Congressional Hearing Banning Nonnative Species April 23 Action Needed

So this was sent to me today from the local petstore......
I am interested in knowing what people here think about this?
Also does anyone know how this will effect the previous keepers of nonnative species and what that will mean for cb's of nonnative species?

This is the renamed HR 6311, and I've been encouraging people to write letters.

http://www.caudata.org/forum/showthread.php?t=56050

I just read about this HR 669 in the last Reptiles Mag issue, and you beat me to mentioning it.

I'm going to write letters again and I encourage everyone else to write against this Bill.

Here is more info:

http://www.usark.org/statelaws.php

This will walk you through writing an opposition letter:

http://www.usark.org/uploads/NO on HR669.doc

You can easily email the sponsors from this link, but if you take a little extra trouble and write them handwritten letters, I think those are more effective, but I don't really have any evidence to back me up on that.

Here are addresses for the sponsors:

1. Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo

Guam District Office
Suite 107
120 Father Duenas Avenue
Hagåtña, Guam 96910
phone: 671-477-4272
fax: 671-477-2587

Washington, D.C. Office
427 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515-5301
phone: 202-225-1188
fax: 202-226-0341


2. Congresswoman Grace F. Napolitano

Washington, DC Office
1610 Longworth Bldg
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: 202-225-5256
Fax: 202-225-0027


District Office
11627 East Telegraph Road, #100
Santa Fe Springs, CA 90670
Phone: 562-801-2134
Fax: 562-949-9144


3. Congressman Ron Kind

Washington
1406 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
9am to 6pm
PH: (202) 225-5506
FX: (202) 225-5739
TTY: (202) 226-1772

La Crosse
205 Fifth Avenue S. , Suite 400
La Crosse, WI 54601
8:30am to 5pm
PH: (608) 782-2558
FX: (608) 782-4588
TTY: (608) 782-1173


4. Congressman Raul Grijalva

DC Office:
1440 Longworth HOB
Washington, DC 20515
ph (202) 225-2435
fax (202) 225-1541

TUCSON Office:
810 E. 22nd St.
Suite 102
Tucson, AZ 85713
ph (520) 622-6788
fax (520) 622-0198


5. Rep. Kildee ** NO EMAIL

Washington, D.C.
2107 Rayburn HOB
Washington, DC 20515
202-225-3611
202-225-6393 fax

District Offices:

Flint District Office
432 N. Saginaw St. Suite 410
Flint, MI 48502
(810) 239-1437
(810) 239-1439 Fax

Saginaw District Office
515 N. Washington Ave. Suite 401
Saginaw, MI 48607
(989) 755-8904
(989) 755-8908 Fax

Bay District Office
916 Washington Ave. Suite 205
Bay City, MI 48708
(989) 891-0990
(989) 891-0994 Fax

TOLL FREE to MI Offices 1-800-662-2685


6. Representative (Congressman) Ron Klein

313 Cannon House Office Building
Washington DC 20515
(all mail delayed at least 2 weeks)

DC Office Phone: 202-225-3026
FL Office Phone: 561-544-6910


7. Congressman Alcee L. Hastings

Fort Lauderdale Office
2701 W. Oakland Park Blvd
Suite 200
Fort Lauderdale, FL 33311
Tel: (954) 733-2800
Fax: (954) 735-9444

Washington Office
2353 Rayburn Office Building
Washington D.C. 20515
Tel: (202) 225-1313
Fax: (202) 225-1171


Palm Beach Office
Mangonia Park Town Hall
1755 E. Tiffany Drive
Mangonia Park, FL 33407
Tel: (561) 881-9618
Fax: (561) 881-9879



8. Congressman Neil Abercrombie

Washington, DC
1502 Longworth House
Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
phone: (202) 225-2726
fax: (202) 225-4580

District Office
Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd.
Room 4-104
Honolulu, HI 96850
phone: (808) 541-2570
fax: (808) 533-0133



9. Rep. McGovern ** NO EMAIL

DISTRICT OFFICES

34 Mechanic Street
Worcester, MA 01608
Phone: (508) 831-7356
Fax: (508) 754-0982

8 North Main Street
Suite 200
Attleboro, MA 02703
Phone: (508) 431-8025
Fax: (508) 431-8017

255 Main Street
Room 104
Marlborough, MA 01752
Phone: (508) 460-9292
Fax: (508) 460-6869

371 S. Main Street
Suite 102
Fall River, MA 02721
Phone: (508) 677-0140
Fax: (508) 677-0992

WASHINGTON OFFICE

438 Cannon Building
Washington, DC 20515
Phone: (202) 225-6101
Fax: (202) 225-5759




10. Congressman George Miller

Washington DC:
2205 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
phone: 202-225-2095
fax: 202-225-5609

Concord California:
1333 Willow Pass Road
Concord, CA 94520
phone: 925-602-1880
fax: 925-674-0983

Richmond California:
3220 Blume Dr
San Pablo, CA 94806
phone: 510-262-6500
fax: 510-222-1306

Vallejo California:
375 G. Street
Vallejo, CA 94592
phone: 707-645-1888
fax: 707-645-1870

Please write these people!!!

