Official HR669 Hearing Video , April 23, 2009

neoprodigy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Jun 12, 2006
15,022
968
2,199
DC-MD-VA
HR669 Hearing Video

The House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, led by Del. Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-GU), will hold a legislative hearing on the following bill:

  • H.R. 669 (Bordallo): To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes. "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act"
Subject:
House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Legislative Hearing on H.R. 669

When:
Thursday, April 23, 2009, at 10:00 a.m.

Where:
Room 1324 Longworth House Office Building

Witnesses:

Gary Frazer
Assistant Director for Fisheries and Habitat Conservation
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Department of the Interior

David Lodge, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Aquatic Conservation
Professor, Department of Biological Sciences
University of Notre Dame

Simon C. Nemtzov, Ph.D
Wildlife Ecologist and Scientific Authority for the CITES Convention
Israel Nature and Parks Authority

Lawrence M. Riley
Division Coordinator
Wildlife Management Division
Arizona Game and Fish Department

William R. "Bill" Martin
President
Blue Ridge Aquaculture, Inc.

Marshall Meyers
CEO and General Counsel
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council

Opening Statement:
Chairwoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo
 

neoprodigy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Jun 12, 2006
15,022
968
2,199
DC-MD-VA
Liveblogging Congressional hearing on H. R. 669

Good morning! This is Christie Keith, and I'm liveblogging the Congressional hearing on H.R. 669, the "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act."

The hearing is being held by the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the Committee on Natural Resources, and is being webcast on their site, here.

If you're unable to listen/view the hearing, you can follow it here, in this post.

I will update frequently, so simply hit "refresh" every few minutes to see the latest info.

A few notes about liveblogging:

I am typing in real time. There will be typos; I'll try to correct them after the fact.

Only things in quotation marks are direct quotes. Everything else is a paraphrase or description.

A few facts while we wait for the hearing to begin:

H.R. 669 was authored by Rep. Madeleine Z Bordallo (D-Guam). It has 25 co-sponsors.

The bill may be voted down in this committee; it may pass out of this committee with changes or proposed changes; it may be passed as written. It will then continued on, probably to other committees, and eventually to Congress, the Senate, and ultimately to the President to be signed. It can be killed, changed, rewritten or amended at any step of this process. And citizens can contact their representatives at any step of this process, too.

We begin under the jump.

Rep. Bordallo opens, saying that invasive species have cost around $120 billion in damages to the US.

Says we have to mitigate risks associated with importation of such species as Nutra and the Gambian pouched rat.

Under Lacey Act, species are not placed on "Injurious" list if they're found to present a risk. Takes Fish and Wildlife Service 4 years to so list a species, during which time those species can become established in the US.

HR 669 is oriented toward preventing this. It establishes science-based risk assessment process of a species PRIOR TO ITS IMPORTATION. Approved and unapproved lists will be developed; similar to Australia, NZ, and Israel.

Says concerns are misunderstandings. This bill does not prevent ownership of pets or importation of "common" species. Says bill is not perfect, and changes will be needed to address any concerns before legislation moves forward. Says this hearing is a starting point of a very important discussion.

How can we proactively manage the influx of these species and manage the social and economic costs, but also be sensitive to the concerns and practicalities of implementation? Says she looks forward to this dialogue.

She then introduces two youngsters, who are present for "Take Your Daughters and Sons to Work Day."

UPDATE 2:

She now recognizes Rep. Robert Whitman (R-Virginia).

"All branches of our governemnt need to do a better job of preventing the introduction of non-native species." Says plants as well as animals. Mentions zebra mussel, Chinese mitten crab, other species in the Chesapeake. And the common reed in coastal habitats.

"This is definitely an issue we need to be taking up."

Says they've all heard from constituents who have concerns, and says that's what this hearing is about. Wants this to be fair and equitable.

Say they've heard the concerns of pet shops. Asks if Lacey Act is the best way to control invasive species.

On the other side, says we need to make sure agencies have resources to do what they need to do to control invasive species.

Need to make sure impacts of invasive species, and potential introductions, are controlled. Need prevention.

We know it's an expansive issue and applauds the Chairwoman for taking it on. Wants to get to the root of the problem and avoid impacts on other areas that are "truly legitimate."

UPDATE 3:

Now recognizes Mr. Gary Fraser from USFWS, Dr. David Lodge from Center for Aquatic Conservation, Dr. Simon Nemtzov from CITES; Mr. Lawrence Riley from Arizona Fish and Game, and Mr. Martin (private industry/aquaculture), and Marshall Meyers, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC).

Gary Fraser: Co-chair Aquatic Nuisance Task Force.

Has already submitted testimony, this is summary.

Service supports intent but has some concern with the bill as written.

Sea lamprey, zebra mussel, etc -- broad scope of problem. Globalization is making it worse. Invasive species have led to decline of fish and wildlife species in US.

Hard to estimate costs of protecting native species from invasive species. Destroy habitat, displace wildlife, wreck eco-systems.

Injurious wildlife provisions of Lacey Act can forbid importation or transportation of such species currently.

"The service recognizes the value of a new approach..."

Proactive evaluation prior to importation could be helpful, so service supports this attempt and development of an evaluation system.

Concerns:

1. Propsed risk assessment process is intended to be more proactive and efficient than under Lacey Act, but service needs more resources to handle work load.

2. Enforceability. Say this section applies penalty provisions from Lacey Act, but may be ineffective because legal standards between two bills differ substantially.

3. Funding and staffing. Service notes there are other costs than just the risk assessment.

(Note: It seems all three concerns are the same: We don't have the money or staff to do this.)

Update 4:

Dr. Lodge:

He is a biologist, and 26 years of teaching and research on invasive species, at Notre Dame.

