Reptile & Amphibian Forums

EXAMINER-ENTERPRISE (Bartlesville, Oklahoma) 09 May 10 Citizen works to lift snake ban, city researching (Jessica Miller)
After a citizen recently told the Bartlesville City Council ball pythons are not dangerous and should not be banned, city staff are researching the snake breed.
Josh Tucker, who breeds and sells ball pythons, cited a section of Bartlesville’s Municipal Code that prohibits a number of snakes — including pythons — and asked the City Council on May 3 for an exemption.
City Manager Ed Gordon said Thursday that city staff is researching ball pythons. He said if research concludes the snakes are not dangerous, he suspects the breed will be removed from the city ban.
Tucker said ball pythons should not be banned because of their size and demeanor.
“In captivity, they’re considered good pets for their relatively small size and placid nature,” he said.
According to Tucker, ball pythons typically reach lengths of 3 1/2 feet, are the smallest python breed and tend to spook easily. Rather than strike, they “ball up,” he says.
Tucker said the federal government has a pending ban on large and dangerous constrictors and when it first came out, it also banned ball pythons.
Since then, Tucker said, the United States Association of Reptile Keepers educated the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service on ball pythons and why the snakes should not be included in the ban. Tucker said an amendment was made to the ban to only include constrictors and pythons over 6 feet in length.
According to Tucker, if a ball python escaped, it would not be able to survive an Oklahoma winter. He said the snakes are also not a threat to humans as they eat large mice and small rats.
Tucker told the council he received his business license through the State of Oklahoma as a licensed ball python breeder.
“When I attempted to get my license through the city (of Bartlesville) though, I was shocked to find out ball pythons were not allowed,” Tucker said.
Bartlesville Municipal Code defines “dangerous animals” as any animal other than domestic dogs and cats, which in the wild state is carnivorous or which because of its nature or physical makeup is capable of inflicting serious physical harm or death to human beings. The list of “dangerous animals” includes python snakes.
“That is not a ball python,” Tucker said Thursday, referring to ball pythons not being dangerous animals.
The code prohibits citizens from owning, keeping or harboring any dangerous animal in the city.
Tucker said Thursday he is still in limbo, waiting to see if the city will make any changes to code.
“I’m hoping that this gets resolved through the city fairly quickly,” Tucker said.
According to Tucker, he has about 40 ball pythons and sells them on the Internet. In light of the code, Tucker is not allowed to sell the snakes in Bartlesville but he would like to be able to sell them locally.
Citizen works to lift snake ban, city researching

This doesn't sound like he is trying to lift that ban as much as it does him just trying to get an exemption for ball pythons specifically.

He shouldn't have any trouble, after all, they are Petco friendly.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

>>This doesn't sound like he is trying to lift that ban as much as it does him just trying to get an exemption for ball pythons specifically.

Yeah, why isn't he challenging the law for all species? Given no tropical snakes can survive an Oklahoma winter, and more people get killed by lightning and dogs EVERY YEAR than have been killed by large constrictors over the past 30 years, seems like the city staff's "research" would show even large constrictors are not a realistic threat to the environment or the public.

Isn't it interesting what a good job our public officials do at legislating personal taste, personal choices and aesthetic values.
In other words, "We don't like what you like. We don't understand why you like it, we're unwilling to inform ourselves of the true facts and nature of the issue and will continue to remain ignorant and fearful, thank you very much." So, that personal choice becomes illegal.
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

>>Isn't it interesting what a good job our public officials do at legislating personal taste, personal choices and aesthetic values.
>>In other words, "We don't like what you like. We don't understand why you like it, we're unwilling to inform ourselves of the true facts and nature of the issue and will continue to remain ignorant and fearful, thank you very much." So, that personal choice becomes illegal.

Yep, that's why I believe the that legal action is the only glimmer of hope for us. If you are one of the chickens in the henhouse, writing letters to and pleading/negotiating with the foxes won't accomplish much. Obviously I could be missing something, but from my viewpoint I'm not seeing any evidence that all this letter writing and commenting we've been doing has accomplished anything of consequence.

I think it's getting to the point where sooner or later the chickens are going to open fire on the foxes. I'm kind of glad I have a bit of space between me and the hen house. I hope I can dodge the crossfire.