NO HR 669

Tomorrow, a subcommittee in the United States Congress will again consider HR 2811. I’ve written on the NOHR669.com Blog in the past about HR 2811 and how if passed it would ban the import and interstate transport of pet pythons.

Proponents of HR 2811 claim that pythons are a threat to ecosystems and human health in the United States and even thought they’ve been kept as pets for over four decades in this country, they should be banned.

Python owners would be glad to tell you that while there are certainly some irresponsible snake keepers in the country, the vast majority of people that keep these magnificent animals as pets are careful, law abiding citizens that love their slithery pets as much as anyone else would love a cat or a dog.

So if you don’t own a python or don’t even like snakes, why should you care? Well, I’m glad you asked. You should care because if passed, HR 2811 would become the first US law to effectively end ownership of a common and popular household pet. The passing of 2811 would set a precedent giving the United States government the green light to start banning more pets if they so desired. What if they pass 2811 and next year decide that parrots are a threat to US ecosystems? What about ferrets? What about cats? At some point, pet owners in mass would be outraged and would take action … I’m asking you for that action now. Let’s tell Congress no before they even get started. Let’s tell Congress to keep their hands off of our pets and to work on real problems in this country like the economy, jobs, healthcare, and all the important work that they should be doing. Let’s stand together and make a difference for ourselves and each other today … and in the future.

Below is an action alert crafted by the United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK). They have been working extremely hard over the last few days getting reptile keepers from all over the country to call the numbers below and say no to HR 2811. I’m asking everyone that worked so hard fighting HR 669 to take a couple minutes and call as many of the numbers below as possible tomorrow morning (11/05/2009). The hearing is at 12:30pm EST, so it’s critical that pet owners flood the Congressional switch board with as many phone calls as possible in the hours before the hearing. This fight won’t work unless we all get involved and speak out with a single, unified voice. Your help can make a huge difference for all pet owners.

I’ll be attending the hearing tomorrow afternoon and will post information on the NOHR669.com Blog as soon as I get home.

Thank you in advance for your help and God Bless.

Adam Wysocki
NOHR669.com/The National Pet Association

UPDATE: The hearing has been postponed until Friday, November 6th at 10:00am … please continue to call all day on the 5th and from 8am until 10am on the 6th.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

Please join the Reptile Nation in a Congressional Call In Opposing HR2811 aka The Python Ban November 2, 3 & 4. If you value your Boas & Pythons you will participate and encourage your entire sphere of influence to do the same. There is a Hearing in front of the House Judiciary Committee, Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism & Homeland Security scheduled for November 5th. Please call in and OPPOSE HR2811.

As originally written HR2811 would add the entire genus python to the Injurious Wildlife List of the Lacey Act. This would effectively end the Import, Export and Interstate Transport of any animals listed. In July USARK was successful in narrowing the scope of the bill by removing most pythons with an amendment offered by Congressman Tom Rooney. The amendment would limit the bill to the Burmese Python and the African Python. In addition committee staff agreed in principle to further amend the bill to allow the captive bred trade in these two snakes to continue. To date this promise has not been kept and the HR2811 has not been amended to allow for captive bred trade.

Meanwhile the USGS Risk Assessment of 9 Large Constricting Snakes has been released. The Humane Society of the United States is lobbying hard to have HR2811 amended to include the entire genus python, as well as the four species of anaconda, and Boa Constrictor referred to in the USGS report. Do not assume that HSUS will not be successful in getting HR2811 amended to reflect these changes. Only USARK and the Reptile Nation stand between HSUS and the destruction of our community.

Our science experts have done a cursory analysis of the USGS report and characterize it as “…loose with numerous mistakes and inaccuracies. It is an oversimplification of a very complicated topic.” The bottom line is it is not the solid piece of science HSUS wanted to use as a tool to break the back of our community. However that has not stopped them from mischaracterizing it as just that.

What can I do?

