Hr669

[__ben]

I haven't been a participating member of this forum for awhile (I no longer have pigs) but I noticed their was no topic about this. I'm just trying to spread awareness, so you will need to do your own research...

Basically HR669 is a proposed bill, that may be passed on April 23 this bill will ban the sale, import, export, ownership and breeding of all none native species this includes guinea pigs, birds, reptiles, fish, ect. Pretty much every thing that is not a dog or cat.

I'm not going to respond to this thread, just trying to get the ball rolling and spread awareness. I also knew that this community was very good at pulling together.


NOTE: This bill was a response to the Florida everglades and how really irresponsible people have been releasing fish and large snakes into the wild. Even though the domestic animal that causes the most harm to the everglades are cats.

[tehdoc809]

Well, heres the catch:

Originally Posted by Section 14.5 subsection D

{This is under a list of definitions of what is considered NONNATIVE WILDLIFE}

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

I'm pretty sure guinea pigs are going to fall under the last part about common and clearly domesticated. Especially since they aren't (as far as I know) imported in anymore, we have breeding mills (unfortunatly) pumping them out for profit.

A Link to the Text of the Bill
HR 669

[__ben]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Well, heres the catch:


I'm pretty sure guinea pigs are going to fall under the last part about common and clearly domesticated. Especially since they aren't (as far as I know) imported in anymore, we have breeding mills (unfortunatly) pumping them out for profit.

A Link to the Text of the Bill
HR 669

I know I said I wouldn't reply but just putting more information.
It does not say that guinea pigs are excluded, also people on other exotic mammal forums have contacted those who made the bill. They have said that they don't consider hamsters, ferrets or gerbils to be "clearly domesticated" that leads me to believe that they don't consider Guinea pigs ether. What I find most frightening is what will happen to all these exotics if the bill passes? If it's illegal to own them will they just kill all of them?

[CavySpirit]

Of course they're not going to kill all of them. But, I can see gerbils and ferrets in that category as they are currently illegal in California. I didn't know that hamsters posed any wildlife threat (the reason why ferrets and gerbils are illegal).

And after a bill passes, the people who wrote the bill tend to get divorced from the enforcement and interpretation of it. Their intent may not be how it's actually used. And with these kinds of bills (I didn't read it yet), the trick is the penalties and enforcement. Who is enforcing it? Is their any funding for it? What are the penalties?

Since domesticated guinea pigs generally don't survive in the wild, I'm pretty sure they'd be classified the same was as domesticated rabbits.

[Paula]

If the bill were to pass and make it illegal to own guinea pigs, which as Teresa said is unlikely, there's generally an exception made for those that own the animals before they became illegal to own.

Example, years ago it was legal to own prairie dogs in Oregon, but when they passed a law making ownership illegal, it simply became illegal for people to acquire new prairie dogs, but had no impact on people that already owned the animal at the time the law went into effect.

[ferndalezoo]

On the other hand, sometimes (as happened with the Denver pit bull ban) there isn't a grandfather clause, and banned animals are forced to be surrendered (and often euthanized). It would depend on the wording of the statute.

[sophistacavy]

Originally Posted by CavySpirit

Of course they're not going to kill all of them. But, I can see gerbils and ferrets in that category as they are currently illegal in California. I didn't know that hamsters posed any wildlife threat (the reason why ferrets and gerbils are illegal).

And after a bill passes, the people who wrote the bill tend to get divorced from the enforcement and interpretation of it. Their intent may not be how it's actually used. And with these kinds of bills (I didn't read it yet), the trick is the penalties and enforcement. Who is enforcing it? Is their any funding for it? What are the penalties?

Since domesticated guinea pigs generally don't survive in the wild, I'm pretty sure they'd be classified the same was as domesticated rabbits.

I read somewhere a long time ago that hamsters can cause bad crop damage. I don't know how true that it, but they would probably cause more plant/crop damage than wildlife damage. Before they would make it to crops, they would be likely to get eaten, by a wild or stray domesticated animal (like a outdoor cat).

I wish the government or somebody would put these bills into standard english that everyone including me can *easily* understand. I haven't even read it yet, but it seems like they are just trying to help the environment. They know that there is an extreme pandemic of pet overpopulation, and people importing wild animals as pets and then maybe even realeasing them is not going to help the situation. We can't let people continue to have wild animals as pets.
The chimp situation with Travis could've easily been worse. What if he hurt a child? He would've ended up killing a child, not hurting it. Then, even more dumb people would be mad at the chimp, when it was really the owners fault.

