HR 669 - Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act

[Eric Adrignola]

You are correct. The higher up you go in government, the more removed it gets from it's funding (taxpayers), and the more lofty their goals. The higher up in government, the more they want to do, and the less accountable they are with the funds.

The military is a good example - 100% necessary, but wasteful in ways you woudl not want to imagine. They hired Blackwater contractors for hundreds of thousands of dollars each - and there's a financial reason to do so - it's cheaper to hire oen of them than it is to field a soldier making around $30,000 a year.

Now, take that same wasteful nature, and apply it to other things - all of which are less necessary than the military - and you have it.

The activist branch of the government wants to control and ban. This will not work,and it will infringe (it's not a coincidence that I'm using the word) on the rights of the law-abiding majority. Again, the slimebags of today who cheat you on reptiles and engage in illegal activities are the problem - and they, as criminals, do not pay attention to laws. Do you seriously think someone selling snakes that are illegal NOW will care if they're illegal later?!?!?

We all hate to see exotic animals treated as they are in most pet stores. I say, enact laws that REQUIRE adequate care of all species sold at pet stores. NO liscenses, no fees, no permits - but maybe fines. You could get in trouble for having too many fish or mice in a tank - why not simply apply it to all animals?

Maybe, a group of volunteers could put together a set of conditions, based on species, that should be maintained. This could be applied to pet stores selling exotics, to try to at least, maybe, give them a better environment at the stores.

It woudl be a pain, as most people doing the current policing are whackos,a nd will complain on any pet store for any reason. But it's not going to hurt anyone directly.

At the pet store I worked in in Raleigh, years ago, we had a crazy lady that woudl come in and flip out on the craziest things - the rat's were DYING of thirst, drinking so heavily, and their water bottles were ONLY HALF FULL!!!!! She cursed me out on my first day because of it.... as I was in the process of filling them all the way up.

 

[chequepoint]

The scary part is, I have a feeling that a re-written, acceptable bill to most will still ban chameleons.
Anything done at the federal level is going to effect all states, on the needs of one or two.. SO because chameleons are invasive in hawaii and florida.. bye bye chameleons. Best case they'll be regulated to that "Medium" threat level and require permitting that will take them out of most of our hands.

 

[Syn]

They've already established themselves there. Are they harming the environment that much?

 

[chequepoint]

Harming? are any of these invasive species harming the environment? Other than humans..

They're certainly changing it.. thats what this is really about, as humans we have a way we like things to be, and we need the environment to suit our needs. Any change or deviation from the plan causes panic.

Wild chameleon populations will devastate certain insect populations, which in turn will affect whatever was previously eating those insects less efficiently.. which could impact whatever was eating that, etc.

Even if we haven't identified what the change is, I'm sure its there. Is that change bad? Depends on your perspective I guess. There are some that would tell you any change is bad.

 

[warpdrive]

here is an update to HR669....
no, it's not over, it's just the begining.

http://nohr669.com/blog/?p=223


Harry
---------------------

Today, HR 669 picked up 4 more co-sponsors including a Republican from Florida. Most people aren’t surprised by this, and I hope that everyone realizes this is going to be a process. Just like Representative Bordallo said in her opening remarks at the hearing yesterday, the subcommittee hearing was just a first step in a process.

Yesterday, there was a ton of great testimony given from both sides. Invasive species are no doubt a problem for the United States that needs to be dealt with. There were also a bunch of really good questions asked by the subcommittee members. Some questions had answers right away while other questions had no answers at this time, pointing out the need for all parties to sit down and work together in order for us to move forward. The good news is that HR 669 did not move forward, as written, which is all we wanted in this critical first step.

Just to be clear, the word out of Congress today from both Representative Bordallos office, as well as the office for the Committee of Natural Resources, is that the work on HR 669 is just getting started. It will be a long road and it’s a reality that some compromises will need to be made by both sides. In the end though, based on statements made by the subcommittee members yesterday, we should come out of this with ways to answer the problem of invasive species, AND preserve the rights of pet owners to keep and breed their animals in a responsible way, if that’s what they choose to do.

Personally, I have faith in Marshall Meyers and PIJAC to represent me as a pet owner during this important time. Marshall and PIJAC have had their leg in this fight for 36 years and have worked hard to do right by pet owners as far as I’m concerned. That said, after what I witnessed the last two weeks, I also have faith and confidence in the individual pet owners and organizations of pet/animal keepers to step up if needed. We’ve come together and made an impact, next time we’ll only be better and stronger.

