Let’s spend some time again examining some real and actual facts and statistics, shall we?

Did you know that in the year 2005 alone,..

-16,692 people were murdered by their fellow species.
-899 died as a result from falling from chairs in their homes.
-477 died as a result of ladder related accidents.
-344 drowned in their own bathtubs.
-48 died from lightning strikes, with an additional 874 fatalities as a result of cataclysmic storms (even going outside can be dangerous).
-43 died from coming into contact with hot water.
-Even toys have contributed to 20 deaths that year.
http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/Death_Odds_Exotic_Animal_2005.pdf
So tell me again, if the underlying rational for wanting to outlaw snakes, or other exotic animals for that matter, are in fact based upon public health and safety concerns, why not outlaw or place further restrictions upon these?

Pythons in the Everlades is, and thus far, remained a south Florida issue only…

I like you, EricWI

EricWI,

A rationale voice in the debate. Thank you.

I would also add that at least in the case of Southern Florida and pet snake releases, these have a negligible impact on the environment as has been proven in your linked study. The unfortunate truth (for the released or escaped animal) is that they are ill-equipped due to a life of domestication to survive well in the wild, much less grow populations. This may not be true of other flora or fauna species.

As for the woman’s death in the original article, many questions spring to mind. It certainly does has suspicious elements to it.

As for the keeping of venemous snakes (or other such “hobbies”), i personally think it should be strictly licensed but an available option. There is a valid argument to skilled keepers and using the snakes for anti-venin production. As for personal gratification or some perceived “right”, that doesn’t hold much weight for this opinionated bloke.

- BB

EricWI..you need to get off your soap box and realize this isn’t a perfect world! People need protected from the few idiots who cannot use common sense! Snakes, especially exotic ones should be outlawed!!!These animals have no positive reason to exist in a human home ifor any reason!! Anything that is a so dangerous and presents such a lethal hazard… to the innocent, helpless and( yes even the stupid) Should be banned! !! Exotic pets have no reason to be in peoples homes! More people have died tragic deaths because of their unnatural presence here in the USA than anyone can dare say was worth the pleasure a few irrisponsible thrill seekers ..insist they get from possessing these creatures!

“A unique sense of the natural world?” There is nothing natural about a snake in glass aquarium. You, like, the others that go overboard with pets and wild animals, are just selfish. You don’t give a care about nature… just your own selfish desires.

Those are some pretty far reaching accusations, KPMc. For the record, I support and am involved with not only several herpetological organizations promoting local and state conservation efforts through captive breeding and habitat restoration/preservation, but I am also involved with indigenous species survey and monitoring work as well. Through these efforts over the years, I have found that captive breeding of many rare or imperiled species of reptiles and amphibians acts as an important “safety net” for many of these species whose native habitats and ranges are rapidly being degraded, eliminated, and encorached upon by ever expanding human activities. Captive propagation of many of these species has healthy, well acclimated specimens also reduces the demand, or at the very least, the need, for collecting wild caught specimens, which can thus reduce their overall numbers in the wild. But, I shall ask, what have YOU done to show that you “care about nature? If you have no answer to that, you might then want to practice what you preach, rather than simply sitting at a keyboard typing inane drivel. It would be far more constructive…

But let me ask you this though. Do you own a dog or a cat? Is owning these animals not “selfish”? Is it not selfish to do anything for one’s own pleasure? That is all a part of the human nature (I suggest reading up on Dawkins if you haven’t already). There is nothing “natural” about those species being kept in the giant, wooden, brick, and concrete box that you call a house either…

Think about it for once perhaps.

EricWI — here and in your followup comment you raise fair points. As a herpetologic hobbyist and trained ecologist, however, I believe that introducing dangerous reptiles (or any plant or animal) into suburbia where they may come into contact with untrained people is a risk to society. Despite our desire to create a genetic safety net by keeping at-risk animals in an aquarium sanctuary, that’s not the right place for the safety net. It is only a very small fraction of hobbyists who have the skills, or scientific background, to submit usable research data on the organism. The safety net would be far better at a professional facility (maintained either by a zoo, university or a hobbyist organization — or some cooperative combination thereof). That would allow anyone to appreciate the natural world, ensure that proper precautions are taken, and that research can continue.

One of the seldom spoken downsides of the hobbyist’s desire to help is that by “owning” an at-risk organism (captive or wild bred) they are creating a demand for it in the marketplace. And that demand drives poaching, putting the wild populations of the organism at risk themselves.

Josh-
You raise some fair points. As far as your perception of introducing animals popularly perceived to be “dangerous” due simply to widely prevalent yet irrational cultural fears or bias into suburbia where they may come into contact with untrained individuals, thus posing a risk to society (which I have discussed largely in previous posts), again consider the fact that dogs can be “dangerous”. Humans can be “dangerous”. I believe it would then be a safe assumption to make that by, using your reasoning, a sizable portion of the general populace residing in such suburban environments would therefore not be professionally trained to properly manage/diffuse situations in which dogs, or their fellow species can be dangerous.

