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

For anyone who's not aware of what's going on, there is a bill trying to be passed right now which threatens to shut down the pet trade virtually overnight. This bill will ban all non-native wildlife from being imported, bought, sold, traded, or bred, unless that species is specifically selected to be allowed for trade. Anything that will be allowed, from what I understand, will also be considered "nonmailable matter" and will no longer be able to be mailed. So, stores will only be able to receive whatever approved animals are available locally from an importer or local breeder within driving distance. With these regulations, I see it as being very unlikely that the trade will be able to support itself.

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/_FPfL212CB8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/_FPfL212CB8&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

It is important that anyone who has any interest write and call their representatives to voice their opposition of this bill.
 
It's always good to pay attention and voice your opinion to your legislators, but don't panic. Lots of bills are introduced, maybe get a hearing and disappear from sight. That's what happens to just about every terrific or awful bill. Only the mediocre middle tends to pass. But read the bill; it's more about invasives than non-natives. That might seem like hair-splitting, but there are good reasons to limit invasive species. Of course they tend to arrive in the ballast water of ships, as passengers in other products or other accidental ways. That's where attention is needed.
 
Although it sounds quite alarming, I'm sure our congressmen realize the kind of money this industry processes each year. Although I didn't read the actual bill, it seems so incredibly stupid that I don't think it would ever actually make it anywhere. Dennis Kucinich is my congressman, you know, that nut-job from Cleveland that has ran from president for the past 2 elections, the one who wants to create a "department of peace," and also read the impeachment documents against Bush to the House, TWO TIMES. Needless to say, he was laughed off the floor, twice. Point being, there are crazies in congress, and they put stupid stuff like this up for vote, only to realize that their colleagues all regard them as crazies when it gets shot down.
 
That is insane! These idiots who came up with this proposal should be removed from office! Think of the jobs it would terminate and lives it would rip apart if people's pets are taken from them for being in "violation" of this.

This bill will ban all non-native wildlife from being imported, bought, sold, traded, or bred, unless that species is specifically selected to be allowed for trade.

What the heck will it leave for pets!? You already have to obtain a permit to keep most native species. Wouldn't surprise me if PETA is pushing this.
 
HSUS (like PETA, but less extreme, and better funded) is pushing this one. Or at the very least has strong ties to it. There are also some celebrities tied to this, from what I've heard, like Jeff Corwin. As for who came up with it, this bill was actually proposed by Guam! This bill has come and gone before, but this time it's showing quite a bit of strength behind it. As for what will be allowed for pets, that's one of the problems I have with this, is that they haven't released a list of what will be allowed as pets. If the bill passes, then they will release a list of species approved for trade within 36 months. Even then, what they do allow, you cannot get mailed to you. It's like being into carnivorous plants, and having to settle for what you can pick up at the local nursery: if you want a VFT or N. ventrata, awesome...but if you want something rare and exotic, you're out of luck. In any case, it'd be unlikely that the fish and reptile trade would survive it.
 
Theres another to put hormones into the meats that we eat.
 
The bird trade would not survive it either.

Take something as common as a barnyard chicken, they aren't native. Even if they were approved under this, there's the anti-shipping bit on lives. Even hatching eggs are live embryos in a suspended state of growth, dormant as it were. They would just take that and run with it. It would be never ending until you couldn't ship a single thing.
 
draven: shhhhh!!! don`t give em any ideas ;) who knows what they are liable to try. capensis is a weed, making it ?invasive?

Hmmm. Let`s not worry about the economy, let`s worry about what pets people have at home, and how gerbils and chinchillas are a threat to the public well being. Maybe we should go to australia and help them get rid of the frogs that were introduced, or the brown rat, it`s making 'progress' everywhere it gets!

let`s just hope the FDA doesn`t get any bright ideas like this:nono:... i don`t want to be stuck with simple typical vft`s... i`d die.
 
  • #10
But read the bill; it's more about invasives than non-natives.


Yes, read the bill... And realize that the goal of it is to get a huge number of non-native species added to the Lacy Act list as invasive species whether or not they actually have been proven to be invasive. So it is indeed about invasive species... Adding the tag "invasive" to a whole lot of the animals in the pet industry.

If you want to have the freedom to keep any type of "exotic" pet, be it fish or frog or parrot or python then you should care and you should oppose this bill. If you do not and it passes then even if it gets winnowed own to a list of species that actually have been proven to be invasive then it is a foot in the door of radical activists like HSUS to just keep pushing. This bill has nothing to do with science and everything to do with ideology (read the "Broken Screens" report, a non-peer reviewed document that is being touted as fact by HSUS (who are the authors) to push this bill through.) Make your stand here and now because if you do not then the first domino will have been pushed and the line will just keep falling.
 
  • #11
My question...Exactly how is this a bad thing for the animals? Maybe it is for some humans, but does this not benefit the animals in the end?
Anyway, wouldnt there be a grandfather clause?
 
  • #12
My question...Exactly how is this a bad thing for the animals? Maybe it is for some humans, but does this not benefit the animals in the end?
Anyway, wouldnt there be a grandfather clause?

It depends on which animals you are talking about. If they are animals that are being heavily harvested in the wild then it is good for them sure. Converse if they are animals that are and have been CBB from founder stock then it does nothing really.

There is no discussion of a grandfather clause. But the fact that it talks about the importing, keeping, breeding, sale and trade... Using the word keeping to me is indicative that a grandfather clause is not part of the plan... Just my take though
 
  • #13
Too many people are irresponsible and, if something would be a serious problem if it escapes or is released, maybe no one should be allowed to have it. I think most (not all) people could agree with that in theory, but the devil is in the details. That's why people should read it and give it some thought. Understand the process and how things can go right or go wrong. Sausage-making pales in comparison.
 
  • #14
Too many people are irresponsible and, if something would be a serious problem if it escapes or is released, maybe no one should be allowed to have it.

By that logic then pigs and horses and rats ought to be banned... And yet they are not. Heck, you can not even kill a feral horse or pig in many states despite the HUGE amounts of damage they cause.

So yes, the devil is in the details. And details are getting swept under the rug to support the agenda of people who think keeping certain pets if wrong. HSUS is a group of animal rights activists. They are not as radical as PETA and ALF but they are radicals. They do not care about facts and the like. They care about ideology, their ideology.

And if you want to talk about irresponsible pet owners then there are untold numbers of stray dogs and cats... Where is the legislation for those? Why are pitbulls not banned when everyday some child or neighbor gets mauled by them??? There are plenty of irresponsible keepers of normal pets and no one is pushing to cut them down. But the knee-jerk fear that is exploited by the media and the special interest groups is being exploited here to take away our pets.

You might not like snakes. Fine. I am not asking you to like them, I am not asking you to keep them. But do not tell me I can not keep mine. Do I have the right to keep you from having a dog just because I hate dogs?
 
  • #15
I think that there are some very good compromises that can allow people to still trade in these species. I think that a problem, more than people being irresponsible, is being ignorant. They release animals because they don't know better, or because they are doing the animal "a favor" by setting it free. I think that mandatory information sheets to be given with certain animals are a very good idea, and perhaps a microchip/permit program in place for species of special concern, such as what Florida has recently implemented for Burmese Pythons.
 
  • #16
I don't see any inherent right to keep any kind of pet, whether its one of my dogs or one your, well, whatever you have. I think we should all be held to a higher standard. One other thing; when you find yourself calling the HSUS radicals or extremists, you're doing them and the word a disservice.

Personally, I think exotic pets are a negligible threat compared to the exotics that travel around as passengers in wood products, trapped water, etc. The current effort ought to be directed towards those things, but that's a battle against business interests ranging from the local to the international. That kind of opposition is well funded and connected.

Focusing on just one problem, we don't have our growing problem with emerald ash borers because people kept them as pets and let some go. We have them because we're a materialistic culture that's addicted to imports from China and some EABs probably rode over in wood pallets or something. Then the firewood industry helped transport EABs further, until states were forced to ban the interstate transport of firewood. But plenty of people ignore the ban and help spread EABs. In addition to wanting more stuff as cheap as possible, we aren't good at listening when told something we don't to hear. EABs are just one problem and are probably more of a threat than all potentially invasive pets combined.
 
  • #17
Exactly. Pets, at least exotic pets, are almost negligible when compared with things that have been introduced through other means, and sometimes even intentionally. Rats, Africanized bees, zebra mussels, brown tree snakes in Guam, Asian longhorn beetles, cane toads, cannibal snails...the list goes on and on. Not to mention the havoc that can be wrought by traditional pets that establish feral populations (I'm looking at you, cats).
 
  • #18
I don't see any inherent right to keep any kind of pet, whether its one of my dogs or one your, well, whatever you have.

I'd thank you to speak for yourself. Anyone trying to take my animals will have to kill me first to get to them. I have friends who have served this country proudly and members of my community who gave their lives for our rights to own property and livestock and other rights we still enjoy in this country. I would appreciate it if you didn't discredit that by telling me I have no right to have something so basic as pets. I cherish my rights, and if you want to give up yours, that's your own business and you can move to another country where your views are accepted by the majority. Those views are not what this country was founded on. Sure, you have freedom of speech, but it becomes my business when you voice an opinion about what I can't own.

I have responsibly cared for a variety of pets over the yrs ranging from guppies to koi and parakeets to emus. Don't lump us all together only because a few mess up. No need to punish everyone.

One other thing; when you find yourself calling the HSUS radicals or extremists, you're doing them and the word a disservice.

Any organization that conducts unlawful searches and seizures is a terrorist organization. Plain and simple. The HSUS has conducted more illegal seizures than I can count. They act on some anonymous false tip, rush in without proof, seize the animal(s), and destroy them before they have any evidence and before a hearing can be arranged. At the hearing, if the verdict is not guilty, too bad, the pets are already dead. I personally know people who have friends this has happened to. PETA and the HSUS should be held accountable for their despicable acts. Neither of these organization has law enforcement authority and if they step on my land and threaten me, my family, or my property, I legally have the right to defend myself, my family, and my property with whatever force necessary. And that is a right I will exercise if I have to!

What the HSUS and PETA does is no different than if I gathered up a few friends, decided we had the right to break into your house while you're at work, inspect your fridge, and if we find anything past expiration confiscating your fridge and prevented you from owning another because you are not a responsible fridge owner since you were using it to store potentially unsafe food. Anyone doing that, if caught, would be charged with breaking and entering and theft of property. No different from what those organizations do! They should be charged just the same as anyone else doing that.

The DNR should also be held accountable for releasing Mountain Lions into populated areas where they are not native and children regularly play outdoors unsupervised and not at least giving the public a heads up on the matter. Pet owners are not the only ones who make idiotic choices regarding animals.
 
  • #19
There's the government for you: "Making new criminals daily since 1776!"

I wonder when the A-Team will come to neutralize my brown Anole. Which arrived as an egg in a plant - since we're talking about "invasive" species, my lizard surely fits the bill. Which in a Kafka-esque nightmare universe like ours actually makes me guilty of smuggling the invasive lizard species since I ordered the plant off eBay and the egg was in the soil even though I didn't know it until a month or so later. I guess if I "really cared about the earth" and everything I would kill my lizard or allow the government to kill it to satisfy some idealists notion of fairness.

One thing which is nice is that the underground/black market (non retail) for herps and fish etc will not be stemmed as long as there is still a cash based society (or even barter system amongst the hardcore) so it won't really be a problem for most people seriously into whatever they're into to continue with their studies. "You can still get it here meester..." There's really no sense of turning an amateur herpetologist or fish breeder into a back alley smuggler. However this sort of madness doesn't surprise me since we are living in an omniscient society that wants to encroach their command and control into every aspect of our existence. Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep... will you?

I wouldn't be surprised if exotic and invasive plants are not far behind the pets. Some plan devised by some sort of agricultural seed lobbyists and fixers posing as "environmentalists".
 
  • #20
You're right, swords. Things like this only punish the honest people. Those who really should be caught won't be affected one bit.

Also, with this ideology, how long before we are not allow to keep plants... any at all? After all, they are living things and can a person really own another living thing?

It could just as easily be said by our government that we do not have the right for that either. As long as the law views pets and plants as property, we all have the right to have them if we choose!
 
Back
Top