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

http://www.nosnakeban.com

The National Pet Association, an organization that seeks to protect the rights of responsible pet owners in the United States, is helping reptile owners in the fight against irresponsible legislation efforts underway in Washington DC.

Please join me by supporting the call to action outlined at www.nosnakeban.com.  Please also take the final step which is to encourage all of your friends and family to support the rights of pet owners.  It doesn’t matter if you don’t own a snake.  This is about more than snakes.  This is about pet ownership and the right to responsibly own the pet of your choosing.

Colin

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

Fellow pet owner,

My name is Colin Weaver.  I am 37 years old.  I am probably a lot like you in that I have had a dog and/or a cat as part of my family for all but a tiny handful of years in my life.  My current dog, a 4-year old Weimaraner named Seven, is not just a pet; she is a member of my family.  Taking care of her and protecting her is no less a responsibility than taking care of my 3-year old daughter.

In addition to being a dog lover I am also an enthusiastic reptile fan.  In particular I have an affinity for pythons.  This fact, I suspect, will immediately distance some of you.  Pythons are not conventional pets and because pythons are enigmatic they are often feared.  Despite their fast-growing popularity, they are on the edge of mainstream pet ownership.  It is true that reptiles do not show the same affection toward their owners that dogs and cats do.  The opposite, however, is not true.  The way you feel about your dog or cat is the way that many feel about their reptiles.  For the moment I ask that you not judge the particular animal that some choose to make a part of their lives.  For now, just focus on the way you feel about your pets and give credit to reptile owners for feeling the same way about their companions.

In the United States dog ownership is under constant attack.  The source of this attack is most commonly the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).  Volumes have been written on the Internet about their deceptive ways but they continue to be successful in launching attacks against pet owners (and breeders) around the country.  I know your frustration regarding this because I feel it, too.  Dogs are only one of several targets of the HSUS.  Reptile keepers are also struggling with the HSUS’ powerful lobbying skills.  At this moment there is a bill in Congress called HR2811 which seeks a nationwide ban on many of the most popular reptiles in the pet community (the Senate version of the bill is called S373).  At a recent hearing in the House a team of more than 25 HSUS members were present to forward their efforts to get this bill made into law.

The reasons proposed for this ban are false.  They are being sensationalized by the HSUS and this is being compounded by the media.  South Florida does have a problem with a population of pythons having established themselves in the Everglades.  This problem, which is isolated to extreme South Florida is being used as a point of leverage to ban the ownership of pythons and boas throughout the entire United States.  There are two primary points of the HSUS argument:

1.The HSUS and USGS feel that the python might be able to spread north from Florida and establish itself in the lower 1/3 of the United States.

• Because pythons cannot control their own body temperature this is simply not possible.  Highly experienced reptile veterinarians with detailed understanding of reptile physiology have testified to this fact.  The ecosystem of South Florida is largely unique in the United States.  Their ability to spread north from the Everglades is false and being driven by nothing more than the average person’s fear of snakes.  Pythons have been kept as pet for not less than 50 years in this country.  If they had the ability to establish themselves in other parts of the country, they would likely have done so by now.  One of the USGS’ selling points on this matter is that global warming over the next 100 years could allow the snakes to survive further north.  Is that what we’re going to do now?  Legislate the pet trade on what might happen in the decades to come?  Really?  Remember the movie Minority Report starring Tom Cruise?  In that movie people were  arrested and put in prison for crimes they were going to commit in the future.  Banning the ownership of snakes because the temperature might change in the future is just as preposterous.  That movie sought to teach us a subtle lesson; it appears that it was not learned.

2.Pythons are a public safety issue.