As one article said, please remain calm and professional when you write.


This took me 45 minutes I could have been playing with my ferrets so you know I mean it!

*$#@^% All those addresses I just looked up were in the PIJAC alert!!

I don't think i'm getting the whole picture, if there's an amphibian epidemic killing everything it touches isn't this a step in the right direction?

Gregh said:

I don't think i'm getting the whole picture, if there's an amphibian epidemic killing everything it touches isn't this a step in the right direction?

Click to expand...

This legislation could be devastating to the amphibian keeping hobby. It is written to allow the import and keeping only of approved animals. I'd prefer legislation that restricted against specified animals that are proven to be a threat. Most newts and salamanders are not commonly kept and most likely what you have in your collection would not be on the "approved" list.

I think one of the best ways to battle this kind of legislation is to join an organization whose approach we mirror and support it. I'm still looking into PIJAC and my guess is I will put some financial support behind them this year. I think they can be good advocates for the hobby.

Micheal -I have also been looking into PIJAC but I have not had the time to learn as much as I would like to. If you are willing to share what you learn about them I would be interested in a better overview of them and if this would be a good organization to support to help combat this kind of legislation.

I do realize that there could be benefits to some nonnative species being prohibited from import and export but to ban all nonnative species seems too extreme, not to mention it would be basically impossible - especially for a hobbiests - to get any animal that was not on the Approved List to be added.

Can anyone say the likelihood of this passing?

It is very likely to pass.


I hate to say that, but it is a very real threat.


What everyone needs to keep in mind is that the people involved have little or no experience what so ever in the pet trade, biology or herpetology.


Write letters not only to the politicians on the list (each and every one of them) but also make sure to write letters to you own state representation. E-mail does no good with these folks.


While I am in total agreement that controls are needed to eliminate the WC pet trade, I am completely against ANY blanket law based on campaign and party donations rather than hard science.

I have called in my wife the journalist to help us on this. She has contacts that will be made aware of this situation and can take action on levels the average person can not. We are currently researching the paper trail of this legislation on this end and it appears that a few well know zealot groups are pushing this bill behind the scenes. I'll will post data as it becomes available, if it is relevant. This one has a really long paper trail so it may be a while.

This is an example of just how dangerous or beneficial an interest group can be (depending what side you're on). I agree that it is a small overzealous group pushing for this agenda and that NO real scientific thought has been applied, but then again this is the U.S. Government we are talking about - look how long it took them to accept Global Warming and other Environmental issues. The problem too is that this is only a small group and they think they can pass their agenda unopposed because the average person is unaware. Sorry just had to rant a bit, this is frustrating.

I hope we're all writing letters! I wrote my rough draft at work tonight and I'm going to write not only all the sponsors, but take the S-monkey's advice and write my NY reps too.

It was a bit of a shock to me, but I actually received a reply from my representative on this matter.

What really steamed me about the reply is my Representative was not even aware of this bills existence until my wife, my daughter and myself each sent letters. While I am pretty sure that he didn't actually even read the letter, let alone write the reply,but at least we got through to SOMEBODY.

Please, spread the word, we need to get letters to as many members of the house and senate as fast as possible. The wife informs me that her journalistic sources are getting stonewalled on this topic. It appears they are trying to submarine this one through folks.

I just finished my 13 letters. The ten above, and my three NYS reps.

Invasive exotics are a problem... look what the african clawed frog has done in the Americas. It is allegedly responsible for the kitrid fungus epidemic. Just as many "native species" become problems too. Eastern Tiger salamanders replacing the local species in CA, Bullfrogs and cane toads eating every creature they can fit in their mouths, destroying and displacing local fauna. none of these are considered the fault of the exotic pet trade.

I think that people who own exotic animals should be aware of the problems associated with introduced invasive exotics and should be responsible.

I do not think that we need blanket legislation that restricts our rights.

I don't disagree with the argument, I disagree with the proposed solution. Typical big-gov nonsense.

michael said:

This legislation could be devastating to the amphibian keeping hobby. It is written to allow the import and keeping only of approved animals. I'd prefer legislation that restricted against specified animals that are proven to be a threat. Most newts and salamanders are not commonly kept and most likely what you have in your collection would not be on the "approved" list.

Click to expand...

I would like to hope that responsible herp enthusiasts would keep this in perspective.

Non-native species introductions are causing native population declines and collapses in certain places such as the Everglades, one of the most biologically rich places on earth, and the threat is immenent in others such as New Mexico and Arizona. These species introductions may have been going on for quite some time, but the problem is just now showing itself as a matter of extreme concern. It does not matter how these introductions happened really, so that is not a point of debate here. What matters is that these species were here for one reason or another. They were imported at some point, and for some reason ended up in a habitat that they could exploit.

Also, there are herp diseases that are ravaging our native animals. Best we can tell, one of the worst is a disease that has been spread throughout the world since the '50s by a species that has been imported into many different areas for medical reasons. The intentions were not just benign, they were good! But it is just now coming to light that these diseases have travelled with these imports, and as a result may cause the most widespread mass extinction since the Cretaceous period.

