Will your pet become an illegal alien if HR 669 passes?

photo by Patricia van Casteren.  I added the teeny handcuffs.

If the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (HR 669) is passed (the hearing is set for April 23), many common household pets will become illegal to own or breed.

Currently the Lacey Act requires the Fish and Wildlife Service to demonstrate that a species is harmful to the health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources in the United States.

HR 669 revamps this regulation process by compelling the Fish and Wildlife Service to create two lists: an Approved List and an Unapproved List. Makes sense until you hear the part about what it takes to get on the Approved List: it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely to, cause harm anywhere in the US - thereby forcing the proving of a negative.

Which pets are effected?  Hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets, and virtually every fish, amphibian, reptile and bird species.

How would they be effected? HR 669 would ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List. Unlisted animals could not be imported into the US, and could not be exported, transported across state lines or bred.

Whose bright idea was this and why did they think it was a good one? According to the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), HR 669 was introduced by Madeleine Bordallo of Guam. The intention behind it is to restrict the willy-nilly importing practices of some of the more irresponsible members of the pet industry.

Some people have been bringing just about any critter they wanted into this country with little or no regard to what harm it might do to native species or what harm might be caused to the animal itself. Obviously that's not good. So basically the bill started off with a noble purpose but then it got all carried away and made a mad leap into irrationality.

What's wrong with the bill?

• It makes the regulation process unnecessarily complicated.
• It ignores the fact that most nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the US for decades, even hundreds of years, without causing any environmental problems.
• Having to prove that future harm will not happen is almost impossible and will result in virtually every nonnative species being Unapproved even if the species has been in trade, farming or recreational use for decades with no problems.
• A one-size-fits-all approach to species assessment is flawed. Animals that may be harmful in Hawaii would not be harmful in Kansas or Arizona.
• Animals owned prior to the enactment of HR669 would still be subject to it's rules. You would be allowed to possess an Unapproved animal only if you prove that it was legally owned prior to the launch of the assessments. But there is no indication at all of what it would take to prove such legality. How could you prove you legally acquired the hamster your daughter inherited from her third grade classroom?

What's right with the bill? Several animal advocacy organizations such as Big Cat Rescue, are supporting HR 669. They think it's a good idea to regulate the comings and goings of lions and tigers and other non-native big cats. I think we can all get behind that idea but those animals aren't pets. Why does HR 669 have to go so far into the pet world?

What can I do to stop this bill?  Go to www.nohr669.com and follow their instructions.