HR 669 Banning All Non Native Animals

lorenk

lorenk

Active Member
Market
Messages
1,024
Reaction score
2
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h669/text">http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h669/text</a>

Came across this on another forum...not sure if it was posted here.

It likely effects other hobbies more than reefing, mainly those into reptiles and frogs. But since some of the reefers here keep other animals, I thought I'd pass this along.

Pesonally, it bugs the crap out of me, mostly because each state should govern it's own list of what is and is not acceptable. In addition, it will shut down a number of breeders of exotic animals by making their business illegal overnight.

I get the point of wanting to protect native wildlife, but do we trust some federal government agency to make the choices for conscienscious hobbiests?
 
Notice how negatively affects the economy seems to be first priority.
 
Why is this bad? For the exact reasons Atreyu mentioned, it is necessary. While breeders and legitimate owners will not be of concern, what about the people who buy an exotic, and no longer want it? They will get discarded, released and likewise. Ever see any kudzu in Georgia? ever wonder why?

There are very comperable laws alrteady in place for species known as "injurious wildife". This merely broadens that a little.
 
kudzu was introduced a while back, i think it was the Japanese if i am not mistaken.
 
Yeah, I know. Thats my point. It was "harmlessly" introduced, but it is rampant now.
 
My point is it is bad as a federal law. It should be up to the state to know what impacts them...we have drastically different ecologies in various parts of the country, how can they legislate pets across all zones?

And as you pointed out Jeremy, this is already legislated. Why does it need to be over-legislated?

And what's to stop them from making our hobby fish illegal because some joker might let loose his damsels off the coast of Florida?
 
The need for importation of many exotic species is no longer needed but protection from invading species is nessesarry. Most exotic species can easily be bred in captivity, no need to continue removing animals from there native habitats which in turn could possibly create an imbalance in those particular habitats. IMO it is the fed that needs to set classification as many of these animals could possibly cross state lines once they establish a population. For example: Reticulated Pythons that have been released or escaped in Fl have now migrated upinto Ga.

Also take a look at Lake Victoria in Africa where some of the most beautiful Chiclids used to come from, after the gov introduced a non native species of perch it was only a couple of short years before every species became extint.

I dont think this bill will affect the saltwater hobby very much, although the whole Lionfish invasion in the keys may weigh on this.
 
LorenK;296618 wrote: My point is it is bad as a federal law. It should be up to the state to know what impacts them...we have drastically different ecologies in various parts of the country, how can they legislate pets across all zones?

And as you pointed out Jeremy, this is already legislated. Why does it need to be over-legislated?

And what's to stop them from making our hobby fish illegal because some joker might let loose his damsels off the coast of Florida?
Click to expand...

A sad truth is that States do not the have resiources to enforce the laws. How many times do you think the Georgia DNR has visited my workplace? once, because I requested they come out. Otherwise they has "other" things to concern thmeselves with. For example, the GADNR is responsible for hunting law, permits, etc. So, how frequently will they be policing or enforcing exotic pet law. Never. They rely on citizen self policing.

Regarding the application to our hobby: if it has been determined that damsels are a seriosu enough ecological threat to caribbean biotopes (they would cause a habiatt shift or cause a species to go extinct if released), then yes, absolutely they should be limited.

Allow me to give an example. You cant buy a meerkat as a pet. Any place that wishes to exhbit them must acquire a USFWS Injurious Wildlife permit. To get the permit, you must dmeonstrate a organized plan for managment to prevent esacpe and invasion. If we did allow them as pets, and someone accidentally had a colony escape, it could destroy native ecosystems. So, why are protections aginst this bad? Here in GA, someone can easily move into GA from a state, such as Texas or Florida with such an animal, and go unnoticed by GADNR, if it were left to local state agencies.
 
90% of my opinion on this is pure selfishness. 10% knows your right Jeremy. 20% of me thinks this a circus maneuver when the government has plenty of other things to do to protect the environment.

And on a side note, it was the federal government (dept. of agriculture) that pushed the use of kudzu for erosion control.
 
Loren, I knwo kudzu was "allowed", but thats not my point of it. My point is that it was an injurious species which got a foothold because of poor managemnet, and now it is impossible to eradicate and control. Creating laws which force contientious pet ownership is not a problematic concern, in my mind. I have had my fill of people buying exotic pets and then having the animal suffer, or need to be rehomed, or having them be released to the wild, because the pet owner was a misguided and improperly prepared nitwit. You get my point. Control does need to be there, and whether its state or federal doesnt matter, as long as its there., FWIW, MAny state government disaalow certain this that federal dos not. For example, try to take ANYTHING into HAwaii. Ill visit you in prison, if you do.
 
Ever dive off the coast of NC? Ever see all of the lionfish and wonder how they got there? Yup, people releasing their aquarium fish into the ocean. Poor stuff. Now there is a huge problem with lionfish populations on the wrecks and such in the atlantic where they don't belong.

