WARNING- HR6311 now HR669

[barabootom]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[ccamaleon3000]

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]

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]

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]

here is a vid of info

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

 

[ThomasH]

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]

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

[YOUTUBE]_FPfL212CB8[/YOUTUBE]

 

[Tcollector]

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]

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]

10 days left to the hearing!
TBH

 

[What]

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]

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.

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]

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

 

[pouchedrat]

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]

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]

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