Opens showing photo of his great-grandfather on his farm in Alabama in 1930s, celebrating the introduction of kudzu, a fast growing plant from Asia deliberately introduced to prevent soil erosion. Talks about the expenses and difficulty of controlling kudzu. Showed photo of farm today.

"Over time, for this species and many others, the net effect of the introduction of kudzu has been more harm than benefit." Says it's like that often.

Now goes to animals. Asian carp, introduced deliberately, now threatens Great Lakes. Northern snakehead fish. Is a great concern. Arkansas just spent millions trying to eradicate it.

A great deal of the continent may be affected over time of species isn't eradicated.

Modern risk assessment tools can determine what waterways may be "suitable" for this invasive fish species.

Millions of species of fish are imported annually into the US, millions of reptiles including the most venomous species are imported as pets, also mentions birds. Disease, cost, believes that the $120 billion is a "dramatic underestimate."

He believes this bill is pointing in the right direction to solve it. Modern tools of risk assessment which have been loosed on other issues, drug safety, food safety, water and air pollution.

These tools can provide the accuracy needed to estimate harm, and allow the continued importation of species that do NOT cause harm.

His example of risk assessment: Mollusks. Using one bit of biological info about these species, annual fecundity, we could estimate with remarkable degree of accuracy the likelihood it could spread and cause harm.

Risk management rises out of risk assessment. What level of risk are we willing to accept? Hypothetical risk threshold of 10 percent would allow FWS to let you import a snail with an annual fecundity below a certain rate, then okay, but not above, or there may be greater restrictions that would allow it under certain circumstances.

(Mentions he's already submitted written testimony.)

Says his great-grandfather couldn't have foreseen the impact of kudzu, but we have better tools now.

UPDATE 5:

Dr. Simon Nemtzov, Israeli government wildlife ecologist:

Says Israel has such a program in place. Has been asked to present aspects of that program. Has PowerPoint.

Basic scientific facts, "Dumbed down."

Says invasive species are always bad. Ounce of prevention is worth pound of cure. Major effort should be put into prevention, not eradication or control.

Better to be safe than sorry: the precautionary principle that we should err on the side of caution, certainly when costs and damages are so great.

Probability of a successful invasion is increased with dosage. More animals released to wild increase risk. Small numbers, rare, reduces that risk.

Mentions he has submitted written testimony.

Their risk assessment program is based on Australia's. They had limited resources in Israel, so simplified it. Said costs of risk assessment is very expensive. So many species. Now they put the cost on the applicant to pay a fee for each species he wants assessed, and they pay a consultant to do a study and put them in high, medium, or low risk. Then allow public comment.

Two major criteria are climate matching and previous invasion elsewhere. This gives you 90 percent of the answer to invasive risk.

Three tiered risk assessment. High risk species only for research. Medium, licensed collectors and zoos. Only "low risk" are in pet industry and general ownership.

No species are allowed until they've been assessed. White list and black list.

If a customer wants to buy a snake or parrot, challenge to pet industry is to find low risk species to offer. Put them in the pet stores so when customer walks in, the customer, who doesn't always care what species he gets, will take what's in the store.

Says their pet industry has found this useful.

Repeats that putting the cost on the applicant has made this affordable.

"Israel now has a usable, flexible, scientifically sound" and transparent system. Relatively simple and it works. No new invasions in the last 12 years since system put into place.

Update 6

Rep. Bordallo asks standees to sit down.

Introduces Larry Riley, Arizona Game and Fish Dept:

State agencies have broad authority and responsibility for both native and non-native species.

Thanks Bordallo for bringing forward the legislation. They think bill could be improved. Suggestions:

1. Issues of authority for wildlife. Act controls importation and interstate transport, which is clearly federal. But within the boundaries of the state, ownership, etc... relationship between federal gov't and states is sovereign and collegial. Act should respect role of states within their own boundaries.

2. Risk assessment should be robust, fair, and equitable. Transparent. This is key element in managing challenges of invasive species. Many non-natives are valued assets in agriculture, pets, research, zoos, etc. Wants that to be fairly evaluated. Some states are managing introduced species; wants that respected.

Needs to lead to reasoned and well-informed decision-making. Full risk analysis should follow risk assessment. Section three of the bill should also cover mitigation and risk offset. Provides for flexibilities not yet envisioned, such as conditional approval.

3. Screening of species is important. Most regulatory approaches are not based on a thorough catalog of animals. Screening process in bill is "a sea-change in approach." They support reasoned decision-making. Transition is going to generate fears and uncertainties "among the regulated public."

This is complex, controversial, may require a lot of time, more than envisioned.

4. This is a daunting undertaking. The US is very diverse in culture and habitat. Should be regional consideration. Highlights importance of collaboration among the states, territories, and federal gov.

5. Screening processes need to be efficient, and wants to explore ways to do that. Some is redundant and adds to cost. Greater flexibility should be given for permitting.

6. Real cost of implementing this program is not trivial. Appropriations in the near term.

7. Wants to work with them on continued improvement. Integrated approach addressing the diversity of pathways invasive species come into US.

Update 7:


Mr. Martin:

I'm not a scientist, I'm a businessman. I grow fish, including talapia. Do research on other species including oysters. Grown in controlled environments. No antibiotics, no hormones. No mercury.

This bill paints a wide stroke across the industry.

I agree we need regulation, need legislation, but needs to be fine-tuned. We control our product from broodstock to marketplace. I have all required permits. We request more regulation be brought upon the industry to raise the bar, but needs to be focused on things that are clearly not healthy for us, like the snakehead.

Not everyone can raise in indoor tanks as we do. We oppose net pens -- spreads disease and parasites. We can put these systems anywhere, and not have problem one with the natural resources there -- even in Guam. They feel aquaculture should go forward in that way.

Submits a short DVD on how the rish are raised. Work with universities and any agency they can, to help raise the bar. Thinks the bill can do that, but needs to be done in a focused and responsible manner.

