A conservationist wrote to me to politely complain about my one-sided coverage of H.R. 669, specifically the issues that led to the proposed legislation. I previously wrote about H.R. 669, a piece of legislation designed to mitigate the risks of imported animals becoming invasive species. The problem that many see in the legislation is that it appears to leave room for many animals currently kept as pets to be banned -- I'm not saying that is the intention of the legislation, but it is worrisome on my (albeit legalese-challenged) reading of the bill.
In any case, I never meant to minimize the risks of exotic pets becoming invasive species, or the effects of the exotic pet trade on other conservation issues. You've probably seen me write about the importance of not releasing exotic pets, and the need to be responsible owners, before. So, in an attempt to show another side to H.R. 669 -- the rationale behind such legislation here are some links that were kindly suggested:
Comments
test
I work in wildlife rescue so I can certianly understand the issues that I think this bill is trying to address. People are always discarding unwanted animals. With easter just behind us the abandonement of chickens, ducks and rabbits will be high. I wish there was a way to restrict purchases of animals after I have spent a couple months fishing these dying animals from parks and lakes.
Saying that I have had run in with a few animal rights groups and I dont see a great love of animals I see a great need to control people. Having them take control of our pet ownership is scary. Our governement moves way to slow for these types of things!
I am looking for a place to read some really impartial content about the bill. How it will work hows its enforced, how the permitting process would work. Obviously the data put out by special interest groups is biased.
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 visit http://www.nohr669.com
The intent of the law is spot on. The importation and/or breeding of non-native species is detrimental to some degree. The question “To what degree?” might be a matter of contention, but the future degree is invariably, inarguably, worse.
Mr. Deupree, who are the “powerful special interest groups”? Your other arguments, that government does not have the resources, that this is designed to fail, and that people need jobs, are all suspect – if government does not have the resources now, but the problem will only get worse, how will the government have more resources in the future? This HR669 needs to go through many processes to improve it’s approach, so “designed to fail” seems premature at best. Finally, the argument “at a time when our country is in need of jobs and growth” is simply silly – should we legalize drug trafficking because people need jobs and money? Prostitution? Enforcement? It is time for us to think long-term, and short-term mistakes will not make long-term problems go away.
“Finally, the argument “at a time when our country is in need of jobs and growth” is simply silly – should we legalize drug trafficking because people need jobs and money? Prostitution?”
This statement is retarded, all the petcos and petsmarts that sell cichlids, and parrakeets, and hamsters, and all the food and housing items,etc….
What they all have to kill their livestock, and how can you sell supplies to house animals that are now illegal……and what…..is a gov’t official gonna come to my house and kill all the fish in my fishtank…..
This bill is so sweeping and all inclusive….there are hundreds of thousands of people with lovebirds, cockateils, and budgies…….you gonna go kill everybody’s pets……
“Hey you, with the parakeet……that’s an illegal animal……..you have to kill it…”
Yeah…….that’s conservation…..
I’ll say it again…..this bill is retarted…
I hope this passes, so people will stop breeding exotic pets to line their pockets. It is unethical and unnecessary. We as a nation don’t even take care of our domesticated cats and dogs. Look at the statistics of how many millions are euthanized every year because someone never bothered to follow through on their commitment to care for their pets. Exotic animals deserve to be left alone in the wild and not held captive just be ogled by curious onlookers, and then once the novelty wears off they are oftentimes neglected and/or abused or sold to another uneducated owner who can’t care for it properly. It is time to stop exploiting exotic animals.
By the way, the bill does not say that exotic animals currently kept as pets would be banned. You would not able to breed them, which is good for obvious reasons.
Loving it:
Yeah, you would not be able to breed them, and you wouldn’t ever be able to move out of state. And how are you supposed to supply for your animals? All pet businesses will most likely be out of business. And vet care will be almost impossible to find as well.
All nonnative species, or exotic pets, doesn’t mean monkeys, crocodiles, and huge boas. Virtually all birds, fish, reptiles, and small mammals will be banned from the pet trade (Which will hardly even exist if this bill is enacted). Its not like this bill only bans obscure species that are hard to take care of and are extremely sick due to being imported. This would ban pets that are embedded into society, and have already established captive breeding populations as well.
“Exotic animals deserve to be left alone in the wild and not held captive just be ogled by curious onlookers, and then once the novelty wears off they are oftentimes neglected and/or abused or sold to another uneducated owner who can’t care for it properly. It is time to stop exploiting exotic animals.”
