Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 27 guests, and 2 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Search

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 2 of 3 1 2 3
#198244 - 04/11/09 03:23 AM Re: Has anyone heard bout the new bill? [Re: EchosMom]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,786
Chewy Offline
Lives Here
Chewy  Offline
Lives Here
*****

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 2,786
Washington
Originally Posted By: EchosMom
Wouldn't it be nice if the politicians would just understand that if they ban the breeding of them (birds) it would solve the bigger problem?

Yes now that is a law I could go for. But this one it is driving me CRAZY.


look to your birds for love
Chewy RB2
Lightning-parakeet
Zeus-zebra finch
RIP
Eli
little foot Cockatiels
#198267 - 04/11/09 02:53 PM Re: Has anyone heard bout the new bill? [Re: Chewy]  
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,289
RB2sMom Offline
Lives Here
RB2sMom  Offline
Lives Here
***

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,289
Lilburn, GA
In the turtle and tortoise community, we have been pushing for ban on exporting turtles to Asia and Europe primarily used for food and the pet trade. Turtles have been wiped out in their habitats from parts of Oklahoma where I grew up. Softshells and snappers have been caught and sent over mainly to Asia for food. The ornate box turtles have been rounded up and sent to Europe and other places for the pet trade; these turtles are very sensitive to humidity and usually don't survive very long.


Susanne
Our flock: 2 RB2s
Our herd & rescue: turtles, tortoises, other reptiles
#198268 - 04/11/09 04:52 PM Re: Has anyone heard bout the new bill? [Re: RB2sMom]  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
BE2Cassie Offline
Moderator
BE2Cassie  Offline

Moderator
Chained to the Computer
*****

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
Wrentham, MA
I agree that alot of work is yet to be done and would really like to see just what animals would be listed. There are alot of snakes that aren't dangerous like ball pythons, corn snakes and the small boas. At the same time there are a lot of very dangerous snakes out there that are easily bought and traded like the burmese python, anaconda and larger boas. I'm constantly seeing ads in RI for the large snakes and alligators. There is one store in Providence that sells them and tells the buyer that they will buy back the animal when it gets too big. Unfortunetly they are lie to people. They don't buy back the gators. I wonder just how many gators die in RI ponds come fall each year.
I think it's ridiculous that they are making this so all encompassing. All it's going to do in the end is cause the bill to fail.
Nancy


Nancy & Cassie BE2
#198269 - 04/11/09 06:21 PM Re: Has anyone heard bout the new bill? [Re: BE2Cassie]  
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 495
Garnet Offline
Member
Garnet  Offline
Member

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 495
Edmonton
Some good points made here. I think we can (and should) ban the export of turtles for food without making it illegal to, say, take your pet Ball Python with you if you move to a different state.

I can definitely see restricting the ownership of venomous snakes, alligators and crocodiles, or the giant constrictors. Where I live, it's okay to own harmless reptiles, but the biggest monitors, venomous snakes, alligators, crocodiles, and giant constrictors are not allowed to be kept as pets. That's much more sensible. I can see restricting the import of wild-caught reptiles as well, like has been done with birds. I know Florida is being overtaken with exotic reptiles, a lot of which are the big dangerous ones or which are usually wild caught, like Burmese Pythons and Iguanas.

We also definitely don't need to be importing primates for the pet trade, particularly since Macaques can carry diseases that are fatal to humans.

The animals that can't be banned right now only include very common livestock, goldfish, dogs, cats, and domestic rabbits. I understand the intent of the bill, but it's essentially the equivalent of killing a mosquito with a shotgun. It's just too broad.

#198448 - 04/14/09 12:06 AM Re: Has anyone heard bout the new bill? [Re: Garnet]  
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,158
EchosMom Offline
Moderator
EchosMom  Offline

Moderator
Chained to the Computer
*****

Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 10,158
Florida, USA
There's a video circulating already, featuring a Hy opposing the Bill. Brought to you by none other than the breeding community (of course!) I saw it yesterday and wanted to throw up!


