HR 669 - Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act

[chequepoint]

I know, but the angle you're seeing it from doesn't work in our current government. The government is going to ban things on a national level. End of story. Thats the point of the federal government. There can't be any concept of zones, etc. the zones are the states, and its either a state law, or a federal law. If a federal law allowed something in one state, and not in another, there would be mutiny. So I'm saying the only thing that makes sense is to address things at a state level, otherwise you're punishing everyone for the problems of a few.

 

[Docility]

I know, but the angle you're seeing it from doesn't work in our current government. The government is going to ban things on a national level. End of story. Thats the point of the federal government. There can't be any concept of zones, etc. the zones are the states, and its either a state law, or a federal law. If a federal law allowed something in one state, and not in another, there would be mutiny. So I'm saying the only thing that makes sense is to address things at a state level, otherwise you're punishing everyone for the problems of a few.

there are districts for justices, but i dont think they differ much other than by party leadership

 

[warpdrive]

I know, but the angle you're seeing it from doesn't work in our current government. The government is going to ban things on a national level. End of story. Thats the point of the federal government. There can't be any concept of zones, etc. the zones are the states, and its either a state law, or a federal law. If a federal law allowed something in one state, and not in another, there would be mutiny. So I'm saying the only thing that makes sense is to address things at a state level, otherwise you're punishing everyone for the problems of a few.

what I'm getting at is that right now the states do have power over what is baned and what is not.
right now an aboreal animal that requires year round warmth, eats insects and gum, is baned in PA because it could eat something that is not even documented into doing ever, in the whole history of man.
what's next, a chameleon?

states are failing to protecting it's native wildlife AND THEY ARE BANNING OUR PETS ALREADY WITH NO JUST CAUSE.

Harry

 

[chequepoint]

Pennsylvania has VERY conservative leaning laws. Have you ever tried to buy a beer there? Its easier to buy a Gun in NY. There is a strong residual quaker influence on the region and their laws.

That said, the bit about the ground birds is a touch of misinformation that has spread on one sugarglider forum. The reality is that PA passed a broad law in 1983 that banned all "Exotic Mammals" including all non-native marsupials. This law was passed by officials that residents in PA elected, and could could be changed by officials that residents in PA elect.

That law is very similar to HR669, thankfully it only covers mammals in that state. I can assure you under a federal mandate, Sugar Gliders would not be white listed. They are potentially invasive, destructive, and non-native.

 

[warpdrive]

Pennsylvania has VERY conservative leaning laws. Have you ever tried to buy a beer there? Its easier to buy a Gun in NY. There is a strong residual quaker influence on the region and their laws.

say what?
I'm sorry, but it is too easy to get a beer in PA.
at least it's easyer then say trying to get beer in some dry county back in Ky.
getting a gun in the state of NY is not an easy task. to compare the two is silly at best.

That said, the bit about the ground birds is a touch of misinformation that has spread on one sugarglider forum. The reality is that PA passed a broad law in 1983 that banned all "Exotic Mammals" including all non-native marsupials. This law was passed by officials that residents in PA elected, and could could be changed by officials that residents in PA elect.

again, I know full well what the story is regarding the state of PA and sugar gliders.
I also know just what some people are trying to do about that law, and the reasons officials are giving as reasons that they should be illegal.

if it was so easy to change laws regarding pets, then all the work and law suits against the city of NY would result in ferrets being legal right now...but it's not. it's too hard to get others, lawyers, political people in power, to be on the side of something they see as trivial.

just look at what happened when the was a hearing on the subject of the ferret ban....


On June 3rd 1999, prior to instituting the ban, the DOH held a public hearing during which numerous people spoke in favor of removing ferrets from the proposed list of banned animals including the ASPCA, the Humane Society, vets from the Animal Medical Center, and a New York City Council Member. Not one person at the hearing spoke against ferrets. The Department of Health decided to ignore the testimony presented at the hearing (which, by the way, no members of the Board of Health actually attended!) and to rely instead on the written testimony of a "Star Witness" -an anonymous vet from New Hampshire. The testimony of that vet was later obtained through the Freedom of Information Law, and was found to be full of gross inaccuracies and misinformation (see below). Regardless, on June 29th 1999, the New York City Board of Health voted and unanimously approved the addition of the list of banned animals (which includes ferrets) to DOH Health Code Section 161.01.

http://www.nycferrets.com/

if the ASPCA, the humane society, and NYC counsel member Kathryn Freed, could not stop this ban on ferrets, then how do you think we can get it un-baned?

please also understand that...There is no "grandfather clause" to NYC's ferret ban. Even ferrets that were owned prior to the ban are illegal.

do you understand just how retarded local laws regarding pets can get yet?
do you understand that once some lawer gets it in his/her head that some animal should be illegal, that's it. it will be baned. there will be no justice. there will be no recorse.
IT WILL BE TOO HARD TO GET UN-BANED!!!!

