Something they should consider before passing HR 669

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
A dingos are indigenous to Australia not the United states
horses are not indenous to the United states
dairy cows are not not indigenous
nor are pigeons or sparrows
actually most domestic animals are not native
guess they got a lot of rounding upto do huh?
 
Yeah, my mom has a parrot who can live to be 80, yes eighty, years old. They had the guy for 37 years, and its just now due for a midlife crisis. How in the hell are they going to enforce something like this. It will never pass. There are too many hurdles for this to make it. Some politician is going to find themselves being hunted with more dedication and fever than Osama Bin Lauden. Every single person in America will be affected by this as it may not be their pet, but their close friend's or relative's.

Some people on this website were complaining they were tired of hearing about Rocky the Snakehead in New York that is due t receive the chopping blocking soon. I've been frustrated by these people as that case is just the beginning. HR 669 will do the same thing that the laws in New York has done. Rocky was bought when it was legal, he can't take him across state lines, and there is no where to send him. What do you do with all these existing pets if it is outlawed to poses them? The worst part about HR 669 is that the whole point is to protect native species. Humans have a strong desire to keep pets, and outlawing non-native species will only mean that native species will be collected instead. With 250 million Americans, collecting only native species will decimate them quickly. So, in their attempt to protect the environment, chances are our native species will suffer even more.

Besides, how many politicians are going to look their own pet in the eyes and then go off and vote for this. Its political suicide, much less their children will never let them live it down for killing the beloved family pet.

My opinion of a more effective law: If you get caught dumping a non-native species, you get a hefty fine that is based upon your income level, plus you own tons and tons of hours of community service all of which must be in effort to clean up our environment. I think this would be a more effective, kill less animals overall, and give our environment a hand. Make the people that cause the problem clean it up. Don't punish everyone and all these animals for the few f@!$*ers who cause these problems. I don't care if its a kid that dumps it. Make him clean up their mess.

I'm not worried about this becoming law. I think its going to either get dropped quickly, or its going to exploded in someone's face.
 
Humans arn't really native to the US either. And they've caused much more destruction than all other invasives combined.
 
My point is not whether or not cats and dogs are going to decimate the ecosystem or if dogs can survive in the wild on their own. My point is that once we allow this to start, who decides where it will end? Legislators are happy to pass laws when what they are banning doesn't affect them. All of our elected officials have to take a long hard look at this proposal and see it for what it is, the end of an industry, at least as we know it.

We need to think about all proposals whether they affect us directly or not. Carefully consider the consequences of broad bans on anything. From "exotic pets" to "assault rifles". Just because you don't think it affects you, it does.

Take a look a prohibition. The country-wide ban on alcohol. There were a lot of people that thought it was a good idea. After all, what good things has alcohol done for society and this was before the days of widespread drinking and driving. They thought it would make a more peaceful society, yet it only made things worse. I'm not saying that exotic animal speakeasy's will pop up all over the country or that any of the Capone-style gangland will reemerge, BUT good intentions do not always make good legislation. I would say more often the opposite is true.

Talk about this issue. To friends, relatives, neighbors. Bring it up at Easter dinner. It's a good conversation starter at the table, especially if you don't really care for some of your relatives and need something to talk about. This is a subject that everyone can relate to. As previously stated, even if you don't own pets, you know someone who does. Spring into action, if you see someone get worked up about this, get them to call their congressman/woman, that's why we elected them, to be our voice in Washington.

If no one says anything, we will go quietly into a future that I think most people who joined this site would dread. One where this entire hobby is ruled by what the irresponsible, non-committed pet buyers do. A future that dictates how we can enjoy the wonders of nature by their unethical actions.
 
uting;2976836; said:
They should also ban rats because rats are not native to US
Click to expand...
Don't give them more ideas please!
 
There are no invasive species in MN that I know of that were introduced by hobbyists. All the invasive species were introduced by the government or accidentally by tanker ships dumping ballast water.
 
Also, let me guess this straight. The person who initiated all this is from Guam? I know Guam is a territory of the U.S. But this person needs to go back under the palm tree they were chillen in re-think of something else to pass.

"introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam)"

I could already imagine the thinking process. Sitting at the beach looking out at the ocean sipping on alcohol (presumably LOTS) and coming up with this ludicrous idea.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom