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

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

The reptile community could really use a good public relations campaign right about now.  I recommend you stop waiting for our industry’s “leadership” to make things right.  You need to find a way to do something yourself.  If you own a large constrictor why don’t you take a moment to mail (no, not email) some photos and perhaps a video to members of Congress showing them how your snake is not menacing and how you take care to be a responsible snake owner.  Legislating to the lowest common denominator is no way to run a country.  The only thing being paraded in front of our representatives are the negative husbandry examples.  I know there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of responsible owners of large constrictors.  What an awesome impact it would be if even 40% of us sent in personal testimonials about our pets.  If you’re not motivated you better get there; your rights are on the line.  If you are motivated, double it.  I do not want to wake up one day and not have the right to own the reptile of my choosing.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZwTFWyI4Ho

P.S. -- I seriously doubt politicians watch youtube so don’t post videos there thinking they are going to make it to the eyes of a government representative.  I’ll throw a few bucks down and wager that the overwhelming majority of politicians don’t even check their own email.  Kick it old school and send in a personal letter.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

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

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.

What a polarizing animal the python has become.

Within the portion of our country that is paying attention we are divided into two distinct groups.  One one side we have reptile owners from every walk of life; blue collar, white collar, broke-as-a-joke and stinking rich.  Some of these reptile owners have a single python while others have many and breed them for profit.  And we have owners who fit everywhere in-between.  Their levels of personal responsibility are as diverse as they are.  I’m sure there are some who have no business owning a reptile.  The overwhelming majority, however, are quite responsible.  They respect their animals, take care of them and work to ensure that they don’t impose on the rights of others who are not as enthusiastic about snakes.  And yes, many of them actually love their snakes in the way that the average person loves their dog or cat.  No, pythons are not as affectionate and attentive as my Weimaraner (not by a long shot) but they do have personalities.  Each snake is unique.  And if you were to spend some time with them you would also come to realize that truth.

On the other side of this debate is a small, well-positioned group of misinformed individuals who are calling for a federal ban on pythons; not Burmese pythons …all pythons.  Maybe.  Nobody on this side seems to be python savvy enough to know that there are actually different kinds of pythons with the overwhelming majority of them being quite tiny compared to the sinister Burmese.  I’m not entirely sure where they stand on other types of pythons and I don’t think they know either.

Eradicating the existence of pet pythons in America is such an easy thing to stand for, isn’t it?  Pythons are huge, menacing, people-eating machines that are actively slithering north from Southern Florida toward the back yards of the Washington DC suburbs where they will stalk your pets and hunt your children!  Well, that’s the way the media tells it, at least.  The truth in this debate is not so newsworthy so the media (with the help of bad info from supposedly scientific organizations) is fabricating the truth to better their ratings.  And why not?  Ratings equal dollars.  From what I gather chaos, revolution, murder, drug overdosing Kings of Pop, financial downturns, forest fires, celebrity clothing choices, car crashes and Burmese pythons are the things that sell newspapers and ad space.  From the Discovery Channel and the History Channel to a few dozen newspaper columnists around the country and all the way up to Senator Bill Nelson, who is a living, breathing example of misinformation incarnate, people who know absolutely nothing about pythons are calling for their nationwide ban.  Their numbers are small but, as I wrote earlier, they are well positioned in the media and are able amplify their noise.  The original rallying cry was the establishment of a population of Burmese pythons in the Florida Everglades.  An unfounded fear regarding their ability to migrate north has generated a small amount of hysteria and rather than taking the time to find the truth they have planted their flag and are trying to rally troops to support a ban.  Senator Nelson has to support this ban in order to get money from the Humane Society of the United States so I can at least give him credit for being a true politician and supporting the voice with the fattest wallet.  The newpaper boys and girls advocating a ban are just parroting things they heard someone else say. I seriously doubt they have any real opinion of their own.  So  I forgive them.  They are puppets of the media juggernaut and know not what they do.

Two groups of people; one that understands pythons and is asking, “Really?  Seriously?”, and one that seems to have gotten their undergrad degree in large constrictors by watching Ice Cube and Jennifer Lopez in 1997′s Anaconda.  Their masters thesis was complete as the credits rolled on Samuel Jackson’s Snakes on a Plane.  Armed with that level of education about the true nature of snakes they could have done themselves a favor by hiring Mr. Jackon as their spokesperson and could have used this as their slogan:

“HR 669.  When you absolutely, positively, got to ban every mother fucking snake in the land …accept no substitute.”

