Sugar Glider Community Calendar

Please click here to see larger view
Articles
More coming soon!!
Today's Birthdays
No Birthdays
Member Spotlight
Ladymagyver
Ladymagyver
SW Missouri
Posts: 4,179
Joined: October 2014
Show All Member Profiles 
Last 10 Posts
It's CAKE TIME !!!!
by Ladymagyver. 05/10/21 07:34 AM
Hi I’m New!
by Feather. 05/03/21 08:30 PM
Bonding time - Together or individual?
by Feather. 04/27/21 09:27 PM
Cloaca irritated? Bladder infection?
by Feather. 04/27/21 09:25 PM
Critter Nation Shelf Pan/Tray Replacement
by Ladymagyver. 04/26/21 11:24 AM
Questions on neuter after care
by cookielover. 04/25/21 08:36 PM
Scratching / Swiping at Mouth
by Feather. 04/24/21 11:51 PM
Vet Visit
by Shalena. 04/23/21 10:22 PM
Difference between fecal smear and float
by KarenE. 04/21/21 09:48 AM
Google+

Facebook
Join Us On Facebook
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #763655
04/10/09 07:13 PM
04/10/09 07:13 PM

R
RaiSaix
Unregistered
RaiSaix
Unregistered
R



I've sent about 5 emails to my local representative, and will soon be calling EACH member of the 15 person commitee, as well as writing!

Current Research, Studies & Resources
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #763682
04/10/09 08:19 PM
04/10/09 08:19 PM

P
peem
Unregistered
peem
Unregistered
P



Just because I am not posting more please dont think I am not following this...I keep checking to see what others are writing and to see if anything new comes up...I am sure many others are keeping a close eye on this as well. I know I am sure glad you brought this to our attention!

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #763792
04/11/09 12:04 AM
04/11/09 12:04 AM

D
debyc08
Unregistered
debyc08
Unregistered
D



i just copied this post to 2 other forum boards to help spread the word!!!!
chins-n-hedgies & HHC...

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #763821
04/11/09 01:05 AM
04/11/09 01:05 AM

R
RaiSaix
Unregistered
RaiSaix
Unregistered
R



Thank you so much!

I keep wondering, what will reptile keepers do? If all ,ice and things are banned from being bought, (will they be?)how will they feed their animals. Furthermore, even if mice are not banned, feeder farms and even pet store chains such as Pet Co and Pet Smart have said they may close their dorors, so this STILL leaves the owner at a loss!!!

Can someone please post this on Glider Gossip? I can't seem to log onto my account there...

Last edited by RaiSaix; 04/11/09 01:13 AM.
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #763854
04/11/09 02:22 AM
04/11/09 02:22 AM
Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 548
North AL
zookeeper18 Offline
Glider Lover
zookeeper18  Offline
Glider Lover

Joined: Mar 2008
Posts: 548
North AL
Emailed the reps that would take out of district emails. Thanks for bring this to our attention.


Theresa
Committed wife! (As in needs to be committed!)
Mom to 3 skin kids, 3 dogs,a cat, and 5 sugar gliders! Adam :wfb: , Apple :wfb: , Pita :wfb: , Zita :wfb: and Bobo :grey:

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: zookeeper18] #763993
04/11/09 02:00 PM
04/11/09 02:00 PM

K
Kamomax2105
Unregistered
Kamomax2105
Unregistered
K



Go to www.nohr669.com to stop this. They have a pre-written letter that you can Email to your senator and you can also add your peice to it.

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #764034
04/11/09 03:29 PM
04/11/09 03:29 PM

R
RaiSaix
Unregistered
RaiSaix
Unregistered
R



Thanks!

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #764036
04/11/09 03:36 PM
04/11/09 03:36 PM
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 928
Poynette, WI
sketchyglider Offline
Glider Guardian
sketchyglider  Offline
Glider Guardian

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 928
Poynette, WI
I am printing off stuff about HR669 and i am going to take it to my work and hand it out to customers. I work at animart and we have lots and lots of customers that get food for their exotics through us.


Jessee slave to:
Ender :rtmo: & Valentine :leu: and 1 non-fuzzy kid Carleigh

I am SOOOOOO happy to finally be able to have my gliders back home with me! I have missed my babies soo much <3
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: sketchyglider] #764049
04/11/09 04:08 PM
04/11/09 04:08 PM

R
RaiSaix
Unregistered
RaiSaix
Unregistered
R



I was thinking about handing them out at school. But kids don't care about anything not directly related to themselves.

Still, I'll try.

Last edited by RaiSaix; 04/11/09 04:16 PM.
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #764167
04/11/09 09:35 PM
04/11/09 09:35 PM
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,839
roseville, mi
H
hwh4ev Offline
Glider Addict
hwh4ev  Offline
Glider Addict
H

Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 2,839
roseville, mi
our letters our sent to our representative opposing hr669.

regards,
nancy in detroit


regards,
nancy in roseville (formerly in detroit)
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #764424
04/12/09 05:42 PM
04/12/09 05:42 PM

S
saturnhaze
Unregistered
saturnhaze
Unregistered
S



Before you go crazy over this, read the actual bill. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-669
Unlike all the rumors going around, the bill will not prohibit the breading,ownership, or sale of ALL nonnative (exotic pets). I did research on the bill for a class last semester (Masters in Environmental Science).

This bill is a good idea. It bans animal species that rapidly grow, reproduce, and take over the native wildlife. It is the animal version of banning Kudzu or purple loosestrife. This might have stopped the release of Africanized Honeybees if implemented in Mexico.

Again, I repeat. This will not ban all animals not originally found in America. Only ones like the Norwegian Rat which are a great nuisance, have few or no natural predators, cause high economic losses, and out compete native mice for food, shelter, etc.

Get educated and read. Don't take other peoples words as law. If you read this bill and still have a problem with it, then go to your house of representatives. JUST READ IT FIRST!

