HR 669 Banning All Non Native Animals
- Thread starter lorenk
- Start date
I should have done a search before I posted, Sorry.
Hopefully the bill will not pass but we need to do something just to make sure it doesn't. I have sent emails everyday and mailed in letters.
Take a few minutes and send an email from the nohr669.com website just to let them know there are lots of people who will be negatively affected by the bill.
Trey
Hopefully the bill will not pass but we need to do something just to make sure it doesn't. I have sent emails everyday and mailed in letters.
Take a few minutes and send an email from the nohr669.com website just to let them know there are lots of people who will be negatively affected by the bill.
Every year someone try's to pass a bill like this one. But each year they are getting better at writing them and learning more and more. This will be something we will always have to fight. Mainly from the Reptile side of things but this one includes every pet owner.
Trey
- Messages
- 70
- Reaction score
- 0
Cows are non native.
Go Bison!
Go Bison!
This bill is not designed to ban all non-native species.
<p style="text-align:left">In fact: <span style="color: blue">"The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health."</span>
I believe the government has an obligation to take steps to protect the environment, and assessing the risk factor of non-native species is an appropriate step.
Some of the non-native species do significant damage when released into the environment, and the trade of these species is GROWING.
A recent study by the Univ of Florida reported that 99,000 burmese pythons were imported into the US during 1996~2006, compared to 17,000 from 1970~1995. Often sold as small pets for as little as $20 these snakes quickly grow, and too many people have decided to release them into the environment. Checkout http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW286">http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW286</a> for more information.
That is just one example of non-native species importation that has been been a disaster and provides evidence that the problem is real, the problem is significant and it needs to be addressed.
Relying on the pet trade has not worked and a patchwork of various state laws is ineffective. I wish that federal legislation was not needed, but I agree that it is.
<p style="text-align:left">In fact: <span style="color: blue">"The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health."</span>
I believe the government has an obligation to take steps to protect the environment, and assessing the risk factor of non-native species is an appropriate step.
Some of the non-native species do significant damage when released into the environment, and the trade of these species is GROWING.
A recent study by the Univ of Florida reported that 99,000 burmese pythons were imported into the US during 1996~2006, compared to 17,000 from 1970~1995. Often sold as small pets for as little as $20 these snakes quickly grow, and too many people have decided to release them into the environment. Checkout http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW286">http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/UW286</a> for more information.
That is just one example of non-native species importation that has been been a disaster and provides evidence that the problem is real, the problem is significant and it needs to be addressed.
Relying on the pet trade has not worked and a patchwork of various state laws is ineffective. I wish that federal legislation was not needed, but I agree that it is.
So do you want this bill to pass? Do you realize the far-reaching implications?
While I agree that there are some species that ought to be better controlled or even banned - this bill as it's written takes it to the opposite extreme.
Furthermore it would be nearly impossible to enforce - but that's beside the point.
Jenn
Yes, I believe this bill is well-written. It actually allows for input from all stake-holders, including the pet trade, requires full transparency of the risk assessment process and provides a number of ways for anyone (including you or me) to offer input.
Although our conversation has focused on the pet trade, this bill also tackles the problems of exotic species being brought in for food/medicinal use and other areas that can often be more problematic. In many cases it is not only the species, but the parasites and viruses it may harbor that create the greater nightmare.
Every bill is a compromise between Better and Done, but I think they did a good job. Was there anything in particular about this bill that you feel should be amended?
As you note - Enforcement is always a challenge but these measures will reduce the supply and make the items more difficult to obtain. A person that takes the time and trouble (and expense) to obtain a banned species is more likely a serious hobbyist, or really really hungry, and less likely to carelessly release it - which at least fulfills the spirit of the bill.
I understand your concerns and appreciate your opinion. My primary goal in writing was to make sure people knew this is not an attempt to simply ban all non-native species. The bill is a thoughtful process, and it will help a serious problem.
