Okay, now that I have your attention, I'd like to discuss a bill that was recently passed by the PA House of Representatives that effectively does as I indicated in the title even if the representatives did not intend the law to have such an effect. The bill is H.R. 1398, and it seems to be aimed at imposing stricter controls on the trade of large and/or dangerous mammals such as primates, bears, big cats, and wolves.
Here's the section of the bill that makes me question as to how many of these representatives actually read the bill:
Now then, I guess I'll start from the top:
There are some other negatives as well as some positives, but I imagine that you get the idea. I also bet that many of you can see that HSUS left its mark on this bill considering that they were pushing pretty hard for its passage; I imagine that they were partly responsible for some of the "crafty" poor wording that, if correctly interpreted, gives them a major leg-up for banning the keeping of animals. Sure, the state could choose to enforce the "nonindigenous part" in a less-than-literal fashion, but that will certainly open them to criticism from both sides of the fence.
I guess my point here is make sure that you representatives actually read the laws that they're signing in order to prevent your rights to keep certain animals (as well as your other rights) are not infringed upon.
I'm hoping that I'm not the only PA resident who has caught these errors and contacted their representative about them because I really do not want to see so many of the animals that we love to keep as pets banned under this law.
Here's the section of the bill that makes me question as to how many of these representatives actually read the bill:
Now then, I guess I'll start from the top:
- The first thing that really jumped out at me is that apparently birds are not animals rather than are a group of organisms unto themselves.
- The second thing that popped out was the real kicker; the fact that the definition of "exotic wildlife" consisted of all nonindigenous wildlife and the listed animals. By that definition, all nonnative reptiles, amphibians, and fish are going to be banned as well as some other animals that are not typically thought about when it comes to these laws such as domestic dogs and domestic cats.
- The third thing that stood out to me was what animals were exempt. Apparently any and all birds that are not otherwise regulated are fair game as are animals such as zebras, camels, moose, and antelopes; many of these animals required a permit under the previous law. Amusingly enough, they also have inadvertently made sugar gliders and hedgehogs legal again; both animals were banned for largely ridiculous reasons.
There are some other negatives as well as some positives, but I imagine that you get the idea. I also bet that many of you can see that HSUS left its mark on this bill considering that they were pushing pretty hard for its passage; I imagine that they were partly responsible for some of the "crafty" poor wording that, if correctly interpreted, gives them a major leg-up for banning the keeping of animals. Sure, the state could choose to enforce the "nonindigenous part" in a less-than-literal fashion, but that will certainly open them to criticism from both sides of the fence.
I guess my point here is make sure that you representatives actually read the laws that they're signing in order to prevent your rights to keep certain animals (as well as your other rights) are not infringed upon.
I'm hoping that I'm not the only PA resident who has caught these errors and contacted their representative about them because I really do not want to see so many of the animals that we love to keep as pets banned under this law.