Rep. Bordallo says she agrees legislation needs fixing.

Update 8: Marshall Meyers, PIJAC

Agrees invasive species are a problem, but need discussion to understand why current system is broken, and why it takes 4 years to assess single species, rather than turning whole system upside down.

Support risk-based processes and intent of 669, not support the approach.

Is not strategic. Does not look at social and economic issues.

Timelines are not achievable.

Undermines state's authority to regulate species that are not harmful in other states -- one size fits all. Florida, Wisconsin.

"HR 669 is in our opinion set up for failure."

Subjective, non-scientific risk assessment standards of "likelihood"; subjective conclusion that something could somewhere, sometime, by someone, cause risk.

He's talking very fast and I'm not getting it all... sorry.

Says marine organisms can be banned in Kansas because they might cause a problem in Hawaii.

Being in limbo is being unapproved until proven innocent.

How does one prove 'no potential harm' -- "It reads like the Internal Revenue Code."

Says this law could itself lead to release of banned species.

Timeframes are unrealistic.

Calls grandfather clause "imaginary," since you can't breed, sell, transport these species. Owner has to relocate to a new state, have to leave their pets behind.

Raises issue of definitions -- what constitutes "historical" for native species? "Widespread" in environment, or in millions of homes? What does "domesticated" mean?

Calls this important environmental issue. Says he has statements from more than 20 organizations.

Update 9

Recognizes Mr. H. E. Brown (R-South Carolina), ranking member of committee:

Says he is late because of massive fires in Myrtle Beach.

In SC, spend a lot of money controlling mosquitoes, plants, etc. Said he was "amazed" hearing Dr. Lodge speak about kudzu.

Says he's received thousands of calls, emails, and letters in strong opposition to this bill. Shows box of them.

Talks about harm to pet stores, feed stores, veterinarians, etc. Rare and endangered species and breeding programs. Cessation of trade in most all non-native species until thousands of risk assessments can be conducted. "Unworkable" for tilapia farming. Jobs lost in all kinds of businesses.

"Small sample of outrage." Why should we support this legislation that might shut down so many businesses? Lacey Act might not work, but this is not the answer.

I recommend that instead of an approved list we encourage the development of a non-approved list. We can remove invasive species without destroying the entire pet industry.

Update 10:

(?) agrees this is daunting. Details aren't clear. Need to work on it, needs it to work for government AND public. But thinks it can be done.

Dr. Lodge: Capacity within scientific community has been growing in last decade and a half, toward development of risk assessment tools. All the tools FWS would need are currently available. There would be some substantial hurdles in order for the service to foster development of new tools and using current scientific info into deciding what kinds of tools they need. Yes, the capacity is there in the scientific community to support the mandate this bill would give to FWS.

Dr. Nemtzov: It seems to me that the issues here of trying to find a way to limit the invasive species, the issue of the resources, is one we found the solution by putting the cost onto the applicant. You have tens of thousands of species that would have to be assessed, I agree with Mr. Meyers, the timeframe is very difficult.

In science, we are aware that species can be in habitat for many years and cause no harm, but then a trigger causes problem. Scientists have a lot of fear about species that have not been harmful in the past, that they could become harmful. But focus should be on preventing new invasive species.

Rep. Bordallo says obviously the bill can be fixed. Asks Mr. Fraser asks if it's true the risk assessment means no species currently in trade would be imported as some have claimed?

Estimates around ten percent in initial screen of species currently in trade would be the problem. Certainly not the majority of species would be found harmful after assessment.

Mr. Whitman (R-VA):

Asks Mr. Martin (aquaculture) what percentage of fish he raises are non-native?

Mainly tilapia. Cobia (?) native in some areas, but we raise in Virginia. If I wanted to send this fish to New York or Toronto, it would be prohibited under this Act.

We raise salmon in West Virginia. If we bring that fish into Virginia, it's illegal under this Act.

The gist of the bill is reasonable, but the brush is too wide. We have 20 percent unemployment -- this would make it worse. Thousands of people can lose their jobs. Harms farmers. Harms research. Don't believe this is the intent of this bill.

Mr. Whitman asks if aquaculture should be exempted, even open systems?

He says he has no dog in the fight of the pet issue, but he understands their concerns as this is "kind of targeting" them.

Goes back to food fish, and says he's not really sure what to do, but says industry usually regulates itself. But definitely says indoor systems should be exempt.

Rep. Christensen, Virgin Islands:

We have many invasive fish species such as Lion fish in Virgin Islands, and problems with reef and fisheries. Asks Mr. Fraser about the "limbo" period, between time bill is passed and they have a "complete" list? Or what do you think should happen?

Fraser: Until we have regulations and a list, the current state of commerce would be in place. Until we have an approved list, there would not be any prohibitions, as I understand the bill.

Christensen says, does someone who wants to import something during that time after bill is passed...?

Fraser says details of transition period are unclear. Should not unfairly punish any trade that's "ongoing and appropriate." References Lacey Act, says current bill does not undo that mechanism.

We'd establish a list of approved species, and species not on that list would be subject to prohibitions under the act. The approved list and regulations, we'd have to make sure we were all very clear on it.

Christensen then asks Dr. Lodge if the factors in Section 3B establish basis for a workable scientific assessment process?

Dr. Lodge: Factors to consider are scientifically appropriate. What Mr. Meyers said is that items on the list have the word "likelihood" but it also says "these things will be considered." I'm not a lawyer, but I think just because something is considered doesn't pre-suppose the decision. He thinks "likelihood" means "probability." If science answers what the probability is, it doesn't pre-suppose how the FWS will respond.

Mr. Brown: Wants to ask Dr. Lodge why his grandaddy brought kudzu over here.