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #764433
04/12/09 06:05 PM
04/12/09 06:05 PM
Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,753
Florida
LabNGliderMom Offline
Glider Addict
LabNGliderMom  Offline
Glider Addict

Joined: Jan 2009
Posts: 3,753
Florida
*Be advised an APPROVED and an UNAPPROVED list of animals WILL be a part of this bill- it is important if you own NON-US ENVIRONMENT THREATENING exotic species that you do what you can to get them on the APPORVED list. ANY animal NOT on the approved list- EVEN if it is also not on the BANNED list WILL BE BANNED. You will NOT have to stop OWNING them- but you WILL be required to get a PERMIT to keep them, NEVER breed them again, NEVER sell them again AND never travel across state lines with them again.*

I suggest the following websites for more info on HR669...

http://www.petbusiness.com/articles/2009...cies?print=true
http://usark.org/uploads/HR669.pdf
http://nohr669.com/


Julie
Hubby: George
Kids: Ayla & Michael
Grandsons: Trysten, Dayton, KJ & Nathyn
The Zoo: Midnight, Severe & Nala - Claude, Pixie, Tippy & Chili - Scout & Soluna, Theo & Deegie

http://hammockhavenpetsplus.com


Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: LabNGliderMom] #764498
04/12/09 10:33 PM
04/12/09 10:33 PM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 207
Louisiana
Iceguru Offline
Glider Explorer
Iceguru  Offline
Glider Explorer

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 207
Louisiana
I want to know one thing if this bill passes can my glider come with me too Virginia this summer?


I know, but I still
Believe in ignorance as my best defense
So go on, wreck me
Funny how I carry on, and not be taken over
Will not roll over on anyone,
cuz anyone would stand up on my side
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: Iceguru] #764614
04/13/09 10:41 AM
04/13/09 10:41 AM
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,039
Bristol, Va
MissSarah Offline
Glider Addict
MissSarah  Offline
Glider Addict

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 3,039
Bristol, Va
Just sent my letter in!


Proud Mom to Princess Pim The Insane. heart(and several other babies, skin and fur.)

Dogs have owners. Cats have staff. Gliders have indentured servants.

:rbridge: Dexter. You left blueberry stains on my wall and pawprints on my heart. I love you Decker-Boy. heart
Full Moon Gliders
(Under Construction)

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: MissSarah] #764652
04/13/09 12:08 PM
04/13/09 12:08 PM
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,273
Dayton, Ohio
C
CharmedSuggies Offline
Glider Addict
CharmedSuggies  Offline
Glider Addict
C

Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 4,273
Dayton, Ohio
Best believe I sent my letter in!! And also wrote a personal email to my representative!


Melissa & Aaron

Brat Pack
Roxy, Eddie, Lily :bb:

Crabby Crew
Brutus Theodore, Hugo Bug, Lulu :wfb: :leu:

Akeesha, Orion & Niko :rtmo:

SFS
Bella Belle mlove

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: Iceguru] #764887
04/13/09 09:13 PM
04/13/09 09:13 PM

R
RaiSaix
Unregistered
RaiSaix
Unregistered
R



Originally Posted By: saturnhaze
Before you go crazy over this, read the actual bill. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-669
Unlike all the rumors going around, the bill will not prohibit the breading,ownership, or sale of ALL nonnative (exotic pets). I did research on the bill for a class last semester (Masters in Environmental Science).

This bill is a good idea. It bans animal species that rapidly grow, reproduce, and take over the native wildlife. It is the animal version of banning Kudzu or purple loosestrife. This might have stopped the release of Africanized Honeybees if implemented in Mexico.

Again, I repeat. This will not ban all animals not originally found in America. Only ones like the Norwegian Rat which are a great nuisance, have few or no natural predators, cause high economic losses, and out compete native mice for food, shelter, etc.

Get educated and read. Don't take other peoples words as law. If you read this bill and still have a problem with it, then go to your house of representatives. JUST READ IT FIRST!

Originally Posted By: Iceguru
I want to know one thing if this bill passes can my glider come with me too Virginia this summer?


For the life of me, I can't find that distinction anywhere. Could you point me in the right direction of that information?

From the information I have now: No.

Last edited by RaiSaix; 04/13/09 09:39 PM.
Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #764912
04/13/09 10:02 PM
04/13/09 10:02 PM

A
arie
Unregistered
arie
Unregistered
A



I believe what it actually states is that each non-native species will be examined and if enough evidence is provided that the species is a danger, then they will be removed from the breeding and importing world. Now sugar gliders...they don't really have any "dangerous " qualities. If they were to get loose, they would most likely die. They wouldn't pose a threat to other wildlife (like the poster above me mentioned about that specific kind of rat)
The policy also states that if enough information can not be found on the animal, they will still be allowed to be bred and imported. I don't know, I could be wrong but I just don't see this law as a threat to the animals I have, because I know that they would have little chance of ever posing a threat..and this is what the basis of the law lays on.

Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel #764930
04/13/09 10:54 PM
04/13/09 10:54 PM

J
JustTwo
Unregistered
JustTwo
Unregistered
J



I'm sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I didn't know where else it should go, and I didn't see it mentioned any where else yet. Time is short!

Do you have a sugar glider, rodent, bird, ferret, turtle, lizard, hermit crab, fish, or snake of any kind as a pet or help find homes for them? If so, the following federal bill could make it impossible for you to transport your pet across state lines - this includes your sugar gliders, finches, parakeets, ferrets, tortoises, iguanas, and guinea pigs.

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING NONNATIVE SPECIES APRIL 23

ON April 23rd 2009 The Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669, a resolution that will in effect ban importation, INTERSTATE TRANSPORT, and the private possession of most birds, small mammals, reptiles, and fish as pets. Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following non-native animals would be allowed:

any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or [censored] (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)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Should this resolution be adopted into law as written it will have a devastating impact on every pet owner in the United States. Action is needed TODAY to protect your rights to keep your pets!

THE ISSUE

The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act.

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious [harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S.

HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to "cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' health or human health." In order to be placed on the "Approved List" it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause "harm" anywhere in the US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an "Unapproved List." Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.

Species not appearing on the "Approved List" could not be imported into the United States; therefore, all unapproved nonnative species could not be moved interstate. In addition, trade in all such unlisted species would come to a halt - possession would be limited and all breeding would cease. Unless those species are included on the approved list import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation.

THE IMPACT

Non-native species in the pet trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, fish and a number of mammals (e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, FERRETS) commonly kept as pets. It is immaterial under HR 669 that:

- The vast majority of these nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, some for hundreds of years, and have not proven to be an environmental problem.
- Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental problems, and this has generally been on a very localized basis (i.e. southern Florida, Hawaii).
- Most states have exercised their authority to regulate problem species within their own borders through a mixture of management regimes ranging from permit systems to bans.
- The HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative â€" that no harm has or is likely to occur within whole of the entire United States.
- The "risk assessment" process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a a broader "risk analysis" that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management) measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies.

HR 669 would employ a 2-step process of a Preliminary and a Final Approved List along with the Services having to promulgate regulations not only to deal with creation of the lists but also regulating all aspects of this rather complex bill. The Service would have to complete major portions of the list and regulation process within 24 months of passage. Imagine how the Service will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in HR 669 within these timeframes when it takes on average 4 years for the Service to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act. The bill sets up the under-resourced Service for failure and numerous lawsuits by activist groups.

Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: ] #764958
04/13/09 11:24 PM
04/13/09 11:24 PM

J
JustTwo
Unregistered
JustTwo
Unregistered
J



The way I read this is: Unless an animal is "approved" through a rather lengthy process, it is "banned". Banned means NO interstate travel - what if your vet is in another state? What if you're forced to move to another state? What if you become sick and can't care for your pets and the best new home is in another state?

And some of your comments about reptiles couldn't be farther from the truth. As much as you love your suggies, there are those that have lists just for their iguanas and have "ignics" for thier iggies to get together with thier people. There are people who have owned the same turtle or tortoise for 50 years or more! Most iguanas live longer than sugar gliders these days.

The way this bill is worded, it will cause problems for gliders and any other "non-native" animal not on the approved list when/if this bill gets passsed. There are better ways of doing what this bill wants to do (ban importation but not intersate movement, ban sale, whatever), but that's probalby what the special interest groups want us to do - agree to a lesser form of the bill so our rights are slowly eroded.

---- In order to be placed on the "Approved List" it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause "harm" anywhere in the US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an "Unapproved List." Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination. ------

Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: ] #764984
04/14/09 12:26 AM
04/14/09 12:26 AM

C
Crafts_Critters
Unregistered
Crafts_Critters
Unregistered
C



The hearing on 23 Apr 09 is a the Committee hearing. The bill hasn't made it out of committee to the House. It may not make it out of committee the way it is currently written.

The other problem is it does not address USDA licensed facilities. Other bills make exceptions for USDA, but, this one I could not find any verbage excluding USDA licensed facilities.

If passed as written some of the problems I see: enforcement will be difficult and subjective to new regulations which currently are already open to interpretation by law enforcement and regulatory officials; increase the probability that some exotic pet owner out of fear will release exotics in the wild; another fact that they are looking at the political borders of the US and treating the US as one single ecosystem (a sugar glider can exist in south where as harsh winters in the north can kill them). Economic and political view; it will severely impact the pet trade (a multi billion dollar trade) which would be suicide considering the state of the economy.

They need to enforce current federal laws and regulations (which has been tough at best). Then you have state, and local law enforcement. These laws are there and should be enforced. Adding a law to ban exotics due to the carelessness of some exotic pet owners should not result in punishment to animal owners as a whole.

Chad

Chad

Last edited by Crafts_Critters; 04/14/09 12:28 AM.
Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: ] #765028
04/14/09 08:00 AM
04/14/09 08:00 AM

I
IrishCreme
Unregistered
IrishCreme
Unregistered
I



Unfortunately, it is now believed that many emails are being filtered if referencing HR669. I suggest faxing and/or snail mailing your letters.
Tom Wolfe, a USARK Lobbyist, (Yes, the reptile industry has someone on the Hill.) is willing to personally deliver any letters he receives to the committee members when the re-convene to review this HR669 nonsense. usark.org has the details on their web site.

For those of you who still aren't sure if this will effect you, check out the story below. This was first thought to be a mistake or oversight on the behalf of the floor - until they refused to amend the bill. Im all for removing potentially dangerous (lead based) items from our kids hands - but regulations that are sweeping and not specific - simply tromp on our rights. If someone would please explain to me how a child could manage to actually lick the brake pads - I may reconsider my opinion that this is obnoxious.
http://www.star-telegram.com/health/story/1293953.html

HR669 is an equally sweeping, equally obnoxious, proposal which is thoroughly backed by animal rights activists and being pushed by their Lobbyists on a federal level.

Here's the kicker - If suggies are found to be a potentially invasive species, for say - the state of Hawaii, they are on the 'no-no' list.

Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: ] #765270
04/14/09 06:24 PM
04/14/09 06:24 PM
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,797
Wisconsin
Feather Offline
Administrator
Feather  Offline
Administrator

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 13,797
Wisconsin
The following was forwarded to me from the President of Cream City Feathered Friends, a bird club in Milwaukee, WI.

