This from USARK:

Public Comment on the Proposed Rule Change by US Fish & Wildlife to add nine constrictor snakes to the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act closed at midnight last night. To everyone who took the time to comment… THANK YOU!!! This unprecedented and controversial rule making, if enacted, would devastate the Reptile Nation and set dangerous precedent for the future.

Never before has a listing of this nature been proposed for animals that are so widely held by the American public. The implications for ball pythons, leopard geckos and bearded dragons are ominous. Anyone who thinks this was about big snakes is dead wrong. This is about the ideology of powerful special interest groups, and an attempt to misuse the Lacey Act to end the ownership of all non-native animals in the United States. The nine constrictors are just a test balloon. The rule making process will begin in June to list ALL amphibians. Ornamental fish will not be far behind.

Click here to read USARK Public Comment

Public Comment Reopened
USARK’s request for extension of Public Comment on the proposed Rule Change by USFWS will be honored. We filed our request for a 90 extension at the end of April and were backed by two ranking members of congress. Although preliminary indications were that our request would be rejected, it is now confirmed that it will be honored. Another 30 day public comment period will be re-opened with a posting in the Federal Register late this week. If you are one of the many who did not make comment by the deadline last night, you may get a second opportunity!

This whole thing could very well end in a federal lawsuit filed by USARK against the US Fish & Wildlife Service. We have the facts and science on our side. USARK filed a 36 page Request for Correction under the Information Quality Act with the US Geological Survey regarding their report: Giant constrictors: biological and management profiles and an establishment risk assessment for nine large species of pythons, anacondas, and the boa constrictor. There is no longer any question about the problems USGS has with this poorly written report.

So, what does this mean?  It means that those of you in the reptile community who did not offer up a comment opposing the Rule Change now have the opportunity to do so.  This is fantastic news, but we can’t assume that we’ve won, or that we will be victorious. We must keep fighting this.  Remember that this 30 day extension isn’t just for us – those that are in favor of the Rule Change will have the opportunity to comment as well. We need to stay on top of this. If you haven’t made a comment yet you need to get on this. If you know people who haven’t commented – hound them until they do.

I would like to draw some attention to a comment that was made by the HSUS in 2008 during the initial Notice of Inquiry made by the USFW relating to the potential listing of the Burmese Python as an injurious species.  It can be found here.

In this comment the HSUS wishes to have the genera Epicrates, Liasis, Morelia added to the listing. Now,  just to illustrate how serious this is the three genera put forth by the HSUS consist of 20 species of constrictor.

Epicrates

1. Cuban boa
2. Rainbow boa
3. Turks & Caicos Island boa
4. Abaco Island boa
5. Haitian ground boa
6. Haitian tree boa
7. Puerto Rican boa
8. Mona boa
9. Hispaniolan boa
10. Jamaican boa

Liasis

1. Brown water pythons
2. Macklot’s python
3. Olive python

Morelia

1. Amethystine python
2. Boelen’s python
3. Bredl’s python
4. Rough-scaled python
5. Oenpelli python
6. Carpet or Diamond python
7. Green tree python

This should be taken with all seriousness. The HSUS has presented this in 2008, and you can bet they will bring it back up and push it again. They are not ones to let go of an idea easily – even when they are proven to be inaccurate.   So don’t think this is a flash in the pan.

Also – if the Rule Change passes and the current 9 species of constrictor are listed as injurious the above list will go through with little or no debate, and further regulations – as well as out right bans – will occur in rapid succession, and will touch on every part of the herp community. So, for those of you who haven’t done anything because your snakes weren’t involved take a good look at the above listing… This is only but a taste of what is to come. Your snakes and herps will be added, you will be pulled into this. The only problem is that if you don’t fight now you wont be able to fight later, because once the precedent is set there won’t be any other public comments, and legislation will slide through Congress and the Senate without anyone batting an eye. Not to mention the numerous states that will begin to enact their own legislation regarding herps.

…I’ve said it before – if this passes we will be looking at the complete removal of herps from the pet industry in ten years time (or less). At which point the only place you will be able to see a live herp in captivity is in a zoo… maybe.

This comment by the HSUS should be motivating the hell out you  to make a public comment… if you haven’t done it do it now. If you don’t you will only have yourself to blame if the Rule Change passes.

I tell you what: this new comment by the HSUS scares the hell out of me. And it should you too.

Fear is a great motivator – the HSUS and the USGS have been using it to lobby for the very legislation we are fighting. Now let the fear of what the above listing means for the reptile industry and community to motivate you to act. The Rule Change is only a stepping stone in regulating- and eventually wiping out – our hobby.

Get off of your laurels and comment! Take advantage of this opportunity and save our hobby. Because if you don’t I can guarantee such an opportunity wont come around again.

Head over to USARK and make your comment.  Or go here and follow the the directions and make your comment.  Either way they both go to the same place.  You can also cut and paste this sample letter from USARK:

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Division of Policy and Directives Management
Attn: Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015
4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222
Arlington, VA  22203

RE:  Docket No. FWS-R9-FHC-2008-0015

Dear U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

As a supporter of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) and someone who is concerned about the environment, I am writing today to OPPOSE the proposed rule to list nine species of large constrictor snakes as injurious (75 Fed. Reg. 11808-11829 (March 12, 2010)).

CONTROVERSIAL
As you know, in 2009 the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) released a highly controversial report on nine snake species. This internal report was NOT peer reviewed science. It is riddled with mistakes, inaccuracies, misrepresentations and unsupportable assumptions. The USARK has filed a 36 page Request for Correction with the USGS under the Information Quality Act. In a letter to the Senate Environmental & Public Works Committee a panel of 11 acclaimed scientists called the report “not scientific” and “not suitable as the basis for legislative or regulatory policy”. This poorly done report is the only “science” that supports the proposed rule.

UNPRECEDENTED
If enacted, this rule making would have the unprecedented effect of putting as many as a million American citizens in possession of Injurious Wildlife and subject to potential felony prosecution under the Lacey Act. It could effectively create a new class of criminal out of law abiding American citizens. Never has the USFWS attempted to list such a large group of animals that are widely held by the American public.

SIGNIFICANT ECONOMIC IMPACT
USFWS does not possess the information needed to do a credible Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA) on proposed rules regarding constrictor snakes. In its report, dated February 10, 2010, USFWS relied on baseless assumptions and extrapolations and it ignored information submitted by industry participants and trade associations in response to its 2008 Notice of Inquiry. In addition, the Service misused the information it was provided by respondents to the notice. Therefore, the Service’s regulatory flexibility analysis is not a complete, reliable, or convincing analysis of the impact of the proposed rule on small businesses involved in the buying and selling of the nine snake species included in the proposed rule. The IFRA grossly underestimates the scope of the impact of the proposed regulations.

