User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 25 to 32 of 60

Thread: Exotic pet ban - HR 669 Fish, Reptiles, Birds

  1. #25
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Indiana Gardener View Post
    If passed, this bill would only be a steeping stone to even greater government intrusions with stricter laws and restrictions. It will not stop there. They'll just keep taking and taking until we have no right to own anything. Just as soon as we loose all of our animals, the tree huggers will talk them into removing our plants as well. So be careful what you wish for, because just as soon as you said that it would never happen or they couldn't/wouldn't do that, it will happen.
    This overreaction really destroys the credibility of your arguments, the ultimate slippery slope. Because this bill, if it passes, will apparently be only one stop to the total end of all freedoms for everyone everywhere, ever. That's a ridiculous assertion.

    I have no real experience with the pet trade as whole and so I will say right now I oppose this bill as an overreaction on the part of the authorities. And looking at the bill I think there is some misunderstanding here between "exotics" and "invasives". Lets get this straight, most exotics are not invasive species. Very few of them are. Even species that establish reproducing populations in the wild from release/escapes, such as many lizard species in Florida, are not invasive. The only one considered invasive most likely came as a stowaway.

    But you have no inherent right to own ANY plant, and by extension, animal, you want. Since I am familiar with plants let explain. The ornamental plant trade consists many species, and many of the worst weeds in this country came as ornamental plants. Many invasive plant species are completely altering the ecology of the land around us- one species that is STILL PLANTED (smooth brome) has completely altered and almost destroyed the native prarie in this region, and a tree species on which I am actually doing a group study on now (common buckthorn) has taken over the riparian woodland at our study site to such a degree that all native tree reproduction has virtually ceased, and when the over story trees die out there will be nothing to replace them but a virtual monoculture of buckthorn. Common buckthorn was introduced as an ornamental, and because it is a host for soybean rust and is so invasive it is now BANNED.

    Yes. The government BANNED a plant, but it too little too late. Smooth brome is STILL planted and is even worse. So the government HAS the right to ban plants and by extension animals if they have the potential to cause problem. You have the right to own a invasive plant, but when you plant it outside and it spreads to the adjoining properties it CEASES to be your right once it starts causing problems for others, reducing rangeland quality, etc. If your property harms others, then it ceases to be your right to have it. That is why dogs that maul people are taken from their owner and put down,. It is their property, but if it destroys a child's face then the fact that it is your property means little. So the government can ban plants and animals that cause problems for others.

    However, this bill is too much. Many of these species have no problem, and pose no risk to either the environment or public health. This bill goes too far. Pyro's snakes have never harmed anybody (I assume) and have no potential to harm the environment. But the topic title and first post is misleading, the bill will not take all of his snakes. I think this bill does infringe on rights, but if a species is demonstrated to cause real harm to the land or people, then it is well within the government's power to step in and stop the trade of said species.
    that makes no logic

  2. #26
    Got Drosera? Indiana Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    This is not overreaction. Things like this are a never ending line of bills, laws, and amendments. The premisses ID program started out as being just a limited and basic law too. Now it has branched out into the proposed NAIS program which is the equivalent to driving a nail with a wrecking ball. History speaks for itself. Do some research on that and you'll see for yourself. I see nothing but that all over again with HR669. Look into how that started out and to where it is leading and you will see that it does not "destroy the credibility of my arguments". What I said is well founded in past events. If you give the government one mile, they'll take 1,000.

  3. #27
    Whats it to ya? Finch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    South Dakota
    Posts
    3,472
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am well enough aware of history to know that the "republic as it used to be" you speak of never existed. The good ol days of history, back when the only people who had rights were landowning white males? Back before the government went and abolished slavery and took the property of all those freedom-loving, all-American slave owners? When the government took all the prime land possessed by the native Americans and gave it to settlers? When women couldn't vote? During the red scare with all the government paranoia, spying, and witch hunts?? When business virtually bought congress seats openly?

    When did "it" start? The stealing of our rights? Look at history, as you said, and I appreciate our "diminished rights" over not having any at all. I mean, I own an apartment now with a few other people. Way back when not owning land would have meant that I would have had few "rights" indeed. I don't know. I'm not saying things are great now, but I am not convinced that our rights were so much more superior in times past. Nor do i think that the ultimate goal of government is to remove all rights, or that their nefarious goal it to prevent all of us from owning animals and plants. Why do they care if you own a nep? They don't, what's their motivation? To remove our rights to own anything? Why? It makes no scene. The entire western system of ownership is ingrained into our society.
    that makes no logic

  4. #28
    N=R* fs fp ne fl fi fc L Pyro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    4,844
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by herenorthere View Post
    I just checked, in case I had missed something new, and the Constitution doesn't mention a right to keep pets.
    There are a lot of things that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but it was and is worded in such a way as to allow for interpretation. IG made the point with pets being classified as property and that is covered by the Constitution. I worked and I saved and I paid to get my pets and they are just as much property as my PS3, my laptop or my car.