TESTIMONY OF
MARSHALL MEYERS
PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WLDLIFE AND OCEANS
HOUSE NATURAL RESROUCES COMMITTEE
June 26, 2008
Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am Marshall Meyers, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint advisory Council (PIJAC). Thank you for inviting me to submit comments on the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (HR 6311).
PIJAC is a non-profit service-oriented organization comprised of members who care about pets and the pet industry. As a national trade association, PIJAC represents all segments of the pet industry: companion animal importers/exporters/breeders, wholesale distributors, product manufacturers, retail outlets, and affiliated hobby clubs, aquarium societies, and other industry trade associations. Our members serve the 63% of the U.S. households that care for and maintain pets of all types, sizes and descriptions: the majority of these pets fall within the purview of the regulatory system contemplated in HR 6311.
PIJAC’s explicit mission is to:
“Promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare,
foster environmental stewardship, and ensure the availability of pets.”
The pet industry, like several other industries, is dependent on the importation of non-native species, most of which are farm raised. Pet owners across the US possess a wide variety of non-native species in significant numbers. This is not a new phenomenon. For generations, people have maintained a wide variety of non-native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish as companion animals. Unlike some industries dealing in nonnative species, it is not the intent of the pet industry or the majority of pet owners to place or release these animals into the natural environment.
Background
PIJAC is well aware of the problems posed by invasive species. Our involvement with this issue dates back to the early 1970s when the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a proposed list of “Low Risk” wildlife. Like HR 6311, that proposal would have banned all wildlife not otherwise appearing on the clean list as being “injurious” (invasive) under the Lacey Act. We challenged that approach because (1) it failed to provide science-based support for how it classified “low” versus “high” risk species, and (2) it was premised upon broad-based conclusions that all nonnative species were per se
injurious until proven innocent. We successfully challenged the proposed regulatory action by making government officials and stakeholders aware of the fact that it placed an untenable burden on the trade to “scientifically prove” a negative – i.e. the absence of harm.
For many years, PIJAC has been providing leadership on invasive species issues, serving as an advisor to and collaborator with numerous government agencies. The PIJAC staff serves on various Aquatic Naissance Species Task Force (ANSTF) committees and regional panels, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and a number of State invasive species advisory committees or working groups. Additionally, PIJAC leads several initiatives and proactive campaigns designed to minimize the introduction and impact of invasive species. These campaigns reflect a strong collaborative effort between industry, the government, and other stakeholders.
PIJAC believes that effective measures should be in place to reduce the risk of the adverse impacts of invasive species. We further believe that the appropriate directives for risk management are contained in the Lacey Act, the National Invasive Species Management Plan (per Executive Order 13112), and several ANSTF initiatives, among others. As we have testified previously, the requisite human and financial resources have yet to be made available to the relevant federal agencies so that they can fully and effectively implement and enforce existing policies and programs. Until the government is willing to invest in implementation and enforcement of the regulatory measures it has already enacted, additional regulations will serve only to cripple an already faltering system.
With regard to HR 6311, first and foremost I note that it reckons back to a failed, technically flawed approach of the early 1970s. As previously mentioned, it imposes on persons interested in importing or possessing a species for commercial or non-commercial purposes the task of having to scientifically prove a negative – that the species will not cause harm or be likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human and animal species’ health. Simply on the grounds of “Statistics 101” this is unworkable. Absent a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove conclusively that no harm has ever nor will ever occur at any time, anywhere in the United States.
Thousands of non-native species have been in the pet trade for decades, yet the overwhelming majority of them have never established feral populations and even fewer have been demonstrated to have caused harm to the environment, economy, or human health. In rare instances where former pets have become invasive, the impacts have generally been to localized areas in urban and suburban contexts which are already heavily impacted by habitat loss and degradation.
It is, thus, both unnecessary and unrealistic to conduct a risk assessment for every non-native species in the pet trade (e.g., more than 1600 freshwater fish), let alone those brought in by other industries as well.
2
While we recognize that the Lacey Act process is inefficient in many ways, it is clear to us that this is largely due to the lack of capacity both in terms of staffing and funding. Because HR 6311 mandates a far more comprehensive process than currently exists under the Lacey Act, it is set up for failure. If enacted as drafted, HR 6311 would force the Fish and Wildlife Service into a managerial nightmare. It would have to:
1.
conduct risk assessments on more than 10,000 species currently in trade, many of which are not even scientifically identified to the species level let alone extensively studied, and complete those assessments in time to meet the statutory deadlines set forth in Sections 3 and 4; or, upon failure to do so,
2.
shut down a number of industries dependent upon nonnative species -- such as the pet industry, food aquaculture, and sports fishing.
Even if there was ample scientific information available to enable the risk assessment process, it is clear that the USFWS would not be physically able to complete a sufficient number of species assessments given its extremely limited staff and financial resources. It is also readily apparent that industries cannot exist on a handful of imported species for the short or long-term.
HR 6311 is an overly simplistic approach to a very complex problem which involves much more than running a series of risk assessments in order to publish a list of approved species. The socio-economic, as well as biological, issues impact hundreds of millions of Americans and a more reasoned approach is needed to address the invasive species conundrum.
I, therefore, urge the Committee to take into careful consideration the findings and recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, as well as initiatives of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and numerous state agencies that are dealing with this issue. Initiatives under these programs already reflect stakeholder-inclusive reviews on and recommendations to address the import of live organisms in the invasive species context.
For well over a decade, government and industry have been working collaboratively to enhance prevention, improve early detection and rapid response, develop screening mechanisms applicable to different animal types, identify pathways and pathway related problems, and increase public awareness on the importance of not introducing nonnative species into the environment. A major component of that process is recognizing that screening or risk analysis must be carefully constructed to ensure that the analysis is science-based, credible, transparent, involves stakeholders, and evaluates and promotes viable management policies. In our opinion, HR 6311 has the potential to jeopardize and set back achievements of the past several years.
For example, the 2001 National Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan), was developed through a transparent, science-based, stakeholder-inclusive process. It was intended to provide a constructive way forward for Federal agencies and partners to minimize the impact of invasive species in a manner that was timely, practical, and cost-
3
effective. Plan developers concluded that a phased-in screening approach was the most effective way to reduce the risk of import of potentially invasive species. In the first phase of the process, relevant Federal agencies would work with stakeholders to screen species proposed for first-time imports into the US. Three years later, the second phase would broaden the approach for the systematic screening of species already in trade. PIJAC encourages members of Congress to review the Plan, and meet with NISC Policy Liaisons and original members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) in order to garner a better understanding of the process already agreed to by Federal agencies and stakeholders, as well as the underlying basis for the decisions made – such as the lack of scientific data, staff capacity, and economic implications.
If Congress decides to ignore the Plan, then we urge that HR 6311 be redrafted to direct a risk analysis process rather than a risk assessment. According to the definitions adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (and supported by the US), "risk analysis refers to: (1) the assessment of the consequences of the introduction and of the likelihood of establishment of an alien species using science-based information (i.e., risk assessment), and (2) the identification of measures that can be implemented to reduce or manage these risks (i.e., risk management), taking into account socio-economic and cultural considerations.”