Birds are angels who lift us up when our own wings forget how to fly.

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world - indeed it is the only thing that ever has!" ~~~ Margaret Meade ~~~

Noelle, A Rehabilitation in Progress
#198458 - 04/14/09 01:37 AM Re: Has anyone heard bout the new bill? [Re: EchosMom]  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
BE2Cassie Offline
Moderator
BE2Cassie  Offline

Moderator
Chained to the Computer
*****

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
Wrentham, MA
I would have seen red at that. AZA zoos are in the process of trying to breed Hy in hopes of transferring them to release programs. The Fish & Wildlife have given wild caught confiscations to zoos in attempts to breed them and increase the population. No hands on with these birds they are parent reared.
Nancy


Nancy & Cassie BE2
#198962 - 04/18/09 09:03 PM No on HR 669  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
alexz Offline
Member
alexz  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
Southern California

Before you get the idea I'm promoting breeding, this bill goes far beyond no breeding. While pets you have now won't be confiscated, if you find for some reason that you have to rehome a pet, THAT will not be allowed. And if you think the authorities would have any qualms about euthanizing (and not necessarily humanely) a perfectly healthy pet----I'll refer you to the Exotic Newcastles Disease outbreak in 2002...thousands of pet birds (INCLUDING PARROTS were murdered then. http://www.cocka2.com/newcastle/


ONE GENERATION AND OUT" is not just limited to purebred dogs and cats. Now our "non-native" species" are targets of the animal prohibitionist agenda. Under HR 669, "non-native" basically means if a species of animal didn't live in the US before the arrival of Columbus it is "non-native", and if HR 669 passes, most non-native species of animal (i.e., exotic animals) won't remain in the US much longer. That means your exotic pet bird, reptile, fish, or mammal.

HR 669 is a very serious and harmful animal prohibition proposal. HR 669 is not needed to protect our environment. HR 699 is the legislative equivalent of a nuclear bomb that is aimed at the entire US exotic pet industry, all US exotic pet owners, and all exotic animals in the US.

HR 669 is an "anti-animal bill". There is no amendment that can fix this bill. HR 669 will hurt everyone who owns an animal, and it will hurt our animals. Breeder, pet owner, rescuer, rehabilitator, zoo, service or product provider - it doesn't matter - we will all be hurt by this bill. HR 669 needs to be killed at the April 23rd hearing - not amended, not "made better" - HR 669 NEEDS TO BE KILLED. Please contact the Representatives hearing this bill NOW and ask them to KILL HR 669 (see below for contact information).

All import, export, transport across State lines, selling, buying, bartering, or offering to sell, buy or barter, and all breeding, and release, of all non-native species not on the "approved list" will be prohibited - even by zoos, sanctuaries, and licensed breeders. Permits authorizing only "importation" may be issued to "zoos, scientific research, medical, accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the Secretary". There is no requirement that any permits be granted. Even if these institutions are able to obtain the required permits, where will they obtain their imported animals? Habitat for many species is declining worldwide, many species are endangered or threatened in the wild, and many species cannot be imported to the US under the CITES treaty. The result of this bill will be to put a stop domestic breeding of most endangered or threatened species in the US for zoos, conservation, or reintroduction programs. Zoos are not immune from the animal prohibitionist agenda.

If you "possess" a non-approved species "legally" prior to enactment of the law, you will be allowed to keep it, but all of the other restrictions pf HR 669 will still apply to your species - you will not be allowed to sell, transfer, transport across State lines, export, barter, trade, breed, or give that animal to anyone else.

Pet owners will not be allowed to take their non-approved pets with them if they move to another state, and they will not be allowed to transfer them to anyone else who can care for them. Those pets will be euthanized when their owners move, die, or can no longer keep their pets for whatever reason. Pet owners and their pets are not immune from the animal prohibitionist agenda.
"Rescue" and "sanctuary" will not be available for any non-approved species unless the rescue or sanctuary keeps only species found within their respective States. That result has been contemplated for years. Rescues and Sanctuaries are not immune from the animal prohibitionist agenda.

