Reptile & Amphibian Forums

ON April 23rd 2009 The Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669, a resolution that will in effect ban importation, interstate transport and the private ownership of most birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish as pets. Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following nonnative animals
would be allowed:

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)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Should this resolution be adopted into law as written it will have a devastating impact on every pet owner and business in the United States. Action is needed TODAY to protect your rights to keep your pets! To find out what you can do to protect your pets please click on the link below. Please note that the linked PIJAC PET ALERT requires that you have Adobe Acrobat installed. More info will follow as it becomes available...

http://banner.pethobbyist.com/spclick.php?id=438
CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING NONNATIVE SPECIES APRIL 23 - ACTION NEEDED NOW! - CLICK HERE!

Is this for real?? I cannot comprehend what our lawmakers are thinking here. Can anyone explain this to me and where the idea came from. Is this a PETA/HSUS idea??

>>Is this for real?? I cannot comprehend what our lawmakers are thinking here. Can anyone explain this to me and where the idea came from. Is this a PETA/HSUS idea??

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING NONNATIVE SPECIES APRIL 23 - ACTION NEEDED

THE ISSUE
The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act.

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious [harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S.

HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to “cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.” In order to be placed on the “Approved List” it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause “harm” anywhere in the US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an “Unapproved List.” Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.

Species not appearing on the “Approved List” could not be imported into the United States; therefore, all unapproved nonnative species could not be moved interstate. In addition, trade in all such unlisted species would come to a halt – possession would be limited and all breeding would cease. Unless those species are included on the approved list import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation.

THE IMPACT
Nonnative species in the pet trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, fish and a number of mammals
(e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets) commonly kept as pets. It is immaterial under HR 669 that the
• Vast majority of these nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, some for hundreds of years, and have not proven to be an environmental problem.
• Numerous species are raised in the United States for many purposes, pets, recreational fishing and hunting, food, etc.
• Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental problems, and this has generally been on a very localized basis (i.e. southern Florida, Hawaii).
• Most states have exercised their authority to regulate problem species within their own borders through a mixture of management regimes ranging from permit systems to bans.
• The HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative – that no harm has or is likely to occur within whole of the entire United States.
• The “risk assessment” process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a a broader “risk analysis” that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management) measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies.

HR 669 would employ a 2-step process of a Preliminary and a Final Approved List along with the Services having to promulgate regulations not only to deal with creation of the lists but also regulating all aspects of this rather complex bill. The Service would have to complete major portions of the list and regulation process within 24 months of passage. Imagine how the Service will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in HR 669 within these timeframes when it takes on average 4 years for the Service to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act. The bill sets up the under-resourced Service for failure and numerous lawsuits by activist groups.

Listing Process - To list or not to list? -- That is the question!
The listing process is somewhat complex. To place a species on the Preliminary Approved List (at some point in time converts to a Final Approved List) the Service must make a determination that those listed species, based on scientific and commercial information, are
• Not harmful to the United State’s economy, environment or other animals’ or human health OR
• May be harmful “but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.” While proponents would argue that this test would not be as rigorous as the ultimate test set forth in HR 669, PIJAC is at a loss how one proves no harm under the alleged simplified test for inclusion on the “Preliminary Approved List.”

To get on the ultimate “Approved List ” (accomplished within 37 months), the Service would have to complete risk assessments, not risk analysis, using the following criteria. The assessors would have to make a determination
based on:
• Species identified to species level, and if possible information to subspecies level;
• Native range of the species (which may or not be fully known);
• Whether species has established, spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems similar to those in the US;
• Environmental conditions exist in the US that suitable for establishment of the species;
• Likelihood of establishment in the US;
• Likelihood of speared in the US;
• Likelihood species would harm wildlife resources of the US;
• Likelihood the species would harm native species that are “rare” (not defined) or listed under Endangered Species Act;
• Likelihood species would harm habitats or ecosystems of the US;
• Likelihood “pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation;” and
• Other factors “important to assessing the risk associated with the species”. Once a determination is made, the Service will place a species on one of 3 lists
• Approved List
• Unapproved List
• The “Non-list” (section 4(2)(C)) for species for which “the Secretary has insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination “ whether to approve or disapprove.

User Fees
HR 669 also calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following the adoption of the “Preliminary Approved List.” This has been a long term desire of animal activist and environmental protectionist

organizations since they know that user fees can become cost prohibitive and virtually eliminate small interest groups or business from participating in the process. It can easily paralyze access except for the wealthy or those living off of tax exempt dollars who use the system to drive their agendas. Furthermore, fees are not made available to the Service until 36 months into the process. It is not clear how the Service would implement the first three years of work under HR 669.

RECOMMENDATIONS – TIME IS NOW!

According to the Defenders of Wildlife "For far too long the pet, aquarium and other industries have imported live animals to the United States without regard to their harm…" Defenders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are part of a coalition pushing hard for passage of this bill without amendments.

A HEARING has been scheduled for April 23 and the pet industry needs to be heard load and clear prior to the hearing! The anti-trade elements are hard at work to stop activities involving non-native species. A copy of HR 669 can be found on PIJAC’s website in the “Breaking News” section at www.pijac.org. Read the bill carefully since it could shut down major segments of the pet industry virtually overnight.

