What's new
TerraForums Venus Flytrap, Nepenthes, Drosera and more talk

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Exotic pet ban - HR 669 Fish, Reptiles, Birds

  • #21
I can see it now...shade guys in trenchcoats lined with ball pythons...dimly lit concrete basements with breeding racks of leopard geckos and bearded dragons that flip around to look like bookshelves and a jukebox. Shipments of teddy bears with little baggies of fish inside them. :p
 
  • #22
I don't see any inherent right to keep any kind of pet, whether its one of my dogs or one your, well, whatever you have.

Well here you and I disagree but so be it. Joys of living in a free country, we are allowed to have differing thoughts and opinions. As far as I am concerned I am just as entitled to keep a dog as you are and you are just as entitled to keep a snake as I am. We are each free to make our informed decisions and if we are responsible pet owners then no one gets hurt, be our pets dogs or cats or pythons.

I think we should all be held to a higher standard.

Again, you will get no argument from me. The majority of reptile owners are very responsible and hold a very high standard. Just as the majority of dog owners are. Are there bad reptile keepers? Sure. Are there bad dog keepers? Sure. So why is it that one group is held to a different standard than the other? Simple answer: they think they can win against the herpers but they know they can not win against the dog owners. It is bovine scat.

One other thing; when you find yourself calling the HSUS radicals or extremists, you're doing them and the word a disservice.

No sir I am not. When you support the criminal behavior of others you are as guilty as those others.

Personally, I think exotic pets are a negligible threat compared to the exotics that travel around as passengers in wood products, trapped water, etc.

And again you will get no argument from me here. But as has been said before, this bill is not really about invasive species, that is just a guise that is being used to try and take down a group whose activities HSUS think is "wrong"

The current effort ought to be directed towards those things, but that's a battle against business interests ranging from the local to the international. That kind of opposition is well funded and connected.

And as such is "untouchable", yes I know.

But again, that is not what HSUS and the supporters of this bill actually care about. These people think keeping exotic pets is wrong. They want to put a stop to it. And they are using the excuse of them becoming invasive to try and bring about the means to kill this section of the pet industry.
 
  • #23
I just checked, in case I had missed something new, and the Constitution doesn't mention a right to keep pets. That means government is free to regulate what pets we can have. In theory, government is all of us and, if some of us (HSUS, etc.) decide they want to push to limit what pets people can have, others of us who disagree can push back. That's the way things work, as long as a court doesn't rule that the outcome violates the constitution. People throw the word "right" around without knowing that a right is a powerful thing and scarcer than we like to think.

To the extent a law would restrict access to potentially destructive invasive species, animal or plant, I'm in favor of it. When it goes beyond that narrow goal, it quickly falls from favor. That's easy to say, not so easy to do and, to repeat myself from an earlier post, the devil is in the details. Learn the details and think about what is right and/or wrong about each one. That's a better way to accomplish what you want than to wrap yourself in the flag and call the opposition radicals and terrorists. No one person did all those things, but each has been done at least once in this thread. That's the real bovine scat.
 
  • #24
You can see it however you like, but we have the right to own property; both real estate and physical possessions.

In the court of law pets are counted as property. Don't believe me, look up some cases and their rulings. My state's law IC 15-5-10-1 specifically counts dogs as "personal property". You can argue it all you want, but pets are covered under the right to own property. It is a right and I am not at all willing to hand over any of my rights. That's just one more step away from the republic this nation used to be.

If passed, this bill would only be a steeping stone to even greater government intrusions with stricter laws and restrictions. It will not stop there. They'll just keep taking and taking until we have no right to own anything. Just as soon as we loose all of our animals, the tree huggers will talk them into removing our plants as well. So be careful what you wish for, because just as soon as you said that it would never happen or they couldn't/wouldn't do that, it will happen.

I'm sure we both agree that an apartment dweller should not be keeping certain things; lions, tigers, and bears oh my! I do not see the need to ban all "exotic" pets. "Exotic" is far too broad of a term that would cover anything from a leopard gecko to a mountain gorilla, catching angel fish and parakeets in the middle.

Our rights are at stake whether you can see that or not.
 
  • #25
If passed, this bill would only be a steeping stone to even greater government intrusions with stricter laws and restrictions. It will not stop there. They'll just keep taking and taking until we have no right to own anything. Just as soon as we loose all of our animals, the tree huggers will talk them into removing our plants as well. So be careful what you wish for, because just as soon as you said that it would never happen or they couldn't/wouldn't do that, it will happen.

