The Bill To Ban Our Hobby Is Here!

[Stylopidae]

So are these people, this group, "working" this bill? It sounds like a conspiracy theory but these are strange times and I never believe in conspiracy theories.

No...they are clearly not.

The current legislation, the plant pest act, defines an invasive species as one which could potentially eat plant material, pollinators or predators of plant pests and makes no mentions of exactly what's enforced and what isn't. In contrast, this bill offers clear deregulation of hobby staples and offers to make a list of what's enforced availible to the public amongst other things I've personally wanted for a long time.

Anybody who's read both will see this is a huge step forward. Some people arguing against the bill simply want to see no restrictions on what can and can't be kept. Some people are genuinely afraid of blanket bans and probably can't understand the legalese in the bill and are being swayed by the fear-mongering of the first group. As usual, some are also in the middle.

I mean...really. When people who oppose the bill say things like:

Please do tell how banning most REPTILES will have a major impact on agriculture in the US?

I'm sorry, but that's just brain-fryingly stupid because the comment can't be reconsiled with the language in the bill. Reptiles and amphibians have just as much potential to be invasive species as any other taxonomic group, and there are many good examples of even native species which are invasive in the US after their range has been artificially expanded.

There will always be laws regulating what we can and cannot keep-and there are good reasons for most...not all...but most of them. Blanket bans should be fought against...but when there's data availible which shows that a species has the potential to be invasive, or if the species has been shown to be invasive in the past it should not be allowed in the pet trade.

When the agency banning the animals makes strides to make that list easily accessable to the public as well as the research which allowed the decision...well, that's hardly ending the hobby. When this legislation is enacted, I highly doubt the sky will fall. If anything, we'll hardly notice a difference.

For example, the bill classifies live animals as non-mailable material. Just like they are now.

I know the types of people you're talking about...earlier this year, they firebombed a medical researcher's lab and threatened to bomb people who were working with fruit flies.

I work with fruitflies in pest management class. I kill them on a daily basis with some pretty toxic chemicals.

Scary times to be a prospective scientist.

 

[ShellsandScales]

Section 6: You can't breed, advertise, buy, sell or release any animal which has been banned. If it's been banned (this is mentioned in other sections of the bill), it's because there is research (which they're trying damn hard to make publicly avalible, BTW) which shows it will have a significant environmental impact. This means that they don't want people to own them because there's a chance of them being released and thus causing harm to the environment. However, they aren't going to raid you for owning them...just selling them.
.

You are putting way to much trust and faith into a system, and people that have proven to let us down in the past. Its a lot harder to remove the bill if it passes and you get "buyers remorse". I just think the whole thing needs reworked and needs to be much more specific as to the species included before it passes. I don't think they should have the power to add or remove species from a list thats what I see getting out of hand. They are very good at manipulating information to suite their needs. And just because the information that would lead to a species being banned would be public doesn't mean they will care or reverse a decision if people disagree with the information that is presented. Even with good argument and facts to back it up there is little doubt that once a species goes on the list it will ever come off (wether it was put there justifiably or not) like I said before introduction of foreign species is sometimes a bad thing but this is not the way to handle it. Say for example that a rare species of gecko could possibly bring into the country a type of mite. And there is already someone here that breeds those geckos. Their stock has been quarantined and is healthy, not a carrier of those mites. So the gecko goes on the list and the breeder here is done. Yes they can still "KEEP" their geckos but if that species is an improtant cornerstone of their breeding projects they are going to suffer. Why would they ban the captive breeding of such an animal from proven healthy stock that already exists in the country??? That is wrong!!! I know I'm being a little dramatic about some of this but it is a very slippery slope and this bill is much more dangerous to the pet industry than it is beneficial to the environment and ecosystem.

 

[ShellsandScales]

For example, the bill classifies live animals as non-mailable material. Just like they are now.
.

Live animals are mailable now! That is how I sell 90% of the animals I produce. Just another aspect of the bill that has very little to do with protecting agriculture and doesn't need to be in there. If I mail bufo marinus(cane toad) to someone in new york it poses absolutely 0 threat to the environment. That is another problem. I plan on moving to Florida to help collect invasive speciec and remove them from the state. How am I supposed to remove these animals and send the to areas where they do not pose a threat like minnesota. We can supply the pet trade with healthy non imported animals at a great price and help the natural ecosystem recover but with the bill it would put a stop to even that. Then what, are we just suppsoed to "kill" the invasive animals??? That is just wrong. It is far too encompassing. How am I supposed to do business If I can't ship my products to the consumer???

