# WARNING- HR6311 now HR669



## JohnEDove (Jan 29, 2009)

Just got the following email notification from USARK
"*WARNING- HR6311 Reintroduced as HR669- BAN ON BOAS & PYTHONS!!*

Below you will read a press release by the most powerful Animal Rights Group on the planet. As predicted by USARK, HR6311 has been reintroduced as HR 669. If passed as written this bill will BAN the import, purchase, sale, trade and breeding of many, many reptiles and amphibians... including Boa, Python and Eunectes. If this bill passes it will destroy the reptile community and industry overnight! PLEASE JOIN USARK IN FIGHTING HR669!!!
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/usarkHR6311/index.html

Read about this travesty here.
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publi...tic_animal_importation_introduced_012709.html


----------



## Bigboy (Jan 29, 2009)

Left my 2cents.


----------



## EightLeggedFrea (Jan 29, 2009)

The idiots are at it again.


----------



## Endagr8 (Jan 29, 2009)

I don't think it bans anything but the import, which needs better regulation anyways. It would force us to rely totally on cb populations.


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Jan 29, 2009)

JohnEDove said:


> http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/usarkHR6311/index.html


Internet petitions don't actually accomplish anything. All they do is let people feel like they've "done their part" without actually having to put forth the effort of writing real letters or making phone calls...which, again, is DANGEROUS to any movement, because internet petitions are pretty much worthless and so people haven't really done anything at all, in the end.


----------



## DavidD (Jan 29, 2009)

Mushroom spore is your life just you being  rude. Anyway I dont think it will pass


----------



## Aubrey Sidwell (Jan 30, 2009)

DavidD said:


> Mushroom spore is your life just you being  rude. Anyway I dont think it will pass


Everyone is equally entitled their opinion and I agree that internet petitions have little to no value. How do you know it's not a ploy to get personal information to be used for other reasons such as marketing? These so called petitions wouldn't be valid without proving that all submissions are real and not just a few people submitting different names over and over. They need to see you, your ID, and get a signature if it were to have any substantiated worth.


----------



## Widowman10 (Jan 30, 2009)

DavidD said:


> Mushroom spore is your life just you being  rude.


let's not confuse rudeness with truthfulness  it may seem frank, but it's correct 99% of the time.


----------



## Will Hunting (Jan 30, 2009)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Internet petitions don't actually accomplish anything. All they do is let people feel like they've "done their part" without actually having to put forth the effort of writing real letters or making phone calls...which, again, is DANGEROUS to any movement, because internet petitions are pretty much worthless and so people haven't really done anything at all, in the end.


Totally agreed with this post. 

And DavidD, it really is a shame that people mistake "rude" with "truth"

Edit: OH WOW WIDOW WAY TO STEAL MY POST. Except you read my mind first. But it's still considered theft!


----------



## Widowman10 (Jan 30, 2009)

Will Hunting said:


> Edit: OH WOW WIDOW WAY TO STEAL MY POST. Except you read my mind first. But it's still considered theft!


haha sucker! beatcha by a minute ;P 


 great minds think alike...


----------



## Nightmares (Jan 30, 2009)

*Join!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*






 WARNING- HR6311 Reintroduced as HR669- BAN ON BOAS & PYTHONS!!



Below you will read a press release by the most powerful Animal Rights Group on the planet. As predicted by USARK, HR6311 has been reintroduced as HR 669. If passed as written this bill will BAN the import, purchase, sale, trade and breeding of many, many reptiles and amphibians... including Boa, Python and Eunectes. If this bill passes it will destroy the reptile community and industry overnight! PLEASE JOIN USARK IN FIGHTING HR669!!!

SIGN THE PETITION AGAINST HR669

***SEND THIS ALERT TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST!!!

Stand by for USARK's Campaign to defeat HR 669.



http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publi...tic_animal_importation_introduced_012709.html 





   Congresswoman Bordallo Introduces Bill to Protect People and Native Wildlife by Addressing Exotic Animal Importation 


January 27, 2009

The Humane Society of the United States and Humane Society International welcomed the introduction yesterday of the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669) in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congresswoman Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-Guam). 

The bill is designed to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife species that may harm the economy, the environment, human health or native wildlife. H.R. 669 would require the federal government to assess the risk of nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation and, with public input, decide if the importation of these animals should be allowed or prohibited.

"Each year, millions of wild animals are captured overseas and imported into the United States," said Michael Markarian, executive vice president of The HSUS. "This trade results in the suffering and death of large numbers of animals, poses unnecessary risks to public health and jeopardizes native wildlife populations here and abroad. We are grateful to Congresswoman Bordallo for working to address this global problem." 

Imported wild animals may escape or may be let loose by owners who cannot properly care for them. These animals sometimes die from starvation, predation or exposure. Sometimes, however, they thrive — putting people, domestic pets and native wildlife at risk. 

Facts

Under current regulations, the Fish and Wildlife Service can declare species "injurious," making it illegal to import these animals or sell them over state lines as pets. However, this process typically takes years to complete and occurs after species are established, when eradicating them can be expensive, inhumane and nearly impossible. 
Congresswoman Bordallo represents the island of Guam, where brown tree snakes accidentally introduced after World War II have decimated native bird and lizard populations. 
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in 2005 the United States imported the following numbers of live, wild animals: nearly 88,000 mammals; 259,000 birds; more than 1 million reptiles; more than 5 million amphibians and more than 200 million fish. 
The Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora aims to ensure sustainability and humane treatment in the international wildlife trade, but many species are not covered and even covered species may be harmed by trade. 






usark.org Unsubscribe Become a Member Donate Developed by
Site Control 24/7 ​


----------



## JohnEDove (Jan 30, 2009)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Internet petitions don't actually accomplish anything. All they do is let people feel like they've "done their part" without actually having to put forth the effort of writing real letters or making phone calls...which, again, is DANGEROUS to any movement, because internet petitions are pretty much worthless and so people haven't really done anything at all, in the end.


Then do nothing and complain when your rights are taken away.
No skin off my nose, I keep mostly NA native species anyway. As for me I've written my senator and congressman already.


----------



## DavidD (Jan 30, 2009)

This will affect me if it passes as i am getting a yellow conda soon


----------



## pitbulllady (Jan 30, 2009)

This does NOT just affect the importation of "exotic" animals, such as all Boas and Pythons, from other countries, but also prohibits taking them across state lines, which is intended to destroy the reptile industry.  Most of the staple species available are non-native, such as the Colombian Boa and Ball Python.  If breeders cannot sell, or buy, from out-of-state, this would basically end all breeding of such animals, as there will not be sufficient market in-state to warrant continuing to breed them, not to mention making it virtually impossible to legally obtain new bloodlines.  Think of what would happen to the purebred dog community if the interstate transport of purebred dogs were to be prohibited; we're looking at the same thing with reptiles and other non-native animals, including quite possibly most tarantula species.

pitbulllady


----------



## Tcollector (Jan 30, 2009)

The only way these reptiles will affect anyone is the ones that is WC. I can see them banding those but the ones that is CB is just plain stupid. Their is allot of other better things that they should be focused on besides this one little idiotic thing they have been trying to pass, they just dont know when to quit


----------



## ThomasH (Jan 30, 2009)

Thanks for posting. I just got notification earlier. We need to watch this bill! 
Oh, and Mushroomspore is right about online petitions, worthless.
Poisoness, we still need WCs for species not in the hobby, those that need more bloodlines, and those that don't breed well in captivity. 
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Jan 30, 2009)

E-mail your reps people. If passed it *WILL* destroy and basically abolish the hobby for sure! Who'd have thought the congress would try to destroy a multibillion dollar, harmless industry? Ah well, idiots rule the world.
TBH


----------



## barabootom (Jan 30, 2009)

Usually a bill of this nature is a stepping stone to greater bans.  If they can get this bill passed, they'll create another that is even more strict or greater in scope.  If you want to protect your right to your hobby, then take this seriously.


----------



## ThomasH (Jan 30, 2009)

barabootom said:


> Usually a bill of this nature is a stepping stone to greater bans.  If they can get this bill passed, they'll create another that is even more strict or greater in scope.  If you want to protect your right to your hobby, then take this seriously.


I agree. The hobbyists need to consider the impact of this big time!
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Jan 31, 2009)

Keep checking the progress of the bill for the next year or so and make sure it does not spin into another bill. Monitoring political crap is how to avoid being stomped on by it.

TBH


----------



## Craig (Jan 31, 2009)

Some jerk tries to pass that bill every couple of years. It never happens. If it did then might as well ban pitbulls,rots, dobermans, etc..etc.. 

There is the potential for any pet to become aggressive as a result of mistreatment. Some of the meanest dogs I have seen have been little tiny dogs. 

While I think there should be some rule to owning big snakes (a lot of people mistreat them) I am not sure how they would go about it. For as many people that mistreat big snakes there are more people that take damn good care of them!! 

just my 2 cents!!


----------



## ThomasH (Jan 31, 2009)

Craig said:


> Some jerk tries to pass that bill every couple of years. It never happens. If it did then might as well ban pitbulls,rots, dobermans, etc..etc..
> 
> There is the potential for any pet to become aggressive as a result of mistreatment. Some of the meanest dogs I have seen have been little tiny dogs.
> 
> ...


