The establishment of the Burmese python approximately 2 decades ago within the Everglades National Park has been a major ongoing battle between animal rights groups and the herpetological community. The fact that these magnificent animals have made a strong foothold within the ENP has some people concerned for safety of their families and pets. Others, however, are concerned that with inevitable climate change, that it could result in the further migration of Burmese pythons outside of South Florida, to as far West as California! Yes, it is just as absurd as it sounds. However, some politicians have bought into the hype and with some generous bank roll from the Humane Society of the United States, have opted to attempt passing Federal legislation which restricts interstate transfer of nine species of large constrictor snakes.

In 2009, the first wave of legislation introduced by Senator Bill Nelson resulted in the adding of 4 species of large constrictors: Burmese pythons, yellow anacondas, and North and South African rock pythons to the Lacey act restricting owner’s abilities to cross over state lines with the snakes. It also bans further imports of the 4 species into the Country. However, the proponents for this legislation were not satisfied with that. They still had 5 more that they wanted, even though none of those species were found to have breeding population within the Everglades. On Thursday, November 29th, the Congressional Hearing on H.R. 511 took place and was the vehicle for trying to seal the deal for the other 5 species; the Green Anaconda, Beni Anaconda, Reticulated Python, Common Boa Constrictor, and DeSchauensee’s Anaconda.

At the hearing, Shawn Heflick of The Python Hunters, National Geographic’s Dr. Brady Barr, USARK CEO Andrew Wyatt, and PIJAC’s Colette Southerland, provided expert testimony on behalf of the herpetological community. Beyond those, a few Congressmen also took issue with the overreaching legislation and spoke up on behalf of Reptile keepers. The hearing went overwhelmingly in favor of the herpetological community. While there are many who are truly happy about that, there are some that remain bitter. The loudest among those, would be none other than HSUS’s Wayne Pacelle, who went on a rant in his recent post, “Policymakers Hamper Progress for Animals”. I’d like to address some of the comments he made in his post. While I don’t disagree with some of his statements, I do take issue with his obviously biased position regarding the reptile trade.

One thing that Wayne Pacelle would have everyone believe is that these species of large constrictors are all caught out of the wild and imported. While it is true that some can be, the overwhelming majority of them are bred in captivity right here within the United States. Therefore, they are not impacting wild populations. Of those that are imported, many are farmed. I’m no fan of importation, however, especially with species that are already in very high numbers within captive collections. It is important to realize that captive breeding is what takes the pressure off of wild populations. This is something that Wayne Pacelle refuses to acknowledge.

Additionally, Pacelle misunderstands basic scientific principle. It’s either that, or he understands it and intentionally manipulates how he explains it to others. For example, I’ll use this quote from the article he just released:

“Burmese pythons have colonized Everglades National Park and, according to peer-reviewed research, wiped out entire classes of small and medium-sized native mammals in one of America’s best known and most important national parks.”

The research that Pacelle is citing to support his statement here did NOT make this claim.

Correlation vs. causation is frequently misinterpreted. USGS attempted to use road kill as an indicator for mammal populations. While they might be correct that mammal populations are in decline, they failed miserably to demonstrate that the decline is absolutely due to Burmese pythons. Frank Mazzotti, one of the paper’s authors in a follow-up news release titled, If it bleeds it leads, stated:

“Let me correct two common misconceptions first. This study was not done by the National Academy of Sciences as many stories reported; it was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences — big difference. Likewise this was not a nine-year study in that we did not start this study nine years ago. We started this study 1-2 years ago and collected information that was available over a nine-year period (2003-2011) and compared it to similar data collected earlier (1993-1999). And sure enough a very dramatic pattern did exist. I liken what we did to a grand jury investigation. We amassed the available evidence and asked if it was sufficient to demonstrate that a crime had occurred (mammal populations had declined) and to suggest that pythons could be responsible (they had motive, means, and opportunity). An indictment was handed down. That does not mean the pythons are guilty. It does mean we need to go to trial. According to English law the accused should be considered innocent until proven guilty. In science terms we call this a null hypothesis, or a statement of no effect. Of course none of this sells newspapers, draws viewers to a television station, or causes hits on a website.”

Dr. Mazzotti stood up for science as it should be done. Yet, this won’t stop Wayne Pacelle from trying to manipulate science to serve whatever purpose he sees fit. Those purposes tend to be to manipulate the unsuspecting public to buy into the hype and fork over $19 dollars a month. He likes to play on emotions, in fact to demonstrate we have another quote from his article:

“I guess it’s no matter to these supposed snake “lovers” that the snakes will freeze to death.”

