Congress is trying to take away your pets!

[Lexite]

So this morning at work I saw an article that really made me mad. Congress is trying to pass a law that would make nearly all pets excluding cats, dogs and other "domesticated" animals, illegal. All Non-native species would be illegal.

I work at Petco and there we have many animals in the store, so after reading this article I looked over the store and came to the realization that out of the 30 major animals that we sell in the store, only about 5 would be allowed to be there under the bill. On top of that, these animals would each have to be evaluated to see what there impact is on the environment to see if they could allow them in the county. That means tax payer’s money going towards testing and research to see if they would be allowed to own a Hamster.

Take a look at the animals that you normally see as pets, Hamsters, Guinea Pigs, Ferrets, Parrots, Parakeets, Cockatiels, Ball Pythons, Bearded Dragons, Iguanas and nearly all aquarium fish just to name a few, all of these animals are not native to the US and would not be allowed. This would take so long for each animal to be evaluated that thousands of people would be affected. The pet stores and pet supple stores would see a dramatic halt in their sales, people would not be able to purchase a new bird or hamster and the stores like Petco and Petsmart rely on the non cat and dog owners just as much for there prophets, that would mean people could lose there jobs. Not only the pet industry would be affected but also farmers could be affected, those that raise and farm more exotic animals like ostrich or alpaca. They will be allowed 36 months to approve of the illegal animals but even in the first year there is a huge chance that pet stores will go out of business.

This bill would be all around bad news for everyone so please take a look at this site and watch the video and tell your congressmen that you want your pets.

Here is a web site against the site
http://nohr669.com/index.htm

And here is the Bill
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-669


Here are some other good videos.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65zX...952D7EE8F&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=2

 

[CaptKirby]

I do not think we have to be that worried about this. People love pets more than other people oftentimes, and they would see guns taken away before their pets. (Though I make that as a fully inflammatory comment toward guns, and it is obviously sarcastic, I do very much believe that people would more adamantly resist pets being taken away than guns). This is just the inevitable reaction to that rampant paranoia that sprung from the whole escaped snakes plague or whatever.

If there is a worry, it is that since a plethora of pets are of a very few types, maybe something like this really could happen, as nothing is entirely predictable, but I think this will be defeated as resolutely as any bill possibly going against Israel.

 

[Lexite]

But this is our congress that is trying to pass this ridiculous bill instead of focusing on things that actually matter. They should be focusing on the economy, not focusing on if Hamsters will affect the environment!

 

[Misty]

i see no reason for this to succeed unless this is a complete misrepresentation of the bill

 

[Caelum]

So, where exactly in this bill does it state this overarching claim that will ban all parrots and garbage since I'm reading this as only prohibiting those species as "injurous wildlife" which even specifically designates that parrots and "cage birds" don't apply too?

I'll comment once I read the lines, but I honestly don't see what you are reading in this.

 

[Lexite]

Parrots are not native to the US. This means that if the bill were to pass they would be illegal untill they were to be evaluated and found to be acceptable. Go read section 6.

 

[Syberia]

Section 6 spells out what's prohibited (basically, doing anything) if you have an animal that's not on the approved list, but conveniently this list will not even begin being formulated until after the bill has passed.

The way I'm reading this, you'll be prohibited from purchasing or breeding any new animals until they've been "approved," if they ever are. The state of California already bans hedgehogs and ferrets for what seems like no apparent reason (considering they're allowed in the other 49 states), so there's no guarantees of anything being approved.

But this is our congress that is trying to pass this ridiculous bill instead of focusing on things that actually matter. They should be focusing on the economy, not focusing on if Hamsters will affect the environment!

Also, this. It's a horrible waste of government resources making it look like they're trying to do something by micromanaging our lives when they really should be dealing with issues that are actually important.

 

[Caelum]

I already read that section still not seeing it.

Let's look this over again.

(1) import into or export from the United States any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

alright, let's try section 4.

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall include in the preliminary list under this section nonnative wildlife species that the Secretary finds, consistent with the factors described in section 3(b) and based on scientific and commercial information that is provided in a proposal under paragraph (2) or otherwise available to the Secretary--

Better go to section 3b.

(b) Factors To Be Considered- The regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall include consideration of--
(1) the identity of the organism to the species level, including to the extent possible specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity;
(2) the native range of the species;
(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States;
(4) the likelihood that environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread of the species exist in the United States;
(5) the likelihood of establishment of the species in the United States;
(6) the likelihood of spread of the species in the United States;
(7) the likelihood that the species would harm wildlife resources in the United States;
(8) the likelihood that the species would harm native species that are rare or native species that have been listed as threatened species or endangered species in the United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
(9) the likelihood that the species would harm habitats or ecosystems in the United States;
(10) the likelihood that pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation; and
(11) other factors important to assessing the risks associated with the species, consistent with the purpose under section 2.