Lodge says he had good reasons. Controlled soil erosion, and also fixes nitrogen in the soil. Did accomplish something good after decades of cotton raising. And in the same way, imported animals do bring benefits to commerce and "more intangible benefits" to pet owners.

But unlike my great-grandfather, we also understand there are risks to these things. It spreads. It gets worse. These species, if you don't do something about it, the problem grows. Very hard to get ahead of the issue.

Mr. Brown asks a question about fish that was already answered, so I'll rest my aching hands.

Asking more details about tilapia -- Mr. Williams says that in the wild, tilapia can be considered invasive.

Mr. Brown asks Mr. Meyers (PIJAC) how he responds to charges pet industry is not interested in solving this problem:

Says in 70s, they proposed there should be a federal advisory committee, have served on many working groups, has memorandum of understanding with Dept of Interior, partner with NOAH and FWS about "do not release fish," and again, he's speaking too fast.... but ways that he's personally been involved in this issue since 1973 and says it's not true pet industry doesn't want to solve the problem.

He agrees there is a problem, but offers Wisconsin permit proposal about fish as a good plan. Thinks we need to be creative on risk management, flexible permit system -- he does support permits for some species in pet trade.

Rep. Capps (D-Calif.):

Recaps problem. Then asks Dr. Lodge about why there should be better regulations in importation -- how proactive should we be? This legislation creates two lists, approved and not, so every species is accounted for.

Dr. Lodge: Everyone agrees we have a problem and it requires a legislative solution. His great-grandfather was not only farmer who introduced kudzu -- they did it because they were incentivized by the federal government to do so. This hearing brings us full circle. Federal policy has been one contributing factor to this invasion that we have, and federal policy has to be part of the solution.

Curve of invasion keeps going up, and we need to get ahead of the curve. Costs of invasion will be incurred forever and will increase as species spreads. Great opportunities here for net economic benefit. In favor of comprehensive approach.

Black list vs. white list, black list approach is the system we have and it hasn't' worked.

Saying that implies there IS a white list. We operate solely on the black list, and we have a REALLY LONG WHITE LIST -- about a million and a half species that can be freely imported.

Rep Capps:

Concern among pet owners. Yes or no, does this legislation take away pets that people currently own? No.

Will this legislation place every non-native animal on unapproved list? No.

Will this legislation only target those species that are non-native AND invasive? Yes.

Interstate transport of grandfathered animals -- people moving, vet care, etc. Suggestions to address this concern?

Dr. Lodge: We could explore a permitting function. Would require complex procedures to establish ownership, track that. It's not an insignificant process.

Capps: If we could guarantee some sort of registration or identity card it would go a long way to reassure pet owners.

Delegate Eni F. H. Faleomavaega, At Large Representative for American Samoa:

Says that Meyers and Williams led great grassroots networking to get people from all over the country to respond, says he commends them both for their networking system to make sure that those of us who introduce legislation hear input from public and American people to make sure legislation that's passed has their input.

Asks Mr. Fraser: Is the whole focus of this bill on non-native invasive plants, marine and land animals?

Fraser: Focus is to control important and interstate transport of non-native wildlife, animals and fish, NOT plants.

Asks about procedures right now if he wanted to get a pet tiger. Chimpanzee, gorilla -- do I have to have a permit to have a pet like that?

Dr. Lodge interrupts and says he has examined Lacey Act and says there's nothing in that Act to prevent you or your neighbors from owning a tiger or many other of the millions of organisms in the world. Such restrictions are usually local.

Meyers: Says there is pending legislation in Congress that would restrict private ownership of large cats, non-human primates, but this is mostly at state level, with permits, such as Florida's permit system for venomous reptiles, five large constrictor snakes, including microchipping, but it's not at the federal level. Says some species invasive in Southern Florida but not in Wisconsin.

Agrees there do need to be state or perhaps federal permit systems for some species -- mix of federal and state depending on species.

Rep. Faleomavaega says these are "interesting" issues.

Something I didn't quite catch here about tilapia.

Meyers: We did host a meeting of stakeholders to try to evaluate this bill. We'd like to convene another group and work through section by section and work out where we should have better state and federal provisions, clear up confusion.

Rep Faleomavaega: We did introduce a bill to promote aquaculture, and heard from all the recreational fishing industry that it would destroy their interests. Right now we have to import about 9-10 billion from foreign countries (80 percent is imported) of the fish we eat.

Update 11

Rep Faleomavaega: Are Israel and Australia doing things the way this bill lays out? Says Israel has great aquaculture, carp. Australia 20 million people, Israel 8 million. Is there something we can learn from Israel and Australia:

Dr. Nemtzov: Put emphasis on prevention. Idea of this legislation and Australia and Israel are on prevention. Not spend money on eradication and control. Risk assessment, prevention.

Rep. Bordallo asks Mr. Lawrence Reilly about harm in state of AZ:

We've been lucky in in AZ because we're insulated by states around us, but have had some invasive species, most recently two kinds of mussels. Did not come through pet trade, but "other pathways." Says tilapia has been an issue in AZ. Says aquaculture is mostly conducted responsibly, but tilapia has become established and does compete with native wildlife in AZ. Apple snail (?) in southern AZ, also.

Says most pet owners are highly responsible and care for their pets, but in some instances pets are released and can become established and prey upon or compete with native wildlife. Said Meyers mentioned the Habitattitude program -- good program. Says now with people losing their homes, we have to deal with pet surrender program to minimize effects of surrender of pets. People are reticent to surrender their pets if they know they'll be euthanized -- adoption? long term care? Also part of the ethical aspect of the bill.

It looks like we're wrapping up... Rep. Bordallo thanks everyone, and says this is just a first step. Calls problem very serious, and has economic impacts. Says she appreciates concerns that have been raised about the scope of the bill and the practical aspects of its implementation. Said that this has been one of the most intertesting subcommittee hearings she has conducted. Wants to work with all sides to manage problem without having unintended impacts on other aspects of the economy and "on concerned pet owners."