PIJAC POSITION -- PIJAC supports the underlying intent of HR 669 to establish a risk-based process in order to prevent the introduction of potentially invasive species. It has been clear for quite some time that steps are needed to enhance and improve the current listing process for species shown to be injurious under the Lacey Act. In addition to much needed appropriations to fund staff and other ancillary support aids, the Lacey Act needs to be modernized to make the process more timely, efficient and transparent. However, HR 669 falls far short of accomplishing this objective.

CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMITTEE (see contact information below) by
• emailing or faxing your opposition to HR 669 to their offices in Washington DC urging them to amend
the bill
• ALSO contact their district offices
- voice your opposition
- and request a meeting with the representative when they are back in the District

It is also important to organize like-minded people in your district so several of you can visit with your representative at the same time.

A few talking points:

• The approach taken in HR 669 will adversely impact trade and other activities involving nonnative species without utilizing a scientifically valid approach – even in the limited instances in which sufficient data are available on the biology and range of species, it will be virtually impossible to prove that they could not establish and spread in some portion of the US. Thus, it will be nearly impossible to get species on the “Approved List” unless they are so widespread in the country already.

• The degree of uncertainty that will result by applying the “as if” criteria will result in virtually every species ending up on the list for which there is insufficient information to make a decision DESPITE THE FACT that most of these species have been in trade, recreational use, farming, etc. for decades with only a small percentage of species being problematic and then in localized situations

• A one size assessment process fits all species is not plausible – what may be harmful in Hawaiian waters would not be harmful in Kansas or the deserts of Arizona or Texas.

• HR 669 overly simplifies the complexity of the issue; bans all species unless they can get on an approved list; the criteria for the Approved List are not realistic; the lists are biased towards those entities that can afford to engage in the process – undoubtedly the USFWS will be paralyzed by activist animal rights and protectionist environmental organizations petitioning for species to be unapproved;

• The USFWS does not have the capacity to implement the provisions given limited staff, money, and unrealistic timeliness; and the unintended consequences of a sloppy bill could actually be to facilitate the mass release of animals, and/or their mass euthanasia.

• HR 669 does not take into consideration the socio-economic complexity of the issue. Stakeholders dependent upon access to non-native species include diverse interests: pet industry, sports fishing, federal/state hatcheries, agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment, hunting, food aquaculture. Currently, thousands of non-natives species are both imported and exported, as well as captive raised (in some instances farmed on ranched) within the United States. While most of these species are never intended for release into natural environments, some of these species (e.g. oysters, trout, bass, deer, game birds) are managed by government and private entities throughout the US.

• HR 669 calls for a risk assessment when, in fact, a risk analysis process is warranted. A risk assessment only considers biological indices related to potential invasiveness, while a risk analysis considers both these, as well as socio-economic factors, including potential management options. A risk analysis can enable strategic decisions to be made, such as enabling certain species to continue in trade/transport if the risks of invasion could be sufficiently management (e.g. d HR 669 treats the entire United States as if it is a single ecosystem and ignores the historic definition of invasive species that applies to a specific ecosystem, not the political boundaries of the United States as an ecosystem.

• Setting criteria in statute removes flexibility that could be achieved through rulemaking since a “one-sizefits- all” process is not appropriate for all taxa, regions of the country, proposed usage of the species, etc.

• Deadlines are unrealistic. While we recognize the rationale for placing timeframes on USFWS, deadlines cause lawsuits; deadlines mandate action for unfunded mandates; two (2) years is unrealistic to conduct an assessment (even a rough screen) of literally thousands of species (1) imported, (2) raised in US for local markets as well as exports, and (3) imported as well as raised in US.

• Animals owned prior to prohibition of importation (Section 2(f)) is major departure from current prohibitions under Lacey Act. HR 669 would allow possession of “an animal” if prove legally owned pre-launch of assessment. There is no indication as to what it takes to prove legality? Nor would one know when an assessment of a particular species was launched.

• Assuming that more than a handful of non-native species end up on an approved list, enforcement of a list of species that have been in trade for decades will be more difficult than a dirty list. It is well established that only a small percentage of the species in trade have been shown to be “invasive.” The ornamental aquarium industry, for example, deals with more than 2,500 species of freshwater and marine fish. A handful of species have been found to be a problem in Southern Florida, but not elsewhere in the US; some found to be a problem in Hawaii are not a problem in Kansas.

• Promulgation of regulations implementing the HR 669 process will be complex and doubtful if can be achieved within prescribed timeframe, especially if USFWS is to simultaneously conduct thousands of assessments on species already in trade.

