is ‘yes’.  The ability to own a reptile in the United States will not survive if we stay on our current path.

But how do we self-regulate?  This is a tough question.  As a person purchasing a green anaconda I know what my responsibilities are.  But what about the seller?  It would seem like a no-brainer to say that a person would not sell a baby anaconda to a minor but that has been proved wrong more than once.  Should the seller take steps to make sure the person buying is fully prepared to responsibly undertake the long-term ownership of the animal?  Is that realistic?  No, it’s not.  The retail community doesn’t support it.  If I put somebody through a gauntlet of questions before selling them a green anaconda at a trade show they are just going to go to another table and buy it from the wholesaler who picked up a 20-lot of them earlier that day and could care about nothing other than their method of payment.  The long-term impact:  I am not economically viable and another person owns a green anaconda that is doomed to get sick and die …but not before it escapes a few times because he thinks that putting a book on the screen top of his aquarium is going to keep the snake from pushing its way out.  Because the community is unable to regulate itself it is primed and ready for government intervention.

Reptile community self-regulation seems viable only if there is widespread individual self-regulation and this illustrates the “you can’t regulate a madman” problem.  The reptile community is too large and too diverse in both number and intelligence for there to be any realistic chance to self-regulate.  Aside from “lock in a sock” forms of keeper-on-keeper physical violence I don’t know what the answer is.  But I do know that if things don’t change we are going to start losing our rights at an ever-increasing rate.  And the only people we can truly blame when its over will be ourselves.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

The HSUS, PETA, Defenders of Wildlife and other radical animal extremist organizations like them are large, well-funded, well-organized and, most of all, driven by a common goal that is kept on track through its leaders.  Most of them have been around for a long time and have had plenty of opportunity to create a solid base from which to operate.  Their leadership consists of affable personalities who focus exclusively on their agenda.  As much as I dislike his message, Wayne Pacelle is doing a lot of things right to further his organization’s agenda.  Don’t get me wrong, though.  I despise his ideas.  His organization is one of the worst things to ever happen to animals and their responsible owners.  But he believes them and he is focused on seeing them become a reality.  While his beliefs are dangerous to every responsible pet owner it is his ability to get others to also believe that makes him the threat that he is.  It’s his leadership and the orchestration of the teams of people behind him that makes him dangerous to pet owners of every kind.  I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the advocates of responsible pet ownership are woefully inadequate by comparison.  The leaders of the organization’s that trumpet our causes are largely invisible and unknown to a world that needs to hear them.  The longer we go without comparable focus, cohesion and leadership the closer the country will move toward HSUS’ goal of ending pet ownership for everyone.

The HSUS expertly uses lies and misinformation to extract almost $200 million each year from a misled American public.  Their benevolent sounding name is the cornerstone of their fantastic lie and they have a sympathetic media and most of the Democratic party on their side.  If a single pet-ownership advocacy group has 15,000 members who give $50/year they will still only have $750,000 in revenue.  Who would you like to bet on?  An organization running on a shoestring budget with a react-only game-plan or the financially successful and laser-focused machine with educated and articulate leaders orchestrating the attack from multiple fronts?  It’s not really a competition, is it?

The target of interest for both sides of this fight is the pet.  Animal extremists want to ‘protect’ animals by putting an end to pet ownership.  They believe that the very best way to protect animals is for them to not exist as pets.  Extremists attack the exceptions to the majority of us who properly care for and respect our animals.  They use the sensational as ammunition to push their agenda and feel justified in limiting the rights of everybody in order to address the irresponsible few.  They twist facts, perpetuate irrational fear and wordsmith information in order to lead people to false conclusions.  And they are good at it.  In contrast, pet owners just want to be left alone to enjoy their pets.  This means that most pet owners have not sufficiently developed a fighter’s mentality.  They are standing unwillingly in the ring, hands down, being punched repeatedly in the face by the animal extremism juggernaut.  And they take it, punch after punch, reeling with each blow.  Without money, leadership, better organization, and well-marshalled volunteerism, the eventual fate of the pet owner seems obvious.

To all the responsible pet ownership groups out there:  Do a better job of leveraging your support base.  Don’t just ask them for their money; ask them for their time and their skill.  There is an army of responsible pet owners out there.

And to all the responsible pet owners out there:  Pick a group to support.  Reach out to them.  Give them money if you want to; no doubt they need it.  But you also need tell them your skill and let them know you want to help support the rights of pet owners with more than just money.  For now, be willing to give your time freely, in support of the cause.  It is quite probable that your payment  will never be money.  It will come in the form of your right, and your kid’s right, to keep the pet of your choosing.  That’s worth a lot more than money, don’t you think?

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

The current state of affairs is that we can break the thinking people in our society into two general groups of people:  liberals and conservatives (some people may prefer ‘statist’ and ‘libertarian’).  There are many reasons why liberals and conservatives are different but sometimes they are actually in agreement on a particular thing that needs to be accomplished.  This agreement is only on the surface, though.  The devil is in the details.  Suppose for instance that you are sitting in a cold house and would like to get warm.  The liberal tells you to turn on the heat while the conservative suggests that you wrap yourself with a down comforter.  They are both describing a way to achieve an end result but their opinions on how to get there are quite different.  You, the cold person, are being sold two different approaches to satisfy your need and both seem to be genuine and sincere in their desire to address it.  But if you aren’t paying attention you will miss the larger picture; the reason those two methods are being offered is that they represent some aspect of a larger agenda and there is a good chance that neither of them really care about your warmth.  For example, the liberal may tell you that heating the whole house is the best way because it gives everybody in the house an equal ability to be warm; nobody is made to be warmer or colder than anybody else.  The conservative tells you that the down comforter is more appropriate because it is cheaper and the ability of an individual to achieve warmth is directly related to how well they wrap themselves.  How each came to the conclusion that their way of warming cold bodies was the right way could be rooted in their life experiences and upbringing or it could be that they are being directed by less often seen third parties: lobbyists.  The liberal receives large campaign contributions from the HVAC Worker’s Union and the conservative is being backed by the IAIDP, the International Association for the Infiltration of Down-Containing Products.  Once this realization is made we can begin to understand that making people warm is secondary to the way in which people are made warm.  Everybody has an agenda; something to accomplish.