I agree for the most part. But bills like this to me are like the annual high school bomb threat. You have to take it seriously every time! Now that we are run by democrats it is scarier.
TBH


----------



## Nightmares (Feb 1, 2009)

[YOUTUBE]<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0hA4XUXn1M&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Y0hA4XUXn1M&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>[/YOUTUBE]

	
	
		
		
	


	




http://www.USARK.ORG


----------



## Nightmares (Feb 2, 2009)

*NO on HR669 / Grassroots Organizing 101*





 NO on HR669 / Grassroots Organizing 101



OK everyone just take a deep breath.... we need to look at this problem objectively. This is not the time to panic, it is not the time to get emotional, but it is time for thoughtful, deliberate action!

If you have been listening to USARK for very long, you knew that this was coming. Many were of the opinion that HR6311 was dead. USARK warned that although it was dead for 2008 it would be reintroduced in 2009. Now we have the newest version, HR669. Now the question becomes: What is the Herp Community going to do about it?

Let's look at the history of HR669:

It began in 2007 with a petition from the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) to USFWS to add Boa, Python and Eunectes to the 'Injurious Wildlife List' of the Lacey Act. That was followed by a Notice of Inquiry published in the Federal Register calling for public comment in early 2008. This constituted the first step in a 'potential' Rule Change to the Lacey Act. This process is under way and can take up to 4 years to effect an actual Rule Change. It is not over. This is still being processed by USFWS.
The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and the Defenders of Wildlife, unhappy with the pace of progress with a 'potential' Rule Change to the Lacey Act, convince a group of US House members to introduce a bill based on a report written by Defenders of Wildlife called Broken Screens. In July of 2008 HR6311 is introduced into the US House of Representatives. Marshall Myers of PIJAC is present and makes an eloquent point by point rebuttal of the Bill. Because of so many other pressing issues HR6311 dies in the Natural Resources Committee it was assigned to.
USARK warns that even though HR6311 is dead for the legislative session it will be revived in 2009. USARK initiates a petition against HR6311 October 2008.
January 2009 HR6311 is reintroduced as HR669. A group of 10 House members co-sponsor HR669 and it is assigned to the House Natural Resources Committee.
Facts about HR669:

If passed HR669 would end the import, purchase, sale, trade and breeding of many reptiles and amphibians including boa, python & eunectes. The following is an excerpt from the Bill. 
SEC. 6. PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES.


(a) Prohibitions- Except as provided in this section or in section 7, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to--


(1) import into or export from the United States any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

(2) transport between any State by any means whatsoever any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

(3) violate any term or condition of a permit issued under section 7;

(4) possess (except as provided in section 3(f)), sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase, or barter for or offer to barter for, any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1);

(5) release into the wild any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1); or

(6) breed any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1), or provide any such species to another person for breeding purposes.

There are 10 sponsors for this Bill. That means this is serious. They want to pass this Bill. Some of sponsors have strong relationships to the HSUS.
HR669 has very little basis in scientific fact. There is no evidence to suggest that banning any of these animals will have any positive effects on the economy, environment, or human or animal species health.
What is certain is that passing HR669 would add to our country's economic decline and devastate American families and small businesses.
Your voice can make the difference in the defeat of HR669!
What can I do IMMEDIATELY to keep HR669 from passing?

Click sponsors name from list below and that will take you to their email portal.
Fill in subject field with 'OPPOSE HR669'
Cut and paste sample letter into body of email adding your own comments (or write your own letter). 
Be brief, be polite, be articulate and DO NOT BE DISRESPECTFUL! This is extremely important!! If you can't do this don't bother to make contact.
Let them know how HR669 would effect you and your family.
Fill in your personal information.
Click SUBMIT button.
Send a separate email to hr669@yahoo.com with HR669in your in subject line so we can track the number of people participating.
Sponsors List:

Del. Bordallo
Rep. Napolitano
Rep. Kind
Rep. Grijalva
Rep. Kildee ** NO EMAIL
Rep. Klein
Rep. Hastings
Rep. Abercrombie
Rep. McGovern ** NO EMAIL
Rep. Miller
Sample Letter:  Cut & paste letter.

Subject: Oppose HR669number

(Del or Rep Name),

I oppose HR669. This Bill is not based in science, but in the ideology of powerful special interest groups. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest that banning the import, sale and trade of any of these animals will have any positive effect on the economy, environment, or human or animal species health. 

In fact, if passed it would destroy many families and businesses. It would have a decidedly negative impact on an already ailing economy by destroying a vital and growing industry at a time when our country is in need of jobs and growth. The USFWS has just made changes to the CITES export permit process which would allow quality captive bred animals to be more easily exported to international customers. Passing HR669 would negate all the work USFWS has done for over a year. This Bill is a disaster to American small business and families in a time of economic hardship.

(tell in your own words- what you do and how passing this bill would hurt you and your family)

Please do not pass HR669.

Thank you,

(Your Name)



This is just the first step in a proven formula of grassroots politics used by groups such as the NRA and HSUS. Be ready to take the next step soon.
Educate yourself to the process.
If you haven't already signed, please sign our Petition Against HR669.
If you are not a paid member of USARK please join today! Fighting legislation like this takes members and money. We need your help to safeguard our Reptile Nation.
Don't forget to email hr669@yahoo.com when you're done so we know how many stood up and did their part.
***Please do this now and pass it on to everyone on your email list!!

Join USARK! There is Strength in Numbers... Protect Your Rights!


----------



## Mushroom Spore (Feb 2, 2009)

JohnEDove said:


> Then do nothing and complain when your rights are taken away.


Where exactly did you get this notion that I'm doing nothing? I'm doing *plenty*, not that you asked - including warning people that internet petitions aren't going to accomplish anything here, so if they want to ACTUALLY help on this issue they'll have to take another course of action. I'm not sure why that offends you. It's the truth.


----------



## ThomasH (Feb 5, 2009)

Keep writing your reps people.  
TBH


----------



## Nightmares (Feb 5, 2009)

Warning- S373 Introduced into US Senate would BAN Import & Interstate Transport of Pythons



A new bill S373 has been introduced into the US Senate by Senator Bill Nelson of Florida. It would Ban the Import and Interstate Transport of the genus Python.  In his introductory comments Senator Nelson used inflammatory language, and cited feral pythons in the Everglades and the USGS Map published By Rodda and Reed as his reasons for introducing federal legislation. His statements were sensational and inaccurate. 

There is no credible scientific evidence to support wasting taxpayer’s time and money on this Bill. The only result if this bill was to pass is more harm to the US economy and its citizens. USARK is working closely with PIJAC to develop a strategy to move forward in dealing with this new threat to the families and small businesses that make up our community. A coordinated response will be in all of our best interest. 



We are putting together a sample written response. USARK and PIJAC will not allow this to go unchallenged, but your help is required! These issues need to be responded to in writing and by as many people as possible. Right NOW, you can help by recruiting as many people as you know (herpers & non-herpers) to sign up on the USARK Mailing List. This will notify you the moment this response is ready. Or better yet, JOIN USARK's Reptile Nation and help make a difference! Do not wait... Act Now!! 



***FORWARD THIS TO EVERYONE ON YOUR EMAIL LIST AND POST IT ON EVERY FORUM!

Thank you for your support!!!

Andrew Wyatt

President USARK


----------



## ThomasH (Feb 6, 2009)

Why is it always the democrat! :wall: 
TBH


----------



## Tcollector (Feb 6, 2009)

BoaConstrictor said:


> Why is it always the democrat! :wall:
> TBH



Why is it allways the republicans that screw everything up?

Boa, someone is really going to take that offensively. Rightnow we just need to concentrate on the bill itself.


----------



## ThomasH (Feb 8, 2009)

I don't mean to be offense but the cold hard facts are that democrats have closer ties to Born Free USA, HSUS, and ASPCA. Every bill I've ever seen like this was 100% sponsored by democrats. They aren't all bad, every party has its faults.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Feb 9, 2009)

Anyone know where to find the official text of S373? I've searched for it but keep coming up empty handed.
TBH


----------



## snakemaster1 (Feb 11, 2009)

Does anyone think if we all started to e-mail the people who live large on the donations they collect for animal welfare like HSUS . If we all e-mailed these people with our withdrawl of any futher donations maybe they will think no more free money and will back off .


----------



## ThomasH (Feb 11, 2009)

snakemaster1 said:


> Does anyone think if we all started to e-mail the people who live large on the donations they collect for animal welfare like HSUS . If we all e-mailed these people with our withdrawl of any futher donations maybe they will think no more free money and will back off .


Worth a shot. You wouldn't be able to influence a lot but you could influence some. Lobby groups run on money.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Feb 11, 2009)

Just an FYI, opencongress.org is a great site for information on every single step any bill takes. http://www.opencongress.org/ Check it out, make it part of your daily schedule!
TBH


----------



## arachnocat (Apr 1, 2009)

I just got this message from PIJAC:

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING ON HR 669 WHICH WOULD BAN NONNATIVE SPECIES

TO BE HEARD APRIL 23 -- ACTION NEEDED

E ISSUE

The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act.