ACT NOW – Also alert your employees, friends, neighbors, competitors, and any other like-minded people and urge them to take time to respond to this unworkable approach to dealing with an issue of concern to all of us.
KEEP CHECKING PIJAC’S WEBSITE FOR UPDATES ON HR669 HTTP://WWW.PIJAC.ORG

House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/226-0200 (Tel.)
202/225-1542 (Fax)

Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam)
427 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-5301
202/225-1188 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-0341 (Washington Fax #)
120 Father Duenas Ave., Suite 107
Hagatna, GUAM 96910
671/477-4272 (District Tel. #)
671/477-2587 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/bordallo/IMA/issue.htm

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
1502 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2726 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-4580 (Washington Fax #)
Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd. – Room 4-104
Honolulu, HI 96850
808/541-2570 (District Tel. #)
808/533-0133 (District Fax #)
neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov

Henry Brown (R-SC)
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3176 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3407 (Washington Fax #)
1800 North Oak Street, Suite C
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843/445-6459 (District Tel. #)
843/445-6418 (District Fax #)
5900 Core Avenue, Suite 401
North Charleston, SC 29406
843/747-4175 (District Tel. #)
843/747-4711 (District Fax #)
http://brown.house.gov/Contact/index.html

Lois Capps (D-CA)
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3601 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5632 (Washington Fax #)
2675 N. Ventura Road, Suite 105
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
805/985-6807 (District Tel. #)
805/985-6875 (District Fax #)
301 E Carrillo Street, Suite A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805/730-1710 (District Tel. #)
805/730-9153 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/capps/contact/send_an_email.shtml

William Cassidy (R-LA)
506 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3901 (District Tel. #)
202/225-7313 (District Fax #)
5555 Hilton Avenue, Suite 100
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
225/929-7711 (District Tel. #)
225/929-7688 (District Fax #)
http://cassidy.house.gov/contact/index.shtml

Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
1032 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-7751 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5629 (Washington Fax #)
51 South University Ave., Suite 319
Provo, UT 84601
801/851-2500 (District Tel. #)
801/851-2509 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/chaffetz/contactform.shtml

Donna M. Christensen (NP-Virgin Islands)
1510 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-1790 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5517 (Washington Fax #)
Nisky Business Center
Second Floor, Suite 207
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802
340/778-4408 (District Tel. #)
340/778-8033 (District Fax #)
P.O. Box 5980
Sunny Isle Shopping Center, Space 25
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00823
340/778-5900 (District Tel. #)
340/778-5111 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/

Diana L. DeGette (D-CO)
2335 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4431 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5657 (Washington Fax #)
600 Grant Street, Suite 202
Denver, CO 80203
303/844-4988 (District Tel. #)
303/844-4996 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/formdegette/zip_auth.htm

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP – American Samoa)
2422 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-8577 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8757 (Washington Fax #)
P.O. Box, Drawer X
Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA 96799
684/633-1372 (District Tel. #)
684/633-2680 (District Fax #)
faleomavaega@mail.house.gov

Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
240 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2635 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-4386 (Washington Fax #)
1640 South Stapley, Suite 215
Mesa, AZ 85204
480/833-0092 (District Tel. #)
480/833-6314 (District Fax #)
jeff.flake@mail.house.gov

John Fleming (R-LA)
1023 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2777 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8039 (Washington Fax #)
6425 Youree Drive, Suite 350
Shreveport, LA 71105
318/798-2254 (District Tel. #)
318/798-2063 (District Fax #)
Southgate Plaza Shopping Center
1606 Fifth Street
Leesville, LA 71446
337/238-0778 (District Tel. #)
337/238-0566 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/fleming/contactform.shtml

Doc Hastings (R-WA)
1203 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4704
202/225-5816 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3251 (Washington Fax #)
2715 St. Andrews Loop, Suite D
Pasco, WA 99301
509/543-9396 (District Tel. #)
509/545-1972 (District Fax #)
302 East Chestnut Street
Yakima, WA 98901
509/452-3243 (District Tel. #)
509/452-3438 (District Fax #)
http://hastings.house.gov/ContactForm.aspx

Dale E. Kildee (D-MI)
2107 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3611 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-6393 (Washington Fax #)
432 N. Saginaw Street, Suite 410
Bay City, MI 48708
989/891-0990 (District Tel. #)
989/891-0994 (District Fax #)
515 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 401
Saginaw, MI 48607
989/755-8904 (District Tel. #)
989/755-8908 (District Fax #)
dkildee@mail.house.gov

Ronald James Kind (D-WI)
1406 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5506 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5739 (Washington Fax #)
205 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 400
La Crosse, WI 54601
608/782-2558 (District Tel. #)
608/782-4588 (District Fax #)
131 South Barstow Street, Suite 301
Eau Claire, WI 54701
715/831-9214 (District Tel. #)
715/831-9272 (District Fax #)
ron.kind@mail.house.gov

Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
314 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5311 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0254 (Washington Fax #)
102 Turpins Lane
Centreville, MD 21617
443/262-9136 (District Tel. #)
443/262-9713 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/kratovil/contactform.shtml

Douglas L. Lamborn (R-CO)
437 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4422 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-2638 (Washington Fax #)
415 Main Street
Buena Vista, CO 81211
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)
1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd., Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)
http://lamborn.house.gov/ZipAuth.aspx

Frank J. Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
237 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3006
202/225-4671 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9665 (Washington Fax #)
67/69 Church Street, Kilmer Square
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
732/249-8892 (District Tel. #)
732/249-1335 (District Fax #)
504 Broadway
Long Branch, NJ 07740
732/571-1140 (District Tel. #)
732/870-3890 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/pallone/contact.shtml

Pedro R. Pierluisi (NP-Puerto Rico)
1218 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2615 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-2154 (Washington Fax #)
250 Calle Fortaleza Old
San Juan, PUERTO RICO 00901
787/723-6333 (District Tel. #)
787/723-6333 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/pierluisi/contactform.
shtml

Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-WV)
2307 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3452 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9061 (Washington Fax #)
601 Federal Street, Room 1005
Bluefield, WV 24701
304/325-6222 (District Tel. #)
304/325-0552 (District Fax #)
301 Prince Street
Beckley, WV 25801
304/252-5000 (District Tel. #)
304/252-9803 (District Fax #)
http://www.rahall.house.gov/?sectionid=9§io
ntree=9

Gregorio Sablan (I- Mariana Islands)
423 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2646 (Washington Tel. #)
https://forms.house.gov/sablan/contactform.
shtml

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
1330 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5456 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5822 (Washington Fax #)
33 Lowell Street
Manchester, NH 03101
603/641-9536 (District Tel. #)
603/641-9561 (District Fax #)
104 Washington Street
Dover, NH 03820
603/743-4813 (District Tel. #)
603/743-5956 (District Fax #)
http://forms.house.gov/sheaporter/
webform/issue_subscribe.htm

Robert J. Wittman (R-VA)
1123 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4261 (Washington Tel. #)
3504 Plank Road, Suite 203
Fredericksburg, VA 22407
540/548-1086 (District Tel. #)
4904-B George Washington Memorial Hwy.
Yorktown, VA 23692
757/874-6687 (District Tel. #)
https://forms.house.gov/wittman/IMA/webforms/i
ssue_subscribe.htm

Donald E. Young (R-AK)
2111 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5765 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0425 (Washington Fax #)
101 12th Avenue, #10
Fairbanks, AK 99701-6275
907/456-0210 (District Tel. #)
907/456-0279 (District Fax #)
Peterson Tower Building
510 L Street, Suite 580
Anchorage, AK 99501-1954
907/271-5978 (District Tel. #)
907/271-5950 (District Fax #)
don.young@mail.house.gov

The woman from Guam that keeps authoring/proposing this stuff needs to give it a rest. Granted, they may have a problem with the Brown Tree Snake there, but their insular situation certainly isn't indicative of the Continental U.S.
She is nothing but a great poster child to be shoved to the fore by others. Don't think she can even vote. Not even a full member of Congress. Not much else for her to make herself useful, I guess. A one trick pony.
Seriously, this is just one more unenforceable unfunded mandate from Congress. It rings of hypocrisy, same as our immigration/labor laws do.
Must we get a Constitutional Amendment to put this onslaught to an end?
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

This is NOT about Madeleine Bordallo, Del Guam. It is about powerful special interests attempting to enforce their agenda through legislation. It is about the Defenders of Wildlife (who authored this bill), the Humane Society of the United States and The Nature Conservancy. It is about a recommendation from Defenders in their 'Broken Screens' report that USFWS receive massive appropriations and expand their law enforcement role at unprecedented levels in order to meet the "Threat" that the US is going to be completely overrun by Exotic Invasives if Massive Action is not taken immediately. If passed this will not be an unfunded mandate and will increase the size and power of USFWS dramatically.

Andrew

"She is nothing but a great poster child to be shoved to the fore by others."
jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Well, this is what should be done.

There needs to be support for a few people to run for congress from our community. Isn't there anybody in say, California, New York, or Florida that have an interest in exotics that could run and be supported at a large enough level to be voted into office to end this crap? The reason I mention these states is because of their population and the weight they pull in voting.

I think this is the only way to finish this off completely. Granted they would be a junior member of congress, but they could always stand up and complain about these proposals.
I have emailed and called my congressional delegates and they don't even call me back or email me back. It is like this is not an important issue.

Wouldn't it be in the best interest of big box stores to lobby one of our own. Is there any member of congress that is vested in this issue? I know McCain has two turtles or tortoises. Isn't there any more out there???

Here is a list of the members of this committee. If they are in your state, call them!! They each have their individual websites.

Members of the Committee on Natural Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
111th Congress
1324 Longworth House Office Building
(202) 225-6065 Fax: (202) 225-1931
MR. NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia, Chairman
MR. DOC HASTINGS, Washington, Ranking Republican Member

Dale E. Kildee, D - Michigan
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, D - American Samoa
Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Frank Pallone, Jr., D - New Jersey
Grace F. Napolitano, D - California
Rush D. Holt, D - New Jersey
Raúl M. Grijalva, D - Arizona
Madeleine Z. Bordallo, D - Guam
Jim Costa, D - California
Dan Boren, D - Oklahoma
Gregorio "Kilili" Sablan, D - Mariana Islands
Martin Heinrich, D - New Mexico
George Miller, D - California
Edward J. Markey, D - Massachusetts
Peter A. DeFazio, D - Oregon
Maurice D. Hinchey, D - New York
Donna M. Christensen, D - Virgin Islands
Diana DeGette, D - Colorado
Ron Kind, D - Wisconsin
Lois Capps, D - California
Jay Inslee, D - Washington
Joe Baca, D - California
Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D - South Dakota
John P. Sarbanes, D - Maryland
Carol Shea-Porter, D - New Hampshire
Niki Tsongas, D - Massachusetts
Frank Kratovil, Jr., D - Maryland
Pedro R. Pierluisi, D - Puerto Rico
Don Young, R - Alaska
Elton Gallegly, R - California
John J. Duncan, Jr., R - Tennessee
Jeff Flake, R - Arizona
Henry E. Brown, Jr., R - South Carolina
Cathy McMorris Rodgers, R - Washington
Louie Gohmert, R - Texas
Rob Bishop, R - Utah
Bill Shuster, R - Pennsylvania
Doug Lamborn, R - Colorado
Adrian Smith, R - Nebraska
Robert J. Wittman, R - Virginia
Paul C. Broun, R - Georgia
John Fleming, R - Louisiana
Mike Coffman, R - Colorado
Jason Chaffetz, R - Utah
Cynthia M. Lummis, R - Wyoming
Tom McClintock, R - California
Bill Cassidy, R - Louisiana