***November 2,3 & 4 Call In and Fax the Subcommittee and voice your opposition to HR2811. Be polite & professional!

Script:

My name is____. I oppose HR2811. It is overly simplistic and politically driven. It is poorly thought out and sacrifices good science for political expediency. The negative economic impact for my family and business would be significant. Please oppose HR2811. Thank you for your consideration.

Call List:

Sponsor:

Congressman Kendrick Meek (D-FL), Sponsor
Washington DC: phone 202-225-4506; fax 202-226-0777
Miami: phone 305-690-5905; fax 305-690-5951

Cosponsors:

Congressman Alcee Hastings (D-FL)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-1313; fax 202-225-8398
Ft. Lauderdale: phone 954-733-2800

Congressman John Lewis (D-GA)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-3801; fax 202-225-0351
Atlanta: phone 404-659-0116

Congressman Robert Wexler (D-FL)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-3001; fax 202-225-5974
Boca Raton: phone 561-988-6302; fax 561-988-6423

Congresswoman Mazie Hirono (HI-2)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-4906; fax 202-225-4987
Honolulu: phone 808-541-1986

Congressman Tom Rooney (R-FL)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-5792; fax 202-225-3132
Punta Gorda: phone 941-575-9101; fax 941-575-9103

Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism & Homeland Security:

Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-8351; fax 202-225-8354
Richmond: phone 804-644-4845

Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren (D-CA)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-3072; fax 202-225-3336
San Jose: phone 408-271-8700

Congresswoman Shelia Jackson Lee (D-TX)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-3816; fax 202-225-3317
Houston: phone 713-691-4882

Congresswoman Maxine Waters (D-CA)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-2201; fax 202-225-7854
Los Angeles: phone 323-757-8900

Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-3265; fax 202-225-5663
Memphis: phone 901-544-4131

Congressman Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-2615; fax 202-225-2154
San Juan: phone 787-723-6333

Congressman Bob Goodlatte (R-VA)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-5431; fax 202-225-9681
Roanoke: phone 540-857-2672

Congressman Dan Lungren (R-CA)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-5716; fax 202-226-1298
Gold River: phone 916-859-9906

Congressman Louie Gohmert (R-TX)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-3035; fax 202-226-1230
Tyler: phone 903-561-6349

Congressman Ted Poe (R-TX)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-6565; fax 202-225-5547
Beaumont: phone 409-212-1997

Congressman Randy Forbes (R-VA)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-6365; fax 202-226-1170
Chesapeake: 757-382-0080; fax 757-382-0780

Congressman Jerrold Nadler (D-NY)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-5635
New York: phone 212-367-7350

Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-7931; fax 202-226-2052
Pembroke Pines: phone 954-437-3936; fax 954-437-4776

Congressman Anthony Weiner (D-NY)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-6616
Brooklyn: phone 718-743-0441

Congressman Mike Quigley (D-IL)
Washington DC: phone 202-225-4061; fax 202-225-5603
Chicago: phone 773-267-5926; fax 773-267-6583

Just got back in the office from the HR 2811 hearing in Washington, D.C. and I wanted to post about what happened.

In case you don’t know, HR 2811 is a proposed bill in Congress that seeks to amend existing legislation to ban the interstate transport, import, and export, of 7 species of pythons. These seven species include one of the most popular pet snakes in the country … the ball python.

Even if you’re not a snake fan, HR 2811 should scare the life out of you. This is the first time ever that the US Congress, without testimony form experts or any facts based in real science, has attempted to ban a species that has been in the pet trade for decades. Pet owners should be very concerned.

At todays meeting in Congress, only three of the dozen or so Congressmen chose to speak … The committee chair read a statement and stated that an amendment would be introduced at the full committee markup meeting to limit the ban to only burmese pythons and rock pythons. It is not clear if captive bred pets will be affected.

The ranking member, Rep Gohmert, called for scientific testimony so that he could make an informed decision. He stated that no one on the subcommittee was a reptile expert.