Any person or company manufacturing or selling food or products for non-native (exotic) species will be affected by this act. If non-native (exotic) species cannot be legally possessed, bought, sold, or transferred, there will be no incentive for manufacturers of food, caging, and supplies for these animals to remain in business. Where will non-native (exotic) animal owners obtain the food and materials needed to keep their animals?

Freeflight of exotic birds will be prohibited.

THE LEGAL DETAILS OF THIS BILL

Under existing federal law, it must be shown that a species is harmful before it is prohibited. That approach is reasonable, and has worked reasonably well for many years. In essence, HR 669 turns that reasonable approach on its head, and substitutes the unreasonable and unjustified approach of "bomb first, ask questions later".

HR 669 requires the government to create an "approved" list of "non-native" species that will be allowed in the US. Any species not on the "approved" list will be prohibited. Under HR 668 the "approved" list shall include "nonnative wildlife species that the Secretary finds ... based on scientific and commercial information ..... (A) are not harmful to the United States' economy, the environment, or other animal species' or human health; or (B) may be harmful to the United States' economy, the environment, or other animal species' or human health, 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."

It takes time and money for the government to study any species and make a "finding". Time and money are always in short supply, and are especially in short supply in this economy. If your species is not included on the original "approved list", then under HR 669 you can try to get your species "approved" by paying a fee and submitting a proposal to our government to include it on the "approved list". Your proposal "must include sufficient scientific and commercial information to allow the Secretary to evaluate whether the proposed nonnative wildlife species is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' or human health." While your proposal is being "evaluated" by our government, you and your animals are still subject to the restrictions of HR 669. Whether your proposal will ever be granted is pure speculation.

There are more than 9000 bird species, and thousands of species of birds are kept in the US. There are many other non-native (exotic) species owned by animal lovers across the US. How many bird or other non-native (exotic) species do you think our government can afford to study and determine that they can be added to this newly created "approved list"?

If the required study can't be made of a species, and the required finding isn't made about a species, the animal won't make it to the approved list. That applies to every species of non-native (exotic) animal.

WHAT YOU CAN DO TO HELP KILL HR 669

Contact your Representatives NOW

1. You can use NAIA's Capwiz tool to send an automatic email or fax to each of the Representatives who will hear this bill to ask them to KILL HR 669. Here's the link to send your email using Capwiz:
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/

2. PIJAC has provided us with a PDF flyer which explains to pet owners how HR 669 will hurt all of us and our animals. The PIJAC PDF flyer is attached to this email. The PIJAC PDF flyer provides you with contact information - use it. Please contact your own Representatives NOW, and tell them to KILL HR 669. Be polite and respectful, but be clear and firm in your opposition to this bill. Be brief, and tell them a few reasons why you think it is a bad bill. Short and to the point works best. If you have time, you can also contact all of the other Representatives in your State.

Write to your Representative using their contact pages on their websites. Unfortunately, it is sometimes hard for us to contact some of our Representatives - emails don't often go through, letters aren't read, and we sometimes have to write individually to our Representatives using the contact pages they put up on their websites. PIJAC has done the work to give us links where needed for these contact pages for these websites so that we can make those contacts (see the attached PIJAC PDF flyer), and NAIA is making "Capwiz" available for the one-shot contact - go to the Capwiz webpage at http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/

Be sure to contact the local office of your own Representative by phone, and if you can, make a personal visit. Our congressional representatives are now on recess, and will return to their work at the Capitol next week. Let your Representatives' local offices know NOW that you want them to KILL HR 669. If the local staff hear from enough constituents that they want a bill killed, they will let their Representatives know that their constituents hate this bill.

