HR 669 **alert**

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by pbnj
http:///forum/post/3017005
Let me get this straight...you want to oppose a Bill that is designed to protect our environmental and economic interests just so you can keep pet snakes and I'm being selfish?
Let me know if my reef tank is a threat to the US and I'll take it down tomorrow.
After you are convinced of that, let me sell you my ski slopes just north of the valley...
 

pbnj

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3017218
After you are convinced of that, let me sell you my ski slopes just north of the valley...
Let me guess...the corrupt politicians sponsoring this Bill are taking money from lobbyists who have a financial interest in keeping nonnative species out of the US so there won't be any competition for their native pet sales?
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by pbnj
http:///forum/post/3017256
Let me guess...the corrupt politicians sponsoring this Bill are taking money from lobbyists who have a financial interest in keeping nonnative species out of the US so there won't be any competition for their native pet sales?
Come on you've got to do better than that...
Remember that piece of paper where the government's role was enumerated? What was it called? umm the constitution? yeah I think that is it. Well I don't really seem to remember banning exotic pets anywhere in that document.
The government has turned into an organization where our daily lives are being micromanaged. and that doesn't work. You walk into a store, and all the displays have to be a certain height, you go to the bathroom and your toilet has to use a certain amount of water. Now the President wants to put a little machine in your house that tells you when to turn off and on your lights, AC, Heater. The government is running the biggest domestic auto manufacturer. So they are telling you what kind of cars to drive. Then you say, I have no problem giving up my independence so that the government can dictate to you what can go into your fish tank...
When we already have a system in place (at least in Texas) that is working pretty well minus the hydrilla.
The federal government can't even run a cafeteria what makes you think they can handle decided what goes in your fish tank...
 

pbnj

Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3017285
Come on you've got to do better than that...
Remember that piece of paper where the government's role was enumerated? What was it called? umm the constitution? yeah I think that is it. Well I don't really seem to remember banning exotic pets anywhere in that document.
The government has turned into an organization where our daily lives are being micromanaged. and that doesn't work. You walk into a store, and all the displays have to be a certain height, you go to the bathroom and your toilet has to use a certain amount of water. Now the President wants to put a little machine in your house that tells you when to turn off and on your lights, AC, Heater. The government is running the biggest domestic auto manufacturer. So they are telling you what kind of cars to drive. Then you say, I have no problem giving up my independence so that the government can dictate to you what can go into your fish tank...
When we already have a system in place (at least in Texas) that is working pretty well minus the hydrilla.
The federal government can't even run a cafeteria what makes you think they can handle decided what goes in your fish tank...
So NO government regulation whatsoever, right? Yeah, that seemed to work well with the banking/lending industry.
Since we have a constitutional right to keep pets and anything goes, how about we legalize Bengal tigers in the pet trade? They're so cute.
 

stangs13

New Member
Originally Posted by pbnj
http:///forum/post/3017005
Let me get this straight...you want to oppose a Bill that is designed to protect our environmental and economic interests just so you can keep pet snakes and I'm being selfish?
Let me know if my reef tank is a threat to the US and I'll take it down tomorrow.
Read the bill again, it is not just a threat to reptiles, but just about everything else, including fish! How is that bill protecting our economic interests? This bill will put thousands of people out of work. Again, how do you think that will help the economy? The only place a dangerous species of tropical snake that could live is Florida. We are already alittle late on stoping that...
 

uneverno

Active Member
Originally Posted by stangs13
http:///forum/post/3017623
The only place a dangerous species of tropical snake that could live is Florida. We are already alittle late on stoping that...
I'm soooo tempted to say that that's not true. The White House and the hallowed halls of Congress come to mind as equally suitable habitats.
But in saying so I'd be hijacking the thread.
 

pbnj

Member
Originally Posted by stangs13
http:///forum/post/3017623
How is that bill protecting our economic interests?
Ever heard of the term "food-chain"? How about "balanced ecosystem"?
Maybe the snakes don't have a direct impact on the economy, but snakes eat birds, and birds eat insects, and insects can decimate food crops, which puts farmers out of work and drives up food prices, and when food prices go up, people have less discretionary income, and when people don't spend, businesses fail and people lose their jobs....and so on. Same holds true with birds, fish, amphibians, etc.
Introducing a nonnative species with no natural native predators can be disastrous. Burmese pythons have been held in check so far in Florida by alligators, but maybe they eventually start migrating to other Gulf areas where alligators aren't so plentiful. Do some research on brown tree snakes and the impact they've had on the island of Guam.
Maybe ball pythons, or cockatoos, or clownfish are harmless, but that's the point of the Bill. Evaluate everything and make an assessment about whether or not a nonnative species should be allowed in the US.
 

