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

[StudentoftheReptile]

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]

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

 

[StudentoftheReptile]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

---

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]

We're apparently living in two different countries.

No, just using two different sets of lenses.

I can definitely agree with that.

 

[reticguy76]

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]

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]

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]

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 ??

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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.

---

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.