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious [harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S.

HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to “cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.”  In order to be placed on the “Approved List” it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause “harm” anywhere in the US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an “Unapproved List.”  Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.

Species not appearing on the “Approved List” could not be imported into the United States; therefore, all unapproved nonnative species could not be moved interstate.  In addition, trade in all such unlisted species would come to a halt – possession would be limited and all breeding would cease. Unless those species are included on the approved list import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Apr 1, 2009)

I wonder if any tarantulas would make it to the approved list.


----------



## arachnocat (Apr 1, 2009)

Every state already has a list of approved animals, and illegal ones. Why would they need to complicate that by making a list for the entire country? Let each state decide what animals are detrimental to agriculture, human safety, etc.
Also, if they make these lists, they are going to need lots of people to enforce it, confiscate/destroy animals, issue fines... Sounds like a huge, expensive mess...


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 1, 2009)

arachnocat said:


> Every state already has a list of approved animals, and illegal ones. Why would they need to complicate that by making a list for the entire country? Let each state decide what animals are detrimental to agriculture, human safety, etc.
> Also, if they make these lists, they are going to need lots of people to enforce it, confiscate/destroy animals, issue fines... Sounds like a huge, expensive mess...


Expensive mess? Yes. Bad for economy? Most definitely a huge threat. 

However I do not in any way, shape, or form agree with this insanely bad bill but the reason they want this instead of every state for itself is due to the extreme ease of getting things across state lines. I live in VA where big cats are illegal. Say I want to buy one. All I have to do is travel to West Virginia and find someone that sells them and buy one. There are no state line searches! It is that easy except for the big cat breeder part of course. You can move anything across state lines in a shipping box. There aren't searches. I've heard of people getting monocles shipped to CA. It was that simple. But for a box to get into the U.S. is difficult. That is where bills like these come into play. Mentally inept and irresponsible people screw it up for everyone.


TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 1, 2009)

*Last fight before H. R. vote!*

E-mail! Call! Contact! Stop this! This is your last chance. Put this on every forum you take part in NOW! This will affect everyone in the U.S. by direct relation or by sinking us deeper into reccession.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 2, 2009)

*This is the last chance!*

I have noticed a large uprise in _Rhacodactlyus_ [Crested geckos and the like.] keeping. It would be a shame for that to die in its infancy. Not to mention all the other cool animals available right now. I *highly* doubt herps and inverts would be "approved!" Knowing the U.S. government committees they will only bring cute fluffy things. Quite ironic. Cats are one of the worst invasive animals even though they are domestic. They can live in all 50 states and freely wreck havoc on the ecosystem whether for "play" or food. You can guarantee the government would declare those approved. With these double standards we can not risk a bill like this going on any further.
TBH


----------



## barabootom (Apr 2, 2009)

Everything NOT on the approved list will be banned.  Don't give someone else the power to tell you what animals you can have.  Don't assume those in charge will make wise decisions.  With this bill you are giving others the right to decide if your pet is keepable or not.  STOP this bill!!!


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 6, 2009)

barabootom said:


> Everything NOT on the approved list will be banned.  Don't give someone else the power to tell you what animals you can have.  Don't assume those in charge will make wise decisions.  With this bill you are giving others the right to decide if your pet is keepable or not.  STOP this bill!!!


Agreed! Don't let the novelty of danger in this bill just wear off. Keep fighting.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 7, 2009)

*By PIJAC........*

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING NONNATIVE SPECIES APRIL 23 - ACTION NEEDED 

THE ISSUE 
The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act. 

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious [harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S. 

HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to “cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.” In order to be placed on the “Approved List” it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause “harm” anywhere in the US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an “Unapproved List.” Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination. 

Species not appearing on the “Approved List” could not be imported into the United States; therefore, all unapproved nonnative species could not be moved interstate. In addition, trade in all such unlisted species would come to a halt – possession would be limited and all breeding would cease. Unless those species are included on the approved list import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation. 

THE IMPACT 
Nonnative species in the pet trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, fish and a number of mammals 
(e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets) commonly kept as pets. It is immaterial under HR 669 that the 
• Vast majority of these nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, some for hundreds of years, and have not proven to be an environmental problem. 
• Numerous species are raised in the United States for many purposes, pets, recreational fishing and hunting, food, etc. 
• Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental problems, and this has generally been on a very localized basis (i.e. southern Florida, Hawaii). 
• Most states have exercised their authority to regulate problem species within their own borders through a mixture of management regimes ranging from permit systems to bans. 
• The HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative – that no harm has or is likely to occur within whole of the entire United States. 
• The “risk assessment” process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a a broader “risk analysis” that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management) measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies. 

HR 669 would employ a 2-step process of a Preliminary and a Final Approved List along with the Services having to promulgate regulations not only to deal with creation of the lists but also regulating all aspects of this rather complex bill. The Service would have to complete major portions of the list and regulation process within 24 months of passage. Imagine how the Service will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in HR 669 within these timeframes when it takes on average 4 years for the Service to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act. The bill sets up the under-resourced Service for failure and numerous lawsuits by activist groups. 

Listing Process - To list or not to list? -- That is the question! 
The listing process is somewhat complex. To place a species on the Preliminary Approved List (at some point in time converts to a Final Approved List) the Service must make a determination that those listed species, based on scientific and commercial information, are 
• Not harmful to the United State’s economy, environment or other animals’ or human health OR 
• May be harmful “but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.” While proponents would argue that this test would not be as rigorous as the ultimate test set forth in HR 669, PIJAC is at a loss how one proves no harm under the alleged simplified test for inclusion on the “Preliminary Approved List.” 

To get on the ultimate “Approved List ” (accomplished within 37 months), the Service would have to complete risk assessments, not risk analysis, using the following criteria. The assessors would have to make a determination 
based on: 
• Species identified to species level, and if possible information to subspecies level; 
• Native range of the species (which may or not be fully known); 
• Whether species has established, spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems similar to those in the US; 
• Environmental conditions exist in the US that suitable for establishment of the species; 
• Likelihood of establishment in the US; 
• Likelihood of speared in the US; 
• Likelihood species would harm wildlife resources of the US; 
• Likelihood the species would harm native species that are “rare” (not defined) or listed under Endangered Species Act; 
• Likelihood species would harm habitats or ecosystems of the US; 
• Likelihood “pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation;” and 
• Other factors “important to assessing the risk associated with the species”. Once a determination is made, the Service will place a species on one of 3 lists 
• Approved List 
• Unapproved List 
• The “Non-list” (section 4(2)(C)) for species for which “the Secretary has insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination “ whether to approve or disapprove. 

User Fees 
HR 669 also calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following the adoption of the “Preliminary Approved List.” This has been a long term desire of animal activist and environmental protectionist 

organizations since they know that user fees can become cost prohibitive and virtually eliminate small interest groups or business from participating in the process. It can easily paralyze access except for the wealthy or those living off of tax exempt dollars who use the system to drive their agendas. Furthermore, fees are not made available to the Service until 36 months into the process. It is not clear how the Service would implement the first three years of work under HR 669. 

RECOMMENDATIONS – TIME IS NOW! 

According to the Defenders of Wildlife "For far too long the pet, aquarium and other industries have imported live animals to the United States without regard to their harm…" Defenders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are part of a coalition pushing hard for passage of this bill without amendments. 

A HEARING has been scheduled for April 23 and the pet industry needs to be heard load and clear prior to the hearing! The anti-trade elements are hard at work to stop activities involving non-native species. A copy of HR 669 can be found on PIJAC’s website in the “Breaking News” section at www.pijac.org. Read the bill carefully since it could shut down major segments of the pet industry virtually overnight. 

PIJAC POSITION -- PIJAC supports the underlying intent of HR 669 to establish a risk-based process in order to prevent the introduction of potentially invasive species. It has been clear for quite some time that steps are needed to enhance and improve the current listing process for species shown to be injurious under the Lacey Act. In addition to much needed appropriations to fund staff and other ancillary support aids, the Lacey Act needs to be modernized to make the process more timely, efficient and transparent. However, HR 669 falls far short of accomplishing this objective. 

CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMITTEE (see contact information below) by 
• emailing or faxing your opposition to HR 669 to their offices in Washington DC urging them to amend 
the bill 
• ALSO contact their district offices 
- voice your opposition 
- and request a meeting with the representative when they are back in the District 

It is also important to organize like-minded people in your district so several of you can visit with your representative at the same time. 

A few talking points: 

• The approach taken in HR 669 will adversely impact trade and other activities involving nonnative species without utilizing a scientifically valid approach – even in the limited instances in which sufficient data are available on the biology and range of species, it will be virtually impossible to prove that they could not establish and spread in some portion of the US. Thus, it will be nearly impossible to get species on the “Approved List” unless they are so widespread in the country already. 

• The degree of uncertainty that will result by applying the “as if” criteria will result in virtually every species ending up on the list for which there is insufficient information to make a decision DESPITE THE FACT that most of these species have been in trade, recreational use, farming, etc. for decades with only a small percentage of species being problematic and then in localized situations 

• A one size assessment process fits all species is not plausible – what may be harmful in Hawaiian waters would not be harmful in Kansas or the deserts of Arizona or Texas. 