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by pbnj
http:///forum/post/3017297
So NO government regulation whatsoever, right? Yeah, that seemed to work well with the banking/lending industry.
Since we have a constitutional right to keep pets and anything goes, how about we legalize Bengal tigers in the pet trade? They're so cute.

This is where you are just wrong. What we are seeing now, has nothing to do with a lack of regulation. On the contrary, any person with an objective review of the situation can see that this is a result of a moral hazard created by government regulations. Had the government not created a company that purchased bad morgages without properly valuing risk. We wouldn't be in the situation at this point.
So you pointing to this situation is excellent but it proves my point not yours.
Second we aren't talking tigers, vipers ect. We are talking banning clownfish, triggers, Zoas and candy canes.
 

renogaw

Active Member
Originally Posted by pbnj
http:///forum/post/3017297
Since we have a constitutional right to keep pets and anything goes, how about we legalize Bengal tigers in the pet trade? They're so cute.


ok, just did a breif once over and i could not find a constitutional right about keeping pets in the Constitution. which ammendment did that come in?
 

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/3019251
ok, just did a breif once over and i could not find a constitutional right about keeping pets in the Constitution. which ammendment did that come in?
I think that was his point... that the constitution speaks to what the feds can do, and it doesn't address this issue. The first 10 amendments speak to affirvative rights that the citizens have... the rest speak to the limits on what the government is allowed to do.
Either way, even if keeping these animals was considered a "fundamental right", (which it's not), the goverment is still entitled to violate said right where the legislation is narrowly tailored to further a compelling state interest and there are no less obtrusive means to accomplish that goal.
BTW, this constitutional analysis is just practice...

Personally, I find this debate very interesting. In the end, though, even if held up to the most restrictive scrutiny possible (compelling interest test), I would find the legislation to be constitutional if it passed Congress and the White House. JMHO.
 

uneverno

Active Member
Years ago, I used to manage an Aquarium store. We wanted to expand into selling birds as well.
The city in which the store was located however, had a ban on the selling of fowl within the city limits.
It took months of petitioning and attending city council meetings, at our own expense, for the council
1st: to hear us
and
2nd: to decide that the legal definition (as quite opposed to the dictionary definition) of fowl did not include parakeets.
Good luck with the feds.
 

fishkid13

Active Member
The govenment sucks!!! Sorry for the outburst but everyone of them first off does not know:
Anything about pets
How to do anything right
How to stay 'clean' as in not drunk driving or being --- offenders(yes some of them are)
Care about anyone besides themselves and family members.
Yes people are responsible for making problems like introudusing alien species into areas but that doesn't mean that all of us are that way. If the government wants to slow down or stop alien species from intruding then, my idea is, to have all pet owners go though a test ( like hunting, or driving) to see if they are ready to keep pets. Now all of us on this site and many others should have no problem passing. And if we had cards to what we own they could easy see what we have and if something gets lose or released then it would be that person not everyone that has to suffer. It is not a great idea but it is better than getting rid of all pets( not including dogs and cats).
 

