Good Idea!
TBH
The Bill To Ban Our Hobby Is Here!
- Thread starter ThomasH
- Start date
TBH
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 502
I'm not gonna write a novel. I just don't understand how anyone that loves a species of animal enough to keep it captively, can dislike any species of animal enough to support any kind of ban or legislation against ANY species/breed. There are some animals I don't care for but I respect them enough to fight to the death your right to keep it humanely! Preventing cruelty to animals is the only thing that should have any kind of legislation behind it reguarding transportation and keeping of animals.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 502
The news is the poster child for the media trap!!!! I don't trust any news that I don't see first hand. The BBC published an article full of flat out lies as fact!! Stating that B. smithi is deadly and grows to 10". Any reporter worth half their weight in fly crap could have done 5 min of research and published the truth. But it would have been less sensationalistic and wouldn't have served their agend to try and ban T's across the pond. 99% of All news is extreemly biased and is really all about ratings and selling diapers and denture cream!!!!
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 502
If this thread wouldn't have been bumped so enthusiastically I wouldn't have seen it and I couldn't be happier that I saw this now so I can do my part to help prevent this idiotic legislation. I knew about the problem facing pitbull owners and the bans on small turtles but had no idea it so widespread and rampant. I wish I would have know about this many years ago when I had an opportunity to sit down with a congressman and ask ?'s of him. This is a very daunting problem that if it continues this site would become obsolete!!! I would consider this to be the most important issue on the boards. And (ahem.... MODS) should be a sticky
Instead of posting again I'll add to this. It doesn't matter what you opinions are on the details about permits and what should be regulated/ what shouldn't etc. Its an all or none thing!!! ANY legislation against the industry in any way, is a foothold, one more step in the wrong direction making it easier for the "anti's" as PBL calls them to furthur their agenda. If they fail on one bill they'll come up with another that seems more reasonable and when they get that to pass they site that bill to take the next more restrictive step. Even if you hate chickes(saw them referenced earlier) or are a vegetarian. Those regualtions that have been put in place (microchipping, registering, etc) hurt the industry as a whole not just those keeping chickens. One more step, and then another, and another and pretty soon they've made leaps and bounds and its all over!!!! I assure you I will be in jail or dead if it gets to that point. I would participate in a revolution to prevent anything like that from happening. Animals have always been a big part of my life and I couldn't imagine enjoying life anymore if I wasn't able to interact with animals. Lets not forget domestic cats came from egypt. They are not native to the U.S. if this bill were to pass how hard would it be to include/amend cats as non natives?????????? It's truly the first time I have felt such eminent doom in my life and its scary. I would encourage EVERYONE!!!! to visit www.usa.gov/contact/elected.shtml and let your voice be heard. I'm going to dedicate all of my free time to helping fight this cause. It is an outrage and I have always hated the Humane Society so now I have some bullets in my gun of protest.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2008
- Messages
- 342
i will now fight the good fight, thanks for bringing me out of my ignorance:worship:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,200
Wow...two months and nine pages later, and nobody's actually read the bill.
From the text:
As for the rest, it's saying that all banned species would be placed on a list and well...just read:
That's a good thing. All we need to do now is to figure out where that list is. I'd assume that anybody keeping things like phasmids who voluntarily gives them up would be granted amnesty.
It's also saying that anything which is already so widespread that legal action would be pointless would essentially be deregulated.
That describes the vast majority of the animals in the hobby. I can assure you that nobody is going to be banging down your door to confiscate your rosies.
The only part I can't figure out is section 42 of title 18 US code. Title 18 deals with federal crimes, and chapter 42 deals with credit card extortion. Doesn't seem to fit.
Of course, I have no idea what this website is...or even if it's a reliable source. I just read the bill.
From the text:
Like...um...tarantulas! Millipedes! Roaches!
As for the rest, it's saying that all banned species would be placed on a list and well...just read:
This bill is making it easier for us to figure out what's legal and what's not by giving us a list of species names and placing it here on the interwebs.
