Florida Becoming "Club Med for Pythons"

[spawner]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/07/ ... 0903.shtml

Pet Pythons Released Into Wild are Eating Wildlife in Everglades; Small Girl Strangled


Will "kid killing" pythons along with the high profile lionfish invasion be the basis for tightening live animal imports?

I think you can expect to see HR669 in a revised form back up for consideration this fall.

I can't tell you the number of large snakes and other over grown "pets" that we were asked to take back every month when I worked in the retail trade.

The entire pet trade has to come up with a no questions asked, always take back, an unwanted pet snake, lizard, fish, bird, etc. policy. We're also going to have to support meaningful restrictions on imported species that are not suited for pets or it will be imposed on us.

 

[PeterIMA]

I agree that either the trade does something about a) not selling unsuitable species or b) comes up with a trade-in policy (your suggestion), or controls will be imposed (eg HR669).

Where I live in Saint Petersburg, Florida, I personally had to remove an 8.5 foot African Reticulated python that was eating a squirrel on a tree overhanging my back yard (several years ago). A 14.5 foot Burmese python was removed from a pipe in Dunedin (north of St. Petersburg) last week. I kept a newspaper article about a 10 foot anaconda that was found on a boat (in their bathtub) at the Huber Yacht Club on 34St . South in St. Petersburg. Just another released or escaped pet.

The lake in front of my house has Tilapia and Plecostomus catfish. Not really a big problem, just a nuisance.

Florida has over 100 species of freshwater fishes in the wild. There are probably about 15 marine species that have been released. My guess is that before the trade can agree on anything, there will be new legislation to ban species that get too big (eg. pacus, various reptiles etc). The worse case scenario is another bill like HR669 that bans almost everything.

Peter Rubec

 

[Anonymous]

The Gov't released the tilapia in Fl.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, those who know me may be completely shocked to read this, but I am beginning to come to the conclusion that we should begin a permitting process for people who wish to keep certain animals. Also, when it comes to fish, specifically, they need to man up and learn how to kill them and eat them. Lionfish I hear is good eating, and I know tang is good eating, for instance, as are pacu (when fed properly) and other large f/w fishes I commonly saw folks trying to return to our shop(s).

In any event, permit those who wish to keep certain animals, and monitor simply in order to ensure that the animal is still in their possession until its death. Who's going to do this? I don't know, but it would likely have to be supported by a permitting fee and either a new agency/department or an adjunct to, say, Fish & Game or Fish & Wildlife.

 

[spawner]

The Gov't released the tilapia in Fl.

It doesn't matter who started what or did what in the past. The only thing that will matter is how does the pet industry address this real issue, and its a really big issue.

So do we move forward and impose regulations on ourselves or cry about it when congress does it for you. Stakeholder involvement will be key in the up coming bills being suggested for the invasive issue and the coral reef threats.

 

[bobimport]

FYI The state has "trained" 7 licensed hunters to eradicate 100 to 150,000 Pythons.........
Lets do the math That's like between 15 to 20,000 per hunter. What a joke
Even PETA ( People eating tasty animals) has gotten into it with the correct way to kill a snake.

 

[spawner]

They'll get it figured out in 5-10 years.

 

[swsaltwater]

They need to put a bounty on them, 100 per snake brought in to game and fish. Thats what they do for coyotes in Arizona and nutria in Louisiana..............

 

[spstimie]

+1 on the bounty. Do the same for the lionfish and i could move to florida and dive all day. I tried to find government grants that would pay someone to go out all day and hunt these animals but haven't found any yet.

 

[rgbmatt]

A bounty program would be great news for snake breeders...

 

[Anonymous]

People shouldn't be keeping things that outgrow their ability to handle them period. I say ban em all. Yup, even large angels and such really have no place in aquaria.

 

[Anonymous]

Why that instead of a permitting process?

 

[Anonymous]

Why that instead of a permitting process?

Why does someone need to keep a massive animal? Who's going to pay for the permit oversight? Which agency whether it be state or federal would be tasked with such a policing job? I don't see a permit process being able to work. The cost out ways the need IMO. Although I do feel all that sell any live animal should be permitted and no permitted people should be allowed to sell live animals. I know, coral frags are a gray area on that one, and home breeding of fish. You can't control you fish from breeding after all.

 

[Anonymous]

Why that instead of a permitting process?

Why does someone need to keep a massive animal?

Good question. Why does anyone need to keep any animal?

Who's going to pay for the permit oversight?

Perhaps those seeking such permits.

Which agency whether it be state or federal would be tasked with such a policing job?

Ah, therein lies a rub I mentioned. It could be worked out on either level (likely state, since levels and particulars of the impacts on a state-by-state basis are probably vastly different), and if the permitting process were made expensive enough it could discourage all but those most able to afford proper housing and handling of these animals.

I don't see a permit process being able to work. The cost out ways the need IMO. Although I do feel all that sell any live animal should be permitted and no permitted people should be allowed to sell live animals. I know, coral frags are a gray area on that one, and home breeding of fish. You can't control you fish from breeding after all.

I appreciate your perspective, and thank you for giving a concise and straightforward answer.

 

[spawner]

Well the industry best find a way to deal with Gresham's points, very valid. Stonewalling will only result in less choice for everyone when Congress decides what you can and can't keep. PIJAC will only be effective against a certain level of legislation. But baby killing, alligator eating snakes are hard to fight for. They attempted to list all Pythons as injurious. Why not suggest that the large snakes are listed and keep the smaller species as valid pets? Or is it better to chance a lose of entire genera/families to keep ridiculously large species on the market?

