Posted by:
amazondoc
at Mon Jan 25 21:31:39 2010 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by amazondoc ]
>>well, I know that I've spent about 4,500 on my retics and caging, not counting food.
But you could still do that even if importation is banned. An importation ban will not outlaw ownership.
> Prehistoric Pets is a 2 million a year business (according thier web TV show), much of which is retics...it's probably not billions but it's substantial.
They actually sell many different species. It would be interesting to know how much of their business actually depends on imports and interstate transport of the large pythons and boas, and how many businesses there are with similar dependencies.
>The bigger issue is that they're acting like these snakes are a threat to most of the American south...these snakes are TROPICAL! A reticulated python would be dead in nearly all of the country come fall or winter.
First, prove it. The USGS survey wasn't found to be "wrong" in terms of its climate findings -- it was just limited because it didn't include habitat considerations.
Second, you have to compare potential harm to the environment against potential harm to the economy. The large snakes are NOT the entire herp trade. How many millions would actually be lost by an import ban? You have to balance that against how many millions or billions of dollars in harm could be done to the environment. It's too late to worry about environmental damage after the fact.
>I lean towards libertarianism...I don't want laws that are not easily defensible on both theoretical and factual grounds. This law is neither.
You haven't proved that yet. Show us some facts and figures.
-----
----
0.1 Peruvian rainbow boa (Amaru)
0.3 Honduran milksnakes (Chicchan, Chanir, Hari)
2.6 corns (Cetto, Tolosa, TBA)
1,000,000.1,000,000 other critters
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: Fish & Wildlife to add pythons to Lacey - amazondoc, Mon Jan 25 21:31:39 2010