This is insane!! Have they even considered the economic impact that this bill would have? Thousands of petstores nation-wide would be forced to close their doors and millions would be out of work. This would cause a huge chain reaction from the pet dealers all the way down to those that produce feed for the animals that would be banned. This is the first time I have ever cared about anything political like this. I have never sent a letter to a state representative or member of congress. I did today. I sent out a message to all 110 state representatives for my state encouraging them to vote no on this bill. Let this be a state level issue, not federal!!
HR 669 : CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING NONNATIVE SPECIES APRIL 23, 2009 ACTION NEEDED
- Thread starter neoprodigy
- Start date
Some true wisdom my friendCohazard;2998017; said:
I live in Ireland and I am really concerned for you guys. It will effect the availability of fish here too if it's passed as many fish come from asia through the States to get here. Although the effect won't last long as suppliers will just find new routes.
I sincerely hope your government takes into consideration the wonderful achievements in natural science and breeding of rare and endangered species that would not have been possible without the fish hobby in the USA.
If I could sign the petition I would but i'm not in the US. I don't subscribe to any religion, but doesn't mean I don't have any faith and I will be praying to god for you guys that this doesn't come to pass.
Regards
Jim Kelly
Hi Guys,
For those of you against HR669 I just posted a form letter on my mini web-site concerning this legislation.
Here it is, your welcome to use it if you don't have the time to draft your own.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to start by stating that my family, friends, and I are NOT in favor of The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, also known as HR669.
At first glance, the name of this piece of legislation sounds quite innocent. The word Non-Native leads people to believe it only concerns imported animals. The word Wildlife naturally makes people envision animals taken from the wild. Finally, Invasion Prevention well, who would argue with that nomenclature!
Consequently, the name of this legislation is very misleading. Many pet owners and breeders I have spoken to believe that their pets will not be affected. They dont realize parakeets, guinea pigs, tropical fish, whether captive-bred or wild-caught, are about to be banned if this legislation becomes law. This misinterpretation in itself will also drastically reduce the number of citizens that will speak out in protest of this issue!
Subsequently, many web-sites are misinforming the public about HR669. They encourage people to sign petitions and write the subcommittee members and their elected representatives to support HR669. This is a travesty that so many misinformed citizens are supporting an agenda they know so little about.
I agree that non-native animals, once established, can be problematic to fragile ecosystems. These fragile ecosystems are primarily located in isolated tropical regions where there are no or very limited natural predators (e.g.: Guam, Hawaii, etc ). These areas are often the easiest places for an introduced species to establish itself and thrive.
The continental United States is quite the different. No introduced species, except man, has caused the eradication or extinction of an entire species.
The Federal Government should not interfere in this matter. State Fish and Wildlife Departments are already responsible for protecting wildlife and law enforcement. Each state already has its own governing force enacting laws concerning both native and non-native species.
Federal legislation as proposed in HR669 is an extreme response and does not take into consideration the economic repercussions should it become law. Almost overnight importers, wholesalers, breeders, pet-shops, pet food manufacturers would be put out of business. Not to mention all of the support businesses such as transportation companies, distributors, publishers, internet companies, and office supply businesses that will be impacted. Millions of families and good working people will be affected. The plight of our struggling economy need not be worsened by enacting this legislation. Furthermore, it punishes law-abiding pet owners and the people who earn a living in the Pet Industry.
Please stand up for the people and vote NO on HR669. It is the right thing to do.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City-State-Zip Code
Telephone
Email
Here is a link to my mini web-site where you can find your representatives, the sub-comitte members, co-sponsors, this letter, PIJAC's Alerts...all of it.
http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R. 669.htm
If you don't agree, just don't use it...or your welcome to change it to suit your needs.
Thanks,
Dave
For those of you against HR669 I just posted a form letter on my mini web-site concerning this legislation.
Here it is, your welcome to use it if you don't have the time to draft your own.
Dear Sir or Madam,
I would like to start by stating that my family, friends, and I are NOT in favor of The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, also known as HR669.
At first glance, the name of this piece of legislation sounds quite innocent. The word Non-Native leads people to believe it only concerns imported animals. The word Wildlife naturally makes people envision animals taken from the wild. Finally, Invasion Prevention well, who would argue with that nomenclature!
