I agree with your point about responsible ownership and selling. We need people to know exactly what they are getting. It's the reason I still go through the local pet store that I have for the last few years. They don't carry the problem species(since if you know enough to care for them and want them then you also know how to find a breeder/seller) and they give you complete accurate information including telling you if they do not know the answer to a question and what resources might have that answer.
That being said there is also still the problem of partial information. A key example is your RTB. Is it a BCI or a BCC? If someone only has limited experience and it is with BCI then they might think that all RTB's only get to 5-6ft long. Personally I was recently fostering a pair of BCC's of which the male was full grown and the female was still growing. The male was only 6ft and about as thick arround as my wrist. the female was approaching 9ft and about as thick as the thickest part of my forearm. They were both the same variety of BCC but they had been on completely different feed schedules. The male had been fed regularly but very small prey items while the female had been power fed. So if the store had only dealt with BCI's or even a small BCC like the male I was caring for then they might honestly, but still incorrectly, believe that RTB's only get to 4-6ft.
While the ban is theoretically in response to a problem which is real there is strong reason to question whether that real problem actually caused the bann to be proposed. Before the ban was even proposed there were local(state and county) measures being taken to deal with the issue.
In most if not all states it is illegal to release nonative species and in some states it is illegal to release native ones without F&G handling it. The simple fact is enforcement of that law is all that is needed to take care of the issue. I agree that the methodology of how to accomplish that enforcement is wide open to debate but the simple fact is that legistlation exists on the books for prosecution of the problem.
The bann does not even seem to attempt to be consistent. If the threat to people is the issue then they have no ground for some of the species on the bann list such as ball pythons. If the environmental risk is the issue then most of the species are irrelevant for anywhere other then south Florida as few could survive anywhere else in the US and fewer still, if any, could successfully breed there. In all reality the proposed snakes are some of the least likely candidates for being injurous to the US that you could have picked. However that makes it even more dangerous for other areas of the hobby like asian ratsnakes because once the bann goes through they can say look these other species are even worse so they need to be added.
Bottom line is it should be handled by the states and not the feds. If a state has a problem with a specific species they can impliment permits, microchipping, or bannes. I somehow don't see an anaconda being much of a threat on the loose in Minnesota. Do you?
Here's an interesting link as far as the human risk statistics
http://www.riobravoreptiles.com/care_fatalities.htm
Sean
-----
1.1 BRB
1.1 Triple Het TPRS's
0.1 Silver TPRS
1.1 Amel Bloodred Corns
0.1 Abbott Okeetee Corn
0.1 Blizzard Bloodred Corn
1.1 Thayeri Kingsnakes
0.1 Reeve's Turtle
0.2 Amstaff's
1.0 Pudytat
