On April 23, 2009 a The National Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on a resolution called the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669). This resolution, if eventually passed into law, would dramatically change how the trade in non-native species would be regulated by the Lacey Act (which covers many aspects of conservation and possession, transport and sales of wildlife). Currently, the list of species covered under the Lacey Act is quite small, and animals are added "as needed." I'm far from being a legal expert (and despise trying to decipher legislation), but it seems H.R. 669 would reverse the way animals are added to the Lacey Act, i.e. if a non-native animal is not specifically excluded from the Act, then it is considered prohibited by default, and import, interstate trade, sale and possession of these animals would not be permitted. Considering only very basic domestic animals are included on the list of "acceptable" animals proposed by the resolution, this is a huge and sweeping change that could nearly shut down the pet trade in the US for all but cats, dogs, and rabbits. The proposed list of allowed non-native animals includes cats, dogs, cattle/oxen, horses, pigs (domestic), sheep, chickens, domestic geese and ducks, goats, llamas, donkeys, mules, domestic rabbits and goldfish (though there appears to be procedures for allowing other species to be included on the list). To be fair it is important to not that H.R 669 also provides for animals to be included that could potentially have harmful effects, but which "are already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility..." -- which would appear to leave room for inclusion of a lot of other pet species that are already established in the pet industry here.
Now, there is no need to panic. First, the resolution is some way from becoming law. This doesn't mean we should ignore it, of course. And, in my perhaps naive opinion, the resolution is so sweeping that it is difficult to imagine that it would be passed into law, at least as written. The government has much more pressing matters than trying to review the umpteen submissions and petitions it would receive to allow different species under this piece of legislation, not to mention the impossible logistics of trying to enforce such a law. Of course, complacence is never a good option, so those involved in the pet trade ought to make their voices heard with regards to this proposed resolution.
I guess this is the "slippery slope" I was warned about when I came out in favor of a recent ban on wild animals as pets in BC. Ironically, with this bit of legislation, I agree with the general intention to preventing the spread of invasive species, but the content of this legislation is scary. More background and interpretation of this resolution can be found in this document about H.R. 669 from the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). You can also read the full text of H.R. 669 here (for those better at deciphering legislation than I).
Take action: you can contact the members of the Natural Resources Committee as well as your representatives in Congress to let them know of your concerns about the ban:
Edited to add: I wanted to draw attention to a link to
another site about H.R. 669 (posted in the first comment below) - in addition to links to the Committee members it also identifies cosponsors of the bill, if you'd like to contact them too.
Also, to be fair, I've included some links to documents that explain the reasoning behind the proposal of such legislation in
The Flip Side of H.R. 669.
Comments
Hi All,
This is all true…if this proposal is passed into law as is say goodbye to all non-native mammals, birds, reptiles, and tropical fish for pets.
This proposal is being pushed hard by the Humane Society of the United States.
I made a “Mini-Site” to help people fight HR 669. If I may, the web address is:
http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm
Change it, use it, link it, whatever…just contact these polititions and spread the word.
The writer and Chairpeson of HR669 is from Guam of all places. An Island where one species of snake has wiped out a lot of their animals that were not designed to avoid predatation. All of the Elected Co-Sponsors for this proposal are Majority Democrats including Barney Frank (D-MA).
I have a bad feeling about this…better be safe than sorry. Act Now!
Thanks,
Dave
Dave – thanks for the note. I edited my post to add a link to your site as well (good information about contacting those involved).
Thanks Lianne!
Here’s some information just in from PIJAC.
It’s a shorter, more understandable version of their initial alert.
STOP CONGRESS FROM TAKING
YOUR PETS
Join PIJAC in opposing HR 669
WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?
Anyone with pet fish, birds, reptiles, or small mammals will be affected by this bill. Any company selling product or services for pet fish, birds, reptiles or small mammals will be affected by this bill. Would you be impacted by “The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act”?
