HR669 - A bill...

[Boz]

I don't know all the details about this but this video helped explain it.

[flash=425,344]http://www.youtube.com/v/_FPfL212CB8&hl=en&fs=1[/flash]

I was totally shocked when I heard about this last night. In fact, I thought it was some sort of hoax!
If passed... my gerbils would be illegal to own. And many of our other pets. :nerves1

Has anyone else heard about this? Maybe if you have, explain it a little better? Or does the video pretty much nail it right on the head?

 

[tonyshuman]

It's actually HR669--the 699 is a typo. From my reading of the bill itself, (read here http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669 ) gerbils, hamsters, etc that are from other areas of the world could be put on a list that makes them illegal to own. Many pet and livestock species (including rabbits, cats, etc) that are not native species are already protected by the bill specifically. The kind of pets that wouldn't be allowed are any that pose a risk to getting out and getting into the wild and causing a problem. I think, personally, if they can demonstrate that there's a substantial risk that our pets can be a problem if they get into the wild, we shouldn't have them as pets.

The thing that makes me think is the Eurasian milfoil, a plant that people had in their aquariums, and it gets into lakes from people dumping out their aquariums. It totally overruns lakes and chokes out natural plants and animals. If there's a possibility that Russian dwarf hamsters could thrive in the environment here if they were released and could overrun the wild small animal population, then I'd let Petunia be my last dwarf hamster. It's the right thing to do for the environment.

 

[tonyshuman]

Just watched the video--had to laugh as I've seen that "We love our pets" wall myself at a pet store near the place I grew up.

Also, the bill itself does NOT make all those species listed immediately illegal. It says that they'll have scientists and people look at each species that might pose an invasive species threat and see if it could be a problem. Most of these species don't pose a threat to populate areas of the country because they simply can't live in the wilds of the US. Things like gerbils and hamsters could only survive in a desert environment, so there are only a few states where they would pose an invasive species threat. In places like that, it makes sense that they shouldn't be allowed. There's a snake that's done this in the everglades, I think, and it's a problem.

Plus, for a species to be on the bad list, it has to not only be proven to be a threat to the ecology, it also has to be approved, which wouldn't work for species that have been pets for years and years without having problems. Even if you showed me a scientific study that said gerbils could colonize the desert and compete with the native mice for resources, I wouldn't think it makes sense to put them on the bad list because people have had pet gerbils for decades and I don't know of any feral gerbil colonies.

The real threat lies in things like giant anacondas (I think that's the snake in the everglades?) that are top-tier predators or things like the milfoil that can adapt to the temperate climate of the US really well.

 

[fuzz16]

i highly doubt this bill will pass due to the amount of animal lovers. and like said above...snakes are the main problem, and aggressive/large fish being released. thats irrisponsibility on the pet shop as well as the people though.

 

[undergunfire]

This site explains it well, too.
How H.R 669 Will Affect You

I am highly doubting it will pass, but it is always scary.

 

[BlueCamasRabbitry]

I hope it doesn't pass. That would be awful.

I mean, the only pets I have that would be affected, are my bettas. Could these fish poise a problem in the wild? I doubt it... But it doesn't matter if they could or couldn't, this bill is still stupid, and I hope it doesn't pass.

Now, I can see how people wouldn't want giant anacondas being in the U.S. and owned by people, and then let loose. I saw a picture of one the other day in a magazine and couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the size of that thing! You wouldn't want to run across one of THOSE on a hiking trip! It's a like a trip back in time, to the dinosaur age, when every animal was gigantic....

Emily

 

[BethM]

undergunfire wrote:

This site explains it well, too.
How H.R 669 Will Affect You

I am highly doubting it will pass, but it is always scary.

This link is clearly a biased opinion, not an actual explanation of the bill.
And that video is a joke. (As in, it's funny because it's purposely inflammatory.)

I just scanned through the text of the bill, and it's clearly aimed at preventing the importation of non-native species that could become invasive if released. (European Starling, anyone?)
Although it will affect the pet trade somewhat, I really doubt it will "shut down" the pet trade, or even seriously impact it.
It does seem that there's a review system designed to assess the risks of each species, and it seems that there's it's an opt-in, rather than opt-out, system. (Meaning that animals aren't automatically on the list, they have to be proposed then reviewed before inclusion on the list.)

There's also the following provision, which would exempt the most commonly kept domestic animals:

(D) does not include any cat (Felis catus), cattle or oxen (Bos taurus), chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), donkey or ass (Equus asinus), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated Anas spp.), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus), horse (Equus caballus), llama (Lama glama), mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus), pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica), domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), or sheep (Ovis aries), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.


I suspect there may also be allowances for regional climates. For example, an animal that may be able to survive or thrive in Florida may not do so well in Montana.
Notice that the bill was introduced by a Representative from Guam, on behalf of herself and Representatives from California and Florida, all places where the climate is conducive to escaped or released non-native species establishing themselves.

I lived on Guam for a year. I can tell you from first-hand observation, invasive species crowding out native species is a huge problem there. HUGE.

There is also a provision clearly stating that any individual animal that was legal to be in captivity before the bill would take effect would still be legal to own after the bill might pass. So, in the unlikely event that hamsters made it on the list, your hamster would NOT become illegal to own.

 

[tonyshuman]

Beth is right. The only way to get the real story is to read the actual text of the bill. I linked to it earlier. I highly doubt that many of the more common fish, reptile, amphibian, and rodent species we love as pets would make it on to the list, and any animal that does make it on to the list really is a threat to the environment. Invasive species are a big deal and can cause real ecological damage. The video and the link "How HR 669 Will Affect You" are clearly biased views written by people who haven't studied the bill closely. It is always best to read the original source yourself and make decisions based on it, not on someone else's opinion of the bill. The video and that link make it sound like the bill says "it will be illegal to own gerbils, hamsters, snakes, etc" which isn't what it says.