If you’ll stay tuned, I’ll keep blogging.

-adam

Adam Wysocki
www.nohr669.com

 

[dondeb562]

Harming? are any of these invasive species harming the environment? Other than humans..

They're certainly changing it.. thats what this is really about, as humans we have a way we like things to be, and we need the environment to suit our needs. Any change or deviation from the plan causes panic.

Wild chameleon populations will devastate certain insect populations, which in turn will affect whatever was previously eating those insects less efficiently.. which could impact whatever was eating that, etc.

Even if we haven't identified what the change is, I'm sure its there. Is that change bad? Depends on your perspective I guess. There are some that would tell you any change is bad.

There are certain animals that are infact harming native animals. The person heading this bill is a Rep from Guam where the brown tree snakes were introduced and have vertually eaten all native animals in the jungles there. They are trying to come up with a bill to stop things like that happening here like what is happening in the everglades in Fla. with the bermese pythons that are breeding in the wild there that are eating native species. That is the damage they are referring to with animals. They are also trying to go after invasive marine animals,bugs and plants as well. There is a tree in Hawaii called the death tree (if I remember that correctly) that was introduced there which has caused problems with there native plants growing. So this bill here trying to stop the possibilty of certain animals that are capable of living in the wild to breed and become a problem before they ARE in fact a problem. I do understand the need for something to be done for certain animals, but to have ALL animals on a black list then going and deciding what COULD be invasive is rediculous to me. It should be a STATE BY STATE law not FEDERAL. A chameleon is not going to breed and live in the wild in a state where there are freezing winters. Actually most captive bred would never survive in a state like that.

 

[chequepoint]

There are certain animals that are infact harming native animals. The person heading this bill is a Rep from Guam where the brown tree snakes were introduced and have vertually eaten all native animals in the jungles there. They are trying to come up with a bill to stop things like that happening here like what is happening in the everglades in Fla. with the bermese pythons that are breeding in the wild there that are eating native species. That is the damage they are referring to with animals. They are also trying to go after invasive marine animals,bugs and plants as well. There is a tree in Hawaii called the death tree (if I remember that correctly) that was introduced there which has caused problems with there native plants growing. So this bill here trying to stop the possibilty of certain animals that are capable of living in the wild to breed and become a problem before they ARE in fact a problem. I do understand the need for something to be done for certain animals, but to have ALL animals on a black list then going and deciding what COULD be invasive is rediculous to me. It should be a STATE BY STATE law not FEDERAL. A chameleon is not going to breed and live in the wild in a state where there are freezing winters. Actually most captive bred would never survive in a state like that.

A hundred percent agreed that this is a state issue.. But the fact that non-native species damage the environment is still really a philosophical issue, not a scientific one. The brown snake has eaten all the native animals.. now there are no more native animals.. but there are lots of snakes.. who says the native animals were supposed to be there for ever? As humans we're upset that things changed without anyone consulting us first.. but is the environment damaged? or just different than we hoped it would turn out?

 

[dondeb562]

maybe WE are the cancer not the animals! lol! If it wasn't FOR the humans the brown tree snake would have never been introduced there and eaten native wild life.......

 

[Eric Adrignola]

the brown tree snake is a good example of how human intervention can expidite things.

We're nto a cancer, we're part of the environment like everything else.

I liken us to enzymes - we can't do anything that isn't possible in nature, but we sure as heck speed it up.

Species move, all animals come from somewhere. We are native to Africa, some people colonized this continent tens of thousands of years ago, as non-natives. When europeans came, THEY were "invasive". It's a matter or perspective. You set a point in time and look at it as if things are "set".

Nature is always changing. Galapagos tortoises came from mainland south america - probably yellow foots floating across the ocean. Fiji iguanas the same way. How do you think those chameleons arrived in the islands in the Indian ocean?

People have brought species all over the place, naturally. Birds do the same, spreading seeds all over.

We try to preserve nature, when nature, by its own nature, is constantly changing.

I think it's best to be careful, and to establish laws and rules at a local, more effective, level.

I gaurantee you that federal power will do nohting in this case except make it harder for US!

 

[cushcameleon]

Anyone know the current information about this? Is it gaining any momentum? Or is the House likely to turn it down? I do know that chances of bills being passed by the House are slim to none, especially bills as farfetched as this.

