what do you think about this?

although i think snakes are great, they don't belong to be wild in here in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcr9blivD3s

what do you guys think, as much as i don't like to see a snake be killed, its a serious problem and i think it should be handled.

agreed. it's a creature that doesn't belong and is wreaking havoc (to whatever extent) on that particular environment. as a biologist, i'd rather not go in depth about all the problems creatures like this cause. i know it's probably a losing battle by now, but i'd try to get rid of them too...

Some of the people who commented on that video are right in that habitat encroachment (caused by human overpopulation) is a much bigger problem than the snakes. However, there's not a whole lot that we can do about that

People are to blame not the snakes. I think Flordia needs to actually enforce its laws on giant snakes. Especially burms, people buy something and do not know what they are getting into. I'm almost positive Florida has a law that states any Burmese that is bought is to be microchipped. But Florida never followed through with it, now they think that getting rid of having the snakes (even as pets) in the US will fix the problem. Which, it won't. Florida is the only state that has a problem about giant snakes overpopulating. Maybe it should make a new law and actually enforce it.

Lunar said:

People are to blame not the snakes. I think Flordia needs to actually enforce its laws on giant snakes. Especially burms, people buy something and do not know what they are getting into. I'm almost positive Florida has a law that states any Burmese that is bought is to be microchipped. But Florida never followed through with it, now they think that getting rid of having the snakes (even as pets) in the US will fix the problem. Which, it won't. Florida is the only state that has a problem about giant snakes overpopulating. Maybe it should make a new law and actually enforce it.

Click to expand...

there are people fighting it, i think they should have an open season on them. animals are hunted for no reason quite a bit, why not have a reason? I'm sure there are plenty of rednecks(I'm allowed to say that) that would love to have a nice burm skin on there wall.

But yes, i very much agree with what your saying about laws being made. there are rules for dubia hahaha

my question is, why didn't people try to *give away* the snakes?

snappleWhiteTea said:

my question is, why didn't people try to *give away* the snakes?

Click to expand...

I doubt that they'd have much success doing that. The reason those snakes are out there in the first place is that they were thrown out by owners who didn't want them anymore.

Zoos often receive calls from someone wanting to get rid of a large reptile. The zoos, of course, usually have as many of those large species as they want already.

Sadly, there are always way more of these animals than there are responsible keepers who would want them. These big snakes have a much smaller niche (as pets) than the numbers that are produced each year. It's hard enough to find homes for all the stray cats and dogs in our shelters, but it's much more challenging to find a good home for a large python.

Florida DOES enforce, and quite rigorously at that, its laws on "Reptiles Of Concern", especially large snakes. AND they also have "amnesty days" in which owners can turn over their illegally-kept animals without fear of being prosecuted or of having the animals destroyed, as they are kept by a rescue who does out-of-state adoptions. The thing is, though, that these measures were in effect shutting the barn door after the horses had all run away, and won't do much at all to impact the population of Burms already there in the wild, nor will the Federal bills pending, nor adding them to the Lacy Act. The extreme cold(for Florida; it was normal winter temps for us)of January has probably done more to reduce the population of Burms in the Everglades than anything humans could undertake. Preliminary reports indicate 100% mortality in all of the radio-implanted study Burms following the cold, which is exactly what those of us who actually know anything about large constrictors said would happen all along. Anyone who has ever kept these snakes, and Burms in particular, will tell you how easily they contract and succumb to respiratory infections from gettting too cold, even for a brief period of time, and even when it's just temps down into the upper '50s.

A LOT of the flack over the Burms has been greatly blown out of proportion by the media, seeking to cash in on another "demon" animal hype. While every Joe Blow claims to see 30-foot snakes slithering all over the roof of their houses down in south Florida, devouring their Poodles and pink plastic flamingos, knowledgeable people who have gone out looking for them have not had that much success. I would not be surprised at how many Yellow Rat Snakes become "Giant Burmese Pythons" when reported by the average citizen. Even one of the top biologists with the FWC admits that they really do not have a clue just how many Burms are in the Everglades, and that the numbers like "100,000" are a WAG. That said, though, I find it very ironic that a much-more widespread and environmentally-destructive invasive species, which is common world-wide, has not gotten much attention: the domestic cat. Now I love cats as much as anyone, and have a few myself, but every single study on the impact of cats on native species has proven them to be far more destructive and FAR, FAR more adaptive than any snake species. No one seems to mind photos of the intrepid python hunters in the Everglades posing beside their mangled and decapitated prey; I wonder what would happen if someone decided to take down the local feral cat population by a few notches and posed with a tabby dispatched in a similar fashion, or suggested what nice fur coats could be made from cat hides?

