# this would be bad



## joel (Oct 9, 2008)

saw this on another forum: any truth to it?

"H. R. 669 is the name of the bill whose result will potentially be the final blow to the reptile trade in the U.S. 
Please note: 

"SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF NONNATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AS NONMAILABLE MATTER. 
Nonnative wildlife species included in the list of approved species issued under section 4 shall be considered and treated as nonmailable matter under section 3015 of title 39, United States Code." 

This will affect everyone. 

This bill is set to be voted on in the house of representatives: 
OpenCongress - Text of H.R.669 To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negati... 

Write to your representative and let them know what you think: 
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml


----------



## Marinarawr (Jan 14, 2009)

"The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species *that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm* or harm to other animal species’ health or human health."

So THAT'S what this whole recession is about!! Damn non-native species takin' our jobs!!

But seriously. I stopped reading there in order to post this because I just have this picture in my head of Godzilla sized dart frogs snacking on fortune five hundred companies and driving the dollar down....


----------



## melas (Oct 24, 2007)

Yikes! I can't even believe this. This WOULD be very serious! Thanks for posting!


----------



## Lucky (Jan 15, 2007)

Not done reading the whole thing yet, but did come across this part...

(2) PROPOSALS FOR INCLUSION IN PRELIMINARY LIST- The Secretary--

(A) shall, by not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, publish in the Federal Register, and make available on a publically available Federal Internet site, a request for submission, by any interested persons (including persons that import or that intend to import nonnative wildlife species), of proposals of nonnative wildlife species to be included in the preliminary list under this subsection and supporting documentation for such proposals;

(B) shall accept such proposals for 10 months after the date the Secretary publishes the request for submissions; and

(C) may propose a nonnative wildlife species for inclusion in the preliminary list.


so if it does pass enough of us need to request PDFs and other reptiles and amphibians that we do not want to loose from the pet trade.


----------



## Lucky (Jan 15, 2007)

This could be really really bad......


----------



## kawickstrom (Oct 3, 2008)

I just wrote my Representative. My Representative is Roscoe Bartlett. He is an active scientist and conversantionist. So I hope is views will be the same as ours. We will see....


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

The biggest problem with this is that it would affect the economy in so many ways it's ridiculous. It would basically shut down most of the pet industry and fish industry all at one time if they leave the non mailable clause in. For the most part, this is just a bill against invasive species.


----------



## jubjub47 (Sep 9, 2008)

Found this also: 



> This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.


Maybe this has come up in the past and we never knew it. This bill has just gone to committee.


----------



## iridebmx (Oct 29, 2008)

well .....just goes to show my luck! im just getting into the hobby and this stuff comes up. well i guess i will be part of "the underground" when it all hits the fan.i have not read it and will not tonight but hope all goes well for us.


----------



## melas (Oct 24, 2007)

yeah i just wrote my congressman too. I guess this is phase II of the "query" they sent out previously?


----------



## MeiKVR6 (Sep 16, 2008)

All these laws... They all have good intentions - but they word them all backwards.

It should be up to the government or official to prove the animal is potentially dangerous. It should NOT be up to the citizen to prove the animal ISN'T dangerous. 

...Same goes with CT's laws and the wonderful wording, No "potentially dangerous" animals. 

...ugh


----------



## melas (Oct 24, 2007)

MeiKVR6 said:


> All these laws... They all have good intentions - but they word them all backwards.
> 
> It should be up to the government or official to prove the animal is potentially dangerous. It should NOT be up to the citizen to prove the animal ISN'T dangerous.
> 
> ...


Also, they are going at this at the national level. The vast majority of "exotic" herps would never survive a winter in the Northern parts of the US - but if it could survive in the Everglades it would be considered "injurious" in Maine . . . that IS backwards. This should be something for the states to regulate.


----------



## MeiKVR6 (Sep 16, 2008)

Better yet! Remove "SEC. 4. LIST OF APPROVED SPECIES." from the bill.

Why would they even include that? That'll make even more confusing grey area!  Not to mention what all this could mean for petstores across the USA. 

If they just pass a simple law - "No venomous animals".

All this could be done with!


----------



## jehitch (Jun 8, 2007)

joel said:


> <snip>
> Nonnative wildlife species included in the list of approved species issued under section 4 shall be considered and treated as nonmailable matter under section 3015 of title 39, United States Code." <snip>


Not having read the bill, I wonder if they define the word "mail"? I would think "mail" would specifically refer to the U.S. Postal Service. I would think they would have used the word "nonshippable" if they wanted it to cover freight shippers like UPS and Fed Ex. Delta Dash would certainly not fall under the category of "mail" it would seem.

