This is interesting and instructive:
In a new report entitled “Broken Government: How the Administrative State has Broken President Obama’s Promise of Regulatory Reform,” GOP members cited the proposed snake ban as one of seven examples of red tape choking off job growth in an already ailing economy.
One witness invited to testify, snake breeder David Barke, told lawmakers that the rules “threatens as many as a million law-abiding American citizens and their families with the penalty of a felony conviction for pursuing their livelihoods, for pursuing their hobby, or for simply moving with their pet to new state.”
Politico reports that Florida officials, led by Sen. Bill Nelson (D-FL), are pushing for the new rules because the Everglades are under attack by 100,000 gigantic Burmese pythons who have been accidentally introduced by negligent pet owners. The outside invaders have been on a rampage, devouring native birds and other creatures. One python grew so big that it managed to devour a six-foot alligator before exploding. No really. This actually happened. There’s a photo.
This regulation probably would hurt businesses that sell snakes, which means simple-minded people would claim it hurts business. If you look at the entire economy, though, it would probably help business overall. It might hurt snake businesses, but it would help all those people who benefit from a robust Everglades–never mind that it would also help the environment. And this is typical of Republican claims about regulation–they don’t look at the full picture when they argue that a regulation is bad. A bigger example is with the EPA–tougher pollution standards will hurt some businesses (although the cost is almost always overestimated), but it helps cleaner companies and it reduces pollution caused illness which costs a lot of money (and, of course, helps the environment and raises the quality of life of a lot of people).