There are many different logics about it, as long as they pull in the same direction the AR movement may be fond of using them.
For them as for us this boils down to an ethical battle.

Playing devils advocate,
I would argue that Animals have a right to be free.
The logic behind this is to give animals freedom from abuse.
Think of Norwegians slaying whales, the animals can suffer many hours before they die. Whalekilling is not such a swift buisness even if they do use cannons.
Whales are highly developed animals who have a well developed brain, consiousness and ability to feel pain, in many aspects much the same as your and mine.
I would argue that it is wrong of me to slay you and eat you, and in the same context, I would argue that is is wrong to slay such magnificent animals, in otder to make whaleburgers and "ecological grease" out of them.
Similarly I would argue that an arboreal gecko like the tockay gecko is a squirrel like animal who has a basic need for space which 99.9% of the americal tockaykeepers do not respect.
In my experiance tockays who are kept too many (4 ) in a very small environment 40x30x45cm do not show so much agression towards eachother.
In a little bigger enclosure 40x40x50cm, 2 tockays may survive and they may lay eggs but often they will eat the hatchlings.
In a bigger environment they may not eat their offspring but they will still show signs of suffering and develop negative unnatural behaviours over time.
Drawing a parallel over to leopard geckoes, who are only marginally bigger than tockays, they also have a basic need for space and crevices and burrows in their environment. I would argue that nearly 100% of leopardgeckoes, especially in farms where they are kept in small dark plastic shoeboxes.
And there is also the subject of invasive species. Some do have potential to survive or propagate in the US environment. Therefore, in concideration of the precautionary principle it would be prudent to ban import on all exotics until we have examined each species individually, and can determine it´s potential to become an invasive species. Also there is the aspect of parasites...
We have not yet explored all of diversity on our planet and there is still a vast sea of life forms which we hav not yet identified but we have identified that life forms such as the paramyxo virus can decimate populations in a few months. I would argue that we are regularly importing unknown parasites who have the potential to leak into nature with escaped animals and cause devastating damage to endemic reptile populations in the US. Therefore, plaiong devils advocate, I would argue that a ban against exotics until propper routines and quarantine regulations can be developed in order to safeguard the US eco-system (the animal rights to be free from use and abuse).
Similarly, the birds amongst companion animals have a basic need to stretch threir wings and observe the world from up above in order to gain a natural undersanding of purpose and.. insight?
hmmz..
Animal rights ethics are a murky bunch, I don´t understand them fully out but ENDCAP seems to understand them much better;

Quote:
ENDCAP is a network of established European animal welfare organisations and wildlife professionals who share a common goal in wanting to see an end to the keeping and exploitation of wild animals in captivity for human entertainment.
Mission statement;

Quote:
ENDCAP is an international network of European organisations dedicated to the protection and conservation of wildlife in the wild and opposed to the exploitation of wild animals in captivity. Through scientific research, education, campaigning and sharing of expertise and information, the Network seeks to; expose neglect, suffering and cruelty endured by wild animals in zoological collections, circuses and dolphinaria; investigate the plight of wild animals held by private individuals and related trade issues; and, where possible, alleviate animal suffering. Focusing predominantly on the issues relating to zoos and circuses as well as the implementation and enforcement of national legislation stemming from Directive 1999/22/EC (relating to the keeping of wild animals in zoos), the Network aims to influence and encourage a change in priorities away from captivity, through a non-breeding and non-replacement policy, towards the protection of wild animals in their natural habitat.
Their adress;
ENDCAP c/o Born Free Foundation (europe?)
http://www.endcaptivity.org/

This is some twisted logic which could support bans like HR699. Different people pick different logics to defend their views and beliefs. When you explore the values of your congressman try to do so respectfully and carefully. Perhaps, do not gude him to support your point of view but leave him to be the defender of your values while you play devils advocate sometimes so he can front your arguments.
Or.. if he doesn´t front your arguments but instead agrees and your interview spins out into an interesting conversation on why HR669 is in some eapects a very good idea, then your congressman will give you some very nice quotes which will be of value to fellow fighters.
A congressman has to be able to tell BS from non-BS in respect to HR699 by now.

American law is influencing international descisionmaking in a similar manner as European law is influencing american descisionmaking.
Europan law is influenced by ENDCAP so I follow their trail.
Om the menbers/links section I find animal advocates;
http://www.advocatesforanimals.org/content/view/19/411/

Quote:
Our vision is that all animals live their natural lives free from exploitation and abuse.
Advocates for Animals works to secure respect for all animals, by overcoming exploitation and abuse, and inspiring a more compassionate society.
We affect positive change for animals through high profile campaigns, political lobbying,
I regard extinction of animal husbandry as an act of terror because I believe that companion animals have an inherent value, and are a value of their owners.
I regard as terrorists, those who seek to end the responsible and sustainable animal husbandry.
Which ones of your congressmen support the European end captivity terror movement?
Depriving people of their right to share their house with friends of other species may be considered as a milder form of terror, but it is terror none the less. A ban which is not founded in reaon and science, but in prejudice and false information, is oppressing the americans right to a healthy and diverse interest in animals.

In consideration of the current extinction crisis it should also be noted that many hundreds of species which have gone ecxtinct from their natural habitats now exist only through establishment of captive populations.
Your congressmen should understand that they also have an international responsibility to do the right thing.
If descisionmakers across the world adopted the HR669 principle, then indeed it would be illegal to save hundreds of species from extinction.
The growing population of the earth has left many thirsty throats to fill.
The growing economies across Asia have fueled the birth of many megacities across the continent. The gworing need to direct water to cities and industry regularly requires that new dams be built, and new areas flodded, and new species to be extinct.
We can not always stop the building of dams, but we can allow americans to keep certain species which would otherwise have gone extinct. so that we may preserve them for future generations to experience.
Even if all individuals in a captive population are kept irresponsibly in respect to our normals in animal welfare, if there doesn´t exist a wild population of the same species, it is better to continue maltreating all the animals, than for the species as a whole to go extinct.

Do your congressman recognises the animals right to exist where they find room for existence, in their natural habitat, or in an american vivarium? If there is no evidence that suggests that a possibly extinct poison dart frog species can cause harm to the urban jungle of New York, then that poison frog species should have a right to exist in vivariums in New York.

In todays culture some people feel that they have a duty to propagate in captivity, species who are threatened with extinction. Should a species go extinct, there is still some small value in maintaining it´s existence.

In this respect HR669 is a very environmentally unfriendly piece of legislation, though.. one may also argue that americans, in breeding ballpythons in the millions and millions are not really interested in conservation of biodiversity. Shouldn´t they instead be breeding a responsible mix of rare and endangered animals, in stead of promoting fashion animals in hypo, caramel, ghost, amelanistic and what not?

If americans (and europeans) were not so fashion minded, we would have bigger reserve populations of a larger amount of threatened species.
The herpetocultural community must strive to give better service to threatened species, but it can only provide legal space for threatened species as long as exotic species are legal to keep in vivarium.
The plants of the world have a deposit in the world seed bank, the reptiles are not to fortunate, they only have the herpetocultural community and it now faces extinction.

Does your congresmen seek to promote or prohibit ex situ conservation of extinct in the wild species?

regards
oby

[ Show Entire Thread ]