That's a good thing. All we need to do now is to figure out where that list is. I'd assume that anybody keeping things like phasmids who voluntarily gives them up would be granted amnesty.
It's also saying that anything which is already so widespread that legal action would be pointless would essentially be deregulated.
That describes the vast majority of the animals in the hobby. I can assure you that nobody is going to be banging down your door to confiscate your rosies.
The only part I can't figure out is section 42 of title 18 US code. Title 18 deals with federal crimes, and chapter 42 deals with credit card extortion. Doesn't seem to fit.
Of course, I have no idea what this website is...or even if it's a reliable source. I just read the bill.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,200
Ah...I should read the replies before commenting. I guess What...maybe two or three others read the bill.
After a breif re-reading...including the parts Kevin pointed out, there are some problems...but I still think it's overall a good bill. I think Kevin has some pretty good insight, but there are some things which I interpreted quite differently.
As for 3.a, I don't think it's possible to assess risk for anything without knowing exactly what it is in the first place. Besides...that's one of 10 other factors.
With many species in the hobby not being known to species level (and with the difficulty this entails), I don't think we should be worrying about 3.a hindering the introduction of new species, I think we should be asking ourselves if that's even plausible.
3.d...seeing the research that allowed the bans to get passed in the first place is definitely a plus. For example, if something were known to host varrora mites...and if there were good data showing this, it would be acceptable grounds for cessation of importation. Varrora mites, in conjunction with a virus (the mites make the bees more susceptable to Israeli Acute Paralysis Virus, for the apiarists here) is thought to have decimated bee colonies here in America. If bees aren't the only host, then any animals which have been to harbor both the mite and the virus should be banned.
This is just one example (and a good one in my opinion), but it holds true for any potential pest.
But the transparency section makes me feel a bit better about 3.a.11, but it's still way too vague. Assuming they stick to section 3.d, it's just an insurance policy because there are dozens of factors which can make something into a pest...and it's difficult-or impossible to list them all (definition of pest from a university pest management class? Anything which damages plants, vectors disease or annoys people.).
Is title 18 the plant pest act? If so, it should be on here somewhere. But either way, the bill also explicitly says that those species which are so widespread that controll would be impossible wouldn't be prosecuted. This means pretty much all roaches...and the AGBs which have historically been questionable.
For example, 6.a.6 making the breeding, selling, trading and buying of banned animals illegal doesn't bother me...that's the definition of 'illegal'. We shouldn't expect our stock to be grandfathered in...as long as there's a way we can unload them without being subject to punishment. I'd also like amnesty for the first offense...and the proposed punishments are pretty vague. A large fine is implied, but not explicitly thrown out there.
As for Sec. 8.a...I've seen the types of facilities some of these guys are kept in. They're not that easy to build...it's quite expensive to house these guys with 0 chance of escape. Chances are, people keeping some of the worrysome critters wouldn't be keeping them in conditions which are preferable.
That being said, that section does worry me a bit.
So, we get better transparency and better communication as well as deregulation of some very common species. I'd say that's a win...and nowhere near banning the hobby.