I agree with you completely, but good pet owners don’t do this. If this was the Bill’s concern, than they should find a way to take action against neglectful pet owners, and not punish those who have never done anything wrong. I have three parrots. I assure you they receive just as much mental stimulation as they would if they lived in the wild and are perfectly happy. I provide them with huge cages, tons of out of cage time, tons of toys, and plenty of exercise. I don’t deserve to be effected by this Bill, and neither does anyone else who takes great care of their pets.
I also think that something should be done to stop the introduction of invasive species to the wild. But like I mentioned earlier, the actions taken should not take down the whole pet trade, and punish those who have never done anything wrong. The Bill states that if a species has established itself in the wild ANYWHERE in the United States, than that species if prohibited in the entire country. Why should a species that can only survive in Southern Florida be illegal in New York? That just doesn’t make sense. Especially since the Bill also forbids pet owners from moving from state to state with their exotic pets which they had before the Bill’s passing. If the Bill is passed, someone living in Southern Florida with a python that can only survive in that environment will be allowed to keep their pet since they had it before the Bill’s passing. But, they cannot move to New York where it will die if left outside overnight? That’s ridiculous.
I also don’t like that fact that if this Bill is passed, there are many species that will have a greater chance of becoming extinct. I can think of numerous species of parrots off of the top of my head that are near extinction, but the breeding of them for the pet trade in addition to breeding programs designed to save their species is really helping to raise their numbers. If this Bill is passed all breeding of exotic species will become illegal, and that will seriously decrease their species chance for survival. That’s what we need, to make breeding endangered animals illegal.
This Bill would inevitably do more harm than good. While I think what its trying to do is generally a good idea, the Bill does not go about it correctly.
Sample Letter: cut & paste
Subject: No on HR669
Dear Committee Member,
Please oppose HR669. It is a fundamentally flawed Bill written by a radical
environmentalist group that seeks to end the ownership and trade of all non-native
animals. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to justify the destruction of a Reptile
Industry that leads the world in producing and exporting high quality captive bred
reptiles. With the stroke of a pen thousands of small American family businesses would
be bankrupted overnight. With no quantifiable benefits, what could be the justification
to destroy a viable sector of the American economy in a time of hardship?
What will the additional drain on taxpayer dollars be to grow USFWS at unprecedented
levels in order to destroy American small business? These are not the “To big to fail”
corporate titans, but small family businesses with their entire net worth wrapped up in
their Reptile breeding projects and ancillary supporting businesses. A 3 billion dollar a
year industry would be wiped out by HR669. Thousands of American families would
suffer losing everything.
Trade in Reptiles and ancillary businesses is estimated to be a 3 billion dollar a year
industry.
More than 9 million Reptiles are exported from the US annually.
More than 11 million Reptiles are kept as pets in the US. That means 1 in 25
households have 1 or more Reptiles.
The US accounts for 82% of the worldwide trade in Reptiles.
At least 500,000 Americans would be negatively impacted by HR669. Thousands of
small family businesses would be destroyed.
There are approximately 4 million boas & pythons, as well as more than 7 million
geckos, lizards turtles & other Reptiles in captivity in the US today.
The United States Association of Reptile Keepers Opposes HR669.
Please oppose HR669! The costs to American Families would be enormous. The
benefits are both questionable and non quantifiable. NO ON HR669.
Sincerely,
(your name)
Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam)
427 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-5301
202/225-1188 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-0341 (Washington Fax #)
120 Father Duenas Ave., Suite 107
Hagatna, GUAM 96910
671/477-4272 (District Tel. #)
http://www.usark.org/uploads/hr669sample.pdf
Here’s an exert from USARK on the problems with H.R 669:
The Problem:
HR669 The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act is a federal Bill introduced to the US House of Representatives by Del Madeleine Bordallo. It was written by the Defenders of Wildlife (DOW) a radical environmentalist group. It is based on a report called ‘Broken Screens’ written by DOW and commissioned by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). It recommends a very prejudicial Risk Assessment procedure that takes a guilty until proven innocent approach to adding most non-native animals to the Injurious Wildlife List of the Lacy Act. In addition it recommends appropriating unprecedented amounts of taxpayer dollars to expand the size, scope and law enforcement role of USFWS.