• HR 669 overly simplifies the complexity of the issue; bans all species unless they can get on an approved list; the criteria for the Approved List are not realistic; the lists are biased towards those entities that can afford to engage in the process – undoubtedly the USFWS will be paralyzed by activist animal rights and protectionist environmental organizations petitioning for species to be unapproved; 

• The USFWS does not have the capacity to implement the provisions given limited staff, money, and unrealistic timeliness; and the unintended consequences of a sloppy bill could actually be to facilitate the mass release of animals, and/or their mass euthanasia. 

• HR 669 does not take into consideration the socio-economic complexity of the issue. Stakeholders dependent upon access to non-native species include diverse interests: pet industry, sports fishing, federal/state hatcheries, agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment, hunting, food aquaculture. Currently, thousands of non-natives species are both imported and exported, as well as captive raised (in some instances farmed on ranched) within the United States. While most of these species are never intended for release into natural environments, some of these species (e.g. oysters, trout, bass, deer, game birds) are managed by government and private entities throughout the US. 

• HR 669 calls for a risk assessment when, in fact, a risk analysis process is warranted. A risk assessment only considers biological indices related to potential invasiveness, while a risk analysis considers both these, as well as socio-economic factors, including potential management options. A risk analysis can enable strategic decisions to be made, such as enabling certain species to continue in trade/transport if the risks of invasion could be sufficiently management (e.g. d HR 669 treats the entire United States as if it is a single ecosystem and ignores the historic definition of invasive species that applies to a specific ecosystem, not the political boundaries of the United States as an ecosystem. 

• Setting criteria in statute removes flexibility that could be achieved through rulemaking since a “one-sizefits- all” process is not appropriate for all taxa, regions of the country, proposed usage of the species, etc. 

• Deadlines are unrealistic. While we recognize the rationale for placing timeframes on USFWS, deadlines cause lawsuits; deadlines mandate action for unfunded mandates; two (2) years is unrealistic to conduct an assessment (even a rough screen) of literally thousands of species (1) imported, (2) raised in US for local markets as well as exports, and (3) imported as well as raised in US. 

• Animals owned prior to prohibition of importation (Section 2(f)) is major departure from current prohibitions under Lacey Act. HR 669 would allow possession of “an animal” if prove legally owned pre-launch of assessment. There is no indication as to what it takes to prove legality? Nor would one know when an assessment of a particular species was launched. 

• Assuming that more than a handful of non-native species end up on an approved list, enforcement of a list of species that have been in trade for decades will be more difficult than a dirty list. It is well established that only a small percentage of the species in trade have been shown to be “invasive.” The ornamental aquarium industry, for example, deals with more than 2,500 species of freshwater and marine fish. A handful of species have been found to be a problem in Southern Florida, but not elsewhere in the US; some found to be a problem in Hawaii are not a problem in Kansas. 

• Promulgation of regulations implementing the HR 669 process will be complex and doubtful if can be achieved within prescribed timeframe, especially if USFWS is to simultaneously conduct thousands of assessments on species already in trade. 

ACT NOW – Also alert your employees, friends, neighbors, competitors, and any other like-minded people and urge them to take time to respond to this unworkable approach to dealing with an issue of concern to all of us. 
KEEP CHECKING PIJAC’S WEBSITE FOR UPDATES ON HR669 HTTP://WWW.PIJAC.ORG


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 7, 2009)

*By PIJAC [Continued.].......................*

House Committee on Natural Resources 
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife 
187 Ford House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/226-0200 (Tel.) 
202/225-1542 (Fax) 

Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam) 
427 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515-5301 
202/225-1188 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/226-0341 (Washington Fax #) 
120 Father Duenas Ave., Suite 107 
Hagatna, GUAM 96910 
671/477-4272 (District Tel. #) 
671/477-2587 (District Fax #) 
http://www.house.gov/bordallo/IMA/issue.htm 

Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) 
1502 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-2726 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-4580 (Washington Fax #) 
Prince Kuhio Federal Building 
300 Ala Moana Blvd. – Room 4-104 
Honolulu, HI 96850 
808/541-2570 (District Tel. #) 
808/533-0133 (District Fax #) 
neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov 

Henry Brown (R-SC) 
103 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-3176 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-3407 (Washington Fax #) 
1800 North Oak Street, Suite C 
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577 
843/445-6459 (District Tel. #) 
843/445-6418 (District Fax #) 
5900 Core Avenue, Suite 401 
North Charleston, SC 29406 
843/747-4175 (District Tel. #) 
843/747-4711 (District Fax #) 
http://brown.house.gov/Contact/index.html 

Lois Capps (D-CA) 
1110 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-3601 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-5632 (Washington Fax #) 
2675 N. Ventura Road, Suite 105 
Port Hueneme, CA 93041 
805/985-6807 (District Tel. #) 
805/985-6875 (District Fax #) 
301 E Carrillo Street, Suite A 
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 
805/730-1710 (District Tel. #) 
805/730-9153 (District Fax #) 
http://www.house.gov/capps/contact/send_an_email.shtml 

William Cassidy (R-LA) 
506 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-3901 (District Tel. #) 
202/225-7313 (District Fax #) 
5555 Hilton Avenue, Suite 100 
Baton Rouge, LA 70808 
225/929-7711 (District Tel. #) 
225/929-7688 (District Fax #) 
http://cassidy.house.gov/contact/index.shtml 

Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) 
1032 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-7751 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-5629 (Washington Fax #) 
51 South University Ave., Suite 319 
Provo, UT 84601 
801/851-2500 (District Tel. #) 
801/851-2509 (District Fax #) 
https://forms.house.gov/chaffetz/contactform.shtml 

Donna M. Christensen (NP-Virgin Islands) 
1510 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-1790 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-5517 (Washington Fax #) 
Nisky Business Center 
Second Floor, Suite 207 
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802 
340/778-4408 (District Tel. #) 
340/778-8033 (District Fax #) 
P.O. Box 5980 
Sunny Isle Shopping Center, Space 25 
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00823 
340/778-5900 (District Tel. #) 
340/778-5111 (District Fax #) 
http://www.house.gov/writerep/ 

Diana L. DeGette (D-CO) 
2335 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-4431 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-5657 (Washington Fax #) 
600 Grant Street, Suite 202 
Denver, CO 80203 
303/844-4988 (District Tel. #) 
303/844-4996 (District Fax #) 
http://www.house.gov/formdegette/zip_auth.htm 

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP – American Samoa) 
2422 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-8577 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-8757 (Washington Fax #) 
P.O. Box, Drawer X 
Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA 96799 
684/633-1372 (District Tel. #) 
684/633-2680 (District Fax #) 
faleomavaega@mail.house.gov 

Jeff Flake (R-AZ) 
240 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-2635 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/226-4386 (Washington Fax #) 
1640 South Stapley, Suite 215 
Mesa, AZ 85204 
480/833-0092 (District Tel. #) 
480/833-6314 (District Fax #) 
jeff.flake@mail.house.gov 

John Fleming (R-LA) 
1023 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-2777 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-8039 (Washington Fax #) 
6425 Youree Drive, Suite 350 
Shreveport, LA 71105 
318/798-2254 (District Tel. #) 
318/798-2063 (District Fax #) 
Southgate Plaza Shopping Center 
1606 Fifth Street 
Leesville, LA 71446 
337/238-0778 (District Tel. #) 
337/238-0566 (District Fax #) 
https://forms.house.gov/fleming/contactform.shtml 

Doc Hastings (R-WA) 
1203 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515-4704 
202/225-5816 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-3251 (Washington Fax #) 
2715 St. Andrews Loop, Suite D 
Pasco, WA 99301 
509/543-9396 (District Tel. #) 
509/545-1972 (District Fax #) 
302 East Chestnut Street 
Yakima, WA 98901 
509/452-3243 (District Tel. #) 
509/452-3438 (District Fax #) 
http://hastings.house.gov/ContactForm.aspx 

Dale E. Kildee (D-MI) 
2107 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-3611 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-6393 (Washington Fax #) 
432 N. Saginaw Street, Suite 410 
Bay City, MI 48708 
989/891-0990 (District Tel. #) 
989/891-0994 (District Fax #) 
515 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 401 
Saginaw, MI 48607 
989/755-8904 (District Tel. #) 
989/755-8908 (District Fax #) 
dkildee@mail.house.gov 

Ronald James Kind (D-WI) 
1406 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-5506 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-5739 (Washington Fax #) 
205 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 400 
La Crosse, WI 54601 
608/782-2558 (District Tel. #) 
608/782-4588 (District Fax #) 
131 South Barstow Street, Suite 301 
Eau Claire, WI 54701 
715/831-9214 (District Tel. #) 
715/831-9272 (District Fax #) 
ron.kind@mail.house.gov 

Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD) 
314 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-5311 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-0254 (Washington Fax #) 
102 Turpins Lane 
Centreville, MD 21617 
443/262-9136 (District Tel. #) 
443/262-9713 (District Fax #) 
https://forms.house.gov/kratovil/contactform.shtml 

