[angie7]

The gov't is trying to pass a law that will ban all animals not native to the US. It includes most reptiles and birds, virtually all fish, hamsters, ferrets, guinea pigs, etc.
Please watch the video and sign the petition!
http://www.nohr669.com/

 

[MaryLang]

Yup! My brother owns a pet shop and will be pretty much ruined if this happens! When will they start thinking about consequences?! Think a law through first? It kinda reminds of of the CSPIA thing.

 

[Dar]

Here's the actual text of the bill

It specifically excludes any species determined to be common and clearly domesticated, which I am pretty sure would cover ferrets, guinea pigs, hamsters... it also gives a list of factors to be considered before assigning a species to the unapproved list, which include the likelihood that the species would establish itself and spread in the US, and that it would be a danger to native plants or animals... neither of which is true for pretty much any animal typically kept as a pet.

Dar

 

[mesa]

non native species wreak havoc on local ecosystems. I read not too long ago about all the problems Florida is having with boas and pythons. The alligators are bad enough, I couldn't imagine having to worry about giant snakes in my backyard...

In Long Beach CA a few years ago when I lived there, there was a giant flock of escaped green parrots. I don't know what species they were, but they were conure sized. They were a local novelty, so I don't know what kind of damage they did in the ecosystem, if any, but they were definitely not native.

Fish are a big problem in some areas, even piranhas, which are already banned.

I don't know...it sounds like they aren't banning already domesticated non native species...I'll have to reserve judgment on this one for a while

 

[angie7]

Quote:

I read not too long ago about all the problems Florida is having with boas and pythons. The alligators are bad enough, I couldn't imagine having to worry about giant snakes in my backyard...

This is my problem with these laws. Just b/c some irresponsible person releases a snake in the wild, does not mean that everyone is this way and not everyone should be punished. You can see in my sig that I have 3 snakes. I shouldn't be punished for taking care of my snakes and being responsible for them when a few others can't. This is the same as the breed bans that they have. Just b/c of a few irresponsible people train their dogs to be vicious, does not mean that everyone else will too. I own a dog that they are wanting to ban (Great Dane) and can tell you, she is the sweetest thing in the world and wouldn't hurt a fly, heck she jumps if one lands on her!

While I understand that animals can cause many problems in our eco-system, not everyone should be punished b/c of few bad apples.

 

[Jesskathand]

I do agree with the bill, I am against breeding.

I'm sure there will always be animals to rescue!

 

[mesa]

Quote:

Originally Posted by angie7 This is my problem with these laws. Just b/c some irresponsible person releases a snake in the wild, does not mean that everyone is this way and not everyone should be punished. You can see in my sig that I have 3 snakes. I shouldn't be punished for taking care of my snakes and being responsible for them when a few others can't. This is the same as the breed bans that they have. Just b/c of a few irresponsible people train their dogs to be vicious, does not mean that everyone else will too. I own a dog that they are wanting to ban (Great Dane) and can tell you, she is the sweetest thing in the world and wouldn't hurt a fly, heck she jumps if one lands on her! While I understand that animals can cause many problems in our eco-system, not everyone should be punished b/c of few bad apples.

I feel your pain. Really, I do, but isn't that always the way it goes? I love snakes, and birds, and ferrets, I've owned all of them at one time or another. It makes me sad that a few stupid people stand to ruin everything for everyone else.

 

[MaryLang]

This bill does not exclude things that are already domesticated without proof that they could possibly live natively without injury to themselves or the ecosystem of that area. So yes at least initially it will affect, hamsters, ferrets, guinea pigs, parakeets etc... I don't know how they would possibly have the resources to enforce this bill/law. And further more I am sooo tired of these blanket laws. If you are having trouble in FL, or CA enforce things there, there is no reason for this! There are much more important things to be spending time and money on then this. This bill is not a breeding ban. It is more more involved than just breeding. And this does not only include pet stores, breeders, ect... It will affect any private citizen found with a non-approved animal.

 

[Dar]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryLang This bill does not exclude things that are already domesticated without proof that they could possibly live natively without injury to themselves or the ecosystem of that area.

Yes, it does. Here's the relevant text, from the link I posted upthread:

Quote:

The term 'nonnative wildlife species'--<...> (D) does not include any cat (Felis catus), cattle or oxen (Bos taurus), chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), donkey or ass (Equus asinus), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated Anas spp.), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus), horse (Equus caballus), llama (Lama glama), mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus), pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica), domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), or sheep (Ovis aries), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.

Dar

 

[MaryLang]

or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.