The treatment of pet owners and the reptile trade is no different.  In general politicians aren’t concerned about snakes; special interest groups are.  Each side of the argument has found a sympathetic ear in the form of the liberal and the conservative.  Sweet nothings have been whispered, campaign contributions have been made and like Rock Em’ Sock Em’ Robots the politicians have been put into the ring, punching and jabbing and all the while it’s special interests (like the HSUS) who are pushing the buttons.

The HSUS and other animal extremists made a brilliant move in 2010 when they decided to temporarily de-emphasize the law-making process.  They performed an end-around by using the USGS’ biased report on large constrictors as a means to get the Department of the Interior to add the nine constrictors to the list of injurious species in the Lacey Act.  And, considering the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections,  what a brilliant move it was.  They didn’t need any members of Congress to take this path.  All they needed was a liberal in the Oval Office to appoint a liberal to head the Department of the Interior.  Now the decision is no longer up to “the people”; it is now in the hands of an impossibly small few within the Department of the Interior.  And one of the biggest ways it is being sold:  fear.  I have heard politicians and other bureaucrats say, over and over, that one of the reasons that large constrictors need to be controlled is because of a “threat to public safety”.  In 2010 I sat in a hearing of the House Judiciary Committee and listened to Florida House Representative Thomas Rooney (a Democrat) read a statement that said exactly that.  But it’s a big lie.  Large constrictors are not a public health concern; they pose an impossibly small risk to humans.  Your odds of being killed by a large constrictor are about 1 in 584 million.  For a little bit of perspective on how that compares with other ways to die please read this post I made about the odds of being killed by a python.

The other big argument for controlling pythons is the environment.  The USGS’ horribly biased, self-serving and repeatedly debunked report (here, here, here and here for starters) on nine large constrictors paints a picture of these snakes taking over much of the country.  The reality is that they pose a risk to southern Florida at best.  And in all seriousness, if pythons and boas are such an invasive species why are only the large one’s being targeted in these attacks?  Invasive is invasive, regardless of size.  The real answer is simple.  They are easier targets because they prey on people’s  fear.  Many people have an irrational and media perpetuated fear of snakes.  And big snakes, one’s that can eat big things are worthy of additional fear.  The truth is that laws have been proposed and the Lacey Act is about to be amended because of fear.  Not public safety, not the environment.  Just fear.  And it’s such an easy sell.  Imagine a reporter walking up to you and saying, “Do you want giant, man-eating pythons living in your back yard where your children play?”  Who in their right mind would answer anything other than no to such a leading question?

So is it really possible for a government to legislate based on fear?  Sadly, yes.  As evidence of such efforts let me direct your attention to a seemingly unrelated topic:  guns in schools.  If you were to ask every American whether or not it was OK for children to take guns to school you would find that 99.999% are in agreement that it is not.  And in 1990 Congress passed a law that said exactly that.  The Gun-Free School Zone Act of 1990 made it a federal crime for anyone other than law enforcement to take a gun onto school property.  I am VERY pro-gun and I completely support the idea at work; no guns in schools.  Well, not long after being enacted the law was challenged in the courts.  And in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court shocked everybody when they agreed, striking down the law as unconstitutional.  The attorney’s for the federal government had argued that the law was valid under what is called the Commerce Clause in the Constitution.  Their primary argument was that Congress was within it’s legislative authority because the presence of guns in schools would lead to people being fearful and being fearful would lead to an environment less conducive to learning.  Without quality education people would be less prepared to be economically productive and this would significantly impact interstate commerce.  And Congress does have the ability to legislate interstate commerce.  Now I don’t want guns in schools any more than any other sane American but the crux of the government’s argument was that they could legislate the People because something might cause someone to be afraid.  And if they could ban guns in schools because of fear what other aspects of a persons life can they control using fear as the justification?  To say this is a slippery slope is an unprecedented understatement.  The Supreme Court vote was 5-4.  One vote in the other direction and legislative branch would have been given the power to legislate based on fear.  Please note that there is more to the case (United States v. Lopez) and the rational of the Justice’s decisions.  Please take some time to read about it yourself.

So is it now legal to carry guns in schools?  Nope.  Was it a decision made by the states?  Nope.  It is a federal law.  But how?  The Supreme Court said the law was unconstitutional.  Well, some smart lawyers and politicians revisited the original wording of the bill that Congress passed, changed its language and reintroduced it.  Let’s call what they did what it really is:  they twisted the wording to make the Constitution work for more federal power.  In the re-worded bill they made it a crime to take any gun onto school grounds if that gun had been involved in interstate commerce.  The manufacturing of a gun involves a lot of individual pieces, most of which came across one state line or another.  By linking the desired result (no guns in schools) to ‘things’ used in interstate commerce the re-worded bill was passed by Congress and, though not yet taken up by the Supreme Court, has withstood Constitutional challenges in lower courts.  Despite my support for the end result, the mechanism used to achieve it scares the hell out of me.

It should go without saying that I am glad that guns are not allowed in schools.  Am I glad that the federal government passed a law for it?  Not particularly, no.  I think the states could have handled it on their own and I am quite confident that each state would have done so.  Even though the end result of this decision was a good one it should serve as a scary reminder for every citizen that the federal government can potentially control every aspect of your life if they can correctly wordsmith a bill in Congress to link it to one of their enumerated powers.  And the commerce clause (in conjunction with the “necessary and proper” clause) has been repeatedly used to expand the federal government’s power over the states.  And today the fate of much of the reptile trade hangs in the balance.  Whether through Congress or the Lacey Act the federal government is poised to leverage fear in order to control the interstate transport of a ‘thing’ (a snake).  States should decide which reptiles are allowed in their communities, not the federal government.  Once something becomes federal law it binds us all; there is nowhere to go to be free of it.  It suffocates.  If Florida wants to ban the ownership of Burmese pythons, let that state’s citizens decide to do so.  But geographically speaking, Minnesota is a different planet than Florida.  Minnesotans don’t need the same protections when it comes to such concerns.

Regards,

Colin Weaver

I am not too unlike you, I suspect.  I have received the emails, read the blogs, followed the forum threads and participated in the related chatter.  Been there.  Done that.  And yes, I even got a t-shirt.

