data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/639f0/639f0ab8dd62fe717e4f6a6491809a5a78e7b53c" alt="headscratch :headscratch"
On the other hand, I know people who have snakes as pets. When I was a kid my older brother had a couple of snakes as pets.
They were neat to watch, but they didn't fetch balls or do any other tricks.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/18016/18016154d921a13e352fadb74db658c201a87d4e" alt="Laughing :lol:"
Return to “Legislative Protection for Shooting Snakes In Public”
You are sure in a jovial mood today.tbrown wrote:Don't we have enough snakes without people giving them away free?
I think that it shows that many people have a severe phobia of snakes.Dirthawking wrote:![]()
I am not sure what to say here. Seems like a few people are just looking for justification to shoot their gun!
You are full of puns today!Dori wrote:Is it OK to joke the bill would never get out of the calendars committee because of professional courtesy?
All of the listed animals are mammals.AlaskanInTexas wrote:Section 822.101 lists the following as dangerous animals: lion, tiger, ocelot, cougar, leopard, cheetah, jaguar, bobcat, lynx, serval, caracal, hyena, bear, coyote, jackal, baboon, chimpanzee, orangutan, gorilla, or any hybrid of the foregoing.
Noticeably missing from the list is venomous snakes. I know we have some ophiophilists among us who don't think this will ever be necessary, but I would sure support some legislation this next session that would protect me from prosecution should I find myself in a situation where I need to dispatch a venomous snake in a public place. I think that is a much more likely scenario than encountering a gorilla or tiger.