What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Exotic pet ban - HR 669 Fish, Reptiles, Birds

  • #41
Pyro, where does that 36 hours come from in your last paragraph? Are you referring to the 36 months for publishing the list of acceptable species? That's too soon for the US FWS to even develop the regulations necessary for doing that. The process of promulgating regulations is very slow and the bill should say 36 months after the regulations are enacted. I still think the bill isn't that bad, as first drafts go, but would rather see them clamp down on the unintentional imports.
 
  • #42
whoa I just got on this thread... and I like it!!!

We've hit up rights vs privileges and constitutional interpretation... sweet. Personally I kind of call in question if really I have a constitutional right to keep my pythons (or even my BB gun for that matter since I'm not in a well regulated militia) but dammit I like the privilege. In fact I want to extend that privilege into an entrepreneurial venture in a few years and turn some cash on the side while I'm at it - so maybe it IS infringing on my right of pursuit of happiness (property - depending on your interpretation :) ).

Look I am from South Florida, Miami in fact. Lived there from 1982 (when I was born) to lets say 2004 (the last 4 were the out of state college years). I have seen what invasive animals do. I have seen the tropical fish running rampant in the waters, I have seen the monitors, I have seen basilisks in state parks, I have seen tens of thousands of green iguanas sunning along the canals. This bill isn't going to even begin to correct that. It won't even make that issue sneeze. This is going to just put innocent people out of work, and make the rest of us criminals. If you even want to think about protecting the eco-system from invasive species this is WAY too much WAY too late.

Hey, look at it this way, if you want to take a wacko-political approach to this (like I like to do), forget the fact that this is about, well what it's about. Think of it as just the Federal government making more government (which no one likes - too damn expensive) and taking yet more power away from the states who really should be regulating this (which really should make people mad, since we are a confederation of independent states joined in a union, or supposed to be anyway, dammit). Boo Federal government! (now that's patriotism, just ask Jefferson)

Wacko out!
 
  • #43
The trick is regulating species that are beginning to show invasive tendencies or are known to be invasive in similar habitats elsewhere. That does not include banning all exotic species, but when this is attempted people often say "well it is not a problem in MY area" Once you notice a problem it is far too late to do anything but damage management usually. Problem is, most species on this list don't even exhibit that much, and many i bet have no data at all regarding their potential to become invasive. So yes, I will say again it is overstepping but remember early detection and prevention is the best way to fight invasives...

As for state freedoms, I have seen state and communities enact laws limiting certain breed of dog as well as even more surprising actions to remove personal freedoms that sometimes go well beyond what the federal government does. So just because states have the freedom to act, (I know Massachusetts has done so with invasive plants. Good for them!) that does not mean they will. Too often they don't.
 
  • #44
I still think the bill isn't that bad, as first drafts go,

Bruce that is just it, this is not a first draft or even a second. This bill, under different numbers but the same wording, has come up numerous times and each time it makes it a little further up the chain. 669 goes before the committee for Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife next week. Rough drafts do not go to committees.

but would rather see them clamp down on the unintentional imports.

And I never disagreed with you on that. If the bill was actually about that I would support it. But it is not. And so I do not.

The trick is regulating species that are beginning to show invasive tendencies or are known to be invasive in similar habitats elsewhere.

You make an interesting and good point here Finch and I want to comment on it. I agree with this. And so do most reptile keepers. That is why we are so angry at the crap USGS report saying pythons (specifically Burmese pythons) could make it to DC and Illinois and Nebraska. Even if you did believe that global warming would make temperatures suitable in these locations (and I have yet to see a global warming prediction that has the lows getting no lower than 55f for all those places) the habitats that these snakes need to survive would still not exist in these same areas. And the supporters of this bill ignore that simple scientific fact and the media ignores that scientific fact and so the public actually believes it.

Another interesting example: Kenyan sand boa.

The name enough tells you where they come from and from that it does not take much more than a two digit IQ to figure out that these animals thrive in HOT, DRY regions. And because they come from regions that are hot they have evolved to be best suited for heat. And are not suited for (wait for it... wait for it...) cold. A KSB that is exposed to temps below 50F for even short periods of time runs a significant risk of developing a respiratory infection. Expose the to temps of 40F and they begin to suffer worse problems. Subject them to freezing temps for just one night and they will die.

So with all that in mind. The state of New Hampshire has ban KSB. Why? Because, according to those that got the ban to pass, there is sand in the state and so KSB could easily become invasive there.

Anyone care to explain that logic??

You cannot because there is no logic to that. Yet this is the same type of logic being used for this bill.
 
  • #45
Just something to add more meat to the conversation.

These are the 15 (yes that is right a whole whopping 15) species that are exempt (i.e. allowed to be kept) from HR669

1. cat (Felis catus),
2. cattle or oxen (Bos taurus),
3. chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus),
4. dog (Canis lupus familiaris),
5. donkey or *** (Equus asinus),
6. domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese),
7. duck (domesticated Anas spp.),
8. goat (Capra aegagrus hircus),
9. goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus),
10. horse (Equus caballus),
11. llama (Lama glama),
12. mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus),
13. pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica),
14. domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus),
15. sheep (Ovis aries)


I can see no fewer than 4 of those that are highly destructive and currently loose in the environment. I also do not see any native species of reptile on there... But maybe I missed something...
 