Like many of you I have repeatedly railed against the unrelenting stream of assaults on reptile ownership.  My passion for my position has, to my knowledge, not swayed a single opponent or politician.  As is so often the case parties on opposite sides of a debate are uninterested in truly listening to and understanding the differing view.  But that makes sense, doesn’t it?  You don’t typically pick a side you know to be wrong and the more involved you become in the campaign to forward your beliefs the less capable you are of changing your stance.  Despite all the rhetoric and supposed evidence presented by each side, nobody is swayed from their original position.  From my perspective proponents of a ban on reptiles are misguided and misinformed fear-mongers suffering from bad cases of self-serving political, environmental and animal extremism.  Those same people look at me as an environmentally insensitive, unscientific animal exploiter who puts the needs of the environment and public health second to my own wish to have unusual pets.  On the surface one might say the only common ground we share is that both sides want reptiles left alone.  Unfortunately, that common ground doesn’t translate into a foothold for agreement as we have incredibly different definitions of what it means to ‘leave reptiles alone’.

Because an agreement springing forth from common ground is not likely to happen both sides have turned heavily to science to further their assertions.  Sadly, this so-called science is based more on personal, organizational and political agendas than factual analysis.  Science, when stirred into the twisted brew of politics, loses its impartiality.  Similar to the frequent abuse of statistics, the numbers representing scientific fact are skewed to support biased-positions.  What individuals deem true is nothing more than “scientific results” that support their original beliefs.  Campaign contributions and party affiliation go a long way toward determining what is regarded as scientific truth.  Opposing ‘science’ is always denounced as fraudulent and misinformed. For every expert you find that will attest to your desired stance you can rest assured that the opposing side will find not less than one to supplant their professional assertions. The sad reality:  the scientist who is right is the one with the most politicians on his side.

It has long been the reptile keeper’s concern that politics will eventually trump real science.  Many people like me who have been keeping and breeding reptiles for decades know very well the conditions in which they will survive and our continued existence offers evidence as to how dangerous they are to “public health”.  Surprisingly, we didn’t need to earn a doctorate in herpetology, epidemiology, immunology, virology or even meteorology to know these things as fact.  But practical experience has always taken a back seat to academia.  And why not?  Professional reptile breeders have no parchment with calligraphy honouring them as such.  We hold no impressive reptilian job title and have no particular herpetocultural alma mater to trumpet.  Our experiences, insights and perspectives are relevant only to our peers and not to the outside world (especially to politicians).  The media, interested only in sound bites, shock value and visceral reactions, does us no favours either.  Almost without fail reptiles are portrayed as sinister creatures, each one calculating and hostile toward humans.  The Discovery channel would have the general public believe that they are being hunted by corn snakes while they sleep.

The reptile community places little faith in politicians and government scientists to perform an honest assessment of the facts.  We live in a world where special interest groups and party affiliations define votes.  Expressions of individual thought and dissent from the party ranks is a sure-fire way to be banished within your own political party and, in the end, to avoid re-election. It has become commonplace for politicians to march in step with the wishes of the leaders of their respective parties; an honest sense of accountability to the constituents they represent (and to The People as a whole) is a vanishing memory. This is a truth recognized by almost everybody on any side of any particular debate.  In all of the recent legislative efforts against ownership of reptiles you can almost draw a line down the center of the party isles.  The Democrats tend to be in favor of “animal rights” legislation while Republicans seem to stand in opposition.  The politics of politics makes if difficult for any Senator or House Delegate to go against their party position without internal repercussion.  Notice how the politicians are not answering to or representing the interests of their constituents?  It’s the other members of their party (and their financial supporters) to whom they show loyalty.  I am the 3,215,978th person to write it:  the system is broken.  And with reptiles on the radar I am once again reminded of and disgusted by how this broken system can cause my loss of liberty.

With the looming decision whether to amend the Lacey Act to include nine (9) different snakes (by their latin name) the reptile community is fighting potential disaster; the elimination of a large and important portion of the reptile trade.  The buzz in the reptile community is that Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar has told Fish & Wildlife, whose leadership reports to Mr. Salazar, to add all nine snake species to the Lacey Act regardless of what the science reveals.  The unspoken message to The People:  “Facts are not relevant.  Science is secondary.  The federal government will decide what you can and cannot own.  The personal crusades of political figures, lobby groups and political affiliations are insurmountable trump cards.”  I pray for this to be false but the behavior of our government of late does not give me hope.  If true, my distended disenfranchisement with our federal government will likely burst and become something more malevolent.  My disappointment in the bureaucratic machine, once a matter of casual disdain, will become something dark and seething.

Through all of this we, the reptile keepers of America, have felt emotions like denial, anger and even depression.  It has occurred to me that the range of emotions many of us are feeling (and have felt) are similar to those of people who are diagnosed with a terminal illness or experience a catastrophic loss in their lives.  The often debated Kübler-Ross model of how humans handle grief says there are five (5) stages people go through when handling a traumatic and tragic event in their lives.  They are: denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance.

Denial

I have been there for the denial. I have both lived it and observed it in others. For years I thought that reptiles were too small a concern to attract the attention of politicians and animal extremists. I was wrong.  Pet owners and breeders like me used to say that they will never be able to ban these animals.  In the early days we misunderstood the vigilance of our opponents.  Denial should be long gone. The world the reptile keeper lives in today is a never-ending barrage on multiple fronts. We are attacked through the courts, through the legislature and through state and federal agencies. If one assault fails to make sufficient headway they simply come at us from another angle. We are reeling, always defending, and as we tire of the omnipresent initiatives to remove our rights we become even easier to to attack the next time. Using current strategies I seriously doubt the reptile community has the mettle to sustain the fight.  For the most part the community has coalesced (in principle only) but it is still almost always on the defensive.  The side that spends all of its time defending is destined to lose.  The principle of ‘live and let live’ does not apply here.  The people who think they know better than you how your life should be lived are never going to stop trying to control you.

Our attackers do not need a kill-shot; they are perfectly content to grind away at the rights of reptile owners.  They will do it slowly, one species at a time, if they have to. Which of the following scenarios seems most likely to you?:

• A complete ban the ownership of reptiles in the United States today or;
• A long-term strategy to gradually eliminate the ownership of certain types of snakes (with most/all being the long-term goal), the installation of complex and expensive permit systems that discourages many from attempting ownership, and laws that greatly reduce the numbers of animals a breeder can keep (thereby reducing production and profitability) as well as laws that put increasing levels of liability on reptile sellers.  The evidence of this type of approach is already visible.  One need only examine the laws passed against Tennessee dog breeders in 2009.