My mom told me this story of when she used to live in an apartment, and next door to her were these people who had a giant python (or something like that). She said that it escaped one day, and she never thought about it ending up in someone else's apartment, but it did. It ended up in her's! What if it had gotten into someone else's apartment with babies? It could've killed them, and then the poor, innocent snake would've been put to a horrible death.

I also hope this bill bans wolfdogs. I have no idea how people created wolf dogs, all I can think is that they trapped some poor unknowing wolf, and stuck their opposite gender dog in there, and they had puppies for some odd reason. I would think that the wolf would attack the dog, but who knows? These animals are dangeous, especially if they are one of the ones that are supposed to have high wolf content in them. It is first and foremost, however, a cruelty to domestic and wild animals.

Animals do harm the environment, but it is only because of us humans that created more animals than necessary for our own pleasure, need, and whatnot. This is one of the excellent theories behind supporting vegetarianism and veganism: factory farms are a huge impact on the environment, so don't support them. This theory can be compared to this bill. The inventors of the bill have a very good point, and I hope this whole bill can be accurately clarified by someone soon.

This isn't at all like the Bull Crap Legislation (BSL), and cannot be compared to it. It's like trying to compare apples to oranges, as the old saying goes, or even tigers to guine pigs. The Bull Crap Legislation is pointless and has no evidence to back it up, but this bill does.

We should try to help the earth as much as possible. "She" made it possible for animals to exist.

[catzeye21138]

My main problem with this, is I've grown up with all sorts of snakes and it is one of my hobbies: snake raising. We also have a parakeet that we love dearly, and after he dies? And what of the fish tanks, will they soon start becoming extinct with the exceptions of goldfish?

While none of these need to come from a breeder, I'd like to point of the whole snake adoption thing. We have tried adopting three snakes total: 2 ball pythons and 1 corn snake. The corn snake died within a week of our care, and both ball pythons ended up being rehomed because they were full grown and vicious. There was no way to feed those snakes or even get them out of the cage without full arm oven mitts if you know what I mean.

I don't know where they will get the funding for this, to go around and shut down breeders or the such. Isn't this what we've been trying to do all along? I'm just not very happy with the way this bill was made, maybe if it was made a bit more clear about what they want to do. Either way, I'm on the fence.

[lmarieaa]

Too many fish are wild caught. Salt water fish and cichlids mostly.
Salt water fish are wild caught because some of them do not breed in captivity, and I believe that if it doesn't breed in captivity, it shouldn't be kept. Most wild caught salt water fish don't last long in captivity anyway because a lot of them are purchased by people who have no idea what they are doing and just bought the fish solely on "how pretty it is". Marine fish and invertebrates need very specific environments and special food.
The cichlids are caught mostly to diversify the captive breeding stock.

It would be fantastic if they made certain fishes illegal, there wouldn't be such a burden on the wild reefs and the unfourtate deaths in the hands of novices in captivity.

I wish they would ban the breeding of dogs and cats too, but I guess those that hadn't lived in an area where massive numbers of malnourished dogs and cats roamed the neighborhoods and streets would'nt understand.
Its different when you see these things in real life, instead of in pictures and on TV.

[MCR_Rox]

I found this part of the bill on Text of Legislation, though I still have to read the rest of the bill.

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

Does this mean that if you already have banned animals that you won't have to get rid of them? If so, I think I'm for this bill. I'm pretty sure that all the people who are against it either are pet store supporters or have read stuff from the pet store supporters. They are trying to keep pet stores in business.

[Res Judicata]

This whole bill is too broad and creates too much of a mess. The are many potential problems if read in the broadest way possible:

1) The transportation of banned animals would be illegal. What if someone wanted to move with their pets?
2) There are plenty of cases where a rescue or an adoptive home ends up with a pregnant pet. Breeding will be prohibited if the species is banned and the bred pet and its offspring could be confiscated and destroyed. Is it going to matter if the pregnant pet is not the fault of its caretaker? Is it fair to destroy an animal simply because someone decided to breed?
3) Studies are required to determine if a species is going to cause harm, and studies are not cheap. Where is this money going to come from to study every nonnative species and subspecies currently in the United States? On the same note, the promulgation of administrative rules is expensive and complex, too. Are there better ways to ban imported wild animals that would be just as effective without causing a such burden to Fish and Wildlife Services?
4) Possible unintended consequences, like when people hear that they have a banned pet, they either release that pet or have it euthanized because they have no knowledge of the law or whether or not they have been grandfathered in because they had the pet before the ban?
5) HR 699 would allow an banned animal to be owned if it was owned "preassessment" (meaning before they did a study on it and determined it to be harmful, therefore on the "unapproved" species list). How do you prove you owned this animal preassessment? That is not stipulated. True, a lot of us have adoption documents, but what if you got the animal from a previous owner or found an abandoned one?
6) What if an animal is harmful in one ecosystem, but not another? Should everyone across the nation be banned from owning that particular pet? Why should someone in a land locked state be forced to give up their salt water fish because it might hurt a reef in Hawaii? This just goes against logic and plays into 5). If a person from Wyoming cannot prove he owns that fish "legally" in accordance with the law even though he does, why should he be forced to give it up because of a threat of harm in Hawaii? What are the chances that that Wyoming owner is going to release that fish into Hawaii's waters?

