I'd post this elsewhere but this seems to be the place. Anyway here are my thoughts. When a regulated community is included in the regulatory process the resultant laws need not be overly restrictive nor carry a cost to enforce. They could/should simply provide civil authorities with the means to act when widely excepted standards are not followed. Properly crafted laws may also provide cover for responsible individuals who by agreeing with and supporting such standards distance themselves from those who are less than responsible.

A democratic “society” does not guarantee anyone the right act irresponsibly and that some will violate laws is not sufficient reason not to implement them. This python ban is not democratic in greatest part because those sponsoring it have deliberately chosen not to engage the regulated community. Law making, based on fear and sensationalism instead of good data and valid conclusions needs to be opposed by anyone who values the democratic process. Fighting this however is different than having a “do nothing” mentality which fails to recognize the role that well reasons laws play in ordering a society.

Sadly the reptile keeping community has failed on many occasions to step up to the plate and initiate some sort of self imposed standards. While society at large is pretty tolerant of smaller snakes and lizards of the non-venomous variety, hots and big exotic constrictors cause real if not always legitimate concerns. Recognizing this fact and responding to it proactively would have been the best method of ensuring that extremely restrictive measure such as this python ban never gained traction in the first place.

This is just my two cents but once this python ban fight is over we need to engage the larger battle and grow up as an industry or we’ll be back to square one before you know it.
-----
“Nothing is at last sacred but the integrity of your own mind.” Emmerson

[ Show Entire Thread ]