crypt keeper

Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3016154
Any exotic pet can be invasive, due to human error, or outright disregard for the environment. The Everglades is full of Burmese pythons (a 20' snake) because pet owners decided they could no longer keep their cute little 1' snake that grew into a 15' snake (and was still growing) and threw them out into the wilderness. In the Florida Keys iguanas are totally out of control because pet owners could no longer keep the cut little 1/2' lizard when it became 3', ugly and nasty tempered. So out into the wild it went.
Aquarium owners dump dead fish, and even sick fish in the toilet all the time. That can result in the proliferation of parasites and diseases coming from these species. How many instances of devastating harvesting of aquarium species have occurred?
The Mediterranean is plagued by red tide algae, thought to be a result of an Aquarium in France dumping algae, resulting in algae laced runoff going into the sea.
Any of these things can be invasive. In my view, ferrel cats and dogs could also be considered invasive. Ferrel animals carry a host of diseases, including feline Aids, leukemia, even rabies. Good hearted people feel that they are being kindhearted by feeding ferrel cats and dogs. What they are doing is contributing to these animals' proliferation and the spread of very serious diseases that effect domesticated animals. And, it is not unheard of that such diseases make the jump to humans. AIDS is believed to have come from animals, monkeys, in Africa.
There should be regulation, and excluded species. People keeping especially troublesome species, such as the Burmese (which can easily kill someone) should be licensed and accountable. People dumping their "pets" into the wild should fined heavily. Animals obtained from retailers or even the humane society can be micro-chipped, to track these pets; then owners could be required to periodically report on the status of the animal through their vet. And, yes, taking pets to the vet may should be compulsory. Basically, if you can't take care of an animal, then don't get them to begin with.
All of that said, excluding all exotics is ridiculous and highly punitive to those of us who are responsible animal keepers (not to mention voters as well).

The pythons arent due to just bone head animal keepers. Ever heard of a hurricane? These people board up windows and leave and hope for the best. They take inventory. When they get back the store is gone. There can be 20 - 50 snakes from 1 store. How many pet stores are in florida?
Same can be said for a fish store that is near water. A couple fish make it out to sea. You have an issue.
Don't just blame people throwing their pets out the window. Yes that may have a cause on this but its not the entire cause.
 

srfisher17

Active Member
If this bill ever makes it to Obama's desk, and he signs it, his Portuguese Water Dog better be the first to go.
 

slider101

Member
THis is just another stupid thing this current administration is proposing. This administration has only been in office for 4 months and already are ruining the country. We are so headed to a socialist government it isnt funny. The government and politicians do not care about anyone but themselves! They have there own agendas and it does not concern the littler people like me. I am so tired of thumbsucking liberals and PETA and other animal protesters worring about what we and other pet owners do! Yes there are bad pet owners and they should not have animals but you should not lump everyone into the same basket and punish us all. Get a life PETA and the government you are all idiots! We all take very good care of our animals and fish. Stay out of my pockets and my home!!!
 

srfisher17

Active Member
On the serious side; IMO, there is way too much going on in Washington now for this bill to be taken seriously; that's why no Democrat Leader as signed on as a Co-sponser. I'd bet the farm it dies in Committee; and the Sponsor lacks the clout to have it included in a spending bill, the way many goofy bills are passed. I doubt that the Democrat Leadership is going to worry about PETA (and other groups) on this one; they have nowhere else no go anyhow. Let's get rid of all the Norway rats, starlings, Oriental & Eouropean coackroachs, etc (all imports); before we worry about pets.
 

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Originally Posted by crypt keeper
http:///forum/post/3020677

The pythons aren't due to just bone head animal keepers. Ever heard of a hurricane?
Yes, I have heard of hurricanes and yes I have been in many hurricanes myself. I am from So. Fla.
I can tell you that the Burmese pythons in the Everglades have nothing to do with hurricanes. People have taken their pets and abandoned them in Fla's wetlands thinking that that would be a good place for them. Yes, it is a good place for them, but its at the expense of the native wildlife.
There are not populations of people or pet shops in the Everglades. But there are lots of Burmese pythons that go unchecked because they have no natural predators in the Everglades.
 

srfisher17

Active Member
Originally Posted by Beth
http:///forum/post/3021511
Yes, I have heard of hurricanes and yes I have been in many hurricanes myself. I am from So. Fla.
I can tell you that the Burmese pythons in the Everglades have nothing to do with hurricanes. People have taken their pets and abandoned them in Fla's wetlands thinking that that would be a good place for them. Yes, it is a good place for them, but its at the expense of the native wildlife.
There are not populations of people or pet shops in the Everglades. But there are lots of Burmese pythons that go unchecked because they have no natural predators in the Everglades.
Put a bounty on the snakes and let the hunters keep the hides. Old fashioned, I know, but it works in the northwoods when the beaver population gets out of control.
 
Top