ALTERNATIVES
USFWS has failed to explore suitable alternatives to Lacey Act listing. There is a plethora of ideas on how to address the issue of invasive species that are for more pragmatic and less damaging than the Lacey Act. It was the consensus opinion at the recent US House Committee on Natural Resources Hearing on Invasive Species that Lacey Act was an ineffectual tool for addressing this issue. State/Local Risk Assessment combined with industry Best Management Practices (BMP) was suggested by Dr. Frank Mazzotti of the University of Florida. (His is a unique perspective because he is the one responsible for the radio tracking of pythons in the Everglades National Park.) USARK has developed an Accreditation utilizing BMP’s that have passed into state law in North Carolina and are currently pending in SC. They are also being considered by GA, LA, CA and VA. USFWS has an obligation to explore viable alternatives. To date they have not.

It is clear that the USFWS has not thoroughly considered the full implications this proposed rule making would have. Further it is clear that USFWS has not given the due diligence required to enact such a controversial, unprecedented and draconian measure. It is clear that if enacted the proposed rule would negatively impact as many as a million Americans. The limited effectiveness of the Lacey Act as a means to control invasive species means that if enacted the stated intent of the rulemaking would never be realized. Nothing would change on the ground in south Florida. The only effect would be to destroy the captive propagation and trade of animal’s already in captivity all across the country.

Please stop the proposed rule to restrict the trade in nine species of constrictors.

Thank you for your consideration.

I strongly suggest that you save your comment (even if you use the above cut and paste sample) in a Word file, or similar application, and then make a PDF and attach it on the regulations.gov comment site.  The comment filed only holds 2,000 characters.  If your comment is longer than that it will get truncated and may not be reviewed for consideration by the USFW.  So I strongly urge you to attach a PDF no matter how long or short your comment is.

Comment now.  Comment today.

I am really upset right now!!! I just went to the government regulations page and saw that 1994 people have made public comment. The problem is 1539 of those comments were actually made in 2008 during the NOI. That means only 455 have been made since the proposed rule was published in the federal register back in March 2010. What is even worse is that half of the 455 are from HSUS and other AR groups. That means that only about 200 members of the Reptile Nation have made comment!!! Why is no one making comment? This is really bad! USARK has been spending thousands of dollars and hundreds of hours fighting this. We need the Reptile Nation to stand up and make comment NOW! DEADLINE is Tuesday May 11, 2010!!

Go To Kill-Rule Change and make public comment.

I have heard a lot of pissing and moaning about unfair legislation and regulation. Venting on a forum will not change one thing out there in the world! What will change things are individuals taking action… Have You Taken Action? Make public comment!!!!!

Kindest Regards,
–Andrew

Before I jump into  this let me explain what the Rule Change is ( for those who don’t know).  The matter of listing 9 large constrictors as injurious species, and having them regulated under the Lacey Act is currently before he United States Fish & Wildlife Service for review.  If the Rule Change is voted in favor it will become a federal crime to transport, trade, or sell any of the 9 species across state lines.  It will also be illegal to import any of them into the country.  Testimony has been presented by those for the rule change, and those against.  The USFW has now opened the matter to the public to hear what we have to say – which means the ball is now in our court and we need to let the USFW hear why adding these 9 species of constrictor to the Lacey Act is unacceptable, unjust, and unnecessary.  If we don’t speak up we will lose our rights, and eventually our pets.

That said, I find it appalling that so few people have spoken out about this.  No, correction: I’m appalled that so few people have made their voices heard by the USFW.  Plenty of people have been complaining about this on forums, but no one seems to be actually doing anything about it.  Heres a heads up people: if you don’t take part in the public comment before May 11 then you have no right to complain when your rights are taken away from you!  There are over 1,000,000 large constrictors being kept in captivity across the United States as we speak. That is 1 in 27 people have a large constrictor in their home.  Yet only 200 people have spoken out to save our hobby and our pets.  That’s disgusting!  If you don’t take this limited opportunity to speak out and address this with the USFW then you deserve to have your rights stripped away.  You deserve to lose your pets.  And if you are a breeder and don’t take part you will deserve the loss of your business.  This is not a wave we can just ride out.  This is as real as it gets.  We need to stand together and let our voices be heard or we will suffer a truly regrettable loss to the pet industry.

And for those of you who think this is nothing to worry about because your reptile or amphibian is not on the chopping block I’ve got news for you: if this passes it will set a precedent, and it will become that much easier for legislation to be passed to ban and regulate other species.  Eventually it will be your pet up on the block, and when that happens there wont be any public comment available, and any voice that’s raised in opposition won’t be worth spit.  The legislation and regulations will pass quickly and easily – to the point that herps will be wiped out of the pet industry in a matter of years.  If you think I’m kidding then sit back and don’t do anything .  In 10 years time you’ll realize that I was right.  That’s as long as I give reptiles and amphibians in the pet industry if the Rule Change passes.  After that you won’t be able to see a live reptile in captivity outside of a zoo. …and even then those available for display will be limited by the ongoing regulations.  And this won’t be restricted to federal legislation – individual states will start passing their own local legislation regarding these animals as well, making it that much more difficult to own a reptile.  It’s already happened: California, Ohio, Georgia, Florida, Delaware, Rhode Island are all examples of states who have proposed legislation restricting and regulating reptiles and amphibians as a result of fear and paranoia generated by HR2811 and S373.  …Delaware is one example of a state that was actually able to pass regulations.  If the Rule Change passes we will see a land slide of states proposing and instating restrictions on keeping, selling, and breeding various reptiles and amphibians.  We are on the cusp of the annihilation of our hobby as a whole – and that is not paranoia… it’s fact.

As citizens of the United States we are afforded rights under our Constitution – two of which are the freedom of expression and the right to peaceful demonstration.  Both of these are being tested right now, and an alarming number are content not exercising these rights.  In my opinion if you don’t use your rights, and are willing to sit idly by and let other rights be taken from you then you are not deserving of the term “citizen.”  We have the right to choose, we have the right to live free, and right now we are being told that we may not have the right to responsibly choose our pets, we may not have the right to keep our animals if we have to move out-of-state, we may not have the right to responsibly persue our interests, we may not have the right to keep the kind of business we desire.

Use your voice.  Save our hobby.  Save your pets.  Save the businesses that thrive on our hobby, as well as those that are its foundation.

Head over to USARK, follow the instructions to the letter, and send you comments to the USFW.  Or go to PIJAC and do the same.  We need to rise up as a community and hobby united, or I can guarantee that we will fall as a hobby piece by piece.

So why the discussion about data cards? I’ve been getting requests to see my data cards… well, I decided to go beyond sending it to a few people… I figured I’d offer it up to the community.  Now it’s nothing spectacular – it’s actually quite generic, but it covers most of the bases.  For those who just want a card here’s a PDF version, and for those who might want to tinker with it here’s the MS Word version.  Either way, I hope you find this beneficial.