The call for a ban on pythons has no real merit.  It is based on irrational fear and misinformation.  And Senator Nelson embodied the desire to play on people’s fear when he unrolled a stretched out python skin during a Senate hearing in early July 2009.  He wants to protect the Florida Everglades …or so he says.  How does banning pythons in Seattle protect the Florida Everglades?  The truth is that he wants special interest money from the HSUS and other organizations who want to ban the ownership of exotic animals.  And the Burmese python is a great entry point; a way to get a better foothold on the banning process.

Just how many Burmese pythons are there in the Florida Everglades?  I have heard numbers as low as a few thousand all the way up to multiple hundreds of thousands.  People who don’t support a ban like the lower number while proponents of the ban like the big one.  The real number:  unknown.

How did Burmese pythons get into the Everglades?  I do not doubt for a single second that at some point in the past some knucklehead released a snake into the wild that should not have been released.  But it is not a verifiable fact that the current Everglades population comes from a released pet (as the media loves to suggest).  Defenders of python freedom point to Hurricane Andrew as the culprit because it caused a massive release of non-native species into the Everglades.  The truth is that nobody will ever know for sure.  We would do a lot better pointing our attention at eliminating the Burmese python from the area rather than playing blame games.  If you need volunteers to go down and collect them, call me.  I’m in.  I can also rally dozens, if not hundreds, of other snake enthusiasts who will agree that a mass collection effort will be a wonderful pastime.

I continue to be disappointed by the media’s propensity to hop on to the coat tails of the side of an argument that gets the most press.  I understand why they do it but it still disappoints.  It also diminishes my ability to trust everything else they say or print.  If they so eloquently lie to the public about pythons how much truth is there in their reporting on fossil beds in Montana?  And oh what a wonderful thing the Burmese pythons is shaping up to be. It’s a win-win for the media.  They get to sell a lie that invokes fear and then clean up on the ad revenue sold because of increased readership/web traffic.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

In the mid-90′s I bred Burmese pythons.  They were some of the most gentle and tolerant snakes I have ever kept and working with them was one of the most rewarding experiences I have had as a reptile breeder.  Some life changes necessitated that I stop breeding them and space issues keep me from beginning again.  But I miss them.  I want to put another big group of Burmese pythons together and start breeding them again.  Four things give me pause:

1. Food: Finding a consistent local supply of affordable food has been problematic in the past.  This is the least of my concerns and can be overcome, I’m sure.
2. Space & Caging: Do I need to elaborate on the logistics of housing 30-50 large constrictors?  While do-able, it’s not trivial.
3. City ordinance: The city I live in requires all reptiles over 8 feet to have a permit.  I don’t mind paying the permit fee but I do mind being on the radar of local officials.  I feel like it makes me a target.  “Hey, this guy has 40 Burmese pythons.  He needs a visit.”
   I should avoid complaining on this point, though.  At least the city I live in hasn’t banned them completely.
4. The current national political climate hell-bent on banning large constrictors: If I put together a large breeding group now will I find them banned and worthless some time in the next few years?

At the risk of becoming a pariah I suggest that the writing is on the wall for the so-called Big 5 Constrictors.  I fear they will be banned some time in the next few years.  I also fear it will be our (e.g. the reptile community) own fault when it happens.  As a quick review for those who don’t already know, the Big Five include:

1. Reticulated Pythons
2. Anacondas
3. Burmese Pythons
4. African Rock Pythons
5. Australian Scrub Pythons

We have a chance to stop the ban but the reptile community is currently broken into two distinct groups.  While both groups have the same general objective of allowing for continued ownership of large constrictors (and other reptiles) they differ quite on a bit on their approach.  I suggest you can call the two groups Team USARK and Team PIJAC.  I know I am going to be accused of perpetuating the divide by laying it out this way but this is how I see it.  It is my perception (and you now what they say about the link between perception and reality).

Everything I have seen, read and heard seems to indicate that PIJAC supports the responsible implementation of regulatory controls that will allow continued ownership of large constrictors while USARK does not support any controls, in any form.  As individuals we align with the side that best fits our own personal desires.  That division has and will drive the efforts of both groups in two different directions that ultimately do not complement each other.  That separation may lead to neither group achieving its objective and the third, less desirable result, a complete ban, may prevail in their stead.

