>>The hype about pythons wiping out entire populations of wildlife positively drips with irony, because in the history of the world the species that has destroyed more populations of wildlfe, including entire ecosytems, is -- you guessed it -- Homo sapiens. .. Habitat loss is the number one cause of extinctions worldwide...
The pythons aren't making it to the everglades by themselves. They're intro'd by humans, accidentally or intentionally. That makes their presence, and their impact on the wildlife of the everglades, just one more example of the impact of homo sapiens. If you have an environment--however disturbed or undisturbed the glades might be today--and introduce a major predator like the pythons, isn't that habitat destruction, albeit a different sort than we usually think about?
WE are supposed to be the "love the woods" folks rather than the "love the city" folks in the dichotomy in this thread, right? Then shouldn't WE be concerned about the introduction of such powerful non-native species into the environments (the WOODS!) that house the species we revere?
I think we get so concerned about the legislation affecting US that we feel pushed on, so we push back against the entire concept, without thinking if we shouldn't want some regulation to protect the native species. The proposed bills might not be the solution. But does everyone here want unfettered access by anyone, to any species available anywhere in the world? We worry about fire ants possibly destroying king snake eggs. What about mongoose? (mongeeses? 
)Should we care whether they're sold in every pet store? Should we care if, when they turn out to be undesirable pets as adults, they are released not in the glades but in the woods in YOUR state, or mine?
I sometimes see "slippery slope" arguments--arguing, hypothetically, that if you ban nuclear weapons in the hands of gang bangers you're eventually gonna end up with laws banning abrasive jean patches on elementary school students, therefore you'd best fight any law that would restrict nuke-ownership. I'm not sure that's the right approach for anyone who cares about wildlife. (While i guess a few of you might take the position that ALL speed limits, on ALL roads should be abolished, i suspect most of us believe there should be some limits, and that the debates should revolve around the points at which limits are set. I'm of the mind that we need to approach the animal-ownership regulations in the same way.)
Clearly, "alien snakes threaten the U.S." isn't a viable approach to problem solving. Is "keep your hands off anything i want to own, anywhere" any more viable? Have those opposing the snake bans proposed regulations to protect the environment AND private ownership? I suspect they have, but--perhaps for brevity--all i see here is usually pushing back. Tell me more about constructive proposals for those who love the woods and the animals in them. Thanks.
