Important to remember...
With regard to comparing pit bulls, BSL, etc. to the current proposed legislation and incidents involving large snakes, the onus on all occasions lies with the owner. Most incidents involving ANY pets causing injury are precipitated by too great trust placed in the animal. It is an apt comparison. As someone who keeps snakes (albeit carpet pythons, not the mammoth ones addressed by the legislation) and owns a pit bull, I am aware that constant vigilance is necessary.
I would LOVE to own a big snake, but my wife and I work different schedules and the only opportunity to work with the snake safely would come once a week and would require us to spend every moment we have together feeding, cleaning, and caring for the snake. So I don't have one, because it's a responsible decision.
My dog, I would never leave unattended with a child (I don't have any, yet). I recognize in her behavior that she's aloof and rowdy, so she's never off leash and always under our control. Dachshunds, pugs, cocker spaniels pop up all the time (not as frequently as pit bulls) on shelter listings because of aggression toward the new baby.
My sister once told me about the dog, "there's a little person in there." There's not. She's an animal, just like snakes, and should be treated as such. When we say, "My dog (snake) loves me and would never hurt anyone" we fall into a trap which all too frequently ends up like the scenario in Phila. or the Burm attack in Florida.
Laws promoting or requiring responsible and educated ownership would be welcome, but outright bans on pit bulls, snakes, or whatever, hurt the people best situated to provide well supervised care for these creatures, which is why I oppose S373 and comparable laws. In just about all cases, it's bad and irresponsible ownership which results in tragedy.