Link

b,

Unfortunately some of the members of the House Natural Resources Committee are actually sponsors of HR-669...They include Abercrombie, Bordallo, Grijalva, Kildee, Kind, Miller and Napolitano. Other sponsors of HR-669 not on the committee are Giffords, A. Hastings, Hinojosa, Klein, McGovern and Rodriguez.

I've already called, emailed and written my congressman who is a member of the committee...

There are several "animal rights" organizations behind this in some form or fashion...In addition to the Humane Society, there is the Defenders of Wildlife. They voice their "scientific" opinions in several methods but their political money is "expressed" via the "Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund".

They are not the largest group of "lobbyists" in DC but, they DO get attention from some of the "like-minded" politicians...Some of which are sponsors of HR-669.

Later,
-----
CSRAJim

Here is the direct link to the committee.
You can find direct links to the sponsor and co-sponsors of this bill.
It also tells you the status of the bill.
Link

Here is a link to the committee calender.

Link

to vote for Libertarian candidates. Although they are not likely to win for President, they have been winning a lot of local, state, and occasionally, bigger races. And they are more likely to win than an unknown candidate who we like mainly because he or she supports our cause.

Libertarians generally will vote against any excess legislation with limited benefits. They are looking for smaller government, and less costs in both dollars and freedoms lost. So anytime you have the choice to vote for a Libertarian, check them out and see if you agree with them on their issues. But remember - they are going to be for less regulation for most ALL issues - not just the ones you happen to want less regulation for. So plan to support others' rights for less government interference, and maybe they will support us when we need it. You can't have it both ways! Too many people only want their own freedoms, and are happy to vote away freedoms that other people want.

I tried to tell you guys a long time ago there was an agenda against keeping animals. I got scoffed at then.
I was blasted with comments like, Oh scientist and other groups are not going to do that.
Who was it on here that kept saying that there is no such agenda ? Well, I know what I am talking about.

Anyway I stopped keeping box turtles because there was no support from anyone for the turtle keepers.
Now I keep goldfish. But, I see they are not on the list to be banned. But instead of throwing you guys under the bus by saying they have a good scientific reason to ban all of your animals, I instead will lend my support for your right to keep them.
The fact is there is not a good reason to stop people from captive producing box turtles. The breeders take in few wild caught and make way more of them.
No law banning or saying an animal is protected (AKA prohibited) will have anything to do with saving them in the wild. Only saving there habitat and making sanctuaries do this.
In all of the places were protected species have made a come back it was in protected habitat or habitat not touched by development. Even if you list an animal as protected you still need a place for it to live in the wild and make a come back or it just goes extinct anyway. The only other thing that can be done is captive propagation and they are shutting this down (except when they do it then it gets credit).

I have a post (two post because it messed up and did not copy the first part so I posted it under that one) farther down. You guys should read it.
Hopefully now you guys know there is an agenda as me and a few others have been saying all along.
I may be crazy but I am not being a paranoid schizophrenic here. LOL ! Eric

April 23rd is a tentative date.... It is subject to change with very little notice. Unfortunately we won't know if it will actually happen on this date till the week prior.

Andrew

Jeff,

I agree with you that this is a serious issue but I think you are a little bit off on your assessment of the bill. The bill itself, if passed, would not automatically ban anything as you suggest. It would create a committee (read that a another screwed up government bureaucracy) to assess each species currently being imported. No doubt some would get banned but it is my opinion that the majority would not. Not even the idiots in Washington would be stupid enough to pass a bill as all encompassing as one like you suggested.

That is not to say that we shouldn't be concerned. We should, and everyone should contact his/her representative and those involved in the committee hearing and express their concerns. I am not suggesting that this is in any way OK because the majority of things will not be banned. The banning of anything based on the evidence they may use is most certainly not OK But to suggest that the passage of the bill would ban everything except what is on the list I think is off the mark.

Of course, it is not beyond our opposition to use scare tactics to elicit reaction so I guess if this gets people off their behinds and gets them to write letters and emails it might be a good thing. On the other hand, If these representatives start getting all kinds of letters chastising the bill based on erroneous information will that have the effect we want?

One last thing, The list provided does not suggest that these would be the only animals allowed. It says that these animals are not considered nonnative wildlife species and as such would not be up for assessment. At least that's my interpretation.

Steve Schindler

Jeff,

Upon reading my response after it was posted I realized that I used a poor choice of wording in the following sentence:

" Not even the idiots in Washington would be stupid enough to pass a bill as all encompassing as one like you suggested. "

I see now how this could be construed as me calling you an idiot. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was not intended as such in any way and I apologize If you or anyone else took it the wrong way. The only idiots on this one are our elected officials in Washington who are considering this.