• The HSUS states that pythons kill people and are a risk to public health.  This is both fear-driven and false.  Of the pets that people choose to keep pythons are one of the least likely to be a danger.  Severe injury or death because of a python is incredibly rare.  It is estimated that more than 5 million Americans own a reptile, several hundred thousand of which are large pythons and boas.  Over the past 30 years there have been a total of 12 deaths attributed to large pythons.  While nobody should ever discount the value of a life we have to admit that so few deaths in that many years is hardly justification for pythons being a public safety issue.  It is worthy to note that none of those 12 deaths was from a python or boa escaping into the wild and attacking someone.  Each of those incidents occurred in the home and each was the result of poor caging and/or improper handling.  The simple fact of the matter is that responsible ownership of pythons and boas is not a public health concern.

The pythons in the Everglades is a decidedly Florida problem.  Florida Fish and Wildlife has jumped on the bandwagon of this ban because federal legislation means federal dollars.  The prospect of getting the entire country to fund Everglades restoration is a compelling motivator.  In order to generate support for their desired end-result they have begun actively searching for pythons and when found they parade them about on the evening news.  The media, and their love of all things sensational, is glad to feature them.

One of the most recent efforts of the HSUS has been to call for a ban on the Boa Constrictor in addition to several python species (they initially tried to ban all pythons).  Suggesting a ban on ‘boa constrictor’ is the same thing as suggesting a ban on all terrier breeds because you feel that pit bulls are a problem.  It it absolutely ridiculous.  If one of the 15 species of terriers (that’s how many my research showed there to be) was a member of your family how would you feel if they were banned because of a HSUS/media-driven view of pit bulls?  I hope you would be as frustrated and angry as the reptile community is right now.  Similar to the diversity of terriers, there are literally dozens of different types of boa constrictors and most of them are very small as adults.  We are in danger of seeing a huge portion of the pet trade eliminated by this proposed legislation.  We are scared. We are angry.  And we are frustrated.

Now, here is the point of my letter:  The reptile community is not large enough to indefinitely withstand the assault being launched by the HSUS and our current political representation is too new and inexperienced to avoid being blindsided by the clever lobbying skills long-since perfected by the HSUS.  The passage of this bill is a very real possibility.  Because of this I am asking you to help me and the rest of the reptile community.  I need your help.  Part of my livelihood and my right to responsibly own the pet of my choosing is in danger of being taken away from me.  I need you to defend pet ownership in this country by contacting both your delegate in the House of Representatives and your Senator and tell them you oppose HR2811 (the House bill) and S373 (the Senate version of the bill).  I need this help because I believe with all my heart that the only way that pet owners in this country are ever going to be safe against the efforts of organizations like the HSUS is for all of us to work together to protect the rights of all pet owners, regardless of what type of pet it is.

Do this for me.  Please.  I need your help.  Make the call to your House delegate and your Senator and I, in return, make myself available to you when you need help in your fight for your right to have the pet of your choosing.  It is past time for the pet owners of this country to come together, to form a collective and work as a unit to oppose the HSUS’ attacks on responsible pet ownership.

To find out who represents you in the House of Representatives, follow this link:  https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

To find out who represents you in the Senate, follow this link:  http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

HR2811 is currently in committee in the House.  Here is a list of the committee members: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/committee.xpd?id=HSJU

Thank you,

Colin Weaver
cmweaver@gmail.com

Am I a prone to making irrational statements and wild accusations?  Maybe.  Should I be accused of being clouded by bias, unable or unwilling to separate fact from fiction; the way the world is versus the way I want it to be?  Perhaps.  Are my words worthy of making you contemplate your perspectives?  You probably don’t know me well enough to say for sure.  I might be a loon or maybe I’m one of the most lucid people you’ll ever know.

After almost forty years on this planet I have long since learned that nobody likes a zealot.  Zealots are tantamount to crazy people.  People on the extreme end of any particular topic are typically discounted, written off.  It’s not too different from the way some teachers grade papers in college.  She grades on a curve and starts by throwing out the highest and lowest scores to determine the scale upon which everyone else will be measured.  If you are on the fringe you don’t count.  Too far right or too far left and your contribution is relegated to babble.  In order to be taken seriously, to be listened to, you have to temper your passion.  You cannot let emotion sway your judgment or the presentation of your ideas.  Don’t get me wrong, it’s OK to be a zealot but you have to keep it a secret.  If you don’t and you get outed and people detect that you have an extreme position they will turn you off, block you out and dismiss the things you say.

