Captive Savannah Monitor Lizard
Besides dogs and cats, do you keep any other animals as pets? I keep a 3 foot Savannah Monitor lizard who I have had since she was a baby eight years ago. Maybe you don’t keep reptiles but what about birds, aquarium fish or small fuzzy animals like hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs and ferrets? Are you aware that very soon it may be against the law to keep these animals as pets?
What I am referring to is H.R. 669 or the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act.
The supposed purpose of H.R. 669 is “To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment or other animal species or human health and for other purposes.” Other purposes? What exactly is that supposed to mean?
On April 23, 2009 the Natural Resources Committee of the United States Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669. If this resolution passes it will ban the importation, exportation, transport, breeding and private ownership of the majority of the animals in the pet industry today.
The Humane Society of the United States, Defenders of Wildlife and The Nature Conservancy are all part of a coalition pushing for the bill to be adopted with no amendments.
The listing process is complex and in order to place a species on the approved list the Fish and Wildlife Service must conduct a risk assessment to determine whether or not the species will meet the criteria. Based on scientific and commercial information the Fish and Wildlife Service must make a determination that the particular species is a) Not likely to be harmful to the U.S economy, environment or other animals’ and human health OR b) May be harmful “but already are so widespread in the U.S that it is clear to the secretary that any import restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.
If passed into law, the resolution would be regulated by the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act protects wildlife by enforcing civil and criminal penalties for anything deemed a violation. The Lacey Act was introduced by Iowa Congressman, John Lacey in the year 1900 and has undergone several amendments since then. The original act was mainly targeted at making it a federal crime to poach in one state and sell bounty in another. Currently the list of animals covered under the Lacey Act is very limited and includes the following species:
• Cattle or oxen
• Chickens
• Domestic cats
• Domestic dogs
• Donkeys
• Geese (domestic)
• Ducks
• Goats
• Goldfish
• Horses
• Llama
• Mules
• Pigs
• Rabbits (domestic)
• Sheep
Last year, the Pet Industry Joint Advisal Council (PIJAC) testified for the pet industry opposing H.R. 6311, the 2008 version of the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. PIJAC reports that H.R. 669 contains many of the same problematic provisions as H.R. 6311 as well as containing even more restrictions. PIJAC maintains that while they completely support the development of a plan that would prevent the introduction of harmful nonnative species into the U.S they do not support H.R. 669 in its current drafting for several reasons. PIJAC continues to fight hard to prevent this new resolution from passing. You can read all about H.R 669 and receive important updates on the bill by visiting PIJAC on the web.
“Is there anything I can do?” you may be wondering. Yes, there is something you can do and I hope that all pet owners will pitch in to help if they feel strongly about the situation. Please, write to your congress. You can easily do this by visiting the no on H.R. 669 website. They have a page set up where you can send an e-mail to your congress or print out a pre-written example of a letter opposing H.R. 669.
If H.R. 669 was to pass, the pet industry as we know it would come crumbling down almost overnight. Pet stores that deal mainly in tropical fish, small animals, birds and/or reptiles would be dealt a devastating economical blow. Hundreds of thousands of businesses could suddenly be facing a grave future. Another thing is although they claim that the inclusion of an animal legally owned prior to the passing of the law may be permitted to be "grandfathered in" if it is proven that the pet was indeed owned previously, there is nothing to say what it will take to prove the pet legal. There is speculation that such a bill would end in pet's being removed and mass euthanasia.
Comments
It is inhumane to take reptiles from the wild to use as pets. Wild animals belong in the wild. Besides, most people who buy reptiles do not know how to properly take care of them. They are too often viewed as disposable pets. I am writing to Congress in support of this bill.
Speak up for animals and the environment by taking action on this bill at https: //community.hsus.org/campaign/FED_2009_nonnativewildife2.
Myth: My pets will be taken away from me and possibly killed.
Fact: Any decisions to prohibit species’ import will not affect current pets or
domesticated animals. Under H.R. 669 all current pets, even those species that cannot
be imported in the future, may be kept by their owners. See section 3(f) of the bill for
more details. Domesticated animals, including those listed in Section 14 such as dogs,
cats, rabbits, horses, goldfish, and others identified by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would be exempt from the risk analysis process.
Myth: This bill will shut down the pet industry overnight, costing jobs and hurting the economy, and will stop the work of zoos, aquariums, and research institutions.
Fact: Much of the pet trade will be unaffected by H.R. 669; further, the evaluation
process it creates will take more than three years to come into effect, allowing the
industry time to adjust. H.R. 669 would have no impact on the trade in domesticated
animals including cats, dogs, and so on. (See section 14 of the bill for a list of animals
that are exempt, a list the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service can expand.) Any nonnative
wild animal species could continue to be imported and traded if it was evaluated and
found, after stakeholder and public input, not to pose threats to people, native species, the
economy, or the environment. Accredited zoos and aquariums, as well as research and
educational institutions, will be able to acquire special permits to hold species that are otherwise not approved for import.
Very good article. It is continually perplexing to see the methods in which our system attempts to regulate very important issues (i.e. invasive species, black market exotics, and poaching): I don't buy Kleenex for bath towels, although I require both. Thank you for your input.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!