How do I prove a negative? And I'd argue the fact that they've been imported substantially for DECADES without establishing themselves is evidence leaning against a ban. The only species that has anything that *might* be a viable population in the US are the burmese. And that's only in one small area. It's not proof but it is strong circumstantial evidence. If they were that hardy, they'd be established in south Texas, California and Lousiana as well as Florida, as those states have all had a strong importer presence for years.



What I want is *proof* that these species actually do constitute an environmental threat--and that proof is lacking. That USGS study sucked--it didn't account for seasonal lows, just averages, and it didn't account for suitable habitats, both which are pretty damn important. There's lots of circumstantial evidence against them being a threat, and 0 evidence that they are a threat.



They're not talking about banning imports--if that was it, I wouldn't be overjoyed but I wouldn't mind it. They're talking about putting them on the lacy act as an injurious species, thus banning commerce and possibly ownership period. Lacy's a lot nastier than the old 373 bill. It outright prohibts the posession of certain fish species and rodent species, and bans the interstate commerce in several more species, notably big cats.

[ Show Entire Thread ]