Reptile & Amphibian Forums

If you have not taken the time to look at or do something about HR669 then shame on you. Our way of life and our pets are in Trouble. Get off your bum and make a call or send an e-mail or just go to [url ban] and click a letter out.
People the two letters below are actual letters coming back from our representatives these are the people that are gong to vote on these issues they are unfortunately under informed about the legislation ad mistakenly believe that this is a good thing.. I have written a letter below ( at the bottom ) in response to some of their letters . Please feel free to use it, edit it and sent it out to to contact your representatives and let them know that there is more harm in this bill then the nice easy cute wrapper that they are looking at.

Response from congress women in Ohio regarding hr 669

Thank you for contacting me with your concerns about invasive species and H.R. 669, the Nonnative Invasive Species Prevention Act. I appreciate your comments and I welcome this opportunity to share my views.

As someone who grew up on Lake Erie, I am well aware of the damages that nonnative species, such as zebra mussels, can do to an ecosystem. My neighbors in Columbus spend a lot of time and effort trying to remove invasive species like garlic mustard from the ravine areas. So H.R. 669, the Nonnative Invasive Species Prevention Act makes a lot of sense to me. As the saying goes, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Thank you again for taking the time to reach out to me. As your representative, I both need and value your perspective. Please feel free to write, email and call about any issue that you wish to discuss with me. I look forward to continuing our dialogue in the future.

Sincerely,
Mary Jo Kilroy
Member of Congress

Response from California congress man

Thank you for contacting me regarding invasive species. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.
As an environmentalist and a former member of the California Coastal Commission, I recognize the danger posed by invasive species. These species, be they plant, animal, aquatic or macrobiotic, have the ability to devastate our natural ecosystems by out-competing our native species to a potentially devastating effect. Today, a number of federal agencies are actively combating many of these species, in an effort to protect our natural environment. For more specific information on our government's response you can visit the National Invasive Species Information Center's website at: www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov.
On a related note, Representative Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-Guam) has introduced H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, on January 26, 2009. The purpose of this bill is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative species in the U.S. That may cause economic or environmental harm. H.R. 669 has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources for consideration. If this bill, or any related legislation, comes before the House, please rest assured that I will keep your views in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions, please call me or my office at (202) 225-0508.

If I take a look at the arguments for this legislation I say ...OK I see your point about species that are a problem. But what about species that are not a problem that are already here and are not on the list. I run a business and lets forget about imports, but discuss for a moment animals not on the approved list that will probably be on the list of approved species. If I and thousands of other breeders hobbiests and business have to stop breeding selling and transferring across state lines all of our animals until they get on the list in - 2 years then we are out of business long before the results of the USFW study are out. Not only that but many of us will have animals starving, suffering and dying because other animals and insects also not on the approved species list are food for the animals we keep.
If you want to do this right, then do the studies and make a list of unapproved animals that are a problem. Like mustard and mussels. lets do something about them but retroactively banning almost everything then taking any time, especially 2 years, to approve animals which have been imported and bred in captivity for 20-40 years already with no issues or potential issues hurts American business, businesses that would not be a problem when the studies are done but will be out of business because of this legislation.
There are no animals entering this country currently that are new to the country save a very few super rare animals just newly being discovered and they are most likely going to zoos or institutions for study. There are restrictions in place currently that stop the importation of harmful species. . Those restrictions need to be expanded to include other species, we all agree . Some perhaps on the country wide level but most, I believe, at the state or regional level. Saying that somehow even some of the most invasive species , the brown tree snake, that has devastated The bird and other populations in Guam is going to have any impact on the wildlife of Alaska is absurd. No one will argue against that point. Yet they are unilaterally banned in Alaska as they were added to the injurious wildlife list years ago and since have caused no additional problems. Whie all will agree that the brown tree snake can reak havoc in the right environment if left unchecked, we live in a large country and very few species could actually survive in the whole of the country.for more than a few months even if introduced on purpose.
You see this legislation is a wolf wrapped in sheep's clothing. No one will argue that we do not need to stop the invasive species problems we have and to stop the invasive species that we may have in the future before they begin. This legislation is no the answer its is going to needlessly harm many companies and individual people in this country . Please think about it. and lets do something together that works and is actually good for everyone and our country.. Say no to HR669 and make the writers go back to the drawing board and put something that works properly together.
I know your being pressured to get this passed. It sounds good almost. But wolves even in sheep's clothing still bite just as hard.
Thanks
Michael Cole
Ballroom Pythons South
-----
Michael Cole
Ballroom Pythons South
863-439-3015
WWW.BallroomPythonsSouth.com

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

This is exactly the type of debate we need to be having.