The non-big-5-owning portion of the reptile community (ball python breeders, in particular) is often accused of being willing to throw the 5 under the bus to quiet the voices of people wishing to ban snake ownership.  And large constrictors are such an easy target, are they not?  Burmese pythons garner most of the public spotlight because of the Florida Everglades situation and I can’t conjure a story of someone being seriously injured or killed by a ball python or any of the other smaller python species.  It’s always one the five (usually a burm or a retic)  that makes the news.  And they are the one’s profiled on the Discovery Channel, History Channel and other so-called ‘knowledge’ channels.  As a ball python breeder (and former Burmese python breeder) let me be extremely clear on this point:  a federal ban on the Big 5 will not stop the people who want to put your right to own snakes and other reptiles to an end.  Sure, a ban on the Five may quiet them down for a bit but I promise you they will be back, emboldened by their success, to finish the job and ban the rest of the python species.  Their goal is not to ban large constrictors; they want to ban all reptiles.  So if you are a ball python, carpet python or any other kind of python breeder, stop thinking that a ban on the Five will end the political opposition to reptile ownership. It won’t.  It will strengthen it!  All you need to do is look at Senate bill S.373 for evidence of this.  Regardless of size of python being bred, we need to be united and consistent in our opposition to legislation.  This includes a united approach for the future of reptile ownership.

Having said that I fear that rigid and uncompromising opposition to any legislation will result in long-term failure and the Five will be banned at a federal level.  Not long after the Big 5 get banned, many if not all, of the other python species will follow.  Supporters of these bills are sneaky and vigilant.  They use misinformation and fear to further their objectives and given enough time they are likely to be successful in convincing others who don’t care to take the time to find the truth.  Please understand that people do not intentionally form opinions they know to be wrong.  Many rely on seemingly valid sources of information, like the USGS and the University of Florida, to help them form their opinions.  Each person believes what they do for a reason and they often define themselves by what they believe.  In order to maintain their opinions they have to find evidence that supports them.  This fact lets us understand that people who want to prove their opinion will conjur results necessary to validate their perspective.  Consider this publication on the invasion of Burmese Pythons from the Univerity of Florida.  When quoted by the media, academic publications are often presented as lore to the general public.  If you read the article referenced above you will find that it is not short on bias against the large constrictors (and pet owners).  Rather than being an objective academic analysis of the status of the Burmese Python in the Florida Everglades it is a position piece cleverly set up to be ammunition for future citations and political rhetoric.  It is designed to support an opinion and it is seeded with some facts to bolster its credibility.  Who is going to argue with Congressman so-and-so when he is quoting ‘facts’ published as part of a study conducted by the University of Florida?  I hope you see the power in this type of misinformation.  The public will never question these sources, much less read them.

Rigid resistance to any and all legislation may result in complete legislation.  Our best chance for success is to find middle ground.  We need to quell the voices of opposition while maintaining our rights to own and breed snakes of our choosing.  To do this I suggest that the Big Five owners and breeders should not be thrown under the bus …but they may have to get their toes run over by it.  I’m not saying this because they deserve it.  It’s a simple truth that these constrictors get the lions share of attention from people on the outside looking in.  Starting anywhere other than with the Five will likely be viewed as a token offering.

But what do I mean by ‘getting their toes run over’?  Simple, really.  Owners and breeders of large constrictors will have to forego some of the freedoms enjoyed by breeders of smaller snakes.  To avoid sugar-coating it, breeding and ownership of large constrictors will be regulated.  The question is not ‘if they will be regulated’, it is ‘to what extend will they be regulated’.  There are two central issues that legislation will attempt to address:  invasive species and public health and safety.  The ability for large constrictors to invade other regions of the country is hotly debated.

Invasive Species

Nobody seems to dispute the presence of Burmese pythons in the Florida Everglades.  A few sensational (and very over-used) pictures (1) (2) have been released and more than one article/TV show has tried to portray an epic battle taking place for top-of-the-food-chain status between the American alligator and the Burmese python.  It makes for great TV but that’s about it.  The Burmese pythons, along with many, many other plants and animals have made their way into the Florida Everglades and found conditions conducive to their survival.  Over the past decade about 1,000 pythons have been captured in the southern-most portions of the Everglades.  Despite wild reports suggesting otherwise, there is no evidence to prove that they are moving north.  Burmese pythons do not have the ability to survive long-term in the colder parts of the United States, including northern Florida.

