In my opinion, the USARK is correct in their argument, but should consider the risks involved in reprieving this ban. While constrictors are popular in the pet trade, they must realize that some people do not perform proper research before buying these snakes and cannot keep them and ultimately let them go in the wild. This is a problem not only for the released snake itself, but the wildlife around the snake that will be greatly impacted. The food web would be greatly altered and the snakes may not do well in certain areas and may not survive. Personally I believed if USARK wanted to legalize the trade of these constrictors they should have looked to propose and amendment where those who desire these snakes can have proper licenses and hold accountability for the snakes and the actions they take as opposed to opening the market to anyone.
Overall, the article is written in a very proper manner and is not biased towards one side. Although the information is from a reptile magazine where you can have a mix group of readers, the authors simply stated the facts and let the reader decide their own unbiased opinion.
To read more about this topic, go to http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Grammar-Matters-As-3-Judge-Panel-Lifts-Ban-On-Transport-of-Reticulated-Python-and-Green-Anacondas-In-the-United-States/
Green Anaconda
Reticulated Python
1 comment:
Very interesting. Do you think that USARK's argument is good policy or just grammatically correct? Do you think Congress should rewrite or amend the Lacey Act, if the original intent was to ban transport between individual states as well as between the listed jurisdictions?
Post a Comment