pitbulllady

Agreed 110% pitbulllady on all points and particularly about the cats. The feral cat problem is completely out of control and completely ignored because there isn't a widespread fear and ignorance of cats like there is of snakes. Virtually all of my wildlife patients are cat caught, either by free roaming house cats or stray/feral cats. And the survival rate of a cat caught anything is extremely poor. Cats kill wildlife, compete with native predators, spread rabies, and in places like Scotland even interbreed with rare native species. The estimated population of feral and stay cats alone in the US is over 50 million conservatively, with as many or more private homes, many of which are allowed to freely roam. They are a greater menace than an invasive snake ever has and ever will be. Frankly, domesticated animals in general tend to be among the most injurious to the environment; cats are bad enough, but feral and roaming cattle, hogs, goats, dogs etc. are also doing quite a number on the environment in many countries.

Our policies have very little to do with protecting the environment and very much to do with quelling public fears.

pitbulllady said:

Florida DOES enforce, and quite rigorously at that, its laws on "Reptiles Of Concern", especially large snakes. AND they also have "amnesty days" in which owners can turn over their illegally-kept animals without fear of being prosecuted or of having the animals destroyed, as they are kept by a rescue who does out-of-state adoptions. The thing is, though, that these measures were in effect shutting the barn door after the horses had all run away, and won't do much at all to impact the population of Burms already there in the wild, nor will the Federal bills pending, nor adding them to the Lacy Act. The extreme cold(for Florida; it was normal winter temps for us)of January has probably done more to reduce the population of Burms in the Everglades than anything humans could undertake. Preliminary reports indicate 100% mortality in all of the radio-implanted study Burms following the cold, which is exactly what those of us who actually know anything about large constrictors said would happen all along. Anyone who has ever kept these snakes, and Burms in particular, will tell you how easily they contract and succumb to respiratory infections from gettting too cold, even for a brief period of time, and even when it's just temps down into the upper '50s.

A LOT of the flack over the Burms has been greatly blown out of proportion by the media, seeking to cash in on another "demon" animal hype. While every Joe Blow claims to see 30-foot snakes slithering all over the roof of their houses down in south Florida, devouring their Poodles and pink plastic flamingos, knowledgeable people who have gone out looking for them have not had that much success. I would not be surprised at how many Yellow Rat Snakes become "Giant Burmese Pythons" when reported by the average citizen. Even one of the top biologists with the FWC admits that they really do not have a clue just how many Burms are in the Everglades, and that the numbers like "100,000" are a WAG. That said, though, I find it very ironic that a much-more widespread and environmentally-destructive invasive species, which is common world-wide, has not gotten much attention: the domestic cat. Now I love cats as much as anyone, and have a few myself, but every single study on the impact of cats on native species has proven them to be far more destructive and FAR, FAR more adaptive than any snake species. No one seems to mind photos of the intrepid python hunters in the Everglades posing beside their mangled and decapitated prey; I wonder what would happen if someone decided to take down the local feral cat population by a few notches and posed with a tabby dispatched in a similar fashion, or suggested what nice fur coats could be made from cat hides?

pitbulllady

Click to expand...

well stated :clap:

The non-native Oscar is a much larger problem in the glades then the pythons.

Any animal that is not native to an area and then let loose can possibly unleash total havoc. There's no natural defense against limiting the reproduction of these species usually like there would be in their natural habitat. No, the Burmese pythons cannot migrate and thrive in the entire US. They are a problem though in some places. However, so are dogs, cats, and even those lovely birds from Poe's poems because some genius thought it would be 'cool' to see them in America. I guess he had an *oops* moment.

I am not against enforcing laws in Florida over keeping large boids but I do not think it should be overdone either. Unfortunately, even with these laws, there will still be people letting their snakes loose once they get too big for them. It's a shame too that they don't think about how much harm they might be doing

I can comprehend trying to control a population but something like that is not as easy as it sounds. I can say however that I understand destroying such a snake when it comes into a population. After all, there are a few out there, but how many people really want a 15+' aggressive, wild Burmese to take care of?