You honestly believe our Secretary of the Interior are going to determine that parrots or hamster qualify under any of those 11 characteristics.

Let's also check this part out

(A) publish in the Federal Register and make available on a publicly available Federal Internet site, the proposed preliminary list; and
(B) provide for, a period of not less than 60 days, an opportunity to submit public comments on the proposed preliminary list.

Complete non-issue in my opinion. I honestly don't think Salazar is completely retarded, and if you honestly believe their will be any scientific consensus that hamsters satisfy one of those 11 requirements; then there really is no point in me debating you.

 

[Syberia]

There's no consensus that ferrets or hedgehogs are a problem (in fact, there seems to be a consensus that they're not a problem, considering they're allowed in all 49 other states), but that hasn't prevented them from being banned in California. And no, I pretty much do not trust the government to act intelligently. It's not an area of my life they need to be interfering in anyways.

 

[CaptKirby]

But this is our congress that is trying to pass this ridiculous bill instead of focusing on things that actually matter. They should be focusing on the economy, not focusing on if Hamsters will affect the environment!

How can smart people, which I will assume you are, compared to a typically mediocre American quite so, espouse this repeatedly? If anyone knew what could fix the economy, then we WOULD be spending all our time on this. No one, even the smartest, best economists in the world, have been able to piece this together. Even if they had, it would be so hard and painful to implement that things would necessarily get worse than they are right now (in the short run), causing even more furor about needing to fix the economy. The government could do more, but to focus on it at all times would be absurd and probably do little to improve anything. Truthfully, Congress's attention to anything is limited, even the economy - they only have to be there three days a week!

 

[Lexite]

Keep reading, you cannot take the animals across state lines, you cannot breed the animals, you cannot sell the animals. I am not turning this into a debate over the economy. And there is a species of parrot that is illegal in some states already, so yes.

 

[CaptKirby]

Technically Congress has the full right to prohibit animals from crossing state lines if they damn well please. This is something that would be fully legal; it is a power that the Supreme Court has granted as fully reasonable under the (far too encompassing) commerce clause since the late 1800s/late 1900s...

 

[Lexite]

Technically Congress has the full right to prohibit animals from crossing state lines if they damn well please. This is something that would be fully legal; it is a power that the Supreme Court has granted as fully reasonable under the (far too encompassing) commerce clause since the late 1800s/late 1900s...

That doesnt mean it is right for the Government to tell us we cannot have certain animals that are already in our possession and prevent us from getting them ever again.

The Government is for the people, not to completely control the people and treat us like children. If I want to be a responsible pet owner it is my Right to! Why can I own a cat but I cannot own a Parrot? How is that right? As long as I am not harming the parrot and the parrot is not harming anyone else and the parrot remains in my possession and cannot harm the enviorement it is my right to own that parrot that is already being breed in captivity. If this bill were to pass, I would most likely lose my job and so would my co workers cuz we all know how quickly the Gov would work to get the animals evaluated. The pet industry cannot survive on cat and dog owners alone.

 

[Syberia]

I'm sure it's technically constitutional for the government to be doing a lot of things that they have no business doing.

 

[TeaBag]

Congress doesn't exactly "try" to pass bills but rather votes on them; rarely does it make decisions as the collective evil you make it out to be.

 

[Lexite]

No they just try to, like trying to force me into joining a union or all the other bull shit bills they try to pass. A member of congress submits the bill and they vote on it, so congress is the one trying to pass the bill.

 

[Morm]

I love my pets more than I love people. My cat is literally my best friend, well pretty close to it, and my tortoise I just bought is pretty exceptionally cool. I have a long track record of choosing animal company to people company.

I honestly think this idea of banned exotics has SOME merit. Just look at invasive species anywhere and you'll clearly and plainly see that some species just shouldn't be given a chance. Hell, just the red eared slider (turtle) is so fucking ubiquitous that it's hideous in the wild.

Though, lets have some common sense people; obviously a frilled dragon that needs like 45 celcius basking temps isn't going to last long in New York...However, if you are living in a place where the species could survive or thrive, I think you need to be having permits and keeping track of that shit. Places like California and Texas are PRIME for invasive exotics, just look at the wild boar.

Funny story, in Edmonton, Alberta, they have a ban on all 'poisonous spiders'. All spiders are venomous, not poisonous, so they loophole the SHIT out of it anyways.