Hard as it may be to see past April 23rd, we need to keep planning ahead.

If we are able to shout down HR669, it will only come around again in another form, a form that will undoubtedly be more species specific regarding what they consider a threat (that's us folks, reptiles are big bad scary animals {j/k}). This is only an early battle in what, I feel, will be a very long war. I think we should start thinking about what battles (rights/privileges) we could be willing to give up, because I don't think we will win this war 100% without a scratch. But if we are able to stay one step ahead of them, then we may be able to keep them from banning our passion altogether.

We need to do more research like Oby has done, find where they're getting ideas, and have counter arguments ready for each point they bring up. From what I've read in some of the letters that have been posted, some of you are already doing this. Great! Now we all need to take it to the next level.

So come on guys and gals, lets have a debate. Lets play devils advocate. Lets hash out arguments so that next time we are prepared with counter arguments that are cannot be debated.

Allison,

"The vision must be followed by the venture. It is not enough to stare up the steps - we must step up the stairs" Vance Havne

If it is ok to breed chickens in meat-plants, I figure it must be ok to breed geckoes in shoeboxes. One may argue that we should improve the minimum standard of welfare for chickens and shoebox-geckoes, but otherwise, when minimum requirements are met, the responsible husbandry of geckoes and chickens must be allowed to exist.

One may also argue that I have no right to mistreat geckoes in shoeboxes just because society can´t shape up chickenwelfare in the country. Do I choose to defend chickens or do I "cut my losses" to save my hobby a little while longer?
In Norway reptilekeepers defend their rights, aquaculturists defend their rights, and bird people theirs.
Reptile people in norway have been nagging for many years about;
Why can´t we keep leopardgeckoes when people can keep exotic animals like parrots and goldfish?
In stead of legalising reptiles, our authorities descided to ban birds and fishes.
Our government is now working on the establishment of a "Positive list" which will permit that certain species be kept in private terrariums. Such a positive necessitates a general ban against all exotic species, from which the positive list can be an exeption of.

If the different animal owner organisations cannot effectively help each other, each of them isolated are easy pickings for the AR giants of the US.

Normally, the animals who don´t fit the description of exotic potentially invasive species, will fit the description of exotic potentially dangerous animals. If not these two, AR movement will coin some other principle which can constrict how many and what type of animals we keep.
If herpetoculture does not translate into a positive influence on conservations of biodiversity, then what good is it?

Leopard geckoes are a natural resource that originally belongs to afghanistan. In breeding leopard geckoes, large breeders are making large profits on a natural resource that originally belongs to afghanistan, but the wealth that captive leopard geckoes generate do not translate to conservation initiatives targeted at free ranging leopard geckoes.

If it is is legal to culture exotic biodiversity in terrarium. there is room for some type of taxation on breeding profits of certain species, and there is room to demand that part of ex situ propagation translates into in situ conservation.

ExoTerra is undertaking regular conservation initiatives, and so are an increasing number of companies in the petshop industry aswell as an increasing amount of individuals in the herpetocultural community.
EAZA, the European association of zoos and aquaria have started breeding projects in which zoos and private keepers join forces in the European studbook foundation. The zoos get the ability to monitor and manipulate the studbooks and gene pools of animals who are kept by private enthusiasts. This way the zoos don´t have to pay for the mainenance of the animals, while they still have the possibility to monitor and manipulate the formation of reserve populations of threatened species.
However, one may still argue that herpetoculture generates more negative than positive consequences in respect to conservation of natural habitats and biological diversity.

Herpetoculture may well be a lucrative buisness but if all it does is to generate "more money for the rich americans" then it is a little hyppocrite, since the rich in this context are making money on a natural resource which originally belongs to the poor afghans. This point was explained to me by an englishman at a EUFORA conference in Germany.
But.. before we can figure out how to translate more of herpetoculture into conservation of ciodiversity, we must first waste all our recources on defending our right to keep exotics.
From before, the herpetocultural society in the US is vastly outconquered by the AR movement in respect to financial means, and I would expect also political power.. Regrettably, I can´t see any solid facts to suggest that this is changing.

