# An end to the amphibian trade in the us?



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

I'm not too sure how many of you know about this however, H.R. 669 might be moving a step forward if all of us don't make a small effort. Your frogs will be deemed illegal if you live within the U.S. . H.R. 669 is something that would eliminate the pet trade almost overnight. It's the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act and it would put a ban on all non native wildlife in the U.S. This includes not only our pdf's but also tropical fish, gerbils, reptiles, exotic birds.... etc. I work at the Chicago Reptile House in Illinois and my boss is a cofounder of the NARBC. He's a who's who in the reptile industry and I believe if he's somewhat scared of this being a reality we should all be as well. Even if it's totally besides an idea of reality that this could ever happen why not take a small step in preserving our love for wildlife. Feel free to message me if you have any questions about this. This friday check out NO HR 669 and find out what you can do in order to stop this from becoming a reality. You can also join the pet lobbyist group PIJAC at PIJAC Home Page - Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council or the reptile lobbyist group at ww.usark.org. I believe that hr669 would seemingly decrease the love for nature and the quest for conservation by widening the gap between people and animals. If our quest is truly to help conserve the flora and fauna that we have in the world how is taking away a personal connection with animals the answer? Even if the pet trade isn't always the greatest answer to our quest for conservation it is the greatest tool in helping people to appreciate the animals we need to protect. Besides that I'm sure we can all understand that making animals illegal would only thwart efforts to control black market animal collection. Sorry to go on so long. I'm just a little pissed about this whole thing. Sincerely,

Matt Olsen


----------



## scream-aim-fire (Mar 1, 2008)

just a warning, i got jumped for posting a thread about this earlier today because there were already like 5 or 6 other threads about it, so just warning you that you might have some people jump on you about posting on the topic again. but yea this is a serious issue and it sucks bad. this i think is like the main thread on this topic. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/lounge/36809-here-we-go-again-hr-669-a.html


----------



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

not too sure what it means to be "jumped" but i hope it hasn't any ill effects. I just got home from a long day at work after getting all this crap about hr669 at work. So my first order of business was to spread the word.


----------



## skylsdale (Sep 16, 2007)

mattolsen said:


> I'm not too sure how many of you know about this however, H.R. 669 might be moving a step forward if all of us don't make a small effort. Your frogs will be deemed illegal if you live within the U.S.


Actually, if this were to pass, all legal reptiles and amphibians currently in a person's possession would be grandfathered in--everyone would continue to be able to keep the dendrobatids they are currently keeping.



> It's the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act and it would put a ban on all non-native wildlife in the U.S.


Actually, it targets *invasive* species...not simply a blanket "non-native" ban. It seeks to determine whether or not a species is likely to become invasive and potentially damage native environments and ecosystems. It's actually PRO conservation.



> This includes not only our pdf's but also tropical fish, gerbils, reptiles, exotic birds.... etc.


As I stated above, anything people already have would be excepted and perfectly legal (even if they decided to make a complete and total ban on all exotics and non-native animals).



> Even if it's totally besides an idea of reality that this could ever happen why not take a small step in preserving our love for wildlife.


I agree, but don't believe that action should be exercised in any sort of knee-jerk reaction or ill-informed way. At its core, the law is actually about conservation -- conserving our native wildlife and ecosystems and preventing them from being destroyed by exotic *invasive* species. 



> You can also join the pet lobbyist group PIJAC at PIJAC Home Page - Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council ...


PIJAC has actually issued some valid concerns about the bill and are seeking to use their voice to bring about wise changes in it...but don't confuse that with trying to prevent it altogether. I don't believe PIJAC is attempting to prevent it from being passed, but using their voice to make it the best possible bill it can be.



> I believe that hr669 would seemingly decrease the love for nature and the quest for conservation by widening the gap between people and animals.


How so? I'd love to get to know my native riparian ecosystems better in the streams near my house...too bad the banks are choked out and the native diversity decreased by the non-native reed canary grass everywhere. I'd love to get to know some of the native fishes of south Florida's waterways...not the hordes of non-native invasives that have wreaked havoc on the aquatic ecosystems there (all of them introduced via the pet trade...either directly or indirectly). And what about African clawed frogs and bullfrogs that have been released and established in California ponds and wetlands and the possible chytrid they've spread in doing so, infecting numbers of native amphibian populations? I'd love to close the gap between people and their environments...but these invasives can get in the way.



> If our quest is truly to help conserve the flora and fauna that we have in the world how is taking away a personal connection with animals the answer?