As a minus it may be a bit more difficult to introduce new species into the hobby...but with the focus on captive bred individuals, is this a bad thing? Will this really effect us as much as we think it will? Things are really only imported a few times now, then breeders step in and do their thing.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 502
It is in no way a good bill and I read it in its entirety. It is worded too vaguely and leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Just because there will be list of approved species and a way to amend that list doesn't mean that we won't be stonewalled in every attempt to alter the list. It gives way to much power to the secretary who likely knows very little about animals. Its just bad news. And there are a lot of little things worked in. For ex. anything that is currently owned and would be put on the illegal list would be grandfathered in, however it would be illegal to breed, sell, or trade those species and that would cripple many breeders who would be stuck with animals they have to care for but cannot get income from. If they put any T's on the list there would be no more captive breeding of that species allowed and they would become extinct in the us hobby!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
PLUS, the bill does not simply address the importation of banned animal species from other countries, but also prohibits the interstate transport and commerce in species that have long been bred in captivity and are the mainstay of the whole reptile industry, such as Boa Constrictors and Ball Pythons. The whole purpose of such is a thinly-veiled attempt to totally crush one entire aspect of the animal industry, and as I've pointed out many times before, it's just ONE piece in a very nasty puzzle. Anyone who feels this bill is in any way a "good thing" is either pro-animal rights/anti-animal owner/breeder, or fails to grasp the "big picture" and realize the total impact such a bill would have if it passes. These are not agricultural interests backing this bill, but hard-core animal rights groups who are absolutely dedicated to eliminating ALL animal use by people. There is NOTHING good, in any way, shape or form, about ANY bill that's backed by these people, not if you own, sell, breed, or buy animals, or products made for animals.
pitbulllady
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2008
- Messages
- 1,210
There is nothing more important for them to worry about.. bills like this make me are rediculous.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,200
That secretary is backed by thousands of PHD level researchers studying plant pests.
Furthermore, the research in the decision will be made available to anyone.
I've been outspoken against these types of bills in the past...and this is exactly what I've wanted all along. A comprehensive list made public, and transparency in the decision.
Sorry to say, but we can't have everything we want to keep. Ideally, we want to eliminate the potential for 8 legged cane toads but at the same time be able to keep species in captivity which wouldn't be able to establish themselves in the areas in which the keepers live. It's not exactly an easy medium to reach.
Add that to the fact the definition of a 'pest' is very vague (due to a combination of non-pet industry related factors) and many times anthropocentric...well, this makes for a hard time writing a bill with any degree of specificity.
It's far from a perfect law because the punishments are vague and because it might make importing new species a bit more difficult amongst a handful of minor things, but it's not bad at all.
As for the rest of your post...yes. That's exactly what a ban is.
Taken care of by the part I quoted in my original post. It explicitly says that species which are so widespread, ball pythons and boa constrictors for example, that enforcement would be impossible would be deregulated.
I think the bill is a good thing. I despise animal rights activists and have a long history of verbosely bludgeoning them here on AB. I also own animals myself, which I occasionally attempt to breed.
I work with foreign crop pests on a daily basis. Doing research for a paper on locusts right now, actually.
I am in a good position to see the 'big picture'.
The rest of your post is a giant false dichotomy.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,200
Actually, if you do some digging into agricultural history you can see why these kinds of bills are more important than you may think...especially with people keeping ant farms and wasp colonies.
Here's an article I wrote on my old blog (the new one should be up about Thanksgiving) about one species of introduced pest:
And this is one pest, Icerya purchasi, which R. cardinalis and C. iceryae were brought in to control. There are a few hundred species of introduced pests which have comparable histories.
On an off-topic note, Koeble then went to Hawaii after this and did biocontrol there. Biocontrol turned out to be an ecological disaster there...decimating the native insects of Hawaii. These laws also help to prevent things like that from happening by limiting what can be brought into the country.
- Joined
- May 1, 2004
- Messages
- 2,290
Please do tell how banning most REPTILES will have a major impact on agriculture in the US? Inquiring minds want to know. There's a huge difference between invertebrates that are known to destroy crops and/or spread agriculturally-significant pathogens, and a Ball Python, yet this bill treats both of them the same. I'm no idiot, yet I fail to grasp the logic in that. This bill leaves wide-open the possibilities of including ANY non-native species, including not just commonly-kept reptiles, but also many other vertebrates which are the backbone of the non-traditional pet industry, merely on the words of the "anti's" that keeping, selling and trading in such animals is bad. The push to include boids(including small species like the aforementioned Ball Pythons)and many lizard species is just a part of it; there is also a move to include ALL primates and ALL "exotic" cats, including several recognized as domesticated breeds. Most of the species YOU are concerned with are little known outside of agricultural interests, and are not generally commercially traded, but the same cannot be said of the many other targeted species. As it is currently written, the bill leaves the door wide open for the inclusion of many animals that several of us here keep, breed, sell and buy-and which have no history of significant agricultural impact, if any at all.
pitbulllady
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,200
In the past month, I have gotten three private messages inquiring about parasitoids...both wasps and flies. Those do not vector diseases, nor do they damage plants. Yet, they are also strictly controlled. And for good reason-a failed biocontrol project is responsible for the decline of saturniid moths in the US.
