HR 669 : CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING NONNATIVE SPECIES APRIL 23, 2009 ACTION NEEDED

[oddballer]

This bill is being pushed mainly by Democrats supporting the Animal Rights Group.

If it passes in the US it will be pushed in many Western countries including Canada.

I supported groups who have fought against similar restrictions in Ontario. Canada (Milton 2004 and Toronto 2000). The Milton one would have restricted anyone to owning more than 2 individuals of any animal group. Which would have restricted residents to 2 fish, 2 birds, 2 dogs, 2 cats, 2 reptiles etc.

Both were defeated because lawyer hobbyists (who owned birds) acted on our behalf for free to fight and either defeat most proposals or at least get amendments which allowed us to remain status quo. The reptile hobbyists however were placed with restrictions in both cases.

I don't know if any lawyer/hobbyists in the US would be willing to help but without their assistance, smarts and knowledge of the legal system it will be a tough go.

I found in both instances the strongest group that fought this were bird owners and without their participation I feel that both areas would have lost.

Americans please take this very personal.

This if passed will affect every type of pet we own such as birds, reptiles, mammals etc, not just our beloved fish. We can be tough and say we will go underground if this bill is passed, but unfriendly neighbors, large fines and jail might quickly change our will.

Their plan will be to appear to give us concessions by allowing us to keep the pets we own but not allow us to replace them when they pass away.

Remember the animal rights groups do not want us to have ANY PET.

If they win this one it might be only the first knife to be thrust into our ribs by them.

When your young and your not liberal... you have no heart... when your old and not conservative you have no brain... my .02

 

[T1KARMANN]

do you think this has anything to do with the out brake of snakeheads that have found their way into the US water ways

i can understand a ban on some types of fish as their are many tank busters that come on to the market that most people just cant house

TSN,RTC,silver aros black aros arapima just to name a few and some rays to some extent some of the hotter states already ban some of the fish named (i think)

but i don't feel all tropical fish should be banned

 

[stealthops69]

yes. the just put a bill into congress about not being able to have your own garden in your back yard bs. and all farms would be shut down basicly, except the big boys.

 

[stealthops69]

Hack politicians,cant help save the country from financial collapse so they make a name for themselves by attacking the pet industry.What will they go after next,imported foods?

yes. the just put a bill into congress about not being able to have your own garden in your back yard bs. and all farms would be shut down basicly, except the big boys.

 

[Allan01230]

A-holes can't balance damn budget or fix real promblems so lets lose all our money in the stock market. But lets make sure no 4 inch max size plecos are brought in to the U.S. Not just the pet industry all U.S. citizens should be outraged that our country is falling apart in its infustructure and opur great politicians are worried about pet fish. CRAZY!

 

[sas853]

if this is seriously pass from the court...just try to buy as much as you guys can...and breed out of them...
no offense but where is the freedom that you guys got?? you guys blame china for freedom...you guys are getting similar things now...**** man...even little innocent creatures want to be controlled by the government...what else they want to control more from you guys..I feel really sad for u guys if this really Act will pass

 

[redwine]

Stop interfering in my hobby. Choosing what type of fish that I may want to import and/or purchase is my business, not yours. Let the market place decide what I should or should not enjoy and/or purchase.

 

[viking252200]

Sections 3(b)(4) through (10) incorporate the subjective, non-scientific standard of “likelihood” for determining the probability that a species will become established, spread, do harm, or be accompanied by a “pathogenic species, parasite species, or free living species…” Does “likelihood” connote some level of probability – a specific statistical term – or is it merely a subjective conclusion that something might establish, spread, cause harm or be accompanied with parasites? The mere presence of parasites or
other associated organisms is not necessarily problematic. Furthermore, an extremist could argue that any species has some probability of establishing somewhere in the U.S. given the right ecological conditions and propagule pressure. If that probability in scientific risk-based terms presents a negligible risk, how is it assessed under the “likelihood” doctrine? What methods would be used to determine or score “likelihood?”

Reading this and remembering the "great snakehead" scare, could anyone tell me about the present situation?..have snakeheads taken over every pond, lake, stream and river in the US?

I goggled it, and lo and behold..while it has apparently established small populations a few places, it has not had the impact on the native wildlife
everyone expected.....and this was supposedly the "ultimate" invasive species!

IMO, this just goes to show how little the so called "experts" really know about this.

A species may have an impact on a local area, but then let that area decide...I mean banning a bird, a fish or any other kind of animal,because it can live outside captivity in FL..OK that MAY be the way to deal with that "problem", but banning the same animals in Alaska, where they would surely parish, makes no sense...

 

[MadRussian79]

Stop interfering in my hobby. Choosing what type of fish that I may want to import and/or purchase is my business, not yours. Let the market place decide what I should or should not enjoy and/or purchase.

And here is why the proponents are going batty about the whole thing. Certain animals should not be owned without special training and permit. You as an untrained private citizen can not ensure that this animal is safe for the general population. Therefore I do support banning some animals, but only specific animals (not groups) that either pose a substantial risk to the community at large, or to the eco system. Banning all snake heads is dumb, but trusting the average jo jackass aquarist with what every he/she can get is equally bad. It's this trust in ignorant or malicious idiots that allowed such a law to even be considered. Unfortunately when people get the crap scared out of them they over react , wild/ semi feral pythons and wild snake heads scare the crap out of people.

In an ideal world I'd actually agree with you. No one get animals they can not keep safely and stupid laws are not passed. When you find this place let me know and I'll give you a fat finders fee.

 

[MadRussian79]

I goggled it, and lo and behold..while it has apparently established small populations a few places, it has not had the impact on the native wildlife
everyone expected.....and this was supposedly the "ultimate" invasive species!

Really I got the impression that where they were established they did batter the carp out of native species, just not the expected "Walking Fish Pandemic" predicted.