# H.R. 5864 - Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act of 2012



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 1, 2012)

*I'm putting it here, because it does regard tortoises (exotic reptiles non-native to the U.S.)* If the mods see fit to move it elsewhere, so be it.
--------------------------
H.R. 5864​


> Summary: To establish an improved regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites that are likely to cause harm.



You can find and read the full text here (both in plain text and in PDF)

*****
Make sure you take the time to read the full text. If anyone remembers the bill H.R. 669 back in 2008, this is more or less a revision of it.

H.R. 669 was essentially an attempt to ban ALL non-native species from importation, interstate travel and ownership within the United States. Think about that; thatâ€™s any species of animal (and plant) that is not native to the U.S. This would include dogs, cats, several forms of livestock, hamsters, rabbits, tropical fish, most exotic reptiles, amphibians and birds, etc. If it had passed, that bill would have decimated the pet industry and made millions of pet owners felons overnight. Fortunately, the efforts of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), United States Association of Reptile Keepers (USARK) and the collective pet community as a whole, H.R. 669 was defeated.

Now, with a few modifications, itâ€™s back in the form of H.R. 5864. One major difference in this bill and its predecessor is that it excludes most common/domesticated animals from â€œnon-nativeâ€ status. This list of exemptions includes dogs, cats, most forms of livestock & poultry, rabbits, hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets, canaries, goldfish and â€œany other species or subspecies that the Service determines to be common and clearly domesticated.â€

What it curiously does not include on that list of exemptions are any exotic reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, tropical birds, tropical fish, chinchillas, hedgehogs, or sugar glidersâ€¦just to name a few. So to sum it up, if you were to own any type of tortoises or turtles that are not native to the United States...it would be illegal if this bill gets passed.

******

Now, realistically, this bill will likely not pass in its current form. H.R. 669 had plenty of opposition from PIJAC, USARK and the pet industry in general. But I did post this to show everyone that these â€œdumb lawsâ€ arenâ€™t going to quit.

I would start typing out some letters and get ready to do what you need to do to fight this one. Stay tuned for updates.


----------



## DixieParadise (Jun 1, 2012)

WOW...thanks for the info and update.


----------



## chairman (Jun 1, 2012)

Already had to shoot off a couple letters this calendar year to my state reps for a proposed partial reptile ban in my state. I ought to put together a form letter and find an email program that will automatically send it to all my elected officials on an annual basis.


----------



## Tom (Jun 2, 2012)

Great... here we go again...

The economy is collapsing, the constitution is being eroded, crime, injustice and corruption are rampant at every level of government, we are spending far more than the working class is earning,.......................

BUT lets spend a whole bunch of time and resources on banning the horrible scourge Tom and Mike's pet turtles. Now THIS is a matter of HUGE national importance. Joe the plumber's pet ball python could RUIN our entire society as we know it, so we must work tirelessly to BAN it. Lets put war, poverty, joblessness, crime, AND GOVERNMENT CORRUPTION, all on the back burner for now... We have got to put an end to the terrible threat of people having pet tarantulas and such!


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 2, 2012)

Tom said:


> BUT lets spend a whole bunch of time and resources on banning the horrible scourge Tom and Mike's pet turtles.



So this is all yours and Mike's fault!!!


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 2, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Tom said:
> 
> 
> > BUT lets spend a whole bunch of time and resources on banning the horrible scourge Tom and Mike's pet turtles.
> ...



[Feints hand on forehand in dramatic fashion]

They finally caught up to us! Us and our dangerous tortoises digging tunnels under highways and eating up all of the flowers and....grass. Now the non-native tortoises are going after our native birds!


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 2, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> [Feints hand on forehand in dramatic fashion]
> 
> They finally caught up to us! Us and our dangerous tortoises digging tunnels under highways and eating up all of the flowers and....grass. Now the non-native tortoises are going after our native birds!



Shows just how smart the non-native tortoises really are. It appears only they eat the native plants and birds, while the native ones leave them alone.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 2, 2012)

I always thought it was tom's fault,now my suspicions have been confirmed.


----------



## jaizei (Jun 3, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> So to sum it up, if you were to own any type of tortoises or turtles that are not native to the United States...it would be illegal if this bill gets passed.



I do not think this is an accurate summary.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 3, 2012)

jaizei said:


> StudentoftheReptile said:
> 
> 
> > So to sum it up, if you were to own any type of tortoises or turtles that are not native to the United States...it would be illegal if this bill gets passed.
> ...



I see injurious, pathogens, and parasites as the key criteria. I am not sure that this applies to any or all nonnative chelonians.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 3, 2012)

Baoh said:


> jaizei said:
> 
> 
> > StudentoftheReptile said:
> ...



That's how H.R. 699 started, too. 

I didn't see anywhere in the text where any non-native chelonians (or reptiles period, for that matter) were exempt, so unless I just missed something in there (and I'll admit, I've been wrong before), one could only surmise that any tortoise or turtle species not native to the U.S. would no longer be imported, and prohibited from interstate travel. If I remember the text correctly, current owners would be grandfathered in, but it would certainly be difficult for someone to acquire any new ones.

Again, I would assert that in its current form, this legislation is too vague and too broad and would have too much of an economic impact to get passed. It will meet enough opposition from special interest groups to knock it back. My main point is that they've tried this before 4 yrs ago, and they're not backing down.

Now it is still early on where it is only my opinion that their objective on paper is different from their underlying agenda. I still personally think they could give a rip about the environment, and this is just about attacking the exotic pet trade again. [shrugs] They just had a reasonable victory in Ohio and I fear it will only inspire more. Time will tell, I suppose.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 3, 2012)

One could surmise that if the animals were known to be injurious and/or carry pathogens and/or parasites which are likely to cause harm, then they would not be exempt.

Are these nonnative chelonians considered to be injurious and/or possess pathogens and/or parasites which are likely to cause harm?

I am going by what is stated rather than what has not been stated as it relates to this proposal.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 4, 2012)

> The purpose of this Act is to establish an improved regulatory
> process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and
> establishment in the United States of nonnative *wildlife* and wild
> animal pathogens and parasites that are likely to cause--
> ...





> (8) Native.--The term ``native'', with respect to a
> wildlife taxon, means a wildlife taxon that historically
> occurred or currently occurs in the United States, other than
> as a result of an intentional or unintentional introduction by
> ...


----------



## Baoh (Jun 4, 2012)

Are nonnative chelonians considered to cause



> (1) economic or environmental harm; or
> (2) harm to humans or animal health.



?


----------



## Tom (Jun 4, 2012)

Well they did ban sulcata and leopard importation based on the possibility of ticks and heart water disease as a potential threat to the cattle industry. The possibility of salmonella is another bogus way for them to make chelonians fit this criterion. Call me cynical, but I think with this sort of wording, the government will interpret this any way they see fit.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 4, 2012)

That importation is already nixed. There is no indication they are attempting to take, say, captive bred sulcatas and leopards away from their keepers.