This overreaction really destroys the credibility of your arguments, the ultimate slippery slope. Because this bill, if it passes, will apparently be only one stop to the total end of all freedoms for everyone everywhere, ever. That's a ridiculous assertion.

I have no real experience with the pet trade as whole and so I will say right now I oppose this bill as an overreaction on the part of the authorities. And looking at the bill I think there is some misunderstanding here between "exotics" and "invasives". Lets get this straight, most exotics are not invasive species. Very few of them are. Even species that establish reproducing populations in the wild from release/escapes, such as many lizard species in Florida, are not invasive. The only one considered invasive most likely came as a stowaway.

But you have no inherent right to own ANY plant, and by extension, animal, you want. Since I am familiar with plants let explain. The ornamental plant trade consists many species, and many of the worst weeds in this country came as ornamental plants. Many invasive plant species are completely altering the ecology of the land around us- one species that is STILL PLANTED (smooth brome) has completely altered and almost destroyed the native prarie in this region, and a tree species on which I am actually doing a group study on now (common buckthorn) has taken over the riparian woodland at our study site to such a degree that all native tree reproduction has virtually ceased, and when the over story trees die out there will be nothing to replace them but a virtual monoculture of buckthorn. Common buckthorn was introduced as an ornamental, and because it is a host for soybean rust and is so invasive it is now BANNED.

Yes. The government BANNED a plant, but it too little too late. Smooth brome is STILL planted and is even worse. So the government HAS the right to ban plants and by extension animals if they have the potential to cause problem. You have the right to own a invasive plant, but when you plant it outside and it spreads to the adjoining properties it CEASES to be your right once it starts causing problems for others, reducing rangeland quality, etc. If your property harms others, then it ceases to be your right to have it. That is why dogs that maul people are taken from their owner and put down,. It is their property, but if it destroys a child's face then the fact that it is your property means little. So the government can ban plants and animals that cause problems for others.

However, this bill is too much. Many of these species have no problem, and pose no risk to either the environment or public health. This bill goes too far. Pyro's snakes have never harmed anybody (I assume) and have no potential to harm the environment. But the topic title and first post is misleading, the bill will not take all of his snakes. I think this bill does infringe on rights, but if a species is demonstrated to cause real harm to the land or people, then it is well within the government's power to step in and stop the trade of said species.
 
  • #26
This is not overreaction. Things like this are a never ending line of bills, laws, and amendments. The premisses ID program started out as being just a limited and basic law too. Now it has branched out into the proposed NAIS program which is the equivalent to driving a nail with a wrecking ball. History speaks for itself. Do some research on that and you'll see for yourself. I see nothing but that all over again with HR669. Look into how that started out and to where it is leading and you will see that it does not "destroy the credibility of my arguments". What I said is well founded in past events. If you give the government one mile, they'll take 1,000.
 
  • #27
I am well enough aware of history to know that the "republic as it used to be" you speak of never existed. The good ol days of history, back when the only people who had rights were landowning white males? Back before the government went and abolished slavery and took the property of all those freedom-loving, all-American slave owners? When the government took all the prime land possessed by the native Americans and gave it to settlers? When women couldn't vote? During the red scare with all the government paranoia, spying, and witch hunts?? When business virtually bought congress seats openly?

When did "it" start? The stealing of our rights? Look at history, as you said, and I appreciate our "diminished rights" over not having any at all. I mean, I own an apartment now with a few other people. Way back when not owning land would have meant that I would have had few "rights" indeed. I don't know. I'm not saying things are great now, but I am not convinced that our rights were so much more superior in times past. Nor do i think that the ultimate goal of government is to remove all rights, or that their nefarious goal it to prevent all of us from owning animals and plants. Why do they care if you own a nep? They don't, what's their motivation? To remove our rights to own anything? Why? It makes no scene. The entire western system of ownership is ingrained into our society.
 
  • #28
I just checked, in case I had missed something new, and the Constitution doesn't mention a right to keep pets.

There are a lot of things that are not specifically mentioned in the Constitution but it was and is worded in such a way as to allow for interpretation. IG made the point with pets being classified as property and that is covered by the Constitution. I worked and I saved and I paid to get my pets and they are just as much property as my PS3, my laptop or my car.