• Virtually all fish in an aquarium are not native to the United States
• Most pet birds are species not native to the US
• Most reptiles kept as pets are not native to the US
• Hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs and ferrets are not native to the US
This bill would ban nonnative species not specifically approved by US Fish & Wildlife Service. AND, it does NOT only ban their importation, it also bans sales, transportation and breeding of these animals
• If you own a bird or reptile, and your specialized veterinarian is located across the state line from your home, you would be prohibited from taking your pet to its veterinarian
• If you own two fish and they have babies, you would be in violation of this law and your pets could be confiscated and destroyed
• Don’t plan on moving to another state with your pet. Crossing state lines with your hamster, fish, bird, snake or other nonnative animal will be illegal
ANY animal except dogs, cats and goldfish will need to go through a costly, extensive study to prove they will not cause harm AND be approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service before they can be pets. The proposed congressional ban on “nonnative species” will affect hundreds of millions of animals currently kept as pets.
PIJAC supports managing invasive species, but this bill is not the answer
. Simply enhancing and improving existing laws and regulations would meet the goal of preventing/minimizing the introduction of potentially invasive species.
Under HR669, ANY animal not native to the U.S. would have to be placed on an “Approved” list created by the Fish and Wildlife Service, which does not have the manpower or financial resources to do it
. Nonnative species includes virtually every bird, reptile, fish, and small mammal commonly kept as pets. Until an animal is placed on the “Approved” list, you would be banned from adopting, purchasing, selling, transporting across state lines, or breeding these animals.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Pet owners and the pet industry needs to be heard NOW
• Contact members of the subcommittee – both in Washington, DC AND in their district offices. Let them know you don’t want them to ban your pets
• Attend your representatives Town Hall meeting during the Congressional Spring Break (April 6-17) and ask them WHY THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR PETS
• Alert everyone you know and ask them to stand up and be counted.
• Become a member of PIJAC and help us defeat this bill (www.pijac.org)
Thanks Dave! I just twitterd, emailed, & posted on my bird forums your link.
Thanks Lianne and Dave!
This has been facebooked, twittered, linkedin and sent to everyone and their mothers.
I am shocked to see the Humane Society got it SO wrong this time. That’s a first.
Don’t get me wrong: I am anti-breeder and do not think any more parrots/probably anything should be imported for cruelty reasons, but this is insane.
Let’s keep fighting the good fight!
-kate
THANK YOU!! I would like to add another important angle of this potential travesty:
I have a good job. My job, along with my wife’s job, pays our mortagage, bills, and food. I am thankfull. However, this leaves no money for anything “extra.”
I love reptiles, always have. A few years ago, I started making custom reptile handling tools in my basement. My tools are purchased by snake owners, and field herpetologists / hepetoculturists, to safely and humanely handle the animals they love. The sale of these tools allow my wife and I to occasionally purchase something we “want.” We finally replaced our 15 year old TV, and are looking at replacing the 25 year old carpet in our living room.
It was my understanding that this is EXACTLY what our government has been BEGGING us to do. CONSUME GOODS. Buying TVs and carpet is EXACTLY what is going to get our country out of this horrible economic mess. I have numerous friends who count on the reptile/exotics business for their “extra”, if not all of their income.
Of course there are myriad other reasons to be against HR669. Most importantly, “WHY???” The entire bill is based on a very small, very specific problem, in a very small, very specific geographic region, because of a single species. The snakes I breed, infact nearly ALL breeds of pythons and boas (the intended target of this bill) could never survive ANYWHERE in the US for more than a few days, if they were ever to get out. And only a handfull, out of HUNDREDS of pythons and boa species, have ever been responsible for injuring a human being.
Why pass laws that have no purpose, when there is A LOT that our congress NEEDS to be doing right now?
Not to worry, Americans will turn there backs unto the animals as they have always done, Americans enjoy knowing millions of companion animals are slaughtered each year, Americans thrive on mass breeding to keep there careless ways supplied with fresh little lives.
Even so called animal lovers will fight any laws to stop the killings.
