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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Denial

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

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

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

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

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

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

Anger

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

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

Bargaining

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

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

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

Depression

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

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

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

Acceptance

At last:  minus one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards,

Colin Weaver

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

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.

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