As evidenced at several recent meetings dealing with screening processes and other analytical approaches, it has become abundantly clear that such a process is complex and that there is not agreement within the scientific community or other interested parties on how to deal with this complex problem. Screening is one part of the process; risk management and evaluating socio-economic issues and other benefits is equally important and challenging. We do not believe that this can simply be resolved via legislation mandating criteria that needs to be subject to scientific and legal scrutiny. That should be left to the regulators.
Unless socio-economic and cultural considerations are adequately accounted for in this process, numerous domesticated animals (e.g., domestic cats and livestock) are likely to qualify for the “black list” as there is considerable scientific data to indicate that these nonnative wildlife species (as currently defined by HR 6311) have caused substantial economic harm when they become feral. Furthermore, there are already management measures in place for some species that would reduce the risk of invasiveness. For example, ferrets that are spayed/neutered cannot establish viable populations. Finally, in the current economic environment, Congress must carefully consider both the financial costs and benefits of imported species. The loss of certain high-income fish, for example, could result in the collapse of the entire ornamental fish industry and have significant repercussions for product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers throughout the country.
Understanding the broad biological and socio-economic implications of developing lists of approved and unapproved wildlife species, countries such as Australia and New Zealand explicitly employ risk analyses. Reference materials for their programs are readily available on the Web.
4
The following comments address key sections of HR 6311.
Risk Assessment Process (Section 3)
PIJAC questions the advisability of the Congress mandating specific criteria that the Secretary must factor into the Department’s assessment protocols. As evidenced by the work of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the ANSTF. The Department’s scientists need flexibility to design analysis protocols depending on the taxa, the purpose of introduction, and other relevant factors. A “one-size-fits-all” set of factors will not enable an effective result.
For example, it is not technically feasible to identify some species in trade – including some very high volume and income species – to the “species level” (Section 3(b)(1)). Many armored catfish, a staple of the aquaria trade, are only identified with “L” numbers; they have not been scientifically described. Nor is it clear how the prescribed process would deal with taxonomic name changes in cases in which molecular studies indicate that the classifications should either be “split” or “grouped.” If the scientific classification changes, would the risk analysis have to be repeated for the affected species? Furthermore, how would agency staff address the fact that some countries (particularly developing, exporting countries) are using different taxonomic names (often “old” versus “new”) than others?
Section 3(b)(2) requires information on the “geographic source of the species and the conditions under which it was captured or bred.” Is this section designed to identify the evolutionary origin of the species, the geographic location of its initial export, or the last country of export before entering the United States? What is the relevance of analyzing the “conditions under which it [the species] was captured?” Is this introducing an animal welfare element into the risk analysis process?
Section 3(b)(3) incorporates terms such as “established,” “harm” and “spread” without the benefit of definitions. Is the USFWS free to adopt its own definitions? Does “established” mean a self-sustaining reproducing population? Is an analysis as to benefit versus harm part of the evaluation?
Sections 3(b)(4) through (10) incorporate the subjective, non-scientific standard of “likelihood” for determining the probability that a species will become established, spread, do harm, or be accompanied by a “pathogenic species, parasite species, or free living species…” Does “likelihood” connote some level of probability – a specific statistical term – or is it merely a subjective conclusion that something might establish, spread, cause harm or be accompanied with parasites? The mere presence of parasites or other associated organisms is not necessarily problematic. Furthermore, an extremist could argue that any species has some probability of establishing somewhere in the U.S. given the right ecological conditions and propagule pressure. If that probability in scientific risk-based terms presents a negligible risk, how is it assessed under the “likelihood” doctrine? What methods would be used to determine or score “likelihood?”
5
Section 3 sets forth specific factors that must be taken into account in the USFWS’s evaluation of risk but offers no direction as to the manner in which such factors must be evaluated. A reasonable inference, however, is that a positive finding of one or more of those factors is sufficient to prohibit import. Far greater statutory clarity is required. Is the USFWS compelled to list a species as prohibited in any case in which some combination of these factors are determined in the affirmative? Is the mere absence of biological data, because it does not exist, sufficient to compel the USFWS to ban a species that has been imported in the millions or farmed in this country for 30 to 50 years absent evidence of invasiveness?
Based on such a standard, common goldfish, many tropical fish, and myriad common species of birds and reptiles would be banned from the entire United States if it could be demonstrated that under Section 3(b)(4) there is a likelihood that “environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread…exist anywhere in the United States.” Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they might become established in Hawaiian waters; a parakeet would be banned in Minnesota because it could survive in south Florida. Absent inclusion of some qualifying language, the factors become mandates and mandates become prohibitions even though a likely adverse impact is never shown.
Transparency (Section 3(d))
Transparency is critical to the credibility of the process being mandated by this bill. Stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process is essential to attain the level of transparency recommended by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council. PIJAC urges that language be inserted making it abundantly clear that there is stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process. Furthermore, language should direct that the persons making the management decisions are not the same people conducting the risk assessment(s).
List of Approved Species (Section 4)
The concept of assessing first-time introductions surfaced during the ANSTF “Intentional Introductions Policy Review” in the mid-1990s. In a report to Congress in 1994, the ANSTF focused on two main concerns:
1.
“the need to make ecologically credible decisions; and
2.
the need to strike a balance between greater risk reduction and accommodating current activities and economies that depend on the use of nonindigenous species.”
The ANSTF went on to conclude that:
1.
“to the maximum extent possible, the decisions should be based on ecosystem considerations; and
2.
the recommendations should generally apply only to new introductions.” (emphasis added)
6
The ANSTF further recommended establishing a Federal permit system for first-time imports coupled with a credible, science-based review process, and called for improvements in implementing the Lacey Act to include, inter alia, expediting the injurious species listing process, fostering compliance through clearer listings, and initiating a review system for species not listed. The ANSTF also made a series of proactive recommendations, including adoption of good business practices through codes of conduct promoting “continued commercial operations in a manner that is compatible with the conservation of natural ecosystems” such as education and public outreach programs targeting invasive species issues.
The National Invasive Species Plan incorporated that concept following lengthy deliberations among the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and National Invasive Species Council (NISC). The Plan, at page 32, specifically calls for
“…the development of a risk-based screening process for intentionally introduced species in a series of steps or phases. During the first phase a screening system for first-time intentional introductions will be developed…The screening system will then be modified…during the second phase to deal with species already in the U.S.”
Several iterations of bills amending the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA) incorporated the establishment of a “catalog” of organisms in trade. That was to be accomplished as a collaborative effort involving the Fish and Wildlife Service and concerned stakeholders. The language which subsequently appeared in at least five bills in the House and the Senate was agreed to by a diverse group of stakeholders including various nongovernmental environmental organizations. Any species not appearing on that list would be subject to a screening process as a first-time introduction. The screening process would evaluate the “probability of undesirable impacts.”