The hearing record is being held open for ten days for responses.

Rep. Faleomavaega from American Samoa asks Mr. Meyers for dollar value of pet industry:

Meyers: Around 43 billions dollars. Major portion is dog and cat food. Says there's not that much data on non-native species, but it's billions of dollars.

Adjourned.
 

neoprodigy

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Jun 12, 2006
15,022
968
2,199
DC-MD-VA
http://www.pijac.org/_documents/hr669testimony.pdf

TESTIMONY OF
MARSHALL MEYERS
PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INSULAR AFFAIRS, OCEANS AND WILDLIFE
HOUSE NATURAL RESOUCES COMMITTEE
April 23, 2009

Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am Marshall Meyers, Chief Executive Officer and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC). Thank you for inviting me to present testimony on the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (HR 669).

PIJAC is a national trade association representing all segments of the pet industry: companion animal importers/exporters/breeders, wholesale distributors, product manufacturers, retail outlets, and affiliated hobby clubs, aquarium societies, other industry trade associations, and individual hobbyists. Our members serve the 63% of U.S. households that care for and maintain pets of all types, sizes and descriptions: the majority of these pets fall within the purview of the regulatory system contemplated in HR 669.

PIJAC’s explicit mission is to:

“Promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, foster environmental stewardship, and ensure theavailability of pets.”

According to the 2009-2010 APPA National Pet Owners Survey (April 2009):


  • 14,000,000 US Households (42,600,000 people) maintain freshwater and saltwater fish;
  • 6,000,000 households (18,000,000 people) maintain pet birds;
  • 4,700,000 households (16,000,000 people) maintain reptiles; and,
  • 5,300,000 households (19,100,000 people) maintain small mammals (non dog/cat).

The above data are conservative because they do not take into account multi-pet household ownership (i.e., a dog owning household with fish, bird or reptiles).

HR 669 conservatively affects more than one-third of our population. Apart from dogs, cats and goldfish which are exempt under Section 14(5)(D), virtually every species in those homes falls under the tarp created by HR 669.

Pet owners across this Nation possess a wide variety of non-native species in significant numbers. This is not a new phenomenon. For generations, people have maintained a wide variety of non-native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish as companion animals. It is not the intent of the pet industry to intentionally release these animals into the natural environment. Nor would the vast majority of pet owners have any such intent. In fact, the majority of pet owners consider their pets family members.

The bond between pets and their owners is well documented – as are the benefits of this bond…greater mental and physical health among adults and greater socialization and learning skills among children. Furthermore, it is clear that children who grow up with pets develop empathy for animals and the environment in general. I have no doubt that the vast majority of individuals who are members of environmental organizations are also pet owners and developed their love for animals by the pets they grew up with.

As you are aware, the pet industry is not the only commercial or recreational group which has a relationship with nonnative animals. Other stakeholders dependent upon nonnative species include: sports fishing, federal/state hatcheries, agriculture, biological and biomedical research, entertainment, hunting, food aquaculture, zoos and aquariums, and classroom educators. While most of these organisms are never intended for release into natural environments, some of these species (e.g. oysters, trout, bass, deer, game birds) are intentionally placed into natural environments by government and private entities throughout the US.

Prior to delving into more detail, I want to state our position to make it abundantly clear that:


  • We support the development of a strategic, risk-based process to prevent the introduction of invasive species (harmful nonnative species) into the United States.
  • We do not support the approach taken in HR 669. Among other things, HR 669 fails to be strategic in that
(a) it does not adequately take socio-economic issues and risk management options into account;
(b) it requires funds and staffing not currently available nor likely to be available in the current economic climate to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS);
(c) the timeline is not achievable given the thousands of species that would need to be assessed by an under-resourced Service;
(d) because so many species would be in limbo awaiting assessment, orlacking sufficient data to enable an assessment, it would have a substantial economic impact on the pet industry and other industries and the pet owning public;
(e) and it could result in significant unintended consequences of mass releases and/or euthanasia of pets, as well as dramatically increase harvest of some species of native wildlife – native tortoises for example.
  • We believe that a constructive risk-based process could be developed andimplemented in a timely manner. We need a process that strategically takes into account, scientific, socio-economic, animal welfare, resource management, and human and institutional issues.
We, the pet industry, and I believe I can speak for other interest groups involved with nonnative species, are willing to work with you to craft such legislation.

Last month, we convened a multi-stakeholder workshop to analyze HR 669 and discuss potential improvements. The Report highlights a number of questions, concerns, and issues regarding the provisions of HR 669. We doo not have time today for a thorough discussion of that Workshop Report. My testimony will address only a few issues that surfaced. We are, however, prepared to make the report available to the Committee.

Background

For many years, PIJAC has been providing leadership on invasive species issues, serving as an advisor to and collaborator with numerous government agencies: various Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force (ANSTF) committees and regional panels, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and a number of State invasive species advisory committees or working groups. Additionally, PIJAC leads several initiatives and proactive campaigns designed to minimize the introduction and impact of invasive species. These campaigns reflect a strong collaborative effort among industry, the government, and other stakeholders.

As I noted in my testimony in 2007 and 2008, PIJAC and our industry are well aware of the problems posed by invasive species. Our involvement with this issue dates back to the early 1970s when the USFWS proposed to find all nonnative species “injurious” until proven innocent under the Lacey Act. That approach, much like that proposed in HR 669, would establish an untenable burden on the government and/or the trade to “scientifically prove” a negative – i.e. the absence of potential harm. I understand that HR 669 uses the term “Likelihood,” but I also recognize that the term is undefined and subject to broad speculation and interpretation. Moreover, the requisite human and financial resources have yet to be made available to the relevant federal agencies so that they can fully and effectively implement and enforce existing policies and programs. Thus, the question for 2009 is: How will the Service accomplish the tasks mandated in HR 669, tasks far more complex and far more comprehensive than exist under today’s listing process? Absent a crystal ball, it is impossible to demonstrate that no harm has ever nor will ever occur at anytime, anywhere in the United States.