AMERICAS DIRTY SECRET….simply makes me proud to be an American…isn’t freedom great.
I suggest that the author READ THE BILL before writing this sort of alarmist junk.
The bill specifies that animals that are already here, and are already imported, are NOT GOING TO BE BANNED.
What this bill DOES affect is import of completely unknown species. The bill requires that an unknown species that someone tries to import should be investigated before it gets into the country.
Hi All,
Word to the wise,anonymous posters should never be trusted:
Here is the legislation fir HR669:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf
Here is my “Mini-Site” with ALL the information you need:
http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm
Here os another great site with an excellent video everyone should watch about HR669:
http://www.nohr669.com/index.htm
As written, you could keep your pets…until they die or you move out of state. No breeding existing animals either.
We need a monitor to cull individuals spreading misinformation.
Thanks All,
SilverCityDave
Please remove post number 8. Anonymous posters who are trying to mislead people…not very creative.
Here is HR669:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf
Here is a mini-site I made that has all the information you need:
http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm
Here is another great site with a MUST WATCH video on HR669:
http://www.nohr669.com/index.htm
As written, you could keep existing pets….only until they die, if you move out of state you can’t take them, and NO BREEDING!
Listen to the truth folks…fight for your right to own pets! Fight HR669!
Hi All,
Yes, please DO read the legislation.
“Anonymous” here is dead wrong. True, if HR669 passes “as is”, you could keep your existing pets…that is until they die OR tou move to a different state! Also, NO breeding of existing pets.
Don’t fall prey to propagana!
Here is the legislation “as written”:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf
Here is a “mini-site” I made with TRUE information and gov’t. links:
http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm
Here is another great site on HR669, WATCH THE VIDEO!:
http://www.nohr669.com/index.htm
Thanks all,
I just don’t want individuals to come and misinform you all into complacency…
Hi All,
Don’t be misinformed!Lianne is right on target with this issue!
True, is this legislation is passed into law as written you could keep your EXISTING pets, that is until they die or you move to another state.
Don’t be lulled into complacency by “Anonymous” or uninformed posters.
Here is the legislation:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf
here is a mini-site I made with ALL the information you need including gov’t links:
http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm
Here is another GREAT site dedicated to No HR669…WATCH THE VIDEO!
http://www.nohr669.com/index.htm
Contact your Congressman and Senator TODAY and fight this ridiculus legislation…that is, if you want to keep your rights to have pets.
Thanks,
Silver City Dave
The bill would do nothing to stop the countless slaughter of dogs and cats, the guy arguing abut americans killing animals has it very wrong. Go push required neutering of pets. Go push requiring licenses and waiting periods and training before being allowed to buy an animal.
The guy saying it only bans the import of animals is also wrong. We already follow The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species.
The bill blanketly outlaws all non-native animals whether they were born here or not. Most are born here.
After a sort period of time the bill would require the government to release a list of ‘OK’ critters. any not on the list would be illegal to breed, trade, bring across state lines, etc. I have complete confidence that our government WILL NOT review the thousands of affected species.
No more out of state transfers of recuses, no moving with your pet, no sustainable breeding programs for already endangered animals.
I think the people arguing for the bill are either ignorant of the ramifications or are just radical PETA schills.
I should clarify, the above guy is correct that existing pets are grandfathered but you still will not be able to bring them to another state.
… sigh …
(f) Animals Owned Lawfully Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun pursuant to subsection (e)(3), even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.
(B) may be harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health, but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.
(2) IMPORT- The term ‘import’ means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing into, or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the Government of the United States.
…
(2) DETERMINATION- Based on scientific and commercial information provided in a proposal under paragraph (1) or otherwise available to the Secretary, the Secretary shall make one of the following determinations regarding such a proposal in a reasonable period of time and in accordance with the regulations issued under section 3:
(A) The nonnative wildlife species is approved for importation, and is added to the list of approved species under this section.
(B) The nonnative wildlife species is not approved for importation, unless permitted under section 7.