One fact that is CONSTANTLY overlooked is the fact that Hurricane Andrew leveled the state of Florida in 1992. Whats more likely: 100+ pet owners all decieded to dump their pet snakes OR 100+ snakes escaped from large animal importation ware houses that are in close proximity to the Everglades?

Releasing non-native animals does happen and should be stopped but doesn't it seam a little interesting that there is only one established population of large snakes in one area of Florida, much less the entire South?

Finally, if you listen to Rob Hill in the video, he is seeing an increase in snake numbers but this only adds up to 300+ total. Half way through 2009, when the video was posted, he had found and killed 19 snakes. Obviously there is a difference between the numbers people are finding and the 100,000+ population speculated by the HSUS and USGS.

snappleWhiteTea said:

although i think snakes are great, they don't belong to be wild in here in the US.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcr9blivD3s

what do you guys think, as much as i don't like to see a snake be killed, its a serious problem and i think it should be handled.

Click to expand...

I believe that if you live in a part of the country where exotic animals can become invasive or stand a good chance at becoming invasive, then they should just be banned from that state. Doesn't sound fair and it isn't, but that's a price you pay if you want to live in such a place. Look at Hawaii, they're not allowed to keep all sorts of animals as pets, because exotic animals stand a good chance at becoming invasive. Florida should just do what hawaii has done and ban whatever animal it feels can become invasive. I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with Florida leading the charge to ban exotic pets (namely constrictors) in the entire country. There I think the government has overstepped its boundaries. Leave it up to the states.

Rowdy Hotel said:

I believe that if you live in a part of the country where exotic animals can become invasive or stand a good chance at becoming invasive, then they should just be banned from that state. Doesn't sound fair and it isn't, but that's a price you pay if you want to live in such a place. Look at Hawaii, they're not allowed to keep all sorts of animals as pets, because exotic animals stand a good chance at becoming invasive. Florida should just do what hawaii has done and ban whatever animal it feels can become invasive. I don't have a problem with that but I do have a problem with Florida leading the charge to ban exotic pets (namely constrictors) in the entire country. There I think the government has overstepped its boundaries. Leave it up to the states.

Click to expand...

Then we must absolutely ban cats, dogs, pigs, horses and cattle from EVERY single state in the US! NOW! We must stop this plague of invasive species that have already proven able to adapt to virtually every climate the US has to offer before it's too late and the sky starts falling! We must put our faith and trust the in government to protect us and the environment from this Evil, since they have done such a great job protecting us from everything else!

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. BUT, if indeed states take that attitude to ban every animal species that has the potential to form feral breeding populations that can and have indeed proven to be detrimental to native environments, logic dictates that they start with those that have already done so in large numbers across the entire continent, namely cats, dogs and hogs. Whether it's the state or Federal government that implements bans, it's still an example of the government dictating too much of what we can and cannot do. Unlike the pythons, which will avoid humans, feral dogs and feral hogs can and do often see us as competitors, trespassers into their territory and even food. I used to hunt wild(more properly called "feral")hogs, and can personally attest to their aggressive nature, boldness, and destructiveness, not just to native animals, but to pretty much everything that they encounter. I'd much rather run into a 20-foot python out in the swamps than a 200-lb. boar. With the exception of Florida, which is rather unique in its climate, most US states would make a poor candidate for most non-native animals to establish viable populations. Most of the animals that have done so were NOT imported as pets, but rather, were often accidentally introduced(like the so-called "English Sparrow" and the Cattle Egret)or were brought in for other reasons, like the Starling, which was introduced by a Shakespear fan in New York City.

It's also interesting that all the talk of "invasives" fails to take into account the most successful invasive species of all: PLANTS. Everyone focuses on animals, but the impact of invasive plant species across the US far, far outweighs all the "exotic" animals combined. Yet, in spite of this, plants are usually ignored and the trade in non-native plants flourishes. Anyone who doesn't believe this needs to visit the deep South during the summer and see the effects of Kudzu and Hydrilla.

pitbulllady

pitbulllady said:

Then we must absolutely ban cats, dogs, pigs, horses and cattle from EVERY single state in the US! NOW! We must stop this plague of invasive species that have already proven able to adapt to virtually every climate the US has to offer before it's too late and the sky starts falling! We must put our faith and trust the in government to protect us and the environment from this Evil, since they have done such a great job protecting us from everything else!