[Res Judicata]

And I thought about this while at dinner with the in-laws tonight. Let's face it, as much as all (or at least most) of us on here would like breeding to stop, even with a law against it there are still going to be breeders. And if there are breeders, there are going to be animals living in horrid conditions without proper care. If this bill manages to make it through, then these animals will just be destroyed when found by authorities. No rescues. No placement in loving homes. We are never going to be rid of breeding. It is a nice thought, but realistically it is not going to happen. The best we can do is make laws that put tighter restrictions on breeding, such as the environment the animal is kept in, the kind of care it receives, who can be licensed to breed and what they can breed, etc. and actually enforce those regulations. It is not a perfect solution, but it is a step in the right direction. And it is much better than panicking because a few idiots are releasing snakes in the Everglades.

[lmarieaa]

There is no way that this will pass. No way.

[lmarieaa]

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier Newcomer to Keys is unwelcome, uncouth - Environment - MiamiHerald.com
People buy lionfish merely on the fact that they look "cool", and I would have to say 95% of the people who buy lionfish or any other salt water fish that needs very special care have no idea what they are getting into.....and THAT is what happens. Ugh. This horrible trade of fish not only robs the wild reefs of its beautiful fish and coral, but also poisons it with released newcomers that overwhelm its delicate ecosystem. I would really like to see restrictions on what is allowed to be collected from the wild and sold in the pet trade, like only tank raised saltwater and captive grown corals, that would be a great start.

[sophistacavy]

Originally Posted by lmarieaa

This is exactly what I was talking about earlier Newcomer to Keys is unwelcome, uncouth - Environment - MiamiHerald.com
People buy lionfish merely on the fact that they look "cool", and I would have to say 95% of the people who buy lionfish or any other salt water fish that needs very special care have no idea what they are getting into.....and THAT is what happens. Ugh. This horrible trade of fish not only robs the wild reefs of its beautiful fish and coral, but also poisons it with released newcomers that overwhelm its delicate ecosystem. I would really like to see restrictions on what is allowed to be collected from the wild and sold in the pet trade, like only tank raised saltwater and captive grown corals, that would be a great start.

Oh my gosh, I couldn't agree more.

Have any of you seen Drs. Foster & Smith's "Live Aquaria" webstore? It is seriously like a little shop of horrors, and makes me rethink ordering stuff from them: Aquarium Fish: Tropical Freshwater Fish and Saltwater Fish for Home Aquariums
It is horrible!! They do have some tank raised and captive bred things, but not enough. I was shocked when I came across this website of theirs, and disapointed in the Drs. Foster & Smith company. I mean, come on. They sell sharks, octopi, lobsters, truly exotic fish, more horrors than you can imagine. I was soooo stunned when I saw that poor, poor octopus.

[lmarieaa]

Oh yeah, I have seen it. They sells almost everything the reef has to offer. Ugh. The unfortunate thing is most people who order these animals provide very inadequate care and the poor things only last a few months.
I agree that they do not have enough captive bred items.
There is a store here that sells huge sharks. Poor thing is in a 100 gallon tank, that may sound like a big tank, but it wasn't even big enough for the 3+ feet shark to even turn around. How can they sell these animals like this? Its insane. These animals should be left to live in the wild.

[BrainDeadBuster]

You guys realize that PETA is supposed to be one of teh groups backing this bill, right?

[lmarieaa]

Originally Posted by BrainDeadBuster

You guys realize that PETA is supposed to be one of teh groups backing this bill, right?

Whats your point?

[BrainDeadBuster]

This site supports PETA!

[BrainDeadBuster]

You guys can be real hipocrites! If this ONLY banned frogs, snakes, lizards, anything you DIDN'T own, it wouldn't be a big deal, but, alas, your piggies might be affected, Jeez! You guys are against breeding, right? Well, here's the one chance to really end most guinea pig, and exotic breeders. Once the big food supply chains are gone, barely anyone will have the chance to buy or breed anything exotic. Yeah, sure, their will be black market breeders, but 90% of them will be gone. That will just leave dog breeders, cat breeders, ect. It will take care of most of our exotic breeders, haha! That is why PETA supports it.