Although our conversation has focused on the pet trade, this bill also tackles the problems of exotic species being brought in for food/medicinal use and other areas that can often be more problematic. In many cases it is not only the species, but the parasites and viruses it may harbor that create the greater nightmare.
Every bill is a compromise between Better and Done, but I think they did a good job. Was there anything in particular about this bill that you feel should be amended?
As you note - Enforcement is always a challenge but these measures will reduce the supply and make the items more difficult to obtain. A person that takes the time and trouble (and expense) to obtain a banned species is more likely a serious hobbyist, or really really hungry, and less likely to carelessly release it - which at least fulfills the spirit of the bill.
I understand your concerns and appreciate your opinion. My primary goal in writing was to make sure people knew this is not an attempt to simply ban all non-native species. The bill is a thoughtful process, and it will help a serious problem.
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 0
My only issue with this bill are the earmarks attached to it.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3496">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3496</a>
[IMG]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-438">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-438</a>
I support the bill but want several of the earmarks removed. We have written several letters in support of this but believe that it will not pass. The way it is written is broad but could work in our favor. There are several other bill being introduced in the near future that will be a much bigger impact on this industry than this one.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3496">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-3496</a>
[IMG]http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-438">http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-438</a>
I support the bill but want several of the earmarks removed. We have written several letters in support of this but believe that it will not pass. The way it is written is broad but could work in our favor. There are several other bill being introduced in the near future that will be a much bigger impact on this industry than this one.
After reading the bill, they have three years to make a list of approved species. But to get an animal on the list you must provide scientific evidence that the species will not harm the environment. Which means you would have to pay money for studies to be performed on each species. I have heard figures of 3,000+ different species are included under the bill. That is a lot of money and man power to squeeze into three years.
But during that time no trade or sale will be allowed for that species. So all the local pet stores will have to survive for three years on dry goods while the government makes the list.
We also have to put the list in the hands of politicians, not scientist. They can do what they want with the list. Some radical group donates a check to this fund so the species get put on the prohibited list.
I agree something needs to be done. But the federal government does not have the time, money or man power to do it. Especially with a bill like this.
Trey
But during that time no trade or sale will be allowed for that species. So all the local pet stores will have to survive for three years on dry goods while the government makes the list.
We also have to put the list in the hands of politicians, not scientist. They can do what they want with the list. Some radical group donates a check to this fund so the species get put on the prohibited list.
I agree something needs to be done. But the federal government does not have the time, money or man power to do it. Especially with a bill like this.
Trey
THANK YOU! You understand it!
I agree that there are things that should be done concerning invasive or potentially invasive species, but this isn't it, IMO.
The pet trade, as we know it, will be pretty much devastated if this passes.
I've been getting emails and phone calls for the last couple of weeks on this, from everyone from customers to suppliers and professional groups. I've seen bills similar to this in the past, but this one really seems to have drawn a lot more attention than others - and I think that's a good thing because other than those here in this thread who have expressed a favorable opinion of it, I haven't heard of anyone else who supports it.
FishScales2 - you do realize that this bill, if it should pass, would put us both out of business, right? I'm very surprised that you would support this bill. Its intent is one thing but what it would actually DO is quite something else.
Jenn
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 0
It will not put me out of business, this is not about money it is about freedom and infringement of freedom.
If a business such as yours or mine take the proper steps over the next couple of years they could very easily grow an outstanding business.
Think outside the box
If a business such as yours or mine take the proper steps over the next couple of years they could very easily grow an outstanding business.
Think outside the box
Fish Scales2;328960 wrote: It will not put me out of business, this is not about money it is about freedom and infringement of freedom.
If a business such as yours or mine take the proper steps over the next couple of years they could very easily grow an outstanding business.
Think outside the box
Doing what? Selling dog food?
Are we reading the same document?