Enjoy.

The content of the form letter that the HSUS is offering up for the public to “sign” and submit is as follows:

Re: Listing giant snakes as injurious (75 Fed. Reg. 11808-11829 (March 12, 2010)

To Whom It May Concern:

I strongly support the proposed rules to list nine species of large constrictor snakes as injurious (75 Fed. Reg. 11808-11829 (March 12, 2010)). The trade in these snakes is dangerous to people and, as documented by the U.S. Geological Survey, can wreak havoc on our ecosystems. Please act quickly to stop the importation and interstate movement of these giant snakes as pets.

The USGS reviewed nine species of large constrictor snakes — Burmese pythons, reticulated pythons, northern African pythons, southern African pythons, boa constrictors, and four species of anacondas — and found all nine pose high or medium risk to our environment. None are low risk. The thousands of pythons now at large in the Everglades demonstrate the threat these snakes can pose. According to the USGS, “A very large number of imperiled species are at risk from giant constrictors in the State of Florida.”  Once these species are established, it is costly and may be impossible to remove them. The proposed rules are essential to prevent already-established species from spreading to new areas and to prevent additional species from becoming established.

The trade is dangerous for people, too. The 2-year-old girl who was killed tragically by a Burmese python kept as a pet in her home was the fourth person killed by a pet python in the United States since 2006. The other three were adults with experience handling reptiles.

Add to this the suffering of the animals in the pet trade and it’s clear action is needed now.

Please finalize the rules as quickly as possible. Thank you for considering my comments.

Let’s look at this piece by piece:

1.) “The trade in these snakes is dangerous to people”

Actually large constrictors are among the safest of pets currently kept in the United States today.  According to Dean Ripa, Director, Cape Fear Serpentarium, Director, North Carolina Antivenom Bank and author of “Human fatality due to attack by big cats, venomous and constricting reptiles, and crocodilians, in the USA, a 16 year survey” Large constrictors account for an amazingly small number of human fatalities per year:

At present they are one of the most popular pet items. The human mortality cause by these animals is less than that caused by dogs by some 25 times, and comparable to that caused by the Big Cats. Less than 0.5 human lives were taken by large-snakes for each year of our 16-year study. However, there is an important difference between the statistics for Big Cats and large-snakes. While there are an estimated 15,000 Big Cats in America, an amazingly healthy number, there are an overwhelmingly greater number of large-snakes. Probably more than 1,000,000 large-snake species are kept in captivity in all 50 states. Large-snake species are presently owned by about 1 in 27 persons. Most of these reptiles live comfortably sluggish and unresponsive lives in people’s homes, accepting an occasional meal for their conversation value and committing no greater atrocity than a monthly excretion. As a whole, constricting snakes almost match the number of dogs in sheer numbers. They are more convenient than mammals, however, do not have to be walked, and thrive in small enclosures in urban dwellings, hence their popularity. Most captive examples do not achieve their full size, since owners can control this to some extent by underfeeding them. This does the snake no harm, and in fact, the smaller examples of the large species seem to live longer lives than their larger counterparts.

Less than 0.5 human fatalities per year, and every single one – no exceptions – was the result of irresponsible pet ownership.  There are no accounts of people being randomly attacked or victims of out right aggression.  Another interesting fact about large constrictors is that according to Ripa:

Death from giant constrictors is so rare that the National Safety Council does not afford it a separate category in their statistics, but lump it in with accidents involving the alligator and crocodiles, where it is called “being bitten or crushed by other reptiles.

Let’s compare this 0.5 deaths per year via large constrictor with some other findings from Ripa:

Relative to fatalities caused by other animals in one year, death from captive Big Cat attack was lowest of all:

Animal rider (e.g., horses) or occupant of animal-drawn vehicle (e.g., horse drawn carriage) 97
Bitten or struck by a dog 26
Bitten or struck by other mammals (e.g., cattle) 65
Bitten by a venomous snake 12
Bitten by a venomous spider 5
Stung by bees, wasps and hornets 54
Venomous plants 9
Collision with an animal in a car 147
Big Cats 1

(A note to clarify: Large Constrictors were mentioned later in Ripa’s report, so within the context of the above listing Big Cats was the lowest listing)

So with these figures how are large constrictors seen as dangerous to humans – especially since human fatalities involving dog attacks are approximately 25 times greater per year? Hell, an estimated 65 people are killed each year from cattle and other such mammals.

2.) “as documented by the U.S. Geological Survey, can wreak havoc on our ecosystems”

The USGS has not documented any such information. Their report “Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor” By Robert N. Reed and Gordon H. Rodda is pure conjecture, and it is stated as such by the authors very early on in the report.

Risk assessment, by its very nature, entails uncertainty. “A risk assessment model cannot absolutely determine whether or not an introduced exotic species will establish and if it does what impact it will have” (Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, 1996; Bomford, 2008). We have tried to draw attention to the greatest sources of uncertainty, but all elements of a risk assessment embody some uncertainty.

Robert N. Reed and Gordon H. Rodda

Reed and Rodda also did not do any field studies in Florida to see what kind of impact Burmese Pythons might be having (or may have had) on the Everglades’ ecosystems.  As a result there is no viable, clinical information proving that these snakes are “wreaking havoc.”  It is known that they are not filling the niche as apex predator, and are being preyed upon through their various stages of development by native fauna.  Combine this with the fact that these snakes prey upon the same animals that many other native species and it is very difficult to ascertain what kind of impact is being made as the line between what is being consumed by pythons and what is being consumed by native fauna is not clear.

3.) “The USGS reviewed nine species of large constrictor snakes — Burmese pythons, reticulated pythons, northern African pythons, southern African pythons, boa constrictors, and four species of anacondas — and found all nine pose high or medium risk to our environment. None are low risk.”

The inclusion of four of the 9 species the USGS has investigated is questionable, and leaves much room for scrutiny.  In Reed and Rodda’s own words when discussing the risk assessment of the 9 species of constrictor:

The [risk] assessment contrasts the projected biological and related impacts of potential establishment in the United States by any of the 9 species against the conditions that would normally persist in the absence of such colonization. (A  colonization is usually considered “established” when there is physical evidence that a species’ entire life cycle is being completed in its new environment, including reproduction and growth to maturation).

So by this statement a potential risk assessment of any given species cannot be properly conducted without there being a “colonization,” or proof that an entire life cycle is being completed by a given species.  This would include mating, laying of eggs, eggs hatching, the young surviving to sexual maturity, mating, and laying eggs of their own.  The existence of a complete lifecycle would offer a view of a potential impact the species would have on a given ecosystem.  In other words: proof of breeding needs to exist to assess a potential risk.