Representative Wasserman Schultz from Florida called for a ban on even more species to prevent potential future “invasions” (this statement should scare everyone with a pet) … She also lied to the subcommittee and stated that all 100,000 pythons in the everglades were confirmed to be released pets … probably one of the biggest lies perpetrated on the American public.

Tomorrow morning at 10am is the full committee meeting. It’s not a vote, just the next step in the life of HR 2811 … I’ll be there and will report on what happened as soon as I get home.

In the mean time … keep calling!!! …. Tell the committee members that you would like for them to hear expert testimony so that they can inform and educate themselves before HR 2811 goes any further. Even if you don’t own a snake, call … if they can do this to one or two species of pet, they can do it to all of them!

For more information, check out this link at PIJAC. Scroll down to where it says “U.S. House Judiciary Committee To Consider Python Ban This Week” and then TAKE ACTION!!!

Adam Wysocki
www.nohr669.com

Yesterday, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (EPW) subcommittees on Water and Wildlife as well as Oversight held a joint hearing entitled “Threats to Native Wildlife species”. Senator Benjamin Cardin (the chair of the water and wildlife subcommittee) oversaw the proceedings.

Witnesses included representatives from the United States Fish and Wildlife service, United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Smithsonian Environmental Research Center. In the audience, there were representatives from the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK), and other like minded stakeholders.

Senator Cardin did an excellent job running the hearing and making sure all aspects of the threats from invasive species were covered. The Senator asked very important and insightful questions and really made an excellent effort to get to the heart of the invasive species issues confronting United States ecosystems.

The vast majority of the hearing had little to do with pets and pet owners. Much of the hearing focused on American bat populations and the threat to them from “white nose disease”, nutria, zebra muscles and ballast water, Asian beetles, and a host of other non-native plants and insects that are in the United States as a result of the shipping, transport, food, and recreational industries.

Senator Bill Nelson took the opportunity to use his opening remarks to attempt to gain support for his proposed legislation, S 373. He used a long skin from a Burmese python as a prop and very passionately described the process of a constrictor swallowing it’s prey whole. There were a couple of confusing elements of Senator Nelsons testimony. When he spoke, he claimed that there are “150,000 to 180,000” Burmese pythons currently living in the Everglades. In his written testimony submitted to the subcommittees, he states the number is just over 100,000. Both of these numbers are in stark contrast to the Humane Society of the United States claim of 25,000 and the Nature Conservancy’s claim of 10,000. That’s a pretty broad range of numbers and it would appear that no one seems to really have a handle on the issue. Senator Nelson also closed his remarks by stating that he didn’t want a ban on “all constrictors, just [Burmese pythons]”. That’s a pretty odd statement because his proposed legislation (S 373) is entitled “To amend title 18, United States Code, to include constrictor snakes of the species Python genera as an injurious animal.” .. and the genus “Python” is not a single animal, but a group of almost a dozen “constrictors” (including the Burmese python). Some of the snakes in the genus Python grow to under 4 feet in length and are about the width of a household flashlight. Other than the Burmese pythons, none of the other snakes are considered to be “invading” Floridas Everglades or are talked about as potentially invasive species. So what is Senator Nelson thinking? Was S 373 written incorrectly or is this the typical double speak that most Americans consider standard practice for our politicians?

Adam Wysocki
www.nohr669.com

On Monday’s Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) blog, the organizations leader calls for both state and federal legislation outlawing the keeping of exotic pets. In the blog post titled “There Oughta Be Laws Against Exotic Pets” the chief executive officer, speaking on behalf of the HSUS, calls the keeping of exotic pets “foolish”. I have a feeling that the 26 million plus exotic pet owning families in the United States would disagree.

Just so we’re clear, let’s take a look at what the HSUS considers an exotic pet to be. An article on the HSUS website titled “Questions and Answers about Wild and Exotic Animals as Pets” states the following:

“Should Individuals Keep Wild or Exotic Animals as Pets?