Agriculture is one big part of the reason for this bill...the environment is another.
Ask anybody in Florida about the impact of the pet industry on the environment in terms of non-native reptiles. It's common knowledge...no need to cite sources: Florida is overrun with alien species. Most of our endangered species are threatened because of competition from exotic species. This includes reptiles.
Another example...138 species of exotic fish are in the US, many of them introduced from the aquarium trade cost over $1 billion to manage per year.
And as I said earlier, ball pythons are too widespread to be enforceable. Therefore, they are deregulated under the section I quoted in the first paragraph. Your argument...once again...doesn't apply. It won't, no matter how much you repeat it.
Not every bill to regulate the hobby is a step towards apocalypse. Even though this bill certianly has problems with vagueness in important parts...the deregulation of hobby staples, easy public access to the list of banned species and the ability to see the research which led to the decision to ban are definitely pluses. As is the deregulation of hobby staples.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 502
NO you are not seeing what they are trying to accomplish. Just in reguards to Tarantulas and nothing else for ex. Any species not native to the U.S. would go extinct in the U.S. hobby. You couldn't breed anything non-native. Could not sell anything non-native.(yeah they say there will be a list but they haven't even offered a tenative list, they won't even give examples of what might be on there) Could not ship anything. The tarantula hobby would be dead. All native species of tarantula would likely be hunted to extinction as well since they are so slow growing/breeding and there would be no non-natives available to quench our thirst. Basically all native animals would suffer greatly from overhunting. Frog, salamanders, newts, toads that are already collected very extensively for the pet trade would suffer massive population decline. Box turtles that are already suffering from over collection would all but be removed from the face of the earth.(they are collected illegally[in many places] now, why would that stop with animal agents focusing on non-natives) Captive breeding would not keep up with demand when you remove all of the non-natives from the pet pool. Just think. There is nothing good about this bill. I agree, introduced species are bad for the ecosystem..... sometimes. Many times they do assimilate with little or no long term consequence {ex. medeterranean house gecko.} But this is not the way to prevent such introductions. Also just because they say that species that are too widespread to be enforcable won't be targeted.... who decides what is enforceable???? That is very subjective and wide open to interpretation. This bill is too broad in scope and would afford too much power and control to those that have the wrong interests backing them. Do you think the secretary has ever had anything but a dog or cat??? (just speculating here but it is unlikely). Would he/she really care at all about T's or reptiles. Maybe they would have an irrational fear of such animals and use their power to put them on the list of species that aren't allowed. It is unreasonable to assume that this bill wouldn't be abused or streached to fit the agenda of lobbysts for AR. And even if you disreguard most of the bill the fact that animals would not be allowed to be shipped would cripple every pet store in the country. Not to mention all of the lost sales on products as all of the "illegal" animals start to get fazed out. Think about the economic backlash. Its an outrage and I'm surprised a spokesperson from petsmart or petco or some other major pet company hasn't stepped up against this bill yet(as far as I know).
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,200
And then we'd be forced to take each other as loveslaves. 
I call dibs on the cute girl in my O-chem class. You can't have her. She's mine.
I'll just reply to the only part of your post which hasn't been dealt with (most of your post is actually dealt with in the bill...the fact you don't know what APHIS is speaks volumes about how little you know on the subject). You have clearly not read the bill.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that nothing will no longer be imported. It says that there will be species approved for import, and those are presumably in future legislation. This is a bill proposing a new method of handling imports of exotic species and we shouldn't expect a list...and it gives a time frame for the list.