Consequently, the name of this legislation is very misleading. Many pet owners and breeders I have spoken to believe that their pets will not be affected. They dont realize parakeets, guinea pigs, tropical fish, whether captive-bred or wild-caught, are about to be banned if this legislation becomes law. This misinterpretation in itself will also drastically reduce the number of citizens that will speak out in protest of this issue!
Subsequently, many web-sites are misinforming the public about HR669. They encourage people to sign petitions and write the subcommittee members and their elected representatives to support HR669. This is a travesty that so many misinformed citizens are supporting an agenda they know so little about.
I agree that non-native animals, once established, can be problematic to fragile ecosystems. These fragile ecosystems are primarily located in isolated tropical regions where there are no or very limited natural predators (e.g.: Guam, Hawaii, etc ). These areas are often the easiest places for an introduced species to establish itself and thrive.
The continental United States is quite the different. No introduced species, except man, has caused the eradication or extinction of an entire species.
The Federal Government should not interfere in this matter. State Fish and Wildlife Departments are already responsible for protecting wildlife and law enforcement. Each state already has its own governing force enacting laws concerning both native and non-native species.
Federal legislation as proposed in HR669 is an extreme response and does not take into consideration the economic repercussions should it become law. Almost overnight importers, wholesalers, breeders, pet-shops, pet food manufacturers would be put out of business. Not to mention all of the support businesses such as transportation companies, distributors, publishers, internet companies, and office supply businesses that will be impacted. Millions of families and good working people will be affected. The plight of our struggling economy need not be worsened by enacting this legislation. Furthermore, it punishes law-abiding pet owners and the people who earn a living in the Pet Industry.
Please stand up for the people and vote NO on HR669. It is the right thing to do.
Sincerely,
Name
Address
City-State-Zip Code
Telephone
Here is a link to my mini web-site where you can find your representatives, the sub-comitte members, co-sponsors, this letter, PIJAC's Alerts...all of it.
http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R. 669.htm
If you don't agree, just don't use it...or your welcome to change it to suit your needs.
Thanks,
Dave
Since when did a lack of funds prevent the local government from doing any job? LOL Not like the country is swimming in the black right now. In the end, IF THEY CHOSE to make it an issue...you and I pay for it with taxes. Just like if it passes and they have to do that research...WE PAY with taxes...or more money borrowed from China.ewurm;2996246; said:
Have to agree 100% Camphilophus....even saying that $hit out loud is wrong.Acestro;2998162; said:and this is exactly the attitude that is leading us down the wrong path.
if you guys havent seen this page yet check it out. go to where is says "do something now" and fill it out. http://www.nohr669.com/index.htm
Geez in times like theese thaey wanna chop the pet industry up and cut how many jobs. the fact of the matter is every species has the potential to cause huge environmental implications.
Anyhw hope this bill gets scrunched up and used as toilet paper!
Anyhw hope this bill gets scrunched up and used as toilet paper!
More highhanded top-down thinking coming out of our more-often-than-not useless government.
The widlerness is property of its respective owners. If it happens to be "public" land (read: socialism), it either suffers from a trajedy of the commons or is forcefully regulated under some vague notion of some sort of communal ownership (read: communism). Claiming risk to a local ecosystem is not sufficient reason to attempt to limit the liberties of people whom you are supposedly serving.
If my opinion matters at all, the government needs to just shut up, prevent violent crime and build some roads (if it can be said to have a legitimate role at all in a civilized society). My tanks, or what I keep in them, is not of their concern. As long as I do not clearly violate the liberties of another, there is no logical reason to attempt to restrict my freedom. Period.
"There is no such thing as the right to vote away the rights of another." -Unknown
The widlerness is property of its respective owners. If it happens to be "public" land (read: socialism), it either suffers from a trajedy of the commons or is forcefully regulated under some vague notion of some sort of communal ownership (read: communism). Claiming risk to a local ecosystem is not sufficient reason to attempt to limit the liberties of people whom you are supposedly serving.
If my opinion matters at all, the government needs to just shut up, prevent violent crime and build some roads (if it can be said to have a legitimate role at all in a civilized society). My tanks, or what I keep in them, is not of their concern. As long as I do not clearly violate the liberties of another, there is no logical reason to attempt to restrict my freedom. Period.
"There is no such thing as the right to vote away the rights of another." -Unknown
