Ed,



>>There is logic behind what HR-669 proponents are doing. Animal Rights groups are trying to get what they want (i.e., banning ownership of reptiles) and the "scientists" are trying to get what they want (funding, job security, control and growing their gov't agencies.) It's a disgraceful and fascist movement that probably has the Founding Fathers of this country rolling over in their graves.



Yeah, I understand what you are saying with "There is logic behind what HR-669 proponents are doing"...I'm sure it is crystal clear in their mind(s) because it is "agenda" based and NOT based on reality or science (some science plus agenda = propaganda). For this reason, their public relations effort(s) makes it purely propaganda to support a political agenda. Judging from your comments, you already have an idea about this (and I agree with you here).



Nothing that I’ve read (so far) – regardless of the source – indicates that it is anything other than it is “packaging” to sell us something that if we actually knew about it, the majority of us would not support. This not only stands logic on its head but it is very misleading. If you actually read their published information (lots of beautiful photographs of animals in the wild) and then compare it to reality…It simply doesn’t add up…Making it illogical in its application (it ain't about logic).



This is very unfortunate that both the environmental and conservation movements have become so politicized over the past few decades into something that I can honestly no longer support because is it now an agenda driven effort (morphed) rather than its original intent of clean air, clean water, habitat conservation, etc.



The “packaging” still references the original intent but, that is not what this “stuff” is all about in its current form - whether it’s S-373 or HR-669. It has “morphed” into something that is nothing less than a gradual loss of freedom for the American citizen…Plain and simple. Take HR-669 for example (and S-373), what is the actual central intent of this legislation? Their “stated” intent is the problem of “invasive species” causing millions of dollars worth of negative impact on the US economy - and they do correctly cite the negative impact of SOME of the invasive species but, they OMIT the positive aspects of SOME of the other “invasive species” in their packaging – but, is this what HR-669 is really about? The answer is NO for at least two reasons that I can think of;



1. Anthropologic (man)



2. Nature (biodiversity) itself



The first one, man, is the true central intent of HR-669 and not the “invasive species”. More specifically, the legislation seeks to control only a few selected, potential "anthropologic" sources of the “invasive species” and not ALL of them. Several of these potential sources are exempt from the legislation. Is this stated in the bill itself? No, it is not but reality says that when passed, certain GSE’s will be exempted (e.g. science, zoos, food production, etc) from the legislation.



In other words, the only segments of American society that will actually be affected by HR-669 are private businesses and private citizens. This stands the intent of the Constitution on its head in that this is the exact opposite of what both the Constitution itself AND the Commerce Clause intended. By their "new" interpretation of the Constitution, the 5th Amendment is a "radical" concept...



Regarding the second reason, nature itself finds a way to survive (or it goes extinct on its own) as it has for eons before man ever existed and is the reason why neither HR-669 or S-373 will work in reality. Granted, they DO have a point regarding the anthropologic problem as the source of Burmese Python's introduction into the region there but, when compared to the “invasive species” issue itself, this only a very miniscule part of the problem.



In other words, this is looking at a single tree in the entire forest and then defining the forest based on the single tree. We know that this is not how it works. So, because of nature (and both domestic and foreign trade-including foreign aid in its current form), the legislation will NOT work if passed because it will not solve the problem of “invasive species” – which is the stated intent of the bill(s). The same can be said for the climate change as well…



>>Why is it that it is pretty much universally accepted that bio-diversity is critical for a healthy ecosystem, yet at the same time it seems like the general sentiment today is that any and all "introduced" species are "invasive" and gonna destroy the world?



Agreed…We already know that some of the “invasive species” are actually VERY beneficial to man and some of them were actually introduced by science and the government. To add to this, I fully support a rational effort to preserve our natural lands and the biodiversity that exists on it…For one thing, there are places that I used to go that were pristine but, that is no longer the case. Why? Government sanctioned activities in the form of development allowed the destruction of the habitat. It was allowed to occur because it generated tax dollars, which generated “programs”, which require employees, which requires building(s), which requires construction, which requires utilities, etc, etc, etc…Just look at the aerial photographs of the geography in certain areas that surround the Everglades…Does anyone think that the government did not sanction that or anywhere else in the US?



