HR 669 Banning All Non Native Animals

Well, you can't legislate against stupidity. And people releasing exotics to the wild is already illegal, and stupid, but it happens. I doubt this bill would stop that, particularly if all trade in exotics went underground - people would still get their hands on these things, and without licensed facilities that could take them in when they get too big, etc. MORE would be released into the wild. The bill could have an opposite effect.

If I had $1 for every idiot that has come through my doors in the last 7 years that boasted about releasing their overgrown Oscar or Pacu into Lake Allatoona, I'd pack it in and retire (as long as I hadn't put the money in the stock market). People are people, and stupidity abounds.

I'm not dismissing that ecological problems can and do happen - because they already do, and that's a fact.

Just *who* decides what gets approved and what doesn't? An expert in the care and husbandry of a given specie, or a politician? That scares me.

A lionfish that may pose a threat to the east or west coast, poses no threat in the Arizona desert... yet the legislation wouldn't take that into consideration.

As I mentioned, states already have restrictions in place for certain species - and there's plenty of room for improvement there - but as was also mentioned, enforcement and inspection just isn't going to happen, because the appropriate government agencies don't have the people or the money to do that.

Personally I think the whole thing is impractical strictly from an implementation point of view - just how would they enforce all that if it went through?

I'm going to take some time to go over the bill - as I have not read it myself yet but have corresponded quite a bit with many who have - and I haven't run across anyone yet who thinks this is a good idea. Granted - most are in the marine ornamentals trade, so we have a lot at stake, but even from a practical standpoint, it's not a good thing.

Jenn
 
I have already deleted a couple of posts in this thread. Please keep your discussion on topic and not about each other.
 
mentioned on the R/C helicopter forum I help manage was the recent mauling of a Connecticut woman by a Chimpanzee.
Got me to thinking, what recent headlines have or might have an influence on the passing of this bill by people in general?

Lionfish in the Atlantic,
Pythons and Anacondas in the Everglades,
Chimp mauling in CT,
Sigfried and Roy and the tiger attack,
rampaging elephants at circuses,

what else would the uninformed lay-person remember seeing, reading, or hearing about that would possibly sway the congressmen to approve this?
 
My hope is that this bill will create jobs and funding for more captive breeding programs. The ornamental fish trade has come along way the past couple of years and it is my hope that all fish one day will be captive bred. Maybe thats all it is HOPE.
Maybe this bill could create many new jobs as well.
 
I went and read the bill. There's way too many "gray areas" IMO. There's a list of domesticated animals that are exempt, but marine ornamentals aren't among them. Only fish I saw are "goldfish"... ironically the import of many Koi and other goldfish species was halted a few years ago because of viral/pathogen issues (I don't know if that is still in effect anymore), but they were on the exempted list...

Creatures already owned when the bill "takes effect" are grandfathered, but if that specie goes on the unapproved list, breeding (ie propagation) would be prohibited.

So, suppose clownfishes don't make it to the approved list - well the breeding and sale of same would have to go away.

It's a slippery slope, folks.

Jenn
 
Fish Scales2;319655 wrote: My hope is that this bill will create jobs and funding for more captive breeding programs. The ornamental fish trade has come along way the past couple of years and it is my hope that all fish one day will be captive bred. Maybe thats all it is HOPE.
Click to expand...
I would encourage and support that!
After the ban on wild caught importation of parrots in the '80's, research into the husbandry and health of birds exploded. I am a patron of the UGA veterinary school and support the avian research department financially and have opened our breeding program to aid the students' education.
Some of our rare species' offspring are in a return to the wild program as well, we hand-carry birds to a St. Louis, MO based aviary where they are captive bred in larger numbers and released. Unfortunately trade practices prior to the adoption of the CITIES ban decimated several species from the wild.
A similar program *could* be implemented in the aquarium trade for overharvested species, but only if the incentive is there to research the health, husbandry, and breeding of these species.
This bill prevents that however, and just because importation into the US stops, doesn't prevent other countries from continuing to deplete the reefs.
We alone cannot stop overharvesting, and if there's no incentive to propogate and research what we collect already, there's little chance to have a release to the wild program, or to encourage the propogation of existing species for commercial trade.
 