Yes, I'm being sarcastic. BUT, if indeed states take that attitude to ban every animal species that has the potential to form feral breeding populations that can and have indeed proven to be detrimental to native environments, logic dictates that they start with those that have already done so in large numbers across the entire continent, namely cats, dogs and hogs. Whether it's the state or Federal government that implements bans, it's still an example of the government dictating too much of what we can and cannot do. Unlike the pythons, which will avoid humans, feral dogs and feral hogs can and do often see us as competitors, trespassers into their territory and even food. I used to hunt wild(more properly called "feral")hogs, and can personally attest to their aggressive nature, boldness, and destructiveness, not just to native animals, but to pretty much everything that they encounter. I'd much rather run into a 20-foot python out in the swamps than a 200-lb. boar. With the exception of Florida, which is rather unique in its climate, most US states would make a poor candidate for most non-native animals to establish viable populations. Most of the animals that have done so were NOT imported as pets, but rather, were often accidentally introduced(like the so-called "English Sparrow" and the Cattle Egret)or were brought in for other reasons, like the Starling, which was introduced by a Shakespear fan in New York City.

It's also interesting that all the talk of "invasives" fails to take into account the most successful invasive species of all: PLANTS. Everyone focuses on animals, but the impact of invasive plant species across the US far, far outweighs all the "exotic" animals combined. Yet, in spite of this, plants are usually ignored and the trade in non-native plants flourishes. Anyone who doesn't believe this needs to visit the deep South during the summer and see the effects of Kudzu and Hydrilla.

pitbulllady

Click to expand...

They can either ban exotics in FL, or ban them in the whole country. Take your pick. Sounds like if it were up to you there's nothing that can be done about invasive animals and we shouldn't even try to prevent more animals from becoming invasive. Hawaii should just lift all their bans on exotics, who cares if some of them become very invasive and end up destroying the ecosystem there along with many species endemic only to those islands. I'm just saying we should leave it up to the individual states.

Rowdy Hotel said:

They can either ban exotics in FL, or ban them in the whole country. Take your pick. Sounds like if it were up to you there's nothing that can be done about invasive animals and we shouldn't even try to prevent more animals from becoming invasive. Hawaii should just lift all their bans on exotics, who cares if some of them become very invasive and end up destroying the ecosystem there along with many species endemic only to those islands. I'm just saying we should leave it up to the individual states.

Click to expand...

Banning "potentially" invasive species like Burms, even in Florida, is NOT going to do a thing to the population already there. I've used the analogy before-it's like closing the barn door after all your horses have already run away, or calling the fire department a week after your house burns to the ground. It will have ZERO impact on the existing population. BUT, as I said before, if you're going to ban any potential or proven invasive species, logic dictates to start with the ones that have the greatest environmental impact in the widest range of habitats, rather than focus on those for which there is already a huge amount of public fear and ignorance. THAT, not any real science, is what is behind the drive to ban large constrictors, that widespread fear of snakes, a fear based entirely on ignorance and a large degree, old-fashioned stupidity. The situation in Florida has been hugely exaggerated and blown up by the media, eager for a sensationalistic story, since that is what drives them. It's been fanned by power and publicity-hungry politicians, looking for some dragon to slay so that they can earn Brownie points with their constituants and EXPECIALLY with the special-interest groups that contribute so much to their campaigns and careers. We have already seen how dubious the "science" is behind the declaration of "Big Nine" as far as their so-called "potential" for establishing a nation-wide invasion; it's not about facts at all, but about who can scratch who's back, politically speaking. And don't forget that the driving force behind these bans anywhere is the HSUS, since it furthers their agenda of an animal-free society, one species at a time.
Florida has taken reasonable measures to curb the sale of "invasive" animals, at least reptiles, through their "Reptiles of Concern" laws. This has done a lot to keep these animals out of the hands of impulse buyers in that state. Will it completely stop animals like Burmese Pythons from getting into the hands of irresponsible owners? No, it won't, since there will always be people who ignore the law. Even that, however, still does not address the animals that are already there, in the wild, nor will an outright ban, especially since genetic testing indicates that most, if not all, of the Burms in the Everglades came from a very small number of sources, as these snakes are all closely related. A series of owner-releases taking place over a period of many years, involving animals from many different genetic sources, would not produce such results, so it's unlikely that deliberate releases of unwanted pets have contributed as much to the problem as the media and AR people would like for us to believe. Even the National Geographic Channel special on this issue dealt with that and acknowledged that pet owners were not, in fact, the main source of those Burms, but rather, zoos(which would still be able to keep and breed such animals legally under the proposed ROC ban)were.

pitbulllady