Sorry I didn't have time to talk on the phone about it today, we're in the midst of a big sale and I didn't have the time to chat - but if I'm reading the same bill as you are, I fail to see how it could make us "outstanding" businesses if we can no longer import fish/corals/inverts and all stateside breeding and propagation is brought to a halt - at least until some bureaucrat decides if it's "acceptable" or not.
Most ordinary folk and/or businesspeople don't have the $$$$$$$$$$$ necessary to get anything "approved"... so that would spell the end of many of us.
It's not just about money, but either way you cannot legislate against stupidity. There are already laws in place against releasing exotics, and non-native species. That's why Piranha are illegal in GA among other things...
All this law will do is put legitimate businesses under, and will create a HUGE black market. There are already black markets for exotics that are already prohibited, and there are plenty of news stories about marine ornamental importers and others who have been busted for illegally collecting/importing stuff.
Clarion angels scandal back in 2004, I've read about a particular Los Angeles wholesaler getting busted for illegal sharks around about the same time... others getting busted illegally collecting live rock in the Keys (that's not 'imported' but it is supporting illegal trade)... the list goes on and on.
If this legislation goes through, do you think demand is going to disappear? Of course not - it just means that it all goes underground and thus, things like the current Animal Protection licensing that we go through as our legitimate course of business, won't be done because if you're trafficking in illegal stuff you aren't going to have a license for it...
Anyway, it's late, I'm tired and I have to be at work again in 10 short hours... suffice it to say I've sent MY letters in opposition to this insane bill, and I've spread the word to many to do the same.
NO HR669!
Jenn
- Messages
- 1,043
- Reaction score
- 0
We are not reading the same document, Just finished dinner with another elected public official and as I stated there are several other bills that are being worked on currently. Where is anyone seeing specific species of animals being listed. Only in propaganda from what I can tell. We are on the same side I believe and I look forward to the future in this industry.
Hold on, ok I get it the government is going to come in and take the estimated 50 million non-native species that are currently in captivity in the US and do what with them? We will have 2 years before any animals would become "illegal".
This bill will not pass but I do believe the one that is being written right now will pass.
Hmmmm, maybe there was a reason to get all those permits that I have "collecting" the last couple of years.
I could just see it. They call Jeremy up "Hey we are coming to pick up all your Roos" I would say that will go over like a lead balloon.
Jen, yes there are issues with this bill and the earmarks so get involved with your representatives and congressmen as well, make calls to ensure that you can help to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem.
Hold on, ok I get it the government is going to come in and take the estimated 50 million non-native species that are currently in captivity in the US and do what with them? We will have 2 years before any animals would become "illegal".
This bill will not pass but I do believe the one that is being written right now will pass.
Hmmmm, maybe there was a reason to get all those permits that I have "collecting" the last couple of years.
I could just see it. They call Jeremy up "Hey we are coming to pick up all your Roos" I would say that will go over like a lead balloon.
Jen, yes there are issues with this bill and the earmarks so get involved with your representatives and congressmen as well, make calls to ensure that you can help to be a part of the solution and not part of the problem.
- Messages
- 6,671
- Reaction score
- 15
We need a bill like this to pass. We need to move further on aquaculture than what is happening. By now, most of our corals should be aqua-cultured, yet they are not. I also think fish should come a long way, too. Too many idiots dump imported macro algae in the oceans, snakes & reptiles in their backyards, and fish in lakes & streams. This also goes for invasive plants. IMHO.
Have you read the bill? Based on these comments I think not, because as it reads, all breeding (propagation) of non-native species not "approved" would be forced to CEASE.
That would mean no stateside aquaculture.
And while it wouldn't be illegal for you to have your creatures kept before the bill passed, you'd better not swap a frag after it passes... because that's verboten too.
FishScales2 - I have read the bill. I don't think we're "seeing" it in the same way. Based on all of the discussions I've had with people in many aspects of the pet industry, as well as marine ornamentals, you are the lone supporter within the trade that I've encountered.
Jenn