I am admiring the herculian effort you guys are putting up, in gathering tons of thousands of letters. That is not possible to do here in Norway, and it is alot harder to do once a ban is in place.
I really really hope that through some miracle in the land of the free and the home of the brave, americains are able to safe-guard mankinds right to engage in responsible biological husbandry.
One thing is sure... If reptiles are criminalised also in the US, then all hope may be lost for norwegian reptilekeepers, then we will never be able to turn our government around..
I don´t mean to put pressure on you, but it is up to you guys to save the world through providing a good example for the rest of us to follow.
Keep up the good work americans, don´t let us down now!
You will win because you cannot aford to loose!
(it may only take a some decades longer than anticipated, if you let HR669 slip through your fingers.)

Hope I haven´t offended anyone in here, that is not my intention.

best wishes
oby

sources;
ESF website - http://www.studbooks.org/
EAZA website - http://www.eaza.net/

I think HR669 was designed to get the big chains to the bargaining table. So they can create a "Positive List " With a few modifications they can ruin a large part of the exotic animal trade ( the desired intent ) and make a very profitable deal for themselves and their industry partners. If it looks like it might be practical they will move forward with working on a revised version of HR669. The X factor will be directly linked to how much resistance they receive this time around.

The chains say they want practical and meaningful legislation, AKA protecting their best seller list. They want to gain public trust this will help them to control the negotiating process.

They will work a deal on community type tropical fish , parakeets, finches, pocket pets.
For reptiles ...leopard geckos, bearded dragons, ball pythons Really they could throw out the ball pythons and just sell native snakes rosy boas, kings , corns. 4" turtles. This and a handful of other animals.

The pet business revolves around a very limited number of species and these are the ones that will be negotiated for. If the major players in the live animal trade are allowed to sell their bread and butter items they will agree to anything. Everything else can get thrown under the bus. If they don't sell it they don't care about it. The company's that manufacture all the accessories will also go along.

Never before have activist groups joined forces with members of the pet industry to enact anti trade / ownership laws. This is because there was never a strong enough foundation to work from . Nobody was large enough for the activist organizations to form a partnership with until now. I expected HR 669 to get beat down from day one. To me it's always been about how strong the support will be for a revised version and how quickly they can put it together. I believe lot of that will depend on the how much opposition the current version receives.

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

” Never before have activist groups joined forces with members of the pet industry to enact anti trade / ownership laws. This is because there was never a strong enough foundation to work from . Nobody was large enough for the activist organizations to form a partnership with until now.”

I would imagine that the activist groups have been a part of the pet industry for some time.

I imagine I´m a novice to the AR butt he other day I saw a horrifying comercial on the TV regarding maltreated farm animals so I do a seach on the net to find out more.
I go to my prefered torrent site and do a search on ”farm animals”.
I discover a movie titled The Emotional World of Farm Animals, and I read the summary;

” The Emotional World of Farm Animals is a delightful documentary for viewers of all ages about the thinking and feeling side of animals that are all too often just viewed as food.

Jefferey Masson, author of When Elephants Weep and Dogs Never Lie About Love, leads viewers through the personal journey he underwent while writing his latest book, The Pig Who Sang to The Moon. This journey into the sentient, emotional lives of farm animals brings Masson to animal sanctuaries around the country where caregivers and the animals themselves tell their harrowing stories of rescue and escape. Masson delves into the rich ancestry of these curious and intelligent animals and interviews top experts in animal behavior who offer scientific perspectives on these amazing creatures.”
- http://thepiratebay.org/torrent/3996596/The_Emotional_World_of_Farm_Animals_-_AP_(2004.DVDRip.XviD)

This movie is also viewable on Google Video until it gets taken down for copyright infringement:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8312987796490958256&q=the emotional world of farm animals&total=10&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

Check it out, it´s inspiering and raises some good questions (just don´t fall over to the dark side!).