Do I support and advocate for the species conservation efforts (where they exist) done by zoos, museums, and other public education institutions? Absolutely, and it is nice to think about what they are doing as well as what they CAN do. But the reality is, zoos cannot even begin to successfully propagate, or represent the fullest species, or genetic/bloodline diversity for that matter (nor do most have the facilities, resources, or finances to do so) possible for a given species or even multiple species. That is where, in many cases, private owners and hobbyists enter the picture. Take for example the Crested Gecko, a species that was at one time believed to be extinct in the wild due to habitat reduction, loss and destruction, but yet has been maintained and propagated in steady numbers by hobbyists. Many species of imperiled frogs and toads, as another example, are being successfully maintained by the private sector as well, Bufo periglenes and Dendrobates sp.being among them.

Sure, working towards preserving a species AND is native range and habitat goes a long way towards providing conservation measures in their fullest context. That, I fear however, may be being overly idealistic (at least in many areas of the world), and I must question the wisdom of placing all of one’s eggs into any one basket. But I’ll ask, at the end of the day, when any given species is facing critical habitat loss, and such populations in the wild are dwindling or teetering on the brink of extinction, would you rather see and experience the often heightened sensory stimuli experienced by by many in association with being able to witness and learn about, first hand, live examples of said species, or would you rather simply prefer to see them as a photograph in the history textbooks?

Totally agree with KPMc. Most sane people would.

I sure would hope that “most sane people” would utilize minimal amounts of sound, logical reasoning, objectivity, and fact unlike Sue and much of the emotional drivel I’ve seen posted here thus far.

Perhaps I have been proven incorecct…

No, you’re right, no snake is ‘poisonous’, some are ‘venomous’, but go to thesaurus.com and the first entry says the definition means poisonous….so I believe it is safe to assume that some snakes, are in fact, poisonous.
Not only with the pad lock being unlocked did she put herself in danger, but if that snake had escaped the home it was in, she would have put many others in danger by it getting out. These kinds of reptiles are illegal for a reason….

Whitd2288
I do not consider thesaurus.com’s definition to be an accurate, nor biologically literate one. In a proper biological and medicinal sense, any way.

One only needs to examine the biological mechanisms (and functions thereof)of organisms which are “venomous” vs. those that are “poisonous” to see this; venoms are typically injected subcutaneously through a bite or sting, while “poisons” in this sense, are typivally defined and regarded with acceptance among the scientific community as “toxins” or “substances” that are either absorbed through the epithelial layer or through ingestion of said organism…

Is there even such thing as privacy rights anymore?

Read my previous posting there Sue, Duh!

Nice win, Sue.

EricWI’s point was/is superfluous to the argument and could be construed in a number of ways. I take it as naive (see below). Colloquially and semantically you are correct.

You have also made a clear case for yourself. Obviously there is no need to be precise — why bother? Why take the time to learn when one can “win” with lazy semantics and a robust “duh”?

OR, maybe, you could take the time to become informed on the subject matter and contribute to it. You might be right at te core of your argument. You might even change minds.

Your choice.

- BB

No, a snake may not be inanimate as is a gun or automobile, but then again, that doesn’t really matter. There has never been a substantiated account to have historically occurred of any escaped reptile injuring or causing fatalities to children off of or outside of the property or facility in which the animal is being maintained. Almost every incident to have occurred implicating an exotic reptile resulted in either the owner themselves or someone else who voluntarily chose to accept whatever risks there may have been in keeping, handling, or interacting with that animal. And let me elaborate why this is all so…
As was previously posted, there are an average of approximately 30 dog related fatalities that occur every year, with an additional 5 million unprovoked dog bites that require some form of medical treatment or attention. Dog bites and attacks are usually either predatory or, as was again previously pointed out, territorial in nature, thus explaining why they often occur unprovoked. Unlike dogs, almost all (if not all) bites are defensive in nature. The vast majority of snakes, including venomous ones, do not actively maintain or defend specific territories in the same manner as higher canids do, nor do most snakes, including all venomous species, attain sizes or propensities large enough to be capable of ingesting a human being. I take it you are unfamiliar with “occupational risks”?

To me, it sounds as if you are simply another one of the many fearful uninformed, as your sentiments are clearly not based in any real, proven fact or reality.

But a Bulldog can or a pet rat can if it doesn’t know better from it’s owner and the kid scares or gets it upset.

You’re trying, but it’s too late. Too many peoole have already been indoctrinated into the belief that the way to solve a problem of any kind is to make something illegal. They’ve learned this no doubt from the War on Drugs, which has stopped drug abuse, and the law that makes murder a felony. We haven’t seen a murder since that went into effect.

Why do fools think this way? That seems to be the question that remains, since there are already so many criminal laws that it is impossible to live without violating one. Cops joke about how they can get probable cause any time — all they have to to do is follow a car until the driver violates a traffic law, and then they can make a stop and search the car. It’s more than a joke — it’s somewhat true — but it doesn’t matter to a fool, because he thinks it won’t happen to him.

The government, in its eternal quest for more power, does not want laws to be obeyed. It wants laws to be broken, because it thereby obtains more power
and can justify more laws by reciting ‘crime statistics’ — never mind that most of the crimes didn’t exist 100 years ago. The best kind of law is one that’s impossible not to break and impossible to enforce — such as a law against talking on the phone while driving. The next best is one that singles out a minority of people who are interested in something or do something as a hobby or a habit — like snake owners, cigarette smokers, and other eccentrics. May you have a good day.

You spelled “nutjobs” wrong at the end.