No. Wild and exotic (non-native) animals are unsuitable for home rearing and handling. … “

Obviously, the HSUS considers all non-native pets “exotic” and therefore “foolish”. So your birds, fish, turtles, geckos, and turtles are all in the sights of the HSUS and if they have their way, you’ll have to say goodbye to your beloved animals.

Of course, the focus of the article is Burmese pythons. As I’ve pointed out in past blog posts, keeping a python as a pet is no more dangerous than swimming in a swimming pool, riding a dirt bike, or jumping on a trampoline. The reality is that pythons are an easy target when you want to talk about federal bans on so-called dangerous animals. It’s common for special interest groups that are against the keeping of pets like parrots, chinchillas, tropical fish, and even frogs to constantly point to pythons and use them as a poster child for pushing legislation that will eventually end the keeping of all “non-traditional” pets. Don’t be fooled by the misdirection, it’s one of the oldest and most classic cons.

The truth is that the title of the HSUS blog post didn’t say “pythons” or “dangerous animals” it used the words “EXOTIC PETS” … and on their own website the HSUS defines “exotics” as ALL non-native species kept as pets in the United States. If you own a bird, or have a tropical or salt water fish tank in your home, or keep any number of thousands of non-native species as your pets you might want to think twice before the next time you send a donation to the Humane Society of the United States. They think that you’re a fool, and if you send them money you just might be.

Adam Wysocki
www.nohr669.com

Today was a difficult today. It’s difficult being a pet owner and advocating for pet owners on a day when a 2 year old girl lost her life to a pet. The death of a child is never something that should be dismissed or explained away and I don’t intend to do that. What I would like to do is reflect on personal responsibility.

Based on what is being reported by the media, this tragedy could have been prevented if Charles Darnell (the owner of the python) had taken personal responsibility for the care of his animals or for the safety of people in his home. Mr. Darnell should have kept his python in a secure, escape proof enclosure, just like the tens of thousands of other python owners in America do. It’s not like he didn’t know that his snakes enclosure was worthless for securing his snake … he told sheriffs deputies that the snake frequently escaped in the past. Last night, with small children spending the night in his home and knowing that his python frequently gets out in the middle of the night, Mr Darnell should have done more than just gone to sleep. A little girl is dead because Mr Darnell didn’t act responsibly as a python keeper or as an adult.

Some people say that asking people to have personal responsibility is asking too much. Some say, just don’t allow people to keep snakes because they’ll never be responsible enough to keep dangerous animals like giant pythons. Would those people say the same about swimming pools? Did you know that from 1990 – 1995 9,720 people died in swimming pools in the United States? That’s just a small 5 year period. In contrast according to the Humane Society of the United States, since 1980, there have only been 12 deaths involving pythons … and a couple of those deaths were related to zoos and had nothing to do with pet ownership. 12 deaths in 30 years certainly is tragic, but far better than a lot of other statistics we see when potentially dangerous things like swimming pools, hand guns, all terrain vehicles (ATVs) are kept without personal responsibility. 12 deaths in just about 30 years is a testament to the seriousness and personal responsibility that python keepers exercise in the care of their animals. As with swimming pools, and hand guns, and even all terrain vehicles there are always certainly going to be individuals that do not exercise personal responsibility and allow tragic accidents to occur. The good news is that we live in a country where lack of judgement or responsibility by the few does not result in the punishment of the many and the responsible. Or at least that’s how I believe the founding fathers imagined it would work.

Some people saw that more laws will help. Really? Mr Darnell was already in violation of Florida law. He did not have the required permit for his animal and he did not keep the animal in a secure enclosure as mandated by the state of Florida. What makes anyone believe that more laws will suddenly turn Mr Darnell into a law abiding citizen? Laws will only force people underground. Laws will only cause more tragedies like todays to occur.