Salmonella has no distinction I have seen identified between native and nonnative species. The threat would not be additional or increased.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 4, 2012)

Baoh said:


> Are nonnative chelonians considered to cause
> 
> 
> > (1) economic or environmental harm; or
> ...




You tell me.

I can't speak for every species out there, but we all know that sulcatas are fairly adaptable and can live outdoors in much of the year in the southern portions of the country. They are more than capable of digging burrows to survive the winters. If non-govt organizations can convince the govt to do the same thing for Burmese pythons and yellow anacondas (_which they did, and those snakes have even less of a chance of establishing themselves outside of Florida_), then I say its possible for them to make the case for non-native chelonians as well. Of course, they would have to do research all aspects of each taxon, evaluating all potential effects on the environment and the economical impact on the pet industry. Of course, given the slip-shod pseudo-science "research" they did to support putting 4 constrictor snakes on the Lacey Act, I don't hold high hopes for integrity or quality information accountability on their part.

Then let's take a look at red-eared sliders. Yes, they are native to the U.S. but not ALL of the U.S. Look how much of their range has expanded just from people releasing unwanted pet RESs in areas outside their natural range. RES are a seriously invasive problem both inside and outside the U.S. and I imagine they could use that in their case for non-native aquatic turtles.



> (2) harm to humans or animal health.



As far as this goes, I'm sure they'll use the _Salmonella_ card, as well as making the case with the larger species that "these animals just require so much specialized care that most people get them on impulse and then dump them at shelters." blah blah
-----

I'm not for this bill; I'm just playing devil's advocate here. I'm not trying to insinuate that they are targeting chelonians specifically, either. My assumption is that they will attempt to just toss a blanket-ban all exotic reptiles, along with other animals not on that exemption list (tropical fish & birds, inverts, etc.). I only made that statement in my OP so that it would relate to everyone here. I've said it before and I'll say it again: do not make the naive mistake of believing that you are "safe" just because you just keep chelonians.

One thing to keep in mind is that once this bill is enacted (if it is successful in getting passed), it will be exponentially more difficult to get particular taxon removed (or rather, be placed on the list of exemptions). That is why I feel it is vitally important for everyone in the reptile community to be opposed to this bill in its current form, and push to have exotic reptiles exempt. In most cases, once a bill is passed, it is more difficult to defeat or overturn. We gotta nip this thing in the bud. Please do not sit idly by and assume, "_well, this doesn't affect me so I'm not gonna worry about it_." I assure you: it DOES affect you.

These are my opinions based on observing the activities of USARK and restrictive reptile-related legislation since 2008.




Baoh said:


> That importation is already nixed. There is no indication they are attempting to take, say, captive bred sulcatas and leopards away from their keepers.
> 
> Salmonella has no distinction I have seen identified between native and nonnative species. The threat would not be additional or increased.



LOL...I saw this post on the 2nd page, I was like "How on earth did you reply to my post 9 minutes before I posted it?!"...then I saw Tom's response on page 1! 

But Tom's right. Facts are irrelevant to these people. Just look at the laws that have already been passed! Money and politics and agenda are the only things that influence these things. They'll spin it however they want to get their point across. They've done it before and they'll do it again. They're good at it.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 4, 2012)

Give me one example of nonnative (foreign) chelonia causing environmental or economic harm in the United States. Give me one example of captive bred nonnative chelonia presenting a greater measured pathogenic or parasitic degree of harm to human or animal health in the United States. 

Much like I said before, I will go by what is stated instead of what is effectively engaging in the employment of a slippery slope fallacy.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 4, 2012)

Let me just put this out there, in California RES have decimated the pond turtle population.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 4, 2012)

dmmj said:


> Let me just put this out there, in California RES have decimated the pond turtle population.



While certainly a valid example of a native, I am talking about nationally nonnative chelonia in accordance with the terms of the proposal.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 4, 2012)

Baoh said:


> Give me one example of nonnative (foreign) chelonia causing environmental or economic harm in the United States. Give me one example of captive bred nonnative chelonia presenting a greater measured pathogenic or parasitic degree of harm to human or animal health in the United States.



[throws hands in air] LOL...dude (_or dudette? sorry I don't know ya that well yet_) I can't give you an example of either because you and I and any experienced reptile hobbyist with a brain knows there isn't any. They do not pose any more of a risk than a python or a monitor or a gecko, economically or ecologically (outside of south Florida, that is).

I *TOTALLY* see your point. I just don't think you're seeing mine. Earlier this year, HSUS, the Defenders of Wildlife and the Nature's Conservancy convinced the White House to veto-in a rule change that put Burmese pythons, yellow anacondas and African rock pythons on the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act....all on from a bogus study done by the U.S.G.S. that said those snakes could migrate out of Florida and establish themselves in the lower 2/3s of the country. 

Anyone who knows reptiles enough knows that is ridiculous. It didn't matter that the science doesn't support that theory and that the U.S.G.S. didn't even use Burmese pythons in their study. It didn't matter that the rule change would have zero effect on the environment; after all, people can still own the things and release them in their own states and furthermore, the feral pythons in the Everglades are still there, just the same. None of that mattered. The only things that mattered was the agenda of a few special interest groups trying to make life difficult for everyone else, and a couple politicians using a hot topic to further their career.

Now I'm really not trying to make this about snakes. I'm just trying to make you (and others) see what's going on here.



> Much like I said before, I will go by what is stated instead of what is effectively engaging in the employment of a slippery slope fallacy.



Slippery slope? Here's your slippery slope. When originally proposed, that rule change originally included NINE species of snakes, red-tailed boas, reticulated pythons and green anacondas among others. Because of the economic impact on the pet trade by adding those 5 species to the Lacey Act, they were removed. The other 4 species (burms, yellow anaconda, and 2 Afrock species) fell under a $100 million-a-yr threshold, which voided them from being held accountable for the quality of information. In other words, because the economic impact of adding Burmese pythons & the other 3 was not that great, no one had to be responsible for the shoddy, bogus science that the rule change was based on.

Not enough for ya? During this 4-year process, Senator Nelson in Florida (one of the main pushers for this) grew impatient with all the delays, and tried to lobby a new bill (S.373 & H.R. 2811) that would have added *ALL* species of the genus _Python_ to the Lacey Act. Lucky for us, it got defeated.
----

Trust me, they know just as well as anyone on this forum that this bill would no little to nothing in regards to preventing the spread of pathogens/contagions or protecting the environment. All this bill would do is restrict the freedoms of pet owners nationwide.



> Much like I said before, I will go by what is stated



Well...I don't know what else to say to you. You're welcome to your own viewpoints as I am mine. But unless you can find somewhere in the text of this bill that *states* that non-native chelonians will be exempt or excluded, I can only follow your own words and *go by what is stated*. 

I don't know about anyone else, but when it comes to this kind of stuff, I don't like things that are open to interpretation or left up to the discretion of such-and-such govt official. If non-native chelonians are exempt/excluded, I want them listed, down to every single genera. Them and every other exotic reptile, too!

