(copy and paste)
This is from the Chicago Herp. Soc. website and I think it represents a reasonable approach. As an aging herper who has been active on the scene for 40 years, I can say that while I have heard about most of the cases involving Python molurus and reticulatus, I cant think of a single case involving Boa constrictor. But that is not really the point, which is that in all herp attack cases I can think of, it was almost always the owner, and in a few cases, members of the owners family, that was attacked INSIDE of their own homes (the general public was never in any danger). These types of attacks should never be equated with dog attacks, for example, in which dogs pursue members of the public off of the owners property, and the public is endangered by the reckless behavior of the owners. If I choose to own potentially dangerous animals and I am killed or injured as a result of my choices, they remain my choices. I dont need or want the government to protect me from myself. If a family member is killed or injured inside of my home as a result lax security measures, then the government can still enforce reckless endangerment or manslaughter charges against me. It doesnt have to ban what it imagines to be dangerous animals, in its own severely limited awareness, if they are completely confined to private property. See "The Case Against Licensing" articles on the Wisconsin Herpetological Society website (right margin menu).
Ed Stone, WI Herp. Society
Wisconsin Herpetological Society