That legislation did not exempt species appearing in the catalog from risk assessment and possible listing under the Lacey Act. Rather, the catalog was to ensure that species that have been in trade with no apparent ill effects would not suddenly be prohibited absent a science-based risk analysis. This was recognized as the only reasonable and feasible method of addressing thousands of species that have long been imported into the United States and for which no adverse consequences have been identified. Moreover, a number of species in trade have been captive raised within the United States for decades with no demonstrated detrimental impacts.
Section 4(c) provides a mechanism to add nonnative wildlife species to the approved list and requires the Secretary to make a determination “in a reasonable period of time” in accordance with the Section 3(b) factors. PIJAC urges the insertion of a specified time frame within which the USFWS shall make such determinations, similar to time limits imposed under other laws. If history is prologue, there is a high likelihood that few new additions will be made to the list absent a statutorily imposed deadline, and perhaps not even then.
7
When a list is published will there be any grace period for an importer or person possessing listed species already in the United States to revamp their operation(s) and ethically dispose of animals in their possession or do they become violators of this Act, as well as the Lacey Act, overnight? The perception, alone, that this would be the case is likely to motivate frightened individuals to abandon animals. In short, it could facilitate the introduction and establishment of numerous non-native species.
Deadlines (Sections 3(e) and Section 4(a)(1)).
The prescribed timeframes to implement HR 6311 are unrealistic. According to Section 3(e)(1), the proposed regulations and an initial list of approved species must be published within two years of enactment of HB 6311. The final regulations, the initial list of approved species and a notice of the list of prohibited species must be published, pursuant to Section 3(e)(2), no later than 30 days before the date on which the Secretary begins assessing the species . The assessment process must start within 37 months of HR 6311’s enactment (Section 3(e)(3). Yet Section 4(a)(1) mandates that the list of approved species be finalized and published no later than 36 months following enactment. How is this possible?
History has demonstrated that agencies are often unable to comply with such mandated timeframes. Will the USFWS be provided adequate appropriations to fund this initiative? How will the USFWS be able to develop regulations, publish them in the Federal Register seeking public comment, review and finalize the regulations, seek and obtain OMB clearance and publish final rules and lists within such brief timeframes? To date, the USFWS has required an average of four years to accomplish such a process for a single species proposed for injurious wildlife listing.
The NISC and ANSTF approaches referenced earlier alleviate the USFWS’ need to expend significant effort assessing species documented as being in trade and allowed it to concentrate on first time introductions as well as go back and selectively review and assess any of the species in the catalog. The USFWS was not subjected to a series of artificial time frames it could not meet. We recommend a return to the previously agreed upon Catalog approach as a more workable mechanism – a mechanism that is science-based, measurable, transparent and implementable.
List of Unapproved Species (Section 5)
Section 5 calls for the Secretary to publish a list of nonnative wildlife species prohibited or restricted from entering the United States. The list would incorporate those species listed under the Lacey Act as well as any other species added pursuant to this Act. Is this intended to be an amendment to the Lacey Act?
Since violations of the proposed Act would also constitute a violation of the criminal provisions of the Lacey Act, full and complete lists of what is legal and illegal should be published by the USFWS to ensure adequate notice of what constitutes a violation of law.
8
Due process calls for no less. To ensure proper notice and avoid confusion, the approved and unapproved lists should contain every species in the animal kingdom to ensure that the public is aware of what is illegal as well as legal inasmuch as they are subject to a strict liability criminal statute.
Prohibitions and Penalties (Section 3(f) and Section 6(3), (5) and (6)).
Interestingly, a person already engaged in the captive propagation or farming of a species in the United States that does make the “approved list” finds him or herself in the rather awkward position of being subject to conflicting provisions of the law. According to Section 3(f), the “Act shall not interfere with the ability of such people to possess an individual animals of a species that was imported legally.” Yet a close reading of the prohibitions in Section 6 raises significant issues which will undoubtedly compel millions of frightened people to kill or abandon their pets. Once a species appears on the “unapproved list,” the imaginary grandfather clause of Section 3 apparently evaporates because it would be illegal to breed, possess, sell, barter any nonnative species appearing on the Section 4 prohibited list!
The prohibition section will significantly impact not only the pet industry, but also food aquaculture, sport fisheries, the bait industry, and the livestock industry. These sections need to be revisited.
Fees (Section 8)
The establishment of a fee-based risk assessment system is fraught with problems. Apart from trying to ascertain how the amount of the fee(s) will be determined, this system will result in rank discrimination whereby small business will no longer be able to compete. It places the entire financial burden on larger companies willing to assume the financial risk of going through a nondescript assessment and listing process. This becomes a significant burden if the importer imports hundreds or thousands of species for which there is sketchy biological or scientific data, yet the species has been in trade in extremely large numbers for many, many years absent adverse impacts.
Unlike other areas of the economy where fees are assessed to seek government approval of a patented or proprietary drug or chemical product, importers of nonnative species would be funding an assessment not only for themselves but for all of their competitors, and even other industries that trade in the same species for other purposes. How will the USFWS determine which importer is selected to bare the costs? Risk assessments and risk analyses are expensive undertakings. Will the fees be $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 or more per assessment per organism? How will the figures be determined and consistently applied?
Definitions (Section 11)
Failure to provide a clear definition of “wildlife” further adds confusion to HR 6311. As crafted, “nonnative wildlife species” includes “any species that is not a native species.”
9
10
The definition goes on to specifically cover the entire animal kingdom including insects, mollusks, crustaceans, arthropods, coelenterates, and all other invertebrates.
By this definition, many species of animals that are longstanding staples of the pet industry, food aquaculture, sports fishing, and livestock would have to go through the process to ascertain if they pose the “likelihood” of harming the environment or other factors set forth in HR 6311. These would include cattle, cats, dogs and numerous animals considered “domesticated.” A clear definition of “wildlife” is essential.
Conclusion
On behalf of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), thank you for providing us an opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns regarding HR 6311. Despite our reservations about HR 6311, we remain committed to working with your Subcommittee to address this important environmental issue.
We believe that we have raised a number of valid issues regarding HR 6311 and its potential for shutting down several industries dependent on nonnative species. Additionally, it could end up encouraging rather than preventing the release of nonnative animals.
We respectfully suggest that the bill as currently crafted sets the USFWS up for failure. Its whole approach is one that defies practical implementation, and demands exorbitant resources. In short, it would not visit upon the public the beneficial results to which it aspires. The measure demands the nearly impossible task of conducting thousands of scientifically valid risk assessments in a short time-frame, and presumes that all species subject to these assessments shall be prohibited pending a contrary finding, even though no evidence of adverse impact exists. Unlike a risk analysis, it does not explicitly account for socio-economic and cultural considerations. The bill assigns such an impossible task to an agency woefully bereft of resources for the job, and holds hostage several vital sectors of a challenged economy.
We believe that there is a better way to achieve a superior result. To that end, we recommend that a working group comprised of various stakeholders be convened to offer recommendations on the most effective method for moving the screening process forward, as called for in the National Invasive Species Plan. A number of key industries need to be at the table. This is not simply a pet industry issue. A number of pathways have proven to be far more significant vectors of nonnative species than pets.
We look forward to working with your Subcommittee in crafting more realistic legislation that will serve the public and affected industry alike in concert with the National Invasive Species Management Plan and the Executive Orders calling for such a plan.

