Posted by:
boawoman
at Tue Dec 15 23:45:27 2009 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by boawoman ]
Recently this young man called to talk to me as he was writing a paper on the Exotic Pet Legislation. I asked if I could see the paper when he finished it. He sent it to me, and I asked him if it was ok to post on the forum. He makes many good points, and I think we should share all info here.He approved, so here it is;
Exotic Pet Legislation
Kristin Gong
And
Jeremy Robinson
Business 18A
Professor Freston
3 December 2009
Pet ownership has become a very common feature of American culture. According to a Gallup poll, six out of every ten Americans have at least one pet. The pet industry has grown significantly during the past 60 years, and this growth has created the need for laws to protect the general welfare, the environment, and the animals that are offered for sale. The reptile industry in particular has achieved phenomenal growth, and many of the laws currently on the books have created some significant barriers to businesses that have a particular interest in reptiles. The focus of this paper will be on laws concerning exotic pets, with an emphasis on reptiles and amphibians, and how these laws affect the pet industry, the environment, and the economy overall.
For our purposes, exotic means: of foreign origin or character; not native; introduced from abroad but not fully naturalized or acclimated. Many pets owned in the United States fall under this definition. Exotic pets include but are not limited to: certain types of birds, fish, lizards, amphibians, and a great deal of snakes. Many of the staples of the pet industry, such as ball pythons, Russian dwarf hamsters, bearded dragons, parrots, and tropical fish are all included in this definition. Very few reptiles and amphibians commonly offered for sale in the United States are not considered exotic.
The practice of keeping reptiles as pets has become very popular over the past six decades. The community of people across the United States that has an interest in reptiles is commonly known as the Reptile Nation, and it now comprises more than 5 million Americans. As the exotic pet industry grew, it became apparent that major legislation was needed to provide guidelines and regulations as a safeguard to the public and the environment.
The Lacey Act is the current law that deals with, among other things, the import and sale of exotic animals including reptiles and amphibians in the United States. The Lacey Act 18 U.S.C. §42 © prohibits the sale and import of certain species that are known to be harmful to the environment or human health. Species are not prohibited until they are on a list, and new species are only added as needed. Any species not included in the list is eligible for import and sale. Currently, there are only 40 species on the list, which proponents of House Resolution 669 say is in indicator that the Lacey Act is slow and ineffective.
The Endangered Species Act of 1973 has also put some restrictions on the reptile industry. Under the Endangered Species Act, anyone who is found in possession of an animal listed on the endangered species list faces criminal prosecution unless they have the proper permits. This puts all endangered species out of reach of the pet industry (except via the black market). Despite the protection of the Endangered Species Act, non-native species still pose a substantial threat to the species that are the target beneficiaries of the act. According to the National Environmental Coalitions on Invasive Species or the NECIS, there are 1,352 species currently protected and 400 of these endangered species are affected by non-native species either competing for food or preying on them.
There is currently a proposed law, HR 2811, that seeks to amend the Lacey Act to add both Burmese Pythons and African Rock Pythons to the list of harmful species; this would up the count to forty-two. This proposed change would have a serious negative impact on the reptile industry because the Burmese Python is a very popular pet within the reptile community. This proposed change was created in response to the discovery that pet Burmese Pythons that were released by irresponsible pet owners have bred in the wild, and there is now a wild colony of them living in the Florida Everglades. House Resolution 2811 would negatively impact the Reptile Nation, but would be a positive step toward reversing the effects that irresponsible pet owners have had on the natural environment. However, another proposed law, House Resolution 669, which takes a more aggressive approach toward correcting the detriment to the environment would negatively affect the Reptile Nation as well as have some serious repercussions on the United States economy.
The main purpose of House Resolution 669, or the Non-natural Wildlife Invasion Protection Act, is to establish a new way to assess the risk that certain species pose to people, the environment, the economy, and the general welfare. This resolution would establish a list of animals, named by both common and scientific names that are acceptable to own, transport, or sell in the United States. Unlike the Lacey Act, HR 669 prohibits all animals not included on the list, and provides vague and uncertain criteria a species must meet before it can become legal. Examples of animals allowed under the proposed law are llamas, cats, dogs, pigs, oxen, rabbits, and goldfish. The new legislation in essence reverses the method by which animals are added to the Lacey Act. Instead of species on the list being prohibited, only species that are evaluated and deemed low risk will be allowed. Any species not named in HR 669 would be banned from import, interstate trade, sale, and possession. It would almost completely shut down any business that deals in exotic pets. This new law would also make it illegal for an existing exotic pet owner to re-home, or give their pets away. This is a direct response to both dealers and pet owners being irresponsible in the past. Unfortunately for responsible pet owners, there would be few options but to euthanize their pets when they are no longer able to take care of them. The cost of these pets can exceed $10,000 per animal for rare species or species with rare color or pattern morphs.
The Reptile Nation, as well as the Pet Industry Joint Counsel Advisory (PIJAC), the American Federation of Aviculture, the United States Association of Reptile Keepers, and the National Animal Interest Alliance Trust are among the main opposition to HR 669. The PIJAC’s official position on HR 669 is as follows:
“We do not support the current drafting of HR 669. The bill fails to be strategic in that it does not adequately take socio-economic issues and risk management options into account, requires funds and staffing not currently available to the US Fish and Wildlife Service, would have a substantial economic impact on the pet and other industries, and could result in the mass release and/or euthanasia of pets.”