In the end of the movie flashes another weblink, so I follow the breadcrumbs;
http://sanctuaries.org/

I randomly click New York, and visit Catskill Animal Sanctuary (CAS). - http://www.casanctuary.org/

In the educational section, off-site programs, CAS have the wollowing to say about;

Our director Kathy Stevens is an award-winning educator who has presented at conferences, schools and universities, yoga centers, chambers of commerce and other organizations throughout the Northeast to groups large and small.

By the sounds of that, if I´m looking to adops a dog then CAS seems to be the right place for me so I go there to see if I can find a pup for me.

I come home from the sanctuary with a wealth of new impresstions and I turn back to CAS website in the evening.

I look in the books section and discover that the director of CAS is also an author, wow! The book even has it´s own website where the author has a blog;
http://blindhorsesings.com/

I click the blog and read in the first post at the very bottom. She opens her blog by appealing her peoples to help her ”weed the fields”.
I read some of the headlines of the other posts;
”Two Bunny Buddies”
” President Rambo Addresses the Nation”
” Republican Candidate Babe Addresses the Nation”
” Green Pasture Party Invited to Participate”
- http://blindhorsesings.com/blog/

I see author is fond of methaphors-
I look around at the other publications, I click The Declaration of Compassion;

” AT CATSKILL ANIMAL SANCTUARY, JUNE 28, 2008

The Declaration of Compassion for the planet and its inhabitants

When in the course of human events it becomes necessary for living beings to reconnect the bands which have separated them from one another and to assume the equal station to which the Laws of Nature entitle them, a humble respect of all beings requires that they should state what impels them to action.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all creatures are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

I wonder why this wasn´t published at their website... ?
Anyways.. I back up my webbrowser one step and stop up to think for a sec.
If there is a vega
I look at Kathys links to other blogs. Wayne Pacelle of the HSUS is her top spot, while PETA is only number four. In eights place I found link to Dragonbird Sanctuary, sounds interesting. I clicked that;

http://rpc.blogrolling.com/redirect.php?r=f9a7bbe330bd98070230af8938b27719&url=http://oboe-wan.blogspot.com

Their top story is the animal bill of rights, I read on and click the sign it link and a new site appears;
The animal bill of rights petition at the website of the Animal Legal Defence Fund (ALDF).
I click the ”sitemap” link at the very bottom and find a diversity of interesting links to read.
- http://aldf.org/sitemap.php

Judging by their website I gett he impression that the ALDF is a serious site with serious and thought-through content.
I read their animal rights bill again and stop up at the fourth right, the right to a healthy diet.
I´d like my dog to have a healthy diet but if Im a vegan I may resent the fact that there is meat in most dogfoods, so I starts feeding Fido the vegan dogfood, free of meat, free of guilt and in support of the animal rights industry, but still a part of the pet industry.
One may argue not only that activist groups have joined forces with members of the pet industry, bu teven that the animal rights movement has it own pet industry.

Vegetarian dogs
- Towards a world without exploitation
http://www.vegetariandogs.com/VDWebsite/vd.htm

V-dog (The Original Vegetarian Dog Food)
- V-dog supports PETA through the PETA Business Friends membership program
http://www.petamall.com/PLPShop.asp?RecordID=212#
http://www.v-dogfood.com/

Veggiepets even have vegetarian cat fod and meat flavored food enchancer sprays which you can spray on your vegan dog or catfood to make the animals like it even more! They also have other ”ethical pet care products” and even ”Vegetarian Feeds for Farm Rescue Animals”
- http://www.veggiepets.com/

I am hinking.. there are a lot of animal shelters and animal sanctuaries. I wonder if all the sanctuaries listed in animalsanctuaries.org use vegetarian animal feeds. If so.. then clearly the animal rights activists not only join forces fith the pet industry they claim a part of it to help fund their activities and promote their agenda.

Sorry for long read
Best wishes
oby

petition in action! read this

AR groups have attacked, infiltrated and exploited the pet industry for many decades . What your pointing out is different then what I'm saying. I'm speaking in terms of introducing anti ownership / trade legislation. There has never been a case where pro ownership and activist have teamed up to co author and introduce this type legislation. It's always been them against us. This is because nether side had anything to gain from working with the other. Things could be different now we have guys who should be on our side that have plenty to gain from joining up with the activist . Business is business.