Douglas L. Lamborn (R-CO) 
437 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-4422 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/226-2638 (Washington Fax #) 
415 Main Street 
Buena Vista, CO 81211 
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #) 
719/520-0840 (District Fax #) 
1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd., Suite 110 
Colorado Springs, CO 80920 
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #) 
719/520-0840 (District Fax #) 
http://lamborn.house.gov/ZipAuth.aspx 

Frank J. Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ) 
237 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515-3006 
202/225-4671 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-9665 (Washington Fax #) 
67/69 Church Street, Kilmer Square 
New Brunswick, NJ 08901 
732/249-8892 (District Tel. #) 
732/249-1335 (District Fax #) 
504 Broadway 
Long Branch, NJ 07740 
732/571-1140 (District Tel. #) 
732/870-3890 (District Fax #) 
http://www.house.gov/pallone/contact.shtml 

Pedro R. Pierluisi (NP-Puerto Rico) 
1218 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-2615 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-2154 (Washington Fax #) 
250 Calle Fortaleza Old 
San Juan, PUERTO RICO 00901 
787/723-6333 (District Tel. #) 
787/723-6333 (District Fax #) 
https://forms.house.gov/pierluisi/contactform. 
shtml 

Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-WV) 
2307 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-3452 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-9061 (Washington Fax #) 
601 Federal Street, Room 1005 
Bluefield, WV 24701 
304/325-6222 (District Tel. #) 
304/325-0552 (District Fax #) 
301 Prince Street 
Beckley, WV 25801 
304/252-5000 (District Tel. #) 
304/252-9803 (District Fax #) 
http://www.rahall.house.gov/?sectionid=9§io 
ntree=9 

Gregorio Sablan (I- Mariana Islands) 
423 Cannon House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-2646 (Washington Tel. #) 
https://forms.house.gov/sablan/contactform. 
shtml 

Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) 
1330 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-5456 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-5822 (Washington Fax #) 
33 Lowell Street 
Manchester, NH 03101 
603/641-9536 (District Tel. #) 
603/641-9561 (District Fax #) 
104 Washington Street 
Dover, NH 03820 
603/743-4813 (District Tel. #) 
603/743-5956 (District Fax #) 
http://forms.house.gov/sheaporter/ 
webform/issue_subscribe.htm 


Robert J. Wittman (R-VA) 
1123 Longworth House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-4261 (Washington Tel. #) 
3504 Plank Road, Suite 203 
Fredericksburg, VA 22407 
540/548-1086 (District Tel. #) 
4904-B George Washington Memorial Hwy. 
Yorktown, VA 23692 
757/874-6687 (District Tel. #) 
https://forms.house.gov/wittman/IMA/webforms/i 
ssue_subscribe.htm 


Donald E. Young (R-AK) 
2111 Rayburn House Office Building 
Washington, DC 20515 
202/225-5765 (Washington Tel. #) 
202/225-0425 (Washington Fax #) 
101 12th Avenue, #10 
Fairbanks, AK 99701-6275 
907/456-0210 (District Tel. #) 
907/456-0279 (District Fax #) 
Peterson Tower Building 
510 L Street, Suite 580 
Anchorage, AK 99501-1954 
907/271-5978 (District Tel. #) 
907/271-5950 (District Fax #) 
don.young@mail.house.gov




Thanks for looking!
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 8, 2009)

I'm quite suprised that only a select few actually care about this.
TBH


----------



## ccamaleon3000 (Apr 9, 2009)

non native species include amphibians,arachnids,reptiles,mammal's,birds,fish,etc. include all.  no only reptiles please read the proposition real good because it will ban all,  no only snakes or reptiles like some people think.


----------



## IrishKnight (Apr 10, 2009)

On April 23, 2009 a total of 15 congressman are taking into a consideration of passing HR669 as a bill. This is a non-native exotic animal ban, which bans keeping/selling any non-native pet. This can hurt a lot of hobbiest and jobs as we know it


screw that! they have no right i will fight for my Ts!!!


----------



## Franklin (Apr 10, 2009)

IrishKnight said:


> On April 23, 2009 a total of 15 congressman are taking into a consideration of passing HR669 as a bill. This is a non-native exotic animal ban, which bans keeping/selling any non-native pet. This can hurt a lot of hobbiest and jobs as we know it
> 
> 
> screw that! they have no right i will fight for my Ts!!!


dont fight for your t's .. let them do the fighting! lets start the army, front line is nature boy with his... species... lol


----------



## ccamaleon3000 (Apr 10, 2009)

here is a vid of info

      [YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FPfL212CB8&feature=channel_page[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 10, 2009)

*USARK! This applies to all nonnatives! Not just herps*

Urgent Letter to the Reptile Nation / HR669


Reptile Nation,

I know that we are facing dangerous and confusing times for the Reptile Community. Our end is upon us if we don't take decisive action to save ourselves. We have the power to decide our own future if we will only wake up and do what needs to be done!!

Thank you to those of you who have taken it upon yourself to take action. I know it has been frustrating. Congress is not set up to be reached by email. We have experienced broken links, constituent filters, blocks and deletions. But our opponents at HSUS lobbying for the bill have faced the same setbacks; although they have shown up in much larger numbers. As for the groups opposing the bill, USARK has generated the most contacts according to congressional staffers. But we must do much better or we will fail.

I just returned from a trip to Capitol Hill. Our lobbyist Tom Wolfe set up meetings with both sides of the Congressional Subcommittee considering HR669. We also did drop in visits to subcommittee member offices to make our case. Support was split down party lines. The Republicans support us and the Democrats oppose us. The Democrat side can win with a straight party line vote. The good news is that since meeting with USARK the Ranking Republican Rep Harry Brown, SC contacted me and has made this bill a priority. He has given us precise instructions on how to most effectively contact the subcommittee.

The Reptile Community must wake up or all will be lost. This is a huge mailing list. Yet only a few are taking action to contact the subcommittee. If everyone on this list did their part we would avalanche the subcommittee and make our point. We could kill HR669. We need to get off our lazy [Edit by me to fit AB rules.] and start writing and calling the subcommittee members. The Hearing is on the 23rd of this month. That is all the time we have to save ourselves from being completely destroyed... and make no mistake, if HR669 passes the Reptile Community will be decimated overnight.

Rep Brown's office suggests we focus on direct contact with subcommittee members. That means written letters followed up by phone calls. They are telling us that email and fax are the least effective way to contact members... they get lost and deleted. We need to call and write. They are also saying to send the letters directly to our lobbyist and have him deliver them in mass to the subcommittee members. If you are focusing on other activities STOP until after you complete this important task. Start calling and writing. The Key is IN MASS!!! It has greater impact that way. The time is now to fight for your life. We must convince several Democrats to oppose HR669 to prevail.

This is what we need to do:

Write a letter to each member of the subcommittee. Click this link http://www.usark.org/uploads/hr669sample.pdf for the sample letter from our archive and names and phone numbers for committee members.
Label each envelope w/ the committee members name and your name and return address.
Put all these letters in a large manila envelope and send to: Tom Wolfe, 6246 Lee Hwy, Arlington, VA 22205
Call each member of the subcommittee- you will be speaking with staff. Let them know you Oppose HR669. Be civil, but tell them how this will effect you and your family.
Check where members are from. If any of the members are your district representatives, or are from your state, make sure they know you are their constituent.
If we are not annihilated by HR669 be prepared to do this over and over again. From now on political action will be needed regularly to maintain our rights. If you have not joined USARK please click the link on the bottom of the page and protect your rights. Please post this letter on every forum and social networking site you can think of.

Sincerely,

Andrew Wyatt                                                             

President USARK


----------



## arachnocat (Apr 10, 2009)

Can't see the vid above. I'll try this one:

[YOUTUBE]_FPfL212CB8[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Tcollector (Apr 10, 2009)

Im just being honest but personally I think this bill might only have a 50% chance of making it. Think about it....... If this goes through more jobs will be lost, buisnesses will be shut down, and out country will get more deeper in a whole than it is now. Tell me what kind of people will do that..... Their is no since in even trying to pass this bill. I encourage everyone to do anything that could help stop this bill.


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 10, 2009)

Tcollector said:


> Im just being honest but personally I think this bill might only have a 50% chance of making it. Think about it....... If this goes through more jobs will be lost, buisnesses will be shut down, and out country will get more deeper in a whole than it is now. Tell me what kind of people will do that..... Their is no since in even trying to pass this bill. I encourage everyone to do anything that could help stop this bill.


The radical HSUS democratic believers would. Well they are trying so their logic is, as you imply, lacking. So we must fight as if we are losing without our intervention.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 13, 2009)

*10 days left to the hearing!*
TBH


----------



## What (Apr 13, 2009)

NOTE: I have not read through the entire thread, if this has been said already sorry, just saying my piece. 

To all that oppose this bill... You do realize that all the animals you currently own are grandfathered, dont you? You do realize species that are approved will still be able to be shipped across state lines, dont you?

And most importantly, you all do realize that this bill will do more to protect our ecosystems from irresponsible keepers than anything else we could do? I mean really... There are a lot of things that *should not* be brought in as they have amazing potential to do damage. We need more regulations on importation of live animals...