Steve Schindler

In Washington, right now, anything that even remotely sounds good is possible. I have never heard of the President of the U.S. ever "firing" a CEO before. Strange days indeed. Everything seems to be in a state of hi-speed flux. With the media being played so well by the other side this is their best chance in decades to get something drastic like this passed.

Now on to specifics.

It is true they have left us an "out", if you want to call it one, but it's just D.C. doubletalk.

All species not on the approved list would have to be approved by a committee that would determine it's invasiveness.

But according to the document:

Report for Congress
Invasive Non-Native Species:
Background and Issues for Congress
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
http://www.nationalaglawcenter.org/assets/crs/RL30123.pdf

"No evidence to date has identified a suite of features in plants or animals that seems to be a truly reliable predictor of invasiveness"

So according to a report already prepared at the request of congress there is no way to prove an animals invasiveness/non-invasiveness, ergo the committee will have no yardstick to measure by and will have to develop one. Meanwhile importation and interstate transport have already been stopped and years will go by. No fish at the fish store, no hamsters, no bearded dragons, no parakeets etc etc. And the manufacturer support for all the foods and caging will disappear with the animals.

Then once a yardstick is in place, a company or someone will have to pay for each species/ssp. to be tested according to these mechanisms, pass or fail. So one day you might see a relatively small number of these animals return to the marketplace. One day. Might. Small number.

Meanwhile organizations such as the AZA will get a free pass to bring in anything they want. Hope they know how to do the USFWS import papers though, there won't be any exotic animal distributors left to buy them through channels.

Meanwhile this does nothing to address the non-invasive federally "approved" feral hogs that are overwhelming my families property in the Panhandle, but that is ok they are keeping the non-invasive federally "approved" feral cat population in check. Unfortunately they do nothing to keep the
"unapproved" fire ants or africanized bee's in check, but no one actually imported them on purpose and they invaded us on their own. I am hoping the C02 produced by the non-invasive federally "approved" cattle that we have cleared our forests to raise will get them.

I guess we have a difference of opinion. I think that the vast majority of animals initially will be placed on the proposed preliminary approved species list which, according to my interpretation, would place no prohibitions on them. I don't see anywhere where it says all importation will stop until species can be assessed. There is a section that deals with emergency action but I don't think many animals will fall under that category. I could see large pythons, crocodilians and monitors being placed on that list but since we are dealing with a species specific law I don't think ball pythons will be included. Nor will hamsters and bearded dragons.

I may be wrong but you seem to be interpreting it as though all animals will be initially prohibited and only after time will certain ones be put on the approved list. I just don't see it that way.

It would appear however, that we are both arguing on the same side of a poorly designed bill. I agree with you 100% that this is not a good thing. My biggest issue is with giving them a "blank check" if you will. Give them the power now to determine what will and will not be allowed , and let them make the determination later, after its too late. IF and this is a big IF something like this should be considered, the lists should be determined BEFORE the bill is up for consideration. Let them do the work to make up the lists first and then let them try to get the bill passed. They won't do it because they know that if they are too strict and include too many animals the outcry will be too great and the bill won't pass.

My personal opinion is that this bill is too broad and tries to accomplish too much to pass in its current form. That is not to say that it will go away. It's just that there are too many industries that stand too lose to much with this. Especially if you are correct in your interpretation and trade would stop until species could get approval. As I said before, there is not a politician in the world that vote for a bill that would put 10s of thousands (perhaps more) people out of work in this economy. That's exactly what this bill would do if passed and it operated the way you think it does. That is one reason why I don't think it does.

Arguing aside people, it is time to step up and be heard. Contact the people on the lists provided in the links and let them know just how foolhardy this bill really is. I think we can all agree on that.

Steve Schindler

Re-read it. This is what it will require to get a species on the "preliminary" "white" list. They won't just add hundreds/thousands of species to that list. That's just not the way this is going to work.

(B) INFORMATION REQUIRED- Any proposal under this paragraph must include sufficient scientific and commercial information to allow the Secretary to evaluate whether the proposed nonnative wildlife species is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ or human health.

In Texas a few years ago the state proposed a "white list" of approved species for commercial sale. They got it approved then, later, they came back and "snuck" in a black list that had EVERY
reptile and non-game mammal not on the white list on it. They even black listed non-native corn snakes and pet mice accidentally. No one in Texas keeps or commercializes any Cotton Rats in Texas and yet the state went out of their way to include them and every other rodent on the black list.

The way the legislation is written NOW-

If a species is not included on the list of "OFFICIALLY APPROVED" non-invasive species (and most impartial observers are at a loss as to how one would "prove" a species to be non-invasive!), then it is banned, the moment this bill goes into effect.

If this bill is not armageddon, at LEAST for the herp and tropical fish industries, then I don't know what is.....
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

Yes, this would be a frightening precedent. Not sure how to do it, but pointing this out to non-herpers may be the only way to get them to realize what's going on and possibly care. Pretty much *anything* can be banned if laws are made in such a way. The burden of proof should be on those making the positive assertion (ie, a species is invasive), not the other way around.
That's just basic common sense. Scary stuff.

