Here's my letter, for what it's worth.
Remember to address envelopes and letters to “The Honorable Henry Brown” for example, and start the the letters to Dear Representative or Dear Senator, except for the chairman of a committee (Dear Mr. Chairmen or Dear Madam Chairwoman,)
For more information on writing a congressman, visit
http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/weekly/aa020199.htm
Katrina
-------------------------------
Full Name
Full Address
Telephone Number
April 14, 2009
The Honorable Madeleine Bordallo
427 Cannon House Office Building
United States House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515-5301
Phone: (202) 225-1188
Fax: (202) 226-0341
Dear Madam Chairwoman,
Please drop H.R. 669. As a biologist, animal welfare advocate, and United States citizen, I oppose this bill. It would create the very thing it’s setting out to prevent, the negative impact to the economy. It is too far reaching, will cost too much money to implement, and will have disastrous consequences for the economy, as well as curtail the rights of citizens. Virtually every pet other than dogs and cats will be affected by this bill, and through them, the people that care for them and supply the goods to care for them. Hundreds if not thousands of small businesses will close as a result, and the government will lose billions in taxable revenue and goods and services. The owners of “non-native” animals don’t just shop at pet stores. They shop at grocery stores, farm supply stores, home improvement stores, craft stores, and specialty food stores to care for their animals. Owners of “exotic” pets such as tortoises, ferrets, snakes, iguanas, and even lowly fish, might spend several hundred if not a thousand dollars or more each year to care for their animals. Those businesses that supply the lumber, the feed, the electrical systems, and specialty accessories for “exotic” pets will be hard pressed to make up for the lost revenue.
States currently have the ability to limit which animals may be sold, possessed, or transported into the state. Why does the federal government need to extend its influence, and thus spending of tax payer money, for a problem that can be controlled at the state level? H.R. 669 is essentially trying to kill a fly with a wrecking ball instead of a fly swatter, and will likely cause as much damage. The vast majority of non-native species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, and have not proven to be an environmental problem. Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental concerns, and these on a very limited and localized basis.
The current bill does not take into consideration what will happen to an animal if the owner must relocate to a new state, or if ownership needs to transfer to another person for whatever reason. What if the most qualified veterinarian is in another state? Some of the animals affected by this bill could live 50 years, 100 years, or even longer. Will you punish all people that care for these animals by keeping this overly reaching bill? Do you think owners will surrender their pets for euthanasia if the animal becomes illegal?
I oppose H.R. 669. It’s unnecessary at the federal level, is over-reaching, could lead to an economic downfall, and takes away the right to the pursuit of happiness for US citizens.
Sincerely,
Full Name