The point is, it is hard to 'prove' that a species is a threat until it is too late. Keep that in mind. This legislation should not spawn a letter writing campaign aimed at protecting a private hobby, it should provoke thoughtful discussion on the implications that this hobby has for the envioronment and the species groups that we all care for in our own way.

Point taken, however this is blanket legislation based off of special interest groups funding (PETA and a few others...).

This is not a scientifically based bill.

This is not just about herps, this is about ALL nonnative species being banned in the United States. This bill passes and yes, even the common goldfish is now illegal to own. Your fuzzy little kitten is illegal. Your hedgehog is illegal. This bill is written to be all inclusive. While I do not expect them to list every single speices this bill covers, I do expect them to at the very least provide guidelines.

A prime example of this is the recently passed blanket law to protect the California Tiger salamander. ALL Ambystoma are now illegal in the pet trade there or to own. No grandfathering, no provision for disposal of animals purchased before the ban, and no clear statement other than that the axolotl is now a banned animal in that state, even though it was the most commonly sold caudate there. Now the owners of those animals in desperation to avoid hefty fines have done what with their pets? Understand my point?

I have no clue about how politics works in other countries, but here citizens have the right to question any bill before it becomes law. The letter writing campaign is an attempt to bring to light not the banning of exotic animals in the pet trade or protecting a private hobby, but to expose a poorly written attempt at partisan lawmaking based off of dollars paid out by a for profit orginization (though they claim otherwise) to carry out their agenda. An agenda that I gaurantee is NOT of the people, for the people, or by the people.

Personally, I pray that they do ban the import of all exotic animals. I am a complete supporter of destruction of the wild caught animal trade. What I do not support is laws passed with little or no scientific basis or responsible research.

By the wording of this bill, as silly as it sounds, yes, even house cats would be illegal. It is a non-native, invasive, disease vector.

Well said. Now I've got something to think about.

I looked at the bill. goldfish(despite being terrible invasives) are on the permitted list. So are dogs and cats.

However, anything slightly atypical as a pet is not!

I have taken various politics classes and US government classes. I can tell you that it is actually somewhat unconstitutional to enact a law that punishes people already doing/possessing something that was deemed legal before the law was present. Meaning, one can't decide to make drinking coffee illegal on Tuesday and then punish someone who drank coffee on Monday, before the law came into effect. This is what will happen in a sense with the pet trade, people already have these deemed "nonnative species" as pets, so what is the government going to do to people who own all those pets? Are they planning to euthanize millions of these animalsl? Take possession of them from the people and do what with them? Plus, people may panic and release their pets to the wild, then we would really have a problem on our hands now wouldn't we? But the most obvious of points is if you make it illegal, people will still trade/sell these animals. It could backfire with people importing even more. I would just like to say I agree how this Bill has no scientific merit and how interests groups can be very dangerous, we need to take action and not allow this to occur.

moondog said:

I would like to hope that responsible herp enthusiasts would keep this in perspective.

Click to expand...

Do you suppose any of the salamanders that you might keep would be on the approved list? I rather doubt it. This legislation is being backed by people that think we shouldn't have the right to keep any animals at all as pets. I do favor sound conservation efforts but don't see this legislation as being one. My extensive salamander collection is no threat to the environment if I manage it correctly and obey laws that are already in place.

fishkeeper said:

I looked at the bill. goldfish(despite being terrible invasives) are on the permitted list. So are dogs and cats.

However, anything slightly atypical as a pet is not!

Click to expand...

In fairness, we don't know what species will/won't be on the final list of approved species. The bill approves cats, dogs and goldfish right off the bat, but many other species could also be included. But we just don't know.

For fun, try googling "goldfish invasive species". They are one of the worst!

The other disturbing piece in this bill is the provision making ALL non-native species (even the ones on the Approved List) non-mailable matter. So even if there are 50 species of exotic caudates permitted, we still wouldn't be allowed to exchange the offspring (which usually involves shipping).

Socrates said:

I have taken various politics classes and US government classes. I can tell you that it is actually somewhat unconstitutional to enact a law that punishes people already doing/possessing something that was deemed legal before the law was present. Meaning, one can't decide to make drinking coffee illegal on Tuesday and then punish someone who drank coffee on Monday, before the law came into effect. This is what will happen in a sense with the pet trade, people already have these deemed "nonnative species" as pets, so what is the government going to do to people who own all those pets? Are they planning to euthanize millions of these animalsl? Take possession of them from the people and do what with them? Plus, people may panic and release their pets to the wild, then we would really have a problem on our hands now wouldn't we? But the most obvious of points is if you make it illegal, people will still trade/sell these animals. It could backfire with people importing even more. I would just like to say I agree how this Bill has no scientific merit and how interests groups can be very dangerous, we need to take action and not allow this to occur.

Click to expand...

The bill would not make animals already owned "illegal". It doesn't take away anyone's pet. Thus it does not punish people for doing something that was previously legal. And it doesn't require mass euthanasia (though in the case of people who have an exotic and want to move to another state, euthanasia might be the only legal option).