So what’s the answer? I’m not sure that it’s as simple as that. If there was a magic wand that someone could wave that would prevent what happened today in Florida from happening again, or stop the hundreds of drownings that will occur in swimming pools this summer, or save a single child from falling off the back of a ATV I have no doubt that it would have been waved by now. I only know what I believe to be true and that’s the simple idea of personal responsibility. I think that if you’re a python owner and you’re reading this blog because you’re worried about someone taking your python away you need to ask yourself a question. Where does your personal responsibility end? Is it just making your that your snake is in a secure enclosure and well taken care of and that you are following all local, state, and federal laws with regards to your pet? Or is it more than that? Should you be doing more? Can you do more? Could you figure out how to start educating people you know about pythons? Friends, co-workers, strangers? Could you spread the word that sensational media aside, owning constrictors is certainly not for everyone, but for you it’s completey safe and a lot of fun? Do you think that you could convince one person that was afraid of snakes that there really is no reason to be afraid when snakes are kept responsibly? Could you convince two people? How about three? Now imagine if every python owner convinced three people a month that they have nothing to fear from pet pythons? How about three people a week? How long do you think it would take before python owners didn’t have to worry about losing their snakes anymore? Not long I’d guess.

To the rest of my pet owning friends reading this … the bird owners, fish keepers, dog, cat, and small mammal lovers … how about your personal responsibility? Not just to your pets … not just to your “animal of choice” … but to your fellow pet owners. Are you the type of pet owner that is content to say “as long as they’re not coming after my pets they can do what they want to the python people”? Really? Because it could be you next. It could be you now. Maybe there’s a bigger picture when it comes to pet ownership and personal responsibility. Maybe it’s about more than just “ourselves”. Maybe, it’s about “each other” too. So if you own a bird, or dog, or cat, or gerbil, or reef tank, next time you hear someone trashing python owners and their right to own pythons … maybe you can put in a good word for them .. because in the end, they’re a pet owner just like you.

Adam Wysocki
www.nohr669.com

This just in from WKMG in Orlando, FL … The young child killed by the python this morning was a 2 year old girl and the snake was a family pet. It is not known whether the owners were in compliance with Floridas licensing laws for large constrictors of if the animal was being kept illegally. At this time, it appears that the incident has nothing to do with the pythons living in the Florida Everglades.

Again, my heart goes out to the family of the little girl.

More info (including a link to the article) is included in my previous post.

Early reports from an Orlando, FL news station are saying that a young child was killed this morning by a python. At this time it is not known whether the snake was a pet or one of the notorious Burmese pythons that have taken up residence in Florida’s everglades. The area where the child was killed is several hundred miles north of the known Florida population of pythons, so this is most likely a pet related tragedy. Either way, this story will undoubtedly lead to further intensified debates over invasive species and the rights of Americans to own pets in a responsible way in the days and weeks ahead.

For now, my heart goes out to the family and friends of the child. Having two young sons myself and can’t even imagine the grief that comes from losing a child. Please take a moment today to keep the family in your thoughts.

http://www.clickorlando.com/news/19914383/detail.html

When a national organization that I have absolutely no membership in or affiliation with is spending tens of millions of dollars every year to make local, state, and federal legislative changes that have a direct impact on my families way of life is it really “paranoia” for me to question their motives? Is it reasonable for them to expect me to just read their literature and agree with them wholeheartedly?

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an animal rights organization that has come out in support of HR 669. On their website, they published an article titled “THE FACTS VS. THE MYTHS Why We Need H.R. 669 To Prevent Invasive Species”. After reading the article and being familiar with the real intent behind HR 669, it appears to me that the UCS really isn’t concerned about science and fact and would rather “spin” the truth into propaganda supporting HR 669.

The following paragraphs are taken directly from their article (that you can read yourself here) … my responses to their so-called “facts” are in red.

Myth: This bill is not necessary.
Fact (aka UCS “SPIN”): Hundreds of millions of animals are imported and traded each year in the U.S. with little oversight, and at significant risk to people, native species, the environment, and economic activity. The current system for restricting imports of problematic species (the Lacey Act) takes years and typically occurs only after substantial damage by the species has been done. H.R. 669 would prevent harmful species from entering the country in the first place, taking a proactive approach to protecting our nation’s resources and public health. Also, it would ensure that imported organisms are properly and scientifically identified.

