Just for the sake of arguement. The size requirements solve the impulse buy problem for larger species but at the same time it hurts breeders. Breeders are not going to want to raise up their offspring to these lengths. And what happens if every state adopts these size requirements? Why not let the market and regulation control this rather then having these size requirements? I just don't like the idea that the freedom to raise up a baby whatever is taken away. Many people buy smaller species as impulse buys as well. I just think the bigger species stick out more. And smaller species are easier to place should someone lose interest in their new pet.



I also do not think that we are going to regulate ourselves. We have enough trouble trying to get people to fight back against the banning agenda. We have rule of law in this country for a reason. And some people don't follow it even with the possibility of prosecution. We try to educate and screen our customers but how good of a job can we really do at that?



As for micro chipping venomous, this was discussed in Florida and for many neonate snakes this would not be possible and could jeopardize the health and survival of certain species (eyelash vipers). The costs of micro chipping is also a concern. For species which can be micro chipped without issue I don't see (other then cost) why it should be a concern. However, will we eventually have to micro chip all of our animals so we can identify any invasive releases or other situations? Some academics are so anal about things that natives might need to be chipped. Think about it.



Welkerii

[ Show Entire Thread ]