When we look at Reed and Rodda’s report we find the following entries:

We are aware of no strong evidence for any introduced population of the Reticulated Python. However, it is curious how often early observers concluded that Reticulated Python sightings at the edge of the known range must represent introductions. Such statements have been made for the northeastern (China), southeastern (Molucca or Maluku Islands), and northwestern (India) edges of the range. Part of the willingness of these observers to ascribe the outlying records to human introduction may be due to observations of pythons appearing as stowaways in shipments (potentially attracted to the rats accompanying agricultural products). Several famous examples are reported by Wall (1926): four Reticulated Pythons were found in a shipment of coconuts from Rangoon; one in a ship arriving in Mumbai, India from Moulmein, Myanmar; another arriving alive on a ship docking in London (source locality unspecified). The paucity of recent records of this sort (in contrast to the persistence, until the last few decades, of Boa constrictor arriving in shipments of bananas) suggests that modern shipping methods have much reduced the likelihood of such accidental transport.

We are aware of no established introduced populations of either species [Yellow Anaconda or DeSchauensee’s Anaconda]. An adult Yellow Anaconda was collected from Big Cypress National Reserve in south Florida in January 2007 (S. Snow, pers. commun., 2007), and another individual was photographed basking along a canal about 25 km north of this location in January 2008 (A. Flanagan, pers. commun., 2008). More recently (2008), an unnamed observer reportedly captured two anacondas that most closely fit the description of the Yellow Anaconda farther to the east near the Palm Beach County Line; these were reported to have been sold to a snake dealer/breeder (S. Snow, pers. commun., 2008).

We are unaware of any established extralimital populations of the Green Anaconda. An individual (around 2.5 m total length) was found dead on US41 in the vicinity of Fakahatchee Strand Preserve State Park, FL, in December 2004, and there are reports of two medium-sized adults and a juvenile observed but not collected in this general area (S. Snow, pers. commun. 2008).

It should be noted that there is no mention of any Beni Anaconda populations in the USGS report.  However there is this mention regarding this species’ ability to colonize in the United States:

The Beni Anaconda is known from few specimens in a small part of Bolivia, and we judged the number of available localities to be insufficient for an attempt to delineate its climate space or extrapolate this space to the United States. Beni Anacondas are known from sites with fairly low seasonality (mean monthly temperatures approximately 22.5oC-27.5oC, mean monthly precipitation about 50-300 mm; see Fig. 9.3 for an idea of the small size of this climate space as compared to that of E. murinus) and as such very little of the continental United States would appear to be climatically suitable (although insular states and territories may be at some risk).

If there are no known populations of the above-mentioned snakes in the United States then how can a risk assessment be made?  How can they logically be included in the list of 9 species that pose a potential threat to United States ecology?  With little to no information on how these snakes could have an impact on our ecosystems how can we possibly judge that they are in any way injurious?  Their inclusion in the list of 9 potentially injurious species of constrictor is purely speculative and dubious – at best.  And yet they are listed as having a medium to high risk potential.  How is this possible?  Before inclusion occurs definitive and clinical studies should be made to ascertain as to whether a species is truly injurious or not.  Basing a species’ injurious potential on such speculation and conjecture is dangerous and far from definitive.

There is also another matter (also from Reed and Rodda’s report):

In addition to the four true giants and the Boa Constrictor, we included four species that are so similar in appearance to one of the giants that they might be confused with them, and which are in some cases not distinguished in the international live animal trade. For example, the Beni Anaconda (Eunectes beniensis) is a recently described and poorly known anaconda closely related to the giant Green Anaconda. Because these species are visually similar and the range of the Beni Anaconda is within the range of the Green Anaconda, we review the former species in the same chapter as the latter. Similarly, there are now two species in the yellow anaconda group: the Yellow Anaconda (Eunectes notaeus), which has appeared in the wilds of Florida, and a rare and similar closely related species, DeSchauensee’s Anaconda (Eunectes deschauenseei). Finally, the Southern African Python, Python natalensis, is the sister species of the Northern African Python, but the two are not distinguished in international trade. These two species are easily distinguished by technical characters such as head scalation, but many people do not recognize the distinction. Thus we treat all nine of these large constrictors in this risk assessment; the Boa Constrictor, the four true giants, and their four look-alikes.

They are included as a potential risk to US ecology simply because they look like some of the constrictors in question, and could be confused for one of them. It has been indicated that the Yellow Anaconda, DeSchauensee’s Anaconda, and the Beni Anaconda cannot adequately pose a threat to United States ecology given their lack of colonization under USGS definitions.  The lack of a colonizing population means that no accurate risk assessment can be made of these species.  Without clinical study of how a population is effecting a given ecosystem any assessment is pure conjecture, and cannot be used as scientific study – therefore their inclusion as potentially regulated species cannot be permitted.  Add to this that their inclusion is based primarily on the fact that they physically resemble other species of constrictor adds further skepticism as to their inclusion.  And one has to ask, “confused by whom?”  The general public? The USGS? Legislators? National Park staff?  Any well-trained and studied herpetologist would be able to distinguish these sakes from the others listed in the USGS’ report.  So who is at risk of confusing these snakes with others?  Since when is general appearance a qualifier for regulation and classification as an injurious species?  Shouldn’t regulation be based on a scientific examination of how a species is effecting, and has affected a given ecosystem? Yet through Reed and Rodda’s own admission this is not what’s occurring.

4.) “The thousands of pythons now at large in the Everglades demonstrate the threat these snakes can pose”

Actually, they have not demonstrated anything since there has not been adequate field study of their presence and impact.  The mere fact that there are discrepancies in the number of pythons now in the Everglades is indicative of this: estimates have ranged from 1,500 to 150,000.  If field studies had been more seriously attempted prior to now there would be a better idea of how many non-native constrictors are in the Everglades and what their impact may be.

5.) “According to the USGS, “A very large number of imperiled species are at risk from giant constrictors in the State of Florida.”

Again, what the USGS has put forth is pure conjecture, we do not accurately know how imperiled various species are.  However, it is known that other animals present in Florida present a monumental risk to various species (endangered and otherwise).  Specifically – feral cats.  I won’t re-hash this since I already put in it a previous entry (See The Issue of Key Largo also on this site).  But I will add that these cats have become such a high risk that their presence has now affected the endangered Florida Panther, and well as other large cats in the state. Feline panleukopenia (FPV) and feline leukemia virus (FeLV) have been documented in Florida Panthers, and is the leading cause of death due to infectious disease in cats. FPV has shown signs of potentially being introduced to bobcats as well. Feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV) may have infected Florida panthers through their consumption of infected domestic cats. These are life threatening diseases that did not have a clear presence in the big cat populations until recently.

6.) “Once these species are established, it is costly and may be impossible to remove them.”

This is absolutely correct.