All the arguments I have seen related to the bill are simply people being selfish and not wanting to face the reality that some of these things could cause immense problems should they be released in certain areas. I would rather give up keeping a few things than have another everglades like scenario. Please people, realize that just because it might take away a few of your possible pets it is still a good thing for the native environments and ecosystems.


----------



## Thompson08 (Apr 13, 2009)

What said:


> NOTE: I have not read through the entire thread, if this has been said already sorry, just saying my piece.
> 
> To all that oppose this bill... You do realize that all the animals you currently own are grandfathered, dont you? You do realize species that are approved will still be able to be shipped across state lines, dont you?
> 
> ...


Man I agree with this 100 % Even though I hate to think that it is banning some of my animals, it will help the ecosystems out there. And that is actually what counts =\


----------



## vvx (Apr 13, 2009)

I still say it should include cats & dogs. Especially cats.


----------



## pouchedrat (Apr 13, 2009)

Great....  I just found out about this today.  We former and current pouched rat owners already went through this for 5 YEARS, and now that we have our right to own pouched rats as pets given back to us back in September 2008, it's threatening being taken away again!   

None of us have been successful in finding breeders still left here in the USA (and the CDC still has a ban on import), with rumors of someone in Texas having them available in another year or two, this just ruins everything again.


It's not just reptiles that are threatened, it's all exotics.  This is what happens when stupid people own pets, the government suddenly feels the need to protect them from themselves.  It really only takes one or two bad eggs to ruin it for everyone else.  For our pouchies, it took ONE person to destroy it for everyone else in the USA.  


I'm just tired of writing letters and fighting.  It feels like when we succeed once, another bill pops up.  It will never end, will it?  

AND ANOTHER THING, what about all the feral cats, or the people who let their cats go outside?  They affect wildlife as well.  The difference being most of us exotic owners don't want our pets running around outside while irresponsible cat owners encourage it.


----------



## What (Apr 13, 2009)

Pouchedrat, I can understand your feelings, but stop and think for a second how much damage can be caused by those pouched rats that were introduced. It is exactly why we *need* a law like this.

Not to mention that everything people are currently keeping is covered by the grandfather clause...You will still be allowed to keep the pouched rats/snakes/lizards/spiders/etc you have right now with no problems.

Edit: Also, cats should have been banned long ago. They are one of the most destructive animals ever introduced to the US.


----------



## AzJohn (Apr 14, 2009)

Useful website
http://www.nohr669.com/


----------



## arachnocat (Apr 14, 2009)

Check out this brochure from the National Environmental Coaliton on Invasive Species: http://www.necis.net/files/brochure-to-support-h.r.-669-2.pdf
Not only is it filled with tons of misinformation, It shows a ball python and says it's a burmese python. I guess a snake is a snake to these people. Why would you need to get your facts straight about the very animals you're trying to ban?
Anyway, I thought it was interesting to see what the other side is doing...


----------



## JoeRossi (Apr 14, 2009)

*You have not heard*

You have not heard the new specie found in Imfulacrap, Cornholio.  Yes a man eating 3 ft Burmese.  They are also letting loose venemus gardner snakes as well in California.  One bite and you start biting others then it spreads to an infectious mutaion killing everyone....or was that a movie:? 


HA! Thanks for sharing and you have to be kiddddddddding me!


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 14, 2009)

What said:


> To all that oppose this bill... You do realize that all the animals you currently own are grandfathered, dont you? You do realize species that are approved will still be able to be shipped across state lines, dont you?
> 
> And most importantly, you all do realize that this bill will do more to protect our ecosystems from irresponsible keepers than anything else we could do? I mean really... There are a lot of things that *should not* be brought in as they have amazing potential to do damage. We need more regulations on importation of live animals...
> 
> All the arguments I have seen related to the bill are simply people being selfish and not wanting to face the reality that some of these things could cause immense problems should they be released in certain areas. I would rather give up keeping a few things than have another everglades like scenario. Please people, realize that just because it might take away a few of your possible pets it is still a good thing for the native environments and ecosystems.


They may be grandfathered in but we can't expand the hobby with new species or get new animals. There will most likely be nothing exotic or nondomesticated on the approved list. The committe that would choose goes by flawed and later stated to be incorrect research. They share incorrect information and photos of improperly identified animals. They are a bad source to regulate us. I and most of the exotic animal community believe that we should comprimise with the government. They can make laws on how we own but they can't tell us if we own unless we go against their "how." They could make laws with punishments against negligent ownership like fines and possible jail time for being caught releasing nonnative wildlife. I just don't like the double standard with cats. If the government chooses to regulate us they should also regulate the cat community by simply illegalize letting your cat roam anywhere but your house. That would greatly relieve ecological pressure. But this will only help the environment up to a limit until our activities, as humans are regulated. But as of now unless they do these things, that is an unfair double standard that purely warrants protest against.
TBH


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 14, 2009)

What said:


> Pouchedrat, I can understand your feelings, but stop and think for a second how much damage can be caused by those pouched rats that were introduced. It is exactly why we *need* a law like this.
> 
> Not to mention that everything people are currently keeping is covered by the grandfather clause...You will still be allowed to keep the pouched rats/snakes/lizards/spiders/etc you have right now with no problems.
> 
> Edit: Also, cats should have been banned long ago. They are one of the most destructive animals ever introduced to the US.


As I stated, I stand for responsible ownership and committee comprimise without double standards. We will run into problems with animals we already own too. What if NO insects or rodents make the approved list? How will we maintain what we have if we can't feed them? What are we going to do? Watch them starve? If you can figure this out, than fine. I'll be all for HR 669. Cats as I stated in my last thread should be banned from the wilderness. Once again, *responsible ownership!*
TBH


----------



## What (Apr 14, 2009)

NOTE: Numbering has been placed *after* the sentences being referenced, please keep this in mind.


ThomasH said:


> They may be grandfathered in but we can't expand the hobby with new species or get new animals.*1* There will most likely be nothing exotic or nondomesticated on the approved list.*2* The committe that would choose goes by flawed and later stated to be incorrect research.*3* They share incorrect information and photos of improperly identified animals. They are a bad source to regulate us.*4* I and most of the exotic animal community believe that we should comprimise with the government.*5* They can make laws on how we own but they can't tell us if we own unless we go against their "how." They could make laws with punishments against negligent ownership like fines and possible jail time for being caught releasing nonnative wildlife.*6* I just don't like the double standard with cats.*7*
> TBH


I count at least 4 baseless assumptions and a healthy dose to try and misdirect in your post. I have already agreed with you about cats, no need to preach.

Now... 1-4, all assumptions. We cannot know exactly who the government will use to do the research, but I can guarantee that companies like Flukers, Zoo Med, ExoTerra, and others will be putting up money for common species of herps to be allowed for import/approved. This passing in an economy such as we have now is a *good thing*, it will place economic pressure upon the companies that manufacture supplies, companies that are large enough for the government to take notice of if they start going down. 

Anyways, a more targeted response to #1, ask yourself if the hobby really needs new species that have not been researched at all yet. How many one-off animals have been brought into the country that were in fact sensitive species? How many species have been almost destroyed due to collection for people that feel the need to have every new thing in their collection? Think about those issues, then decide if yours and others like you's whims are more important than preserving healthy ecosystems.

#5: How do you know that "most" of the hobby wants compromise? From much passive observation it seems to me that the majority of people keeping herps/inverts dont want *any* legislation restricting them. Even I dont want legislation, but we have come to a point where we need it to ensure both ecosystems abroad and at home's safety and well being. 

#6: You do see that the bill covers that...dont you? Go check out section 6 of the bill. 

#7: So you dislike it just because of cats not being on it? That seems to go against everything else you have said...



ThomasH said:


> As I stated, I stand for responsible ownership and committee comprimise without double standards.*1* We will run into problems with animals we already own too.*2* What if NO insects or rodents make the approved list?*3* How will we maintain what we have if we can't feed them?*4* What are we going to do? Watch them starve? If you can figure this out, than fine.*5* I'll be all for HR 669. Cats as I stated in my last thread should be banned from the wilderness. Once again, *responsible ownership!**6*
> TBH


#1: Double standards are a fact of life, but even so, in this case, no double standard exists. Cats are a whole different issue from herps/inverts/etc and have been being kept for far longer. I dont like that they arent being legislated against just as much as you, but whatever, go start a campaign for responsible cat ownership. That would do more good than complaining about the lack of legislation.

#2-5: There are still *tons* of native insects and plenty of native rats. Lab rats and common brown rats are probably already considered naturalized as they have been in this country for soo long. Note this section of the bill, this means that all species of herps/verts/inverts that are native are still fair game. So for invert food you have any number of crickets, roaches, grasshoppers, flies, and beetles(mealworms). These will all be totally clear to keep as they are currently occurring in the wild in the USA and have historically occurred.

#6: Responsible ownership is a great thing, but only really matters if it is practiced by 100% of people. As we can see from the everglades...it isnt.

So, now that I have gained your support for the bill, thank you for your time.(Or were you being faecetious when you said you would support it?  )


----------



## ThomasH (Apr 14, 2009)

What said:


> So, now that I have gained your support for the bill, thank you for your time.(Or were you being faecetious when you said you would support it?  )


Your answers left me dissatisfied and many were questionable. Therefore you have not gained my support.