...because right now, it doesn't.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 4, 2012)

So no suitable examples, then. It is what it is and what it is is pretty much unsupported.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 4, 2012)

I fear you are putting too much faith in the wrong places. The U.S. govt isn't exactly known for being reasonable and using sound science.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 4, 2012)

I have no fear. No undue over-concern. No need to seek a cause. I do not subscribe to exaggeration, as the inaccuracy is just another flavor of truth distortion.

The US government uses sound science quite frequently. I have the "good" fortune of frequent interface, although the bureaucratic elements are definitely of some annoyance. It just depends upon which part of the government and the issue involved.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

We're apparently living in two different countries.

Oh well...I'm tired of repeating myself. Apparently some people care about their hobby more than others.

I suppose time will tell, but for the record, I do hope you are correct.


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 5, 2012)

I have to say this has been an interesting debate and everybody has kept it very amicable too.

One of the main problems right off the bat that I have with this bill and most bills like it, is it is too open. If your going to make a law, I want details. I want to see each animal listed (I'd like to also see the reason each made it on the list, but that's never going to happen), know who is going to enforce the law, who will pay to enforce it, and if any exceptions are allowed: exactly how does an animal, person or place qualify for exemption.

If we look at the statement by Baoh of: "Much like I said before, I will go by what is stated..." and then at how open they are leaving this bill so they can add or take away at their own discretion various animals, then I think Mike is more correct in his line of worry. An example of their ability to pull or plug in any animal would be based upon this part for example:

""(XXI) any other species or 
subspecies that the Service determines 
to be common and clearly domesticated."​


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

This is for anyone who genuinely is interested in what they can do to fight this thing. Regardless of the chances of success of any such legislation, I personally believe in being proactive against this kind of stuff.
----------------
Step 1: Compile the contact information of all your state senators and state representatives. This includes both the state office address and the capital address of each official, as well as phone numbers.

Step 2: Start writing your letter. Talking points can include:
- State your position as a concerned pet owner and how this bill could affect you and the animals you keep (it is your discretion whether you want to list every single species you currently possess). Be sure to include your experience working with animals and any such relevant information.
- In general, explain that this bill in its current form is very broad and would negatively impact the pet industry, and consequently the economy.
- Describe that outside of extreme southern Florida, there is no documented cases of exotic reptiles establishing themselves in the United States as a direct result of the pet trade. There are a few species of non-native gecko species, such as the Mediterranean gecko, that have been established in several states; however, this is a result of the species hitch-hiking on shipments through port cities incidentally, not deliberately.
- Also explain that even if passed, this bill would be very ineffective for preserving ecosystems or preventing pathogens or contagions. People who still currently own non-native wildlife will still be able to do so within their own state; if they are prohibited from crossing state lines with those animals (for example, if they have to move or relocate), they may be faced with the decision to either euthanize their pets or release them into the environment if they cannot find suitable homes for them.
- Animals in captive collections present little risk to the environment, and this bill would only restrict the freedoms of pet owners and negatively effect our nation's economy.

Step 3: Copy/Paste the name of each senator and state rep. into the address field of your letter. Print copies accordingly and then mail off all the letters.
--------------

This bill is still in the early stages and being reviewed by the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committees on the Judiciary, and the Budget committee. It may never make it beyond that, but if it does, a phone campaign may be in the near future.

At some point, when I finish my own letter, I'll post it here as an example for anyone to use and modify for their own.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 5, 2012)

Tom, you and I would get along very well. 

Had to get that out. This bill has a decent chance of passing. The fact is, our corrupt government will put any spin on anything that takes freedom out of the hands of the people. They are quietly and selectively striping our rights and abilities of freedom. 

As far as using sound science, they use it when it benefits their agenda and rules. This bill, to the average free American human being, as no bearing or application.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 5, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> We're apparently living in two different countries.
> 
> Oh well...I'm tired of repeating myself. Apparently some people care about their hobby more than others.
> 
> I suppose time will tell, but for the record, I do hope you are correct.



No, just using two different sets of lenses. I am not seeking uniformity of perspective. That would feel validating, but be boring and very, very limiting to intellectual progress.

In any case, I am not in favor of the possibility of losing anything over this or any other proposal. I is just that placing restrictions on species in the nature of kudzu does not give me cause to worry about my avocado tree being taken away.



reticguy76 said:


> As far as using sound science, they use it when it benefits their agenda and rules.



Most parties behave in accordance with their ideals.

You have a lot of scientific interface with the government? What area?


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

Baoh said:


> StudentoftheReptile said:
> 
> 
> > We're apparently living in two different countries.
> ...



I can definitely agree with that.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 5, 2012)

Im not any "party". I have common sense and knowledge about our tyrannical governnment. 

This is getting off topic in sorts though.


Dont know if I am just missing it or what, but is there a set (first) date that this bill will be introduced in these committees for potential forward passing ??


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

reticguy76 said:


> This is getting off topic in sorts though.



I don't think its getting off-topic...just redundant. Two people have two different interpretations of the same text. We've made our points repeatedly and abundantly clear.



> Dont know if I am just missing it or what, but is there a set (first) date that this bill will be introduced in these committees for potential forward passing ??



http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5864ih



> Last Action Date Listed: *May 30, 2012*
> 
> Action: Ms. Slaughter (for herself, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Rogers of Michigan, Mr. Kucinich, Ms. Bordallo, Mr. Hinchey, Mr. Farr, Mrs. Maloney, Mr. Kildee, and Mr. Grijalva) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources, and in addition to the Committees on the Judiciary, Ways and Means, and the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned



How I interpret that is that basically further action is yet to be determined. So to answer your question....no.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 5, 2012)

I guess what I meant by off-topic is that this could very easily be heading toward just an all around political debate and opinions based on affiliations and such. 

I guess I have just never been able to really see how people can disagree and have different points of view on the same exact text. Text is what it is. Pictures or films or whatever, I can see, but a bill that is written into proposal is what exactly it says. 

Thank you kindly for the link


----------



## Baoh (Jun 5, 2012)

reticguy76 said:


> Im not any "party". I have common sense and knowledge about our tyrannical governnment.
> 
> This is getting off topic in sorts though.
> 
> ...



You are a party. Notice I did not say political party when I spoke of parties.

Common sense was once that meat spontaneously generated maggots.


----------



## Tom (Jun 5, 2012)

Student and reticguy, I have had discussions like this with Baoh before. It will go nowhere. He/she either sees thing differently than he rest of us, or pretends to in order to make some point. If there is some point, I have yet to see him/her make it in any of these discussions. Maybe he/she is playing devil's advocate to help us present a better argument to those who oppose our common goal of freedom in a free country, or maybe he/she really is an advocate for the "devil". Either way, you are spinning your wheels. Only a complete fool would think that our government is innocent and has our best interest in mind, and Baoh does not seem to be a complete fool.

Baoh, no disrespect intended. Just pointing out my point of view regarding past interactions with you.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

reticguy76 said:


> I guess I have just never been able to really see how people can disagree and have different points of view on the same exact text. Text is what it is. Pictures or films or whatever, I can see, but a bill that is written into proposal is what exactly it says.



When I first saw this post, my initial response was "Uh...yeah, you would think" 

But as I thought about it more, so many things are open to interpretation. Two people can watch the same movie or read the same book, and form very different ideas and opinions based on what they read or saw.