wbrown;319635 wrote: It already exists.
http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/species.shtml">http://www.cites.org/eng/disc/species.shtml</a>

The biggest point I feel you may have overlooked is on page 17, SEC.8.FEES,
and SEC.6 on page 14..
The tone of this bill is to stop trade first, then charge fees to have a species approved using private funding.
Soon a $4 Chromis will cost $100 if this passes in it's current form.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like a tax to me ;)
Click to expand...
 
wbrown;319670 wrote:
Some of our rare species' offspring are in a return to the wild program as well, we hand-carry birds to a St. Louis, MO based aviary where they are captive bred in larger numbers and released. Unfortunately trade practices prior to the adoption of the CITIES ban decimated several species from the wild.
A similar program *could* be implemented in the aquarium trade for overharvested species, but only if the incentive is there to research the health, husbandry, and breeding of these species.
This bill prevents that however, and just because importation into the US stops, doesn't prevent other countries from continuing to deplete the reefs.
We alone cannot stop overharvesting, and if there's no incentive to propogate and research what we collect already, there's little chance to have a release to the wild program, or to encourage the propogation of existing species for commercial trade.
Click to expand...

Well, if the specie is on the prohibited list, that's gone too.

I'm in favor of more research into husbandry and captive care, and even rehabilitating wild stocks from captive bred stock when it's practical - but this bill as it stands may even halt that.

I need to get some work done here...

Jenn
 
I hope something about is done about the invasive species, and better captive breed and aquaculturing(sp?) just not this one it does not sound good. Check this out
bill.xpd
 
HR 669 is a bill introduced to ban all non native species of animals in the US. On page 21 of the http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf">Bill</a>[/B] it defines pets as any non native mammal, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, insect, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate. They will be banned from ownership in the US. Check out [IMG]http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=175">PIJAC's</a> website for more info.
This will affect all of the members and all local pet stores if allowed to pass. So check it out and contact your local representatives.
Thanks
Trey Barnard
nohr669.com
 
I had a customer today that returned from spring break in Florida and brought back several non-native species of reptiles.

Hmmmmm........Maybe there is a need for some sort of action?
 
http://nohr669.com">http://nohr669.com</a>

just found this site on it
 
it would never happen..ALOT of things are banned..people still get it/them..Plus your right dogs would certainly put a hault to this..what kind of retard is trying to pass this..dont we have money issues and world problems..war..stuff like that to worry about??..
 
I started a thread on this two weeks ago:

http://www.atlantareefclub.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27349">http://www.atlantareefclub.org/forums/showthread.php?t=27349</a>

No need to resurrect my thread - just pointing out that it's been brought up :)

I do suggest visiting the website [IMG]http://nohr669.com/">http://nohr669.com/</a> and contacting your rep(s).

The entire pet industry is buzzing about this. I've seen this sort of thing come and go in the past, but for some reason, this time it's got a lot of people worried - more than in the past.

Akopley is right - it's not just about fish - it's about all kinds of non-native pets, farm animals and others. The list of "exceptions" is extremely short (and, IMO, short-sighted).

As it reads, existing pets/livestock would be grandfathered, but the trade or sale of any offspring would be prohibited.

States already have laws against potentially invasive non-native species (their effectiveness could be debated, but that's another thread).

While the bill as it stands now may seem utterly ridiculous and unenforceable to many of us, do not underestimate the common sense of the politicians that are entrusted with voting on it!

It only takes a few minutes to visit that site and send emails (free) to your reps. I encourage all of you to do so - I have.

Jenn
 
JennM;327114 wrote: It only takes a few minutes to visit that site and send emails (free) to your reps. I encourage all of you to do so - I have.

Jenn
Click to expand...

Done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top