THE REALITY: “Little oversight” is an extreme understatement that borders on fear mongering. Fauna imported into the United States is strictly controlled by the United States Fish and Wildlife service under the supervision of the US Department of the Interior. Every plant and animal brought into the United States is documented, accounted for, in many cases pre-approved through an international permit system, and subject to inspection by USFW as well the United States Customs Service. While no one disagrees that invasive species are a real concern to United States ecosystems, most are in agreement that HR 669 will not only potentially ban animals nationwide that are only a threat in small areas of the country as well as place an unrealistic burden on the USFW screening process making it more difficult and expensive to bring animals that aren’t banned into the country. If the Lacey Act is slow, why not make improvements to the process instead of burdening the system with yet another set of “big government” regulations that will cost even more money and be even more difficult to enforce?

Myth: This bill is not based on science.
Fact (aka UCS “SPIN”): H.R. 669 requires a science-based evaluation of species to determine whether they should be allowed or prohibited from importation and interstate commerce. For over 20 years, scientists have urged the federal government to employ an analytical process as the most effective means of preventing harmful invasive species from being intentionally imported into the country. Scientists have developed rapid risk assessment techniques to differentiate between invasive and non-invasive species. By assessing the traits of a nonnative species, as well as the climate of its native range, any history of invasiveness, and other factors, wildlife biologists can determine whether importing a nonnative animal species into the country poses serious risks. See sections 3(c), 4 and 5 of the bill for more details.

THE REALITY: There is absolutely nothing scientific about the “likelihood test” that HR 669 uses to determine if a species is invasive. What the Union of Concerned Scientists fails to point out is that in section 3(b), HR 669 defines eleven factors to be considered when determining whether or not a species is invasive and subsequently banned. Seven of those factors start off with “the likelihood”. “Likelihood” is in no way a scientific means for determining anything. “Likelihood” is someone’s opinion and not based in science. “Likelihood” can mean one thing to one person and something totally different to someone else. Usually a science is characterized by the possibility of making precise statements which are susceptible of some sort of check or proof. “Likelihood” is neither precise nor susceptible to some sort of check or proof. Saying that HR 669 is based in “science” is the one of the biggest lies that proponents of the resolution use when advocating in its favor.

Myth: All nonnative species will be banned.
Fact (aka UCS “SPIN”): H.R. 669 does not ban any species per se; rather, it establishes a science-based process to analyze animal imports for their likelihood to cause harm to our economy, our health, our environment, or other animals. The evaluation process put in place by H.R. 669 will only prevent the importation of species that are judged to be a serious risk. Further, the bill requires that this process be transparent and that stakeholder input be considered in decision-making.

THE REALITY: This is the worst “spin” on HR 669 yet. As a matter of fact, HR 669’s “guilty until proven innocent” approach to invasive species management by default bans all non-native species (with the exception of the 15 species listed in section 14(D)) and then gives the Secretary of the Interior 36 months to evaluate tens of thousands of non-native species and determine which will not be affected by HR 669. During the 36 months while the list is being created the ban is “on hold”, but if those evaluations are not completed on time animals that might not actually be invasive will be banned by default. Or, to make it a little clearer, if no non-native species are evaluated by the Secretary of the Interior during the initial 36 months, each and every one will be banned.

Myth: My pets will be taken away from me and possibly killed.
Fact (aka UCS “SPIN”): Any decisions to prohibit species’ import will not affect current pets or domesticated animals. Under H.R. 669 all current pets, even those species that cannot be imported in the future, may be kept by their owners. See section 3(f) of the bill for more details. Domesticated animals, including those listed in Section 14 such as dogs, cats, rabbits, horses, goldfish, and others identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would be exempt from the risk analysis process.