This is very generalized. What does it mean exactly? It doesn't prove or assume that before mentioned animals, hamsters, gerbils, ferrets, parakeets will be excluded. Because really your just assuming that the Secretary is reasonable to make this decision for us, that these animals are clearly domesticated. I'm sorry but the wording of this bill is what is worrisome. I totally support the need to handle this problem of non-native species, but this is not the way to do it. It needs to be revised. Just as the CSPIA bill did.

 

[Liquesce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryLang This is very generalized. What does it mean exactly? It doesn't prove or assume that before mentioned animals, hamsters, gerbils, ferrets, parakeets will be excluded. Because really your just assuming that the Secretary is reasonable to make this decision for us, that these animals are clearly domesticated. I'm sorry but the wording of this bill is what is worrisome. I totally support the need to handle this problem of non-native species, but this is not the way to do it. It needs to be revised. Just as the CSPIA bill did.

What it means, in practice, is that you'd have to have a Secretary with a personal vendetta against hamsters to have them included. It's worded generally and in a case-by-case manner so that it can do its job of effectively dealing with serious invasive species issues -- not because there are a bunch of politicians sitting around just itching to take away our iguanas for sport.

 

[alegna]

Doesn't California still have a personal vendetta against ferrets?

-Angela

 

[Liquesce]

Quote:

Originally Posted by alegna Doesn't California still have a personal vendetta against ferrets? -Angela

Yep. And there are people actively working to have that law repealed. And yes, a generalized law has room for error, since I gather that's the point of the example ... but so too does a law which attempts to specifically name every type of pet which has not already clearly been shown to cause harm. It's just not a type of bill that can be made perfect ... generalizing risks infringing on pet owners, too much specifying risks serious ecological harm. Including more species may be called for. Making everyone happy is not.

 

[KarlaC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mesa non native species wreak havoc on local ecosystems. I read not too long ago about all the problems Florida is having with boas and pythons. The alligators are bad enough, I couldn't imagine having to worry about giant snakes in my backyard... In Long Beach CA a few years ago when I lived there, there was a giant flock of escaped green parrots. I don't know what species they were, but they were conure sized. They were a local novelty, so I don't know what kind of damage they did in the ecosystem, if any, but they were definitely not native. Fish are a big problem in some areas, even piranhas, which are already banned. I don't know...it sounds like they aren't banning already domesticated non native species...I'll have to reserve judgment on this one for a while

Are they these green parrots?http://www.brooklynparrots.com/

If so please take the time to educate yourself about Quakers. http://qp-society.com/wildquakers/wi...smainpage.html and the archaic laws concerning them. They are not 'escaped', breeders released them upon finding out how noisy large flocks were. Most parrots would never have survived in such a different climate. I would prefer breeders were banned & pet stores selling live animals since rescues are incredibly full.

Quote:

In non domestic settings, Quakers are hardy and resourceful birds. In the 1970's, when feral Quaker populations became apparent in the United States, lawmakers became concerned that these populations would pose an agricultural threat, as well as a threat to native avian species. To date, it cannot be substantiated that wild Quaker colonies are a threat to argriculture, nor, has it been proven that they are invasive to native avian species, but rather, have been recorded sharing their nesting areas with native species, such as owls. Quakers are the only parrot which construct nests. The nests, depending on colony size, can be very large, hosting several families, with 3 chambers per family unit built into each nest. In urban settings, Quakers may choose to construct their nests in places which they know will provide warmth, such as on, or near, electrical power transformers and lights.

 

[KarlaC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryLang This bill does not exclude things that are already domesticated without proof that they could possibly live natively without injury to themselves or the ecosystem of that area. So yes at least initially it will affect, hamsters, ferrets, guinea pigs, parakeets etc... I don't know how they would possibly have the resources to enforce this bill/law. And further more I am sooo tired of these blanket laws. If you are having trouble in FL, or CA enforce things there, there is no reason for this! There are much more important things to be spending time and money on then this. This bill is not a breeding ban. It is more more involved than just breeding. And this does not only include pet stores, breeders, ect... It will affect any private citizen found with a non-approved animal.

Sorry but you're wrong. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...?bill=h111-669

Quote:

(f) Animals Owned Lawfully Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun pursuant to subsection (e)(3), even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.

 

[MaryLang]

That just means that yes you can be grandfathered in.

 

[KarlaC]

Quote:

Originally Posted by MaryLang That just means that yes you can be grandfathered in.

And? It doesn't change the fact that private citizens already owning said animals are not in danger of losing them.

Personally I really don't care if the breeders & pet stores lose their ability to flood the market with more animals when rescues are already over flowing. That's just my 2 cents though.