    I could even go grasping at straws and say we are all guaranteed the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." My reptiles make me happy. And if you want to interfere with the pursuit of that happiness then

    That means government is free to regulate what pets we can have. In theory, government is all of us and, if some of us (HSUS, etc.) decide they want to push to limit what pets people can have, others of us who disagree can push back. That's the way things work, as long as a court doesn't rule that the outcome violates the constitution.
    It is ridiculous to say "That's the way things work". Maybe that is how it should be but you and I know bloody well that the people with the most money who can afford the best lawyers and/or propaganda are the ones who get there way. Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. The almighty dollar does.

    People throw the word "right" around without knowing that a right is a powerful thing and scarcer than we like to think.
    Fine call it privilege, call it inclination call it what you will. These people are using their ideology to try and infringe on things that, quite honestly, they have have no right to be infringing on. I do not like tattoos but I dang well will not not tell someone else what they can and can not do with their own body. And you can bloody well bet that I will never EVER support any group that would try to ban people from getting tattoos.

    To the extent a law would restrict access to potentially destructive invasive species, animal or plant, I'm in favor of it.
    But that is not what this bill is. You keep reprimanding us for not reading it but I am beginning to think maybe you have not read it. This bill wants to put an undisclosed list of non-native (i.e. exotic") animals on the Lacy Act invasive species list. So it takes a position that all non-native animals are guilty of being invasive without any proof. Are you seriously going to tell me that that is a "good" law you would be in favor of? The bill is specifically targeting the exotic pet industry. Don't believe me? Would it sway you if you read it from HSUS themselves?

    Fine, then go hear and read it:

    https://community.hsus.org/campaign/...nnativewildife

    And I quote

    Importing millions of live wild animals every year for the exotic pet trade, and for other reasons, is cruel to the animals
    Right there in black and white. They are going after the exotic pet trade. They do not give a flying leap about invasive species, that is just a cover they are using to push the point.

    I also particularly love the other "facts" they tout:

    They can be released or escape and establish breeding populations, like the Burmese pythons in the Everglades --
    For the record, the Burmese pythons have pretty much been proven to be the cause of animals accidentally loosed during Andrew, which also loosed animals form zoos. Oh and peoples dogs and cats too. BUt that is not important enough to mention

    and government scientists say these large constrictor snakes could find a conducive climate in one-third of the country.
    And this is a flat out lie. A USGS report that was circulated but never published (because it could not withstand a peer review) said that if the global warming models they used were accurate then in 50 years some of these animals could cover that area. This report looked at one single factor: Temperature. If you add in other things like humidity, moisture, habitat akin to the wild type location, Day and night temp swings, etc the numbers tell a much different story. Also of note, the USGS report purposefully used only one snake, they python species with the lowest temperature tolerance, to base this report of how all Pythons, Boas and Eunecties would fair. That is like using S. purp purp from Canada to say that all pitcher plants (Sarrs, Darlings, Helies, Cehs and Neps) could live all over the N. American continent... Great factual reporting there.

    Methods used to eradicate species after they're established are inhumane, ineffective, and costly.


    When it goes beyond that narrow goal, it quickly falls from favor.
    If that is the case then why is it now up for review by the subcommittee? If it was going to quickly fall from favor it ought to have never made it this far.

    That's easy to say, not so easy to do and, to repeat myself from an earlier post, the devil is in the details.
    YOu keep saying thi but you keep ignoring the one significant detail that this is not about invasive species. No where dose this bill talk about the ash borer, or the zebra muscle or the walking catfish or the snake head. This bill is talking about animals in the pet trade. Animals that, for the most part (yes I acknowledge the Burmese are there and yes I acknowledge that it is a bad thing) are not, or have never been proven to be, invasive. That is a really big detail to be ignoring.

    Learn the details and think about what is right and/or wrong about each one. That's a better way to accomplish what you want than to wrap yourself in the flag and call the opposition radicals and terrorists. No one person did all those things, but each has been done at least once in this thread. That's the real bovine scat.
    THose of us that have been following this and fighting it for the last 6-8 months have been learning the details. If you see us fighting to keep our personal pets as "wrap ourself in the flag" then by damn hand me a flag.
    'My love was science- specifically biology and, more specifically, when placed in a common jar, which of two organisms would devour the other.'

