Herpetological Attack Just a Snake in the Grass

I thought this was a pretty good letter to the editor in rebuke of a law that banned herps and evidently a letter in support of the ban.

Herpetological attack just a snake in the grass
Editor:

The Aurora Sentinel & Daily Sun recently (August 31) published an editorial, titled "Snakes Alive, city lawmakers are at it again," which was, unfortunately, fraught with misinformation and hyperbole. First, just because the city of Aurora has draconian and restrictive ordinances in respect to the keeping and breeding of dogs and cats, does this mean that we should have even more such intrusions into our freedoms as the editorial suggests?

Having a city that can come into our homes and dictate what kind of harmless pets we can have is not my idea of the sort of America we live in. And, just because some folks have a prejudice or phobia against snakes, does this mean that they have the right to veto those who love these beautiful and fascinating animals?

To add to the problem is ignorance and misinformation. Sadly, the Aurora Sentinel & Daily Sun has fallen prey to this as well. Excessive and strident warnings - such as "So if Aurora residents want to teach the rest of the world about alligators or nuclear weapons, the city should issue permits for those treasures, too?" - only illustrate how far prejudice and ignorance can go.

How do "nuclear weapons" compare to pet snakes? The current ban excludes all snakes in excess of three feet. This includes the vast majority of snakes kept as pets, virtually all of which are utterly harmless. This is an affront to basic freedom.

When the article states: "Even though stories about people and pets being killed by giant snakes surface several times a year, some city lawmakers think it's wise to let those who have them say they want them for educational purposes," the writers either were unaware of or had ignored the fact that being killed by a giant snake is extraordinarily rare.

In fact, there are perhaps fewer than a dozen such instances in North America on record, and all of those were the cause of extreme carelessness.

Keeping snakes as pets is far safer than keeping dogs or cats. In addition, only three or four species of snake out of hundreds were involved in those rare events. To say such things happen many times a year is irresponsible, as is the comment: "A handful of people wanting to shock a few visitors a year isn't even close to being a good reason to make a change now."

People who keep snakes as pets do so because they are fascinating and rewarding. And with the exception of the aforementioned few species when grossly mishandled, they are absolutely and completely harmless.

The vast majority of reptile lovers would never use their valuable pets to shock or harass anyone. They are also very useful in educational settings for allowing children to observe the wonders of creation, to help them learn to keep and husband beautiful and exotic animals and to avoid them getting the kind of misinformed prejudice that is so apparent in society in general and the referenced article in particular.

Further, since most pet snakes, even those over six feet, are harmless and weigh much less than a poodle; banning them is not only unjust, but is an encroachment upon basic liberty.

Our freedoms as citizens should not be abridged merely because of the likes and dislikes of a few.

There is no objective reason for this ban, only prejudice and fear. Even if you are not a snake aficionado, as a citizen you should be alarmed to see our freedoms so easily removed and for reasons so subjective.

So when the Aurora City Council votes to relax restrictions on keeping these harmless pets, they will be voting to restore rights that should never have been revoked.

Jeffrey M. Marmaro, Ph.D.

Aurorahttp://www.aurorasentinel.com/main.a...rticleID=14585

Wow... three feet... I am literally stunned. You are right, this is a great letter. That is really sad, the US just keeps taking and taking from freedom. My snakes have never bothered a fly, besides my mother of course haha. Many of my friends, through me have even taken interest in many different animals just by being around me. Through this many of my friends have became increasingly kind and considerate to nature, even becoming active in protecting our wildlife and the air we breathe.

I don't know a great deal about the constitution, not as much as I should, but how is it even legal to just strip us of rights like this? I mean I can see banning spiders, of course, who wants those devil creatures around?? Haha, I am just kidding, they are just intimidating to me. Actually spiders horrify me, they give me cold chills and I have no idea why, maybe it is instinct. Even with my fear though, I have never once wanted to strip the right to keep spiders from those who love and appreciate their beauty. These bans are in many cases cruel and unjust, but that is just one man's opinion.

I've also noticed over the years that many of the deaths attributed to large snakes were due in part to inebriated owners not following common sense ground rules.

Drinking and large constrictors are not a good mix.