Baoh may very well be correct in that the genuine intent of this bill is preventing the spread of injurious pathogens, and parasites, and that any effect on the pet trade is a inadvertent oversight on the part of the bill's creators. If so, the bill is a poorly constructed one, and in the very least, needs some serious revision.

As you, Jacqui and myself have pointed out, the text says what it says: *"to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites"*

Now, we can debate until the cows come home what the intent is, and what these lawmakers are really gunning for. We can easily have our opinions "Well, they're just trying do do this or that. They're not really trying to take away our reptiles and tropical fish and such." But unless we can sit down with them face-to-face and ask "Hey, what do you mean by this?" Does this mean that? etc etc etc.".....the logical deduction is that non-native wildlife means non-native wildlife. And as a pet hobbyist who routinely keeps and possesses non-native wildlife, I am rightfully concerned about the text of this bill and will take preemptive action to oppose it.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 5, 2012)

Understood Tom. Either way he/she goes, it makes sense.

I guess technically I am a part, I am with the Constitutional party, which obviously is not recognized by the political "big wigs", nor by quite a lot of the general public.

As being yet again demonstrated, our Constitution ( our Supreme Law of the Land) is being thrown out and demolished. 

Show me legitimate reasons to ban these reptiles, and I will listen and take it to heart. Not so called "scientific evidence" used by our government to appeal to their mass agenda.

Example, Burmese pythons are out of control in Florida and are truly and legitimately ruining and destroying the ecosystem and wildlife (as well as the burms themselves). Something needs to be done with that. That is a real and proven concern. 

I dont see how, just for example, banning sulcatas is going to improve our, not even destroyed by them, ecosystem and wildlife. 

All it is, is slowly and methodically taking away our rights and freedoms by our, so-called, best in the world government


----------



## Baoh (Jun 5, 2012)

Tom said:


> Student and reticguy, I have had discussions like this with Baoh before. It will go nowhere. He/she either sees thing differently than he rest of us, or pretends to in order to make some point. If there is some point, I have yet to see him/her make it in any of these discussions. Maybe he/she is playing devil's advocate to help us present a better argument to those who oppose our common goal of freedom in a free country, or maybe he/she really is an advocate for the "devil". Either way, you are spinning your wheels. Only a complete fool would think that our government is innocent and has our best interest in mind, and Baoh does not seem to be a complete fool.
> 
> Baoh, no disrespect intended. Just pointing out my point of view regarding past interactions with you.



None taken. It is a matter of understanding and having the tools to do so. If the variety of tools is not there, people tend to look at every problem as a one-path solution. You choose to see what you want to see.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 5, 2012)

"to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites"

To me, that says it all. I dont see how that sentence right there, that lays it on the line, can be interpreted. 

No more animals to be brought into this country that is not native to this country. 

Now, I personally have not or will not ever keep wc animals from outside this country (but the government shouldnt tell me or anybody else not to do it. It should be up to each individual (hence individual rights and liberties))

Also, I would never hesitate to bring in a cbb baby of whatever species from a breeder/keeper from outside the country. With that sentence above, I would be prevented in doing that.


Thats not right


All in all, I would like to just state, the mods here are wonderful and very understanding. Most (if not all other forums of any kind, i have been or are currently with) mods would have closed this thread in the first couple posts. Even though, there are differencing of opinions and views (which is good and healthy), and even if there is just a little heat risen here and there, I commend the mods for keeping this thread going.

We can all agree, we all love our animals (whatever kind they may be) and we just want to be able to keep happy and good homes for them, for their entire lives. Thats what it is really about.


We all just need to get together and keep this bill from becoming law. In the end, I believe there is many more of us than there are of them, and where there are number, defeat is usually sure to come


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

Tom said:


> Student and reticguy, I have had discussions like this with Baoh before. It will go nowhere. He/she either sees thing differently than he rest of us, or pretends to in order to make some point. If there is some point, I have yet to see him/her make it in any of these discussions. Maybe he/she is playing devil's advocate to help us present a better argument to those who oppose our common goal of freedom in a free country, or maybe he/she really is an advocate for the "devil". Either way, you are spinning your wheels. Only a complete fool would think that our government is innocent and has our best interest in mind, and Baoh does not seem to be a complete fool.



LOL...I believe there's a term for someone who exhibits such behavior in such a forum. 

Even yesterday, I was pondering that if he genuinely doesn't feel very strongly about this one way or another, why even participate in the discussion at all? Its as if he is deliberately being...obtuse. I mean, if there was a tropical storm brewing in the Gulf, some may stock-pile supplies, others may evacuate, while others still may simply choose to sit on their front porch and weather it out. At the end of the storm, everyone comes out okay, but you can't fault anyone for taking the course of action they chose.

So Baoh doesn't think H.R. 5864 is a big deal? That's fine. But if others such as myself would like to take extra precautions against it, why can't he just shut up, and let us? I suppose that is what is really irritating me about it.



Baoh said:


> None taken. It is a matter of understanding and having the tools to do so. If the variety of tools is not there, people tend to look at every problem as a one-path solution. You choose to see what you want to see.



Okay Baoh, I would genuinely like to see things from your point of view. I'm not being sarcastic, or deliberately argumentative. Just trying to put myself in someone else's shoes.

After reading the entire bill, how do you not interpret that it will affect anyone who keeps non-native wildlife as pets?

And these tools you speak of. Would you care to elaborate? Again, I'm not trying to goad or be sarcastic. If you have useful or helpful information you would like to share, I am certain it would be appreciated by all.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 5, 2012)

> So Baoh doesn't think H.R. 5864 is a big deal? That's fine. But if others such as myself would like to take extra precautions against it, why can't he just shut up, and let us? I suppose that is what is really irritating me about it.



Nothing says promotion of freedom when you would like yours at the expense of another's.

[/quote]



> Okay Baoh, I would genuinely like to see things from your point of view. I'm not being sarcastic, or deliberately argumentative. Just trying to put myself in someone else's shoes.
> 
> After reading the entire bill, how do you not interpret that it will affect anyone who keeps non-native wildlife as pets?
> 
> And these tools you speak of. Would you care to elaborate? Again, I'm not trying to goad or be sarcastic. If you have useful or helpful information you would like to share, I am certain it would be appreciated by all.



I interpret that, if passed, it may be used to control nonnative wildlife that has been determined to be injurious or carry pathogens and/or parasites that could be harmful to humans or native wildlife. I do not imagine things in that have been left out.

As for the tools, perhaps some courses in logic would be of use. Not simply construction of a cogent argument, but also evaluation of the commonly employed logical fallacies so you can understand why and where things break down. Maybe a primer on the scientific method, too. Perhaps a piece devoted to how attempts to remove or silence another's voice is no different than the tyranny often decried. Wikipedia as well as free online college courses might help you out if you know how to use those resources. There are also, if electronic means are not to your preference, books devoted to these subjects.

As I may have mentioned once elsewhere, "your opinion is welcome as long as your opinion is our opinion" constitutes a significant portion of what I observe.