3. Distribute this email, NAIA's link, and PIJAC's PDF flyer widely to everyone you know who loves animals and wants to keep them in our lives. In particular, send it to any pet lists you are on. This bill will impact almost all non-native animals. Ask them to contact the representatives and ask them to KILL HR 669.

You can see PIJAC's earlier alert on HR 669 here:
http://www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf

You can see the full text of the bill here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf

4. If you have a website or belong to a discussion list, post this Alert and the PDF attachment. Ask your friends to do the same.

A NOTE ALL ANIMAL OWNERS, AND ESPECIALLY TO BIRD OWNERS

Does the Pennsylvania Proposed Ban of the Nanday Conure of 2008 ring a bell for anyone?

For those bird owners who fought so hard and so well for the Nanday in Pennsylvania in 2008 - that was just target practice.

HR 669 IS THE ANIMAL PROHIBITIONIST NUCLEAR OPTION - STOP IT NOW.

#199028 - 04/19/09 03:57 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: alexz]  
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,289
RB2sMom Offline
Lives Here
RB2sMom  Offline
Lives Here
***

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,289
Lilburn, GA
Here is a link to the direct "goings on" of this bill, summary, full text, and status in tracking and passage:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669

This has definitely opened a can of worms, literally, since even the night crawlers we use for fishing or feeding our animals are non-native (from Canada).

Last edited by RB2sMom; 04/19/09 04:05 PM. Reason: add information

Susanne
Our flock: 2 RB2s
Our herd & rescue: turtles, tortoises, other reptiles
#199129 - 04/20/09 09:52 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: RB2sMom]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
alexz Offline
Member
alexz  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
Southern California
From the OASIS:

Dear Friends of Birds and The Oasis Sanctuary....

For over a month I have been receiving e-mail regarding HR 669 "The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act" which is currently before the House of Representatives.

Below is an official summary of the Bill:

1/26/2009--Introduced.
Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations establishing a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, other than those included in a list of approved species issued under this Act. Sets forth factors that must be considered, including the identity of the organism to the species level, the native range of the species, whether the species has caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in similar ecosystems, and the likelihood of establishment or spread of the species in the United States.
Provides procedures for issuance and expansion of a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation and a list of nonnative wildlife species that are prohibited.
Establishes prohibitions on: (1) importation or transportation between states of nonnative species that are not included in the list of approved species; (2) permit violations; and (3) possession, purchase, sale, barter, release, or breeding of such species.
Exempts from such prohibitions actions by law enforcement personnel to enforce this Act or by federal or state officials to prevent the introduction or establishment of nonnative wildlife species. Declares that nothing in this Act restricts the importation or transportation between states of such species by a federal agency for its own use if the species remains in its possession. Authorizes the Secretary to issue permits authorizing otherwise prohibited importation for scientific research, for medical, accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the Secretary if the Secretary finds that there has been a proper showing by the permittee of responsibility for the specimen and continued protection of the public interest and health.
Allows the imposition of fees on persons who submit a proposal to include a species in either of the lists to recover the costs of assessing risks of nonnative wildlife species. Establishes a Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Fund into which such fees and fines for violations will be deposited.
Redesignates the Invasive Species Council established by Executive Order 13112 as the National Invasive Species Council.

As the Bill stands right now, our companion Parrots, being nonnative birds, would fall under this jurisdiction. And while the parrots currently in our homes would be "grandfathered" in, it would not allow for the placement or sale of our birds if and when we can not longer care for them.

Ironically, while The Oasis Sanctuary would, in all likelihood, be one of very few avian facilities which could be allowed to continue caring for and taking in birds (under permit) due to the Educational Facility status we currently hold with US Fish and Wildlife, this Bill and its subsequent fallout would undoubtedly lead to the destruction of hundreds of thousands - if not millions - of our birds when their current caregivers would be unable to continue their care.

Given that the average lifespan of Parrots is in the 40-60 or more year range, and given that these are extraordinarily intelligent, sentient beings, this is absolutely unacceptable.

