NO HR 669 HOW MANY OF YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS Bill they are trying to get through
it will effect everyone. Some of the local pet shops (Oregon) have expressed concern to me over this bill, where they laughed at some of the previous legislation attempts. Their supply houses have expressed their concerned to them. Also this would give more strength to the local state agencies to regulate the remaining animals within their state. There seems to be more blind one sided support for this bill than in the past.
On 11-Apr-09, at 11:23 AM, Marcia S wrote:
IF WE DO NOTHING THEN WHAT
I was sent a link to this video about HR669 (made by the reptile community). Might be a good link to send to all of your pet-owning friends as it addresses the issue from a pet-owner perspective and is a little more entertaining than the normal legal alerts. I have found that people are more interested in clicking on a YouTube link than reading a long legislative alert.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FPfL212CB8
Remember, there is full information about this alert on the NFSS website (www.nfss.org) including a link to the capwiz tool (http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/home/). I have posted links to the video and to capwiz on my Facebook page and have had some of my friends e-mail me privately that they have used the capwiz tool - even people I wouldn't have thought to ask (and I don't have many friends who use Facebook) - so this may be a good way to get the word out on a larger scale for those of you on Facebook or other social networking sites.
Please continue to spread the word.
NO HR 669 HOW MANY OF YOU HEARD ABOUT THIS
I read the actual bill and it is geared, not towards hamsters and budgies, but INVASIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES . Most of our average pet trade animals will be exempt. Instead, think snake head catfish in the Midwest, starlings all over rthe country (they started as 4 pairs in Central Park) or pythons in Florida. These animals have been released intentionally into the wild or escaped and caused many, many problems. I think perhaps, we need to be more cautious with our wildlife.
It is geared towards banning ALL reptiles and amphibians, and various other non-native species. I have already sent my letter to my representative and recommend others do the same. They plan on banning first, THEN researching to decide if the species is a potential problem or not. This is another attempt by PETA and various other special interest groups to eventually outlaw the ownership of most if not all animals. There are other ways to do this WITHOUT banning all non -natives first! This is a red herring attempt at banning exotics, and not just the species that could possibly harm our environnment. Edited to sound less aggressive ; )
This message was edited Apr 15, 2009 2:11 PM
I am bumping this because it happens to be something I feel very passionate about.
I will look into this. I own frogs and geckos. What a shame.
the snakehead use to be legal to own as a pet in NYS
they changed the law a few years ago
A guy in Syracuse had bought one when it was legal
raised it
had a HUGE custom tank made for it
The DEC found out he had it and went in there and TOOK the fish
It was like the police just coming in and taking your dog
No choice
no way to get the fish back
the goverment is trying to regulate everything to do with animals
PETA backed legislation
Right now NYS is trying to pass legislation to outlaw tail docking on boxers, dobies...etc,
They have not taken it yet. They want to though. If something like that fish ever was set into our ecosystem it would reak havok. If it found a viable mate that is.
The guy who owns it has made up Tshirts and everything. That is a sticky wicket there. I can see both sides. Others may take him keeping that fish as a sign that they too can own an illegal species. It is illegal for a reason though.
Why does someone want or need to own a snake head catfish? Isn't a regular catfish good enough?
There was a Tv station that hd information about it Here is the link for you
Susan here is the link to the story thought you would like to check it out. I haven't read it just found it by going to the
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread454563/pg1
Jyl why does anyone want to own a silkie? Or a barred rock? Isn't a rhode island red good enough?
Listen, I have NO problem with them deciding with good cause that a particular breed of species will or can wreak havoc and decide to outlaw its introduction into the US. However, to ban all non-natives first, is obviously the biggest issue here. It gives PETA the upper hand, and makes it more difficult for those hobbyists to turn an initial ban around.
I don't know.. I read the bill. I think this is one of those things that can be easily misconstrued. I rather not go by what someone else has said about the bill, but rather, my own thoughts on it.
Here is a link to the bill, not a media story about it.
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf
To understand the full impact of a bill, sometimes one has to be on the other side of it. Besides, if they were really worried about our ecosystem, then maybe they would deal with the bigger and more destructive issues like habit destruction and land encroachment. Or, maybe pollution in the waterways and air. What would really be ironic, would be that after we completely destroy all viable habitats and kill off all the local residents, that the only ones left would turn out to be introduced. Now that would be a sad finding, but not surprising. Oh well, I guess I'd rather have another Wal-Mart or mini-mall then a kick- butt Malaysian Leaf frog. : (
Patchouli, I've thought a lot about the response of silkies over Rhodie's etc. I guess it really wouldn't matter to me whether I had silkies or Rhodie's or whatever as long as they laid eggs and were not a danger to the environment. I'm a wildlife rehabber and I work with animals every day. I've rescued many, many "pet" animals too. I currently own a cockatoo, hamster, hermit crabs and a skink that have all been rescued from less than ideal conditions. What prompted my original comment was looking at the U Tube against the bill. I featured a reptile "collector" who had plastic drawer after drawer after drawer of reptiles, literally hundreds, each one kept in a sterile plastic box. Why? Living things should not be considered collectibles.
I have gone on many rescues where the pet owners had exotic animals, often way too many, and could not or were not providing adequate habitat for the animals or reptiles to have a quality life. It's so sad.
I realise that not all exotic pet owners are this way, but have seriously begun to question the morality of keeping many of these animals. Why does anyone need to keep a lion or a camin or a even catfish that will potentially grow to be several pounds, especially in a household situation. While these animals may be technically well cared for in clean, sanitary conditions and have an adequate diet, do they have a quality life?
I in no way, support PETA or any of the other groups and am all for having pets and livestock. I just think we need to evaluate why we want a certain pet ( is it an ego thing to own something unusual) and what kind of life can we provide for it, before we go out and get one. We also have to be realistic and consider what this animal may do environmentally if it escapes or is released. There are way too many people who tire of a pet and release it. I know this for a fact and have chased everything from iguannas to marmosets in places they do not belong. If people will not regulate themselves, then maybe the government has to step in.
Although I do agree with many of your points, I cannot say that I believe the government needs to step in. (Quite frankly, I think they are already too involved) I believe it should be a state by state matter. Obviously, if this has to do with how animals are being treated, then maybe licensure or permits should be part of the program. This is supposed to be about invasive species, meaning non-native species that can possibly overtake and destroy if released into the wild. I know they have a good idea of what species are causing the problems, and what states these are happening in. The wording of the bill is problematic for me. Almost every species in the pet trade is non-native. Only dogs, cats, and some farm animals are exempt. I think feral cats are by far one of the most problematic species in our country, but no one is banning owners from having cats that are not spayed or neutered. Agreed about the lion ect, but we're also talking about animals that have been captive bred for years, very commonly sold here, being banned. I think people that take care of their animals, and really enjoy owning herps, ect are really going to be affected by this. For some people their chickens bring them pleasure, for others it's their dog. By the same token, we would all be greatly upset (at least I would), if the government decided that since some chicken owners kept their chickens in less than good confinement, none of us could have chickens anymore. There is another way, a better way to do this, and I guess that's the point. That's what I told my rep. This particular bill is being backed by these groups for a reason. They need to do some changes, rewording. Sorry if this post is a little hard to follow, I am getting a little tired.