Tag: invasive

Commerce, Fear and Legislation

Written by : Posted on May 31, 2011 : No Comments

Interstate CommerceAs I type my 40th birthday is barely two years away.  And I don’t know if it’s my age combined with the times or if it’s the times by themselves but over the past few years I have become keenly aware of a rapidly increasing divide between the people of the United States.  I know, I know, every generation laments the passing of the ‘good ol’ days’ and things were always better yesteryear.  Time has that sort of scrubbing effect; it distorts the very perception of our own hindsight.  But I sense that what is happening now is something more dark and angry.  The happy-go-lucky naivety of my youth has passed.

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’). 

Read More

Python Rope A Dope

Written by : Posted on July 27, 2009 : No Comments

The reptile community has been suckered.  We are falling for a very clever ruse and it is happening at this very moment.

What trick, you say?  S373 and HR2811, of course.  The clever nature of the trickery behind these bills has caused the reptile community to lose its perspective and react in a most unexpected way.  We are now working for the other side.  We are unintentionally supporting a ban.  Allow me to explain.

Both S373 and HR2811 propose to add the entire genus PYTHON to the injurious species list of the current Lacey Act.  If passed this will ban the importation of AND interstate transport of all pythons.  This will effectively end the trade in every species of python there is.  This is, of course, a horrifying proposition to python lovers everywhere.  At first I laughed at the silliness of it and shook my head at how uneducated the people were who penned such legislation.  But as I continued to think about it I came to realise that it may actually be brilliant wording on their part.  It’s brilliance lies their anticipation of our reaction.  As a community we have played directly into the hands of those who wish ban the ownership of exotic animals.  And leading the packed on being tricked is one of our most active voices, the United States Association of Reptile Keepers, USARK.

In my opinion USARK has officially thrown the Burmese Python under the proverbial bus.  I have long feared it would one day happen but did not expect it to come so soon.  On July 25th, 2009 USARK actively solicited the reptile community to contact members of the House Judiciary Committee to amend the wording of HR2811 to specifically address Burmese pythons rather than the entire python genera.  In doing so they have become unintentional participants in the initiative to ban large constrictors in the United States.  And I suggest that this is partially what the authors of S373 and HR2811 wanted to happen.  I believe these bills are INTENTIONALLY vague (by using only the term ‘python’) in order to get us to say, “Whoa! Whoa! Whoa!  Don’t ban all pythons!  Just ban Burmse pythons! “ Wait.  Did we, the reptile community, really just say that?  Yeah, we did.

The last I heard USARK’s position was that they did not support legislation that was not based on a legitimate scientific analysis of the ability of the Burmese python to expand beyond the Florida Everglades.  Has such evidence surfaced?  No, it has not.  But their position appears to have changed.  USARK wants to be the voice of the reptile community and they appear to be suggesting that we offer up the Burmese python as a sacrifice to protect all the other pythons.

Please don’t take my words to think that I am coming down on USARK as a whole.  I do not intend to do so.  I firmly believe that USARK has, at its foundations, nothing but the absolute best intentions for the reptile community.  They are a group of people who have stood up to fill a void; a voice to represent reptile owners throughout the United States.  But I do not agree with their reaction to this particular issue.  And part of me thinks that they, like the rest of us, have been tricked into a position that supports the desired result of those who wish to ban the ownership of exotic animals.   We have played into their hands.  Just a few short months ago we were all screaming, “No.  You may not ban pythons without scientific evidence to support their ability to be invasive beyond the Florida Everglades.” Now, in a tiny amount of time, we seem to have changed our voice to say, “Please, please, please!  Just ban Burmese pythons.” The only way we could have changed our tune so quickly is if we were tricked into doing so.  And tricked we have been.

If you are going to make a call on Monday to a member of the House Judiciary Committee regarding the wording of HR2811 (as the USARK suggests) you need to make a choice about what you are going to say.  Are you going to advocate a change in the wording that says it’s OK to ban the Burmese python or are you going to tell them that the Lacey Act should not be amended until proof can be found that pythons are a national problem rather than just an isolated problem in the south of Florida?

And by the way, there is already a bill floating around that will fund efforts to hunt Burmese pythons in the Everglades (as well as multiple dozens of other non-native creatures that get no publicity).  If Burmese pythons cannot expand beyond the Everglades and we are going to hunt them down and remove them, why do we need a law banning them throughout the entire United States?  In short, we don’t.

Once the exotic animal banning gates are open we cannot close them.  More and more reptiles and other exotics will find themselves legally unavailable for ownership.

Regards,

Colin Weaver

P.S. – Where are the big shipping companies?  Delta (via Delta Dash), FedEx and UPS all stand to lose a considerable amount of money if these bans are actually put into effect.  They should want to lobby on behalf of the responsible reptile owning community and ensure the future of a large revenue stream.

Final note:  It is not lost on me that USARK’s position may be one of minimization.  They may be taking a precautionary stance by seeking to amend the wording to minimize damage if the unthinkable should happen.  But even if that is true it doesn’t change the fact that there has been a shift in tone toward a willingness to let Burmese python ownership become a thing of the past.