A personal connection doesn't always have to consist of keeping an animal in a glass box. There are plenty of connections that can be made should one decide to wander outside...



> Besides that I'm sure we can all understand that making animals illegal would only thwart efforts to control black market animal collection.


How so? Animals that are currently illegal are still being traded and many attemps are currently being thwarted. Would this just make them twice-thwarted?

There are many good discussions taking place online about this bill (Frognet has had some good threads lately)...but many people try to begin a conversation misunderstanding its intent from the get-go. Do I think the bill is currently perfect? No. There is wording that is a bit too open-ended for my liking, and I think some specific plans and more wording needs to be included. I would recommend hobbyists contact their local representatives and voice their concerns about the currently sketchy aspects of this bill, but suggest they do so with all of the possible information available.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

scream-aim-fire said:


> just a warning, i got jumped for posting a thread about this earlier today because there were already like 5 or 6 other threads about it, so just warning you that you might have some people jump on you about posting on the topic again. but yea this is a serious issue and it sucks bad. this i think is like the main thread on this topic. http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/lounge/36809-here-we-go-again-hr-669-a.html


You were not jumped on, people just provided links to a relavent topic. There were no harsh words, personal attacks ect.

And as Ron said, this bill will not prevent us from keeping amphibians as pets, it specifically targets species which are deemed a risk to human health, or to the health of local ecosystems. There is a "good list" of species which can still be kept, a "bad list" and a data defecient list, so there is definitely opportunity to still keep amphibians. 



mattolsen said:


> If our quest is truly to help conserve the flora and fauna that we have in the world how is taking away a personal connection with animals the answer?


You have to remember, not all pet owners are as responsible as many of those on this board. I am not up to date on the current statistics, but 5 years ago, 85% of pet reptiles died within the first year. Now, I'm not sure how big of an influence 669 will have on this, but it is very likely that it will at least prevent the deaths of certain species.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

I wouldn`t be so sure everything can be bred and continued to be owned. Clawed frogs should be able to be kept but not bred. I wouldn`t expect the gov`t to take the time to make a very big list and if any darts aren`t on the list WE would have to pay for a study if we wanted to try to get them on the list.
I wouldn`t be sure that terribilis, bicolor or aurotaenia would make the list at all w/ BC`s precedent. 
This bill is scapegoating the pet industry. Fla already has so many invasives and it alone will take many animals off the list because they could potentially live there. The animals banned because of fla`s habitat could not be owned in Buffalo either.
Brown snakes did not make it into guam because of the pet industry, it was cargo planes in ww2. African clawed frogs were originally released from pregnancy testing 50 years ago, along w/ chytrid. Cuban tree frogs came from cuba to Fla. Zebra mussels came in on cargo ships, not to mention over 80% of the problem is exotic PLANTS and INSECTS, not reptiles, which lobbyists were able to keep out of this bill. Not to mention the "science" behind bans will be "if it caused a problem in Guam, it can cause a problem here" which is junk science. Do you think our gov`t will take the time to do env impact and human health impact statements on every species out there? This bill is a way for them to dig in their heels for a tug o` war. If this bill passes it`s up to US to show our animals won`t be harmful. That won`t happen, are you guys going to pay for a study on dendros so we can continue to keep and breed them?

This bill does not address the true problem and only opens the door for smuggling. You may not be able to ship a clawed frog to ca as a business but illegal animals will fetch a high dollar from our underground animal breeders! Then there will be NO testing or treating because people won`t want their vets to know what they have, and when they get too big or accidently escape they`re out the door and free in the environment and no one will be notified.


----------



## Invert (Aug 20, 2008)

I just finished reading the text. While your current pets may be grandfathered in, it would still be illegal to breed them. Also, it is a blanket ban on all non-native wildlife. It requires an " approved" list to be generated within 36 months, but until that date, and after if your animal is not explicitly approved, any inport, breeding, or transport, will be illegal. Also, if you want to get an animal on the approved list YOU have to pay the the study to demonstrate that the animal is safe. How cheap do you think that will be? 

Quite simply this bill is backasswards. It starts by eliminating ALL freedom to own exotic pets, then puts the burden on the people to pay for the research showing that their pets are safe. I'm all for conservation, but this type of bill is not the answer. We already have laws in place, it would be better to enforce those. All this bill will really add is more crap to the books, while making it harder for people. 