Lexite: Iguanas aren't really common anymore, people realize how hideous they get and petstores often don't even bother stocking them. I am of the opinion that, at WORST, this will limit imports (which is cool for everyone) and make for a need for permits to be applied for to get your animals, grandfathering notwithstanding.

Just weighing in my esteemed and 6 years first hand experience with some pretty heated exotics, the laws around them and their retarded subculture that follows them.

 

[Lexite]

Invasive species is one thing, but this ban affects everything. Yes certian areas require bans and permits on some animals but a national one is not needed. Not when it can potentially cause businesses to fall apart or prevent people from getting animals they have already owned in the past and would like to purchase again. This will kill pet stores until they finish evaluating the animals, and did you read how someone will have to pay a fee for them to "evaluate" each animal, you have to pay to submit a hamster to be evaluated. How is it fair to kill the pet industry and then make them pay to try to get some of their animals back?

And I am not going to pay to get a permit for a parrot. That is just disgusting. If the parrot is already breed in captivity and has been allowed in the country for years why the hell do i have to pay more now? Just so the government can get more of my money?

And my store carries Iguanas, we just make sure the customers are well educated before they buy it. And they do make very nice pets. I have met many of my co workers and customers iguanas and they are wonderful and I plan to have one day

 

[CaptKirby]

That doesnt mean it is right for the Government to tell us we cannot have certain animals that are already in our possession and prevent us from getting them ever again.

The Government is for the people, not to completely control the people and treat us like children. If I want to be a responsible pet owner it is my Right to! Why can I own a cat but I cannot own a Parrot? How is that right? As long as I am not harming the parrot and the parrot is not harming anyone else and the parrot remains in my possession and cannot harm the enviorement it is my right to own that parrot that is already being breed in captivity. If this bill were to pass, I would most likely lose my job and so would my co workers cuz we all know how quickly the Gov would work to get the animals evaluated. The pet industry cannot survive on cat and dog owners alone.

I have never seen a post more bizarrely pointless than this. I replied to a very specifically unnecessary part of your post to clarify something. I do not care either way about any of the ethics of anything - I am allergic to most animals I like, and the others are too expensive to keep. None of that matters though, since all I was talking about was the commerce clause(I only bolded this to imitate you, it is really unnecessary as well!!)

I'm sure it's technically constitutional for the government to be doing a lot of things that they have no business doing.

Well, you got closer to actually understanding my point, but in your attempt to sound cynically I guess witty? you still totally misconstrued it. This is not about some technicality. The government has established the right to ban anything it wants to from commerce clause since the New Deal when it crosses state lines. It does not matter if there is a reason or not, there is nothing to do with technicalities. They can use it for any reason if it involves crossing state lines. Of course, it usually does not come out as overtly as it does in a case like this; most commerce clause cases are much more convoluted, calling to past cases and the vague language of the clause, but here, it is not that vague technicality/obfuscation. It is very straightforward.

Not that it really matters, as this is all very clearly stupid and will not happen, but that one part of the bill is 100% technically not stupid because it is so overtly allowed by the laws some very small section of our nation has formulated and the rest watched pass by for decades.

 

[Morm]

Invasive species is one thing, but this ban affects everything.

Problem is that it's not invasive until it's far too late, so you have to take action against those that are potentially invasive. You can ban things on a case by case basis, Lexite, and it's unlikely this blanket shit will fly.

Yes certian areas require bans and permits on some animals but a national one is not needed.

agreed, but at this point it is wandwaving so I will sit and wait.

Not when it can potentially cause businesses to fall apart or prevent people from getting animals they have already owned in the past and would like to purchase again.
This will kill pet stores until they finish evaluating the animals, and did you read how someone will have to pay a fee for them to "evaluate" each animal, you have to pay to submit a hamster to be evaluated. How is it fair to kill the pet industry and then make them pay to try to get some of their animals back?

I'm pretty sure the economy will recover from this devastating sucker punch, there are very few stores that actually rely on reptiles for income. The feeders are a fucking wash, the reptiles are a total wash and they make any money on supplies; they make alot more off something like cats. If you didn't, from someone who has worked for 3 different pet chains and knows this trade like the back of his hand, stores LOSE money on animals that aren't named fish and only make money on supplies anyways, so nixing a niche pet and their supplies won't be crashing the market anytime soon in this reguard.

And I am not going to pay to get a permit for a parrot. That is just disgusting.If the parrot is already breed in captivity and has been allowed in the country for years why the hell do i have to pay more now? Just so the government can get more of my money?

who said anything about paying for a permit? It'd likely be that you apply, receive your license and bam, deal done. It would quite literally be to keep tabs on who has what in this case, that if said parrot species ever got out, to know who they could send the bill to to keep it contained.