No, Mr. Pacelle, that’s not the case at all. In fact, it bothers many of us a great deal. However, you miss the point of our argument while you aim to manipulate our statements. It’s not that we don’t care; it’s just a simple fact that the climate itself is enough to keep the species in check without having to further legislate away American freedoms. Your position argues that Burmese pythons will migrate beyond South Florida, and we argue that it won’t. USGS intentionally manipulated the data set for their original climate models by using the Indian Python rather than the Burmese python. Had they used the correct data set, I’m confident they would have had a different result. However, that would have killed a lot of funding, and we can’t have that now can we?

As mentioned before, a few legislators also stood up for the herpetological community, mostly holding to values of American freedom. Pacelle had this to say regarding Representative Steve Southerland’s position:

“He apparently takes such a broad view of freedom that it’s okay to torture animals or to import dangerous invasive species into the country for use as pets, even if they are creating ecological havoc, injuring and killing private citizens, and costing the nation millions of dollars in terms of containment activities.”

On one hand, I agree that his refusal to support legislation which would criminalize having children at dog or cock fights is tasteless and immoral; you’re comparing apples and oranges. While it is true that a few keepers of these animals have met a fatal end due to their pets, why should that be considered any differently than someone who accidentally loses control of their motor vehicle? How about operating dangerous power tools? People meet their ends in many ways, and while it is unfortunate that another living being is involved, the end result is no different. Do you think that the snake is emotionally traumatized after it realizes that it killed its owner? The bottom line is, the only entity that suffered a true consequence is the owner, and that is a risk that they assumed when they purchased the animal. There is a degree of hazard with practically everything you do in life, even things that seem harmless. How many people have been killed in a freak accident while playing basketball? How many people are killed by golf balls annually? Should we ban golfing?

Yes, the snake will end up with a new owner. Hopefully, it will be one with a more experience keeper. Even such, these cases average out, at best to be ONE death per year. Hardly cause for a pandemonium. Furthermore, you’re still holding to the “ecological havoc” argument that hasn’t even been proven yet. Again, we go back to “innocent until proven guilty”. You might make the argument that in doing so we could fail to address the damage that the pythons are doing and it could result in further damage. However, I would counter with the argument that in placing absolute blame on the pythons, there is a significant chance of overlooking the real culprit and failing to address it while you’re busy attacking the pythons. This is why honest scientific research is paramount…to find the truth, not running half-cocked with an idea fueled by emotional drivel.

Last but not least, I leave you with one last quote from Wayne Pacelle:

“A narrow special interest along with pliant and favor-seeking lawmakers makes for some truly ugly outcomes for animals and our nation.”

I especially love the “favor-seeking” part. This is coming from a guy whose organization is handing bundles of cash over to law-makers to fight their battles. I find that truly amusing. The herpetological community has given very little to law makers. The lawmakers, who stand for us, generally do so on foundational principles of American freedom. Do you want us to support legislation? Make it sensible. Overreaching legislation helps nobody. Adding these species to the lacey act does nothing to resolve the current issue.

Burmese pythons in South Florida will remain in South Florida. People are not driving from out-of-state to deliver their snakes to the Everglades for release. This is a ridiculous notion, simply because many of them don’t even want to offer up a small donation to an organization to give the snake a good home, much less cough up a few hundred dollars or more to drive the animal from another state to the Everglades for release. The snakes that are already in the Everglades remain so for two primary reasons:

1.) The climate is most suitable during 98% of the year.

2.) The habitat is preferable for their survival. Tall grasses and large bodies of water is a perfect habitat for Burmese pythons to thrive. Outside of ENP, that is not an option. They would be too exposed, and their mobility would suffer considerably.

Burmese pythons, like all reptiles, have very specific needs to keep them healthy and thriving. Temperature and humidity are two important components to their environmental needs. Even if temperatures are suitable in a more northern state, that doesn’t mean humidity will be. Too low or too high of humidity can result in respiratory ailments that without antibiotics will only lead to their demise. The result is a failure to become established. South Florida has remained their haven for two decades because of its suitability. It offers what the rest of the state can’t. If the rest of Florida can’t support them, then neither can the rest of the Continental U.S. It’s purely common sense.

I understand that even in reading this, Wayne Pacelle would not change his position. The reason is that his position isn’t fueled by logic or science. It’s fueled by an agenda. That agenda is to end ownership of exotic animals, and later domestic animals. Logic or scientific reasoning is only beneficial to him when he thinks it supports his claims, but when it doesn’t it is entirely neglected. Don’t support the Humane Society of the United States. Give to local shelters that truly help animals and are the ones truly getting their hands dirty in the fight for animal welfare.

Special Note: Want to hear more? Check out the The Reptile Living Room for interviews with Andrew Wyatt, Shawn Heflick, & more regarding the Python (herpetoculture) legislation