A new monster we all need to be aware of!
- Thread starter snakeguy101
- Start date
All I keep getting told is 'read more carefully'. The bill's purpose is NOT "To establish an improved regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of [all] nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites", it is
Section 2, which defines the bill's purpose, does NOT read "The purpose of this Act is to establish an improved regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of [all] nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites", it reads:
Are you familiar with how "thorough" the government is with its studies? If they want to ban it, then they'll make up stuff as needed to get their way.
Even if the list of restricted animals is short to start out, the entire purpose of this bill is to streamline the process of banning new species so that they do not need to go through the whole long and drawn out process like they did with Burms. It will allow the Gov't to add species to this list with little forethought or opposition.
I was arguing mostly because posters on this board felt it meant an instant ban of everything. 
Currently, the Federal Wildlife Service's list of banned creatures /seems/ to list those that can survive in colder water -- ie, natural habitats of the contiguous 48 states. Even a supremely predatory species, such as peacock bass, are not on FWS's **** list because the states of Hawai'i and Florida did their homework -- they cannot survive in water temperatures below 65*F overwinter, and cannot tolerate salinity, which would be necessary to spread north along Florida's coasts. As such, even something as voracious as a pbass would not be considered an injurious species.
I acknowledge that this bill has the potential for misuse and misinterpretation. A VERY BROAD interpretation, for example, would ban FW stingrays nationwide because of the potential for them to survive overwinter conditions in natural waterways ANYWHERE in the US -- say, for example, Georgia and Florida. This is personal sore point for me, as you can imagine, because I do covet a small Hystrix for my 300 gallon, but I can't have one -- based on a list that has ALREADY been customized for the state that I am in. But get this -- that is because of an ALREADY existing law better tailored to my geographical location, aka STATE level.
I realize that for many of us, it would be better if this bill did not exist at all. We need to explain to our representatives that a FEDERAL regulation banning certain species will not work for MOST non-native species in MOST states, regardless of their invasiveness and injuriousness. It is worthwhile to get in touch with your Congressmen to express concern that the bill will be interpreted too broadly! It's a good chance to educate them about the number of SMALL BUSINESSES that depend on interstate trafficking of specific non-injurious, non-native species, as well as the number of TAXPAYER DOLLARS that could be wasted going through a species by species inventory of what stays, and what goes. Hell, cite the above example, and encourage them to abandon the bill -- tell them this is best handled on a state by state basis! The work has ALREADY been done by your local state legislature. Folks in Congress may not even BE aware that states are handling this already. Send your Congressmen a copy of your state's restricted list!
Currently, the Federal Wildlife Service's list of banned creatures /seems/ to list those that can survive in colder water -- ie, natural habitats of the contiguous 48 states. Even a supremely predatory species, such as peacock bass, are not on FWS's **** list because the states of Hawai'i and Florida did their homework -- they cannot survive in water temperatures below 65*F overwinter, and cannot tolerate salinity, which would be necessary to spread north along Florida's coasts. As such, even something as voracious as a pbass would not be considered an injurious species.
I acknowledge that this bill has the potential for misuse and misinterpretation. A VERY BROAD interpretation, for example, would ban FW stingrays nationwide because of the potential for them to survive overwinter conditions in natural waterways ANYWHERE in the US -- say, for example, Georgia and Florida. This is personal sore point for me, as you can imagine, because I do covet a small Hystrix for my 300 gallon, but I can't have one -- based on a list that has ALREADY been customized for the state that I am in. But get this -- that is because of an ALREADY existing law better tailored to my geographical location, aka STATE level.
I realize that for many of us, it would be better if this bill did not exist at all. We need to explain to our representatives that a FEDERAL regulation banning certain species will not work for MOST non-native species in MOST states, regardless of their invasiveness and injuriousness. It is worthwhile to get in touch with your Congressmen to express concern that the bill will be interpreted too broadly! It's a good chance to educate them about the number of SMALL BUSINESSES that depend on interstate trafficking of specific non-injurious, non-native species, as well as the number of TAXPAYER DOLLARS that could be wasted going through a species by species inventory of what stays, and what goes. Hell, cite the above example, and encourage them to abandon the bill -- tell them this is best handled on a state by state basis! The work has ALREADY been done by your local state legislature. Folks in Congress may not even BE aware that states are handling this already. Send your Congressmen a copy of your state's restricted list!
couldnt help noticing those excluded are ALL furry type animals,as if they couldnt carry any diseases
REALLY wondering why this hasn't caused much of a buzz as compared to HR669. REALLY just wondering now.
All right, stupid question, but if a bill liked this passed banning all non-native animals, wouldn't PetsMart and Petco be out of business outside of cats and dogs?