Consider some aspects of the game of football as an analogy; the team that can effectively run the ball, getting 4+ yards each play will wear the defense down.  Time and fatigue will cause the defenders to fail and the score will eventually become insurmountably lopsided.  And, from time-to-time, the side on the offensive will go deep on a play-action pass (2009′s H.R. 669, for example).  Anyone who watches sports knows that it is hard to score when you’re always on the defensive.

So yes, denial is long gone.  The increased popularity of reptiles has landed them squarely on the radar of the anti-pet movement.

Setting aside the obviously diverse opinions the country has on the outcome of the 2010 mid-term elections we should all be able to agree that it is was positive for responsible pet owners.  Now that the Democratic party (who is most in favor of legislation that eliminates the rights of pet owners) is no longer in control of the House of Representatives you can expect to see the HSUS and other organizations to redirect their efforts away from Congress.  You should expect them to return with greater frequency to the courts and city/state governments to push their agenda.  They never left these venues but you can expect them to re-double their efforts now that they have lost their captive audience at the federal level.  Unfortunately, this does not stop the current efforts to amend the Lacey Act.  That train still speeds out of control.

Anger

Being angry is easy when other people try to take away your rights, especially when they try to do it by presenting lies and falsehood as truth.  While anger is energizing it is not conducive to clarity of thought.  In moments of anger we cannot think clearly and we are prone to irrational and inappropriate actions.  The HSUS, through a calm and relentless onslaught of lies, is counting on many things to further their agenda, including their opponents to lose their cool and get angry.  Angry people are easier to control and even easier to make look foolish.  Angry people can be poked and prodded to provoke the reactions that support their opponent’s stance.

Being angry is fine.  But in this type of fight it’s not OK to let it control your actions.  Our anger needs to be used to strengthen our resolve and to keep us energized.

Bargaining

When your position feels shaky you begin to negotiate.  This is often true even when you believe your position to be correct and just.  Somebody once said that the only real guarantee in a compromise is that both sides will leave dissatisfied.  And when the HSUS is dissatisfied they will find a new way to attack pet ownership.  It’s part of their strategy.  Take a little bit every time and eventually they will have taken a lot.  The barrage of efforts to limit, constrain and eliminate reptile ownership has been unrelenting since January 2008 when a Democratic President took office.  With the House, the Senate and the Oval Office all in-step it unlocked the animal extremist flood gates and the reptile community has been reeling ever since.  In January 2008 the reptile community suddenly found itself face-to-face with a government whose majority was supportive of animal and environmental extremism.  The anti-pet groups came out in full-force and showed us their prowess for working the political system.  Standing in the shadow of such opposition can shake your resolve.  Feeling that defeat is a real possibility people sometimes begin to bargain, to negotiate.

I heard the discussions all through the reptile world.  “We’ve got to give them something!” was an all-too-frequent chorus.  Give them Burmese pythons and they’ll leave us alone.  No, actually, they won’t.  It sickened my stomach every time someone said something so short-sighted.  In the battle for large snake ownership some people and groups were open to the idea of a ban on Burmese pythons.  In an astonishingly short amount of time the community went from lamenting the plight of the Burmese python to fighting for African Rock pythons and Reticulated pythons as well.  Today, less than two years later, we are faced with losing nine species in the pet trade including boa constrictor. And listing boa constrictor by such a generic scientific name is nothing short of horrifying as there are a ton of subspecies that will be guilty by association.

I have never supported and will never support a bargain that eliminates any reptile species from the trade.  I will not give up retics, burms, anacondas, scrubs or boas …and I don’t even own any of them!  As far as I’m concerned those animals are part of our reptile-keeping culture and I fully support their responsible ownership.  I can not and do not support any political philosophy that legislates to the lowest common denominator of a society or sub-group of society.  Legislating all reptile ownership in order to remedy the actions of a few who make bad choices is an asinine way of leading people.  I’ll stop there as I sense that I am digressing into a political tirade.

Depression

Endurance requires training.  Along the way you become tired and worn down.  With no end in sight to this fight for pet owners rights you see nothing but an endless road ahead.  Faced with that reality it’s easy to see how depression can set in.

“Can’t this all just go away?”, you ask.  Sorry, no.  Right or wrong, the rights of pet owners are intricately entangled in larger issues such as global warming, energy, foreign trade, animal rights, interstate commerce, and separation of power between the states and the federal government.  In some ways, reptiles are nothing more than a pawn in those larger games of chess.  Victories that limit the ownership and transport of reptiles in the name of protecting the environment are little more than tick marks in the column for or against even more environmental legislation.  It is a solid measure of hubris to think that the issue of reptiles is important enough to warrant this much attention.

When depression sets in you lose your passion.  As more and more us lose our passion for the fight we are coming closer and closer to the end of the reptile trade.

Acceptance

At last:  minus one.

I, and hundreds of thousands like me, will never accept an agenda tantamount to a cancer.  The Humane Society of the United States is a malignant lesion, a growth of sickness and malevolence in our society.  Their message is decaying and vicious.  It preys on the apathetic minds of well-intentioned individuals.  People who love animals as I do are presented with an onslaught of lies and misinformation that sour them to the true nature of pet ownership in our society.  These misinformed individuals, in an effort to help the animals they love, give their money to an organization that actually hates them.  Love dogs?  Me, too.  The HSUS thinks they love them, too.  But the HSUS loves dogs the way that a psychotically  jealous and abusive husband loves his wife.  He loves her so much that he feels justified in killing her rather than letting anyone else have and hold her.  “I love you so much I am going to kill you!  I have to do it.  It’s the only way I can protect you from the others!”, he says.  “Psycho!  Monster!”, you scream at his confession.  The HSUS is the same type of abusive monster.  But to the bewilderment of millions, people send them money when they present their lie-tainted agenda.  With the honest sincerity of a silver-tongued sociopath they hypnotise you with their lies.  Snap out of it!  It is time to stop believing in and financially supporting their hate.

It is because I see the HSUS for what they are that I will never stop fighting against them.  I will vote for candidates that disagree with HSUS’ agenda.  I will educate my friends, my family and my co-workers on the nature of their lies and I will campaign for votes to put politicians in office who see as I do.

Vigilance, poise and intelligence are our most valuable assets in this fight.  This assault is not going to end any time soon.  As long as the HSUS (and other like them) is still in business there is not a pet owner or animal business in this country that is safe.  I do not accept a life without the animals I choose.  I will not allow my liberty to be taken from me.

