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

ewurm

Aimara
MFK Member
Jan 27, 2006
28,476
76
132
15
*
Email from Marshall Meyers, Head of the Pet Industry Joint Action Council:

"I will be one of the 4 invited witnesses not in Federal Government.
The most important steps that need to occur ASAP
1. People need to contact via mail, FAX and/or email their comments
2. They also need to contact the subcommittee members district offices to
a. let the District Offices know their concerns because they are they people who are on the ground within the district and most likely to get the message through to key staff in DC and to the Member
b. request a face to face meeting with the member when they are in the District
3. The Spring Break is about to occur and many members will hold town hall styled meetings. People need to attend and ask them questions re HR 669 and see how they respond and if they really understand the implications of the bill

Letters in opposition from thousands of people, especially constituents, need to be recevied by their offices not delivered by me if want greatest impact.

Quite honestly, petitions have little affect and are normally treated as one opposition.

ANOTHER issue is convincing people that most of the species in their possession are nonnatives. Amazing how many people are confused by fact animals born here are nonnative! Also, people mislead by arguments that this only affects "IMPORTED nonnatives." What they need to understand is that one lists become effective, possession of nonnatives not appearing on the Approved (Clean) List can not be bred, sold, moved interstate, etc.

Attached is a revised PetAlert. We will also be producing a simplified PetAlert addressing some of issues above for pet owners and people not as familiar with the Lacey Act as commercial dealers.
Thanks and let's keep in touch.
Marshall
PS Can talk over weekend if want."

We all need to contact the subcommittee members regarding our stance. I will be posting the contact information for the subcommittee.
 

xdragonxb0i

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Feb 23, 2009
926
1
0
Arkansas
krzr3000;2975545; said:
Agreed on both counts.

I think think this may be a bit extreme, but something has to be done. The damage is done and will continue. And its a pretty effective solution to take these animals out of the hands of many everyday newbies. I think besides the negative economic issues associated with this, we need a bigger argument than just our desire to keep animals in glass tanks.
The pet industry is devastating to wild populations (collecting), native populations (illegally releasing)...and is characterized by lots of unnecessary negative attention.

How many people have been killed or almost killed by someone burmese python? Had their face disfigured by a primate? Were those even cases of "irresponsible" owners? Probably not...its the fact its a potentially deadly animal...

I'm not for this as i think there are way bigger related issues out there, but i would like to see something done. Not like its going to happen anyways...
Isnt a diamond back, or any poisonous snake more dangerous then a burmese python? large ones that can kill people are large, and move slowly.

If this bill pass. anything non-native animal that is not on the Approved list will be banned, until someone fight for a species to be added into the list.

IMO this bill is crap, the current approved list has some of the most invasive species.
We should be concerned with controling feral cats and wild dogs, not what an animal can do. Because any animal can kill and affect an eco system.
 

CichlidsRool

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Feb 27, 2008
607
2
0
56
TUJUNGA,CA.SOCAL.
Acestro;2976257; said:
LOL, there are serious invasive pests on that 'allowed' list!!! Pigs are HORRIBLE invasives. More destructive than 99% of the fish they'd ban.
lol!!!!! i cant imagine no more pets bro.... here check this out....see how much we love our pets...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw
 

Cholly

Gambusia
MFK Member
Mar 1, 2009
580
5
16
Metro Atlanta
More than half of the animals on the "approved" list are banned inside many city limits and I didn't see anything providing for zoos or public aquariums. This bill is garbage.
 

Jesse

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Mar 30, 2005
1,123
1
0
55
CichlidsRool;2975724; said:
ok check this out.ON April 23rd 2009 The Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669, a resolution that will in effect ban importation, interstate transport and the private ownership of most birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish as pets. Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following nonnative animals
would be allowed:

any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or *** (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)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Should this resolution be adopted into law as written it will have a devastating impact on every pet owner and business in the United States. Action is needed TODAY to protect your rights to keep your pets!
You're misreading the proposed statute. Those species would be statutorily exempt from regulation. The USFWS would be required to promulgate regulations listing "approved species." The determination of what species would ultimately be listed in the "approved species" list to would depend on public input and the factors set forth in the proposed statute.