While I normally do not speak out on "pet" issues, no matter where one stands in the pet vs. animal rights debate, this is not an acceptable solution.

PLEASE write your House Representative TODAY.

Let them know that while we all agree that we do not wish to have "dangerous" nonnative species introduced into our environment, this proposed bill goes too far and is dangerous.

To find your representative go to:
United States House of Representatives, 111th Congress, 1st Session
To learn more about this bill please go to: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669 and also http://www.nohr669.com/index.htm

Thank you....
For the Birds

Sybil

--
Sybil Erden, Executive Director
The Oasis Sanctuary
www.the-oasis.org
520-212-4737

#199143 - 04/21/09 12:02 AM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: alexz]  
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,289
RB2sMom Offline
Lives Here
RB2sMom  Offline
Lives Here
***

Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,289
Lilburn, GA
The bill is introduced from the 75 yo rep from Guam, which is interesting in itself. She cannot see all the implications of this bill beyond exporting and importing. Only one of her bills ever made it to the end in her entire history with the House. It is also causing panic in the reptile circles that I am also a part of; people are worried that they will no longer be able to keep their animals. We already have to have special permits for some of the animals we keep and be inspected by GA DNR.

My husband who is retired US Fish & Wildlife does not see this bill passing as it is written now. The only thing good that could come of it (for the exporting/importing part only) would be further restrictions on importing and exporting, such as exporting our native turtles as live food for the Asian soup kitchens which we have been fighting for years, or importing animals that have been taken out of their natural habitats and sent here for the pet trade or worse.

The logistics of the government trying to regulate who has what species in their possession would be very difficult if not impossible to enforce; many people would have to be hired to do this in an agency already spread thin. Also, the lobby groups such as the aquarium industry itself are quite large. In a time when people are losing jobs, I can't think this would pass when you would not only see pet stores going out of business (no tears please), but those that sell supplies such as aquariums, cages, food, mediciane, etc. Trying to decide which species are native and which are not is another can of worms, literally, as night crawlers, for example, are from Canada.


Susanne
Our flock: 2 RB2s
Our herd & rescue: turtles, tortoises, other reptiles
#199219 - 04/21/09 03:17 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: RB2sMom]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 837
katy girl Offline
Lives Here
katy girl  Offline
Lives Here

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 837
Katy, Texas
I think it is very east to understand, before it is all over the government is going to control our lives. They will tell you what you can drive, what to set your thrermostat on, what you can eat. The government is gradually taking control and before we realize it our way of life will be gone. Everyone needs to fight this administration with everything they have. We don't even know what they are passing at three o'clock in the morning and of course the press won't tell you. If it is a good bill they will veto it, if it is a bad bill they will pass it.

#199337 - 04/22/09 10:55 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: katy girl]  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
BE2Cassie Offline
Moderator
BE2Cassie  Offline

Moderator
Chained to the Computer
*****

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
Wrentham, MA
For those of you interested you can watch the proceedings tomorrow on Webcam. Maybe it will give us some factual information on the restrictions. I've read so many articles written by so many different groups with their own interpretations of the bill. I've also read articles written by government officials explaining just how the government will establish the list of dangerous animals through the Fish & Wildlife Dept.
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=273&Itemid
Nancy


Nancy & Cassie BE2
#199342 - 04/22/09 11:48 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: BE2Cassie]  
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 839
Jacque Offline
Lives Here
Jacque  Offline
Lives Here

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 839
Kanab, Utah
I read the bill myself, and I have some grave reservations about the way it is written. There is nothing in there that precludes them applying this to all non-native species except those they have specified (goats,cattle, dogs,cats, ducks, chickens, etc). The prohibition piece is chilling. I thought that it was all a bunch of hype and jumping to conclusions until I read it for myself. I work for the government, and I know how bad bills can have unintended consequences. And this bill would have more than it's share of those.