I could even go grasping at straws and say we are all guaranteed the rights of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." My reptiles make me happy. :-D And if you want to interfere with the pursuit of that happiness then :censor:

That means government is free to regulate what pets we can have. In theory, government is all of us and, if some of us (HSUS, etc.) decide they want to push to limit what pets people can have, others of us who disagree can push back. That's the way things work, as long as a court doesn't rule that the outcome violates the constitution.

It is ridiculous to say "That's the way things work". Maybe that is how it should be but you and I know bloody well that the people with the most money who can afford the best lawyers and/or propaganda are the ones who get there way. Right and wrong have nothing to do with it. The almighty dollar does.

People throw the word "right" around without knowing that a right is a powerful thing and scarcer than we like to think.

Fine call it privilege, call it inclination call it what you will. These people are using their ideology to try and infringe on things that, quite honestly, they have have no right to be infringing on. I do not like tattoos but I dang well will not not tell someone else what they can and can not do with their own body. And you can bloody well bet that I will never EVER support any group that would try to ban people from getting tattoos.

To the extent a law would restrict access to potentially destructive invasive species, animal or plant, I'm in favor of it.

But that is not what this bill is. You keep reprimanding us for not reading it but I am beginning to think maybe you have not read it. This bill wants to put an undisclosed list of non-native (i.e. exotic") animals on the Lacy Act invasive species list. So it takes a position that all non-native animals are guilty of being invasive without any proof. Are you seriously going to tell me that that is a "good" law you would be in favor of? The bill is specifically targeting the exotic pet industry. Don't believe me? Would it sway you if you read it from HSUS themselves?

Fine, then go hear and read it:

https://community.hsus.org/campaign/FED_2009_nonnativewildife

And I quote

Importing millions of live wild animals every year for the exotic pet trade, and for other reasons, is cruel to the animals

Right there in black and white. They are going after the exotic pet trade. They do not give a flying leap about invasive species, that is just a cover they are using to push the point.

I also particularly love the other "facts" they tout:

They can be released or escape and establish breeding populations, like the Burmese pythons in the Everglades --

For the record, the Burmese pythons have pretty much been proven to be the cause of animals accidentally loosed during Andrew, which also loosed animals form zoos. Oh and peoples dogs and cats too. BUt that is not important enough to mention

and government scientists say these large constrictor snakes could find a conducive climate in one-third of the country.

And this is a flat out lie. A USGS report that was circulated but never published (because it could not withstand a peer review) said that if the global warming models they used were accurate then in 50 years some of these animals could cover that area. This report looked at one single factor: Temperature. If you add in other things like humidity, moisture, habitat akin to the wild type location, Day and night temp swings, etc the numbers tell a much different story. Also of note, the USGS report purposefully used only one snake, they python species with the lowest temperature tolerance, to base this report of how all Pythons, Boas and Eunecties would fair. That is like using S. purp purp from Canada to say that all pitcher plants (Sarrs, Darlings, Helies, Cehs and Neps) could live all over the N. American continent... Great factual reporting there.

Methods used to eradicate species after they're established are inhumane, ineffective, and costly.



When it goes beyond that narrow goal, it quickly falls from favor.

If that is the case then why is it now up for review by the subcommittee? If it was going to quickly fall from favor it ought to have never made it this far.

That's easy to say, not so easy to do and, to repeat myself from an earlier post, the devil is in the details.

YOu keep saying thi but you keep ignoring the one significant detail that this is not about invasive species. No where dose this bill talk about the ash borer, or the zebra muscle or the walking catfish or the snake head. This bill is talking about animals in the pet trade. Animals that, for the most part (yes I acknowledge the Burmese are there and yes I acknowledge that it is a bad thing) are not, or have never been proven to be, invasive. That is a really big detail to be ignoring.

Learn the details and think about what is right and/or wrong about each one. That's a better way to accomplish what you want than to wrap yourself in the flag and call the opposition radicals and terrorists. No one person did all those things, but each has been done at least once in this thread. That's the real bovine scat.

THose of us that have been following this and fighting it for the last 6-8 months have been learning the details. If you see us fighting to keep our personal pets as "wrap ourself in the flag" then by damn hand me a flag.
 