I read through the bill three times already...and I caught this the fourth time:
I call dibs on the cute girl in my O-chem class. You can't have her. She's mine.
I'll just reply to the only part of your post which hasn't been dealt with (most of your post is actually dealt with in the bill...the fact you don't know what APHIS is speaks volumes about how little you know on the subject). You have clearly not read the bill.
Nowhere in the bill does it say that nothing will no longer be imported. It says that there will be species approved for import, and those are presumably in future legislation. This is a bill proposing a new method of handling imports of exotic species and we shouldn't expect a list...and it gives a time frame for the list.
I read through the bill three times already...and I caught this the fourth time:
Don't know how I missed that. Basically, your grandfathering argument...which was already irrelevant...doesn't hold water.
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 502
SEC. 3
(f) Animals Imported Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of a species that was imported legally, even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.
SEC. 6
(a) Prohibitions- No person shall--
6) knowingly sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase, barter or offer to barter for or offer to barter for, release, or breed any nonnative wildlife species referred to in section 3(f).
This is what I'm talking about.
(f) Animals Imported Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of a species that was imported legally, even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.
SEC. 6
(a) Prohibitions- No person shall--
6) knowingly sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase, barter or offer to barter for or offer to barter for, release, or breed any nonnative wildlife species referred to in section 3(f).
This is what I'm talking about.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 3,200
Yes. If something is banned, there is good reason to believe it will cause some amount of harm to the environment or to agriculture. The whole point of banning something is to ensure that nobody can get ahold of that species and thus eliminate the possibility of unintentional releases and make it possible to eliminate them from unwanted environments without the possibility for re-introduction from the pet trade.
Animals are occasionally banned when some things (see my previous posts about Florida, varorra mites and fish) are discovered about them or if they've been shown to be invasive...it's a fact of life.
Section 5: If it was legally imported, you can still own it even if it was banned by future regulation. This only applies to animals which have been banned for importation, not animals which are deregulated.
The regulated and deregulated animals are explained in the bill, as well. Take another read.
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.
For example, let's take Platymeris. Had this bill been enacted before they were banned, members would still be able to have cultures...they wouldn't be able to sell them legally.
The fact they put the word 'knowingly' into section 6 is definitely a plus for us...they aren't going to prosecute unless they can prove that we knew it was illegal to keep.
In other words, this most likely means amnesty for the first offense. No fine...just a confiscation.
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2005
- Messages
- 8,982
Oh man, I can't read everything in this post and deserve a flame for not reading all of the bill. I'll just throw in a couple of things. I just heard yesterday about a group of people out there that are fighting for the animals. They don't want people to own any animals or use any animals, nothing. I would have a hard time believing it if I didn't hear an animal rights member talk on TV a long time ago. It was a few years ago but I remember some of it because I remember thinking how different they thought about animals than most people. They don't even want people to own a goldfish. What the guy was saying was really alien to me, I couldn't believe my ears. But if I use my imagination and try to think like he was, I can see where he was coming from. As much as I don't like it, I think I understand their mindset. This group feels like people are denying animals their rights. Their way of thinking is that a dog should not associate with a human, a dog should associate with other dogs, cats with other cats, horses with other horses, goldfish with other goldfish, etc. The way they see it is that "man" is hurting animals by not letting them be free. 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. But I do consider the possibilities and I've seen what people call conspiracy theories turn out to be true. I consider them but don't "believe" in them. I heard the price of a barrel of oil was going to be pushed to $150 a barrel. I heard that 2 or 3 years ago (Lindsey Williams). Coincidence? ..I don't know. But the price of a barrel of oil went to $149+ one day and has gone down since. So I keep an open mind to what at least sounds possible. That animal rights group is out there. I think some people are concerned that these radical animal rights fanatics are associated with this bill or at least are trying to infiltrate it and manipulate it. But it may only be that, "concern" and the intentions may be what they say they are. Only time will tell the way I see it, interesting to watch.