#199343 - 04/23/09 12:07 AM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: Jacque]  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
BE2Cassie Offline
Moderator
BE2Cassie  Offline

Moderator
Chained to the Computer
*****

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
Wrentham, MA
It will be interesting to see what comes of it tomorrow.
Nancy


Nancy & Cassie BE2
#199419 - 04/23/09 10:21 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: BE2Cassie]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
alexz Offline
Member
alexz  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
Southern California


I did not have time to watch the whole thing, but i saw a good
portion of the hearing...

1) The Fish and Wildlife person CLAIMS they can handle tens of
thousands of risk assessments in less than three years. There was no
indication that he had any concern about this. Based on his
comments, i believe the FWS person is heavily behind this bill.

A scientist witness says there are plenty of tools available to the
FWS -- even though the FWS doesn't yet have them in place. He didn't
say how long it would take to put them in place. He didn't say if
they were truly tested and accepted by all scientists. But since the
tools 'exist', he supports the FWS claims.

That has given the chairwoman a positive feel and she is now
optimistic her bill is viable.

When asked about what could be done if people with "invasive species"
pets wanted to transport them when going to vets or moving, the FWS
spokesperson said it could possibly be addressed through a "complex
permit procedure."

His answers consistently inferred that he was most attracted by the
potential for his agency being at the forefront of a large project,
and the money it would drive into the FWS.

2) The scientist they have as a witness is biased in favor of the
bill -- and feels that even pets can be a danger -- and that many,
many years of being in the country without a problem isn't useful
evidence.

3) There was a complete agreement in the room that invasive species
is a huge problem. Therefore, everyone on the subcommittee is now
TRYING HARD to make this bill work.

4) Their sole concern regarding pet species was how it might impact
currently-owned pets. The existing breeding programs and continued
access to current species as pets was not a factor -- except to label
them as 'invasive species' until proven innocent. There was no
acknowledgement that historical evidence would bear any weight that
domestically-bred exotics for the pet trade are safe. And no one on
the committee or from the expert community was motivated to consider
adding any existing pet species to the automatic-approved list.

5) While tons of cats and dogs are non-native, there was no
discussion i saw explaining why they are not included, while birds
and fish have been. The lack of discussion implies that the bill
excludes them in order to make it easier for the bill to pass.

The pet trade issues were not considered to be enough of an issue to
deter the overall bill. The bill is considered to be generally fine
-- the way it is written.

SUMMARY
The overall take-away was that this bill is a good idea. They feel
it might be a bit broad, but the committee is now convinced it could
work in its CURRENT form without being rewritten. The only ones who
were visibly opposed were two -- one who represented the pet trade,
and the other who represented fish farmers. And while the
subcommittee offered to include a clause or permit to accommodate the
fish farmers, no such offer was made to the pet industry
representative.

The committee adjourned -- convinced this is a good bill. And will
now go back and try to tweak it.

#199479 - 04/24/09 04:12 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: alexz]  
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
BE2Cassie Offline
Moderator
BE2Cassie  Offline

Moderator
Chained to the Computer
*****

Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 10,825
Wrentham, MA


Nancy & Cassie BE2
#199590 - 04/25/09 07:45 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: alexz]  
Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,310
Donnalee Offline
Lives Here
Donnalee  Offline
Lives Here

Joined: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,310
Saskatchewan, Canada
Originally Posted By: alexz
And while the subcommittee offered to include a clause or permit to accommodate the fish farmers, no such offer was made to the pet industry representative.


XXXellent! smile


Donna
Free as a bird???
#199596 - 04/25/09 08:01 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: Donnalee]  
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
alexz Offline
Member
alexz  Offline
Member

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 197
Southern California
UPDATE

-------------------------cross post freely------------------------cross-post freely-----------------------------cross-post freely---------------------------------------------

Dear Friend of the Birds and of The Oasis Sanctuary

I learned yesterday that HR 669 was killed in committee.
This is due to the (literally) tens of thousands of letters, emails and phone calls which poured in from caregivers of exotic companion animals around the country. To those in the Avian Community who called or wrote...your birds are thanking you.