>>The way the legislation is written NOW-
>>
>>If a species is not included on the list of "OFFICIALLY APPROVED" non-invasive species (and most impartial observers are at a loss as to how one would "prove" a species to be non-invasive!), then it is banned, the moment this bill goes into effect.
>>
>>If this bill is not armageddon, at LEAST for the herp and tropical fish industries, then I don't know what is.....
>>-----
>>Brad Chambers
>>WWW.HCU-TX.ORG
>>
>>The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

I've read the bill several times and that's not how I read it. I may be misinterpreting it but I just don't see where everything will suddenly be banned as soon as the bill goes into affect. If you could point out the passage that says so I will be glad to change my opinion.

Steve

to Jeff's post above. Yes, the bill does set out a "mechanism" under which species may be, eventually and perhaps, added to the "approved" list. But that process is likely to take a LONG time, if it proves workable at all-which is open to much doubt.

Meanwhile, just about everything (except for a VERY few domesticated animals listed in the bill itself) is banned-no importation, no interstate transport, NO BREEDING.

Our hobby/industry as we know it would be gone.
-----
Brad Chambers
WWW.HCU-TX.ORG

The Avalanche has already started-it is too late for the pebbles to vote....

" It would create a committee (read that a another screwed up government bureaucracy) to assess each species currently being imported. "

Not necessarily, scientific papers by Krauss and associates have already been submitted that assess the invasive " risk " involved with a number of reptiles and amphibians that in accordance with climatic matches among other things would be able to establish in the US. These papers also detailed the most likely vectors for these animals to be introduced, basically hammering the pet trade.

A point I think that's often missed is that it doesn't matter if any of the species listed can survive in North Dakota or Iowa what matters is that the evidence is credible enough to prove they can establish in the US period. From there it's a no brainer argument that the only safe way to protect the US's native environments is to ban these animals on National level.

It was suggested / recommended in the Krauss papers that blanket bans like the ones used in Australia would be the quickest most effective way to control the problem. There's no reason to believe this suggestion wouldn't be considered / written in as a last minute amendment for any of the species listed .

There are many possibilities with this type of legislation. A number of species could be banned right off the top , moratoriums, ridiculous guidelines, taxes, expensive bonds . It's obvious what the agenda pushers are trying to do but what else can they do.

I think the current state of the economy might be our saving grace. My feelings are with so much going wrong right now for so many people WHY would anybody in a position of authority waste their time, energy and the tax payers money on taking peoples pets away. Protect the environment umm Really is that what this is about ? Sure it is, let me go feed my Unicorns .

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

and just simply say they do not have enough data on any of these animals and therefor put them all on the black list.
I have said many times before and will say it again, there is an agenda to shut down not only reptile keepers but all animal keepers. Most of you acted like you did not believe me. I wonder do you see it now?

I used to keep box turtles and had up to F5 captive born offspring. My hatchling records out did any AZA accredited Zoo. But since I live in Texas and since they would not make any real guarantee that they would not change there minds about grandfathering my collection in or anything thing else they said they would do, I got rid of them all. I had to give most away and then release the indigenous ones as close to were they came from as possible.
TP&W told me all kinds of things and then went back on there word so I feel I made the only hard decision I could and got rid of all of my turtles.
It ripped my heart out but I can't feel joy and peace working with them thinking that they could come and take them away and maybe even charge me with something if they wanted too.
In most such cases the animals are confiscated and most if not all die. The papers about turtles are not all true. Most are done at the Northern edge of there range were reproduction and growth rates to sexual maturity are way lower than in the South like in Texas. And no matter what I point out about this people don't get it. So if I can just skip all of that and get to another very good point. That point being there was and is not and will never be any scientific paper that can say captive breeding is harmful and counter conservative of any species. Unless of course a scientist is willing to lie on a scientific document, and we know that doesn't happen.
It is just too easy for them to use data from the edge of a range up North that shows low reproduction and way more time to mature and lower survival of offspring to push laws over on use. Then they can wash there hands and say, Well we don't have enough data and since we can't get it any time soon we will just use the "Precautionary Principle" and shut it all down.

Did any of them come out to my house to see and try to understand what I was doing? NO ! Not a one.
All I got told is it was up to the experts and not up to me.
I guess my 32 years of on hands experience and leaning from the many people in the academic realm meant nothing even though my turtles had no pyramiding and I produced more on average than any zoo and I know I have seen there breeding records. This is not me being egotistical. I am just stating the facts.

When you guys wake up and see that throwing turtle people under the bus and saying they have scientific data to prove turtle collecting is not sustainable, when what they did was overstretch the interpretation of the little doctored data they had, maybe you will be going in the right direction again.
My collecting a few turtles and breeding them to make more was not going to cause an extinction and was not feeding the Chinese food market.
Turtles have been collected for thousands of years by Native people. If some harvest is going to cause them to go extinct they would have already.
And as for the ever famously quoted "Iroquois Papers" about how there are not box turtles in a little area outside of New York due to Natives collecting them. Those papers fail to tell you that the Iroquois lived over a much bigger range than that little spot. They ranged from New York to the Great Lakes and as far South as about to South Carolina.
Also those papers do not mention that Native people collected box turtles over the whole range every where box turtle live. So that little spot only makes up about less than 1% of the range were they were being collected at for thousands of years.
Also the Texas Tortoise is said in a recent study to be doing so well in one area scientist have said it is OK to graze cattle there. There is a healthy population there of adults and even young adults and juveniles as well as hatchlings. So if the collection of few will make the population collapse why did this group do OK in spite of past collection for the pet trade?
Yes it takes a long time for them to mature and they can't take high volume collection over long periods of time. But even so when you remove an adults it doesn't mean there will not be anymore turtles there for the 5 years it takes them to mature as the population has them of all ages. The less there is there the more food they get and the less diseases they get so they reproduce at higher volumes.