Summery: In it's current form, the bill would do much more harm then good.
Edit:


frogfarm said:


> This bill does not address the true problem


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

Invert said:


> I just finished reading the text. While your current pets may be grandfathered in, it would still be illegal to breed them. Also, it is a blanket ban on all non-native wildlife. It requires an " approved" list to be generated within 36 months, but until that date, and after if your animal is not explicitly approved, any inport, breeding, or transport, will be illegal. :



Where does it say that if the animal is not explicity approved that any inport etc will be illegal? There are three classes in the legislation
1) approved
2) disapproved
3) insufficient information. 

There are three groups of classification and action around the insufficient information group has been left totally blank and there isn't any indication in the current legislation as to how that will be interpreted. 

If you are trying to tie it into the section with chickens, cows, domestic house cats, etc, then you are misinterepreting the language as that language lists those animals as being considered domestic and as such are no regulated under this bill. 



Invert said:


> Also, if you want to get an animal on the approved list YOU have to pay the the study to demonstrate that the animal is safe. How cheap do you think that will be?


Again, this doesn't mean that animals that are on the insufficent information list will have to be moved onto the approved list. 



Invert said:


> Quite simply this bill is backasswards. It starts by eliminating ALL freedom to own exotic pets, then puts the burden on the people to pay for the research showing that their pets are safe. I'm all for conservation, but this type of bill is not the answer. We already have laws in place, it would be better to enforce those. All this bill will really add is more crap to the books, while making it harder for people.



It has the potential to strictly regulate exotic pet ownership but it doesn't eliminate it as it is currently written. One of the items in the bill that states they need to take into account is the fiscal effect of the regulation. There is a lot of money floating around in the exotic pet market in the USA. 

As a further point, we would be paying for the study in one way or another. Currently, the study would be on the backs of a tax payers, probably as a form of an earmark.... how do you think that would play out with the average American during a budget cycle with one party or the other releasing to the public... x number of dollars to assess the threat POISON Dart frogs place on the enviroment and to the public.........

This bill has the potential to cause big waves in the tropical fish hobby which is a much larger portion of the pet industry than herps....and that is a lot of money and taxes to affect... 

The bill has issues with language and how its going to be implimented in my opinion but there is a lot of misinterpretation out there that is only going to hurt dealing with legislatures about this bill. 

Some comments,

Ed


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

For those interested in learning more about this I would really suggest looking over the posts on frognet Frognet Feed - Dendroboard. Brent et al have really gone into detail about what HR 669 will mean for pets. 

To say the bill is all good or all bad is misleading, as with many government bills, it will help some and hurt others. Also, do remember that this is not finalized, it has to get passed first, and I know Ray (stemcellular) is planning to write a proposal to Madeleine Bordallo (the bills sponsor) with possible adjustments to the bill.


----------



## scream-aim-fire (Mar 1, 2008)

dont know if anyone has posted this link yet but here it is everyone fill it out and send it in. NO HR 669


----------



## Ed (Sep 19, 2004)

E-mail and e-mail petitions usually are not worth very much. If you are going to spend the time writing something, I would send something via snail mail instead. That at least will have more effect than an e-mail. 

Ed


----------



## scream-aim-fire (Mar 1, 2008)

there's an option on there to do both snail mail and email.


----------



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

I'll simply say this.... and refrain from arguing with a few geeks with nothing better to do than bitch about some potential stupid ban on animals that cause absolutely no harm in about 95 percent of the U.S.. All i'm saying is that the pet industry has operated for quite a long time without causing much harm. The real invasive problems we see in the u.s. come from cargo ships and domesticated animals; cats, dogs. Or maybe pigs, carp even. I just have a hard time seeing the harm in letting people keep some animals that make them happy.


----------



## Brian Ferriera (Nov 1, 2006)

For crying out loud what is this the 6th post on this????? Can every one just relax on this???
Brian


----------



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

yeah apparently there are a bunch of nerds with little to no life that act like a bunch of old women. i just posted something that i had heard of and checked the website about the actual bill and it seemed like bs. these old women and their sewing circles!! Why doesn't congress actually ever seem to review real problems with real threats. let's talk about cargo ships, or asian carp, or pigs. instead of eliminating a multi billion dollar industry which produces a lot of jobs and happiness in people's lives. although these idealistic liberals who think there is actually a threat from the pet industry are besides themselves. give me examples of invasive species that hurt conservation efforts as a result of the pet trade.


----------



## afterdark (Jan 16, 2007)

Brian Ferriera said:


> For crying out loud what is this the 6th post on this????? Can every one just relax on this???
> Brian


Tell me about it - all these people posting the same thing is pushing me to the dark side....I hear the call of the curmudgeon!