Because some organizations are heavily infested with zealots they have spent most of their political capital.  Their ability to sway larger portions of the population are all but lost. They have who they have but who they have isn’t anyone they would not have had in the first place.  Converts are few and opponents are many.  Think about outfits like PETA, the ACLU, NORML, the NRA and GLAAD.  Do you expect anybody from any of those groups to say anything that will surprise you?  Probably not.  There is nothing moderate about them.  They are almost always too far to one extreme, unable and unwilling to listen, learn and perhaps most important, be modified.  You see, zealots don’t want to be swayed.  They like what they believe and taking the time to understand, truly understand, what the other side says means they will be open to a new idea.  Being open to a new idea means you are open to changing the one’s you already have.  That is too dangerous a proposition for a zealot.

I don’t want to be a zealot.  I’d rather not be written off.  I write these words because I want them to be pondered.  I would like to sway your opinion to be more closely aligned with mine.  My words may not ultimately convince but I need them to give you pause; a moment when you are open to ideas that may differ from your own.  That’s my window, my opportunity.

Despite my conscious desire to want to avoid behaving like a zealot I sometimes get careless and say or write things that firmly plant me out on the edge, the place where crazy people hang out.  I am, after all, a zealot in hiding.  Sometimes I let my guard down and go rolling through crazy town, frothing at the mouth, wearing mascara, eating handfuls of dog food and screaming obscenities at nuns and small children.  Well, maybe it’s not that bad …I hope.   For example, a few days ago I was talking to my accountant about the proposed ban on pythons.  As we talked I explained how animal rights groups were behind the legislation and how it was their aim to end the ownership of exotic animals in the United States.  My accountant was with me, nodding.  Seeing that I had an agreeable audience I began to rant.  Like Sly Stallone in Over The Top I flipped my hat around, kicked it up a notch and drove straight into crazy land.  My passion for the topic got the best of me and I stepped up on my proverbial soap-box and began to explain to my accountant how it wasn’t just exotics like pythons that the Humane Society of the United States wants to ban.  I proclaimed, “The Humane Society of the United States wants to eliminate the rights of all Americans to be able to have a pet dog or cat, too!  They want to completely end pet ownership of any kind and have a systematic, multi-year plan in play to make it happen!”

… Whoops!  Wait!  Hold up.  Party foul!  That, my friends, was the wrong thing to say.  In the eyes of my accountant I could see very plainly that I had just crossed over into crazy-town (he actually rolled his eyes at me).  By transforming into a zealot I had crapped out, spent my capital and completely lost my audience.  Just moments before I had been a credible voice, full of insight, logic and reason.  I was educating a fellow pet owner about the fear-based lies being spread by the HSUS about pythons in America.  And just a sentence or two later, I was being discounted as a zealot.  Damn, that was quick.

My failure to prove my larger point with my accountant sticks with me.  I often reflect on the conversation and where I went wrong.  My accountant has no interest in pythons and could ultimately care less what happens to them.  He helps me add up how much money I lose breeding them year after year but that’s about it.  He does, however, have a dog.  The thought that an organization like the HSUS is actually plotting to take away his right to own a dog is just too far of a stretch.  He would tell me that banning dogs and cats was impossible.  I might as well have started talking about alien abduction, parallel universes where evil Captain Kirk is real (an celibate), and how the Girl Scouts killed Jimmy Hoffa.  You know, stuff crazy people say.  In his world I went there.  Proposing that dogs and cats were on the chopping block was too far a stretch.

So rather than writing something as far-fetched as what I said to my accountant, let me instead offer an end-around.  I cannot come right out and tell the average person that the HSUS wants to ban the ownership of all pets in the United States.  The idea is …crazy; something only an irrational zealot would say.  So, for the moment, let’s say that it is not true.  I don’t think it and I don’t think you should either.  All better now?  Knowing that our dogs and cats are safe we are free to ponder the following interesting pieces of information.