Many thousands of non-native species have been in the pet trade as well as other industries for decades, yet the overwhelming majority of them have never established feral populations and even fewer have been demonstrated to have caused harm to the environment, economy, or human health. In rare instances where former pets have become invasive, the impacts have generally been to very localized areas in urban and suburban contexts which are already heavily impacted by habitat loss and degradation.

It is, thus, both unnecessary and unrealistic to conduct a risk assessment for every nonnative species in the pet trade (e.g., more than 4,000 aquarium freshwater and saltwater fish), let alone those brought in by other industries as well.

PIJAC believes that effective measures should be in place to reduce the risk of the adverse impacts of invasive species. While we recognize that the existing Lacey Act process is inefficient in many ways, it is clear to us that this is largely due to a number of regulatory and administrative hurdles in the evaluation process that need to be revisited and revised where possible so the existing listing process is no longer paralyzed. We believe that the appropriate directives for risk management are currently contained in the Lacey Act, the National Invasive Species Management Plans (per Executive Order 13112), and several ANSTF initiatives, among others, but have not had the opportunity for effective implementation as intended due to an inefficient regulatory process and lack of resources.

HR 669 is set up for failure – it would be a managerial nightmare for the Service. Given limited staffing and biological data, how will the Service conduct adequate risk assessments on more than 10,000 species currently in trade? How will the Service meet the statutory deadlines set forth in Sections 3 and 4? Upon failure to do so, will the Service be forced to shut down a number of industries dependent upon nonnative species -- such as the pet industry, food aquaculture, and sports fishing? HR 669 is an overly simplistic approach to a very complex problem which involves much more than running a series of risk assessments in order to publish a list of approved species. HR 669 needs to be redrafted to direct a risk analysis process rather than a risk assessment. According to the definitions adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (and supported by the US), "risk analysis refers to: (1) the assessment of the consequences of the introduction and of the likelihood of establishment of an alien species using science-based information (i.e., risk assessment), and (2) the identification of measures that can be implemented to reduce or manage these risks (i.e., risk management), taking into account socio-economic and cultural considerations.”


Unless socio-economic considerations and a comprehensive set of risk management options are adequately accounted for in this process, the vast majority of nonnative species will land on the “in limbo list” (Section 5(b)(3)(C)) due to there being “insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination” as to whether the species should be on the Approved or Unapproved lists. Nor should it be overlooked that there are already management measures in place for some species that reduce the risk of invasiveness.

Congress must also carefully consider both the financial costs and benefits of imported species. The loss of certain high-income fish, for example, could result in the collapse of the entire ornamental fish industry and have significant repercussions for product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers throughout the country.

Ultimately, we urge the Subcommittee to take into careful consideration the findings and recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plans, as well as initiatives of the ANSTF and numerous state agencies (e.g., Florida and Wisconsin) that are dealing with this issue. Initiatives under these programs already reflect stakeholderinclusive reviews on and recommendations to address the import of live organisms in the invasive species context. They also address regional aspects of this issue.

The following comments address key sections of HR 669.

Risk Assessment Process (Section 3)

PIJAC questions the advisability of the Congress mandating specific criteria that the Secretary must factor into the Department’s assessment protocols and regulations. As evidenced by the work of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the ANSTF, the Department’s scientists need flexibility to design analysis protocols depending on the taxa, the purpose of introduction, and other relevant factors.

To get on the ultimate “Approved List”, the Service would have to complete risk assessments, not risk analysis, using the following criteria (and possibly additional criteria that will be determined as the final regulations evolve). The assessors would have to make a determination based on:


  • Species identified to species level, and if possible specific information to subspecies level and genetic identity;
  • Native range of the species ;
  • 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;
  • Likelihood that environmental conditions exist in the US that are suitable for
  • establishment of the species;
  • Likelihood of establishment in the US;
  • Likelihood of spread in the US;
  • Likelihood species would harm wildlife resources of the US;
  • Likelihood the species would harm native species that are rare 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”.

Applying these criteria as part of the one-size-fits all approach will result in virtually no species passing the test. Endless debates and challenges will ensue as to the completeness of the “available data” or the lack thereof.

Sections 3(b)(4) through (10) incorporate the subjective, non-scientific standard of “likelihood” for determining the probability that a species will become established,spread, do harm. Does “likelihood” connote some level of probability – a specific statistical term – or is it merely a subjective conclusion that something might establish, spread, cause harm or be accompanied with parasites? The mere presence of parasites or other associated organisms is not necessarily problematic. Furthermore,extremists employing Vaihinger’s “Philosophy of As If” will conclude that every nonnative species has some probability of establishing somewhere in the US, at some time in futuro, given the right ecological conditions and propagule pressure – rate and volume of introduction. If that probability in scientific risk-based terms presents a negligible risk, how is it assessed under the “likelihood” doctrine? What methods would be used to determine or score “likelihood”?

Section 3 sets forth specific factors that must be taken into account in the Service’s evaluation of risk but offers no direction as to the manner in which such factors must be evaluated. A reasonable inference, however, is that a positive finding of one or more of those factors is sufficient to prohibit import. Far greater statutory clarity is required. Is the Service compelled to list a species as prohibited in any case in which some combination of these factors are determined in the affirmative? Does this mean that a problematic species for one part of the country or a limited ecosystem is banned nationwide (including the Territories)? Is the mere absence of biological data, because it does not exist, sufficient to compel the Service to ban a species that has been imported or farmed in this country for decades absent evidence of invasiveness?