    See You Space Cowboy

    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat
    Hagerstown, Maryland

    --
    actagggcagtgatatcccattggtacatggcaaattagcctcatgat

  5. #29

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the biggest difference between the invasive nature of plants and the invasive nature of most exotics kept is that, plants MUST be able to survive the climate for which they are sold (talking plants for landscapes, not houseplants). This, along with the fact that it is being kept outdoors, in the open, increases the chance of a species becoming invasive GREATLY. However, exotics such as reptiles and fish normally come from more tropical regions, and the environment for these animals must be controlled. The vast majority of fishkeepers have tanks that are in the 78-82 F range in temperature. With extremely few exceptions, fish that can be kept in these constantly warm temperatures will not survive the cold nature of the majority of this country. The same goes for reptiles. They are not intended to be kept outdoors, and so the focus has been primarily tropical species. I could see this being a problem if there was more of a focus on European reptiles (hence the wall lizards now cruising around New York City), but European species make up a very, very small portion of the market.

    I do not mind regulations, as long as they are able to be complied in a manner that can allow people who truly want to keep these species to still keep them. Permitting systems, microchipping for larger, more dangerous species, educational materials to be handed out with the sale of an exotic warning about the dangers of releasing animals, and mandatory inspections for certain animals that will be covered in a permitting fee are all great ideas, that would probably gain quite a bit of support. I think that by attacking the exotic pet trade in this manner, they're not gaining any support for themselves, whether we're talking about the politicians involved, or HSUS or any other entities backing this bill.

  6. #30
    Got Drosera? Indiana Gardener's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    391
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    But you have no inherent right to own ANY plant, and by extension, animal, you want.
    You have the right to own a invasive plant, but when you plant it outside and it spreads to the adjoining properties it CEASES to be your right once it starts causing problems for others, reducing rangeland quality, etc. If your property harms others, then it ceases to be your right to have it.
    Which is it? LOL

    Again, by outlawing all individuals of one species it punishes those who did not allow their property to cross their property line. That is the problem I have with this.

    However, this bill is too much. Many of these species have no problem, and pose no risk to either the environment or public health. This bill goes too far. Pyro's snakes have never harmed anybody (I assume) and have no potential to harm the environment.
    Right! It does go too far. That's my point. And if it goes through, it will only go further.

    When did "it" start? The stealing of our rights?
    Well after slavery was rightfully stopped after the 1780's. One instance was the "Patriot Act" of the last administration.

    Pyro:

    I worked and I saved and I paid to get my pets and they are just as much property as my PS3, my laptop or my car. ....


    These people are using their ideology to try and infringe on things that, quite honestly, they have have no right to be infringing on.
    Right on!

    Also, it's my country, my 4th great grandfather fought in the revolution to make this country, and I'll proudly wrap myself in its flag and display its colors if I choose.

  7. #31
    rattler's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    missing, presumed dead
    Posts
    8,554
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well after slavery was rightfully stopped after the 1780's. One instance was the "Patriot Act" of the last administration.
    the patriot act is a rather poor example of when it started.....it basically started right after the Revolutionary war.....look up the Whiskey Rebellion.......the first most major and far reaching blow to states and to an extent individual rights came with the Civil War........the Patriot act is one of the most recent and very far removed from the first.......
    cervid serial killer
    Know guns, know peace, know safety. No guns, no peace, no safety
    I didn't get stimulated but he kept his promise on change, that's about all I got left!
    http://www.wolfpointherald.com/--http://www.safety-brite.net/

  8. #32

    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    100
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Good info, Pyro. Glad to see someone else is straight on this whole Burmese Python issue. Contrary to the rumors, these were NOT animals released by their owners, and they are NOT at all likely to spread outside the Everglades, much less Florida. It is a terrible thing that happened, due to damage from a hurricane. However, that is a poor basis for attacking the exotic animal trade.

    And these aren't just pets were talking about. This is a livelihood for a lot of people. If this bill passes, it is likely that thousands of jobs will be lost, and not just the breeders. Family owned pet stores, possibly even big chain pet stores, as well. This will affect everyone, back to the exporters and collectors in countries in which the fish and reptile trade makes up a significant portion of their economy.

Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. My reptiles
    By villa99 in forum Reptiles, Amphibians and other terrarium dwelling animals
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-01-2007, 10:17 AM
  2. My reptiles
    By Ozzy in forum Reptiles, Amphibians and other terrarium dwelling animals
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 04:30 PM
  3. Transporting reptiles
    By Ozzy in forum Reptiles, Amphibians and other terrarium dwelling animals
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-24-2005, 10:21 AM
  4. Vft with reptiles
    By Crash in forum Venus Flytrap (Dionaea ) Care Information & Tips
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 07-13-2004, 05:00 PM
  5. Anyone want to trade reptiles for plants?
    By Rygar in forum Carnivorous Plant Trading Post
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-29-2004, 03:42 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •