Posted by:
combs reptiles
at Fri Dec 29 13:12:07 2006 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by combs reptiles ]
That after reviewing the whole proposal, its not all bad, but it is a start in the direction of someday it will effect us who own and keep boas, and a few ball pythons and various reptiles.
Here is a clip from the document , which details thier "reptiles of concearn"
****(2) Any person who keeps, possesses, exhibits or sells reptiles of concern shall comply with Sections 372.921, 372.922, F.S., and the provisions of this rule. The following reptiles, including any subspecies or hybrids thereof, are designated as reptiles of concern: (a) Indian or Burmese python (Python molurus) (b) Reticulated python (Python reticulatus) (c) African rock python (Python sebae) (d) Amethystine or Scrub python (Morelia amethystinus) (e) Green anacondas (Eunectes murinus) (f) Nile monitor (Varanus niloticus) ****
then it goes onto to tell how to qualify to posses these animals.
It amazes me how arrogant folsk like jack hannah can say this and that should not be owned by the "general" public, but what would he do with out these awsome animals? What gives him the right to say who should own what. Common sense is the rule of the day.. i agree a full grown tiger in a NY apt is a no no, but if someone wants to keep a huge snake, and they can do it responsibly, then more power to them.
Just getting it off my chest... i cant stand the goverment trying to tell me how to run my life.
Mike
[ Hide Replies ]
|
I would add.. - combs reptiles, Fri Dec 29 13:12:07 2006