  • #29
I think the biggest difference between the invasive nature of plants and the invasive nature of most exotics kept is that, plants MUST be able to survive the climate for which they are sold (talking plants for landscapes, not houseplants). This, along with the fact that it is being kept outdoors, in the open, increases the chance of a species becoming invasive GREATLY. However, exotics such as reptiles and fish normally come from more tropical regions, and the environment for these animals must be controlled. The vast majority of fishkeepers have tanks that are in the 78-82 F range in temperature. With extremely few exceptions, fish that can be kept in these constantly warm temperatures will not survive the cold nature of the majority of this country. The same goes for reptiles. They are not intended to be kept outdoors, and so the focus has been primarily tropical species. I could see this being a problem if there was more of a focus on European reptiles (hence the wall lizards now cruising around New York City), but European species make up a very, very small portion of the market.

I do not mind regulations, as long as they are able to be complied in a manner that can allow people who truly want to keep these species to still keep them. Permitting systems, microchipping for larger, more dangerous species, educational materials to be handed out with the sale of an exotic warning about the dangers of releasing animals, and mandatory inspections for certain animals that will be covered in a permitting fee are all great ideas, that would probably gain quite a bit of support. I think that by attacking the exotic pet trade in this manner, they're not gaining any support for themselves, whether we're talking about the politicians involved, or HSUS or any other entities backing this bill.
 
  • #30
But you have no inherent right to own ANY plant, and by extension, animal, you want.

You have the right to own a invasive plant, but when you plant it outside and it spreads to the adjoining properties it CEASES to be your right once it starts causing problems for others, reducing rangeland quality, etc. If your property harms others, then it ceases to be your right to have it.

Which is it? LOL

Again, by outlawing all individuals of one species it punishes those who did not allow their property to cross their property line. That is the problem I have with this.

However, this bill is too much. Many of these species have no problem, and pose no risk to either the environment or public health. This bill goes too far. Pyro's snakes have never harmed anybody (I assume) and have no potential to harm the environment.

Right! It does go too far. That's my point. And if it goes through, it will only go further.

When did "it" start? The stealing of our rights?

Well after slavery was rightfully stopped after the 1780's. One instance was the "Patriot Act" of the last administration.

Pyro:

I worked and I saved and I paid to get my pets and they are just as much property as my PS3, my laptop or my car. ....


These people are using their ideology to try and infringe on things that, quite honestly, they have have no right to be infringing on.

Right on!

Also, it's my country, my 4th great grandfather fought in the revolution to make this country, and I'll proudly wrap myself in its flag and display its colors if I choose.
 
  • #31
Well after slavery was rightfully stopped after the 1780's. One instance was the "Patriot Act" of the last administration.

the patriot act is a rather poor example of when it started.....it basically started right after the Revolutionary war.....look up the Whiskey Rebellion.......the first most major and far reaching blow to states and to an extent individual rights came with the Civil War........the Patriot act is one of the most recent and very far removed from the first.......
 
  • #32
Good info, Pyro. Glad to see someone else is straight on this whole Burmese Python issue. Contrary to the rumors, these were NOT animals released by their owners, and they are NOT at all likely to spread outside the Everglades, much less Florida. It is a terrible thing that happened, due to damage from a hurricane. However, that is a poor basis for attacking the exotic animal trade.

And these aren't just pets were talking about. This is a livelihood for a lot of people. If this bill passes, it is likely that thousands of jobs will be lost, and not just the breeders. Family owned pet stores, possibly even big chain pet stores, as well. This will affect everyone, back to the exporters and collectors in countries in which the fish and reptile trade makes up a significant portion of their economy.
 
  • #33
It is important that anyone who has any interest write and call their representatives to voice their opposition of this bill.
I periodically receive emails from organizations that provide a link to a website which makes it very easy for me to email my opinion to my elected officials. While I know that I can contact them individually (phone, email or snail mail) with my opinion (& have) - it would benefit the 'cause' if a link to such a website were posted here....

I suspect that HSUS (or sister org) have something similar for their supporters to share their opinions ...
--------------------
Edit: my apologies for not watching the video 1st (duh) (not an excuse but my flashblock makes it easy to ignore that stuff). The link to send emails (& get phone numbers) is:

http://www.nohr669.com/
--------------------
2nd edit:
emailed & called 04.16.08
Comment: while I've made calls before, they normally just ask for your name & your suggestion - however, this time they had my address (probably from phone ID) and confirmed it.
 
  • #34
Thanks, rattler. You're right, I was aiming for a recent thing, but that is even greater.


http://www.nohr669.com/

While you're at it, visit http://www.nonais.org too. It's a wretched proposed intrusive program that started out with a more simple law too. It will show you haw far the government takes things when they are allowed to take hold.
 