I value those who have the mental capacity to avoid falling into such an emotional trap.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

Baoh said:


> I interpret that, if passed, it may be used to control nonnative wildlife that has been determined to be injurious or carry pathogens and/or parasites that could be harmful to humans or native wildlife. I do not imagine things in that have been left out.



Understandable. My only point of concern is this: The creators of the bill took the time to outline exemptions (livestock, and "conventional" pets: dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, rabbits, guinea pigs, ferrets & canaries), exemptions that arguably are as equally (if not more) injurious or capable of carrying pathogens as the many non-native species they chose not to specify. We all have seen/heard the statistics: more people are injured by livestock or dogs each year then any pet exotic animal species.

Of course, their use in agriculture or being "too common in the pet trade" are likely contributing factors for being excluded, as stated such in the bill's text.

Don't worry about anything that was left out, you may say. Well, then I read this in the bill's text:



> SEC. 6. EMERGENCY TEMPORARY DESIGNATION.
> 
> (a) In General.--If the Service determines an emergency exists because an unregulated nonnative wildlife taxon poses an imminent
> threat of harm to individuals in or wildlife of the United States, or
> ...



I don't think there's really anything to imagine out of that. As Jacqui pointed out earlier, they can preemptively add whatever species/taxon they may suspect to be a threat, and THEN take a year to try and make it official. Not a big deal, you may think, especially if the said species/taxon isn't a threat. Well, check this out:



> SEC. 8. INJURIOUS WILDLIFE DETERMINATIONS.
> 
> (a) In General.--Immediately upon the date of enactment of this
> Act, the Secretary shall make more rapid determinations on proposals
> ...



If I understand that correctly, once/if the bill passes, they can then decide to remove steps to stream-line the process of adding a species/taxon to the injurious list. 
--------

I dunno...just sounds like they're not too terribly concerned with using due process here. Looks to me like they want to be able to preemptively throw whatever animal species they want on there at will whenever they want as quickly as possible.


----------



## Tom (Jun 5, 2012)

And here we go again with the subtle intelligence insults...

Baoh doesn't argue for or against anything. He only wishes to point out that YOU do not have the indisputable scientific evidence to back up what YOU are arguing for or against, and then takes subtle little jabs at your inability to debate, form cogent arguments, or your susceptibility to be controlled by your own overly emotional thoughts and feelings, or your lack of formal debate tools, etc...

Same story different day.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 5, 2012)

I am gonna ask for no more insults subtle or otherwise, I have been enjoying the debate so far, let's keep it civil, thank you.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 5, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> Baoh said:
> 
> 
> > I interpret that, if passed, it may be used to control nonnative wildlife that has been determined to be injurious or carry pathogens and/or parasites that could be harmful to humans or native wildlife. I do not imagine things in that have been left out.
> ...



If executed responsibly, I have no issue with what have highlighted.



Tom said:


> And he we go again with the subtle intelligence insults...
> 
> Baoh doesn't argue for or against anything. He only wishes to point out that YOU do not have the indisputable scientific evidence to back up what YOU are arguing for or against, and then takes subtle little jabs at your inability to debate, form cogent arguments, or your susceptibility to be controlled by your own overly emotional thoughts and feelings, or your lack of formal debate tools, etc...
> 
> Same story different day.



You made this about people rather than ideas. I prefer to discuss ideas.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

> As for the tools, perhaps some courses in logic would be of use. Not simply construction of a cogent argument, but also evaluation of the commonly employed logical fallacies so you can understand why and where things break down. Maybe a primer on the scientific method, too. Perhaps a piece devoted to how attempts to remove or silence another's voice is no different than the tyranny often decried. Wikipedia as well as free online college courses might help you out if you know how to use those resources. There are also, if electronic means are not to your preference, books devoted to these subjects.



Well, I was actually hoping for specifics on the particular topic at hand, perhaps some references to those frequent scientific interfaces you seem to have access to with our wonderful government. Instead, it seems you were only interested in insulting my intelligence, and turning this into a pissing contest (although I can't for the life of me believe you actually suggested Wikipedia as a credible "tool"). If it wasn't clear before, your colors have truly shown now. You apparently have nothing to contribute to this discussion except a contrasting opinion founded on nothing but vague retorts.



> As I may have mentioned once elsewhere, "your opinion is welcome as long as your opinion is our opinion" constitutes a significant portion of what I observe.



I don't know what all circles of which you frequent, but my personal motto is that any opinion is welcome, but if you voice yours, you should be prepared to back it up with something substantial. You have yet to deliver.



> I value those who have the mental capacity to avoid falling into such an emotional trap.



I value those who can enter an intelligent conversation, make their point clear, and have the substance to back it up.



dmmj said:


> I am gonna ask for no more insults subtle or otherwise, I have been enjoying the debate so far, let's keep it civil, thank you.



Sorry, didn't see that before my last post. I heartily agree.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 5, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> > As for the tools, perhaps some courses in logic would be of use. Not simply construction of a cogent argument, but also evaluation of the commonly employed logical fallacies so you can understand why and where things break down. Maybe a primer on the scientific method, too. Perhaps a piece devoted to how attempts to remove or silence another's voice is no different than the tyranny often decried. Wikipedia as well as free online college courses might help you out if you know how to use those resources. There are also, if electronic means are not to your preference, books devoted to these subjects.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





If you could show me where you asked me for my interfaces, which include the FDA, USDA, and some military branches, specifically, it would be helpful. There are some more, but they are not of the same frequency, so I would not claim them as equally concrete. I cannot seem to find where you asked for me to elucidate the interfaces. My suggestion of Wikipedia is its ready availability to most people and the current sections pertaining to the tool sets described are accurate. If you would like to point out the errors in the sections on what I have described, by all means, go ahead.

As for something substantial, YOU summarized the proposal as saying something it did not, so the onus is on you to back it up. I asked for your evidence, but you gave me not one example of what I requested.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 5, 2012)

Baoh said:


> If you could show me where you asked me for my interfaces, which include the FDA, USDA, and some military branches, specifically, it would be helpful. There are some more, but they are not of the same frequency, so I would not claim them as equally concrete. I cannot seem to find where you asked for me to elucidate the interfaces.



My apologies for not being clear. Could you provide any substantial evidence on how the U.S. govt has used accurate, scientific reasoning and fact-finding to support any of the previous laws that have restricted the freedoms of exotic pet owners?



> As for something substantial, YOU summarized the proposal as saying something it did not, so the onus is on you to back it up. I asked for your evidence, but you gave me not one example of what I requested.



I am through debating this with you. I have presented the evidence to the best of my ability (short of copy/pasting the bill in its entirety), and you either cannot or will not accept it. This is clearly a case of when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I'm done trying to convince you of anything.

Honestly what it all boils down to, regardless of how one interprets this bill or its underlying intent or agenda...it is realistically not enforcable, and even if it was, it would have little or no impact on the environment anyway. At best, it would simply generate more work for little or no positive result. So even best case scenario, it's really not a great bill.