 

[Pure]

It was denied a couple of weeks ago now. Or are you talking about the current state of the bill? As I know they will probably redraft it, but it will take some time.

 

[chequepoint]

**MY PREDICTION BASED ON NOTHING BUT INTUITION AND INSIGHT GAINED BY WORKING WITH AND FOR LOBBYISTS AND POLITICIANS**
They're re-drafting it to address the primary concerns that came up during the hearing, such as fish farms, etc. And they will make specific allowances for "Pets" such as hamsters, gerbils, goldfish, maybe even most saltwater and reef type animals. They'll also address the concerns of the reptile industry by making allowances for Corn Snakes, Ball Pythons, Bearded Dragons, and Leopard Geckos. If we're lucky maybe Cresties as well. These will of course come with giant stipulations that lets the large scale breeders thrive, while making it impossible for hobbyist breeders to survive, thus satisfying the concerns of the people with the deepest pockets.

At that point they'll have the noisiest people off their back, its still a win for PETA though not the win they were looking for.

Chameleons are a documented invasive species in the US (Hawaii and Florida). Any FEDERAL bill to ban invasive non-native species, white list or black list, will have to include chameleons.

The proper solution, and one that this country was built on, is that it is a STATE ISSUE. It needs to remain a state issue in order for it to make sense.

 

[warpdrive]

Chameleons are a documented invasive species in the US (Hawaii and Florida). Any FEDERAL bill to ban invasive non-native species, white list or black list, will have to include chameleons.

The proper solution, and one that this country was built on, is that it is a STATE ISSUE. It needs to remain a state issue in order for it to make sense.

...and who says that state or local laws make sence.

there are already tons of local and state wide laws that don't make sence when it comes to pets and animals in general.
most local and state laws regarding pets are based off of non scientific "FEAR".

a good example is the ferret.
in NYC (and the 5 borrows that suround it) you can not have a ferret as it is illegal. but if you live just 5 mins away from the Bronx it is totaly legal to own such a pet.
the reasoning behind such a ban for ferrets is that they can bite small children. something that dogs do each day at least 15 times more often then the mean bad ferret, just in the NYC area alone.

yet I can see that our chameleons could also be placed on the NYC pet ban list due to many reasons including salmanella poisoning.

in PA you can't own a sugar glider.
why? because the government "FEARS" that they could kill off local "ground" birds.
ground birds? yes, ground birds.

I can see it now on the local news...a small pack of feral sugar gliders have desided to stop being aboreal insectivores and gum eaters, and started to come down from the trees and kill off our local wild turkeys.
while the local wild turkeys can out run a human, they somehow can't out run an animal the size of a small hamster.
the turkeys have been totaly eaten by the sugar gliders, and locals fear that once the turkeys are no longer around, that the sugar gliders will start going after our local wild dear.

please, please, please, do not ask my state our local government to get more involved in this.
my state and local government already doesn't know what it is doing now on this subject matter...and I fear it will only get worse.

please also don't get me wrong on this.
I do feel that there needs to be laws to protect the the welfare of local animals and plants.
but untill the Bill HR669 is totaly reworded and addresses the real problems in a scientific way, passing the buck to the states and local government is not the anser.

just think of it in this way...
there is a good deal of cham breeders in Cali.
who's to say that California would never put a ban on such reptiles next year.
I'll bet the reasoning that would be used is as flawed as can be.
but is that what you want?

peoples lives are at stake here. you can't expect local government to make sence on this issue if it is not addressed properly.
sofar, HR669 was not addresed properly for most of America...it is why it is being rewriten to be latter addressed.
the number one reason why it could never have gone for a vote is that it had a nation wide outcry that stoped such a bill...if this was a local matter most of us would not get involved.

now why should YOU care to get involved if such a ban was only going to effect a state such as NY?
would you say you would care enough to help NYers to fight such a bill or local law, or would you continue to give your thoughts on how our federal government should stay out of local affars?
just think about all the reptile breeders in Fl alone that can go out of buisnes if the local government went crazy with an HR669 type law in effect.
would you get involved then? I dought it.

Harry

 

[chequepoint]

My point is that laws that can be effectively enlisted at a state level don't need federal supervision. Thats the concept of the united STATES of america. If the local government decides that an animal is a problem in Florida and wants to ban it, it doesn't mean I agree with it, but it means I agree with it a lot more than an animal being a problem in FL so its against the law in Ohio.