Last edited by Feather; 04/14/09 06:27 PM. Reason: didn't paste correctly

Kimberley
Feathers-Sweetie, Mister Peanut & Big Mack
Fur-Guinan, Mr. Spock, T'Mir, Cho, Toothless, Maverick & Maharet :bb: T'Pol, Elizabeth & Curzon :wfb: TY, TJ, Light Fury, Madison & T'Pring :rtmo:
Forever in my heart, Gizmo, Tucker, Khayman and the rest of my babies over the :rbridge:

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #765408
04/14/09 11:06 PM
04/14/09 11:06 PM

J
JustTwo
Unregistered
JustTwo
Unregistered
J



Here's a sample letter, and more information below it.

The hearing is on the 23rd - you want your letter or fax to get there before that! Heck, if you can, fax tomorrow and then mail the letter to make sure someone in the representative's office gets it to the representative (everyone on the committee is a representative, as in House of).

Remember to address envelopes and letters to “The Honorable Henry Brown” for example, and start the the letters to Dear Representative or Dear Senator, except for the chairman of a committee (Dear Mr. Chairmen, or Dear Madam Chairwoman,)

For more information on writing a congressman, visit
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020199.htm

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

Full Name
Full Address
Telephone Number

April 14, 2009

The Honorable Madeleine Bordallo
427 Cannon House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-5301
Phone: (202) 225-1188
Fax: (202) 226-0341

Dear Madam Chairwoman,

Please drop H.R. 669. As a biologist, animal welfare advocate, and United States citizen, I oppose this bill. It would create the very thing it’s setting out to prevent, the negative impact to the economy. It is too far reaching, will cost too much money to implement, and will have disastrous consequences for the economy, as well as curtail the rights of citizens. Virtually every pet other than dogs and cats will be affected by this bill, and through them, the people that care for them and supply the goods to care for them. Hundreds if not thousands of small businesses will close as a result, and the government will lose billions in taxable revenue and goods and services. The owners of “non-native” animals don’t just shop at pet stores. They shop at grocery stores, farm supply stores, home improvement stores, craft stores, and specialty food stores to care for their animals. Owners of “exotic” pets such as tortoises, ferrets, snakes, iguanas, and even lowly fish, might spend several hundred if not a thousand dollars or more each year to care for their animals. Those businesses that supply the lumber, the feed, the electrical systems, and specialty accessories for “exotic” pets will be hard pressed to make up for the lost revenue.

States currently have the ability to limit which animals may be sold, possessed, or transported into the state. Why does the federal government need to extend its influence, and thus spending of tax payer money, for a problem that can be controlled at the state level? H.R. 669 is essentially trying to kill a fly with a wrecking ball instead of a fly swatter, and will likely cause as much damage. The vast majority of non-native species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, and have not proven to be an environmental problem. Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental concerns, and these on a very limited and localized basis.

The current bill does not take into consideration what will happen to an animal if the owner must relocate to a new state, or if ownership needs to transfer to another person for whatever reason. What if the most qualified veterinarian is in another state? Some of the animals affected by this bill could live 50 years, 100 years, or even longer. Will you punish all people that care for these animals by keeping this overly reaching bill? Do you think owners will surrender their pets for euthanasia if the animal becomes illegal?

I oppose H.R. 669. It’s unnecessary at the federal level, is over-reaching, could lead to an economic downfall, and takes away the right to the pursuit of happiness for US citizens.

Sincerely,


Full Name

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

This bill is currently in a subcommittee. If it's not killed there, it will go to the House and Senate for votes. So, for now, focus on the subcommittee, Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife led by Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo

Focus first on direct contact with subcommittee members. That means written letters followed up by phone calls. They are telling us that email and fax are the least effective way to contact members... they get lost and deleted. We need to call and write.

The names and phone numbers, fax numbers, and addresses of some of the members is below.

Write a letter to each member of the subcommittee. That means one hard-typed (printed) letter in one envelope for each member, or one printed letter with the member's address on it faxed to that member. If time/resources are short, focus on those closest to your state, and to the subcommittee chairman.

Call each member of the subcommittee- you will be speaking with staff. Let them know you Oppose HR669. Be civil, but tell them how this will effect you and your family.

Check where members are from. If any of the members are your district representatives, or are from your state, make sure they know you are their constituent.

After that, contact your state congressmen, both senators and representatives, and let them know that you oppose HR 669, just in case it gets out of the subcommittee for a vote. Again, a printed letter, either faxed or mailed, works better than an e-mail. Follow up with a phone call if possible.

My key points will be that this is an over-extending bill that will have the exact oposite effect of its intended purpose: It will result in hundreds of small businesses closing, and will result in billions of lost tax dollars in sales and income tax. It will cost too in tax dollars to enfource while resulting in lost revenue. "Non-native" pet owners spend billions each year not just at pet stores, but also at grocery stores and home improvement stores to care for thier animals. This bill will result in thousands of lost jobs. States already have the ability to control which animals enter the state or are sold in the state – this doesn’t have to be a federal matter.

Then you can go on about the risk of pet owners releasing thier animals rather then relinquishing them if thier animal become illegal. What happens when an owner has to move to another state? What if an owner of a long-lived species passes away?

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php

Members of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
1337 Longworth House Office Building (Insular Affairs)
(202) 225-0691 Fax: (202) 225-0521

187 Ford House Office Building (Oceans and Wildlife)
(202) 226-0200 Fax: (202) 225-1542

Mrs. Madeleine Z. Bordallo, Guam, Chairwoman
427 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515-5301
(202) 225-1188, fax (202) 226-0341

Mr. Henry E. Brown, Jr., South Carolina
Ranking Republican Member
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-3176 Fax: (202) 225-3407

Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
2107 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-3611
202-225-6393 fax

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American Samoa
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii

Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
237 Cannon Building
Washington, D.C. 20515-3006
Phone: (202) 225-4671
Fax: (202) 225-9665

Gregorio "Kilili" Sablan, Mariana Islands
Donna M. Christensen, Virgin Islands
Diana DeGette, Colorado
Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Lois Capps, California
Carol Shea-Porter, New Hampshire

Frank Kratovil, Jr., Maryland
314 Cannon House Office Building
Washington D.C. 20510
phone: 202-225-5311
fax: 202-225-0254

Pedro R. Pierluisi, Puerto Rico
Nick J. Rahall, II, West Virginia (ex officio)
Don Young, Alaska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Doug Lamborn, Colorado

Robert J. Wittman, Virginia
1318 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
ph: 202-225-4261
fax: 202-225-4382

John Fleming, Louisiana
1023 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2777
Fax: (202) 225-8039

Jason Chaffetz, Utah
1032 Longworth HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-7751
Fax: (202) 225-5629

Bill Cassidy, Louisiana
Doc Hastings, Washington

Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: ] #766115
04/16/09 08:44 PM
04/16/09 08:44 PM

R
RaiSaix
Unregistered
RaiSaix
Unregistered
R



Originally Posted By: arie
I believe what it actually states is that each non-native species will be examined and if enough evidence is provided that the species is a danger, then they will be removed from the breeding and importing world. Now sugar gliders...they don't really have any "dangerous " qualities. If they were to get loose, they would most likely die. They wouldn't pose a threat to other wildlife (like the poster above me mentioned about that specific kind of rat)
The policy also states that if enough information can not be found on the animal, they will still be allowed to be bred and imported. I don't know, I could be wrong but I just don't see this law as a threat to the animals I have, because I know that they would have little chance of ever posing a threat..and this is what the basis of the law lays on.