But, either way, this type of legislation always seems to crop up every few years. I don't understand why legislatures don't consult scientists before drafting bills in areas where there is plenty of scientific expertise available.

Worse yet, here in Michigan they had a public referendum on banning dove hunting. The pro-ban ads basically boiled down to, "awwww, aren't doves cute? Why to big bad hunters want to shoot them?" Even though state DNR biologists said there was no reason to ban it (and compelling reasons not to), all the people raised watching Bambi voted to ban dove hunting.

Gee, let's set wildlife policy based on public opinion, rather than scientific study by wildlife biologists.


----------



## Walker (Dec 12, 2008)

Never thought I'd have to worry about my PDF's before guns. I'm sure my many tarantulas are included in this legislation as well.


----------



## NathanB (Jan 21, 2008)

I dont think the trade groups would let this become law without making sure the pet industy was taken care of


----------



## Jellyman (Mar 6, 2006)

MeiKVR6 said:


> Better yet! Remove "SEC. 4. LIST OF APPROVED SPECIES." from the bill.
> 
> Why would they even include that? That'll make even more confusing grey area!  Not to mention what all this could mean for petstores across the USA.
> 
> ...


Why would it be more OK to ban veneomous animals then to ban animals that could possibly thrive in a particular environment.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

A friend of mine is doing a talk on this legislation at our local herp society in March. This NEEDS to be done away w/. If this does get thru there will be no more pet trade. The wording on this law would give them the right to shut down ALL CAPTIVE BREEDING and SHIPPING any animals anywhere. My job would be a jailable offense overnight.


----------



## Enlightened Rogue (Mar 21, 2006)

I`ll come visit you Aaron-
With a frog shaped cake with a hack saw blade inside!!

John


----------



## melas (Oct 24, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> A friend of mine is doing a talk on this legislation at our local herp society in March. This NEEDS to be done away w/. If this does get thru there will be no more pet trade. The wording on this law would give them the right to shut down ALL CAPTIVE BREEDING and SHIPPING any animals anywhere. My job would be a jailable offense overnight.


You should capture that talk via audio or video recording. I'd be interested in seeing it for sure (and any associated presentation materials - power point, etc)! If you need server space for it just pm me.


----------



## atlfrog (Dec 31, 2006)

I am not sure what to make of all of this. Are they trying to help us, the environment and wildlife conservation here in the US or are they trying to stop us as people who love the industry? Or is the the start of things to come? Like the demise of democracy. Like in other threads about companies moving to other countries because it's cheaper, well that tread that is hurting the economy. Is this going to be a trend that will be start of the demise of the Pet Trade (Reptiles, Amphibians, Inverts, Insects)? Of course these are all hypothetical questions, but it leaves you wondering how much is this country evolving into a non democracy society if they keep taking everything away and limiting us to only what they fear and not understand (There is a bigger picture here than just the industry. Speaking out on this will keep our freedom at least in the Pet Industry in which we are all apart of). If I wanted no reptiles or other animals to have as pets I go live in Australia (I do love Australia though, and if they changed these rules, well "Good Day Mate!").


----------



## bstorm83 (Jul 16, 2007)

This all really makes no sense. I don't even know who to write because I am in TX bu from MA. But they should worry about species of animals that are already here and not pets that are in our homes. For example umm Africanized bees would be nice to get rid of. Pretty sure that's an invasive species. Not sure how this effects the economy either. I would be more worried about invasive foreigners called illegal aliens then this. YAY Government!


----------



## Walker (Dec 12, 2008)

I'd be lying if I said this did not give me some pause for concern, but after looking at the legislation link I would think it difficult to pass in these economic times. The way the bill is written would put huge amounts of people tied in with "exotic" pets out of work.
i.e feeder insects, cage and supply companies, publications, the list goes on and on. With the unemployment rate what it is right now I can't see legislators want to add to the figure. It still worries the hell out me though!


----------



## melas (Oct 24, 2007)

Okay so I wrote to my Representative who just happens to sit on the House Committee on Natural Resources (that's the committee that this bill has been referred to) and finally got a response back. I typed it up with the errors included and all - haha!

Here is what he (his staff I'm sure) wrote back:



> Dear Mr. Allen:
> 
> Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. I appreciate hearing from you and having the benefit of your views.
> 
> ...


----------