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

mattolsen said:


> yeah apparently there are a bunch of nerds with little to no life that act like a bunch of old women. i just posted something that i had heard of and checked the website about the actual bill and it seemed like bs. these old women and their sewing circles!! Why doesn't congress actually ever seem to review real problems with real threats. let's talk about cargo ships, or asian carp, or pigs. instead of eliminating a multi billion dollar industry which produces a lot of jobs and happiness in people's lives. although these idealistic liberals who think there is actually a threat from the pet industry are besides themselves. give me examples of invasive species that hurt conservation efforts as a result of the pet trade.


Ok, lets keep this relavent and not make any more personal attacks on board members or the government. 

I would suggest reading the bill (H.R. 669: Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (GovTrack.us) before you make sweeping generalizations about a such a complex issue; and not just watered down opinion based articles on biased websites. 

While this may have an _impact_ on the frogging community, impact does necessarily mean harm. You asked for a pet which has hurt local wildlife- Burmese Pythos in Florida. I don't have the time to post a whole list.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

otis07 said:


> Ok, lets keep this relavent and not make any more personal attacks on board members or the government.
> 
> I would suggest reading the bill (H.R. 669: Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (GovTrack.us) before you make sweeping generalizations about a such a complex issue; and not just watered down opinion based articles on biased websites.
> 
> While this may have an _impact_ on the frogging community, impact does necessarily mean harm. You asked for a pet which has hurt local wildlife- Burmese Pythos in Florida. I don't have the time to post a whole list.



Then Fla should have a law and not the whole country. This may just be pets and even the subset of pets called dart frogs, for you guys, but I know a lot of people who make their living selling pets. This would hurt all of us who sell pets. I reallly don`t think they`ll do the study on P terribilis, aurotaenia and bicolor and the way it is written, they could pose a risk to human health. These are the last core of my collection and unless someone specifically gives me a list of approvals beforehand i don`t see any reason for me to believe they will. That`s putting a lot of trust that our gov`t will fork up the money to prove them safe.
Again the hobby this will affect the most does the least damage and the real contributors aren`t contained in this bill. This does nothing but create loads of red tape for something that isn`t the problem.


----------



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

i agree...I just don't have a whole lot of faith that the government will conduct their studies in the most fair manner. It just goes along with the normal protocol in our country when we have a problem....ban everything. Realistically the bill states that it would ban any animals that have negative economical, health related, invasive or other such problems. Well my question is if an animal can possibly have a negative effect in say Florida but not Illinois will it still be banned? And also, will the governmental studies include the idea of pdf's not being poison in captivity? How thorough and unbiased will their conclusions be? If there was a legitimate problem because of the pet trade then I would stand behind the bill however, I think we have bigger fish to fry. Furthermore, I simply see this as causing more problems than it solves. Being that we are not only going to potentially lose a multi billion dollar industry, but we will also have to put more tax dollars into the study and enforcement of such said laws.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> Then Fla should have a law and not the whole country. Again the hobby this will affect the most does the least damage and the real contributors aren`t contained in this bill. This does nothing but create loads of red tape for something that isn`t the problem.


I agree, there is no reason for species to be banned where its biologically impossible for them to live. And, if the bill ends up passing without any changes to sections regarding breeding certain species in captivity, I think it would be safe to say it would be anti-productive. As you said, this would create a market for underground smuggling which would just create problems like those seen during prohibition. 

Perhaps I am ignorant to assume everything will workout, or maybe this optomism is just a symptom of my age, but I do believe that if enough people write in the government will have enough sense to improve it.


----------



## TDK (Oct 6, 2007)

Everybody that is really interested in trying to stop this should write and call in. I've written the letters but the hard part is taking time to call to voice my opinion but I plan to. Every time one of these bills gets knocked down another repalces it. Just a waste of our governments time and our tax money.


----------



## mattolsen (Feb 26, 2009)

I'd like to see any of you who oppose this bill have a potential ban put on your career. I'd be curious to see how differently you would react if there was a risk that something you put 15 years into doing was potentially going to end in a matter of a few months. I agree with aarons frog farm. And this is not an attack on anyone. Just a reaction to a controversial topic and a lack of faith in our government.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

This is an issue of state's rights! States that have problems with invasive species should regulate their own states. Wildlife that can live IN HI or FL can not survive IL or MI winter. Also take into consideration the economy. From food, care, and pet purchases in 2007 was a total $41.2 billion. This includes from dogs to dart frogs according to the American Pet Products Association.