Ironically I went to a park near my house and they are trapping the turtles because they are over populated. These are red ears and maps for the most part. But it is funny they used the Chinese food market scare tactic to shut down box turtle collecting even though it was not the box turtles being sent there and now I don't keep them anymore because of this and here they are having to control the population of the very turtles that were being sent to China. But, this is what you get when you let the government take care of something.
All of this being said once again I remind people I am not against bag limits or licensing. But this whole agenda in the long run is going to hurt species more than it will help. As there is not enough money to put aside habitat to save these species in the wild like they think they want to do.
It has been posted on here and asked how would they get enough money to do the work needed to support proper regulation of collection of reptiles in the wild. I ask How will they set aside land and mange them in the wild after they cause captive populations to go extinct? That is all a law prohibiting captive breeding does, it cases captive populations to go extinct. It doesn't save habitat or manage the species in the wild or save them from extinction in any way.

Throwing the turtle keepers under the bus was a bad idea. It only helped them to gain ground on you and they are still not your friends. It did not make you look like responsible conservationist that should be left alone to keep your snakes and lizards. They still see you as the problem they want to get rid of.
As for the people that keep turtles that supported the agenda, they are fools hanging themselves. In time there State will do them the same way and when they get there turtles taken away or are forced to give them up all I can say is you did it to yourselves and unfortunately a lot of others.
It could be done so differently if scientist would work with the private sector like they did with crocodilians and the Aruba Rattlesnake But that would make good since.

My only advice is open your eyes and do all your can to stop the agenda pushing or say good by to your animals. Anyway I am out. Thanks Eric

I must point out that the scientist put in charge of this will also no doubt use the "Precautionary Principle"
and just simply say they do not have enough data on any of these animals and therefor put them all on the black list.
I have said many times before and will say it again, there is an agenda to shut down not only reptile keepers but all animal keepers. Most of you acted like you did not believe me. I wonder do you see it now?

The above post did not get the first part. So here it is. Sorry for the mess up. Eric

I just posted my feelings on this subject on my blog. Rickeysmind.com. Feel free to comment and tell me it sucks or link to it if you like it.

For most of the people who may vote yea on HR 669, this has nothing to do with science, the truth or logic. This has everything to do with two things for the people who will vote in favor of it:

1. The wishes of the organizations which financially support the legislators who will vote for this bill.
2. The wishes of those that make a big enough stink about this to make those legislators fear voting for this bill.

We can only make the biggest stink possible with our pens, our phones and our dollars by supporting both PIJAC and USARK. Your dollars of support for PIJAC and USARK are important, but not nearly as important as your letters and calls to legislators. Without an outcry from YOU the effectiveness of any of its opponents to stop this is minimized. Step up and make your friends step up. Argue the finer points after the dust settles. Until then, grab your pen and write!
-----
Jeff Ronne Sr
The Boaphile
Director USARK

Originator of Boaphile Plastics
The Boaphile Boa Site

Folks believe me this is REAL. My entire life has been spent working with herps. Most of my dearest friends are herpers some for close to 50 years and many in the 20-30 year category. Fortunately I was able to freely enjoy and pursue my love of these creatures as a vocation. If this BAD LAW is passed it will put an end to an era and devastate many thousands of people both financially and the worst of all, emotionally. Write in and do your part...Thanks
-----
Tom Crutchfield
www.tomcrutchfield.com

... spread the word to NON-HERPERs. This goes beyond snakes and lizards. It's a blatant abuse of power by our "leaders" who are supposed to be making decisions based on logic and science. Not only are they not doing that, they seem to be not even trying to hide their agenda pushing since there doesn't appear to be any repercussions or punishments. Even people who don't own any herps should be writing in, this is a dangerous precedent to be set should these proposed bills become law.

Thanks,
Ed

>>Folks believe me this is REAL. My entire life has been spent working with herps. Most of my dearest friends are herpers some for close to 50 years and many in the 20-30 year category. Fortunately I was able to freely enjoy and pursue my love of these creatures as a vocation. If this BAD LAW is passed it will put an end to an era and devastate many thousands of people both financially and the worst of all, emotionally. Write in and do your part...Thanks
>>-----
>>Tom Crutchfield
>>www.tomcrutchfield.com

I am going to take some time to call local pet stores and any other people that have animals I know. I would bet many of them do not even know about this.
People from HCU and other groups should try to get an article out in as many papers as possible to get pet owners to get on this and give the people in charge heck !
Hey, the more p[eople there are to voice there dislike of this the better. Also the more power it gives animal keepers by standing together. Eric