I dive the springs in Florida alot too. I've seen 12-15" pleco's and thought "petsmarts special". I love when I see fish from the amazon put in the streams of florida (sarcastic). People are irresponsible. I was diving a hole in florida and saw a bunch of tropical plants that don't belong. None of them were native to the area. Kind of irks me thinking about how careless people are.

Matt
 
jmaneyapanda;296832 wrote: For example, try to take ANYTHING into HAwaii. Ill visit you in prison, if you do.
Click to expand...

California is nearly there as well.

I agree here - most of the people we sold pond plants to years ago were responsible, but there were the idiots who would just dump invasive plants into the "stream behind the house" when they overtook their pond. We simply put them on a Do Not Sell list to ensure they never got another invasive plant from us.

As for state resources, I'll take personal experience 1 step further. We had to "educate" our inspector about invasive plant species. She was a real sweetheart, but was dropped into a job where she had absolutely no knowledge/training. At one point, her boss asked us to train their inspectors, but our business was so busy we just didn't have the time. We did put up a password protected area on our website for them to look up plants, but that was all we had time for.
 
I applaud this effort by the Federal Govt and wish it had come sooner. Too much damage has been caused by careless people, and state laws have proven ineffective.

It is simply too easy to cross state lines with restricted species, either by ignorance or intent. There is just to much at risk, and federal legislation is needed.
 
I received this via email from another member of the industry. This subject has been discussed in marine ornamental circles for a little while now.

The proposed bill would have a devastating impact on the Marine Ornamentals trade, as well as Reptiles, Birds and Small Animals and beyond.

This Bill would ban non-native species.

I have attached the PDF file with the PIJAC (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council) Pet Alert which I received about it.

Now's the time to contact your appropriate representative to oppose this bill, which would devastate our hobby, and the trade.

This one is no joke, folks.

Jenn
<fieldset class="gc-fieldset">
<legend> Attached files </legend>
fieldset>
 
That's exactly the point. The bill is too widespread. As it is individual states have laws restricting or banning certain species that pose a threat. Some of these non-native creatures have been here over a hundred years with no ill effects.

It's illegal to have Piranha in Georgia. It's illegal to have corals in Hawaii. Quaker parrots are illegal in Georgia, and so on. For those very reasons - that if/when they enter the wild, they pose a threat.

Unfortunately this bill goes way overboard to the extreme. IMO it would be impossible to enforce - or nearly impossible, given the amount of non-natives already here, and being bred both in state-regulated/inspected facilities, and home based under-the-radar situations.

Think of how many hobbyists are propagating corals, breeding clownfishes, seahorses, cardinals etc. Then there's outfits like ORA, Sustainable Aquatics and others, who are commercial breeders of these.

All the bird breeders - both licensed and the individual who has a pair of cockatiels that regularly have clutches.

I don't know if it would affect public aquariums and such... but what about efforts to breed things like whale sharks in captivity? I didn't see any sort of "exemption" for public aquariums and such - but I haven't read the whole bill...

And it's not just the pet store owners and hobbyists that would be affected. What about all the manufacturers of supplies for the trade? All the hardware, dry goods, supplements, foods... the ripple effect would be nothing short of devastating, right down the line.

While the intent of the bill may be "good" (although I'm always leery of the agendas of certain groups, like PETA etc.), the way it's written right now is ridiculous.

Of course most of these bills I've been asked to look at over the years are insane and many don't make it past reading - but if nobody acts on it and lets their representative know they oppose it - it could potentially go through, unamended.

Jenn
 
Banning the sale of these items will make them like illegal drugs. People will still find a way to get them, be it the black market, or whatever. Once the trade goes *underground*, what happens to the health of the animals? Will they be smuggled in suitcases and coffee cans?

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Jenn. My rep will be hearing from me.

This bill is not a good thing.
 
This bill does not affect animals already in captivity. Only bans from future animals coming into the country. You should come down to S. Georgia with me next month to collect Python babies and adults, some upwards of 15ft. There are over a million in the everglades:boo:

Captive breeders to the rescue.:D
 
The wife and I raise parrots, and are licensed by the state. The Quaker Parakeet thing is asinine, FL, SC, AL, and TN have no restrictions on them. A bird ain't gonna read a sign before crossing a border.
FWIW; Georgia already has a hard time inspecting the licensed parrot breeders, there isn't enough manpower. There is no way to expect this even if passed to be enforced.
Expanding the CITIES ban to include certain additional species' entry into ports might be a viable option, don't hold your breath for this to be implemented rapidly.
 
Here is a link to he actual bill.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.669">http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.669</a>:

Dont worry about the population of lionfish, we can catch them off the coast of Florida now.
 
That sounds like it's the right thing to do, albeit it will effect capitolism. Hummm...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top