7.)  “The proposed rules are essential to prevent already-established species from spreading to new areas and to prevent additional species from becoming established.”

How, exactly will this work?  I pose this question to the HSUS and any legislator looking at such actions.  How will regulating these species, and restricting their sales and transportation between states help the Everglades?  How will they prevent the spread of existing populations to new areas?  Would enacting such legislation suddenly bring about an end to feral python breeding in the Everglades?  Will they suddenly stop their feeding?  Will they pack-up and swim all the way across the planet back to Southeast Asia?  Restricting sales and transportation will offer no resolution to the Florida Everglades.  It will not reduce the populations established in southern Florida, it will not in any way help Florida, or the Everglades National Park.  If such legislation is enacted all of the potential problems we face in the ‘Glades will still be there the next day, and legislators, conservationists, and the general public will still be left with questions on how to deal with the situation of established populations of feral Burmese Pythons in southern Florida. And where will the HSUS be?  Likely nowhere to be found.  They will have gotten their restrictions on large constrictors, so what will they care about the feral populations in the southern Florida.  They wont.  The HSUS will have won their battle and will move on to the next and not offer an ounce of support to finding solutions for feral python populations.

The idea that restricting trade movement of these animals will limit their release into the wild is ludicrous.  It has been established that this is not a viable cause of the current populations southern Florida.  The haphazard releasing on unwanted pets would not result in breeding populations like this.  It has been established that a major cause of this was the destruction of a breeding facility of pythons in southern Florida during Hurricane Andrew in 1992.  Another is believed to be Hurricane Katrina.  In either case had interstate transport restrictions been enacted at the time this matter would still be present.  The situations that likely brought on the populations of pythons in the Everglades would still have occurred, and have been considered unavoidable.

So I ask again: how will legislation restricting interstate trade and sales in any way help Southern Florida?

8.)  “The trade is dangerous for people, too. The 2-year-old girl who was killed tragically by a Burmese python kept as a pet in her home was the fourth person killed by a pet python in the United States since 2006. The other three were adults with experience handling reptiles.”

As I mentioned above large constrictors are among the safest of pets kept in America today.  And each and every case of an individual being fatally attacked by a large constrictor is the direct result of irresponsible pet ownership.  Keeping a large constrictor does not make a person an experienced reptile handler.  An experienced reptile handler is someone who understands the animals they handle, knows how to properly care for them, respects them, and has years of experience doing this.  If any of these factors are missing from the equation an accident will occur.  And that is exactly what happens when a human fatality occurs.

Four fatalities between 2004 and 2010 linked to keeping pythons?  Compare that to an estimated 156 human fatalities between 2004 and 2010 as a result of domestic dog attacks (following Ripa’s study)  …4 vs 156?  Any human fatality is a tragedy, and when you keep an animal as a pet – regardless of the species – there are risks that are assumed by the owner.  However, as usual, the HSUS is not offering any basis of comparison in an attempt to keep otherwise uninformed individuals in the dark.  They are stretching and putting too much weight on small figures with hopes of legitimizing their desires.

We see the same thing when we look at the HSUS’ claims that snakes are dangerous pets due to the potential of Salmonellosis among humans.  The CDC estimates that 6% of the approximate 1.2 million sporadic cases of Salmonellosis that occur each year in the United States are the result of contact with reptiles or amphibians.  …Only 6% – that is approximately 72,000 cases out of an estimated 1.2 million.  The HSUS also likes to point out that an estimated 11% of this approximate 6% of cases of reptile-contracted Salmonellosis are children…  11% of 6% is 0.66%   …0.66%?  That is a little over half a percent and comes out to 475.2 cases per year. The CDC considers a disease to be “rare” when its occurrence is less than 1 in 2,000.  Actually, on a whole Salmonellosis is considered a rare illness by the CDC because of this, but the chances of a child contracting salmonella from a reptile is exceedingly rare.  According to the CDC a child is more likely to fall ill with viral gastroenteritis than reptile contracted Salmonellosis.  As an example Rotoviruses are responsible for the hospitalization of approximately 55,000 children annually, and globally is the cause of the deaths of approximately 527,000 children each year.  Noroviruses cause acute viral gastroenteritis in approximately 21 million people per year – this is nearly 20 times greater than those afflicted with Salmonellosis per year. Viral gastroenteritis caused by Noroviruses are typically the “stomach flues” that spread like wild fire through day care facilities and schools each year, and on a whole is more often contracted via food than salmonella. In the end an individual is far more likely to contract Salmonellosis from undercooked pork, beef, poultry, or eggs than they are reptiles.  Even among those individuals who keep reptiles in their homes.

It should also be made note of that the CDC estimates that reptiles are kept as pets in 1.7 million households across the country. The CDC’s figure of 6% is the sum of cases spread over a listing snakes, lizards, turtles, frogs, toads, newts, and salamanders, (which means that if cases of Salmonellosis were distributed evenly across each animal type then snakes would constitute less than 1% of all cases annually.  However, in all likelihood these cases are not distributed evenly across each animal type, making cases related to contact with snakes anywhere from 2% or less.

When trying to convince the general public of a matter the HSUS will latch on to any figure and try to use it in such a way that it sounds catastrophic, but when examined these figures are seen to be quite small and nowhere near as significant as they would like them to be.  It’s all about perspective and positioning.  Unfortunately, the HSUS frequently offers a narrow perspective when presenting ideas – they often leave out substantial linking facts because such information would deflate their argument.

Touching back on the HSUS’ comment about large constrictors being dangerous: they once again make mention of: “The 2-year-old girl who was killed tragically by a Burmese python kept as a pet in her home”.  First of all this “girl” has a name – so let’s use it.  Her name is Shaiunna Hare.  She was 2 years old; lived in Sumter County, Florida; was the daughter of Jaren Hare; and was living with her mother and her mother’s boyfriend Charles Darnell.

Unfortunately the HSUS has been citing this as a keen example of how dangerous large constrictors are, however this is a classic example of irresponsible pet ownership.  It is also a classic example of gross child abuse and neglect.  If the HSUS were to actually list the details that go along with the incident revolving around Shaiunna’s death then they would stop using it as a means of rallying support under their anti-reptile banner.  If the general public actually knew some of the details that surround the matter they would not hurry to the HSUS’ side as this is not a reptile matter – or even a pet mater – this is a matter of child abuse. The truth is that the python is likely a scapegoat for the actions of the real monsters in this case: Charles Darnell and Jaren Hare.