If passed HR669 would end the import, export, purchase, sale, trade and breeding of most non-native animals. It would destroy a 3 Billion dollar a year Reptile Industry overnight. This is not an industry that is made up of corporate titans… just the opposite. The Reptile Industry is made up of Small American Family Businesses and Hobbyists. The underlying intent of HR669 is cast in the radical ideology of the Environmental and Animal Rights movement. It seeks to end the ownership and trade of all non-native animals and destroy American Families using the power of the federal government and our tax dollars to do it. This is NOT science… It IS Powerful Special interests manipulating our political system to their own ends. This is UNACCEPTABLE to USARK and the Reptile Industry.
National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species
THE FACTS VS. THE MYTHS
Why We Need H.R. 669
To Prevent Invasive Species
Our lakes, rivers, forests, and native organisms are threatened every day by the
worldwide movement of invasive species that spread disease, alter ecosystems, and cause
serious economic harm to industries and communities. H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife
Invasion Prevention Act, requires evaluation of nonnative animal species before allowing
them to be imported. Here are the facts compared to the myths about H.R. 669.
Myth: This bill is not necessary.
Fact: Hundreds of millions of animals are imported and traded each year in the U.S.
with little oversight, and at significant risk to people, native species, the
environment, and economic activity. The current system for restricting imports of
problematic species (the Lacey Act) takes years and typically occurs only after
substantial damage by the species has been done. H.R. 669 would prevent harmful
species from entering the country in the first place, taking a proactive approach to
protecting our nation’s resources and public health. Also, it would ensure that imported
organisms are properly and scientifically identified.
Myth: This bill is not based on science.
Fact: H.R. 669 requires a science-based evaluation of species to determine whether
they should be allowed or prohibited from importation and interstate commerce.
For over 20 years, scientists have urged the federal government to employ an analytical
process as the most effective means of preventing harmful invasive species from being
intentionally imported into the country. Scientists have developed rapid risk assessment techniques to differentiate between invasive and non-invasive species. By assessing the traits of a nonnative species, as well as the climate of its native range, any history of invasiveness, and other factors, wildlife biologists can determine whether importing a nonnative animal species into the country poses serious risks. See sections 3(c), 4 and 5 of the bill for more details.
Myth: All nonnative species will be banned.
Fact: H.R. 669 does not ban any species per se; rather, it establishes a science-based
process to analyze animal imports for their likelihood to cause harm to our economy, our health, our environment, or other animals. The evaluation process put in place by H.R. 669 will only prevent the importation of species that are judged to be a serious risk. Further, the bill requires that this process be transparent and that stakeholder input be considered in decision-making.
Myth: My pets will be taken away from me and possibly killed.
Fact: Any decisions to prohibit species’ import will not affect current pets or
domesticated animals. Under H.R. 669 all current pets, even those species that cannot
be imported in the future, may be kept by their owners. See section 3(f) of the bill for
more details. Domesticated animals, including those listed in Section 14 such as dogs,
cats, rabbits, horses, goldfish, and others identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would be exempt from the risk analysis process.
Why we DON’T need HR 669
“Our lakes, rivers, forests, and native organisms are threatened every day by the
worldwide movement of invasive species that spread disease, alter ecosystems, and cause
serious economic harm to industries and communities.”
-Really, how about some examples to back that up? Are they the result of the pet trade?
“Fact: Hundreds of millions of animals are imported and traded each year in the U.S.
with little oversight, and at significant risk to people, native species, the
environment, and economic activity.”
-And just what are all these significant risk? Again, nothing to back up your claim.
“The current system for restricting imports of
problematic species (the Lacey Act) takes years and typically occurs only after
substantial damage by the species has been done. H.R. 669 would prevent harmful
species from entering the country in the first place, taking a proactive approach to
protecting our nation’s resources and public health.”
-How do you prove a negative?
“Also, it would ensure that imported
organisms are properly and scientifically identified.”
-You don’t know much about taxonomy do you?
“Fact: H.R. 669 requires a science-based evaluation of species to determine whether
they should be allowed or prohibited from importation and interstate commerce.
For over 20 years, scientists have urged the federal government to employ an analytical
process as the most effective means of preventing harmful invasive species from being
intentionally imported into the country. Scientists have developed rapid risk assessment techniques to differentiate between invasive and non-invasive species. By assessing the traits of a nonnative species, as well as the climate of its native range, any history of invasiveness, and other factors, wildlife biologists can determine whether importing a nonnative animal species into the country poses serious risks. See sections 3(c), 4 and 5 of the bill for more details.”
-This is going to be done for over 10,000 species? Good luck with that.