IMO, this a completely asinine way to regulate. It reminds me of Australia, which has a similar regulatory scheme. Given that potentially harmful non-native species comprise a small percentage of total non-native species, it makes vastly more sense to regulate by listing the few prohibited species, i.e., the current Lacey Act regulatory scheme, than to list each and every conceivable harmless approved species. Australia has a similar regulatory scheme to what is proposed w/ HR 669 and it's a complete clusterf**k. Datnoids are illegal in Australia, not because they are potentially harmful to the local biota, but because someone neglected to put them on the approved species list. If HR 669 is passed, USFWS will have its hands full compiling a list of the hundreds of thousands of harmless "approved" species. It will be an implementation nightmare. :(

Imagine if controlled substances were regulated in the same manner. Law enforcement agencies would have to memorize an exhaustive list of every "approved" substance, rather than memoraizing a much shorter list of prohibited substances.
 

bornasghost

Jack Dempsey
MFK Member
Aug 15, 2008
62
0
36
Saginaw, mi
umm...yeah, for the people who say this is good...then why arent they starting from the bottom, and finding listing these "harmful" species first. so far, theyve banned everyhting....except farm animals for obvious reasons and cats and dogs. for one thing....i bet cats send more people to the doctor for infections and **** than any of these other things have done to people. and what about pigs...those things will eat any and everything....god damn...we're ****ed.
 

AU_Arowana-RG

Fire Eel
MFK Member
Oct 27, 2008
1,106
9
68
Cebu, Phillipines
Great. First Rocky and now THIS!?

There IS a reason why I call people like them ****HEADS!!!

That said, this sucks. This bill will hopefully NOT PASS because if it did, we'd have a lot of crap. I mean come on, we've got more issues coming out of our domestics rather than our exotics, why ban the exotics? This is senseless #%@%$#%$@%$#%@^$ and is so UTTERLY ****HEADED that some elements of the American Government are losing my respect, FAST.
 

Aquamojo

Silver Tier VIP
MFK Member
Dec 28, 2003
3,726
1,797
1,304
NE Pennsylvania
www.aquamojo.com
Gr8KarmaSF;2974219; said:
For the most part I agree with you BUT you might want to look up Guams role in our history books. It was very strategic in winning several wars. Puhlease....

Not to be off topic, but being a History major I am fully aware of Guam's role in the major wars. Russia was also an integral partner in us winning WWII. As were quite a few other countries. Our recapturing of the Island from Japan was integral, giving us an ideal location(because of it's ability to base our battleships) for taking back the Philippines, Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands.

I was stationed there while in the Army. Beautiful Island...nice people...but it ain't New York City.

My comment was tongue in cheek. Lighten up.
 

Aquamojo

Silver Tier VIP
MFK Member
Dec 28, 2003
3,726
1,797
1,304
NE Pennsylvania
www.aquamojo.com
A post or so ago I mentioned cats and dogs and their impact on the environment. I just went to one site and copied this regarding cats. In my opinion, items like this have as much, if not more of an impact on our communities than do keeping a tank full of fish:

How many cats are there in the United States?

The estimated numbers of pet cats in urban and rural regions of the United States have grown from 30 million in 1970 [2] to 60 million in 1990 [3]. These estimates are based on U.S. Census data and include only those cats that people claim to "own" as pets, not cats that are semi-wild or free-ranging. Nationwide, approximately 30% of households have cats. In rural areas where free-ranging cats are usually not regarded as pets, approximately 60% of households have cats. In the state of Wisconsin alone, with approximately 550,000 rural households, the number of rural free-ranging cats (not house pets) may be as high as 2 million [4]. The combined total of pets and free-ranging cats in the U.S. is probably more than 100 million. Because of their close association with humans, most of these cats are concentrated in areas where people live rather than in remote undeveloped areas.

