Yeah, believe it or not, that is a success story. NC was going to ban them altogether until USARK and PIJAC stepped in and was able to work out a suitable compromise. The story, however, is a bunch of sensational dribble designed to catch the readers’ short attention at the cost of professional standards of journalistic integrity. No shock there. I also think they quoted Wyatt out of context, or I misunderstood his position.
I fall into the compromise camp. The alternative is outright ban. Unfortunately, science, probabilities, real risk analysis, even a look back at the history of invasive snake species, is of very little use to us in the very short term. Long-term, education and empathy are our best hope. Bottom line is that most people fear snakes, and most have irrational views about them. They have been taught all their lives that snakes = bad. Couple this with the fact that some snake species are bad for the casual owner, and you set up the lawmakers to paint all snakes with the same brush. They don't care what the differences are between a retic, burm, or ball. Snakes are bad, are wild, and nobody has any business keeping dangerous, wild animals.
It also follows that those who would keep these dangerous animals must have a screw or two loose and are, themselves, a danger to public safety. We get painted with the same broad brush as the snakes we love. So, all of our comments, especially those we post when we are angry that others want to step in between us and our animals, are scrutinized and used as evidence of our insanity. Compromise, at least, says that we are not irrational, dangerous people. We understand that many see our pets/hobby/business as a threat to their person or interests, and we are willing to educate, engage, and expose the fact that our pursuits as valid as theirs.
The invasive species argument is a powerful one. This is why HSUS and DOW chose this angle to advance their no-animal agenda. Public safety concerns, as an argument, are pretty easily debunked by the statistics. But, the invasive species angle is easier to push. The problem is real, at least with one species of python (burm) in one locality (ENP) and with countless other plants and animals. Whatever the reasons, they are there, are breeding, and are effecting the ecosystem. How much is up for debate, as is how they got there, wither or not a law would have prevented it, or how workable having the FWS conduct studies to create lists really is given historical funding levels and current national deficit figures.
There are some that say any restriction is unacceptable, and will draw a line in the sand. But, that just gives HSUS, DOW, the bill's supporters, and the media the ammo they need to say we are all crazy. It is inconsistent for us to say that the public should listen to us about the undeniable science that says most of the reptile industry poses no threat and then say that, despite the evidence that some species in some areas should be controlled; the topic is off the table. It just confirms, in their minds, in the uninformed public's mind, and our potential partners at FWS and USGS that we are unreasonable people with no concern for "real" science or scientific methods of risk assessment.
I think it is safe to say that, as a whole, responsible reptile enthusiasts are big supporters of healthy animals and ecosystems. We love animals, or we would not take the time to do the kind of research necessary to keep the reptiles in our care healthy. The USGS and FWS are the guardians of our national ecosystems, and should logically have our support, in general. They are being co-opted by Senator Nelson who is being lobbied by HSUS and DOW to address the very real perception of a problem with pythons in the Everglades. After hearing Sen. Nelson speak at the latest subcommittee meeting, it's clear to me that he would fall into the "uninformed (or misinformed) scared public" category. The information he provided was factually inaccurate and sensationalized in several respects. He was parroting back the speech that was prepared for him, complete with props, but had no idea if what he saying was factual. Or, he was deliberately perjuring himself before congress. I think the former is more likely. But you have to ask, "Why"?
Simple, back to irrational fear. Mr or Mrs Uninformed Public hears from an overzealous local reporter that "giant killer snakes" are taking over the ENP. They call up the good Senator and tell him he has to do something about it. The HSUS and DOW see the opportunity and lay it all out for the Senator. The Senator thanks them for their "support" and goes back to golfing. His staff takes the stuff he got from HSUS and DOW and prepares a bill. He submits it and here we are.
So, short term, we have to be reasonable and realize that there are factors at work that are rolling this along. It's not a personal thing, per sea. Sen. Nelson probably really doesn’t care about the problem much at all except that his constituents keep bugging him about it. He doesn’t want to be a snake expert so he outsources it and gets back to other things. When required, he steps out in front of the camera and passionately argues the "facts" that were spoon-fed him and looks concerned and caring and such. So if we come across as irrational, crazy, obstructionist, our argument is discounted and the bill passes. Instead, we should come across as concerned and reasonable stakeholders and constituents with something to add to the assessment.
