Reptile & Amphibian Forums

ORLANDO SENTINEL (Florida) 06 January 08 Our position: Florida is right to crack down on six reptiles that invade native species
A Burmese python isn't a cute, cuddly creature. Neither is a Nile monitor lizard.
It's OK that some people see them as pets, but it's also understandable to assume that anyone who owns these kinds of creatures should be a responsible pet owner.
That's why it's good to see that the state is imposing restrictions on owning "reptiles of concern."
A law now requires people who buy one of these six species to pay a $100 permit fee and have microchips implanted into their pets for identification purposes.
Owners who complain they are being picked on don't have a good argument. The state needs to get a handle on these creatures, many of which have been unaccounted for because they have had so little, well, accountability.
Many of these reptiles have become an invasive species that could establish a large enough population to endanger native birds, fish and other creatures. They're already intruding and harming owl and gopher-tortoise populations.
And although the evidence is only anecdotal, there are many stories of people setting their pets free in the wild after they've become too big to handle. Pythons can grow up to 20 feet.
Some of these animals used to be bought on a whim. No more. Owners now have to be at least 18 years old before applying for a state permit.
No matter who owns them, these animals should be cared for responsibly.
Nobody wants an unwelcome meeting with a python.
Florida is right to crack down on six reptiles that invade native species

I'd agree with this guy, if it weren't for the open hypocrisy involved in the treatment of these herps compared to various mammal pets. Where's the $100 permit & age restriction on, say, dogs, cats, rats, mice, etc.?

Ah yes, herps aren't "cute". Much better to be bitten by, have diseases spread by, or have the ecology screwed up by cute things.

Why is it something has to be cute & cuddly to be desired as a pet? How about microchipping dogs & cats also. Maybe there wouldn't be so many strays running around in the streets.

How about not microchipping anything at all unless the owner chooses to have this done to their own private property. Give it enough time and they will want this done to all other animals as well (this has been going on in the farming industry for a few years now.) Then they will be wanting to microchip us. I am convinced that these micro chips are the Mark of the beast that is referred to in revelation (you cannot buy or sell without it-think about where commerce is going in this country. when is the last time you used cash to buy anything? wouldn't an implanted microchip be more secure than credit cards?) I am religiously opposed to the "chipping" aspect of this law. I also find it ironic that"republicans" who seem to claim some affinity with "evangelicals" are the ones behind these laws. I'll bet they spit in their bibles when no one is looking. They certainly aren't reading them. Furthermore I find it ironic that republicans love to talk about fighting the war on terror and then pass laws that are often sponsored by organizations that have been shown to have ties to groups that are identified as domestic terrorist groups by the F.B.I.. What hypocrasy. I guess it is wrong to pander to foreign terrorist agendas but pandering to domestic terrorist agendas is ok. Perhaps Al queda should apply for citizenship and join the animal liberation front. then the republicans will welcome them with open arms.

No...republicans and evangelicals keep snakes, too.

I think pigeon-holing, stereotyping, and generalizing is a bad start to any issue. Just as you don't like being 'prejudiced' as a herp keeper, don't assume all Republicans and Christians are behind these kinds of laws. As a matter of fact, the Republican platform is one of less government involvement and behind the rights of the citizens. It is typically a Democratic influence that has a heavier government involvement, government fees, and environmental protection. Check your facts before you react...

Now that this is completely off topic, I'll shut up.

Oops, I think I misread your post. I reread it and saw the part about the irony. Mea culpa... Yes, it is ironic, but I'm not really surprised and I really don't think it has anything to do with religion.

You really can't deny that the invasive species problem is out of hand in FL. I think they are trying to deal with the best way they know how...it's just not necessarily the best way. The Nile Monitor is a real threat to the environment, the Burm is a real threat to young Am Crocs in the Everglades. The iguana isn't really a threat, just a nuisance to some. I think the public outcry is forcing politicians to act, but they don't really know what to do...hence this new law.

The real problem with the law is that people who are already irresponsible are not going to comply anyway. I think it's a fundraiser to support the cost of research and enforcement in S FL.

you um MEANT to sound totally crazy with that post, right?
-----
-David

Check out my pet pics at:
http://www.myspace.com/obx_fisherman

1.0 ball python (Pandora - don't ask)
1.0 argentine boa (Prometheus)
0.1 hogg island boa (Andromeda)
0.0.1 brazilian rainbow boa (Inara)
1.0 kenyan sand boa (Diablo)
1.0 normal corn snake(Cypress)
0.1 amery. corn snake (Morgan LaFay) RIP
0.0.2 baby corns (Romulus and Remus)
- 1 normal, 1 ghost
0.0.1 banded cali. kingsnake (Cain)
1.0 tangerine honduran milksnake (Narcissus)
0.0.1 snow corn snake (Valkyrie)
1.0 amazon tree boa (Pegasus)
1.0 colombian boa (Poseidon)
0.1 albino san diego gopher snake (Athena)
0.0.1 sandfish skink (Slick)
0.0.1 fire skink (Phoenix)
1.0 dog (Luke)

the wife's pets:
1.0 bearded dragon (Leonidas)
1.1 ferrets (Ares, Enyo)
1.2 cats (Galahad, Ripley and Sassy)
0.1 Boxer (Zoe)

NEWEST ADDITIONS:
1.0 adult Dumeril's boa
0.0.1 baby yellow amazon tree boa