THE REALITY: Current pets will absolutely be affected and HR 669 obviously isn’t about domesticated animals. HR 669 IS about the 17 million households that could be affected if they can’t prove that they owned their bird, fish, lizard, hamster, or snake before a certain period in time. HR 669 has a “grandfather” clause in section 3(f) that will allow you to keep any banned species as a pet if you can prove that you owned it prior to HR 669 going into effect. So if you’ve kept your proof of purchase for your clown fish, gerbil, or pet turtle, you’ll be fine. If not, your animal will be subject to confiscation and killed. You could potentially be charge with a Federal crime that could put you in jail and cost you thousands of dollars in fines. But even if you have that proof of purchase, you won’t be able to take your pet across state lines if you want to move out of state, or take a vacation, or visit a friend or veterinarian. Proponents claim that a permit system for interstate transport of pets permitted by section 3(f) is possible, but admit that it would be extremely difficult to develop and enforce and most likely be cost prohibitive.

Myth: This bill recommends appropriating excessive amounts of taxpayer dollars to fund the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Fact (aka UCS “SPIN”): H.R. 669 does not include a specific appropriation for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to implement this program. Instead, it authorizes the establishment of a fund to pay for this program partly by fees the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service could charge applicants who recommend species to be evaluated for importation. Congressional decisions to spend taxpayer money to fund federal agencies are through an annual appropriations process, which is separate from consideration of this bill. Furthermore, the costs of not acting would be greater; without legislation like H.R. 669 to prevent the introduction of invasive and harmful species into the country the nation will spend even more money controlling these species - costs that already total tens of millions of dollars per year.

THE REALITY: This response by the UCS supports the worst kind of government bureaucracy … the kind that has no budget, no fiscal responsibility, and no cost benefit analysis. During the greatest economic crisis in the United States since the great depression, the Union of Concerned Scientists wants to advocate a position of “just make this a law and it will get paid for somehow”. But what they won’t say, what no one is willing to say is how much the cost to taxpayers will be to have the United States Fish and Wildlife Service spend three years evaluating tens of thousands of species using “scientific methods” to determine if they should be permanently banned from the United States. No one is willing to say how much it will cost to run the publically available internet site called for in HR 669 including a webmaster, software, support hardware, high speed internet, etc. No one will say how much it will cost to administer the “Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Fund” mandated by HR 669. And no one will say how much it will cost to establish and administer the permit system created by HR 669. If the UCS is correct and some of the funding will come from fees paid by applicants who recommend species to be evaluated for importation, what happens at the end of 36 months if there isn’t enough money collected in fees to cover the cost of all of the evaluations that USFW is required to do? Thousands of non-native species could potentially be banned from the pet trade just because the budgeting wasn’t worked out correctly. The argument that money will come out of the USFW budget is even more troublesome. USFW is already understaffed as it is investigating, arresting, and prosecuting real criminals that deal in the already illegal activity of smuggling endangered species into this country (as well as the many other great things that they do). Taking money away from those programs to evaluate tens of thousands of species that according to proponents of HR 669 will most likely be allowed anyway seems like more out of control and inefficient government policy.

Myth: The benefits of this bill are questionable and non-quantifiable.
Fact (aka UCS “SPIN”): Risk screening programs like the one H.R. 669 would set-up have shown significant economic benefits. Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and other nations have implemented this type of proactive screening system. If the United States had H.R. 669 in place 20 years ago, we could have prevented many damaging and costly invasions, including snakehead fish, Burmese python, silver carp, red lionfish, giant Gambian rat, and others.

THE REALITY: New Zealand and Israel are no comparison to the United States in either sheer size or diversity of eco-systems. Since countries like New Zealand and Israel are about the size of some US states, it makes sense that a species that is invasive in one part of those counties will likely be a problem in the rest of the country. Not so in the US. Species that might get a foothold in Florida or Texas, many times would never have a chance of surviving in the cooler northern climates of Maine, Montana, and North Dakota. Unfortunately, HR 669 and it’s proponents gloss over this fact using the “well it works in Israel” excuse. What they don’t tell you is that the “well it works in Israel” excuse unfairly punishes pet owners in the entire United States for the problems of a single ecosystem in one small region of the country.