----------



## tortadise (Jun 5, 2012)

My thoughts are, I will be part of a voice of us exotic caretakers in the respect that it's a pointless bill to pass in our minds. We know these animals cannot possess an invasive manor or thereof similar to the Nile monito or Burmese python in te Everglades. However my thoughts are in the respect that this bill will enable a large amount of revenue to the unites states government in the manor of; 

Forcing those owners to pay a permit fee.

Forcing those owners to pay a renewal fee.

And forcing us owners to bend over backwards to abide by this "new" and improved "communistic" approach on violating our right to posses them. In a way the constitution portrays no text that we can aor cannot posses these animals. So I think it's a way to increase government taxing and another form of "control" with a financial benefit.

I will fight and voice my opinion. But they will never know what I possess. Passed or not I will still do what it is I love and cherish, regardless of law or not. There isn't anyone that could ever even hold a gun to my head and force me to admit that my tortoises would ever "invade" or cause an "epidemic" outbreak harming our native fauna, and wildlife more so than BP ever did in our gulf of Mexico.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 5, 2012)

FDA, USDA, etc. Definitely not one sided "scientific evidence" source. They are part of the problem. 

While the Constitution does or does not specify our rights to own these animals, it does give us natural human rights to decide for ourselves, not the government.


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 5, 2012)

Baoh said:


> If executed responsibly, I have no issue with what have highlighted.



Exactly, but who is going to decide what is "executed responsibly"? For instance, do you want this person to be somebody who thinks no animal should be a pet or kept by the "common" person? I know I don't want it that way. Nor do I want any law to be at the whim of somebody without having my right to fight it or to even know exactly what the law will really be or how it will be carried out.





dmmj said:


> I am gonna ask for no more insults subtle or otherwise, I have been enjoying the debate so far, let's keep it civil, thank you.



I think a person or two sadly need another reminder....


----------



## Baoh (Jun 5, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> Baoh said:
> 
> 
> > If you could show me where you asked me for my interfaces, which include the FDA, USDA, and some military branches, specifically, it would be helpful. There are some more, but they are not of the same frequency, so I would not claim them as equally concrete. I cannot seem to find where you asked for me to elucidate the interfaces.
> ...





This was your quote:



StudentoftheReptile said:


> I fear you are putting too much faith in the wrong places. The U.S. govt isn't exactly known for being reasonable and using sound science.



I responded to that. I did not add or remove argument-shifting qualifiers as you just did. I did not speak to exotic pet ownership when I specifically responded to a specific statement, but the practice of using sound science on the part of the US government is a frequent occurrence. It is not an infallible deity. It is a system of humans for humans.

I do not think it is a "great bill", either, but I see reasonable portions of it if not abused or pressed beyond its stated incarnation one way or the other. Abuse of some other bill has no more impact on this one's potential for it than flipping a coin once influences the outcome of a second flip.

Maybe the mistake with the concept of you trying to convince me is that there is no need for either of us to convert the other's viewpoint into something uniform. I do not see a need to convince you of my perspective on the matter. I am sharing my perspective, however, as I consider that to be my remit as a "free" person.



tortadise said:


> My thoughts are, I will be part of a voice of us exotic caretakers in the respect that it's a pointless bill to pass in our minds. We know these animals cannot possess an invasive manor or thereof similar to the Nile monito or Burmese python in te Everglades. However my thoughts are in the respect that this bill will enable a large amount of revenue to the unites states government in the manor of;
> 
> Forcing those owners to pay a permit fee.
> 
> ...



Does this bill institute a fee for the ownership of nonnative chelonians?

For the reasons you stated regarding invasive potential, I doubt any tortoises are going to be targeted by this. Migration rate, generation time, predation susceptibility , and various other factors all work against the potential for that sort of harm.



reticguy76 said:


> FDA, USDA, etc. Definitely not one sided "scientific evidence" source. They are part of the problem.
> 
> While the Constitution does or does not specify our rights to own these animals, it does give us natural human rights to decide for ourselves, not the government.



Well, they are not flawless, but a point of science is not to have one side in the first place. Science is meant to aggregate with a collection of information. Not a sword thrust where might makes right. The FDA, USDA, and others are also part of the solution, or do you consider it cool when quality fails and chondroitin is swapped out for heparin or melamine gets into dog food and infant formula? That is the basis for the development of these sorts of offices. I do not like all of their decisions and I really dislike the slow speed at which they can/do operate (this is only partly their fault, though), but they do provide a necessary set of services for a great many folks.



Jacqui said:


> Baoh said:
> 
> 
> > If executed responsibly, I have no issue with what have highlighted.
> ...



Those who are given the responsibility of enforcement according to the letter of procedure.

I would not *want* that person to be in that position, but I also would not deny an effective agent who puts his or her feelings aside in order to fulfill their duties.

I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. I consider that to be a huge failure on the part of government, yet I recognize the reasons for why that type of failure exists (another example in this vein, depending upon how one views things, could be the electoral college). Then again, when I take into account the ability of the average voter to make decent long-term decisions, I have a sense of ambivalence.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 6, 2012)

Baoh said:


> ...the practice of using sound science on the part of the US government is a frequent occurrence. It is not an infallible deity. It is a system of humans for humans.
> 
> I do not think it is a "great bill", either, but I see reasonable portions of it if not abused or pressed beyond its stated incarnation one way or the other. Abuse of some other bill has no more impact on this one's potential for it than flipping a coin once influences the outcome of a second flip.





> Jacqui said:
> 
> 
> > Baoh said:
> ...



Again, your experiences and observations of our government has apparently been different than my own. Given what I have witnessed of our judicial system, our legislative process, the integrity and discretion of law enforcement and politics in general (not just in matters regarding the environment and/or special interest groups within the pet industry, but in others as well)...I have very little faith in our govt and that pieces of legislation like this can or will be implemented reasonably or responsibly.
----------------


> I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. I consider that to be a huge failure on the part of government, yet I recognize the reasons for why that type of failure exists (another example in this vein, depending upon how one views things, could be the electoral college). Then again, when I take into account the ability of the average voter to make decent long-term decisions, I have a sense of ambivalence.



This I can agree on as well, but I would very much like to keep to the topic, as I see this divulging into a discussion about politics in general.


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 6, 2012)

Baoh said:


> I would not *want* that person to be in that position, but I also would not deny an effective agent who puts his or her feelings aside in order to fulfill their duties.



I don't think I would want the job either.  *IF* the person could really do the job correctly and without personal prejudices, it would atleast be a step in the right direction. I just fear they would not be finding such a person and I don't know if such a person would really want the job either. It still boils down to the openness bothering me from the get go before I ever get to the "real meat" of the proposal


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 6, 2012)

Yeah, then there's the issue of training said individuals who would be performing this job: time = money = tax increase and/or some permit system will get implemented to offset cost of training. The alternative would be to...not train them, and simply leave it to the discretion of the officer, or whatever. Here's where I see an issue with that.

