Should Large Pythons Be Banned As Pets?

This is an archive of the mabination.com forums which were active from 2010 to 2018. You can not register, post or otherwise interact with the site other than browsing the content for historical purposes. The content is provided as-is, from the moment of the last backup taken of the database in 2019. Image and video embeds are disabled on purpose and represented textually since most of those links are dead.

To view other archive projects go to https://archives.mabination.com

â™ª wrote on 2012-07-01 05:36

I want opinions on this.

Personally, It's not as big of a problem as people make them out to be.

In the last 29 years a total of 12 people in the US have died from Large Pythons. Dogs are more dangerous than they are.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#Fatalities_reported_in_2012
The reason there's a big retic/burmese/rock python problem in south florida is because when they were first brought to the US a lot of people wanted them, but not everyone knew that they were going to get so big so fast. When they were released in Florida, they had all of the things they needed to survive, thrive, and reproduce.
Not to mention humans do more damage to the environment than snakes ever could.

You can't even own super dwarf retics anymore which don't get over 5ft long.

I really like this article
http://voices.yahoo.com/should-pythons-banned-as-pets-3863606.html

US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) has a proposed rule being considered by the White House Office of Management & Budget (OMB). This is the final stage of the rule making process. This rule, if enacted, would ban the import and interstate transport of nine constricting snakes; Burmese python, Northern & Southern African pythons, Reticulated python, all four Anacondas, and Boa constrictor. This rule has been called the "Constrictor Rule". All of these constrictors would be added to the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act. If this were to happen more than 1 million American citizens could be subject to felony prosecution under the Lacey Act.

A lot of members of the reptile community have the potential to go to jail.
NomadTrooper wrote on 2012-07-01 07:13

Comparing the list of Python vs Dog attacks is stupid as eating dirt. There are vastly more dog owners then large snake owners, and hence, vastly more attacks. What you should look at is the ratio of attacks. Keep in mind that the number of attacks will rise with anything popular as well (do to more people with less care in handling due to passing interest and so on).

A side note: the government is very dumb and belligerent when it comes to wildlife, destroying habitats here and there, claiming someones property to be "wetlands" so that they can seize it in other places. Promoting over hunting, releasing very dangerous wild cats, bears and wolves into areas that have been extinct of them for 100's of years, and ignoring their attacks on people. Releasing foreign insects to control foreign plant infestation and having them do even more damage. Overly restricting hunting in certain areas making car insurance go WAY up.
Chillax wrote on 2012-07-01 08:20

No, it'll be just like the Prohibition. Animal smugglers would be an even worse problem than they are now. Think of all the snakes that would be dumped into the waters to avoid getting caught and screwing up ecosystems like some smugglers do already. Ownership of these snakes, however, should be tightly regulated if they aren't already.
â™ª wrote on 2012-07-01 18:24

Quote from Chillax;898613:
No, it'll be just like the Prohibition. Animal smugglers would be an even worse problem than they are now. Think of all the snakes that would be dumped into the waters to avoid getting caught and screwing up ecosystems like some smugglers do already. Ownership of these snakes, however, should be tightly regulated if they aren't already.

They are pretty regulated. The only place there's a major problem is Florida, and that's because of the ideal habitat. I have no problem with them being banned in Florida like they currently are, but as for the rest of the states, snakes are the least of their worries. I don't think they should ban something they're scared of and don't understand.
Rin wrote on 2012-07-01 19:10

Quote from â™ª;898811:
They are pretty regulated. The only place there's a major problem is Florida, and that's because of the ideal habitat. I have no problem with them being banned in Florida like they currently are, but as for the rest of the states, snakes are the least of their worries. I don't think they should ban something they're scared of and don't understand.

It doesn't matter if it's something they're not scared of and don't understand.

If it's a problem regardless (like concrete evidence it's negatively affecting its environment), it's a problem.

Regulation is fine, but there needs to be a way to prevent people from just releasing these constrictors whenever they don't want it anymore.
â™ª wrote on 2012-07-01 20:36

Quote from Rin;898831:
It doesn't matter if it's something they're not scared of and don't understand.

If it's a problem regardless (like concrete evidence it's negatively affecting its environment), it's a problem.

Regulation is fine, but there needs to be a way to prevent people from just releasing these constrictors whenever they don't want it anymore.

They can't survive in most of the other states, why should the entire large reptile community have to pay when it's not necessary?
The whole basis for this law is for public safety, when we might as well ban dogs.
Dogs aren't something that is necessary, it doesn't matter if more people own dogs or not. The fact is, irresponsible owners make some of them a hazard, so they make sure no one can have them. No dogs, no problem, right? Even if you go by ratio, there are more irresponsible dog owners than reptile owners. There are millions of people who own large snakes, and there's over a million who breed and sell these snakes. This law would be hurting their or possibly shutting down their business.
Rin wrote on 2012-07-01 20:59

Quote from â™ª;898881:
They can't survive in most of the other states, why should the entire large reptile community have to pay when it's not necessary?
The whole basis for this law is for public safety, when we might as well ban dogs.
Dogs aren't something that is necessary, it doesn't matter if more people own dogs or not. The fact is, irresponsible owners make some of them a hazard, so they make sure no one can have them. No dogs, no problem, right? Even if you go by ratio, there are more irresponsible dog owners than reptile owners. There are millions of people who own large snakes, and there's over a million who breed and sell these snakes. This law would be hurting their or possibly shutting down their business.