(C) The Secretary has insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination under subparagraph (A) or (B).
…
(2) IMPORT- The term ‘import’ means to land on, bring into, or introduce into, or attempt to land on, bring into, or introduce into, any place subject to the jurisdiction of the Government of the United States, whether or not such landing, bringing into, or introduction constitutes an importation within the meaning of the customs laws of the Government of the United States.
(3) NATIONAL INVASIVE SPECIES COUNCIL- The term ‘National Invasive Species Council’ means the National Invasive Species Council established by Executive Order 13112 on February 8, 1999 (64 Fed. Reg. 6183), as redesignated by section 13.
(4) NATIVE SPECIES- The term ‘native species’ means a species that historically occurred or currently occurs in the United States, other than as a result of an intentional or unintentional introduction by humans.
(5) NONNATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES- The term ‘nonnative wildlife species’–
(A) except as provided in subparagraph (C), means any live species or subspecies of animal that is not a native species or subspecies, whether or not born or raised in captivity;
(B) except as provided in subparagraph (C), includes–
(i) any such live, wild species or subspecies of mammal, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, insect, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, and
(ii) any viable egg, sperm, gamete, or other reproductive material or offspring thereof;
(C) does not include any species that is–
(i) specifically defined or regulated as a plant pest or approved for biological control purposes under the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701 et seq.); or
(ii) defined or regulated as a threat to livestock or poultry under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.); and
(D) does not include any cat (Felis catus), cattle or oxen (Bos taurus), chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), donkey or ass (Equus asinus), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated Anas spp.), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus), horse (Equus caballus), llama (Lama glama), mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus), pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica), domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), or sheep (Ovis aries), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.
hr-669 This bill would be an Atrosity!! This should not be considered!! this bill would put undire strain on pet stores,and pet suppliers
country wide,putting many out of business,thus causing many of our Americans their Jobs…Do we need to cause more economic trouble??
Being a pet store owner, I see wide eyed children everyday stand in awe of gods great creatures, do we need to take that away from our children?
Do you want to be the one that took NEMO away,or FLUFFY the ferret??
Not only for the children, but for the adults as well, there is not much in comparison to take the stress out of everyday life then to sit in front of an aquarium, and watch the fish after a hard days work, or to play with a pet, be it a ferret, snake, bird,or lizard, or even a pet rat…
There are too few pleasures in life now, and it would be detra mental to society as a whole…
I understand there must be regulations to protect human health, and our enviroment, but our state goverment has that under control.
I think that it is unfair to take that away from them, they are not ignorant people,and that is why we elect them..
BUT HEY, If you must pass this bill, I will be the one that puts your pictures,and names in my empty aquariums, and cages saying THESE ARE THE PEOPLE THAT TOOK NEMO, AND FLUFFY AWAY………………………………………..
Yours’ Truly,
Tim Kuzar
Owner of
Creatures Pet Store
Patton, P.A. 16668
Please join me in opposing, H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. This Bill is being advanced by powerful special interest groups and creates an unworkable process which is designed to fail. The government simply does not have the resources to evaluate the thousands of nonnative species already in this country for years and meet the unrealistic listing criteria and timeframes in the law, and such a process is unnecessary for controlling truly invasive species. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that banning the import, sale, and trade of the vast majority of these animals will have any positive effect on the economy, environment, or human or animal species’ health. In fact, if passed as drafted, H.R. 669 would destroy many families and businesses. It would have a decidedly negative impact on an already ailing economy by destroying a vital and growing industry at a time when our country is in need of jobs and growth.
Pet lovers such as myself support a legislative solution that targets species which may actually be invasive, rather than every species not originally native to the U.S., including thousands of species that have been in this country for decades without adverse impact. This Bill is a disaster to American business owners as well as pet owners who care deeply about their pets and face having to dispose of them because of a flawed law.