Among the organizations supporting House Resolution 669 are the Humane Society of the United States, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The strongest supporter of the bill is the NECIS. According to the NECIS, the pet industry has imported hundreds of millions of non-native species into the United States. Inevitably, some of these creatures escape or are abandoned by their owners and end up in the wild. Some of these non-native species that escape or are released die relatively quickly as they are not suited to the environment, but the real problem lies with the species that survive and thrive. These species that survive pose a huge threat to native species. Once the non-native species establishes itself in the wild, it may result in either increased competition for food, or a disruption in the food chain.
Some examples of non-native species that were imported and now pose problems are: the red lionfish from the Indo-Pacific, the Burmese python, and the Gambian giant pouched rat. The red lionfish was originally imported for aquariums and eventually made its way into the Atlantic Ocean. This fish has up to 18 venomous spines which it uses to aggressively stun and capture fish and shrimp. Some view their growing population as cause for concern. The Gambian giant pouched rat, which was imported as a pet, carried monkeypox virus, which killed 71 Americans in 2003. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), monkeypox is a milder version of small pox which results in raised, puss-filled bumps all over the body.
According to Rebecca and Steven Howser, owner/operators of Rafter S. Reptile Home, if the proposed law passed, it would cause them to lose over $10,000 in investments and their business to shut down completely, as well as force many of their animals to be euthanized. When asked about their thoughts regarding the proposed Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act HR669, the Howsers responded, “I feel that the law is too overarching. The guilty-until-proven-innocent method of sorting species is rarely based on scientific work. Primarily, I am angered that the most devastating species we currently have, such as cattle and dogs, etc. are not included.”
In 2000, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling in the case of U.S. v. Bronx Reptiles, Inc. Bronx Reptiles received a shipment of dead frogs, and was subsequently convicted of violating a portion of the Lacey Act, which made it a misdemeanor to knowingly cause or permit any wild animal to be transported to the United States under inhumane or unhealthful conditions. After reviewing the trial, the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction. They said that the wording of the law implied that the defendant had to knowingly 1) cause or permit any wild animal to be transported to the United States 2) under inhumane or unhealthful conditions. The government failed to meet its burden of proof and was therefore lacking a necessary element of the crime. In other words, that Bronx Reptiles knew that the animals were being transported under inhumane or unhealthful conditions.
This court case further clarified the Lacey Act, and set a precedent for any future cases that dealt with improper animal transportation. Going forward, the government must prove that the defendant had knowledge of the improper shipment of the animals in question; otherwise a conviction cannot be made. In addition, the government must prove that the defendant had the required mental state (mens rea) necessary for the crime.
The reptile industry is a quickly growing sector of the economy, and the current laws have been effective in restricting the trade of illegal species. However problems arise when pet owners do not take their responsibilities seriously. It is clear that new legislation is needed to stop the negative impact on the environment caused by irresponsible pet owners. However, HR 669 may not be the most effective way to go about it. This law would have countless detrimental effects of the pet industry as we know it. Nearly all self-employed Americans running small reptile-related businesses in the United States would quickly be forced out of business upon the passing of the bill. Although the law would unquestionably benefit the environment, it would deprive many American citizens of their pets and property without compensation and with little regard for their personal and emotional well-being. The Reptile Nation has achieved the impressive feat of supporting captive populations of several hundred species of reptiles. All of the investments that members of the Reptile Nation have made to create those captive populations will be stripped from them if HR 669 is passed. Given the present state of the U.S. economy, it is unclear if we as a nation could rebound from the loss of a multi-million dollar enterprise like the exotic pet industry. Both supporters and opposition of the bill agree that the existing legislation is insufficient when it comes to meeting the current needs of the nation where the exotic pet industry is concerned.
Bibliography
Barker, Tracy M. Why supporting USARK is important. ReptileChannel.com. December, 2009.
Congressional Python Ban. www.pijac.org/governmentaffairs/s373forum.asp.
February 3, 2009.
Endangered Species Act of 1973. 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq. http://www.epa.gov/regulations/laws/esa.html.
Exotic. Definition. Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2009. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/exotic
Gallup News Service. Americans and their pets. http://www.gallup.com/poll/25969/Americans-Their-Pets.aspx. December 14, 2006. Accessed September, 2009.
GovTrack.us: a civic project to track congress. H.R. 669 Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669. Updated November 13, 2009.
Howser, Steven and Rebecca. Interview with Jeremy Robinson via e-mail. November 3, 2009.
http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009/04/hr669_nonnative_wildlife_invas.php. April 15, 2009. Accessed September, 2009.
http://www.stop669.org. Accessed November 12, 2009.
Lacey Act (Title 18 U.S. code section 42 (a) (1)). www.aphis.usda.gov. Accessed October 5, 2009.
Lionfish. National Geographic. http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/animals/fish/lionfish.html. Accessed December 1, 2009.
Jennings, Peter T. Coming to a Marsh Near You? National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species. www.necis.net/files/invasives-fact-sheet.pdf
Pet Industry Joint Counsel Advisory. Home page. U.S. Legislation Alert: H.R. 669.
http://www.pijac.org/governmentaffairs/hr669forum.asp
United States v. Bronx Reptiles, Inc., 26 F.Supp.2d 481 (E.D.N.Y.1998).
Waxler, Erik. Officials Consider Burmese Python Ban. E.W. Scripps Co.
August 6, 2009.
What you should know about Monkeypox. Centers for Disease Control. Updated September 5, 2008. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/monkeypox/factsheet2.htm
[ Hide Replies ]
 Exotic Pet Legislation - boawoman, Tue Dec 15 23:45:27 2009
|