In the past it's always been the AR groups showing up with their academic supporters and political allies and the Pro ownership guys would offer their rebuttal. Just like this time. What could be next is a situation where AR organizations offer a restrictive ownership /sales proposal that's supported and co authored by major players of the live animal trade . This would create enough of a division that could allow horrendous legislation to pass with the approval of the guys who should be 100% against it.

In 1977 legislation that's pretty similar HR 669 was introduced. Louie Porrus (The Shed / ZooHerp) put together a massive campaign. It was an incredible effort on his part that completely defeated the proposal soundly and effectively . Louie`s efforts saved all of us. HR 669 will mark the second failed attempt at blanket anti ownership legislation . Will three times be the charm ?

Ernie Eison
WESTWOOD ACRES REPTILE FARM INC.

Ernie wrote;
"AR groups have attacked, infiltrated and exploited the pet industry for many decades . What your pointing out is different then what I'm saying. I'm speaking in terms of introducing anti ownership / trade legislation. There has never been a case where pro ownership and activist have teamed up to co author and introduce this type legislation. It's always been them against us. "

With "us" you refer to herpetoculturits or animal keepers in general? or do you mean "us normal people".

What happened in norway after we got our ban was the animal owners got divided into four categories;
- legal responsible keepers, who respect the law and keep their animals responsibly.
- legal irresponsible keepers, who keep legal animals in a legal manner but due to flaws in the law, they keep animals either very substandard or they keep animals which should be free, like primates or cobras for example.
- illegal responsible keepers, who keep for example leopard geckoes in a responsible manner, but who still keep animals in irresponsibly since reptiles are forbidden to keep.
- illegal irresponsible keepers, who keep legal or illegal animals in a criminal very bad manner.

Taking in account that animal welfare standards are not constant but normally on the rise towards better standards. It may be hard to identify the "us" in your argument.
In your use of "us" you include yourself, your fellow reptile keepers and other responsible animal keepers and partners in the pet industry. In the AR use of "us" all other animal keepers and the rest of the pet industry may be included but if you are the target you are "them", the irresonsible snake keepers who often smoke joints and sometimes let their animals escape and populate the everglades.

Perhaps not on purpose, but at least in consequence, The AR movement in Norway somehow divided the animalkeepers into two disproportionate groups and played them up against each other. Without using this strategy they could not have hoped to reach their goal and pass their blanket ban.
Back in the early 1970ies select pet shops in Oslo offered african cobras for display and sale.
The AR movement grabbed hold of peoples natural fear of venomous snakes and filled a hot air balloon with it. They used peoples fear of snakes to coin a ban against "foreign (exotic) species of mammals, reptiles, frogs, toads and salamander".
A general exception to this ban is our current "houseanimal list", on this list appear animals like cows, rabbits and chinchillas and a few more, 30 or so species in total.
Note that fish, invertebrates and birds are not part of our ban.
In our 1977 ban almost herpetoculturists, primate keepers and exotic-big-cat owners were targeted.
The AR movement played the vast majotity of farmers and companion animal owners up against a very small segment of animals keepers. In doing that, the AR activists gained the active cooperation of these parties.
I figure invertebrates weren´t targeted in our first ban because of lobster farmers who are defended by the farmers association.
The AR acivists teamed up with the farmers industry, in gaining their support, and constructive input. In turn invertebrates were left out of the ban, leaving also bee farmers and crayfish farmers in peace .

Ernie wrote;
" There has never been a case where pro ownership and activist have teamed up to co author and introduce this type legislation. It's always been them against us. This is because nether side had anything to gain from working with the other."

I would argue that peace is the biggest prize in this context. In order not to be targeted by a ban, support it in order to be left in peace.
This is the "easy" solution to dealing with AR activists, respect them and don´t oppose them, and they will leave you be as long as you support them on other arenas. Be you a cat-(ab)user, you will get peace peace and respect from AR activists if you are a valuable anti-fur activist, or anti meat activist for that matter.

I also think that the borders between use and exploitation are a little blurry in respect to dealing with AR activists. Do AR activists use or exploit each other or do they cooperate? In the same manner, do the AR movement use or exploit the pet industry, or do they cooperate?