To OPPOSE HR669 Please go to http://www.nohr669.com
While I have not read all of this bill yet what I have read is scarry. that said I am still holding on my final opinion untill I have had a chance to read the rest. I personaly think from what I have read (others posts and from the bill) that this does need tobe shot down and the legacy revamped some. also I would like to note that because we have such varying eco systems in the united states a nationwide solution is impracticale and uninforcable. Most of this needs to be done at state and county levels using federal guide lines.
Also simple banning of species that have become a major problem in some areas will do little good and will only increase the problem. Many pet owners would rather release there pets to the wild were they atleast staqnd a chance then just hand them over for termination, as well as for other reasons.
This all said I still have not made up my mind and will not untill I have finished reading this bill threw and had a chance to digest it as well as I will read over the legacy act. Untill then I will deffantly watch whats going on with this bill, but I hold my final judgement.
I just want to reply to Anonymous, who stated:
“The bill specifies that animals that are already here, and are already imported, are NOT GOING TO BE BANNED.
What this bill DOES affect is import of completely unknown species. The bill requires that an unknown species that someone tries to import should be investigated before it gets into the country. ”
I have read the bill, and as I said I am no expert, but do not agree this is the intent of this law, at all.
There are provisions for the inclusion of animals that are already here and are “so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.” However, that is definitely open to interpretation and I wouldn’t take that to mean that animals already imported are safe, by any stretch (Burmese pythons come to mind). The mechanism by which animals are included or excluded by this legislation is the biggest problem with this bill.
And while people who currently own animals that end up being prohibited for import will be grandfathered in, the purchase, selling, or breeding of those species will no longer be permitted.
The intent behind the law is to protect native ecosystems, and I have no problem with that – but this piece of legislation is the wrong way to deal with that issue, in my opinion.
Lianne
As a well informed, long term small pet store employee I am terrified that this bill will go somewhere. Not only would I lose my job but my future career as an exotic veterinarian. This is everything I have fought so hard for, gone in an instant. Every animal I own would be put under this ridiculous scrutiny.
I can understand that this all started with the problem of excessively large species of exotic snakes in Florida but everything should be looked at state by state. These animals don’t cause these problems in a lot of states simply because they cannot handle our temperatures. A species is not just invasive if it originates from another country. Here in Utah there has been restrictions on boaters going to and from various local lakes because of invasions of barnacles from one to the other. Anything is non-native if removed from it’s natural territory to another.
Why not pay closer watch on animal wholesalers? Why do price lists have alligators, venomous snakes, cane/marine toads, and other dangerous animals? If a specialist with a permit is in need of one I am sure they will come to you. Why not take out the pet stores that sell wild caught animals? Even ball pythons which are widely bread in captivity are still being caught and sold for cheap. Talk about irresponsible.
The wrong questions were put into place and this is the horrible answer they came up with. Work with the USDA and get these animals regulated and pet suppliers scrutinized and licensed. If Petco can sell toxic cedar as “safe” animal bedding I’m sure they could squeeze through the gaps.
Typical Liberal alarmism.
Sure, HR 669 will allow you to keep your pets as stated in Section 3 subsection f even if they are put on the “Unapproved List”. But, what happens when those pets die? If no one is allowed to import them or breed them or transport them across state lines … what do you do if you want a new pet? Or, if your pet is still alive, how can you prove that you owned it before it was put on the “Unapproved List” … did you keep your receipt for your beta fish?
The organizations that wrote and are pushing this bill promote an agenda that seeks to end all pet ownership by the year 2050 … their rally cry is “One Generation and out” … looks like HR 669 will get them their wish if passed.
NO HR 669 … http://www.nohr669.com … Keep your pets.
If not trusting the gov’t to do the right thing is “liberal alarmism”, count me in!
Not for nothing, but there are a lot of animals that are taken from the wild, illgally smuggled into the country and then die, or are maimed in the process.
I have a tortoise native to South America that a previous owner could not care for, but this tortoise was hatched and raised in the
US. Red-footed tortoises have been bred for generations here in the US, but even so, I would rather see it in the wild where it belongs. And this goes for any animal that is not considered domesticated.