I'll take stupid local ordinances over stupid federal bills every day. I can always move to another state, and state laws are much easier to change.

Its against the law to have turtles in TN, anything with a shell is against the law. If I really wanted to keep turtles, I'd move.

In case you weren't aware.. Municipal governments are supposed to handle the majority of the law writing, and enforcing. All of the day to day stuff, and most importantly things like zoning, and the school systems, etc. that require a specialized knowledge of their cities needs. This is where the bulk of pet ownership laws should come into play. For example, you can't own dangerous exotics like big cats inside most city limits, but in a more rural setting it is generally allowed. It doesn't make any sense for the state to ban big cats, when they do fine in rural settings. Municipal governments handle dog licensing, and in densely populated areas even regulate how many dogs or cats you can have.

When we're dealing with whether or not to let an invasive species into a region, it makes the most sense to take it to a state level. You can't bring chams into Hawaii, makes perfect sense to me. They're having a problem with them. It doesn't mean that the feds should ban them in Iowa. So if a federal law is over-reaching, and a local law won't effectively solve the problem, that leaves resolving it at the state level.

Let the feds worry about big picture things like public health, the economy, and international diplomacy.

 

[warpdrive]

the problem is that we are not talking about the pet industry.

we are talking about a Bill that is here to protect the NATION'S problem with it's natural wildlife being destroyed by invasive out-siders.

the bill was never intended to harm the pet industry, or anything else (ie: aqua culture, zooalogical sociaty, and so on.).
it was bad not because it failed to protect the nation's diverse wildlife, but because it effected almost everything that had to do with animals, fish, birds, and herps.
there were also many other things wrong with it.
but in the end, you can never have such protection without it being a national law.

in other words, the federal law needs to be tough on the penaltys, but loose on just what is an invasive animal/plant.
let the local government deside what needs to be baned like you say, but the states have to agree on a few things that will be regulated by the federal government.

like each state belongs to a "zone"...
each "zone" has to ban the same things for the same reasons due to the zone.
this way PA is protected along with NY against the same problimatic invader.

"zones" could be small and contain only a few states.
some could be large and over lap other states due to the fish, bird, reptile, mamal we are talking about.

while yes, some states could have local bans on animals for pets or other reasons then invasiveness to the local wildlife.
but we are talking about the protection of our national wildlife here and that is what HR669 is all about.

in other words, HR669 should help protect my local lake or pond from someone who wants to dump a bunch of fish from his fish tank that could have a problematic fish or reptile in it....and that invader could then wipe out everything in such said pond or lake.
but not the whole pet trade, just the one rare fish or frog that could damage the land's wildlife.

or

just because you want a new flat screen TV, does not mean that some boat can come to my back yard and dump some clam (from the boat's balest) at our piers by mistake and destroy MY local fishing spot...while your TV is being unloaded at the docks.
that boat would have to take care not to have some invasive thing hitchhike it's way into my back yard and destroy it.

get it now?
this is a real problem that effects everyone in this county.
it is a national problem, not just a local one.
...and can anyone here tell me what is happening with all the bees?
na, we don't need such federal law.

Harry

 

[chequepoint]

Zones don't work as Federal laws. Its all or nothing. Nothing prevents the states from cooperating, but its not a federal issue.
AND BELIEVE ME. This bill was aimed squarely at the pet industry, and well funded and campaigned for by PETA. PETAs agenda is "Total Animal Liberation". Their words, not mine. You can't pass a bill in this country banning pets, but you can wrap it up in an environmental issue and rally the democrats.

 

[warpdrive]

Zones don't work as Federal laws. Its all or nothing. Nothing prevents the states from cooperating, but its not a federal issue.
AND BELIEVE ME. This bill was aimed squarely at the pet industry, and well funded and campaigned for by PETA. PETAs agenda is "Total Animal Liberation". Their words, not mine. You can't pass a bill in this country banning pets, but you can wrap it up in an environmental issue and rally the democrats.

I totaly agree with you about how and why this bill was started, but it doesn't change that the political leaders agree that a law to protect the nation's wildlife is going to continue regardless.

if you would reather that each state adopt thier own rules and laws regarding this issue, that's cool.
but it won't help solve the problem because each state will look at it in a different way.
some will have very weak laws, and some will have harsh laws.
but all states will not be protected without a common agreement.

take for example the harsh gun laws of NY state.
it does nothing to protect me from guns that can be gotten in states that have far slacker rules....just a few miles away.
NY's harsh gun laws will only protect me if all states played by the same rules.
they don't, so this state law fails to protect me.