And my store carries Iguanas, we just make sure the customers are well educated before they buy it. And they do make very nice pets. I have met many of my co workers and customers iguanas and they are wonderful and I plan to have one day

good luck with that, dystocia is among my favorite things to deal with. Not ALL iguanas are dickholes, it's just the overwhelming majority. I don't know how familiar you are with reptiles, but it's like saying "my friend has a chameleon that didn't die in 6 months so therefore none of them die in 6 months". Dude, I by no means want to sound confrontational or disrespectful when I ask this, but do you have any idea who you are talking to in this particular instance? I have more experience with reptiles in my index finger than you have had in your whole life, I can assert that from having bred, kept and worked all over that industry for the better part of a decade and having had two senior level university theis' in this exact field. Am I wrong?

 

[Lexite]

I encourage you all to read section 8. What is said here means it will cost Thousands of dollars to test and study each animal on the non native list. Thousands of dollars that some company or breeder will have to pay just to get its animals back. Hardly anyone will be able to pay that, and this is a direct way to completely stop people from ever breeding the animals. This is disgusting! A breeder will have to pay thousands of dollars out of their pocket to continue breeding say ball pythons or bearded dragons. That is disgusting. This will throw thousands of people out of business if this bill passes.

 

[Morm]

thousands of dollars to prevent another species on species cluster fuck like australia and keep people happy while maintaining a legitimate hobby?

YES FUCKING PLEASE.

I don't see a part where it says EVERYONE will pay thousands of dollars extra for these studies, can you point me to the place where it implicitly says this? Your whole arguement about

Thousands of dollars that some company or breeder will have to pay just to get its animals back. Hardly anyone will be able to pay that, and this is a direct way to completely stop people from ever breeding the animals

Have you ever heard of a grandfather clause? In every single instance of north american bans on animals, those already caring for said animal are 'immune' from the bill so long as they just register.

A breeder will have to pay thousands of dollars out of their pocket to continue breeding say ball pythons or bearded dragons. That is disgusting. This will throw thousands of people out of business if this bill passes.

That would effectively kill the breeding, but is that so bad? 99% of breeders inbreed so viciously that 'scaleless' (ie keratin deficient) Pogona vitticeps are created. The are sad, husks of creatues, and this is the GOAL, ignoraing any other negative side effects of irresponsible breeding. That aside, you are wrong. That shit won't fucking fly. Even if this shit passes, there will be appeals.

Just so you are completely educated, 99.999999% of all breeders actually have day jobs and do the breeding as a hobby. They sometimes (as in my case) don't even get any money and take net losses, but do it because of the sheer fun of it. So your entire arguement about breeders being gouged that bad and being out of business is completely heinous, lexite, and that is the thing I find disgusting.

I would be fully in favor, infact, of a registry for these animals; their genetics are so restrictive (hell, ALL captive Rhacodactylus ciliatus) come from 100 individuals that has been since splintered into numerous subpopulations that support inbreeding just for better 'morphs'. I've personally received 3 death threats for providing compelling evidence that "just because you breed corn snakes, it doesn't mean you know what the fuck a gene is or what it does". This community needs to be harnessed, needs to be guided and needs to be controlled for LONG TERM appreciation of any and all captive animals, as the gene flow is less than limited.


Other than you calling responsibility and defending your native species "disgusting", I want an answer:

I don't know how familiar you are with reptiles, but it's like saying "my friend has a chameleon that didn't die in 6 months so therefore none of them die in 6 months". Dude, I by no means want to sound confrontational or disrespectful when I ask this, but do you have any idea who you are talking to in this particular instance? I have more experience with reptiles in my index finger than you have had in your whole life, I can assert that from having bred, kept and worked all over that industry for the better part of a decade and having had two senior level university theis' in this exact field. Am I wrong?

 

[jrrrrrrr]

I dont know if you purposely distorted the information to make it look like the big bad government is coming to take Fido away from you, but that's really the only explanation of why you made this thread other than "OP completely misread the source".

b) Factors To Be Considered- The regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall include consideration of--

• (1) the identity of the organism to the species level, including to the extent possible specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity;
  (2) the native range of the species;
  (3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States;
  (4) the likelihood that environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread of the species exist in the United States;
  (5) the likelihood of establishment of the species in the United States;
  (6) the likelihood of spread of the species in the United States;
  (7) the likelihood that the species would harm wildlife resources in the United States;
  (8) the likelihood that the species would harm native species that are rare or native species that have been listed as threatened species or endangered species in the United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 ( et seq.);
  (9) the likelihood that the species would harm habitats or ecosystems in the United States;
  (10) the likelihood that pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation; and
  (11) other factors important to assessing the risks associated with the species, consistent with the purpose under section 2.

