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

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
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?

2birds.jpg
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].
 
"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."

This is the Autobahn society horse crap. Yes cat eat birds but that would not be even a slight problem without habitat destruction. If we continue the habitat destruction the birds are dead any way, the rancor these feral homo sapiens direct at cats is a meaningless gesture.

The most invasive species is humans start limiting feral human breeding and all these problems go away.
 
so if this goes through how many of you are planning on moving abroad where we get to keep asian aros, snakeheads etc???
 
You need to email these people. You need to call there offices. We need to start
OPERATION MELT THE PHONES!!

This was done to try to oppose the Stimulus Act.

Get on every pet site. Explain what this is.

START OPERATION MELT THE PHONES!!

Not only will we have our hobby taking away BUT we will be paying more in tax dollars to make sure it is banned.

START MELTING THE PHONES!

Work the Republicans more on the business aspects of this. This will be a HUGE Hit to the ECONOMY! This will be crippling to states like Florida. Contact there representatives too.

MELT THE PHONES!!!
 
vladfloroff;2977537; said:


This is the Autobahn society horse crap. Yes cat eat birds but that would not be even a slight problem without habitat destruction. If we continue the habitat destruction the birds are dead any way, the rancor these feral homo sapiens direct at cats is a meaningless gesture.


Actually the "Autobahn" is a big highway in Europe. The "Audubun" is a society that's focus is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife. The information I posted came from the Pet Center.Com...a group of veterinarians.

Your suggestion of reducing "feral" humans was...kind of addressed...by a guy named Hitler. It ended up not being a plan that worked...or very popular. That's about the only thing the topic at hand and his vision have in common.

But on to the discussion at hand.
 
vladfloroff;2977537; said:
"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."

This is the Autobahn society horse crap. Yes cat eat birds but that would not be even a slight problem without habitat destruction. If we continue the habitat destruction the birds are dead any way, the rancor these feral homo sapiens direct at cats is a meaningless gesture.

The most invasive species is humans start limiting feral human breeding and all these problems go away.
You seem to be missing the point of why AquaMojo brought this up in the first place.
 
Jesse;2976977; said:
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.

Sorry my be i should have been more clear, research i have done so far says This means that if you own or plan on owning a hamster, gerbil, ferret, non native bird (ie- African Grey, amazon parrot, macaw, parakeet, cockatiel...), snake, fish (only goldfish allowed), reptiles (iguana, beared dragon, leopard gecko.....) and countless other animals including exotics such as chinchillas, degus, sugar gliders....these would be banned and you would have to show that you owned these prior to the bill going in effect to keep or they would end up where all the other ones waiting for homes would go --- killed!!!!

This also means that if you own any of the above you would not be allowed to breed these (even by accident - ie, hamsters). Any offspring would have to be destroyed.

This will also affect those animals awaiting adoption and other non-native wildlife currently held in captivity such as tigers, elephants, and monkeys that are being held in sanctuary's as well as marine life in aquariums. I am sure some Liberal jack started this bull they have nothing to do but to bush United States of America to Socialism.....
 
krichardson;2977777; said:
You seem to be missing the point of why AquaMojo brought this up in the first place.

Fair point, the feral humans comment was a matter of looking at the bigger problems like deforestation/habitat lose as opposed to cats or fish kept for pet purposes. I read an article a while back about how in South east Asia local fish were being intentionally wiped out with mustard cakes to make room for food fish, I think in TFH. If we make it more profitable to sell aquarists ornamental fish they will stop, or at least maintain protected non-food native stocks. If you educate humans they stop being feral.

If companies are making more money shipping rays to the US that growing agrocultural products on cut down rain foretsts then they will continue to do so, and keep the rain forest safe out of self interest. Greed has saved more environmental lands than any good intentioned stupidity.
 
I've contacted the scheduler for the distinguished congressman from my district. I encourage you to call, write or email your congressman. A petition is beneficial, but I have been informed by the pet industry lobby that a petition is usually viewed as one voice of opposition. Contact your Representative and voice your opinion.
 
OddBaller;2974789; said:
When your young and your not liberal... you have no heart... when your old and not conservative you have no brain... my .02

Do not steal from Churchill. lol

ewurm;2975573; said:
The issue is that the states already are governing themselves. Minnesota and Florida do not need the same laws pertaining to non-native species, because most of them can't survive here anyway. The same goes for any other state. If California, Florida, and Guam would like to toughen their laws, it's fine by me. They probably need it. As far as a sweeping ban on importing non-native animals and an approved "list", this list will be drafted by people who are not hobbyists and don't understand the industry. The hobby will virtually die in this country. The bill is poorly written and too broad to be of any value. It will cost millions to enforce while USFW is strained for resources. It's not a good bill even if you are a stringent conservationist.

ewurm;2978718; said:
I've contacted the scheduler for the distinguished congressman from my district. I encourage you to call, write or email your congressman. A petition is beneficial, but I have been informed by the pet industry lobby that a petition is usually viewed as one voice of opposition. Contact your Representative and voice your opinion.


This is straight Anti-Federalist movement. These are rights that should be reserved to the states.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com