• In our society it is generally accepted that things produced on a small scale are inherently better than things produced on a large scale.  Homemade apple pie is always better than apple pie made in a large-scale baking facility.  Despite the similarity in the ingredients the homemade apple pie is better because it is given personal attention and made with love.  Large juggernaut operations, focused only on profit, can only make products inferior to those produced in Momma’s kitchen.  The corollary to the point above is that things produced on a large scale are somehow intrinsically bad.  They are not of the same quality as things made on a small scale.  For instance, if you choose to buy a purebred dog you are going to get a better quality one if you buy from a smaller scale breeder.  Their animals are better.  Better cared for, better quality, better, better, better.  Really?  Maybe.  Maybe not.

• The devil often masquerades as an angel.  In the movie The Usual Suspects Kevin Spacey’s character says, “The greatest lie the devil ever told was to convince the world he didn’t exist.”  During the masquerade the devil is kind, helpful, and gracious.  He speaks in compelling half-truths that sound quite genuine.  He gives you truth 90% of the time.  With so much truth floating about it is effortless for you the buy into the other 10% (the lie).  If you need additional perspective I recommend reading the Screwtape Letters by C.S. Lewis.

• There is a famous cautionary anecdote that suggests that a frog placed into hot water will immediately jump out but a frog placed in cool water will sit still as the temperature is gradually raised to a boil.  Even though it is not true it can serve as a warning that if you are complacent you will find that your rights and freedoms can be taken away slowly, in seemingly painless pieces until the day you turn around and say, “Heeeyyyy?!?!  What happened to all my rights?”

• In July 2009 the governor of Tennessee signed a “commercial breeder” bill for dogs and cats that requires any individual/business with more than 20 female animals to be licensed (and pay an annual fee) in the state.  The real kicker is that the law also limits the total number of animals that any breeder can have to 75.  Breeders who maintain larger populations are persecuted by the media (sometimes justifiably so) as being inhumane “puppy mills”.  I have never seen the media report on a great breeding facility.  They only report on the bad ones.  Well-run, clean breeding facilities are not newsworthy and the media is happy to let us, the zombified public, infer that all large dog breeding operations are abusive and inhumane puppy mills (Juggernaut-brand apple pies).  The reaction of Tennessee dog breeders to this new legislation has been to A) move out of the state, B) reduce the number of breeding females to under 20 so they can avoid having to the pay fees and endure inspections or C) limit the size of their business to 75 animals.  It is worthy to note that the HSUS was behind this bill and that they “partnered” with kennel clubs in Tennessee to craft the legislation.  The HSUS convinced them that legislation was imminent and that it would be better for them to draft legislation of their own rather than having it come from somewhere else.  Snake owners, please take a moment to see the parallels in this type of maneuvering by the HSUS. I can’t seem to get the image of harakiri out of my head right now.  Not sure why I’m thinking about that…

I see a few things that will come true because of this “commercial breeder” law:

1. Haters of so-called puppy mills will celebrate because facilities with fewer animals are more likely to receive better care.  That’s true, isn’t it?  Smaller is better, right?  Homemade apple pie versus Juggernaut-brand pies…
2. Fans of the idea that there is a pet overpopulation problem will cheer because breeders will not be able to produce as many dogs, meaning more people may choose to adopt from shelters.
3. There will be fewer pure-bred dogs produced.  Owning one will become more difficult as the supply within the state decreases.
4. Purebred dogs will become more expensive as breeders pass the additional costs on to their customers.   They will also increase their prices to compensate for the reduced production capacity (evil commercial dog breeders have mortgages, too).

With the law now in effect in Tennessee it appears that efforts are being made (backed by HSUS) to again lower the maximum number of animals a breeder can keep.  HSUS’ top three skills are litigation, lobbying and legislation.  With no real adversary on the battlefield it is likely they will be successful.  When successful I can speculate that many breeders will get out of the dog breeding business.  They will not be able to produce enough animals to make a living.  This will further decrease the number of purebred dogs available which will cause animals rights activists to celebrate even more.  And of course prices on purebred dogs will continue to rise as availability continues to decline.