The plight of the reptile industry is a caricature of our nation as a whole.  The federal government, guided by the invisible strings of special interest groups, is seeking to remove the rights of responsible Americans because there is a small subset that can’t follow common-sense rules.  Rather than holding the few accountable, all are made to suffer.  The many suffer at the hands of the few and the rules are designed and enforced to the lowest common denominators of our society (gun control laws, social security & health care come to mind).  Tearing down the responsible to address the needs of the irresponsible is a path that leads nowhere other than failure.

As I finish writing all of this I fear I may be screaming at the deaf.  Reptile folk listen and nod.  They even occasionally applaud.  But I doubt most will act.  The well water is muddy; we have gone to it too many times and too often.  Evidence supporting this assertion can be found in popular Internet forums.  Visit your favorite forum and look at the Laws and Regulations section.  Find the posts that deal with impending legislation/regulation and make note of how many times it has been read.  Now visit one of the sections that deals with lighter topics and see how often otherwise inane discussions are read and commented upon.  Posts where people ask if their latest craigslist acquisition is a morph can have a thousand hits and hundreds of responses.  Post a picture of a never before produced designer morph and you can get a few thousand views in a few short days.  But post information about the fate of the community itself  and people’s hyperlinks don’t change color.  Many of us are too busy “polishing the brass on the titanic” to give attention to what’s really important.

This is not a fight you have to fight as an individual.  But you do have to participate.  It’s a painful reality but it comes with the territory in today’s landscape of pet ownership.  We all have to be prepared to give our voice, our pen, our money and our vote to support our rights as responsible pet owners.  PIJAC and USARK are the two best allies the reptile owner has.  If you can’t or won’t financially contribute to one, consider the other.  If you don’t give them money, give them your voice.  If they ask you to make a phone call or write a letter, do it.  It takes such a small amount of time.  If you don’t you have knowingly ceded the fight and passed through into Acceptance.

Regards,

Colin Weaver

Another large group of people who have long kept reptiles frequently fit one of several stereotypes; rebellious, disenfranchised with mainstream America, unwilling and unable to conform to “The Man’s” definition of life and success.  They are tattooed, gruff and intimidating looking folks with whom you avoid making eye contact.  They know that bongs, like cars, have carburators and they wear black leather jackets, and ride big and loud motorcycles.  Their homes smell of patchouli and you will likely hear Pantera or some other ear-pounding music blaring loudly from the speakers of their smoke-filled rooms.  They like the wide berth their image affords them.  And a snake fits perfectly into their image.  The uneducated think snakes are dangerous and the rebel loves the added air of non-conformity that a snake brings them.  A seemingly perfect match, huh?

Stereotypes don’t become stereotypes without having some basis in truth.  But they are always unfair to apply to everyone of a particular group.  But using stereotypes is a convenient way to absolve yourself of the responsibility of having to learn about individuals who are different from you.  And one of the many reasons that snakes have long been unacceptable to the average person is their negative stereotype associations.  The non-conformist proudly sports their snake as a symbol of their non-compliance with society’s rules while the clean-cut white collar professional who sits smack in the middle of mainstream America keeps their pet reptile an accidental secret.  The general notion is that “normal” people don’t keep snakes as pets.  It’s only the outskirts of society that want them.  Every single reptile breeder knows this to be completely false.  The diversity of our customers is all the evidence we need.

It happens every day that I am behind someone in traffic who has a sticker on their rear window that breaks down all the members in their family.  There is an avatar for each family member including the pets.  I regularly see dog and cat avatars but to date have never seen a snake (or other reptile) sitting next to the other family members.  And why not?  I know it’s not because people aren’t keeping reptiles.  Reptiles are kept as pets by multiple millions of Americans.  Is it because reptile owners don’t view their ectothermic friends as members of the family?  I doubt it.  Is it because putting stickers on the back of your car advertising the size, age and gender of all of your family members is stupid?  Quite possibly.  Or is it a subtle symbol of middle America’s unwillingness to proudly profess that reptiles are an important part of their lives?  I think it may very well be.  The long-terms success of reptiles being kept as pets means we can’t continue to do this.  It’s time to bask.

Reptiles are no longer pets on the fringe of the world of companion animals.  They are truly mainstream.  Of course they are not as prevalent as dogs and cats but they are a rapidly growing part of the pet trade.  It is way past time for reptile owners to start proudly advertising their reptilian family members.  I am not advocating that you inflict your choice of pet on your neighbors.  Never take your snakes out in public unless it is safe and appropriate to do so.  I’m advocating being proud of being a reptile owner and educating people who are not in the know.  I do not support perpetuating fear by forcing people uncomfortable with reptiles to have to be around them.  Know the laws of the community in which you reside and always be in compliance.  The more of us that come out into the open and responsibly share our passion with the misinformed masses they more reptiles will be accepted as pets, even by people who choose to not keep one of their own.

The fight for the rights of reptile owners has to be fought on many fronts.  Organizations like NatPet (the National Pet Association), USARK and PIJAC are actively addressing the current special interest group (HSUS, Nature Conservancy, etc.) and political opposition to reptile ownership but it is just as important for the millions of reptile owners out there to make themselves known.  Our friends, neighbors and politicians need to become much more aware of the fact that the stereotypes surrounding reptile ownership are false and that we are a numerous and diverse group of people.

Regards,

Colin Weaver

I’m not a complete noob, mind you.  I have long understood the electoral college, the functions of the three branches of government, the importance of “checks and balances” and the general processes involved in making a bill into law.  But there was a long period of my life when I openly stated that it didn’t matter which individuals were in which positions in the state and federal government, that they had no direct impact on my day-to-day life.  Because it was instilled in me to do so from a young age I have always voted in the elections; local, state and federal.  I wanted my candidates to win but never really expected my life to go one direction instead of another if the results didn’t go my way.  I was naive.  I was wrong.  My eyes, today, are wide open and what I am seeing leaves me horrified, disappointed, disenfranchised and angry.