For the sake of argument, let' say that they did decide to add the genus _Chelonoidis_ (redfoots & yellowfoot tortoises) to the injurious list under this Act. Now we got people who come on this forum who find a box turtle in their yard and think its a runaway redfoot. You think wildlife officers are exempt from such mistakes? Now I'm not using the example to call anyone stupid or anything; its simply a matter of educating one self to identify/distinguish certain species from others. Not long ago, a Florida member here was telling the account of bringing a hatchling gopher tortoise to their local FWS office to confirm the identity. They told her it was NOT a gopher tortoise and that she could keep it! LOL...that was Florida Fish & Wildlife not being able to identify one of their own native species (a federally protected one, no less).


----------



## tortadise (Jun 6, 2012)

It does portray in the text whether or not it will be stated that the permit is of a cost. In seeing the results from the ban on the large species of snakes. You have to acquire a permit, just like a fishing permit at even Walmart. To possess those snakes, here in Texas that permit to posses those species of pythons and anacondas is 80 dollars or an annual fee. So yes this would take into play a source of generated income for the government. In a small way I think but how many reptile enthusiast have to get that permit now? For something that was a freedom before 2008? I don't know how many exact people have gotten that permit for the large snakes. But I imagine quite a few.


----------



## Baoh (Jun 6, 2012)

tortadise said:


> *It does portray in the text whether or not it will be stated that the permit is of a cost.* In seeing the results from the ban on the large species of snakes. You have to acquire a permit, just like a fishing permit at even Walmart. To possess those snakes, here in Texas that permit to posses those species of pythons and anacondas is 80 dollars or an annual fee. So yes this would take into play a source of generated income for the government. In a small way I think but how many reptile enthusiast have to get that permit now? For something that was a freedom before 2008? I don't know how many exact people have gotten that permit for the large snakes. But I imagine quite a few.



Only if determined to be injurious and such, though, yes?


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 6, 2012)

The government and its agencies (usda, fda, etc) are way from flawless and corrupt. A big problem with these agencies is that, for example, we have radiation exposure to most of our foods. The just keep raising the amount of what they "feel" is "accptable" amounts of radiation allowed in our bodies. None is accetpable. Just because these agencies "test" and use "science" to justify these things, doesnt mean they are good and legitimate. Thats what the government does, instead of fixing and eliminating problems or potential problems, they just raise the bar and whats acceptable exposure. That is just one example. That is dishonest, deceitful and unconstitutional, and full government control, which is what they are trying to do with this bill proposal.
Its no different than a wild coyote coming into my backyard and infecting my dogs with some sort of parasite or other communicable disease. We should then destroy all wildlife native to America, with this logic

If I choose to purchase a non-native animal and have it shipped to me here, it is my right and personal resposibility to make sure its healthy and does not spread potenital communicable disease/pathogens to other animals or native wildlife, not the governments right to tell me I cant.

Anybody that believes our government is pure and not after full control and tyranny, is either blind or just doesnt want to admit it. They will put spin on anything to make it sound like its "the right thing to do" to the general public. If they are that worried about disease, in the wild, then why dont I have the right to shoot any animal that comes into my backyard with "potential" disease possibly able to infect me, my family or my "legal" domesticated pets??

If they left it up to We The Poeple, it would be shot down before any of them would even know it, because its wrong and they know it, and most of us know it.


----------



## tortadise (Jun 6, 2012)

That would be my understanding, of the text. Obviously this bill will undergo a huge opposition as well as a huge supportive. In the case that it does like the original bill, obvious conclusion in reality is that we the hobbyist will speak up and portray that tortoises are not a so called "invasive" species for the mass of the united states. The only real location would be southern Florida, southern Texas, and possibly southern California. Hawaii already has very stringent laws that do not allow a vast majority of reptiles as pets. The problem I do see with having a scientific concrete debate about the listed species that COULD pertain to be invasive would solely rely on a very minimal scientific and weak or sickly pathogen in a specific species. Take for instance Greeks, marginatas, and other testudos that the herpes virus is rather common in and can also hibernate winters, allowing this species to be perhaps a possible threat "if" in the event it were released in to the wild. HOOOOWEVER. A single tortoise being released into the wild here on soil doesn't sustain it to be invasive at all to me because for chelonians to thrive. They have to 

A; be released with numerous others as well as with adult specimens of opposing sexs to sustain and establish a wild population.

B; be released only females that are gravid, and eventually pose an invasive like manor.

C; neither A or B is realistic.

It's hard enough for us as experienced. Keepers to keep our animals thriving even in "perfectly designed enclosures" the soils are not typical to allow a vast majority of chelonians that are not native to successfully even hatch out and become a part of that Eco system. The foods differ, the temperatures differ, the rainy seasons differ, the winters differ, or aren't even known where some species originate from. 

I think a small percentage could survive and become "invasive" but it's not practical to blanket all order of chelonians to be "banned". 

We will see what happens when this bill is brought to the table and reasoning and good strong arguments brought by us the keepers unfold a realistic approach of why chelonians "can" be invasive but it's such a small percentage of success that it would be impractical to remove our prized animals from our possessions or force us to no longer purchase ten without a permit. 

I'm sure I made a lot of nonsense my fingers hurt from this damn iPhone.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 6, 2012)

Another thing to think about, what about all the dog and cat owners that have their pets get parvo, or feline aids and they dont want to treat them, so they just set them free. They will infect other animals (wild as well). This bill has no real and true basis

I cant tell you how many parvo and feline aids and luekemia cats we get in my emergency animal hospital as strays running around, even in the desert where wild native life is.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 6, 2012)

Baoh said:


> Only if determined to be injurious and such, though, yes?



Once again....who determines this?  Not anyone (or group of persons) who
a.) has the adequate knowledge of the particular taxon in question, 
b.) can make a fair, unbiased assessment of the economic impact of making said taxon injurious, 
c.) can make a fair, unbiased assessment of the ecological impact of making said taxon injurious, 
d.) can make a fair, unbiased assessment of the potential threat/harm to human life/public safety
e.) is not influenced by any other outside agency/organization/person(s)

You (and by "you", I'm not directing the question personally, but rhetorically to anyone) find someone who can meet all of that criteria, and I probably wouldn't be so concerned. But its been proven before: they can and will spin the facts however they want to if they have reason enough to believe a certain taxon warrants being determined injurious.

They did it with the federal rule listing on March 23. They just did it in Ohio. They will do it again.


----------



## tortadise (Jun 6, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> Baoh said:
> 
> 
> > Only if determined to be injurious and such, though, yes?
> ...


----------



## Baoh (Jun 6, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Baoh said:
> 
> 
> > I would not *want* that person to be in that position, but I also would not deny an effective agent who puts his or her feelings aside in order to fulfill their duties.
> ...



Understandable. I just cannot say whether or not something may be abused by bad agents until implementation by bad agents takes place. Good agents would help with good implementation.


----------



## Tom (Jun 6, 2012)

Baoh said:


> Jacqui said:
> 
> 
> > Baoh said:
> ...



Here's a novel idea: How about we don't give the power to the agents at all. Then it does not matter if they are good OR bad.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 6, 2012)

Baoh said:


> Understandable. I just cannot say whether or not something may be abused by bad agents until implementation by bad agents takes place. Good agents would help with good implementation.