  • #46
1. cat (Felis catus),
2. cattle or oxen (Bos taurus),
3. chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus),
4. dog (Canis lupus familiaris),
5. donkey or *** (Equus asinus),
6. domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese),
7. duck (domesticated Anas spp.),
8. goat (Capra aegagrus hircus),
9. goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus),
10. horse (Equus caballus),
11. llama (Lama glama),
12. mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus),
13. pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica),
14. domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus),
15. sheep (Ovis aries)

Ok, so where does this leave people here who are preserving species that are very threatened or nearly extinct in their own countries? Species like Gallus varius, Gallus sonneratii, and Gallus lafayetti? They're going to come round to preservationists and knock off endangered species that are almost gone? I know of only two G. varius breeders in the US. If they do that, it would only serve right those who carry out this horrid plan to meet the same fate.

Good grief, not even guppies made the list!!!

I also do not see any native species of reptile on there... But maybe I missed something...

Their goal is to wipe out all pets. You likely won't find any native animals on the allowed list. It's already law in most (if not all?) states that licenses are required to keep any native animal in captivity. While this proposed law would wipe out nearly all "exotic" species, it is not mentioned that they will not allow you to keep native species either. At least not without a bunch of fees and red tape.
 
  • #47
Their goal is to wipe out all pets. You likely won't find any native animals on the allowed list.

Yes IG, I know. I was being sarcastic when I asked where the native reptiles were :-D
 
  • #48
I kind of thought so, but I wanted to mention the current laws on native wildlife for others here so that they can't say, Oh, just keep native species. Yeah, right... Good luck with that. This bill, if made law, will do nothing but attempt to make criminals out of honest people.
 
  • #49
I kind of thought so, but I wanted to mention the current laws on native wildlife for others here so that they can't say, Oh, just keep native species. Yeah, right... Good luck with that. This bill, if made law, will do nothing but attempt to make criminals out of honest people.

It is good to mention the native laws too I agree :)

But the argument of "Well just keep native species" would not fly with me for other reasons. Most native species just plain suck when you compare them to these "horrid" "dangerous" exotics LOL

I do not care where you look in the U.S., you will not find anything as cool as these among the native species:

P5070062.jpg

P4170030.jpg

PB040007.jpg

P7230004_2_2_2.jpg

P3020040closecrop.jpg
 
  • #50
Most native species just plain suck when you compare them to these "horrid" "dangerous" exotics LOL

Agreed!

I'm not really into snakes, but I admit that those are some beautiful specimens. The blue and black dart frog beats them all though. Stunning! :)

I thought of something interesting... I wonder where hybrids fall under this law. The hybrid I had croaked, but it crossed my mind. Lets say someone has a hybrid of a "legal" and "illegal" species (something like a Gallus x gallus domesticus), I'd bet it would be considered illegal for its "illegal" 50%? That's when it becomes all Gallus gallus domesticus under one's personal records then I'd say. Isn't as though these people are smart enough to know the difference if they come around to see it anyway...
 
  • #51
Just something to add more meat to the conversation.

These are the 15 (yes that is right a whole whopping 15) species that are exempt (i.e. allowed to be kept) from HR669

1. cat (Felis catus),
2. cattle or oxen (Bos taurus),
3. chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus),
4. dog (Canis lupus familiaris),
5. donkey or *** (Equus asinus),
6. domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese),
7. duck (domesticated Anas spp.),
8. goat (Capra aegagrus hircus),
9. goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus),
10. horse (Equus caballus),
11. llama (Lama glama),
12. mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus),
13. pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica),
14. domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus),
15. sheep (Ovis aries)


I can see no fewer than 4 of those that are highly destructive and currently loose in the environment. I also do not see any native species of reptile on there... But maybe I missed something...

5 on a large scale.........you can throw goldfish, dogs and cattle on there for a lesser scale.....but im talking feral animals, not humans doing something stupid with herds or flocks completely under there control.......sheep can do alot of damage if not raised right but the few that go feral in the lower 48 dont last long against yotes......
 
  • #52
5 on a large scale.........you can throw goldfish, dogs and cattle on there for a lesser scale.....but im talking feral animals, not humans doing something stupid with herds or flocks completely under there control.......sheep can do alot of damage if not raised right but the few that go feral in the lower 48 dont last long against yotes......

Well I did say no fewer than 4 :p

Funny, you included 2 I did not bother considering and excluded 2 I did.

I think goldfish have gone berserk in a few places so I counted them. The other was rabbits. Feral rabbits move like a plague if given half a chance. They have done it before and they can again. Yeah there are preds that can take them out but when you get them in swarms even the preds are overwhelmed.
 
  • #53
i was figuring inside the US and not outside.....feral rabbits aint much different than cottontails here in the states.....they will be kept in check the same as cottontails with the same boom and bust cycle that most rabbits have....but i cant see enough rabbis being turned loose anywhere in the US to do a big enoughstart to push out either cottontails or jacks.....

as far as goldfish.....typically they arent the only introduced fish in that water system that causes issues.....hell alot of Montana's trout streams are having a hell of a time due to introduced northern pike....and they are a US native species.....i also dont know if you can single out goldfish, introduced carp species as a whole cause alot of issues singling out goldfish takes the light away from other carp that do much more damage.....

also there is debate over what native species are native where.....in Montana walleye are considered an introduced species....in North Dakota they are considered a native species to the Missouri River........which makes no freaking seance.....as before the dams were built there were no natural barriers to keep the walleye from moving up stream and into Montana.....atleast till you hit the Great Falls half way across Montana.....so why are they a native species 100 miles down stream from me but not here?
 
  • #54
Just something to add more meat to the conversation.

These are the 15 (yes that is right a whole whopping 15) species that are exempt (i.e. allowed to be kept) from HR669

1. cat (Felis catus),
2. cattle or oxen (Bos taurus),
3. chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus),
4. dog (Canis lupus familiaris),
5. donkey or *** (Equus asinus),
6. domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese),
7. duck (domesticated Anas spp.),
8. goat (Capra aegagrus hircus),
9. goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus),
10. horse (Equus caballus),
11. llama (Lama glama),
12. mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus),
13. pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica),
14. domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus),
15. sheep (Ovis aries)


I can see no fewer than 4 of those that are highly destructive and currently loose in the environment. I also do not see any native species of reptile on there... But maybe I missed something...

That will never pass, many less common domesticated barnyard species are absent from that list. That is far beyond reasonable. It should be apparent to anyone who knows anything about what is kept in this country that this bill is not feasible. The absurdity of of banning guinea fowl or domestic pigeons ... everything in pet stores... impossible. Many bills get submitted all the time. Lots of it is crap. No way is this even getting to the debate floor.
 
  • #55
They will pitch it by saying that they will allow those common animals. And they probably will. You'll probably still be able to have your leopard geckos and bearded dragons, your guppies, neon tetras, and tiger barbs. But for anyone who wants something special, you're out of luck. Sorry, but if I'm restricted to just what is at Petco/Petsmart, I'm out of the hobby. I don't keep reptiles and fish just to keep reptiles and fish...I keep them because I'm fascinated by a particular species, or the thrill (and yes, it's a thrill, for anyone who's done it) of breeding an obscure or rare species. And what type of people do you think spend the most money in these hobbies? The kid who wants his first firebellied toad, or someone who wants to breed Dendrobates frogs? Even though those of us who keep the more unusual things make up only a percentage of the market, it's a very good percentage.

And you're right about them not really being able to tell the difference between a lot of these animals. Here in NJ, the tiger salamander is considered endangered in the state, so we're not allowed to own it. Including the larval form. That's where the tricky part comes in. Since they can't tell the difference between larval tiger salamanders, and any other aquatic/neonatal salamanders, they have banned all of them: axolotls, mudpuppies, etc....including all larval forms of other salamanders, which becomes a big problem if you want to breed a terrestrial species that has an aquatic larval stage.
 
  • #56
It`s a shame people are fighting for this bill... and for all the wrong reasons. I sincerely hope you are right in saying this will never pass Finch. Where are 'our' priorities?
I`m glad i`m here, up north in Canada. With our cold, we won`t have to worry about 'exotic invasive species', but i still am worried about Harper, he makes some wacky descisions (especially when bush was around...monkey see monkey do)
You guys put up some really strong points (those against the bill), and my vote is with you guys, being against this bill.
However, it is better to prevent than to cure, but this is not the solution.
 
  • #57
blokeman......BC passed an idiotic exotic pets bill about 6 weeks ago.......dont think your immune.....
 
  • #58
I don't get why everyone is so worked up over this. I am certain anything that would hurt the economy at the moment would never pass.
 
  • #59
Many bills get submitted all the time. Lots of it is crap. No way is this even getting to the debate floor.

As I noted before, this is the 4th or 5th incarnation of this bill and each time it seems to make it a little further up the chain. On Weds (4/23) it goes before the committee for Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife. That is too far for it to have gotten with as ridiculous as it is. Which is why many pet keepers are worried.

I don't get why everyone is so worked up over this. I am certain anything that would hurt the economy at the moment would never pass.

I would not be that certain, with the huge "green" initiative that is being pushed more and more these days and this bill has a lot of money and support being thrown at it by some very powerful groups. Groups that do not care about the economy.


Another great example of just how into "facts" these people are. Here is a brochure for those that support the bill. Check out the picture of that dangerous "Burmese" python...

http://www.necis.net/files/brochure-to-support-h.r.-669-2.pdf

Sure looks an awful lot like my ball python (P. regius):

PB020002.jpg


And for the record, ball python reach about 4-5 feet (smaller than many of our native snakes) and have never been found to be established anywhere in the US.
 
  • #60
i second that, it definately is a ball (royal) python, i had one myself, and it was identical

they even go to say ''The Gambian giant pouched rat, a pet trade import from Africa, carried the highly contagious and potentially fatal monkeypox virus to the United States in 2003, resulting in an outbreak that
sickened 71 people in six states.''

sickened, that`s it....
 
Back
Top