People who are keeping non-native animals should be registered/certified. And if my tort falls into this category, so be it.
This bill in my opinion would serve the greater good. The recent chimp attack on that woman’s face, countless “pet” bear attacks, etc proves my point.
Anyone who is a true specialist in the field of herpetology, would agree that if it is not 100% necessary to import an animal (such as ball pythons) that it shouldn’t be done. Why put strain on a wild population while there are many available right here in the U.S. that are captive bred, healthy and more suitable as a “pet”.
I understand NJ Tortoises concerns, however, the logic is flawed. The woman mauled in CT by the chimp, was voluntarily on the property and has worked with that animal countless times before. She was very familiar with the chimp. This simply equates to occupational hazard. No different than someone being injured by power tools on the job. I do, however, believe that the owner should pay all associated fees as a result of her animals’ actions.
Now, onto HR669. I operate a reptile rescue. This very legislation would prevent me from EVER being able to take in another homeless reptile. I wouldn’t be able to keep animals that I were called out to help police departments, etc. I also couldn’t find appropriate homes for those whom I’ve already rescued that fell into those categories.
NJ tortoise, I see FAR more abused and neglected reptiles every year than you would in a lifetime. The reality, however, is that it’s no different than the homeless dogs and cats strewn about because people don’t want to care for them. There are still MANY of us who take what we do seriously. With this legislation, as I plan to relocate to Florida, I would be unable to move these animals with me. I wouldn’t be able to forward them to another facility either. This equates to them being unnecessarily euthanized. That is simply preposterous!
Chris
My question is this, so who in their right mind is going to voluntarily give up their pets? Are we going to change from America to Nazi Germany over night with the police “raiding” houses who may harbor illegal animals? Making something illegal won’t stop people from owning them. Look at Pot, it is illegal and yet lots of folks here grow it, smoke it and buy and sell it. I won’t give my pets up and if I have to keep them in hiding I will. As for not crossing state lines, yeah whatever. So are the cops going to stop every single car on every single road and back road to check for critters? In Florida the state is so strapped for cash it is laying off cops and closing schools. It is already illegal to transport animals of any kind across state lines without health certificates but lots of folks do it. I live in an RV and I know folks from the north who bring citrus trees and plants across the state lines and take them home again year after year and this is very illegal. Florida forbids the import or export of citrus but snowbirds do it every year and are never stopped or searched. As for breeding them, who in their right mind will advertise they breed them? I won’t and if I know someone else who is trusted and I can swap with I will bootleg my critters. My critters are my family and I won’t let my family be taken and executed by some fascist regime even if it is my own government. I was going to wait to get a pair of snakes but looks like I should get a breeding pair and some rats and mice now before all this goes down. We need organized protests on this and some big name sponsors cos folks, money talks with DC. My 2cents for what it’s worth.
I think this could be a good bill, if were changed a little. There are numerous non-native species loose in the US harming our native flora and fauna. For instance, the Cuban Tree Frog. It has almost totally descimated the Green Tree Frog population in FL. Nothing eats these frogs, except maybe when they are tadpoles and they eat anything! I have many animals, including exotics that they would have to pry from my cold dead hands, but I do think that some kind of legislation would be good. There are countless idiots out there that when they can no longer care for there animal, just “set them free”. This should be stopped. There are no easy answers with this, but something should be done to protect our flora and fauna. Look at Gaum, as someone said something about it earlier. They practically have no birds left on their island because snakes were brought by accident in cargo holds. If they had more strict legislation 10 or 20 years ago, they would still have their birds. I’m not saying that this bill is the one we need, but we do need something.
Well Melinda, this bill was started by and is supported by the Humane Society of the United States. This is part of their plan to end pet ownership and liberate all animals. If HSUS and president Wayne Pacelle gets their way, we will no longer have pets and live in a 100 percent vegan nation. So yes, HSUS are nazis by dictating to America that their beliefs will be law.