Will Leary's Letter

Dear Senator Garwood,

I am writing to ask that you reconsider Bill 1032. In its present form, the bill defines snakes of the family Boidae (with the potential to exceed 8' in length), as "Inherently Dangerous Animals" (§ 19A-71. Definitions, part c, #2). This is a very broad, unfair and misleading definition. While I would agree that there are certain species in the Boidae family that may not make suitable pets, there are still many others that do. Overlooking this point would needlessly deprive North Carolina residents from owning a number of different boas and pythons that pose no threat to their owners, the general public or the environment. And, depending upon the interpretation of the bill, it may also take away my right to keep, produce and sell, the animals that allow me to provide for my family -- namely Carpet Pythons (Morelia spilota ssp).

I have been keeping snakes ever since I was about 7 yrs old. In fact, I can remember bringing my snakes to school on several occasions and giving educational talks to the other students for extra credit. I have literally kept hundreds of different colubrids, boas and pythons, as well as other reptiles. For the past five years I have been breeding snakes on a professional level (DBA Reptilicus Reptiles, sole proprietorship with no employees). We are well known and highly respected in the reptile community, and we have always conducted our business with integrity and high moral standards. And as responsible breeders, we have a genuine concern for our customers, not to mention the welfare of the animals we sell. Therefore, we would not sell anything that would be considered dangerous.

We currently maintain a very beautiful and expensive collection of snakes, some of which have appeared in various nationally distributed reptile publications. Last year we authored an extensive article on Carpet Pythons which appeared in the October 2004 issue of Reptiles Magazine (available in most any bookstore across the country). The article contains more information about the animals we work with than I could possibly fit into this letter, so I would strongly encourage you to read through what we have written therein:

Here's a link to our article which is now archived on their website: Reptiles Magazine Article

I can understand passing a bill that would restrict the public from keeping the five "giant" boids; 1.) the Reticulated Python (Python reticulatus), 2.) the Indian Python (Python molurus molurus), 3.) the Burmese Python (Python molurus bivittatus), 4.) the African Rock Python (Python sebae), and 5.) the Green Anaconda (Eunectes murinus), as these animals commonly exceed 15' in length, and can be difficult, though not impossible, for the average person to properly house and feed in captivity. And I can also understand passing a bill that would prohibit or restrict the keeping of venomous snakes. However, what I cannot understand is the senseless banning "all boids" that have the potential to exceed 8'. This would tragically lump together dozens of snakes that fit the designated size restriction, while heeding no respect to the nature (body style, weight and temperament) of the individual species or subspecies.

The following is a sample list of boids that may reach 8' or more as fully mature specimens, yet have no record of being a threat to humans in captivity. This would include, but is not limited to; the common Boa Constrictor (Boa constrictor constrictor), the Dumerils Boa (Acrantophis dumereli), the Madagasgar Ground Boa (Acrantophis madagasciensis), the Carpet Python and all of it's subspecies (Morelia spilota ssp), the Diamond Python (Morelia spilota spilota), the Bredl's Python (Morelia bredli), the Boelens Python (Morelia boeleni), the Scrub Python (Morelia amethistina), the Moluccan Python (Morelia clastolepis), the Timor Python (Morelia timoriensis), the Tanimbar Python (Morelia nauta), the Paupan Python (Apodora papuana), the Olive Python (Liasis olivaceus), the Macklot's Python (Liasis mackloti), the Black-headed Python (Aspidites melanocephalus), and the White-Lipped Python (Leiopython albertisii). This list is not meant to be all inclusive.

This bill also begs the question, what is really meant by 'all species whose adult length has the potential to exceed eight feet in length."? Does this imply the average size for a particular species? ...or does it include anomalous extremes within the species? For instance, Jungle Carpet Pythons average a length of 5-7', but I happen to have a female that is just over 8-1/2'. She is very docile and does not pose a risk to anyone, but where would she fall under the definitions of this new bill? Most common Boa Constrictors average lengths of 6-7', but there are specimens that reach 8' or more. Again, these are harmless snakes. Where do they fit in? The point is, size is not a true indication of how problematic a species can be.

If you would be kind enough to reply, I would be happy to further discuss this issue with you. This state should be proud to have so many knowledgeable and responsible reptile enthusiasts and breeders. Many, including ourselves, have dedicated time and energy to help educate people regarding these wonderful and misunderstood creatures. We do not deserve to be snuffed out of existence through indiscriminate blanket laws. Again, I ask that you please amend Bill 1032 and let the residents of North Carolina continue to enjoy their reptile pets. By the way, I am 31 yrs old, a North Carolina resident for the past 6 yrs.

Thank you for your time and consideration,

Will & Mary Leary <><

Reptilicus Reptiles
Specializing In Spectacular Carpet Pythons
http://www.reptilicusreptiles.net