By Eric Kulisch
On Jan. 17, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service said a ban on the import and interstate transportation of four non-native constrictor snakes - pythons - would go into effect in two months.
The decision was made to protect the ecological balance of the Florida Everglades where these giant predators feed on birds, mammals, and reptiles, some of them endangered species. The population of the Burmese python, yellow anaconda and two types of African pythons has exploded in the Everglades - there are thousands of constrictor snakes inhabiting the swamp - and conservation officials want to prevent their spread to other sensitive ecosystems. Many pet owners realize they can't care for the snakes when they get big -- up to 20 feet long in some cases - and release them into the wild. Other snakes escape their holding pens.
It sounds like a sensible regulation, but in an era when "regulations" are portrayed as the bogeymen of the American way of life, nothing in Washington is as straight forward as it seems.
Taking the lead on the matter was Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., who in 2009 introduced legislation to ban the sale and import of dangerous snakes after an 8.5-foot albino Burmese python kept as a pet escaped from its terrarium and killed a two-year-old girl living in the home.
Rep. Tom Rooney, a Florida Republican, proposed a similar ban in the House.
Between 1977 and 2007 there were 1.1 million boas and pythons legally imported into the United States, according to the U.S. Geological Survey. The illegal trade in animals such as snakes is believed to be considerable.
Many Floridians originally considered the snakes a minor nuisance, but public concern has further grown with reports of a python that ate a 76-pound deer and a photograph of python that burst after swallowing a live six-foot alligator.
Does anyone really believe people need to have these types of animals as pets? A lot of the market is based on collectors who want exotic animals specially bred for their color, patterns, albinism or other traits. We should have prohibited these snakes a long time ago, but the reptile keepers industry exerted its clout to fight any congressional action.
In fact, Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) proposed in March 2010 to designate nine snake species as "injurious" under the Lacey Act, making it illegal to import or transport them across state lines for any reason other than research.
The Lacey Act aims to stop illegal trafficking in wildlife, fish and plants. Felony violations are punishable with up to five years in prison and $250,000 fines for individuals.
In September, the Republican-led House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held up the proposed snake ban as an example of the Obama administration damaging the economy with an onslaught of ill-conceived regulations.
The FWS failed to analyze the potential economic impact on small businesses, as required under administrative procedures law, and used faulty science to justify the rule, the Oversight Committee said in a report on the administration's regulatory record. The report said the cursory economic impact statement by FWS only referred to importers and companies selling snakes across state lines, but ignored those who feed, keep and care for the snakes. Those include veterinarians; rodent breeders and distributors; manufacturers of food pellets, lighting, terrariums, terrarium decorations, heating products, vitamins and supplements, snake hooks, and sexing tools; specialized transport companies; trade show organizers and promoters; and others.
The committee referred to studies that it claims cast doubt on the ability of the constrictor snakes to survive in climates beyond South Florida or the southern tip of Texas.
It also questioned the use of the Lacey Act for controlling nonnative snakes because so many snakes are already in the country and states have taken action on their own. In Florida, for instance, private ownership of five types of snakes is prohibited, but commercial dealers or people can move or show the snakes in exhibits with a permit.
The U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers estimates that in the first year a ban will reduce industry revenues between $76 million to $104 million. Over 10 years, the loss would be $505 million to $1.4 billion, it claims.
"The effect of this regulatory action on small businesses could be devastating," the Oversight Committee report says. "In sum, it appears as though this regulatory action taken by the FWS, which did not undergo a proper economic analysis, is contrary to the purpose of the Lacey Act, is based on
questionable science, and has the ability to devastate a small but thriving sector of the economy."
At a hearing, snake breeder David Barker lamented that the bill would hurt his livelihood and "may precipitate the greatest slaughter of pet animals in history" if collectors realize their animals have no value without a market to trade them.
Really? That's quite a stretch and implies that pet owners are a cruel bunch.
The FWS's enactment of a rule to keep dangerous snakes out of commerce eliminates the need for congressional approval of a ban.
The FWS says it is still considering the possibility of banning five other nonnative snakes, including the boa constrictor.
Rep. Rooney criticized the Obama administration for taking a "half measure" because he wanted all nine dangerous snake species to be covered by the ban. Environmental groups also said the ban didn't go far enough.
The four species covered by the ban only represent 30 percent of the trade of giant snakes, Rooney said in a statement. Boa constrictors and reticulated pythons are traded in the greatest numbers and are not included in the administration's final rule, he says.
Rep. Alan West, a Florida Republican backed by the Tea Party, applauded the FWS decision, saying it will save taxpayers money because agencies won't be forced to spend more money to control the spread of the snake population.
In today's environment, it's very interesting to see some Republicans calling for more regulation.