Dear Washington Representative,
 Although I am not a resident of  the state of Washington, I must express my extreme opposition towards House Bill 1725. In the following letter I will mostly be addressing the ownership of snakes, but much of it also applies to other animals. I base my opinion on the following grounds:
 1. It is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States.
 2. The law is much too broad.
 3. It gives virtually dictatorial power to the Animal Control Authority.
 4. It is based on fear and ignorance, not scientific fact.
 5. Keeping of "wild" animals preserves a gene pool that can help alleviate extinction.

 1.) The Constitution of the United States refers to "the pursuit of happiness" as an inalienable right. Many people derive pleasure from keeping pets. The government should not interfere with a private citizen's pursuit of happiness unless a legitimate threat to the public health or safety can be shown. It is incumbent upon the state to show by means of scientific evidence that the species described as "dangerous" are indeed more dangerous than those not considered "dangerous". The state has so far failed to do so.
 2.) To label an entire species as "dangerous" merely because they could potentially harm a human being is ludicrous. All animals, including goats, horses, pigs, and cows, could possible injure or kill a human. While reading this ill-conceived bill, I was reminded of the Nazi government order to remove all "undesirables" from the state. Acting in haste, and using broad generalizations, is the hallmark of a government that is either lazy or more concerned with "doing something, even if it's wrong" than heeding scientific evidence.
 3.) The Animal Control Authority is working on the assumption that "By their very nature, these animals are wild and inherently dangerous and, as such, do not adjust well to a captive environment" (your words, not mine). As regards snakes, this is simply wrong. When properly maintained snakes can become docile and even friendly family pets. Further, by allowing the ACA to define what constitutes a "dangerous animal" and allowing the ACA to set it's own permit fees, it becomes an independent dictatorship free to extort any fee from any animal owner without state or public control. This is not democracy.
 4.) No-one wants to see wolves or tigers running wild in the streets, but on the other hand, if cows and goats were running wild in the streets, this would be considered a mild inconvenience. This despite the fact that these animals could easily injure or kill a person. One large python, by contrast, would create a public panic. Most snakes in the wild, pythons and boas in particular, avoid human contact and attack only if cornered. Even venomous snakes prefer flight to confrontation. Can the same be said for our so-called "non-dangerous" animals? Dogs, cats, and ferrets can kill babies if their owner is irresponsible. Just because snakes aren't "cute", does this justify a blanket prohibition of their ownership? The owner is responsible for their animal, not the state.
 5.) As is well known, the population of many endangered animals is larger in zoos and privates collections than in the wild. The list of endangered animals gets longer every day. Those who preserve the genetic material of animals for future generations should be commended, not arbitrarily punished.
 Please keep these ideas in mind when this bill is voted on. It's a bad bill and should be defeated.

 Thank you for listening,