O.k, fair enough. But what about the people with various pythons or boas, or any other non native snake, for that matter? What about the fans of marine and tropical fish, or guinea pigs, turtles? The list goes on and on! Shouldn't they have the right to keep their exotic animals they love, just as much as you and your suggies?

Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: ] #766255
04/16/09 11:52 PM
04/16/09 11:52 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,742
in my happy place
S
sugarlope Offline
Glideritis Anonymous
sugarlope  Offline
Glideritis Anonymous
S

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,742
in my happy place
As was said earlier. Animals may find themselves on the unapproved list if they are able to survive and pose an ecological threat anywhere in the US (CA, FL, HI all included). ANY non-native species could pose a threat to the natural wildlife populations. So no matter the animal, this is a concern for all of us, to assume that some animals will get a pass because we think/hope they will is not going to help.

No, this will not affect the current ownership (unless you move out of state, potentially) but the people behind this (namely organizations like PETA and HSUS) would like nothing better than for none of us to own these animals and this would set the future for such a situation.

IF THIS PASSES, even though there are logistical problems with the bill, the structure will be set up...it is difficult to 'unmake' a bill...so when they figure everything out, it WILL mean that these animals are not legal to own in several years (the end of the current generational life cycle).

It also brings to question, if someone owns an animal and has to rehome it, what will happen to it, since sale and crossing state lines may be in jeopardy?

Please don't dismiss this bill. If it passes it will eventually affect ALL of us.


~Gretchen

If we never loved, then maybe we would never feel pain. Love anyway. It's worth it.
Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: sugarlope] #766261
04/17/09 12:11 AM
04/17/09 12:11 AM

A
arie
Unregistered
arie
Unregistered
A



Sorry, I suppose I came across in the wrong way. I own several other animals that would be considered nonnative...and probably would be considered to pose a threat. I was simply speaking about how the bill affects sugar gliders..and do agree that it would eventually affect us all. I would hate to think that this could be passed, but I believe that (and sure hope that) it will only end up outlawing animals that truly are in situations that they shouldn't be which do cause them to pose a threat. It's scary that the line is so thin...after-all any animal has the potential to be dangerous in some way or another. If anything the law should simply put stricter surveillance on non-native species trade and ownership...not ban those of us with the species if we house them safely and responsibly. Everywhere I go I see people showing protest for the law, there are a LOT of people just like all of you who are fighting it..so I believe we really do have a chance.

Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: ] #766264
04/17/09 12:20 AM
04/17/09 12:20 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,742
in my happy place
S
sugarlope Offline
Glideritis Anonymous
sugarlope  Offline
Glideritis Anonymous
S

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 19,742
in my happy place
Originally Posted By: arie
I believe that (and sure hope that) it will only end up outlawing animals that truly are in situations that they shouldn't be which do cause them to pose a threat.


The way the bill stands right now, this is not what will happen. frown The concern is that so many people assume that is the way it will be carried out, but that is not realistic, as that is not how the bill was written. We just don't want people to take it lightly and stop worrying about the possibility something like this could happen.


~Gretchen

If we never loved, then maybe we would never feel pain. Love anyway. It's worth it.
Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: sugarlope] #766272
04/17/09 12:58 AM
04/17/09 12:58 AM
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 207
Louisiana
Iceguru Offline
Glider Explorer
Iceguru  Offline
Glider Explorer

Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 207
Louisiana
6 more days frown


I know, but I still
Believe in ignorance as my best defense
So go on, wreck me
Funny how I carry on, and not be taken over
Will not roll over on anyone,
cuz anyone would stand up on my side
Re: Federal Bill HR 669 bans interstate travel [Re: Iceguru] #766982
04/18/09 06:41 PM
04/18/09 06:41 PM
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,258
Homestead, FL
M
myangelbear77 Offline
Glider Slave
myangelbear77  Offline
Glider Slave
M

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 2,258
Homestead, FL
Read Sec 7 & 8 of the bill from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-669
Out of everything I get the understanding that if you take the time and pay the fees you can still get and have nonnative species. Heck I have to have a permit for a species native to my state...
My father will say it is another way for them to get the almighty dollar from us yet again.
Seriously if this passes we will be wasting tax dollars yet again. It feels like another step to control the general population when a small percentage needs it. I understand banning certain species especially in certain environments where they can survive and affect the Eco system but get real people my parrot doesn't even know how to fly let alone survive.


Be the kind of person your dog thinks you are.

Re: HR669!!!~ BAN ON ALL EXOTIC PETS IN AMERICA!!! [Re: ] #767031
04/18/09 08:11 PM
04/18/09 08:11 PM

M
monluvspagen
Unregistered
monluvspagen
Unregistered
M



Ok so my question is... are my babies in danger?

Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4

Moderated by  Feather, KarenE 

Sugar Glider Help Page



Please click above to see how you can help!!

Moon
CURRENT MOON
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 38 guests, and 359 spiders.
Key: , , Owner, Admin
Newest Members
LasVegasGliders, Pikachu, hyperghost20, sugarglider_spb, Kadence_MJC3
7243 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums132
Topics10,237
Posts158,499
posts in the last 24hrs0
Members7,243
Most Online2,693
Jan 2nd, 2020
Last 10 New Topics
It's CAKE TIME !!!!
by KarenE. 05/09/21 10:11 AM
Hi I’m New!
by Pikachu. 05/02/21 12:21 AM
Cloaca irritated? Bladder infection?
by racheloddment. 04/26/21 12:27 AM
Bonding time - Together or individual?
by Suggie223. 04/25/21 06:53 PM
Critter Nation Shelf Pan/Tray Replacement
by Suggie223. 04/25/21 06:49 PM
Questions on neuter after care
by cookielover. 04/23/21 10:25 PM
Difference between fecal smear and float
by cookielover. 04/20/21 01:09 PM
What to do with different weighted gliders
by cookielover. 04/18/21 01:16 PM
First Time Owner looking for help
by lilsuggies. 04/16/21 03:37 PM
Popular Topics(Views)
818,693 TEXAS
651,044 OHIO
457,573 OKLAHOMA
406,157 UTAH
299,491 NORTH CAROLINA
Supported Browser
This site was tested and is best viewed in Google Chrome & Mozilla FireFox



Firefox 3

Download your copy today!!!
Home Forums Links Sitemap Vets Breeders Sounds Contact Us Names Rules & Policies

GliderCENTRAL
©1998-2021
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software
(Release build 20180918)
Page Time: 0.072s Queries: 15 (0.014s) Memory: 1.5406 MB (Peak: 1.9834 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2021-05-14 01:46:14 UTC