Lawsuit against the Department of Health (DOH)

On October 28th, 1999, ferret owners and the New York Humane Society filed a lawsuit against Mayor Giuliani and the NYC Department of Health (DOH) stating that the Department of Health did not have the authority to ban ferrets in the City of New York. Unfortunately, the judges stated that the courts have very little authority to overturn any decision made by the DOH. Legally, they cannot interfere with most of what they do. Consequently, the lawsuit against Mayor Giuliani and the Department of Health was dismissed.

Kathryn Freed's bill to legalize ferrets (Intro 627-A)

Council Member Kathryn Freed, a long time animal advocate on the City Council, introduced a bill (a bill is law in progress) to legalize ferrets in New York City. The City Council passed the bill but then Mayor Giuliani vetoed it (turned it down). The City Council had the option to try to overturn the Mayor's veto, but that didn't happen for several reasons. The end result is that we were about 4 votes short of being able to overturn the Mayor's veto. If you'd like to read some of the past information on this bill and what happened, it's all in our section on

Council Member Kathryn Freed's Ferret Regulation Bill: Intro 627-A.
http://www.nycferrets.com/freed/freed.html

That law is very similar to HR669, thankfully it only covers mammals in that state. I can assure you under a federal mandate, Sugar Gliders would not be white listed. They are potentially invasive, destructive, and non-native.

they are about as envasive, destructive, and non-native as chameleons in the state of PA.
if the cold harsh dead of winter doesn't kill off each and every sugar glider, then the lack of food durring the winter would do it.
there are not many insects in the winter for them to eat. no real sap or gum for them to eat. no real fruit and veggies in the brutal cold for them durring the winter months.
again, if the cold doesn't kill them, then the lack of food surly will.

again, states are already failing to protect the native wildlife in our great country.
again, states right now have the power when it comes to this protection as well as legalising pets in there state...this is two compleatly different topics, and the states fail at both in the time being.

right now, your chameleon(s) are not safe in the state of TN.
they could be baned at any time, for any unrealitic reason.
even if the ASPCA and the humane sociatiy trys to help, they might not be able to stop a state or local ban on your chameleon(s).

moving to an other state is not the anser, as that state could ban any animal at any time, for any reason.

-----------------------------

states and this great country understand that any animal has the potential for damage to the environment, wildlife, and the area.
it's also quite normal for feral animals to also do little to no damage to the above.

what could happen is if we "guide" the newly writen HR669 in the direction of preventing harm to the pet trade amd other industrys, we could also help prevent unwarrented bans.

a good example is the state of California and the wild population of chameleons.
if it is found that they are posing no real threat to the wildlife and the environment, then there should be no ban against chameleons in the state of California.
if on the other hand, there is a threat, a ban might be in order...and it should be far harder and more realistic for such a ban to take place then it is currently by the states and local government.

PLEASE REMEMBER AND UNDERSTAND, that the NEW HR669 will not be anything like the old bill.
PETA failed.
there will still be a new bill, but it will be drasticly different then what it originaly was.

it will be totaly rewriten and not harm any other animal, fish, bird, or reptile industry, including the pet trade....or members of this country like myself will help fight against it.
it's easy at the federal level to fight against it as it is "too public", and no one wants to loose votes (and lose the office that they hold) because little billy can't keep his chameleon as a pet.

-----------------------

do some reasearch on this subject.
learn the facts.
if you still feel that states should be left to handle the problems we talked about, then cool.
let's agree to disagree.

but don't sit here and give me some fruitful "dreams" of how things should be run, or your views on a perticular pet...because sofar, your views have been wrong on the subjectmaters at hand.

Harry

 

[chequepoint]

We're going to agree to disagree. Changing a city law is easier than changing a state law, and changing a state law is easier than changing a federal law.

A federal law doesn't care if sugar gliders are destructive in PA or not, as long as they're destructive ANYWHERE they won't be allowed anywhere.

Even if HR669 is some loosey goosey happy law that lets you have every pet your heart desires, all those state laws are going to supersede that. AKA if the federal mandate allows Ferrets, NY will still ban them. So the only thing a federal law could do that is more effective than letting the states deal with it on their own, is be MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN ANY OF THE STATES. These are Junior High level civics concepts.

But when a federal law bans them, no one will be able to have them. You have this inane thought process where the feds will go "Ok, in FL, AL, and GA you can have this but not this, and in PA this will be allowed, etc. etc." A law like that would cause a civil war and be thrown out by the supreme court. The only thing the feds can do is ban everything everywhere. If you don't like how its treated at a state level, you don't want the feds involved at all.

Any new legislation is going to still address the primary concerns. Invasive non-native wildlife in the US. To address that concern at a federal level means banning nearly all exotic pets at a minimum. A federal law bans them from EVERY STATE. Its really simple. If you don't want this, then it needs to be a state by state issue. I'm sorry you don't agree with your local government, but its better than trying to fight something at a federal level. Like I said before, TN has a stupid turtle ban. Its a dumb state law, but if it was a dumb federal law it would effect everyone.

I'm for less government everywhere, but always for more power to local governments with less federal involvement. I'm done with this argument.