I attended the hearing and the vibe was negative. We have not lost yet but they seem adamant to push this bill through. The theme of the hearing was invasives are costly to the economy and we absolutely have to do something. The problem however is that US Fish and Wildlife does not have the budget or man power to review every species as is suggested in the bill text. Mr Frazier of USFWS stated that this undertaking is a "daunting task" and that there are three major flaws with the bill. 1. This is too much workload. 2. Enforcibility is a problem 3. He already has a lack of funding and staffing.
Dr Lodge, an ecologist stated there are "substantial hurdles" and that scientist don't have "all the tools available" for this undertaking.
Mr. Nemtzov, of Isreal talked about Isreal's system which is very similar to the one proposed by HR 669. He said Isreal has a risk management system where NO species is allowed unless it is first approved by the government. The cost of the analysis is paid by the first person who seeks to import each species, usually around $150 each. He also stated in his powerpoint that customers entering pet stores do not care which species they purchase...They only ask for a parrot/snake/turtle. This is blatenly wrong.
Mr. Riley of Arizona fish and game stated that each state should decide how to manage invasives within thier own borders without federal mandates. He also pointed out the difficulty in determing the dangers posed by each species across the varying ecotypes of our country.
Mr. Martin, a tilapia farmers main point was the bill was too broad and needed to be more narrowly focused.
Finally, Mr Meyers, a rep of the pet industry joint action committee stated that over 1/3 of americans own non-native species. He also said we need ot fix the current system and not enact new laws. He said the bill is not strategic and its timeline of 4 years for the analysis of each species is too long to be effective. He also pointed out how the bill undermines states rights and what the economic impact would be on the multi-billion dollar pet industry. Lastly he said that a one size fits all aproach is set up for failure.
Dr Lodge, an ecologist stated there are "substantial hurdles" and that scientist don't have "all the tools available" for this undertaking.
Mr. Nemtzov, of Isreal talked about Isreal's system which is very similar to the one proposed by HR 669. He said Isreal has a risk management system where NO species is allowed unless it is first approved by the government. The cost of the analysis is paid by the first person who seeks to import each species, usually around $150 each. He also stated in his powerpoint that customers entering pet stores do not care which species they purchase...They only ask for a parrot/snake/turtle. This is blatenly wrong.
Mr. Riley of Arizona fish and game stated that each state should decide how to manage invasives within thier own borders without federal mandates. He also pointed out the difficulty in determing the dangers posed by each species across the varying ecotypes of our country.
Mr. Martin, a tilapia farmers main point was the bill was too broad and needed to be more narrowly focused.
Finally, Mr Meyers, a rep of the pet industry joint action committee stated that over 1/3 of americans own non-native species. He also said we need ot fix the current system and not enact new laws. He said the bill is not strategic and its timeline of 4 years for the analysis of each species is too long to be effective. He also pointed out how the bill undermines states rights and what the economic impact would be on the multi-billion dollar pet industry. Lastly he said that a one size fits all aproach is set up for failure.