Additionally, it is not technically feasible to identify some species in trade – including some very high volume and income species – to the “species level” (Section 3(b)(1)). Nor is it clear how the prescribed process would deal with taxonomic name changes in cases in which molecular studies indicate that the classifications should either be “split” or “grouped.” If the scientific classification changes, would the risk analysis have to be repeated for the affected species? Furthermore, how would agency staff address the fact that some countries (particularly developing, exporting countries) are using different taxonomic names (often “old” versus “new”) than others?

Section 3(b)(3) incorporates terms such as “established,” “harm” and “spread” without the benefit of definition. Is the USFWS free to adopt its own definitions? Does “established” mean a self-sustaining reproducing population? Is an analysis as to benefit versus harm part of the evaluation?

Based on the criteria in Sections (b)(4) through (b)(10), virtually all tropical fish, birds, reptiles and small mammals would be automatically banned from the entire United States if it could be demonstrated that under Section 3(b)(4) there is a likelihood that “environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread…exist anywhere in the United States” or “has established, spread or caused harm… in ecosystems similar to those in the United States.” (Section (b)(3)) Under the HR 669 standard, a species that may have become “established” or “spread” is treated as if it is “invasive” whether or not it causes or is likely to cause “harm.”

Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they might become established in Hawaiian waters; a parakeet would be banned in Minnesota because it could survive in south Florida; a Neon Tetra fish that might survive one warm season in southern Florida waters would be banned in northern Florida, Alaska, Colorado, Minnesota or Georgia where it would not survive a normal winter! Absent inclusion of some qualifying language, the HR 669 listing criteria becomes a mandate and mandates become prohibitions even though a likely adverse impact is never shown.

Transparency (Section 3(d))

Transparency is critical to the credibility of the process being mandated by this bill. PIJAC urges that language be inserted making it abundantly clear that there is stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process. Furthermore, language should direct that the persons making the management decisions are not the same people (assessors) conducting the risk assessment(s).

Legal Possession (Section 3(f)

This section claims that the process will “not interfere” with one’s ability to possess an individual animal that does not make the “Approved List” if the person can demonstrate that the animal “was legally owned… before the risk assessment is begun.” Irrespective of problems ascertaining when the risk assessments for an individual species will really commence, what criteria does one have to meet to demonstrate legal possession? The majority of pet owners do not possess the details related to the original importation, or subsequent owners or breeders prior to their acquiring their animals. Simply put, how does one prove legality to avoid prosecution under the Lacey Act? Even the Service does not keep import records indefinitely.

List of Approved Species (Section 4)

The listing process is complex. To place a species on the Preliminary approved List under Section 4(b)(1), 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 species’ 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 for being on the Final Approved List, we are at a loss to understand how one proves “no potential harm” under the alleged simplified test for inclusion on the “Preliminary Approved List.” Would not one be compelled to rely upon the detailed criteria that the Service is mandated to include in its regulations for listing and publishing the “Final Approved List”? Otherwise, the argument of a lesser standard is nothing more than an attempt to assuage opponents’ concerns about proving a negative.

Section 4(b) provides for a “Preliminary Approved List.” Once the Service determines that a species passes the “test” the Service will place a species on one of 3 lists:


  • Approved List
  • Unapproved List
  • The “In Limbo List” or “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.
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 ever being problematic, and then in localized situations.

Subsequently, if and when the lists are published,will there be any grace period for an importer or person possessing banned species already in the United States to revamp their operation(s) and ethically dispose of animals in their possession or do they become violators of this Act, as well as the Lacey Act, overnight? The perception, alone, that millions of Americans could become criminals overnight is likely to motivate frightened individuals to abandon or kill their animals. In short, it could facilitate the introduction and establishment of numerous non-native species; clearly, an unintended consequence of HR 669.

Deadlines (Sections 3(e) and Sections 4(a)(1)) and (c).

The prescribed timeframes to implement HR 669 are unrealistic. According to Section 3(e)(1), the proposed regulations and an initial list of approved species must be published within two years of enactment of HB 669. The final regulations, the initial list of approved species and a notice of the list of prohibited species must be published, pursuant to Section 3(e)(2), no later than 30 days before the date on which the Secretary begins assessing the species . The assessment process must start within 37 months of HR 669’s enactment (Section 3(e)(3)). Yet Section 4(a)(1) mandates that the list of approved species be finalized and published no later than 36 months following enactment. How is this possible?

How will the USFWS be able to develop regulations, publish them in the Federal Register seeking public comment, review and finalize the regulations, seek and obtain OMB clearance and publish final rules and lists within such mandates? To date, the USFWS has required an average of four years to accomplish such a process for a single species proposed for an injurious wildlife listing. History is prologue and the failure to meet deadlines will simply be repeated.

List of Unapproved Species (Section 5)

Since violations of the proposed Act would also constitute a violation of the criminal provisions of the Lacey Act, which includes felony sanctions, full and complete lists of what is illegal should be published by the USFWS to ensure adequate notice of what constitutes a violation of law. Due process calls for no less. If the Congress insists on multi-lists it should ensure providing the American public clear and precise information to avoid confusion. The final lists should contain every species in the animal kingdom to ensure that the public is aware of what is illegal (and on the “In Limbo List”) as well as legal inasmuch as they are subject to a strict liability criminal statute. Prohibitions and Penalties (Section 3(f) and Section 6(3), (5) and (6)). Interestingly, a person already engaged in the captive propagation or farming of a species in the United States that does make the “Approved List” finds him or herself in the rather awkward position of being subject to conflicting provisions of the law. According to Section 3(f), the “Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species… if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun…” Yet a close reading of the prohibitions in Section 6 raises significant issues which will undoubtedly compel millions of frightened people to kill or abandon their pets. Once a species appears on the “Unapproved List,” or fails to make the “Approved List” and remain in limbo, the imaginary “grandfather clause” of Section 3 is virtually ineffective since it would be illegal to breed, sell, barter, or transport interstate any nonnative species appearing on the Section 4 prohibited list.