It is quite obvious that this only applies to dangerous invasive species. I can't even begin to understand how you read this and thought "THEYRE COMING FOR MY HAMPSTER!!" Even if you just skim this section (or ignore all of it, as the OP apparently did), it is pretty clear that Congress is not trying to ban pets. Invasive species displace native species, destroy entire ecosystems and lower the quality of life for humans. You say that "maybe we should be focusing on the economy" or something to that effect....yet you completely ignore the money that needs to be poured into reviving ecosystems that are destroyed by invasive species. Let's have a look:

Economic costs from invasive species can be separated into direct costs through production loss in agriculture and forestry, and management costs of invasive species. Estimated damage and control cost of invasive species in the U.S. alone amount to more than $138 billion annually.[30] In addition to these costs, economic losses can occur through loss of recreational and tourism revenues.[43] Economic costs of invasions, when calculated as production loss and management costs, are low because they do not usually consider environmental damages. If monetary values could be assigned to the extinction of species, loss in biodiversity, and loss of ecosystem services, costs from impacts of invasive species would drastically increase.[30]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species#Benefits

Do you have $138 billion dollars every year to fix ecologies that are destroyed by invasive species? I sure as hell don't. I would rather spend a little bit of time and capital now to save billions, if not trillions, in the long run.

If you want to see examples of how devastating these species can be, I direct you to this small source that goes over just a few examples of how ecologies have been annihilated in the past, exactly what this bill is seeking to prevent: (http://science.jrank.org/pages/3669/Invasive-Species-Examples-invasions.html)

I'm sure it's technically constitutional for the government to be doing a lot of things that they have no business doing.

"I'm going to sarcastically say that Congress is invading my life even though I have no knowledge of the subject at hand". You KNOW that Congress controls interstate commerce. There is nothing even remotely invasive or unconstitutional about this bill. Protecting people and natural wildlife from invasive, destructive species will not only preserve our ecology but it will also save us billions of dollars every year.

So this morning at work I saw an article that really made me mad. Congress is trying to pass a law that would make nearly all pets excluding cats, dogs and other "domesticated" animals, illegal. All Non-native species would be illegal.

That is not what the bill says, at all. Please re-read it, especially the section you told everyone else to read. Also, moomorpids point about a grandfather clause is also valid. Your entire post is one unsubstantiated misrepresentation of the bill in question.

Invasive species is one thing, but this ban affects everything. Yes certian areas require bans and permits on some animals but a national one is not needed.

No, the ban clearly does not affect everything. If invasive species are being brought across state lines and destroying ecosystems in multiple states, then yes, it is Congress' problem and yes, a national law is needed.

Oh, and one last thing, since you have been questioning why people would want to ban things like ferrets and hedgehogs, etc:

"Lost ferrets are rarely found and usually die soon after escape."
State of New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection

"Domesticated Ferrets have become so dependent upon humans that they cannot survive without care if lost and often die within a few days."
The Encyclopedia Brittanica
Volume 4, pages 746-747

"...domestic ferrets... can survive only in captivity."
Leigh Ann Sawyer, DVM, MPH
United States Public Health Service
Letter, January 28, 1986

It's pretty clear that this bill is trying to protect animals and our natural ecology. I can't even begin to understand why you would think that this is the government trying to invade the lives of pet owners. If you had done even a single minute of research into this problem you would see how useful this bill will be.

Your post sounds so much like when Republicans were criticizing the stimulus package for including "pork" money for volcano research in Alaska. Sure enough, a short time after the stimulus package was passed, a fucking volcano erupted in Alaska. People usually tend to criticize things they don't know anything about until something disastrous happens....

 

[Morm]

Just want to add that the only thing I find 'disgusting' in this entire thread is lexite's apparent sense of entitlement when it comes to species that are oft mismanaged and have no right themselves to be out of their own niche ecosystem.

 

[Deck Knight]

Clearly Petco is harboring right wing extremists and DHS feels a need to shut down the kind of neo-nazi pro-life gun nut veterans that gather there.

Janet Napalitano will protect us from the scourge of Chinese Fighting Fish and all Dragons, be the bearded, CB Outraging, or otherwise.

Big Brother is in control. You are all safe.

...

In all seriousness, what actually surprises me is that this bill is being proposed now and wasn't already part of contraband laws.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.

If only this were an illegal immigration bill.