More than 200 years ago (in 1787) the Founding Fathers of our nation came together to rewrite the original Articles of Confederation, the result of which was the creation of our Constitution and what we all know to be the United States of America.  Many of the original authors of the Constitution were strongly motivated by a seemingly simple theme: limit the size, scope and power of the federal government, leaving the majority of the power in the hands of individual sovereign states.  Embracing the concept of  federalism, our founding fathers recognized the need for a central government in addition to each state’s autonomous government.  There was (and is) a lot of debate over how much power the federal government should have.   The United States, by Constitutional design, is a federation of states.  This means that each states governs itself in addition to the presence of a federal government.  Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution defines the scope of the federal government.  More specifically, it and the Bill of Rights are designed to limit the scope of the federal government’s power over the states.  That which is not the defined in the Constitution falls to the individual states to decide.  Placing strong limitations on the power of the federal government was intentionally done by the people who founded this nation.  The control the federal government was supposed to exert over the lives of citizens day-to-day activities was, by design, limited.  That power was intended to remain with the individual states.  However, largely due to two clauses in Article I, Section 8 (the so-called Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause) the federal government has piled up a long history of overstepping its Constitutional authority and increasing its power over the states.  This has been happening for a long time (since the end of the Civil War) and has been progressing very quickly since the mid-1930′s.  This accumulation of power by the federal government has been happening for so long that the overwhelming majority of us simply take it as normal.  Why would we question it?  It has always been this way, hasn’t it?  But understand this very clearly:  it is not supposed to be this way.  The federal government should not be making decisions that the states are Constitutionally obliged to make on their own.  I believe pet (reptile) ownership and invasive species law are excellent examples.

The 10th amendment to the Constitution should have sealed the deal on the where the bulk of the power in our federation resides.  It states, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  To summarize, Article I, Section 8 and 9 define the scope of power for the federal government and the 10th Amendment ensures that power not specifically given to the federal government is in the hands of the states.  Take a minute and read Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment.  It will take less time than it has taken you to read this far in my post.  Unfortunately, several of the clauses in Article I, Section 8 are sufficiently vague that they have been twisted and mangled by both Congress and the courts in order to seize more and more power at the federal level.  Reptile owners are experiencing the result of this first-hand.

Each of the fifty states is an entity that embodies the needs and priorities of the individuals who live in them.  They are wonderfully diverse in geography, climate, natural resources and population.  Each state is unique and the needs of one are not the same as the needs of the next.  Because of their diversity it is not possible for the federal government to appreciate the impact of its decisions on individuals and communities within a state.  In fact, it is not the job of the federal government to make such decisions.  I direct you once again to Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.  The question of whether or not certain pythons and boas are a danger to the environment of a certain state is a state decision, not a federal one.  I suggest that the federal government’s decision to involve itself is an overstepping of its authority.  Unfortunately, through more than a hunderd years of power grabbing (the creation of the Department of the Interior and two of its agencies, US Fish & Wildlife and the US Geological Survey) the federal government has given itself the power to control the states in this matter.

One of the most simple and interesting aspects of federalism that I have come to embrace is the concept of mobility.  Because the power is supposed to reside in the hands of the state governments it is a citizen’s right to simply move somewhere else if the state enacts laws that are incongruous with their personal goals and/or beliefs.  Put more simply, if you don’t like what your state is doing, leave.  You can move to a state that is more closely aligned with your needs as a citizen.  However, when the federal government oversteps its authority and enacts federal law it leaves citizens with nowhere to go.  Because federal law is an umbrella that casts its shadow of control over all the states we are, in a very real sense, trapped.  There is nowhere to go to be free of the decisions of the federal government.  This should infuriate python owners in Vermont and South Dakota.  Their liberty is at risk because of a perceived problem almost two-thousand miles away in the southernmost portions of Florida.  For the python-loving residents of South Dakota the only way to rid themselves of such federal tyranny is to leave the country.  While moving from Florida to Virginia is readily do-able for most of the population, moving from Florida to Italy is not.  For me, this is the part I fear the most.  If laws banning pythons and boas are enacted at a federal level there is literally nowhere to go.  Mobility, which is a mechanism to free myself from the decisions of an individual state, will have been stolen from me.

The desire to increase the size, scope and power of the federal government is viewed as a positive by those who embrace statism.  Statists, whose actions and philosophies are most frequently aligned with what today is the far-left Democratic party, seek to increase power of the federal government in virtually all aspects of a citizen’s life.  It can be seen in large scale events like the government taking an ownership stake in corporations, government run health-care and social security.  It is also evidenced on a smaller scale in the desire for the federal government to impose a national ban on the importation and inter-state trade of pythons.  Why does the federal government need to impose rules on states who have no capacity to be affected by the suggested spread of the Burmese python (North Dakota, for instance)?  Why does the federal government simply not leave these decisions in the hands of states that deem themselves at risk?  This was the intent of the Constitution, was it not?  The answer can be summed up in one word:  power.  For statists, the acquisition of power at a federal level is taken at every opportunity in order to create a larger, stronger and more powerful central government.

As a side note:  The acknowledgment that pythons may one day have the ability to spread into the lower 1/3 of the United States is one piece in the highly political argument over global warming.  If the federal government concludes that the Burmese python will spread because of warming trends predicted by the USGS then it is yet one more piece of evidence that global warming is a real, human-caused, condition.  Such proof will be used to support future environmental legislation.  Do not think for a moment that this issue is just about pythons.  The trickery engaged in by people with political agendas takes on incredibly veiled forms.

Through their own local politicians the states have contributed to the increase of the power of the federal government by accepting the federal govenrment’s money to fund in-state projects.  It’s a nasty behavior, really.  By getting federal funding for state initiatives the states are getting their funding from all American taxpayers even though there is no benefit to the other states.  This smacks of abuse of power and should ring loud in the ears of reptile owners as Senator Bill Nelson of Florida (a Democrat) and House Representative Dennis Meek of Florida (also a Democrat) both introduced federal legislation to ban the importation and interstate transport of pythons (S373 and HR2811) in an effort to acquire federal tax dollars to fund the restoration efforts in the Florida Everglades.  There are also added fringe benefits for both of them.  Had the legislation passed their next election campaign would have heralded them as the “candidtate that saved the Everglades from the scourge of the Burmese python”.  Another shining example of this is the recent deal made by Senate Democrats with Ben Nelson (Democrat from Nebraska) to get the other 49 states to pay for the Medicaid expansion costs in Nebraska …forever!  The taxpayers of Virginia should be venomously opposed to the idea of paying for hospitals in Nebraska.  If you’re not, check the mirror for your lobotomy scar.