Doesn't have to be a uniform law, that I can agree with.

Dogs have been domesticated for humans for more than 10,000 years, so you can't compare that to snakes that never had its numerous generations domesticated widely and with standards. Like NomadTrooper said, it's not as easy as just comparing snakes to dogs.

Dogs aren't necessary, but they are at least completely bred to be more useful and less harmless than snakes. And irresponsible owners can be applied to snakes too.

The whole "ratio" thing is affected by a lot of factors, more than just "there are more irresponsible dog owners than reptile owners", such as "dogs are casual pets, so it's easier for people who want less responsibilities to take care of them". It needs more facts to have a more fair comparison.
â™ª wrote on 2012-07-01 21:55

Quote from Rin;898886:
Doesn't have to be a uniform law, that I can agree with.

Dogs have been domesticated for humans for more than 10,000 years, so you can't compare that to snakes that never had its numerous generations domesticated widely and with standards. Like NomadTrooper said, it's not as easy as just comparing snakes to dogs.

Dogs aren't necessary, but they are at least completely bred to be more useful and less harmless than snakes. And irresponsible owners can be applied to snakes too.

The whole "ratio" thing is affected by a lot of factors, more than just "there are more irresponsible dog owners than reptile owners", such as "dogs are casual pets, so it's easier for people who want less responsibilities to take care of them". It needs more facts to have a more fair comparison.

From personal experience with dogs and snakes, it does not take a lot of cost or effort to care for and properly house a large snake.
Dogs will cost you a lot more per year than a snake such as a retic/burmese/african rock could.
The reason more people don't own larger snakes is because of the irrational fear of them, media makes them seem like big dangerous creatures who always seem to find a way to hurt their owners when it's not like that at all.

On another note:
HSUS is actually against ALL pet ownership, ALL farming, and ALL consumption of meat or animal products. And that they are the financial and political leaders behind all the ban nonsense.

You can't tell one person that they can keep their pets and then tell another that they can't just because you don't like their pet, or you believe less people own that type of pet. The only reason the general public can't grasp just how big the reptile hobby is, is because they are not a part of it.
Froglord wrote on 2012-07-01 22:51

This made me lol
[SPOILER="Spoiler"][video=youtube;ICqwz-Q2dDk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICqwz-Q2dDk[/video][/SPOILER]

but really, I don't see any problem with pythons, after watching a few videos of ball pythons and such, they look completely innocent and most of all more adorable than what people make them out to be. Having a large python as a pet would actually be alot safer than having a pittbull as a pet as pittbulls randomly lash out and bite the faces off of anything during a random part of their lives. People even have ocelots as pets now despite them being cold blooded hunters in the wild, I wouldn't doubt there are alot of accidents revolving around ocelots mauling small children, small animals or even adults.
â™ª wrote on 2012-07-01 22:54

Quote from Froglord;898969:
This made me lol
[SPOILER="Spoiler"][video=youtube;ICqwz-Q2dDk]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICqwz-Q2dDk[/video][/SPOILER]

but really, I don't see any problem with pythons, after watching a few videos of ball pythons and such, they look completely innocent and most of all more adorable than what people make them out to be. Having a large python as a pet would actually be alot safer than having a pittbull as a pet as pittbulls randomly lash out and bite the faces off of anything during a random part of their lives.

ijumped.

I love retics and if they're captive bred they're typically docile, but when it comes to the females and her eggs..
[video=youtube;KohCH6-68p4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KohCH6-68p4&feature=relmfu[/video]
Froglord wrote on 2012-07-01 23:51

Quote from â™ª;898971:
ijumped.

I love retics and if they're captive bred they're typically docile, but when it comes to the females and her eggs..
[video=youtube;KohCH6-68p4]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KohCH6-68p4&feature=relmfu[/video]

Them dinosaur eggs.
Rin wrote on 2012-07-02 16:13

Quote from â™ª;898917:
From personal experience with dogs and snakes, it does not take a lot of cost or effort to care for and properly house a large snake.
Dogs will cost you a lot more per year than a snake such as a retic/burmese/african rock could.
The reason more people don't own larger snakes is because of the irrational fear of them, media makes them seem like big dangerous creatures who always seem to find a way to hurt their owners when it's not like that at all.

Costs and ease of maintenance don't always correlate to popularity or history. See cars for an example.

People can have so and so as a pet (My biology teacher in high school is a huge fan of keeping exotic pets and having them on display in the classroom). It's just a problem when people are irresponsible with releasing these animals into habitats that can suffer immensely from so. At that point, people are less likely to care how well you're taking care of a huge constrictor and how harmless it is, and more likely to care if you're going to release it into the surrounding environment later on.
Oizen wrote on 2012-07-02 19:01

Bad pet owners should be banned.