The prohibition section will significantly impact not only the pet industry, but also food aquaculture, sport fisheries, the bait industry, and the livestock industry. These sections need to be revisited.

User Fees (Section 8)

The establishment of a fee-based risk assessment system is fraught with problems. Apart from trying to ascertain how the amount of the fee(s) will be determined, this system will result in rank discrimination whereby small business will no longer be able to compete. It places the entire financial burden on larger companies willing to assume the financial risk of going through a nondescript assessment and listing process. This becomes a significant burden if the importer imports hundreds or thousands of species for which there is sketchy biological or scientific data, yet the species has been in trade in extremely large numbers for many, many years without adverse impacts.

Unlike other areas of the economy where fees are assessed to seek government approval of a patented or proprietary drug or chemical product, importers of nonnative species would be funding an assessment not only for themselves but for all of their competitors, and even other industries that trade in the same species for other purposes. How will the USFWS determine which importer is selected to bare the costs? Risk assessments and risk analyses are expensive undertakings. Will the fees be $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 or more per assessment per organism? How will the figures be determined and consistently applied?

Definitions (Section 14)

As crafted, “nonnative wildlife species” includes “any species that is not a native species.” The definition goes on to specifically cover the entire animal kingdom including insects, mollusks, crustaceans, arthropods, coelenterates, and all other invertebrates that do not make to the “exempt list” (Section 14(5)(D)) or covered by some other law (Sections 14(5)(C(i) or (c)(ii)).

“Native species” under Section 14(4) are species “that historically occurred or currently occurs in the United States, other than as a result of an intentional or unintentional introduction by humans.” What constitutes “historical?” What is the cut-off date? 1492! What baseline data or referenced authority does one rely upon? Defining “nonnative” based on an unknown raises interesting biological and legal challenges. And how will states address the status of nonnative species they have classified as “naturalized” and have been affording protection?

An exception to listing appears to exist if a species is 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.” (Section 4( b)(1)(B)). What is the definition of “widespread?” Is it limited to widespread presence in the environment or does it also include millions of specimens of a species maintained as a pet in millions of homes across the Nation?

Section 14(5)(D) authorizes the Secretary to add a species to the “exempt” list if the Secretary determines a species to be “common and clearly domesticated.” The term “domesticated” is a term of art and has no legal definition in wildlife laws of the United States. Is domesticated defined according to Webster’s as one adapted “ to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans?” Or, one which has been selectivity bred in captivity and thereby modified from its ancestors for use by humans who control the animals breeding and food supply." Or, must animals have their behavior, life cycle, or physiology systemically altered as a result of being under human control for many generations. Or, is some other evolutionary criteria to be used for demonstrating man’s control of the species for a specified period of time? Would a Ferret (Mustela putorius furo) which has been under human control since 1500 BC or Zebra Finches since the early 1900s qualify?

Conclusion


On behalf of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), thank you for providing us an opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns regarding HR 669. Despite our reservations about HR 669, we remain committed to working with your Subcommittee to address this important environmental issue.

We believe that we have raised a number of valid issues regarding HR 669 and its potential for shutting down several industries dependent on nonnative species. Additionally, it could end up encouraging rather than preventing the release of nonnative animals.

We respectfully suggest that the bill as currently crafted sets the US Fish and Wildlife Service up for failure. Its whole approach is one that defies practical implementation, and demands exorbitant resources. In short, it would not visit upon the public the beneficial results to which it aspires. The measure demands the nearly impossible task of conducting thousands of scientifically valid risk assessments in a short time-frame, and presumes that all species subject to these assessments shall be prohibited pending a contrary finding, even though no evidence of adverse impact exists. Unlike a risk analysis, it does not explicitly account for socio-economic and cultural considerations. The bill assigns such an impossible task to an agency woefully bereft of resources for the job, and holds hostage several vital sectors of a challenged economy.

We believe that there is a better way to achieve a superior result. To that end, we recommend that a working group comprised of various stakeholders be convened to offer recommendations on the most effective method for moving the screening process forward, as called for in the National Invasive Species Management Plan. A number of key industries need to be at the table. This is not simply a pet industry issue. A number of pathways have proven to be far more significant vectors of nonnative species than pets.

We look forward to working with your Subcommittee in crafting more realistic legislation that will serve the public and affected industry alike in concert with the National Invasive Species Management Plan and the Executive Orders calling for such an approach.
 

zerojquan85

Fire Eel
MFK Member
Oct 16, 2008
2,325
6
68
So-California, US
Well i'm glad SOME one in Capitol hill isn't stupid enough to allow HR 669... the pet industry is in the upwards of billions of dollars... thats a huge blow to the economy.... especially now...
 

ewurm

Aimara
MFK Member
Jan 27, 2006
28,476
74
132
14
*
Li, is the video available as a video file?
 

necrocanis

Catfish God
Staff member
Moderator
MFK Member
Oct 10, 2005
6,639
493
146
41
montana
So no go or what? I don't like this bill at all. Hope it dies and never comes back.
 

Pittbull

Feeder Fish
MFK Member
Dec 22, 2008
683
0
0
Louisville Kentucky
Yeah its not totally a dead bill the panels can come up with another and some of those folks really hate the pet trade and would do nothing more to shut it down.. but we as hobbyist in all aspects of the animal trade put up a decent fight and a voice to reckon with in all, this is the first time in such a long time have we all come together and fight something so enormous..

I did my part and kudos to all who did as well..
 
zoomed.com
hikariusa.com
aqaimports.com
Store