 

[Stylopidae]

You are putting way to much trust and faith into a system, and people that have proven to let us down in the past. Why would they ban the captive breeding of such an animal from proven healthy stock that already exists in the country??? That is wrong!!! I know I'm being a little dramatic about some of this but it is a very slippery slope and this bill is much more dangerous to the pet industry than it is beneficial to the environment and ecosystem.

A little dramatic?

You're acting like a bill which relaxes the current legislation is going to end the exotic pet hobby in the US. That's simply not a logical conclusion you can draw from reading this proposed legislation after you read the current legislation.

Yes, data can be manipulated...but your conspiracy argument just doesn't add up-plain and simple. Under current legislation, no data need be provided to ban any critter. The wording of the current legislation outlaws any animal which eats insects or plants.

Your mite example is a good one, but in your scenario that animal would be viewed as a potential resivior for disease. Do a search on any 'pet shop' thread and you'll quickly see that not all animals sold in the US are healthy. It's a sad fact, but it's quite possible for epizootics to be able to hide in the pet trade.

Besides I get the feeling that paragraph is more meant for invasive species, which (mostly) don't become any less invasive after being pets.

Your argument is starting to sound like it's based soley on your opposition to legislation.

Even with good argument and facts to back it up there is little doubt that once a species goes on the list it will ever come off (wether it was put there justifiably or not) like I said before introduction of foreign species is sometimes a bad thing but this is not the way to handle it.

I mean, really.

Look...the blonde's mine. The brunette's cute, but I like the personality of the blonde better. You can have the brunette. It's fine by me.

I figure if we're making up scenarios, then by golly I might as well have a love slave!

Look...I don't like bans any less than you do. But this bill actually relaxes the current legislation. That's not a bad thing...it's a step forward. A small step...but that's how journeys start.

Live animals are mailable now! That is how I sell 90% of the animals I produce. Just another aspect of the bill that has very little to do with protecting agriculture and doesn't need to be in there. If I mail bufo marinus(cane toad) to someone in new york it poses absolutely 0 threat to the environment.

Yeah...go to the post office. Use the automated shipping service. The first question is 'are you mailing live animals'. If you hit yes, it tells you they can't ship it.

Under current laws, it is technically illegal to mail live animals through the federal postal system (at least as far as I know...I was told this by an inspector when some scorps I had shipped to me escaped all over the post office). The exception is through private shipping firms, such as fedex who often times won't knowingly mail live animals because of liability concerns.

I highly doubt this will be enforced very seriously unless your animal escapes...many postal employees are seemingly unaware of this law as it is. As far as I know, this is just a re-iteration and will be paid attention to about as much.

As for the rest of your post, I agree with you on this part. I believe the best solution is that US should be divided up into four bands based upon temperature and invasive animals banned based upon conditions in those zones.

But the logistics of that are nearly impossible-simply not enough manpower. I've had it explained to me by APHIS inspectors.

I'd also love to hear your plan for personally removing the 30,000 plus...and rapidly expanding population of burmese pythons in the everglades. This is one species out of a few dozen invasives so after you're done with that feel free to start right in on the water monitors and iguanas.

As for what you're supposed to do with the excess stock you can't sell?

Zoos are always looking for donations. APHIS can also take unwanted stock off your hands. You should be able to get a tax deduction for donating the unwanted animals to the zoo or university (if applicable).

Unfortunately, sometimes things just turn out to be bad investments from a business perspective. The touchplay people here in Iowa were stuck with hundreds of touchplay machines worth thousands of dollars apeice after the game was banned because of the state's asinine aversion to gambling.

This is no different.

 

[ThomasH]

Ummm..... Needing to be banned? You must seriously be kidding yourself. Look at Australia, the same kind of thing happened 50 years ago exactly like this. Now there is no way to legally obtain any nonnative/"noncute" animal. I can basically guarantee you this Cheshire only cute fuzzy animals and livestock will be legal. Our pets are always the ones regulated against. We can't take the risk. So quit it with the page long "hey give me attention posts" and shut up or fight against this. I have read it and this is bad! So don't you dare tell people not to fight against it.
TBH
<Edit> My above post sounds real nasty, please don't misinterpret it. Anyway, there is absolutely no reason for you to fight against us Cheshire. I don't get why you are. Do you want regulation? Otherwise there is absolutely no reason for your posts. This can be passed dispite the pet trade being a multibillion dollar trade, so don't feel comforatable. Drugs and Child pornography are also multibillion dollar trades that got regulated against. So it is extremely vital not to feel comfortable.