The legal status of domestic cats

The laws that relate to domestic cats vary by local government. In most areas, the person who provides care for a cat is legally responsible for its welfare and control. As with other domestic animals, if ownership can be established by collars or other means of identification, a cat is considered personal property [5]. It is usually the responsibility of the owner to control the cat's movements. In most areas, cats can be live trapped and either returned to the owner or turned over to authorities if they wander onto other peoples' property. Many municipalities have leash laws and require vaccination and neutering of pet cats. Because laws vary, one should check local ordinances for the appropriate way to deal with stray cats.

What effects do domestic cats have on wildlife?

Although rural free-ranging cats have greater access to wild animals and undoubtedly take the greatest toll, even urban house pets take live prey when allowed outside. Extensive studies of the feeding habits of free-ranging domestic cats over 50 years and four continents [6] indicate that small mammals make up approximately 70% of these cats' prey while birds make up about 20%. The remaining 10% is a variety of other animals. The diets of free-ranging cat populations, however, reflect the food locally available.

Observation of free-ranging domestic cats shows that some individuals can kill over 1000 wild animals per year [7], although smaller numbers are more typical. Some of the data on kills suggest that free-ranging cats living in small towns kill an average of 14 wild animals each per year. Rural cats kill many more wild animals than do urban, or suburban cats [8]. Several studies found that up to 90% of free-ranging rural cats' diet was wild animals, and less than 10% of rural cats killed no wild animals [9]. Recent research [10] suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year. The most reasonable estimates indicate that 39 million birds are killed in the state each year. Nationwide, rural cats probably kill over a billion small mammals and hundreds of millions of birds each year. Urban and suburban cats add to this toll. Some of these kills are house mice, rats and other species considered pests, but many are native songbirds and mammals
whose populations are already stressed by other factors, such as habitat destruction and pesticide pollution.

Despite the difficulties in showing the effect most predators have on their prey, cats are known to have serious impacts on small mammals and birds. Worldwide, cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause, except habitat destruction. Cats are contributing to the endangerment of populations of birds such as Least Terns, Piping Plovers and Loggerhead Shrikes. In Florida, marsh rabbits in Key West have been threatened by predation from domestic cats [11]. Cats introduced by people living on the barrier islands of Florida's coast have depleted several unique species of mice and woodrats to near extinction [12, 13].

Not only do cats prey on many small mammals and birds, but they can outnumber and compete with native predators. Domestic cats eat many of the same animals that native predators do. When present in large numbers, cats can reduce the availability of prey for native predators, such as hawks [14] and weasels [15].

Free-ranging domestic cats may also transmit new diseases to wild animals. Domestic cats have spread feline leukemia virus to mountain lions [16] and may have recently infected the endangered Florida Panther with feline panleukopenia (feline distemper) and an immune deficiency disease [17]. These diseases may pose a serious threat to this rare species. Some free-ranging domestic cats also carry several diseases that are easily transmitted to humans, including rabies and toxoplasmosis [18].

Domestic cats vs. native predators

Although cats make affectionate pets, many domestic cats hunt as effectively as wild predators. However, they differ from wild predators in three important ways: First, people protect cats from disease, predation and competition, factors that can control numbers of wild predators, such as bobcats, foxes, or coyotes. Second, they often have a dependable supply of supplemental food provided by humans and are, therefore, not influenced by changes in populations of prey. Whereas populations of native predators will decline when prey becomes scarce, cats receiving food subsidies from people remain abundant and continue to hunt even rare species. Third, unlike many native predators, cat densities are either poorly limited or not limited by territoriality [19]. These three factors allow domestic cats to exist at much higher densities than native predators. In some parts of rural Wisconsin, densities of free-ranging cats reach 114 cats per square mile. In these areas, cats are several times more abundant than all mid-sized native predators (such as foxes, raccoons, skunks) combined. With abundant food, densities can reach over 9 per acre, and cats often form large feeding and breeding "colonies" (81 cats were recorded in one colony, and colonies of over 20 are not uncommon) [20, 21]. Unlike some predators, a cat's desire to hunt is not suppressed by adequate supplemental food. Even when fed regularly by people, a cat's motivation to hunt remains strong, so it continues hunting [22].
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store