In order to reach my conclusion I have to argue that the the farmers association and the pet industry are two different sides of the same thing. You are a reptile farmer, and as such you should be protected by the farmers association in my oppionion, but in selling your stock you are also an important piece in the pet industry.
With that in mind, in the 1970ies the norwegian farmers association had almost no clue that there could be any value in defending reptilekeeping (them) as long as the lobster industry or the other "normal farmers" (us) weren´t affected.
In consequence, the whole agricultural community supported the AR activists when they coined our snakeban (or "foreign (exotic) species" ban).

I think the AR activists behave much like King Louie in Disneys movie about the junglebook. King Louie asks Mowgli to teach him to make fire but doesn´t reveal his intentions. In stead he camouflages his approach in dance and happiness.
Just imagine how much happier your reptiles would be, if they were free.
I thought about that a lot while I was in jail (for keeping illegal geckoes) and read a few books on the topic.

Trouble is, while you are a law abiding reptile farmer now, after HR669 you will be a central person in a criminal network that trades in endangered foreign (exotic) species. This is a terrible crime, in consideration to the worlds declining reptile populations and the wave of extinction which threatens the biological diviersity on our Earth. Our world is also mine and in my world you have no right to steal animals out of their natural environment for your own personal amusement.

As long as they are on attack, and we on defence, the AR will always find cooperating parties within the pet industry, especially after an irrational ban of some kind has been past.
In the US alot of people are keeping tigers and lions but since your nation is so big, a very small percentage of your society keeps lions and tigers. A small percentage of society is very easy to discriminate, especially when tigers have cute eyes and sharp teeth.
I don´t know if three times will be the charm but the smaller segments in animal husbandry are the favoured targets of the AR movement. Reptile keepers represent around 0.5-1% out of the american population, a fairly easy group to discriminate.
If you are looking for peace from AR activists, you live in the wrong nation. If HR669 is passed then you will be an even more favorable target, then the AR can attack you directly with the law at hand.
If you want to have peace, replace your animals with legal ones, or move to another country. Otherwise you have to fight or cooperate to get peace, can you really blame them? the parts of your reptile industry who to some degree support the AR activists, I mean. The largest reptile breeders or largest pet shops are easy pickings for the AR industry.
In recognition of the AR movements ability to draw either positive or negative media focus towards events and organisations, we have to grant the AR ability to draw a ton of bad publicity towards a pet shop chain. Small petshops they can easily put out of business even without a ban. Cooperation may be either the easiest or only way to survive an AR attack for a small business.

Recently several of the largest fur farmers in Norway were pushed into voluntary bankrupcy. In the end they just surrendered on certain termes, that their animals would not be released in the wild and not killed. who bought the hundreds of animals I don´t know, but they were sent out of the country I think.

With every successful attack, the AR movement kill some of the diversity in animal husbandry.
In my oppinion vegans are monsters pretending to be vegetarians. They feed on the unhappiness of the people and animals they oppress.
In their defence it should be noted that they have achieved admirable things in american animal husbandry history. For starters they have significantly raised the animal welfare standards of farm animals in the meat industry.
One other positive side of the american AR movement is that they push people to respect their duties towards animals.

In a twisted way, you can only enjoy your right to keep your reptiles as long as you respect your duties towards yours and other animals.
This must be the logic of sustainable development in the mind of the avegage animal keeper in order to ensure the long term existence of responsible animal husbandry in your society.
In a diverse and culture-rich society such as yours, lives a diverse interest in the diversity of animals. A civilisation´s moral integrity may amongst other things be judged by the level of it´s compassion towards animals.
Some nations ban certain types of animal husbandry due to compassion towards animals, and I would argue that yours is slowly but steadily becoming one of them.

Reptiles are the natural choice of companion animals amongst urban youth in cramped US megacities. In many, respects reptiles and reptile keeping are growing more popular, but in the same time frame the AR movement are also gaining ground, by how much you figure.
If the majority of your congresmen oppose HR669, there will be a world of folks out there who will feel that the government is doing nothing to stop pythons from populating the everglades. If you succeed, and stop HR669, it is because they have underestimated you, that would be a joyful reason to celebrate on the 24th of april.
But fear also that next time around you may experience the undivided attention of AR friends and their advocated.
Looking back to the Catskill animal sanctuary upcoming events calendar;

"Friday, April 24 and Saturday, April 25

An Earth Day celebration at Grand Central Terminal in NYC. S"
- http://www.casanctuary.org/cas/events

Regards
oby