There in lies the rub. There seems to be more poor implementation from bad agents (or agencies) from past legislation in comparison to any "good implementation from good agents." Why should any reasonable person expect anything different from this one?

For example, if my wife tells me we're having chicken tenders for dinner, but then switches it to spaghetti instead, and she does this 6 days in a row.....what should I expect when she tells me we're having chicken on the seventh day?




Tom said:


> Here's a novel idea: How about we don't give the power to the agents at all. Then it does not matter if they are good OR bad.



I really like that idea!


----------



## dmmj (Jun 6, 2012)

I have very little faith in the government to act in my best interest, after seeing incompetence and abuse of power on many levels, I just think once you give the government a little power, they take more.


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 6, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> For example, if my wife tells me we're having chicken tenders for dinner, but then switches it to spaghetti instead, and she does this 6 days in a row.....what should I expect when she tells me we're having chicken on the seventh day?



Easy, on the seventh day YOUR going to be fixing supper, because by then you will have gotten the hint.  








dmmj said:


> I have very little faith in the government to act in my best interest, after seeing incompetence and abuse of power on many levels, I just think once you give the government a little power, they take more.



Sadly this is true of humankind in general, not just the government. There are exceptions on all levels and in all fields, but it seems they are slowly being replaced by "the bad" kind.  ... or is it we just hear about them more these days?





StudentoftheReptile said:


> Tom said:
> 
> 
> > Here's a novel idea: How about we don't give the power to the agents at all. Then it does not matter if they are good OR bad.
> ...



If we were policing ourselves, then this would be okay, but we are not. We do need to try to stop some of these behaviors.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 6, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> Easy, on the seventh day YOUR going to be fixing supper, because by then you will have gotten the hint.



Maybe so...but my point still stands that I won't be getting chicken!



> dmmj said:
> 
> 
> > I have very little faith in the government to act in my best interest, after seeing incompetence and abuse of power on many levels, I just think once you give the government a little power, they take more.
> ...





Tom said:


> Here's a novel idea: How about we don't give the power to the agents at all. Then it does not matter if they are good OR bad.


If we were policing ourselves, then this would be okay, but we are not. We do need to try to stop some of these behaviors.
[/quote]

Very true on all accounts. But while we wait for the tides to turn, it doesn't make sense for a broken system to attempt to regulate a flawed industry, because in the end, nothing really gets accomplished and matters are often just made worse.


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 6, 2012)

StudentoftheReptile said:


> Very true on all accounts. But while we wait for the tides to turn, it doesn't make sense for a broken system to attempt to regulate a flawed industry, because in the end, nothing really gets accomplished and matters are often just made worse.



I sorta disagree with this. I think it is better to be atleast TRYING to do something, rather then sitting back doing nothing and letting things get worse. It's like back to your chicken, if your really wanting chicken, you can sit back and do nothing which usually results in getting nothing (chicken in this case) OR fix it yourself and know your getting chicken, even if your wife makes it better then you do.  

We have sat back and done little or nothing and look where it is getting us. I think it's time to do something, because this is no longer a case of it isn't broken, so why fix it. It is broken and getting more broken every year.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 6, 2012)

But I like spaghetti.


----------



## reticguy76 (Jun 6, 2012)

Thats what its all about. We can sit here and debate and argue about what the government is doing, but they will become tyrannical and have total control by us just talking about them. We have to physically fight for the good. I put forth a lot of effort with the python ban proposal (as I keep and breed retics, luckily that worked out for us retic people, but they will try again and eventually succeed if we let them), while it was in the voting stages and even prior. 

We have to ban together as American free people to let them know, this isnt right and we will fight them. I believe there are many more of us than there are peta, hsus, and other government agencies trying to destroy us and this great hobby and keeping

And another thing, I just had homemade from scratch spaghetti. Good stuff


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 6, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> I sorta disagree with this. I think it is better to be atleast TRYING to do something, rather then sitting back doing nothing and letting things get worse.
> 
> We have sat back and done little or nothing and look where it is getting us. I think it's time to do something, because this is no longer a case of it isn't broken, so why fix it. It is broken and getting more broken every year.



I'm sorry. I didn't mean to give the impression we should not do anything. Many are (on the side of the herp community), but it will take EVERYONE to get involved to make a significant difference and fix this broken thing. Sadly, it is the people least likely to jump on the wave of change that are represent the bulk of what is wrong with this hobby.

My point is that its a two-way street. Even if every single person who owns a herp straightened up, cleaned up their act, and everything in the reptile industry (as it were) was rectified by the end of the week, there's still the suits to deal with. They got issues of their own to resolve, and until that happens, its folly for one to try to regulate the other.

Again, how can we expect proper implementation and regulation through legislation like this bill, when these govt can't even identify their own native species? Not to mention the myriad of other issue surrounding these pieces of legislation.

We've hit on this before on other threads, but it bears repeating, I think.
------------

In addition to specifically fighting this type of legislation with letter campaigns and phone calls, there's a lot the average herper can be doing to make a difference:

1.) Buy quality, healthy animals from reputable vendors. Personally, I don't feel it's as cut and dry as "CBB vs WC" but know who you are buying from. Do they respect their animals and care for them properly? How do they handle their customers? How do they handle sales gone bad?

2.) (going hand-in-hand with the first) Don't automatically buy from the guy with the cheapest animals. There are exceptions, but usually these are the guys who are just wanting to make a quick return on their animals and don't practice good quarantine, etc.

3.) If you regularly sell animals, ask yourself the questions in #1. Make sure YOU'RE not doing anything wrong as a vendor because every animal you sell potentially goes into the hand of a new herper.

4.) Educate others...on the animals you sell, own, or just plain like the best! If you see something wrong, don't be afraid to call someone out on it. Of course, be polite and respectful and offer resources to help them, but if you stand by and do nothing, then nothing gets changed.

5.) Repeat when applicable.

6.) Encourage your fellow herpers to do all of the above.
---------

It may not happen overnight, but as the saying goes, "A journey of a 1000 miles begins with a single step." Next time someone asks you, "Dude, how are your hatchling sulcatas sooo smooth?" You can reply, "I only buy them from ____. They take care of their babies from day 1 and they have no pyramiding." That's just one example, but you see what I mean.


----------



## Jacqui (Jun 7, 2012)

dmmj said:


> But I like spaghetti.



That and mac and cheese are just something I have never liked.


----------



## StudentoftheReptile (Jun 7, 2012)

I don't mind it too much when its freshly made. I HATE it when its leftovers.


----------



## dmmj (Jun 7, 2012)

Jacqui said:


> dmmj said:
> 
> 
> > But I like spaghetti.
> ...


Going OT here
OMG I can't believe what I just read, I am speechless (thank god for keyboards). My whole world has been turned upside down, nothing makes sense anymore.


----------



## tortadise (Jun 7, 2012)

dmmj said:


> Jacqui said:
> 
> 
> > dmmj said:
> ...



That's funny. I can do spaghetti if it's not chunky tomatoes. I'm not a big fan of tomatoes.


----------