The details the HSUS has not presented when talking about Shaiunna are as follows:

1. Charles Darnell and Jaren Hare had been keeping the snake in an unsecured glass cage with a quilt draped over it for a top.
2. Charles Darnell himself even admitted that the snake had escaped before – and never did anything to try to remedy the situation. …The snake had even escaped earlier the night of Shaiunna’s death.  Upon catching it he put it in a sack, and placed this sack in the cage – which was again covered with a quilt, and “secured” with a string.
3. Neither Charles Darnell nor Jaren Hare had a permit to own the snake, nor was it micro-chipped – thereby keeping it illegally by Florida state law.
4. Adding to the legality of the situation a python’s enclosure needs to be secured with a lock in the state of Florida – there was no such security present on this snake’s cage (which is immediately obvious given the use of a quilt and string for a cage top).
5. Friends and family had previously expressed concern over the lack of security on the snake’s cage, and had offered to keep the snake securely housed, but Charles and Jaren chose to ignore their please and declined their assistance.
6. Mr. Darnell had been arrested on several drug related charges in May 2009 (2 months prior to the death of Shaiunna).
7. In May 2009 complaints that Darnell and Hare used and sold drugs including meth, cocaine, marijuana, and ecstasy were investigated. The complaint said that Darnell was intemperate and foul-mouthed, Hare was “high all the time” and the children in their home were being abused. (This included the two other children living in Darnell and Hare’s residence).
8. Charles Darnell refused to let the police and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission officers enter his home to investigate the incident surrounding Shaiunna’s death until they had a warrant to do so.  This meant that police were not able to enter the home until 4:45pm – Mr. Darnell had called 9-1-1 sobbing and hysterical at 9:40am. What kind of guardian does this?  And what kind of mother allows this to occur?  Why wasn’t Jaren Hare out in front of the home waving the police in? Why weren’t they trying to do everything they could to help facilitate the investigation?
9. Charles Darnell was also found to be in position of narcotics after officials arrived to investigate the incident.
10. Charles Darnell claimed to have been unable to remove the snake from Shaiunna’s body, so he used a 6 inch knife and a meat cleaver to stab and cut the snake in an attempt to free her body.  Considering this python was exceptionally thin, and Mr. Darnell must have been under great duress he was able to land several blows with near surgical precision to the snake’s neck and upper body without ever accidentally stabbing Shaiunna’s body.
11. Autopsy stated that Shaiunna had been bitten multiple times on her arms and head by a snake, and had in fact died of asphyxiation.  Constrictors only constrict when attempting to feed, and only strike once when doing so, and then they hold on.  Multiple bites would be consistent with defensive posturing and biting of a stressed, agitated, or injured snake – not feeding.
12. One month following the incident Charles Darnell and Jaren Hare were charged with third-degree murder, manslaughter, and child abuse as a direct result of this matter.

This is a photo taken of Darnell and Hare's malnourished Burmese Python as it was removed from their home on the afternoon of July 1, 2009. Compare the girth of this snake to the one below. Image found on Florida FWC website

There are several things about this case that do not match up with what is known about Burmese Pythons – or constrictors in general.  First, the snake was obviously malnourished.  It was 8.5 feet long – the responding police estimated the snake to be between 15-20 pounds, however the weight of the snake is believed to be less than that by those who know and keep Burmese Pythons.

Here is a photo of Burmese Python Breeder, Sam Bearden, with his Albino Burmese Python, Blaze. At the time of this photo Blaze was 8+ feet long: note the girth of the snake's body. Burmese Pythons are known for being "girthy" snakes. Given this size difference between Blaze and Darnell's python it becomes easy to understand why Darnell's claim of being unable to removed the snake from Shaniuann's body is difficult to believe. Photo courtesy of Sam Bearden.

Burmese Python breeder Sam Bearden has stated that – at best – Darnell and Hare’s python weighted 7-10 pounds.  A healthy 8.5 foot Burmese Python would easily weigh 2 to 3 times that weight.  …And yet Charles Darnell said he was unable to get the snake off of Shaiunna’s body when he discovered her.  Mr. Darnell is far from a small man.  I find his claim to be hard to believe.  …Correction: I find it impossible to believe.  I am 40 years old and a wiry 150 pounds (a mere stick compared to Mr. Darnell) and I can guarantee that if I were in that situation I would have had that snake unwound from my child’s body in due haste: unwinding from the tail and moving forward.

So, Mr. Darnell was unable to remove the snake so his next thought was to stab and cut it off with a 6-inch knife and a meat cleaver.  As a parent this would not have been my first choice, but I’m willing to presume that Mr. Darnell was under duress and not thinking clearly.  …However, in his stabbing and cutting he was able to execute these blows with surgical precision and not once hit Shaiunna’s body.  Especially considering the areas that he was aiming for on the python’s body were thin and would have been near Shaiunna’s face.

Autopsy concluded that Shaiunna had died via asphyxiation, but she had multiple bite wounds on her arms and head.  As mentioned above this is indicative of defensive striking, not feeding – which is the sole reason for a constrictor to constrict.  Constrictor’s do not constrict out of defense or aggression – it is part of their feeding response only.  A strike done as part of a feeding response is a “bite and hold” strike.  If this was the case there should have been only one bite wound on Shaiunna’s body. Something else that doesn’t make any sense here is that Shaiunna would have been screaming and struggling if she were being bitten multiple times by an 8.5 foot Burmese Python.  Any parent knows what a 2-year-old child sounds like when they are scared and/or hurt.  It’s impossible to mistake the sound, or ignore it.  It snaps you to attention, it instinctively sets your adrenaline into high gear, and as a parent you can’t help but respond to it  – yet in a house with four other people no one heard Shaiunna screaming, crying, or struggling?  How is that possible?

There is also the alarming fact that Mr. Darnell refused to let investigator’s into the house until they had a warrant to do so.  At 9:40am he had called 9-1-1 sobbing saying that the “stupid snake got out in the middle of the night and strangled our baby.”  And yet when the first responders arrived they are turned away until they could produce a warrant.  What’s more perplexing is that Jaren – Shaiunna’s biological mother – let this happen.

I’d also like to address the fact that Charles Darnell claimed that the attack occurred in the middle of the night – yet when he found Shaiunna in the morning the python was supposedly wrapped around her, constricting, and firmly biting her. Based on the fact that constricting is part of the snake’s feeding response – this action would have lasted several minutes – at most… yet he walked in on it late in the morning.  It’s also very unlikely that he would have walked in during this portion of an attack given it’s very narrow window of opportunity.  I find this all terribly coincidental – especially when the attack was supposed to have happened in the middle of the night.

I would like to say something about feeding – since I have mentioned it a few times now.  What Mr. Darnell described in Shaiunna’s  crib is feeding response, yet it is highly unlikely that this snake would have ever attacked Shaiunna as part of a feeding response.  A 2-year-old child is too large for a python the size of the one removed from the Darnell/Hare residence to consume, and snakes do not typically attack prey that is too large for them to ingest. For this reason (among others) I highly doubt that the snake attacked Shaiunna at all.  At least not in the manner that Darnell described.  Yes, there were bite marks, but they speak of a distressed snake striking out at whatever it was near. …I’m curious: did Mr. Darnell have bites on his hands and arms?  I’d be surprised if he didn’t.  A bleeding, agitated 8.5 foot snake can be hard to hold onto.