>>And then there's the inconsistency. If the same standards were applied to dogs (which cause several dozen human fatalities and 1/2 million emergency room visits per year) and feral cats (which we know for sure harm indigenous -including endangered - wildlife in every state), shouldn't the anti-snake scientists be screaming for a national emergency and martial law?



Again, I agree as dogs, cats, hogs (feral), bees (Africanized), etc, were – and are – sanctioned and/or permitted by the government…What about the Ostriches, Llamas, etc, and the imported animals to support our zoos (some zoos are completely private) and scientific research?



The bottom line is that both HR-669 and S-373 are “selective” applications of law and in reality, completely flawed in their intent…If things go as the political process goes behind the scenes to find “bipartisan” support for the bill - by accommodating enough individual “entities” for the next version of the bill (agenda). This is a divide and conquer strategy under the terminology of "bipartisanship". Once this occurs, the next version of the bill (remember, this is about agenda and NOT reason, logic or science) will become even MORE selective in its “jurisdiction” because it will affect fewer opponents of the bill. The intent here is to find just enough support, to get the bill passed into law and then promulgated into regulation.



What is important to understand about this, and this is true throughout civilized human history in that the when the government wants to "control" a thing or activity (regardless of the reason), it either regulates (restricts) it or bans (outlaws) it altogether. When the government wants to encourage a thing or activity, regulations are relaxed and the activity thrives and you get more of it (for whatever reason)...It's as simple as the hydrology of the water faucets in your own home...The amount of the water is dictated by you controlling the valve within the faucet (if it's functioning properly). In know that is a simple analogy but...



What some folks don’t realize is that with each new law (which then becomes regulation) that is passed, more freedom goes away and if those folks that were originally “accommodated” (to garner either their support or remain neutral) think they are out-of-the-woods, they are mistaken. It may take a few years before they are “included” in the next round of legislation and then they will be on their own because they sold everybody else down the river many years before.



Another aspect of legislation is that once passed and promulgated into regulation, it then becomes a legal “weapon” to be used in court lawsuits by behind-the-scenes supporting “organization(s)” with “pro-bono” lawyers to further the “green movement” agenda…



Do some research about the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and be sure to include the Congressional testimony regarding the bill (then and now). You will see how a government bill has been “morphed” into something that is not good (my opinion) because of its “politicization” to support an agenda of certain "special interests". I originally supported it (for many years) but no longer do because of how it is actually being used now by agencies of the Federal government and its supporters (e.g. NGO’s, private organizations, GSE’s, etc).



I say this because the record of results of the ESA is that it is a ABSOLUTE, COMPLETE AND DISMAL FAILURE to do what it was originally intended to do! Consider the following; the ESA has approximately 1,300 species listed (depending on the source) as either endangered or threatened here in the US. To date only 10 species have been recovered during the entire existence of the ESA! That's approximately 1 percent! Conversely, this means it is a 99 percent failure!



Put this FACT into your own life...Are you going to honestly invest in something with a proven success rate of only 1 percent? Would you honestly pay a mechanic to fix your car if you knew that there was a 99 percent chance that it would not be fixed after you paid the money? Are you going to allow a doctor to vaccinate your child with a vaccine that has a 99 percent chance of failure?



Now how long has the ESA existed? How many MILLIONS of dollars have been spent on this? Numerous "groups", organizations, agencies, politicians, etc continue to say (pure propaganda) that all they need is more money, more time, etc, etc, etc, to fix this 1 percent success rate...Really?



I conclude that while the "intent" of the ESA was laudable (and the reason I once supported it) but, the government in its mission to protect endangered and threatened species via the ESA by "recovering" them IS A PROVEN RECORD OF FAILURE! How long are we going to continue to put up with this nonsense?



Later,

Jim
-----
CSRAJim

[ Show Entire Thread ]