Education is our best defense against people who use fear of python invasion as justification for a ban.  We need to educate the people about the reality of python survivability in temperate regions.  Once people who vote on our behalf understand that invasion beyond the Florida Everglades is all but impossible we will have done serious damage to this argument.

Public Health & Safety

The spread of non-native ticks (addressed by the National Reptile Improvement Plan, NRIP) and the ability for large constrictors to severely injure or even kill humans are points of concern (the former is a concern for all imported reptiles).  Death of humans because of large constrictors is incredibly rare.  My research indicates that 11 people have been killed by large constrictors in the past 29 years.  But when it happens it is sensational.  The news and other media outlets seize upon it and milk the stories for all they are worth.  The damage to the image of herpetoculturists is disproportionate and long-lasting.  I’m willing to bet that more than 11 people have died from choking on pen tops in the past 29 years but pen tops, which exist in every home, do not have a lobby against them because of their danger to public safety.  To say that large constrictors pose an imminent risk to humans is just plain silly but when you watch TV they make it seem like there is a python in your back yard, stalking you.  The truth does not stir people, nor does it sell ad space.  The media lies to make the facts more interesting.

Sizable portions of our population are afraid of all snakes (I know a woman who paid $350 to have a 6″ ringneck snake removed from her back yard).  That fear is amplified when the snakes are large.  That fears transcends into hysteria when the snake is one of the Big 5.  Hysteria and fear are not mindsets that allow for rational discussion.  As irrational as the fear is to members of the reptile community, it is real to the people who experience it and they are not likely to be swayed by us telling them everything is all right.

So how do you fight against a largely baseless agrument that is supported by fear, sensational media coverage, irresponsible academics and abusive extrapolations by supposedly legitimate scientific organizations?  Education is the most important tool but it is a long term approach.  Let’s compare the fear of snakes to something like racism.  Racism, like fear of snakes, is a learned behavior.  It takes time to eliminate it and education is one of the key tools.  Eliminating fear of reptiles has to start early in life.  My two year old daughter is not afraid of snakes.  How could she be?  But the other day she told me she was scared the snake was going to bite her.  I later learned she got the idea from another child at school whose parents are deathly afraid of snakes.  How to address it?  Well, I started with my daughter.  Being afraid of snakes in this family isn’t going to work out so she and I spent some time with the snakes so she knows they won’t hurt her.  Next in line is my daughter’s school.  My wife is in the process of arranging a ‘show and tell’ day where I will take some snakes (and other reptiles) in and teach the kids that, while worthy of respect, they are not dangerous.  Every person in the reptile community needs to be a reptile evangelist, working to dispel fear and misunderstanding whenever and wherever we can.  But grassroots efforts (which have been going on for years) will not suffice.  There needs to be a national campaign, supported by entire reptile community, to begin to eradicate fear of snakes.

Education is a strategic aim.  We need a more tactical approach to deal with our immediate problem; a proposed ban on pythons.  Education won’t do us much good if we lose our right to own reptiles in the next few years.  It is likely that legislation in some form is a foregone conclusion.  We will do ourselves a favor to come to the table with something other than blanket opposition.  Here is what I propose:

• Implement a national permit system for large constrictor ownership.  Permits will be per individual/business, not per animal.  There will be an annual fee.  These fees must be realistic and not serve to exclude the average person from ownership (because of high prices).  For example, 200,000 large constrictor owners paying $15/year will generate $3 million in annual revenue.
• Require owners of large constrictors to attend an 8-hour certification class that teaches basic husbandry techniques, safe handling, escape-resistant caging, basic medical response (e.g. what to do if you get bit), etc.  Successful completion of the course is required for permit approval.  Enrollment in the course will be fee-based with a portion of the fees used to provide reptile education around the country.
  • This course could be offered as a single Saturday event (9-5) or two hours/night for four weeks.
  • Large constrictor owners could also be required to renew their certification every 5 years by attending a 1/2 day refresher course.  This will provide an opportunity to make sure all owners of large constrictors are up-to-date on any new developments in husbandry as well as the status of any regulations.  This also provides another revenue stream, complementing the annual permit fee.
• Reptile owners, not reptile sellers /breeders, are responsible for obtaining a permit and certification prior to the animal reaching 8 feet in length.  The breeder/seller of the reptile is required to notify the buyer of the requirement for a permit and certifiation but is not required to maintain records on who the animals were sold to and and what their permit status is.  This requirement falls to the reptile owner and the national reptile permit system administrators.
  • This may be a sticking point.  I think it’s important to avoid burdening reptile breeders/resellers with extra tracking and paperwork.  But large constrictors disappearing into the community with no trail to show where they have gone is likely going to cause a lot of buyers to simply not get a permit or attend the course.  The recourse to this is that there has to be a stiff penalty for failure to register and take the required certification class.  This may take the form of a fine, seizure of the animal(s) and a suspension period, during which time the offender is prohibited from owning a large constrictor.
  • I am not an advocate of microchipping.  Pet owners being labeled as the cause of the problem in the Florida Everglades is an unfounded accusation.  Natural disasters such as Hurrican Andrew are more likely suspects for the unintentional release of reptiles into the wild.  Escaped constrictors are not a problem outside the Florida Everlgades so the only thing mandatory microchipping will do is increase the total cost of ownership (TCO) and the money spent on building, administering and maintaining a tracking database will outweigh any potential benefits.  Microchipping also inhibits the free trade of reptiles.  Ownership of many animals changes frequently and quickly.  I can cite many instances where an animal changed ownership four (4) times in a single day.  Keeping up with microchip registrations will be burdensome without benefit.
• Stiff penalties must be put in place for anyone caught intentionally releasing a non-native species into the wild.  Most states already have something like this but the consequences need to be undesireable enough to cause people to want to find a different solution for getting rid of their animals.

I want a world where reptile ownership is unrestricted and unregulated.  I don’t want any national permit system nor do I want to have to pay an annual fee or take a course for the right to own a reptile of my choosing.  But that is increasingly not the reality.  I would much rather endure a little bit of paperwork, pay a small fee and attend a class every few years than have my rights taken away completely.  I fear that an unwillingness to budge by the reptile community will cause the total loss of our rights.  It’s not fair and the fears of others are not based on reality but they don’t have to be in order for a law to get passed.  It’s time we took the initiative and put processes into place that ensure our right to own large constrictors.  And as soon as we do that I will start building my group of Burmese again, safe that I can breed them and be able to legally sell the animals.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver

In February 2008 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a map showing the possible range of the burmese python in the southern United States.  The maps shows Burmese pythons extending as for north as Virgnia on the east coast (and all the way to west to California).  Being a resident of southeast Virginia for the past 15 years I can tell you without reservation that this is absolutely ridiculous.  The map and the report submitted to support it are false.  They are driven by fear and special interest motivations to end the reptile pet trade in the United States.

It vexes me how this type of false science is allowed to be released under the banner of a supposedly legitimate scientific organization.  Doing so decreases the credibility of their legitimate works.  Hey USGS, here’s a little nugget of information for you:  the United States is a temperate region.  That means we have something called seasons.  Yeah, it’s warm enough to support an escaped Burmese python in the summer but the fall and winter will kill them faster than any Python Recovery Team you might want to assemble.  Burmese pythons are from Southeast Asia (vast portions of which are a tropical region) and according to the book The Physical Geography of Southeast Asia, (screen shot here) annual temperature range in southeast asia is small, not more than 5 degrees (C) annually.  Click here for a graph that shows annual temperatures in Vietnam (southeast Asia).  That means that the same summer climate that supports Burmese in their native habitat is pretty much an all year thing, kind of like it is in the Florida Everglades.  Take a quick drive north on I-95 to northern Florida and you’ll notice that it gets very cold in the winter.  And guess what!  Cold weather and snakes don’t go together.  Every single reptile that lives on the east coast north of the florida everglades brumates to pass the winter; all of them.  Guess what?  Burmese pythons don’t brumate in cold weather.  Know what they do?  They die.  Anybody who has ever kept Burmese pythons knows that they will get a sick at the drop of a hat.  Keep your temps a little bit wrong and they will be hacking snot all over the glass of their locked enclosures.

I am disappointed in the USGS and the people who will let them submit falsehood as truth.  The  USGS slogan reads, “Science for a Changing World”.  It should read, “Science for Changing the World”.

Cheers,

Colin Weaver