My final words on the subject....and I know many will continue to disagree.....This is fine. We still are in the USA.

I had very mixed feelings about the bill. Although there were important issues addressed, the problems, as I see them, were that the decision making was left up to bureaucrats, who, based on my rather intense experience with the Federal government (USFW in particular) generally interpret regulations and legislation in the tightest and most conservative manner.

The thought of intelligent and sentient beings in particular for this conversation, parrots with a life expectancy of 60-80 years, not being able to go to new homes if their caregivers could not longer care for them, or not being able to cross lines should their caregiver have to move, would potentially put millions of parrots at risk of destruction.

Although I am against breeding of any animals until ALL animals have a life-long home...and I do not believe that parrots or other birds who should be flying aught to be relegated to cages in our living rooms and treated like objects or even little humans....I also believe in the sanctity of life and our obligation to care take all existing captive and or domestic animals appropriately throughout their lifetimes.

Many of the objectives outlined (as I understood it) in HR 669 are already covered by CITES regulations visa vi importation etc. Yet another layer of bureaucracy will not stop smuggling and in my opinion would have only created an illegal underground of exotic trading and breeding. Look at dog-fighting and cock-fighting as an example....

To sum up, it is my opinion that HR 669 was a potentially dangerous intrusion of government into an area which needs enlightenment rather than laws.

Sybil


--
Sybil Erden, Executive Director
The Oasis Sanctuary
www.the-oasis.org
520-212-4737

#199599 - 04/25/09 08:13 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: alexz]  
Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,528
MissYumYum Offline
Lives Here
MissYumYum  Offline
Lives Here

Joined: Feb 2003
Posts: 2,528
Dallas, Texas
Needless to say, I am very relieved that this bill has been killed! I was one of the millions of parrot owners who wrote my congressman expressing my concerns for certain aspects of this bill, primarily those expressed by Sybil of The Oasis. I hate the breeders, but this bill, while shutting them down certainly, would have hurt many more people and animals than it would help.

Thanks for posting this, Alexz!

Annette


The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step - Old Chinese Proverb
#199613 - 04/25/09 11:13 PM Re: No on HR 669 [Re: MissYumYum]  
Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 143
Macawman Offline
Member
Macawman  Offline
Member

Joined: Oct 2008
Posts: 143
Lordy, I'm not sure what to think or say here. Sybil has connections that I could only dream of so maybe she knows something we don't, but "killed" is not the way I "read" the outcome of Thursday's House Committee meeting. I hope and pray that Sybil is right, and likely is in that it could well simply die at the end of the current session, but I think GrrlScientist's blog analysis of the current state of the bill more accurately described what I understood to happen.

Quote:
Make no mistake; HR 669 is still on the books in Congress. In reality, the only way it can actually go away is for it to expire at the end of the 111th session of Congress with no further action. Until then, it will linger out there. It seems that the plan of the subcommittee at this point is to get together all of the relevant parties and have them sit down and work out real solutions to the problems with HR 669 in an attempt to go forward responsibly. How long will that take? Well, stand by. It could be a two weeks, a month, or 6 months, but at some point, and in some form, we'll see HR 669 again.


For the record, I don't want to see HR 669 killed. I want to see it fixed so that the intent (which I believe to be prudent and reasonable) is achieved without risk to the lives and wellbeing of those companion animals already here. I want to see changes that would allow current care givers to go on through out the lives of their pets as though this bill doesn't exist. Failing that though, I would want to see it killed.

Dave





Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Moderated by  BE2Cassie, Beeps, EchosMom, Janny 

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.058s Queries: 15 (0.028s) Memory: 5.1722 MB (Peak: 5.5729 MB) Zlib enabled. Server Time: 2020-07-06 17:55:09 UTC