I'm not saying that the law has to be anything like HR669.
but there needs to be a federal law. a state law can not help us.
something that protects us as a nation, not harms us.

in other words, the law has to be about banning an animal based on scientific data. not on what a state may want to do or not.
some sates could have no rules or laws governing something that could be invasive toward it's wildlife, and thus effect surounding states that do have tougher laws.
the states with the tougher laws will never be protected without all the states playing by the same rules.

Harry

 

[Syn]

Harry, are you trying to say something tropical not allowed in California should not be allowed in the deserts of Arizona as well?

 

[chequepoint]

I totaly agree with you about how and why this bill was started, but it doesn't change that the political leaders agree that a law to protect the nation's wildlife is going to continue regardless.

if you would reather that each state adopt thier own rules and laws regarding this issue, that's cool.
but it won't help solve the problem because each state will look at it in a different way.
some will have very weak laws, and some will have harsh laws.
but all states will not be protected without a common agreement.

take for example the harsh gun laws of NY state.
it does nothing to protect me from guns that can be gotten in states that have far slacker rules....just a few miles away.
NY's harsh gun laws will only protect me if all states played by the same rules.
they don't, so this state law fails to protect me.

I'm not saying that the law has to be anything like HR669.
but there needs to be a federal law. a state law can not help us.
something that protects us as a nation, not harms us.

in other words, the law has to be about banning an animal based on scientific data. not on what a state may want to do or not.
some sates could have no rules or laws governing something that could be invasive toward it's wildlife, and thus effect surounding states that do have tougher laws.
the states with the tougher laws will never be protected without all the states playing by the same rules.

Harry

I'm saying that under a federal law based on scientific data to prevent the invasion of non-native wildlife, chameleons get banned. Instantly. End of story. They are invasive in FL, HI, and its starting to show up in California. If you want to never own a chameleon again, keep pushing for federal legislation. If the law is designed to keep invasive, non-native species out of the US, there is no way that it can allow for chameleons at a federal level.

BTW, this is off topic, and I hate to sound like Ted Nugent.. I'm really not waving the GOP flag here. If you truly think that Gun laws protect you from criminals, who by definition don't follow the law.. good luck with that.

 

[warpdrive]

I am no fool and know full well that nothing is going to stop a criminal.
but I also know that it is too easy for me to get what ever I want, pets, guns, car parts, what ever, all due to states that have soft laws on the subject.

look, when I was young, I lived in Ky for 2 1/2 years.
great state. would love to move back someday.
I miss the blue grass hills and mountins more then anything....if you don't understand, I can't explain it.
I'm a city boy who feel in love with something I can't even find the words to explain.
but I also know that if I want a gun, all I have to do is goto a state like this and get anything at a gun show.
it's too easy. trust me on this one.
yet at the same time I wouldn't want to step on anyone's freedom. after all, I saw no shortage of gun stores that any law abiding member of sociaty could buy anything they wanted.

a criminal is always going to find a gun if he wants to. but just where do you think the seller is getting them?
they are getting them at gun shows and selling them at 3 to 4 times the price for it on the street if new.
that's how good state laws work on such issues.

states are already banning pets at an alarming rate.
mostly for unjust reasons.
on a national level too many smart people will prevent the pet trade from colapsing.
at the state level I'm telling you it's much harder to get pets unbaned. and pets will get baned more and more without federal regulation.

but again we are not talking about pets or the pet trade. or gun laws.
yes in some states or some state localitys based on information or data would have to ban chameleons.
but there needs to be a set of rules or ideas that guide the result of the ban.
I would hate for this to happen to anyone. I clearly wouldn't want this to happen.
but it already is happening all because local government has totaly screwed it up.

look, little joe can still get a sugar glider if he lives in PA.
all he has to do is go down to TN or scoot on over to Ohio...two other states I enjoyed on my long car rides.
but good luck on finding a vet that wont turn you in if you need help.

now if the lawyers in washington can come up with something that can effect the outcome of local wildlife for the better, and not effect the pet trade, then that is what we should be trying to push for.
colectively we can change it to that. devided we will be screwed.

please understand that I'm not saying you're wrong in any way...
just that I see it from a different angle.

Harry