Senator Bill Nelson's response

[voodoochild863]

Bill Nelson says that "Burmese pythons often are released into the wild when their owners can no longer care for them." Where does he have proof of this? I have seen more convincing evidence that the Burmese python population in the everglades was caused by hurricane Andrew destroying python breeding facilities and distrubuting 1000s of baby snakes into the wild. Usually when they find Burms that have been dumped they are in very poor health. The odds of a captive raised burm surviving are slim to none. Anyone have an oppinions on the subject? Bellow is the entire letter that was sent to me in response to my opposition letter to the bill. With wild populations of Veileds in Naples, FL Chameleons could be the next target so stand up for your rights.


Dear Mr. Tubbs:

Thank you for writing me about S. 373, a bill I introduced that would ban the importation and trade between States of the Burmese python.

Burmese pythons often are released into the wild when their owners can no longer care for them. Though not native to south Florida, Burmese pythons are thriving in the Everglades National Park, threatening natural species, many of which are endangered, and posing the risk of upsetting the delicate ecosystem of the region. We have invested many years and billions of dollars in an effort to restore the Everglades to its natural balance, and non-native species like Burmese pythons threaten to undo that work.

I understand your concern that my bill would punish responsible python owners. My bill will not take away existing pythons from owners. The State of Florida has made progress recently in balancing the needs of pet owners and the concerns for the environment by requiring micro-chipping and permits for reptiles of concern, including the Burmese python. My bill would serve as a Federal companion to help stop the expanding population of large constrictor snakes in the wild.

During a committee review of S. 373, the bill was amended to cover nine constrictor species deemed high or medium risk by a recent U.S. Geological Service report. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) recently announced that they will propose to list the nine constrictor snakes that my bill names as "injurious wildlife" under the Lacey Act, which would ban the importation and interstate commerce of the snakes.

I appreciate your taking the time to write me with your views on this important matter. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future.

Sincerely,
Senator Bill Nelson

P.S. From time to time, I compile electronic news briefs highlighting key issues and hot topics of particular importance to Floridians. If you'd like to receive these e-briefs, visit my Web site and sign up for them at http://billnelson.senate.gov/news/ebriefs.cfm

 

[ballin]

well the releasing of unwanted burms definitely does add to it

 

[Chris Anderson]

That's the same reply I got from Nelson in February when I first emailed him about S373. He obviously hasn't changed his reply since Florida no longer categorizes these species as Reptiles of Concern but rather as Conditional Reptiles where by you had to get a permit by July 1, 2010 to own them in Florida.

I sent he and LeMieux the following letter the other day but haven't received a response yet:

Dear Senator Nelson,
Dear Senator LeMieux,

I write to you today to request that as my senator you please oppose S373, aka 'The Python Ban'. As a biologist I share concern for the environment and I am for preventing the expansion of invasive species, however this bill is based on unscientific reports that are contradicted by four independent bona-fide peer-reviewed studies, fails to address the issue at hand, and stands to hurt tens of thousands of businesses and families, including many in Florida.

During a November 6, 2009 hearing on H.R. 2811, the Companion Bill to S373, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Deputy Director Dan Ashe characterized a USGS “Open Report” (titled “Giant Constrictors: Biological and Management Profiles and an Establishment Risk Assessment for Nine Large Species of Pythons, Anacondas, and the Boa Constrictor”) as “peer-reviewed science”, thereby giving it credibility as justification for the addition of these pythons to the Lacey Act’s list of Injurious Wildlife. As a scientist I am offended by this characterization of the USGS report, as it did not go through a bona-fide external peer review and is based on a weak model with data from questionable unscientific sources. I consider misleading a government committee, whether intentionally or not, unacceptable and consider it my duty as a scientist to make sure this false characterization is brought to light.

In addition to being misrepresented as “peer-reviewed science”, the USGS report is contradicted by four studies that have actually gone through the scientific peer review process (see: Pyron et al. 2008 PLoS One; Avery et al. 2010 Biol. Invasions; Mazzotti et al. 2010 Biol. Invasions; Dorcas et al. 2010 Biol. Invasions). While Rodda & Reed’s 2008 USGC report was based on a pathetic two climatic variables and predicts that one species could expand its introduced range as far north as Maryland, the more rigorous model by Pyron et al., based on 19 climatic variables, predicts that the species will not expand its introduced range much further then it already has. The latter study is validated by accurately predicting the species’ natural range, a feat the USGS model does not even attempt. Further, the three bona-fide scientific peer reviewed studies from this year all found based on survival experiments last winter that this species of python could not survive beyond its existing range. As concluded by a panel of 11 independent scientists, I believe that "this document is not suitable as the basis for legislative or regulatory policies".

The trade in reptiles here in the United States represents approximately 3 billion dollars annually and exports of high quality captive bred reptiles account for 82% of the trade worldwide. Thousands are employed directly or indirectly by the reptile industry. The trade in the nine snakes addressed in S373 is approximately 1/3 of the total annual trade. In a letter to the Senate EPW Committee the US Chamber of Commerce states "if enacted in its current form, this legislation would adversely impact tens of thousands of businesses". Our state alone stands to lose scores of jobs and this legislation will hinder an economic upturn in Florida, the US, and globally, all based on a scientifically laughable report from the USGS.

Most importantly, if passed, this bill will outlaw the import, export and interstate transport of these nine snake species but will do nothing to address the issue of preventing future invasive species or the expansion of currently introduced species. Regulation has already been put in place in Florida to prevent further ownership and sale of four of these species. Additional legislation affecting states that are not at risk of invasion by these species is unnecessary and overreaching as this is a Florida problem, not a national issue. More should be done to address the issue of invasive species, not pass unrelated legislation in an attempt to appease special interest groups such as PETA. As an example, rather than bankrupt thousands of families and businesses by making their livelihood and investments worthless and failing to curb the problem, an annual national permitting system for these nine species, based on the previous tagging and permitting system in Florida as a model, could prevent these species from entering the wrong hands and build funding which could then be redirected to fund projects to prevent and irradiate invasive species around the country.

Finally, there are an estimated 5 million reptile keepers in the US. Based on an even distribution of keepers throughout the country (which I would consider a drastic under estimate) this means there are an estimated 300,000 reptile keepers in Florida. I will not vote for anyone who supports this bill and I know a large portion of those 300,000 Florida voters won’t either. I would like to make it clear that a vote by you for this bill would solidify my vote against you and a monetary contribution to the campaign of any candidate running against you, both in the Primary and Congressional Elections, for the rest of your political carrier.

If passed, S373 will circumvent the scientific process for the sake of political expediency, bankrupt thousands of hardworking American families, including many in our state, and will cost you thousands of votes. Please say NO on S373. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Christopher V. Anderson
Doctoral Candidate
University of South Florida
Department of Integrative Biology - SCA 110
4202 E. Fowler Ave
Tampa, FL 33620
[email protected]

 

[voodoochild863]

well the releasing of unwanted burms definitely does add to it

Even if that is true why should they make them illegal? I mean pigs, dogs and cats cause a lot more harm and they are perfectly legal. I think you should have to register your animals, personally.

 

[morpheon]

Simple my friend; decisions and laws are often made based on partial information and stereotypes/false beliefs... It's sad, but true...