The decrease in availability will be partially compensated for by individuals choosing to breed the family dog.  The “backyard breeder” will breed his purebred dog and offer them into the marketplace.  These dogs are [supposedly] better.  They are produced by the smallest of the small breeders.  What could be better than a breeding operation consisting of only two dogs?  These puppies are homemade apple pie.

Enter mandatory spay/neuter laws.  There are several areas around the United States that require you to spay/neuter your dogs and cats.  If you choose not to you must pay an annual fine.  Oops, I meant to write ‘annual fee’.  Not wanting yet another recurring bill many people will choose to spay/neuter their pets.  In many areas of the country this can even be done for free (or close to it).    We spay our animals because we love them, because it saves us money and because we are sometimes told that it is better for the long-term health of the animal.  All three of these things are true.  We also spay them because the HSUS says there is a pet overpopulation problem in America. Let me take a moment to remind you about the level of truth the devils tells while masquerading.  Did you just swallow some lie with all of that truth?

Here is the question I want to ask you:  If Tennessee is stage one of a planned national assault on the size of commercial dog breeders and spay/neuter laws continue to gain momentum, where is your next pet dog going to come from?  Legislation forcing dog breeders to be smaller in size will mean that there are fewer dog breeders and less production.  Mandatory spay/neuter laws mean you and your neighbors will not be able to breed your dogs to make more.  Fewer and fewer dogs will be available.  Is it possible that owning a dog will become unusual, perhaps limited to the more financially affluent portions of the population?  You see, the HSUS doesn’t have to introduce legislation that will ban the ownership of dogs in this country (we already established that doing so would be crazy); they can achieve the same result by gradually eliminating the ability produce them!  The future inability to own a pet dog is the collateral damage.  The HSUS is way too smart to go head-to-head with dog ownership.  It will be far easier for them to take away little pieces here and there.  Think about it.  Thanks to the wonderful picture painted by the media most Americans applaud the idea of smaller commercial dog breeders.  The truth we are being sold is that the animals will be treated more humanely.  We are also buying mandatory spay/neuter laws for the reasons I mentioned earlier.  Masquerade!!!  By buying the supposed humane treatment of animals could you actually be buying the inability to own one in the future?  Give it some thought.

I believe that the Humane Society of the United States is the single biggest threat to the rights of pet owners we will ever encounter.  Their attacks on the outskirts of the the pet owning population are overt, brazen and direct.  They want to flat out ban the ownership of pythons and boas.  Such a seemingly small portion of the population is not worthy of tip-toeing around.  We, the snake owners of America, are not large enough nor organized enough to have a voice that a Senator, who sits atop a pedestal constructed with HSUS money, can hear.  Dog and cat owners, which number in the multiple millions are too large a voice to treat with such disregard.  Dog and cat owners dwarf the HSUS many times over.  They are wise not to wake a sleeping giant.

The only way the pet owning community in America is ever going to be safe against the cleverness and resilience of the Humane Society of the United States is to join together as a collective unit.  Specialized associations are nice but cannot mount a fight that will equal that of the HSUS.  We need (and have) an association of pet owners that are represented by one collective lobby; an organization that represents the millions of pet owners from one platform.  That is an organization that can be powerful enough to take on the Humane Society.  Divided, we fail.  Reptile associations.  Fail.  Bird associations.  Fail.  Dog breeder associations.  Fail.  Fish keeper associations.  Fail.  Everybody joining a National Pet Association?  That’s power!

If you have not already done so, please join the National Pet Association (http://www.natpet.org).  It’s free, they won’t ask you for any money (not today, at least) and they are interested in protecting the rights of every single pet owner in this country.  Please also consider asking everybody you know who has a pet (of any kind) to join.

Under the banner of humane treatment the HSUS is running amok all around this country.  They have got to be laughing at how easy their job is.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

Click the icons below for a printable version of this blog post.