Add all of this to complaints of abuse, drug use, and selling of drugs and I can’t help but feel that the Python was used as a convenient scapegoat for foul play.  Unfortunately, it will likely never be ascertained if the bites Shaiunna received occurred post-mortem or not.  I would also be curious to know if there was any blood from the python in her crib, and if there was were the blood-stain patterns consistent with a snake that had been coiled around a victim when stabbed, or those of a snake that had been placed in the crib after being stabbed.  It was also not made available how long Shaiunna had been dead when investigators were finally allowed in to the house. I would be curious to know how long she had been dead before the snake was put in her crib to bite her. I would tend to believe that the python was put in the presence of Shaiunna’s body after being stabbed or while it was being stabbed.  Being injured, agitated, and scared it would have responded aggressively to the nearest body in much the same way as any animal in that situation: biting.

There are just too many variables pointing towards fowl play on the part of Darnell and Hare in this case to ignore the possibility that Shaiunna is likely the unfortunate victim of gross neglect and abuse – and it’s gut wrenching to consider, but she was likely dead before Darnell and/or Hare decided to pin her death on the pet python.  There also appears to be some preparation and orchestration to allow for the creation of a somewhat believable story – such as the bite marks on Shaiunna’s body, hacking the snake with a cleaver and knife, and so on.  And because of these variables the HSUS cannot discuss any of the itemized details above when presenting Shaiunna’s death for fear of loosing it as a rallying point.  And it’s not as if any of the itemized details are secrets – they have all been openly discussed in various media reports surrounding the incident.  So the HSUS cannot claim ignorance in this matter.  Instead they are presenting the minimum amount of information and are misrepresenting Shaiunna as well as themselves.  Not to mention that by neglecting to divulge the rest of the details surrounding this case they are doing a great disservice to Shaiunna’s memory – her story deserves to be known.  The HSUS is, in effect, sweeping parental abuse and neglect under the carpet in favor of furthering their own goals… which in itself is a despicable act.

The HSUS does not deserve the backing it gets. The above discussed letter campaign is an example of this.  They present only the portions of any given material that will best suit there needs instead of presenting all of the information and letting the public decide on their own what opinions they should have.  This letter campaign is an example of how the HSUS uses half-truths and misinformation to gain the respect, support, and money of the general public.  And being that this letter campaign is based on misinformation, and it should be seen as an attempt at fraud.

Do not support the HSUS.  Demand to know the full details of what they claim and decide for yourself, because they will be coming after your pets next.

Download the PDF of this write-up here.

This from USARK:

On Wednesday March 3rd there will be a California Fish & Game Commission meeting to discuss proposals to BAN all non native turtles and frogs, as well as severely restrict the ownership of beaded lizards. The meeting will be held in Ontario, CA. USARK has hired professional representation and will attend this meeting to defend the interests of California Herpers. The USARK delegation will include President Andrew Wyatt, Director Gary Bagnall and Senior Advisor George Osborn.

USARK and the Reptile Nation’s position on the proposed rule changes is as follows:

1. We appreciate CA Fish & Game and their desire to protect CA, but all of the facts have not been considered.
2. To date no industry experts have testified, and no hard evidence has been submitted to justify severe regulatory changes.
3. If enacted regulatory changes banning non native turtles and frogs, as well as, beaded lizards could have a serious impact on the economy of CA and result in loss of jobs.
4. We request that serious consideration be given to alternative proposals prior to any rule making.
5. We urge caution be used in assessing potential legal ramifications of any actions taken that would negatively impact legal commerce in captive bred turtles, frogs and beaded lizards.

What happens in California can set precedent across the country. Don’t let ill conceived regulation destroy the Reptile Nation.

Take Action to Stop the Ban on Frogs, Turtles & Beaded Lizards TODAY!

1. Click here if you are a CA Business owner
2. Click here for all other stakeholders

We have hired professional consultants to help us fight this proposed Ban on Turtles, Frogs & Beaded Lizards. The financial costs are high.

This from USARK:

Yesterday the Florida Senate Environmental Preservation and Conservation Committee held a hearing to consider S318. Despite over 3700 emails generated by the USARK campaign opposing S318 the Florida Senate gave it a favorable rating and passed it out of Committee. USARK is very disappointed that more consideration and debate was not given this bill prior to being passed.

Another bill, S572 sponsored by Committee Chairman Constantine, was also given a favorable rating and passed out of Committee with little debate. Apparently text of this bill was not complete until late last night, and was not available for review prior to the Committee hearing. This bill is reported to address stricter penalties for violation Reptiles of Concern (ROC) statutes, as well as permits for dealers making internet sales into the state of Florida.

USARK is very concerned that these two bills passed with so little consideration and debate. We urge the Florida Senate to heed the recommendations of the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission and the ROC TAG Committee commissioned to provide viable solutions. Currently we believe these bills represent the potential for economic and environmental disaster for the State of Florida. Hopefully a constructive dialogue can be engaged and a more pragmatic bill be substituted prior to a floor vote.

USARK will continue to engage the bill sponsors, Committee Leadership and Committee Staff to protect the rights of Florida Keepers to own and trade reptiles legally.

The Reptiles of Concern Statute is a viable means of allowing residents of Florida to own various reptiles, and ensuring that the owers are properly equipped to care for the given reptiles.  It leaves rights in the hands of pet owners while ensuring that the state is aware that the pet owners can adequately care for and maintain these animals.  It’s a win-win solution, but if S318 is allowed to pass these reptiles will be banned completely and the ROC Statute will not be given the opportunity to be proven effective.

S318 will also further the idea that these animals are something to be feared and avoided.  Owning reptiles is not just a passion, but an educational process – through which we learn more about them.  Through this knowledge we are able to share this with others and expand the understanding of reptiles as animals and as pets.  S318 will hinder the ability to learn and educate.

This from USARK:

On Tuesday, February 16, Florida’s Senate Environmental Preservation & Conservation Committee will hold a hearing to consider Senate bill 318. If passed, this bill will prohibit ownership & trade of all of the animals addressed by the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) Reptiles of Concern (ROC) statute. The statute requires permitting, secure caging and micro-chipping. The statute is well thought out and was just recently implemented. It should be allowed to work before the “baby is thrown out with the bath water”. USARK has been engaged on this issue working closely with FWC to improve the statute and increase compliance. We have attended FWC Commission mettings and ROC TAG meetings. S318 would negate all of the efforts of FWC and the Reptile Industry without regard. USARK is currently cooperating with FWC ROC regulations and sponsoring a 24/7 Amnesty Program to bring more stake holders into compliance. S318 would cost jobs and threaten the environmental integrity it seeks to protect. USARK suggests that the Committee Staff listen to the recommendations of FWC and the ROC TAG Committee.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) supports the all out ban of reptiles in Florida and hopes to set precedent for the entire country. They care little for the actual issues, but seek to exploit opportunities to push for the end of all animal ownership and use. HSUS is lobbying hard for S318 in Florida even though they had a position on the ROC TAG Committee they are now attempting to circumvent.