 

[ShellsandScales]

cheshire I'm having a hard time believing that you actually believe what you're saying. You CAN mail ANY invertebrates USPS and any other non venemous vertebrates through any other shipping service. Scorpions are LEGAL to mail through USPS. Whoever told you they weren't was misinformed.

I'm not giving a conspiracy theory, which you keep bringing up. I don't see any kind of cover up. They are right out in the open about wanting to prevent animal/human interaction. I have no idea where the blondes and brunettes come in that just seem irrelevant to the post, not really sure what you were getting at there.

"But the logistics of that are nearly impossible-simply not enough manpower. I've had it explained to me by APHIS inspectors."

I have a very hard time believeing that. It seems like it would take the same amount of manpower either way. Just with four different zones there would be four different lists. The amount of man power to enact on such a law would be the same.

I don't understand how you see banning new animals as relaxing the law?? This is just contradictory against itself.

Not sure where you got the 30,000 number but every little bit helps and your obvious lack of enthusiasim suggests that you don't want to help. I will do whatever I can to help the situation even if all I can do is scratch the surface, maybe others will take my lead and do their part too. As for zoos accepting animals, TRY IT!! Zoos rarely take animals as donation so not sure where all those animals would go. Besides under this bill according to section 3f I doubt you would even be able to do that.

And yet another contradiction that is irrelevant to this post. Iowas aversion to gambling???????? Thats why council bluffs, IA has casinos but across the river in omaha, NE we do not. Sounds like Iowa has a real aversion to gambling.

I will agree to disagree with you but I think way more people understand the TRUTH and realize that this bill is bad and do not want it to pass.

 

[Stylopidae]

The point about gambling was made in response to your complaint that breeders would be stuck with animals they wouldn't be able to sell. I chose a recent example of something similar which happened in the state to compare your claim to.

Gambling was illegal in Iowa until 1972 (I think...I'd have to check the exact date) but now is allowed at a select few casinos, mostly on Indian reservations, riverboats, and of course an exemption is made for the state lottery. Touchplay machines were slot machines owned by the state lottery (or subsidiaries of, actually...it's complicated) and were designed to look like slot machines. They were placed in many area businesses but were banned as of a few years ago because they looked like slot machines.

However, my state's hypocrisy when it comes to gambling has nothing to do with the law at hand. The point in bringing it up is that when practices (or in this case, animals) are banned, there is often equipment (in this case, livestock) left over which cannot be sold. It is a fact of life and is rarely, if ever the cause of business failure because there is other livestock which is being sold.

The law, as mentioned about a thousand times, deregulates hobby staples already in the country. The exotic pet trade will still be around, although it's more likely that the variety of new animals entering the hobby will slow. However, it will not completely stop.

The main argument I hear from you and PBL is that this law treats hobby staples the same as new animals...and this is not true. It's not going to ban your dogs, cats, ball pythons...what have you. This law merely demands that proof that a species being considered for import will not become an invasive species.

In effect, it creates a 'dirty list' and a 'clean list' and requires the animal proposed for import to be placed on either list before import. Hobby staples are automatically put under the 'clean list'. Both lists, under the bill, are to be made available to the public.

That's all it really does. It's perfectly fair.

I've given several good examples of why, exactly this is important.

A quick check of the postal service website reveals that you are, in fact, correct about live, non-venomous animals being legal to ship. I should have done my homework before blanketing the claim over all animals.

However, the way the vast majority people here ship doesn't fit the way they're 'supposed' to ship.

Furthermore, I said the animals I was shipping were Centuroides vittatus...fairly mild for scorps. The guy (and if you can find me any proof he was wrong...feel more than free) told me that since they were a species that injected venom they were classified as venomous and that I'd have to use Delta Dash.

Here's an appeal from the USPS website which says the same thing as he read me:

1. 18 U.S.C. 1716 provides in pertinent part: 1716. Injurious articles as nonmailable

(a) All kinds of poison, and all articles and compositions containing poison, and all poisonous animals, insects, reptiles, and all explosives, inflammable materials, infernal machines, and mechanical, chemical, or other devices or compositions which may ignite or explode, and all disease germs or scabs, and all other natural or artificial articles, composi- tions, or materials which may kill or injure another, or injure the mails or other property, whether or not sealed as first-class matter, are nonmailable matter and shall not be conveyed in the mails or delivered from any post office or station thereof, nor by any officer or employee of the Postal Service.

Most of the animals shipped on here are considered 'poisonous insects', according to the guy I talked to. Yes, I told him the LD50 of C. vittatus. Yes, I told him they didn't inject enough venom to cause any damage.

