"The idea of making ourselves look good by going after another segment of the trade is not a smart one."

I don't think he was saying attack the trade? but that we should destroy feral specimens. I agree. I also am having trouble believing (forgive if I'm wrong) that if they ban some snakes they will eventually ban all reptile pets. I just don't see anything to draw this conclusion from... :O

It seems to me, that with burmese, retics, anacondas (sp.) OFF THE TRADE we will have more respect from the mainstream community? no? unacceptable? ok... How about licenses for breeders and permits for owners? Do we actually have any plan of action at all? other than, we must be able to keep all of them? let's appease some politicians, imo we have to act somehow people are upset. Nobody (aside from the reptile community) cares if the burms were blown out of their cages by a hurricane into the wild (hurricanes come every few years to the same place do they not?), or any other way they can be displaced - they are just not going to care. Why not make "constrictor licenses"? I'm pretty sure it would make reptiles MORE popular... and it would appease washington as a plan of action.

It does suck that boa constrictor is on that list... i rather like them and burms as well.. but we can't keep burms, too much publicity. Anacondas have NEEDED to be illegal to trade for years, so have retics and all venomous. You just should not have something like that, it's the opinion of.... oh... just about everyone but a snake-lover.

Just laugh it off, here in Kansas my friends 93 year old grandmother has a Quaker parrot and it's 17 years old. She thinks its the coolest thing ever bc right after she got him, quakers became illegal in kansas. (pretty retarded reasons, just like here). Point? THEY ARE MORE POPULAR HERE NOW THAN EVER! Everyone passes up every other bird and goes to Missouri to get a darn Quaker! BC they are illegal, and therefore cool!

[ Show Entire Thread ]