As states accept more and more federal funding they give more and more power to the federal government.  Over time they have become dependent upon the flow of money and, as a result, are often held hostage because of it.  For example, in 1974 the federal government enacted the Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act which federally mandated the speed limit on the nation’s highways to 55 mph.  In 1986 Nevada changed the speed limit to a 3-mile stretch of highway to 70 mph.  Within a few hours of doing so the federal government revoked their highway funding.  The state changed the limit back to 55.  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law).

In the end none of this talk about the abuse of federal power really matters.  And that saddens and frustrates me.  The federal government has acquired the power to determine the fate of pythons and boas in the pet trade.  Right or wrong the power is there.  Nothing in the near future is going to change that.  If the unthinkable happens and pythons and boas are added to the Lacey Act as injurious species you can rest assured that there will be legal challenges that play out over a span of years.  But the fight over the fate of pythons and boas is not about science.  It’s about politics.  Are Burmese pythons truly a threat to the lower 1/3 of the United States?  In the end it doesn’t really matter.  This is about special interest groups, campaign contributions, pet projects, and government power.  Pythons are being sold as creatures with the power to completely destroy ecosystems, hunt humans and spread disease.  None of it is true.  But facts don’t matter …and that is a shame.

Regards,

Colin Weaver

I recently received a letter from the office of my representative in the US House of Representatives.  The letter reiterates what one of his staffers told me during a face-to-face meeting when I went to his office in Washington DC.  While I characterize Mr. Forbes as a delegate who is “on the side” of responsible pet owners I think his opportunity for opposition has been limited.  This is, of course, unfortunate.  What is more unfortunate is that the limitation stems from one of S373 and HR2811′s biggest sources of resistance: USARK.

In Mr. Forbes letter he points out that which we already know: an agreement has been reached between USARK and the HSUS to limit the scope of HR2811 to Burmese and African Rock pythons.  That agreement unanimously passed the House Judiciary Committee on 7/29/09.  I was at that hearing, I watched it happen.  USARK, in what they believed was an effort to save all pythons, offered Burms and Afrocks in the spirit of “we’ve got to give them something.”  In reality USARK’s compromise didn’t give supporters of the bill nearly as much as it took away from its opponents.  On July 28th Mr. Forbes was opposed to HR2811.  By the time the afternoon of the 29th rolled around he had little choice but to support it.  Why?  How can he oppose a bill that has been agreed upon by both sides of the issue?  He can’t.  It would be politically silly and a waste of time to do so.  This was the exact sentiment shared with me by one of his staffers during our meeting.   USARK’s decision to agree to a limited scope for HR2811 effectively ensures its passage when sent to the House floor for a vote.  I can see delegates saying, “HSUS likes it and the snake people like it, too?  All right then!  Let’s vote on this thing and go grab a burger.”  What is there to debate?  It appears that everybody is happy.  Except me.  I’m not happy.

If S373 passes the impending full Senate vote and HR2811 passes a House vote the absolute best we can hope for when the two bills are reconciled is the elimination of Burmese and African Rock pythons.  It won’t be any time soon that I forgive anybody who is responsible for that.

It’s a horrifying proposition but plausible to think that one of the best things that could happen at this point is that the HSUS gets one of their Democrat House delegates to introduce a new amendment to HR2811 that makes it mirror the current verbiage of S373 (e.g. all 9 animals in the USGS report).  At least that way the venomoid-rendered opposition in the House can have a renewed reason to oppose the bill.  How else are they supposed to argue against it?  That’s not really the kind of gamble I’d like to take but…

Colin Weaver

Many reptiles owners who are concerned about HR2811 and S373 may not realize it but these bills are positioned almost 100% along party lines.  Democrats in both the House of Representatives and the Senate are in favor of it.  Republicans oppose it.  Republicans do not oppose these bills because they love pythons.  They oppose the bills because they seek to bypass normal processes that have been in place for a long number of years, a point USARK has been trying to make.

The fundamental nature of the Democratic party is to seize the liberty of individuals in order to provide for the perceived benefit of the masses.  According to Democrats, the impacts on individuals are secondary to the needs of the many.  The way that state-minded Democrats (state as in “statism”) endeavor to do this by taking steps to give government more and more control over the lives of individuals.  Easy examples include Social Security, the current health care debacle and the huge ownership stake government has recently taken in both the automotive and financial services industry.  Bailouts were given and control was taken to protect the masses.  The result:  a larger government with reach yet further into the lives of individuals.

Fellow snake owner, you are now poised to be on the receiving end of that same seizure of liberty so often employed by the Democratic party.  They want to take away your right to own the snake of your choosing for the betterment of the masses.  It is a decidedly Democrat thing to do.  What makes it worse is that all of you know that the reasons offered for why your rights are about to be seized are not even based on facts.

Remember this the next time you go to the polls and have to choose Republican or Democrat.  Many people in this country are single-issue voters.  In our last round of elections many chose to vote Democrat solely because it wasn’t “voting for Bush”.  The result of those elections are that we now have a Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, a Democrat-controlled Senate and a Socialist, er, Democrat President.  The Humane Society of the United States swooped into action as soon as that criteria was met (Democrats all-around).  The result to the reptile community is the pain we are all feeling today.  Never forget that.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

P.S. – Mid-term elections are about a year away.  If we can survive this round we can fix our problems (the reptile problem, that is) at the ballot box next year.

Note:  I opened this up to discussion on the ball-pythons.net forum but they moved it to their “Quarantine Room” that is not visible to the general public.  I guess it was more direct and to the point than what they like on their site.  It’s their site, their call.  Someone on that site suggested that I was unfairly trying to make this into a partisan issue.  Uh, I’m not trying to make it a partisan issue, IT IS A PARTISAN ISSUE.  This isn’t a secret.  Pretty much across the board Democrats appear to be lined up to vote in favor of it and Republicans will oppose it.  That is a fact and not a politically motivated attack on the democratic party.  It is what it is.

• In June 2008 HR6311 was introduced by a Democrat.  This bill had the same aims as HR669.  Despite being introduced in a democrat-controlled House, HR6311 never even made it out of committee.  Nobody fought too hard for (or against) this bill because George Bush was in office and he would have vetoed it.
• On January 26th, 2009, less than a week after Obama was sworn into office and the Democrat hat-trick was complete, HR669 was introduced by a Democrat.  The reptile community had its first unified and loud reaction.  The House sub-committee backed off in response.
• On June 10, 2009, HR2811 was introduced by a Democrat.  This bill seeks to perform an end-around on the legislative process by adding large constrictors to the Lacey Act.
• On February 3, 2009, barely 2 weeks after Obama’s inaguration, S373 was introduced by a Democrat.  This is the Senate version of HR2811.  This bill also seeks to perform the same end-around on the legislative process by adding large constrictors to the Lacey Act.