Baseless? No. Assumptions? Well yes, but based on thorough research of other nations that have similar laws and random bills passed by the H.R.
You did not agree with me on cats. You said they should have been banned. I think that how people act with them should be regulated and it should be noted that they are ecological terrors but I never said "ban" as you did. I don't want just common species approved. I love my random Andros, Ts and snakes. Tokays have become invasive but I just couldn't not have mine. You are assuming that they would research possible hobby species? Now that is an example of a purely baseless assumption. Most invasive species to the U.S. didn't make it here due to the hobby. They made it here due to frieght shipments with no intentions of bringing wild animals. I highly suggest you look into invasive species and how they got here before claiming that it is all the hobby's fault, it usually isn't. Many [if not most] of the invasives came far before there was a real hobby. Again the hobby is not primarily at fault for screwing the ecosystem. We may at times make mistakes like the burms and monitors but that is a very isolated incident. USARK has taken a general census of the herp hobby showing that some regulation could be in order. When they decided to radio chip burms and other possibly/proven invasive reptiles in FL very few people stood in the way. I think HR669 shouldn't exist but if it must than cats SHOULD logically be on it. From an ecological stand point cats are a much bigger issue, how cares how long they've been around with people in this [Ecological.] aspect. What if we can't breed the feeders fast enough or they are found to be diseased? Why should we have to worry about native U.S. feeders any way? We shouldn't have to worry about quality of food for our pets. It isn't like 100% of automobile drivers are responsible and that is even more ecologically damaging. So by your way of thinking, should automobiles be illegalized?
TBH


----------



## vvx (Apr 14, 2009)

What said:


> Anyways, a more targeted response to #1, ask yourself if the hobby really needs new species that have not been researched at all yet. How many one-off animals have been brought into the country that were in fact sensitive species? How many species have been almost destroyed due to collection for people that feel the need to have every new thing in their collection? Think about those issues, then decide if yours and others like you's whims are more important than preserving healthy ecosystems.


It's a narrow view to think the US exclusively is responsible for destroying species. Unless we can apply the law to the entire world, all countries, I do not think the law will prevent this. All the other countries could continue on doing business as usual.


----------



## What (Apr 14, 2009)

vvx said:


> It's a narrow view to think the US exclusively is responsible for destroying species. Unless we can apply the law to the entire world, all countries, I do not think the law will prevent this. All the other countries could continue on doing business as usual.


Still, it will protect the species in our country. I do not expect the world to follow our example, nor do I think that it will slow down the trade much at all. I do however think that it will shrink the demand for such things by at least one third, possibly more.


----------



## skips (Apr 14, 2009)

What said:


> NOTE: I have not read through the entire thread, if this has been said already sorry, just saying my piece.
> 
> To all that oppose this bill... You do realize that all the animals you currently own are grandfathered, dont you? You do realize species that are approved will still be able to be shipped across state lines, dont you?
> 
> ...


Haha, I'm with you my friend.  Do get me wrong, I'd love to go to "kick it" at the bar with any responsible hobbyist hear.  But seriously, just working at a zoo for a couple of years will get you in the mood to propose a much stricter bill than this even (exaggeration, yes).  People tell me they bought a spider, or a burmese pyton, or anything else for that matter and ask if we can take it. When we can't they almost invariable release it into the backyard.  This bill bans potentially invasive species AND species which could carry parasites and other pathogens.  Who hear can honestly tell me while keeping a straight face that would import a species that potentially carries a detrimentally infectious parasite, just  so they can brag to there friends that they got a new scorp (scorp is just an example, don't try and crucify me citing that it's never happened with scorpions).  

I just had a conversation on this board (its probably still up) where a person asked why chinese mantises were "encouraged" to be released into your garden.  They're not!  Idiot gardeners sell them to other idiot gardeners as pest control and then they establish.  They're now the only type of mantis we have in our area!  This bill protects earth from idiots.  I'd be willing to give up the right to buy a T for that.   I mean, for the love of christ, what do you need a demeril's ground boa for?  there are like 3 of them left in the wild and I see them at f'ing pet supplies.


----------



## skips (Apr 14, 2009)

ThomasH said:


> Your answers left me dissatisfied and many were questionable. Therefore you have not gained my support.
> 
> Now that is an example of a purely baseless assumption. Most invasive species to the U.S. didn't make it here due to the hobby. They made it here due to frieght shipments with no intentions of bringing wild animals. I highly suggest you look into invasive species and how they got here before claiming that it is all the hobby's fault, it usually isn't.


I direct your attention to my previous post about chinese mantises.  Happens frequently, though I agree a number were brought in on freights, I would say equal number were brought in as bio control.  Actually, I've only heard of a few instances where a freight brought in an invasive.  I've heard far more instances of humans bringing in things because they're a.) a more hardy species b.) they're pretty c.)bio control.


and the internet pissing contest continues....


----------



## What (Apr 14, 2009)

ThomasH said:


> Assumptions? Well yes, but based on thorough research of other nations that have similar laws and random bills passed by the H.R.


Care to link those sources?


> I don't want just common species approved. I love my random Andros, Ts and snakes. Tokays have become invasive but I just couldn't not have mine. You are assuming that they would research possible hobby species? Now that is an example of a purely baseless assumption.


I never said they would research possible hobby species, though I do feel it is likely that they will approve entire genera rather than individual species(i.e. all Grammostola or all Pandinus) with possible exceptions for sensitive species. Again...look beyond *you*, just because you are responsible does not mean even the majority is.


> Most invasive species to the U.S. didn't make it here due to the hobby. They made it here due to frieght shipments with no intentions of bringing wild animals. I highly suggest you look into invasive species and how they got here before claiming that it is all the hobby's fault, it usually isn't. Many [if not most] of the invasives came far before there was a real hobby.


Where did I say it was solely the hobby at fault? I do find it very funny that you are telling me to research invasive species...Invasive species are one of the areas I plan to focus on in relation to entomology/arachnology, I understand the vectors very well. I also understand that the bill is not just about animals being kept as pets, but also about animals being brought in accidentally in shipments. It opens up the ability of fining people who bring in pests/invasives for the government and as such gives motivation to shipping companies to be more careful with their products and controls.


> Again the hobby is not primarily at fault for screwing the ecosystem. We may at times make mistakes like the burms and monitors but that is a very isolated incident. USARK has taken a general census of the herp hobby showing that some regulation could be in order. When they decided to radio chip burms and other possibly/proven invasive reptiles in FL very few people stood in the way.


Isolated incident? Like chameleons in 4+ localities in California and iguanas in more? Or like the mediterranean house geckos all over the southwest? Or the african clawed frog being found in almost every body of fresh water in California? Or chinese mystery snails that are in 27+ states? Or african land snails that have had to be eradicated 3-4 times in California, Arizona, and other states? This isnt even counting the things in Florida alone, nor some of the things that I some reason am not being able to remember right now.  


> I think HR669 shouldn't exist but if it must than cats SHOULD logically be on it. From an ecological stand point cats are a much bigger issue, how cares how long they've been around with people in this [Ecological.] aspect.


I agree, but cats are a separate issue as they are considered domesticated pets and could use a whole bill all to their lonesome...


> What if we can't breed the feeders fast enough or they are found to be diseased? Why should we have to worry about native U.S. feeders any way? We shouldn't have to worry about quality of food for our pets.


If you cant breed the feeders fast enough then, you are doing something wrong. Many universities use all native roaches as food sources for their inverts. If a colony becomes infected with a parasite or something, then you do exactly the same thing you would do with your roaches now, dispose of them via freezing and start a new colony. As B. dubia pose next to no danger of introduction/ecological damage I have a feeling you wont.


> It isn't like 100% of automobile drivers are responsible and that is even more ecologically damaging. So by your way of thinking, should automobiles be illegalized?
> TBH


I do think that off-roading in motorized vehicles should be outlawed except in special circumstances and/or special areas. Though, with some of the things that could be introduced, I kinda doubt they are more damaging on a widespread level(also, take into account that the bill is to protect our agricultural interests as well).


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Apr 15, 2009)

What said:


> To all that oppose this bill... You do realize that all the animals you currently own are grandfathered, dont you?


Feeder insects including the common house crickets would immediately become illegal. Naturalized species are treated as invasive wildlife. If someone were to breed an exotic tarantula each spiderling could land them in prison for up to five years. The cost of listing a single species for approval is not detailed but the requirements are such that it would likely cost tens of thousands at the minimum and since most tropicals might theoretically survive in southern Florida all nonnative tarantulas and scorpions would be illegal even if someone could afford to have them considered for the approved list. Anything not on the approved list is illegal.


----------



## What (Apr 15, 2009)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> Feeder insects including the common house crickets would immediately become illegal. Naturalized species are treated as invasive wildlife. If someone were to breed an exotic tarantula each spiderling could land them in prison for up to five years. The cost of listing a single species for approval is not detailed but the requirements are such that it would likely cost tens of thousands at the minimum and since most tropicals might theoretically survive in southern Florida all nonnative tarantulas and scorpions would be illegal even if someone could afford to have them considered for the approved list. Anything not on the approved list is illegal.