What will be the industries reaction when lionfish are proposed for listing, suppose they list the entire group? Will we fight the entire list or suggest only the problem species be listed and support that while preserving the balance?

BTW, who would oppose a license fee and inspection process for importers/wholesalers of live animals? Would this not solve a lot of problems, force the bad actors to clean up and reduce prevalence of low quality animals on the market?

 

[PeterIMA]

There are lots of issues here most of which we have discussed on this forum previously.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has implemented a permiting process on large snakes. Like many states, Florida has a list of species not allowed for import and sale (Dirty List). They also recently authorized the eradication and removal of Burmese Pythons by about 7 authorized hunters.This may not be sufficient to deal with the estimated numbers of Burmese Pythons believed to be in the Everglades. However, it is consistent with the state(s) regulating nuisance species imports and trade though permits and Disapproved (dirty) lists (species not allowed for import and sale)

PIJAC has pointed out that Draft Federal legislation (HR669) goes much further in proposing the implementation of Clean Lists that prohibit the import and interstate commerce of most species and require Environmental Impact Assessments prior to each species getting on the Approved (clean) list. This would be very expensive and time consuming (cost prohibitive) for the pet trade. I was told by one federal scientist that the clean list approach associated with HR669 was formulated because PIJAC and others in the pet trade would not cooperate. If members of the trade had been more willing to self regulate (not sell species that become a threat to native species and the environment) there would not have been Draft legislation (HR669) using the Clean List (Approved List) approach. Perhaps it is not too late. But my experience is that the trade is divided and unwilling to listen to reason.

Peter

 

[Anonymous]

The trade is market-driven, is it not? Since that is the case, then a process for permitting those who wish to own such animals seems to be the most/more direct and effective approach to me. I appreciate what Gresham has to say on the subject, but the greater politics of the whole thing cannot be disentangled from the issue at hand. It also appears that, no matter what agency oversees, it's going to cost.

 

[Anonymous]

The trade is market-driven, is it not? Since that is the case, then a process for permitting those who wish to own such animals seems to be the most/more direct and effective approach to me. I appreciate what Gresham has to say on the subject, but the greater politics of the whole thing cannot be disentangled from the issue at hand. It also appears that, no matter what agency oversees, it's going to cost.

cost + recession = ????

I'm just being realistic (on that part about who will pay for it, oversee it bit). I would love to see much greater regulation in all animal sales. I think the price of livestock should be much greater in fact. I also think a tax needs to be imposed on the sale of livestock to be donated to groups that take care of invasive or educate the public on them.

Another realistic thing to point out is if the oversight of the permit costs are derived from solely the sale of said permit it will have to cost thousands, not hundreds. I doubt the few that would hand that money over could sustain a full blown permitting office with field agents.

 

[Anonymous]

There are lots of issues here most of which we have discussed on this forum previously.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission has implemented a permiting process on large snakes. Like many states, Florida has a list of species not allowed for import and sale (Dirty List). They also recently authorized the eradication and removal of Burmese Pythons by about 7 authorized hunters.This may not be sufficient to deal with the estimated numbers of Burmese Pythons believed to be in the Everglades. However, it is consistent with the state(s) regulating nuisance species imports and trade though permits and Disapproved (dirty) lists (species not allowed for import and sale)

PIJAC has pointed out that Draft Federal legislation (HR669) goes much further in proposing the implementation of Clean Lists that prohibit the import and interstate commerce of most species and require Environmental Impact Assessments prior to each species getting on the Approved (clean) list. This would be very expensive and time consuming (cost prohibitive) for the pet trade. I was told by one federal scientist that the clean list approach associated with HR669 was formulated because PIJAC and others in the pet trade would not cooperate. If members of the trade had been more willing to self regulate (not sell species that become a threat to native species and the environment) there would not have been Draft legislation (HR669) using the Clean List (Approved List) approach. Perhaps it is not too late. But my experience is that the trade is divided and unwilling to listen to reason.

Peter

The introduction of certain approved aquaculture species has caused major damage through out the states. We get blamed for that, yet the Gov. in some cases pushed for the introduction and even awarded grants to help in it. The seeding of lakes with non native trout in CA finally has come to an end. Native trout in CA are a pretty rare thing now.

 

[Anonymous]

The trade is market-driven, is it not? Since that is the case, then a process for permitting those who wish to own such animals seems to be the most/more direct and effective approach to me. I appreciate what Gresham has to say on the subject, but the greater politics of the whole thing cannot be disentangled from the issue at hand. It also appears that, no matter what agency oversees, it's going to cost.

cost + recession = ????

I'm just being realistic (on that part about who will pay for it, oversee it bit). I would love to see much greater regulation in all animal sales. I think the price of livestock should be much greater in fact. I also think a tax needs to be imposed on the sale of livestock to be donated to groups that take care of invasive or educate the public on them.

Another realistic thing to point out is if the oversight of the permit costs are derived from solely the sale of said permit it will have to cost thousands, not hundreds. I doubt the few that would hand that money over could sustain a full blown permitting office with field agents.

Now you're hitting close to how permitting would further discourage ownership of such animals. Make it expensive enough, yes? I see no reason why taxpayers who don't endeavor to own certain organisms should collectively bear the cost and other burdens shifted onto us by the irresponsible actions of the few who do. However, neither do I believe all ownership should be made outright illegal, although I am on the fence with regard to animals like large cats and primates. What seems most fair is that someone who wants to keep them be able to prove, and carry a license or permit verifying said proof, that they are financially capable, as well as knowledgeable sufficiently in the husbandry of, the given animal. That seems most reasonable to me.