I have organized a "Call In" on April 20th, you find details at: CIHerp.info and has been posted to NO HR 669

We also have a sticky already on the thread: http://www.dendroboard.com/forum/lounge/36809-here-we-go-again-hr-669-a.html


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

otis07 said:


> I agree, there is no reason for species to be banned where its biologically impossible for them to live. And, if the bill ends up passing without any changes to sections regarding breeding certain species in captivity, I think it would be safe to say it would be anti-productive. As you said, this would create a market for underground smuggling which would just create problems like those seen during prohibition.
> 
> Perhaps I am ignorant to assume everything will workout, or maybe this optomism is just a symptom of my age, but I do believe that if enough people write in the government will have enough sense to improve it.


See, I have already had to spend 3 days calling to get all dart frogs taken off a law to ban animals that are dangerous to humans in NYS(no research, just ban it type law). If they`ll try and ban them because they think they are dangerous to humans, they obviously have no clue. I do not trust that their motive is not to remove all pets from people hands. They write bills like this because of the loopholes. They are not that stupid to put all that time into writing a bill, w/out knowing the loopholes they create. They`re just rolling the dice to see how far they can push it.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> See, I have already had to spend 3 days calling to get all dart frogs taken off a law to ban animals that are dangerous to humans in NYS(no research, just ban it type law). If they`ll try and ban them because they think they are dangerous to humans, they obviously have no clue. I do not trust that their motive is not to remove all pets from people hands. They write bills like this because of the loopholes. They are not that stupid to put all that time into writing a bill, w/out knowing the loopholes they create. They`re just rolling the dice to see how far they can push it.


Thank you .

If you are referring to the one passed in 2005 banning some varianus sp., anacondas, crocs ect. I can't imagine how darts were even considered. It is ironic that they were considering darts, out of all amphibian species. Based on other reptiles banned I would have thought B. alvarius or other toxic Bufo would have been considered before darts.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

That`s the one. It was brought up a couple months after I had built my house/facility and I almost had to sell it and move to PA. If I bred sulfur water monitors and boa morphs I would have had to move.
I`m sorry but these animals don`t pose enough of a threat to human life to be BANNED. It`s a couple politicians w/ unnatural fears of snakes and lizards that got this thru. None of those animals could survive a winter here! Those laws should be zoning laws, in the city, apt complexes, etc. There is NO reason I shouldn`t be able to breed water monitors. The biggest one would turn tail and run at the sight of a human if it could get away. There are more risks every time you cross a street! The thing that kills me is that, if you really want to do something, outlaw cars or outlaw things that cause cancer or something other than our pets. If someone wants to risk this animal, which it`s not a risk if you care for them right, it should be THEIR RIGHT. What`s the worst that`d happen if a monitor killed me in my house? They`d have to shoot it? If I endanger my kids w/ it then that`s darwins law, that line should be stamped out.  We can`t keep making laws to protect us from ourselves, it`s just breeding stupider and stupider(I know more stupid) lines.


----------



## Otis (Apr 16, 2006)

frogfarm said:


> If I endanger my kids w/ it then that`s darwins law, that line should be stamped out


Agreed


----------



## afterdark (Jan 16, 2007)

frogfarm said:


> We can`t keep making laws to protect us from ourselves, it`s just breeding stupider and stupider(I know more stupid) lines.


Excellent post Aaron - but don't you mean *more stupider*?


----------



## Rich Conley (Jun 12, 2008)

JJuchems said:


> This is an issue of state's rights! States that have problems with invasive species should regulate their own states.


Thats how its been, and unfortunately, its not working. This isn't going to work on a state level unless they start putting customs at every state border.


----------



## Roadrunner (Mar 6, 2004)

So we should take away citizens of New York`s rights because of problems they have in Fla? It`s not our fault they don`t get cold enough to control the species they let in. I`d be happy to send some of this cold air down there but I`m not happy to give up my rights because they don`t manage their state according to their climate.
As a matter of fact, these animals get thru customs, maybe we should eradicate the rest of the globes natives so that ours aren`t at risk. See how silly it gets.


----------



## JJuchems (Feb 16, 2004)

Rich Conley said:


> Thats how its been, and unfortunately, its not working. This isn't going to work on a state level unless they start putting customs at every state border.


Rich you are wrong. In IL we have CPO's they regulate these issues.


----------