And stating the obvious helps how? I dont even want to touch your rash overstatement on the penalties for breeding a T... Yes, the *maximum* penalty is around 5 years and a fine, how often do you really think they would do that? Have you in your encounters with the USDA ever had anything more than the offending animal(s) confiscated? In case you missed it, the bill states that the preliminary list will include already widespread species(most everything in the hobby, especially crickets and roaches) and things that are already here and do not cause harm or pose a risk.


Elytra and Antenna said:


> You apparently haven't read the bill. Introduced species are not considered native (all our feeders including crickets would be illegal). Anything not on the approved list is illegal and can result in a sentence of up to five years per animal (Lacey Act). There is no explanation of what paperwork you'd have to produce to prove that your animals were purchased prior to the law. Few hobbyists have adequate documentation.


Uhh, you miss this whole section I mentioned before? All the animals people are currently keeping can continue to be kept. As for the cricket issue, the fact that they have been introduced and are continuing to be released and not spreading is evidence enough that they are not a significant threat. Can you give me any reason why they would be placed on the unapproved list? Or even a reason why switching the industry over to Gryllus sp. is a bad thing? 

Also, as for documentation, any "responsible" keeper should have documentation, either timestamped photos or written records. I know I have collection records for everything that is non-transient(ie. being kept for more than just pinning or photos) in my collection that is not from another country, and even for those things I have the date when I received the animal in an excel log(and if it has died, its date of death). And, if you look at the bill, it clearly says that they must notify the public exactly what is on each list *before* they are enacted, so anyone needing to get reference material will have plenty of notice(sixty days is far more time than needed).


----------



## MrRogers (Apr 15, 2009)

Mushroom Spore said:


> Internet petitions don't actually accomplish anything. All they do is let people feel like they've "done their part" without actually having to put forth the effort of writing real letters or making phone calls...which, again, is DANGEROUS to any movement, because internet petitions are pretty much worthless and so people haven't really done anything at all, in the end.


I'm a canadian but I'm taking strong interest in this bill because it will no doubt have an impact on imports here as well. I imagine that lots of suppliers sell to canadian stores and the trades are linked together across the boarder.

In regards to petitions Mushroom Spore is correct in that signing an internet petition will do almost no good. At best it can show public interest but even then it's credibility is limited because they are only electronic signatures, which are as genuine as a "Thank you" from a trash bin at Mcdonalds.

Certian petitions do serve a purpose, and I know this from my chariety work on behalf of The World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA). They use online petitions as support for pushing legislation, however signatures require contact information which translates in us making contact with signers requesting financial support, (sorry but it takes more then a good heart and two seconds of being online to save animals worldwide).

Generally, in order to make a change individuals better be prepared to hand out real support in the form of a written letter or financial support in order to make an impact. Either way it takes resources like time and money to translate into action. Goodwill, hopes and dreams only make us feel aware and concerned.

Again, I hope for everyone's sake that this bill does not go through to the full extent, and that there will be a better way to preserve the richness of keeping these beautiful animals responsibly without damaging our environment or needlessly punishing hard working breeders, shopowners, suppliers and transporters working in the pet trade. Being a canadian citizen, I have limits but I will do what I can from my current position to help in anyway possible.


----------



## Elytra and Antenna (Apr 15, 2009)

What said:


> In case you missed it, the bill states that the preliminary list will include already widespread species (most everything in the hobby, especially crickets and roaches) and things that are already here and do not cause harm or pose a risk.


They aren't on the preliminary list so far and it's highly unlikely a documented house pest (house cricket) would make it to the approved list. Native Gryllus are already illegal to ship over state lines under ag regulations. Crickets would then all be illegal.

You have no clue what the documentation requirements will be. We're talking about up to five years in prison per animal so the documentation is going to have to be better than a home photo or pet shop receipt that says "misc." or "reptiles" (many stores have tarantulas and scorpions in the reptile section and the receipt simply says reptiles).


----------



## What (Apr 15, 2009)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> They aren't on the preliminary list so far and it's highly unlikely a documented house pest (house cricket) would make it to the approved list. Native Gryllus are already illegal to ship over state lines under ag regulations. Crickets would then all be illegal.


And you have access to this preliminary list? Care to share?
Also, if the native Gryllus sp. are illegal to ship state to state, when why wouldnt the A. domestica be illegal as well? 



> You have no clue what the documentation requirements will be. We're talking about up to five years in prison per animal so the documentation is going to have to be better than a home photo or pet shop receipt that says "misc." or "reptiles" (many stores have tarantulas and scorpions in the reptile section and the receipt simply says reptiles).


I notice you skipped over my question relating to this, so I will take it that you have never heard of *anyone* actually getting the maximum penalty for *keeping* something illegal(Importing CITES protected animals maybe, some guy with Brachys?). But even then, until we know what the requirements are why is there any reason to suspect that they will be anything other than photos showing prior ownership?(Even then, they would have to find proof saying that you did not own the animal in question before the law, which is a far more difficult task. Especially when you did in fact own the animal before the law.)


----------



## skips (Apr 15, 2009)

Elytra and Antenna said:


> They aren't on the preliminary list so far and it's highly unlikely a documented house pest (house cricket) would make it to the approved list. Native Gryllus are already illegal to ship over state lines under ag regulations. Crickets would then all be illegal.
> 
> You have no clue what the documentation requirements will be. We're talking about up to five years in prison per animal so the documentation is going to have to be better than a home photo or pet shop receipt that says "misc." or "reptiles" (many stores have tarantulas and scorpions in the reptile section and the receipt simply says reptiles).


Lets not turn this rational conversation into an internet argument.  We're not starwars nerds.  In the first place I don't believe this bill has a chance of passing due to economic implications in an already down economy and the fact that this is america.  Nothing passes unless it's popular.  Even if it does pass it can't possibly have the same language as it does now.  No one would vote for it.  Penalties will not be that steep.  Then, even if they are even close to that they will not be enforced to the extent you described.  We seem to be arguing like this resolution has a good chance, and when it does then we're all going to be thrown in jail.


----------



## arachnocat (Apr 23, 2009)

Email from USARK:


 VICTORY over HR669!!!

WE DID IT FOLKS!!!! Victory over HR669! You can thank yourselves and the Reptile Nation, for a hard fought Victory! Our nearly 50,000 grassroots letters and 1,000s of phone calls to the offices of the subcommittee members clearly prevailed at today's Insular Affairs Subcommittee hearing on HR 669. HR 669 in it's current form is finished. For anything to go forward it MUST be re-written from the ground up....and USARK will have a seat at the table along with other stake holders.

Delegate Faleomavega from Samoa said, "The letter and phone campaign hit the subcommittee like a BUZZ SAW". Harry Burroughs, of the subcommittee staff said, "I haven't seen a letter writing campaign like this in 30 years! You should be proud of yourselves." Take heart in the fact that the Reptile Nation stopped HR669 in it's tracks!! 

We also need to thank Congressman Henry Brown, SC for helping us to focus our fight on the Subcommittee as opposed to the full House of Representatives. He is the one who instructed us to write real letters to be truly effective. He said emails are fine if that is all you can manage, but they can be filtered and deleted. There is no denying the weight of thousands of paper letters from American citizens. The Reptile Nation was responsible for 49,229 letters delivered to the Subcommittee in less than two weeks. Congressman Brown's staff made sure they all got in the door. 38,000 of those letters will be entered into the permanent record. Thank you my friends!

Credit should also be given to Bill Martin, a witness who testified at the hearing. He is the President of Blue Ridge Aquatics, a large multi-state Tilapia farming operation. They farm Tilapia as a food fish. He had some serious problems with the bill and the ear of much of the committee. His plain talk of how this bill would destroy hundreds of families hit home. What they do and the impact this bill would have on them parallels the plight of the Reptile Nation.

Senior Democrat staff from the House Committee on Natural Resources advised Subcommittee Chair Madeleine Bordallo that if she wants something to go forward she will have to go back to square one and draft a new bill. Then have another subcommittee hearing. When and if she does, USARK will be there to represent the interests of the Reptile Nation!! They probably will try, and that will be our challenge for another day. But Today VICTORY is SWEET!...... Celebrate today and rest, because tomorrow we must get ready to fight again.

Thank you Reptile Nation! Thank you Tom Wolfe. Thank you everyone who did their part.

Stay tuned... This fight has only begun!

USARK

A note from Tom Wolfe:

"The good news is, USARK engineered a significant victory which caught the attention of the entire membership of the Subcommittee and their staffs. 

The bad news is this is just the first step in the process. Members of  the Reptile Nation should be jubilant with this victory. However, our success should be measured, because the proponents of HR 669 will be back soon with another version of the same legislation. They will not rest, so we must not rest either. 

Take satisfaction in a job well done and a victory well deserved, but know we all must rise up again to fight on because the battle has just begun!"


----------



## RoachGirlRen (Apr 23, 2009)

Just a note - many people email and call their representatives about these matters to tell them what to do, but don't follow up after voting occurs. This is an important step as it either thanks your rep for good work or reminds him/her what you might be thinking come elections. Once you find our how your rep voted, call to voice either your thanks for taking your concerns into account, or your displeasure about how they voted.


----------



## bliss (Apr 23, 2009)

w00t! 

Way to go!


----------

