http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/06/03/1 ... drine.html
TALLAHASSEE, Fla. -- Gov. Charlie Crist has signed bills banning the ownership of Burmese pythons and other reptiles and requiring tracking of over-the-counter ephedrine sales.
The reptile bill (SB 318) signed Thursday prohibits importation and personal ownership of seven nonnative species.
They've become a problem in the wild when they escape or are released and one killed a child last year in Sumter County.
The ephedrine law (SB 1050) is designed to help catch those who use of the substance for making illegal methamphetamine.
Crist also signed bills loosening Florida seaport regulations so they'll be more competitive with ports in other states (HB 963) and lift restrictions on siting homes for developmentally disabled people (SB 1166
Well, after reading the Entire Text of the Legislation I cannot say that the species listed are bad choices to ban outright. Two of them are already established in FL and the others could easily establish themselves. Green Anacondas for example would find the wetlands of FL very much to their liking. The only silver lining is that they would probably out-compete the burms. If Nile Monitors-in the wild accomplished raiders of crocodile nests-get into the range of Crocodylus acutus, you can say goodbye to the progress made in getting their populations back up.
Some individuals can keep Burmese Pythons, other large constrictors, and nile monitors without problems. However most individuals who purchase these organisms, and indeed those who import them in many cases, have no business doing so. They lack the ability and commitment to keep them properly through their natural life, which can last decades. They get released by people who can no longer care for them, they escape when cage doors are left open, and they get out in larger numbers when hurricanes damage import facilities. To have Burms and Niles constantly re-introduced in the wild after and during eradication attempts would make such efforts fruitless. The other species on the list also have the potential to be highly invasive, and preventing their introduction into the state through a ban on importation and ownership is prudent. Particularly because Florida is less than a shining example when it comes to preventing or dealing with the establishment of invasives. The population numbers are not known, but what is known is that Nile Monitors and Burmese Pythons are definitely established and breeding in numbers. So are a large number of other invasive species.
Scrub Pythons may or may not have the thermal tolerances to deal with the occasional frost (max northern range is approximately at the tropic of cancer), but Rock Pythons definitely do. The habitats they require can easily be found within the state both in suburbia and within undeveloped areas. They are bad news, and Rock Pythons may already be established.
One can talk about the right of an individual to keep what they wish and about government intrusion being undesirable. However that argument rests on several faulty assumptions (Besides rights ethics not actually being a logically defensible system. I would prefer not to get into that though, so we will assume that rights ethics are tenable for the sake of argument).
The first assumption is that the actions of individuals impact no one but themselves. I cannot easily think of a decision, save for those of personal taste (in artwork or something) where the consequences of that decision are born only by the person making the choice. The establishment of invasive species within an ecologically sensitive area is a public problem and as a result the public-which means government-has the right the constrain the decisions which can be made by individuals.
The second violated assumption is that the community is capable of and willing to engage in self-regulation. Government intervention would not be necessary if the herp community was able to regulate its members. It is obviously not. The only way this could be done is to have community enforced no-buys lists that are universally circulated and enforced with things like lack of entry into reptiles shows for firms that violate the terms of said list. This is not being done, and it would be very difficult to do so because those who dont like the agreement could simply form their own group.
Thus intervention by the state is required.
Would I prefer to not see an outright ban? Sure. Would tighter licensing and follow up be preferable? Sure. However this solution is not workable. Primarily because taxes would have to be raised to enforce it. Thus, the ban is necessary.
) because the animal got too big or too costly to take care of? I was thinking that some caimans have been caught or seen in Florida but all this stuff with the pythons and iguanas "living it up" in Florida got me wondering if people might not have introduced even larger reptiles. 