Send a Letter to the EPC Committee and Governor Crist TODAY!

USARK opposes S318. The reptile community must fight together and participate in the USARK grass roots campaign against this ill conceived bill. Please click here to fight S318.

Among the stolen snakes was an Albino Boa worth $1000.00, 2 Rosy Boas, a Central American Boa, 3 high-red Colombian Boas, 4 Jungle Boas, a Kenyan Sand Boa, an Albino Kingsnake, a Lemon Pastel Ball Python, and 2 Caulkers Cay Island Boas which are worth about $800.00 each.  Despite the fact that the albino Boa has a higher price tag the biggest loss were the Caulkers Cay Boas.  There are only 3 breeders in the United States for this Boa, and Stecher is one.  Add to this that these 2 boas were not for sale, and only on display in the store as part of Stecher’s collection.

This from an article in the Las Cruces Sun-Times:

Most prized by Stecher, two rare Cay Caulker Island boa constrictors.

“These snakes hold the most sentimental value,” Stecher said of the 3-foot long black-and-gray snakes. “One was even named after my wife.”

One of only three breeders of the rare boas in the U.S., Stecher said the sale of one of these reptiles would catch the attention of regional retailers. “There’s not a big market for Cay Caulker Island boas,” he said. “It’s almost like stealing the Mona Lisa. If (the suspects) plan to sell my boas, they will get caught.”

Stecher has contacted retailers in the state and parts of Texas and Arizona to notify them of the stolen reptiles.

The rare snakes retail for about $800, although Stecher said the two Cay Caulker Island boas that were taken were not for sale at his store.

“It took my nine years to breed the parents of these two,” he said. “I’ve waited six years to breed their offspring.”

Other items stolen were several Critter Keeper cages and about 6 months worth of food for the snakes.  Given what was taken it stands to reason the person(s) who stole the reptiles knew exactly what they were doing and what they were after.  It’s very possible that these snakes could wind up for sale so keep an eye out on places like CraigsList, Fauna Classifieds, or Kingsnake.com Any snakes of the type listed above being sold out of New Mexico, or the New Mexico area, should be considered questionable and reported for investigation.  Please contact Awesome Reptiles at (575) 522-9757, or the Las Cruces Police Department at (575) 528-4222 if you have any information or possible leads.

This from USARK:

Today the final hearing was held in the Georgia Senate Committee on Natural Resources & the Environment on S303. The bill as written would have made owning any of the Big 5 constrictors prohibitive while failing to address the stated intent of the bill. Jobs would have been lost and Georgia families and businesses would have been hurt. USARK provided a well thought out alternative in the form of our Model State Legislation which addressed issues of secure containment along with public and environmental safety measures. Committee staff drew up a Committee Substitute based on the USARK proposal.

During the hearing the bill’s sponsor rejected this proposed Committee Substitute. Vice Chairman Bulloch questioned the decision to reject this proposed alternative. Other Senators commented in favor of the USARK proposal. Several Senators also commented on the number of emails generated to their offices by the USARK grass roots campaign. One Senator said, “I didn’t know how many people were interested in snakes. I had hundreds of emails saying ‘No on S303′ in my mailbox”. Subsequently Senator Bulloch motioned for a ‘No Pass’ rating for S303. The Committee then voted and S303 received a majority ‘No Pass’ designation. S303 is now officially dead in Committee. USARK appreciates the fair treatment and sincere efforts of the Committee Staff, Chairman Tolleson, Vice Chairman Bulloch and Committee Members who worked to improve S303.

Thank you to BW Smith of Animal South in Atlanta who attended the hearing on behalf of USARK. Also a special thanks to all those members of the Reptile Nation who participated in the grass roots campaign on S303!

1% Silver Sulfadiazine: a must have for any herp medicine cabinet. Great for dermal infections, abrasions, even burns.

I asked myself this question after the second round of treating scale rot on Eddie – my DH Sunglow BCI.  Shortly after treating him with SSD for his initial infection he went into shed cycle.  This, in itself, is not unusual since reptiles will often go into an otherwise early shed cycle to help heal damaged skin.  Following the onset of a second outbreak a few weeks after his initial stress shed I resumed my twice daily routine of applying SSD to the affected areas, and once again he went into a stress shed.  This time I continued the use of the SSD after the completion of his shed to make sure there wouldn’t be a second re-occurrence.  He went four days and then was fed, at which point I didn’t disturb him for a full 48 hours to let him digest.  When I took him out to check him over and resume his SSD treatments I noticed a very small spot if discoloration on a ventral scale located on his neck. Believing that this was a third outbreak I took him to the vet to see what was going on.  The vet examined the spot, and was able to flake off the entire area of discoloration with relative ease.  She took it in the back for some cytology and concluded that there was no fungal growth, and bacteria levels were that of healthy skin… it was not an infection.  Her feeling was that it was a very small bit of unshed skin.  The scale that she fussed with looked a little raw, so she suggested that I continue the SSD for a few more days on that location , but otherwise gave Eddie a clean bill of health.  That night I thought his eyes were looking a little blue, but it was so faint it was hard to be sure.  Last night, however, when I went ot feed him it was obvious: he’s eyes were getting blue… he was in shed cycle… 11 days after his last shed.

I went back and looked at my data card and noticed a pattern in when treatments began and when his shed cycles started.

• First Treatment – Twice daily SSD treatment began on November 25, shed cycle began on November 30 (5 days from start of treatment)
• Second Treatment – Twice daily SSD treatment began on January 5, Shed cycle began January 12 (7 days from start of treatment)
• Third Treatment – Twice daily SSD treatment began on January 21, shed cycle began January 28 (7 days from start of treatment)

The first two incidents involved overt scale/skin trauma – even though it was only the initial stages of the infection and scale damage was minor (compared to what it could have become).  The third treatment did not have any overt scale trauma.  What I believed to be a re-occurrence of scale rot was most likely a small fragment of unshed skin.  Eddie was healthy during the third treatment… yet 11 days after his last shed he is entering shed cycle again, and the only thing that I can attribute this to is the presence of the 1% Silver Sulfadiazine.

Granted, this is not a true clinical examination of this, but given my experience thus far, and the data recorded on Eddie’s record card it would appear there is a correlation between SSD and the inducing of shed within 5-7 days of the start of treatment.