Myth: This bill will shut down the pet industry overnight, costing jobs and hurting the economy, and will stop the work of zoos, aquariums, and research institutions.
Fact (aka UCS “SPIN”): Much of the pet trade will be unaffected by H.R. 669; further, the evaluation process it creates will take more than three years to come into effect, allowing the industry time to adjust. H.R. 669 would have no impact on the trade in domesticated animals including cats, dogs, and so on. (See section 14 of the bill for a list of animals that are exempt, a list the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can expand.)  Any nonnative wild animal species could continue to be imported and traded if it was evaluated and found, after stakeholder and public input, not to pose threats to people, native species, the economy, or the environment. Accredited zoos and aquariums, as well as research and educational institutions, will be able to acquire special permits to hold species that are otherwise not approved for import.

THE REALITY: The three year evaluation process is exactly why the pet trade will be severely affected by HR 669. American business involved in the pet trade can’t afford to wait three years for an evaluation process and then adjust to the results at the drop of a hat. The three years of limbo that will be created by the passage of HR 669 will force many pet stores, pet breeders, and pet product businesses to make hard decisions right away instead of waiting three years to see if they’ll be able to make it. Why would anyone invest in or attempt to grow a business without knowing for sure if they’ll even be able to legally work with an animal or an animal husbandry item because that animal has been banned by HR 669? Who would extend a line of credit to a business that might not be around after three years? Businesses can’t afford to sit stagnant and wait for USFW for three years to see if they’ll still be in business. The result will likely be the end of many pet stores and pet product manufacturers creating unemployment and a ripple effect through the businesses that supply them with goods and raw materials. As far as accredited zoos and aquariums, HR 669 allows them a permit to import banned species, but there is no language in HR 669 about permits for breeding. Captive breeding programs in species that are banned by HR 669 will be ended and wild populations will suffer as animals are unnecessarily imported instead of bred here in the United States.

Adam Wysocki
www.nohr669.com

While just about all of the animal rights groups have come out with statements supporting HR 669, are they really listening to what their members want?

I took a quick look over at the PETA.org message boards and within a couple of seconds of searching, I found the following quotes from members of the boards:

“This proposed ban is a bad idea.” -Mcdowelli76

“Can’t take them over state lines either, so if you have to move out of state you have to take your pet to be killed, you couldn’t even legally give it away to someone. ” -Fishy

“The government has much more pressing matters than trying to review the umpteen submissions and petitions it would receive to allow different species under this piece of legislation, not to mention the impossible logistics of trying to enforce such a law.” -Partix92

And the post that I thought was especially interesting …

“I e-mailed PETA about this and they support it, even the part about making it illegal to take animals across state lines (as well as breed them, trade and sell them) so that if you had to move out of state and had a pet on the unaccepted list, your only legal option would be to have it killed.

Also, any unaccepted animals born after the ban would be euthanized, and you couldn’t adopt out any on the list either. So if animal shelters had some iguanas and they became banned, they’d have to kill them.

I asked if they’d protest to have the bill re-written to only ban importation and breeding, but not make the animals themselves unacceptable, they told me no. ” -Fishy

HR 669 is such a horribly bad idea that the animal rights groups that are behind the bill can’t even get their own members to stand with them.

Hopefully, these organizations as well as the United States Congress will listen to the hundreds of thousands of people all around the country that do not agree with HR 669. If we continue to talk about it, make sure our voices are heard, and fight for our rights as pet owners, maybe they will.

(One of the HR 669 threads over on the PETA.org message boards can be found here. They even provide a link to www.nohr669.com which I thought was a nice touch.)

Adam Wysocki
www.nohr669.com