  • #35
Which is it? LOL

Again, by outlawing all individuals of one species it punishes those who did not allow their property to cross their property line. That is the problem I have with this.
None of the current laws punish you greatly for having an invasive plant in your yard, is what I mean. Do you have any invasive plants on your property? Would you know if you did? It means no plant police will show up at your door and scream that you must control this plant OR ELSE. Perhaps if you own rangeland with leafy spurge. But unlikely in almost any other case. What punishment will come upon you if it does not? Chances are, none.

Right! It does go too far. That's my point. And if it goes through, it will only go further.
But my point is that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. Just because exists is not guarantee that it will go further. You can't seriously believe that they want to get rid of dogs and cats, or your property.

Well after slavery was rightfully stopped after the 1780's. One instance was the "Patriot Act" of the last administration.
I... actually agree with that comment on the patriot act. But I say that the state of rights sucked before the revolutionary war also. It has never been perfect, its always been something that has been wrong with rights in this country. The good ol republic never existed.
 
  • #36
You can't seriously believe that they want to get rid of dogs and cats, or your property.

They may not directly take such common and well established animals, but they can add to the law later to make them much more difficult to legally keep.

I've seen too much with Premisses ID and how it led to NAIS. I see nothing different here. How would you like having to report to a government database within 24 hrs each time you take your dog for a walk off of your property down the sidewalk or to the park? Think they wouldn't pass such a thing? That's just part of what NAIS is for livestock. If farmer Smith's piglet squeezes through the hog panel and steps onto the neighbor's field, that's crossing the property for which farmer Smith's premisses ID is registered and that movement, accidental or purposeful, must be reported within 24 hrs or fines will be issued.
 
  • #37
They can... that they have absolutely no reason or motivation to suggests very strongly that they will not. Most people don't care about exotic pets. Most people do care about "fluffy". Why the hell would they want to make it hard to legally own a cat or dog? Some breed, perhaps, if they have a reputation. Otherwise, "because they are the government, and because owning a cat/dog is a right" is not a logical reason to fear for your right to own everything.
 
  • #38
They can already take your home for merely nothing to its worth if they need the land. That has been in affect forever. Now they want our animals, everything but dogs and cats... so far. Why would I think any differently? I'm going to cling to what little is left.

If not our property, then where do you propose we draw the line? Or let them completely walk all over us? They are our elected representatives, who we pay to represent us! When they stop representing us and start representing special interest groups and huge corporations, it's time for them to go! Coincidentally, NAIS is also funded in a large part by special interest groups. What really needs to be passed, is a law for our government to be forced to stop accepting money from said groups and start representing the public without coercions and bribes.
 
  • #39
I missed this yesterday so I will address it now.

This bill goes too far. Pyro's snakes have never harmed anybody (I assume) and have no potential to harm the environment.

You are correct on both counts.

But the topic title and first post is misleading, the bill will not take all of his snakes.

And technically you are correct. This bill will take 9 of the 10 snakes I own. So, no, it will not take them all. I will still have one. If they can pry the others form my cold dead fingers... LOL

I think this bill does infringe on rights, but if a species is demonstrated to cause real harm to the land or people, then it is well within the government's power to step in and stop the trade of said species.

And that is the problem myself and others have. If they demonstrated through valid scientific means that a given species is an issue I would happily comply. And I do not contend that there are not invasive species that need to be dealt with. But that is not what this bill does. It takes a guilty until proven innocent approach an labels all non-native animals as invasive. The USFWS will take roughly 4 years of valid scientific inquiry to determine if any one given species is to be added to the Lacy Act of invasive species. This bill, if passed calls to have a list of all species to be added in 36 hours. That is oversteping
 
  • #40
Just to clarify something. The Davidson College Herp. Dept. has been working with the National Park Service and studying the "python problem" in the Everglades for awhile. They have concluded that the original pythons came from released animals, and have since divided into several distinct breeding colonies. Nothing in their report mentioned anything about escapees during hurricanes. Please note I am not saying this could not have occured, I am only mentioning the published study I read. Also living in central Florida I know there is a growing problem around this area with monitor lizards. Again these are captive animals that are being released by apparently ignorant owners. On the gulf coast they are decimating the burrowing owl population by consuming eggs from the nests.
On a side note...what exactly is the criteria for being an invasive species?
 
Back
Top