Did he care? No. So...like I said. It's likely very little is going to change when and if this law is enacted.

The blonde and brunette thing is to highlight exactly how asinine your slippery slope argument is. You're giving me an apocalyptic scenario where every animal and reptile species in the US goes extinct as a direct result of the law. That will not happen and this will most likely only be applied to new animals entering the hobby.

"But the logistics of that are nearly impossible-simply not enough manpower. I've had it explained to me by APHIS inspectors."

I have a very hard time believeing that. It seems like it would take the same amount of manpower either way. Just with four different zones there would be four different lists. The amount of man power to enact on such a law would be the same.

Actually, no. Every animal has to be inspected for import at the point where it enters the country. Under my proposal, every animal transported across the country would have to be inspected multiple times in route.

The staff needed to do this, according to the inspector, would be increased by at least two...most likely three.

I don't understand how you see banning new animals as relaxing the law?? This is just contradictory against itself.

I said the restrictions were relaxed because the laws I've been following deal with invertebrates. In the past years, many bugs thought to have been legal for many years have been confiscated under the plant pest law under a provision which is so vague that it bans pretty much every animal in the pet hobby anyways.

A plant pest is considered anything which eats any part of a plant and the law doesn't make any provisions for anything living or dead. Under the plant pest law, AGBs and cockroaches are considered plant pests and you technically need a permit to own them.

Mantids and Assassin bugs began to be confiscated under this law with no warning a few years ago because another provision of the plant pest act bans anything which could eat pollinators or predators of plant pests. This was allowed because the law is so vague as to cover...well, anything really.

As I've now repeated at least five times, I am saying that this law is a relaxation of the current legislation because it clarifies what can and can't be kept and enforcement will be based upon a list which is easily accessable to the public. In other words, it prevents them from pulling stunts like that and makes it easy for us to figure out what exactly is legal and illegal.

It also says that things which are so common as to be unenforceable like AGBs and cockroaches, are deregulated. So they can't confiscate AGBs and the like.

As far as I'm concerned, it's a total win.

Not sure where you got the 30,000 number but every little bit helps and your obvious lack of enthusiasim suggests that you don't want to help. I will do whatever I can to help the situation even if all I can do is scratch the surface, maybe others will take my lead and do their part too. As for zoos accepting animals, TRY IT!! Zoos rarely take animals as donation so not sure where all those animals would go. Besides under this bill according to section 3f I doubt you would even be able to do that.

Dude...look at my post again. My source was hyperlinked into the post so if you can't figure out where I got the information you're clearly not reading my posts. It's from a site called science daily which is probably the most respected popular science site on the web. The source cited in the article is a respected source...it's basically the summary of a primary research paper. It's one of three pop-sci sites I've seen used by professors in classes.

Reticulated pythons are predicted to spread to about 1/3 of the southern US, according to other articles on that site. Unfortunately, citizen based attempts on the management of invasive species have historically been failures. Rubus armeniacus is one such example I've read about where people are encouraged to go out and kill every plant they can find, but the pest just comes back.

Unfortunately, large, concentrated and sweeping programs are needed to eliminate invasive species once they become established. Tsetse fly elimination projects (biomedical pest, not an invasive species...but same concept), for example, cost millions per year to operate. Sometimes, we just have to deal with the damage. Sometimes, we just have to deal with seeing entire ecosystems wiped out by invasive pests.

But many times, these projects are successful. Prickly pear cactus was wiped out in Australia through a combination of many programs.

As for zoos, if they can't take an animal they'll direct you to a source who can usually a rescue project of some sort.

It's not that I don't want to help...I just don't see how the law is unfair. I love keeping pets, but responsibility to the environment and our native biodiversity comes first and foremost in my eyes and the proposed law is far less strict than the Australia laws so a comparison of the two isn't really valid.

I also don't want to see the reticulated python thing turn into something analagous to the Guam tree snake or the cane toad.

And Boa Constrictor has managed to land himself on my ignore list for comparing the pet hobby to something as vile as child pornography.

One should be legal, but regulated. One should result in the death penalty for anyone who produces it.

Guess which is which?
I've posted the correct answer in white if you're thinking of mischaracterizing my position.
Child pornorgaphy=death penalty. Just in case

 

[ThomasH]

:wall: Oh my god Cheshire. You've really outdone yourself this time. I don't even think there is enough time for me to correct you. Over half of what you say is complete BS. I don't care if they let us have dogs, cats and BPs. Just because it isn't popular doesn't mean it should be illegal.
TBH