There are two themes at work in the timeline above:  1)  There have been repeated efforts to take away the rights of pet owners and 2) they have always been introduced by HSUS-sympathetic Democrats.

A photo of an alligator exploding out of the belly of a Burmese python…

The militant congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Shultz epitomized the overuse of this fantastical photo during her rude questioning of USARK’s Andrew Wyatt at a Congressional hearing on H.R. 2811. In Congress it is generally frowned upon to say things like, “Talk to the hand. I ain’t tryin’ to hear it.” Her position as a congresswoman is supposed to constrain her outbursts so the best she could do was to repeatedly hold up the infamous picture to punctuate her close-minded tirade. As a representative of the rational people of her district in Florida she is completely invalid; a danger to anybody who endeavors to participate in a careful contemplation of facts.

A tanned snake skin unfurled by Senator Bill Nelson during a session in the Senate…

In July of 2009 Senator Bill Nelson unrolled the skin of a 16ft Burmese python to a round of oooh’s, aaah’s and gasps from those in attendance. The Senator did not precede his dramatic presentation by saying, “This skin is almost twice as long as the animal that used to own it. Tanned skins are always significantly longer than the original animal.” Why would he need to say such things? Everybody know this, right? For him to diminish the dramatic effect of such a gesture would have been presumptuous about the intellect of his audience. Leave people to draw their own conclusions; it’s better that way. Now is a good time for me to point out that I am often being facetious when I write.

A child killed by a Burmese python…

The logistics of this tragedy have experienced Burmese python keepers around the country scratching their heads. People who keep large snakes are well aware of how they behave and the description of the wounds and the manner of the attack are so incredibly contrary to the actual behavior of these animals that every Burmese python keeper I know is saying, “It just dosen’t make sense. Burms don’t do that.” Maybe it’s wishful thinking on behalf of snake owners (myself included); we don’t want it to be true. But the confusion remains; the way this snakes is alleged to have killed this child is as unusual as the event itself. But guess what? None of my pondering matters. The Burmese python has been tried and convicted in the court of public opinion. Facts are not relevant. It won’t matter if the police come out tomorrow and say that the boyfriend accidentally killed the child and then staged the scene to make it look like the snake did it. The child is dead and the python has been assigned blame. The result is simple: large constrictors are now in the category of things that are a “threat to human safety”.

A ream of paper in the form of a report from the USGS…

Several men of science have come out in opposition of this piece of literature and it appears that they are being written off as reptile-loving quacks. This particular writing of mine is not the forum for me to offer a contradiction to the USGS’ slanted report. You know what matters about this report? It is thick. Very thick. 300 pages, give or take. I am confident it has been printed and placed in a 3-ring binder by many congressional staffers. How many have actually read it? Very few, I’m sure. How many have read it and then sought professional advice as to the validity of its content? Fewer still. It’s 300 pages, after all, and there are more pressing matters in the country. Heck, I haven’t even read every word of it. This is the reason for the so-called Executive Summary. Distill this content into something small, please. Twenty pages? No, still too big. Senators and Congressmen are busy people. Let’s get this down to something smaller. A few sound bites would be nice. Perhaps a picture or two. It’s odd, …I just read a similar distillation of Sleeping Beauty to my daughter tonight as she went to bed. In ten lavishly illustrated pages the entire story of Aurora was told and at no point was an admission made that many relevant facts were being omitted. I am left to wonder if members of the House and Senate are aware that they are being read bedtime stories …stories re-written by special interest groups (HSUS and Nature Conservancy) that are full of canned and baseless drama. But the best stories are the ones that have a villian and an innocent child, are they not? Fairy tales. But the python is not a beautiful princess. No prince is riding to its aid. This time Maleficent may actually win…

Colin Weaver

• Odds of falling off a ladder and dying:  1 in 2.3 million.  That works out to about 132 people every year in the United States.
  • I’m not sure which one to criminalize; being short or putting things high up in the air.  Perhaps both.  Being found guilty of one or the other should be a misdemeanor but being guilty of both (short people putting things high up in the air) has to be a felony.  The risk is too great.  People must be saved from themselves and only government can do that.  I have heard rumors that Congress will consider legislation that requires all ceilings to be no higher than 6 feet.
• Odds of being killed by a shark:  1 in 300 million.  That’s just under 1 American every year.
  • Considering the mass of humanity I see at the ocean front during the summer months its a surprise the more aren’t getting munched.
• Odds of dying when you roll out of bed while sleeping:  1 in 2 million.  That works out to about 152 people every year.
  • The lobby for the “Mattress on the Ground Mandate” is gaining momentum.  The National Association of Bedside Step Stool Manufacturers is having a fit right now.
• Odds of a left-handed person being killed while using a right-handed tool:  1 in 4.4 million.  69 Americans are killed this way every year.
  • Right-handed people should be ashamed of themselves for being in the majority and senselessly putting the lives of left-handed people at risk.  I, for one, am going left!!!  Left-handed, that is.  The other “left” is just silly.
• Odds of being killed by a falling coconut:  1 in 250 million.  That works out just under two people every year in the United States.
  • Even the vengeful coconut tree can exact its revenge for being exploited by dessert menus all over this country.  I fully support the coconut ban.  Saving one life each year is worth giving up Mounds candy bars, don’t you think?
• Odds of drowning in your bathtub:  1 in 650 thousand.  Brace yourself and hold your breath:  469 people per year die in the tub around this country.
  • Damn.
• Odds of being killed in a carnival accident:  1 in 300 million.  About one person/year.
  • It appears that carnies and sharks are equally malevolent.
• Odds of being killed by a lightning strike:  1 in 10 million.  That’s a whopping 30 people per year in the United States!
  • Despite tireless efforts by Democrats they have yet to successfully legislate the weather.  The amazingly psychotic Nancy Pelosi is reportedly furious that the weather won’t respond to her back-room dealings.
• Odds of being killed by a large constrictor:  1 in 584 million.  That works out to less than 1/2 a person every year.
  • Dare I comment?

Sources:

• http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-world/2008/05/30/scientists-calculate-odd-ways-to-die-115875-17495916/
• http://www.npg.org/facts/us_historical_pops.htm