Fact: H.R. 669 does not ban any species per se; rather, it establishes a science-based
process to analyze animal imports for their likelihood to cause harm to our economy, our health, our environment, or other animals. The evaluation process put in place by H.R. 669 will only prevent the importation of species that are judged to be a serious risk. Further, the bill requires that this process be transparent and that stakeholder input be considered in decision-making.”
-While this is being done, they are banned. Meanwhile all the breeders and importers go out of business.
Myth: My pets will be taken away from me and possibly killed.
Fact: Any decisions to prohibit species’ import will not affect current pets or
domesticated animals. Under H.R. 669 all current pets, even those species that cannot
be imported in the future, may be kept by their owners. See section 3(f) of the bill for
more details. Domesticated animals, including those listed in Section 14 such as dogs,
cats, rabbits, horses, goldfish, and others identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would be exempt from the risk analysis process.
-Cats and Dogs are some of the worst invasive species.
The Lacey Act, and various other laws, many at the state level, already control or limit the importation, ownership, and release of invasive animals. Why do we need federal interference?
Yes, FL needs laws to regulate Nile Moniters, Burmese Pythons, and several others. Similar regulations in Alaska are unnecessary. HI and Guam have very real concerns about imported animals, Ohio, not so much.
Dangerous invasive species are ALREADY controled. Giant African Land Snails (GALS), for example, are already controled/banned due to environmental/agricultural risks.
Why coat with national, bulky, and sweeping legislation something that is best handled at the state level due to individualized needs of distinct ecosystems? This is big government at its worst!
Also, this legislation only encourages the removal of exotic species from existing ecosystems. If people cannot have existing pet species due to this law, how difficult will it be for the states to enforce their own native animal protect laws against the will of the people to have exotic pets. The pressure is already great on some species (box and wood turtles, indigo snakes, gopher tortoises, etc). This law would eradicate those species on the black market (since I cannot imagind the Feds ever enforcing any part of this legislation other than banning imports at airports and harbors and shutting down buisnesses).
If this bill passes my wife will be out of a job because she works in the pet industry for one of the big chains so is the govnerment going to support her and the millions of others who will be out of a job because this is all most of them know how to do and even if this bill doesn’t effect the animals you do have the food supply will not be there for them to survive on for very long when the banned animals are no longer being sold so there will no longer be a need for it so what pets are still left will die of starvation and i know there is other food you can feed them but not everybody knows what is healthy for their pets
I’ve been looking into this bill, and it has some flaws. I do think that over-the-top rhetoric about the pursuit of happiness, government agents killing your pet fish, and complete decimation of the pet trade are not productive.
Invasive species are a huge problem. Fishermen catch Oscars in Florida. Red lined snakeheads breed in some areas, and destroy native species. Last year a local fisherman caught a pirannha from a lake near me–and I live in Michigan! The Great Lakes are overrun with invasive species. Most are hitchhikers in ballast water from ocean going ships, but some are from the pet trade.
If you want to do something constructive, contact your Congresscritter, not with shrill complaints of government running roughshod over your right to keep a snake, but with suggestions for amendments to protect the pet trade and individual pet owners and breeders, while still accomplishing the goal of keeping invasive species out of our ecosystems. These guys don’t listen to ranting, but they will pay attention to reasoned objections.
Go to http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ and look up your Congressman or Senator’s phone, email, and snail mail address. Call or write them, instead of complaining in an online forum. They listen, too, because they know that for every person who contacts them on an issue, there are many, many more who share those concerns, but simply do nothing about it. Your voice WILL have an effect. Snail mail letters are most effective because they know it takes time to write and mail one. Phone calls are next, and do get noticed. Email is okay. Signing online petitions is probably the least influential, due to how easy it is to do. The more time you devote to contacting them, the more influence you will have. Be polite, if you call have your talking points written down, check your mail messages for clarity and spelling. Make your point clearly and thank the staffer you talk to for listening.
So get to it!
Now you know why we have the NRA! We cannot ever regulate stupidity in America, so why let Morons in Washington keep taking away our freedoms? What has the Federal Government ever done right? Balance Its budget? Folks, lets not punish 99.9% of responsible pet owners or gun owners by enacting irresponsible legislation based on emotion and junk science. I don’t care to keep an Anaconda at my house, but that doesn’t mean my neighbor shouldn’t own one! Sound familiar? Same thing with an AK-47 or AR-15, if you don’t want to own one then don’t, but let your neighbor own them. Enacting irresponsible laws erodes our freedoms, period!