The hearing for HR669 took place on Thursday April 23rd.
The news I've been hearing about how this went has been mixed though over all quite good.
Some are going so far as to proclaim the bill dead, I however think this is rather premature.
All signs do however point towards it not passing in its current from.
There has been an absolutely huge response to this bill by pet owners, people whom work in the
pet industry, and also the food fish industry. I send my thanks out to all of those whom
have worked hard to oppose this bill, including USARK, PIJAC, Bill Martin of Blue Ridge Aquatics and every
one else whom took action against this deeply flawed though well intending bill.
I hope that better ways of dealing with the
invasive species problem are found, as this is a problem that needs to be addressed.
I suggest visiting nohr669.com for news on any current
happenings with this bill. The folks at that site have been great at keeping us all informed about what
is going on with HR669.
There will be a hearing for H.R. 669 April 23rd. Sadly this bill is highly unlikely to benefit our ecosystem in any substantial way but will be a hard blow to pet lovers, and the pet industry. Invasive species are a real problem, but this bill is not the right approach to this problem, nor will it be of significant help in dealing with the problem of illegal animal smuggling, and existing wild populations of invasive species in the USA.
For more on this bill please visit
PIJAC HR 669 Forum
For more information and my opinion on this bill:
HR 669, my view point, and how it could affect you.
For the video I did on HR669 please click the link: Why We Need
To Fight HR669
Living the Scientific Life
A blog explaining the problems with HR669, over all this is an excellent blog entry. There's only
one thing I have to point out, the author mentions zoos and certain others being exempt...that's not
quite the case but they will be impacted differently than the rest of us by this bill.
"HR 669 is a bill known also as the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Though the goal of protecting our ecosystems from invasive species is a noble one, this bill is fraught with problems, and will ultimately do very little to protect our wild life, and ecosystem. However this bill will drastically impact the pet industry, and affect pet owners in a very negative way.
As written any non-native animals that don’t make it onto the approved list, will automatically be illegal to buy, sell or breed, or bring across state lines, even if the species is not on the prohibited list. A study is required to prove whether a species could potentially become invasive or be a threat to human health. However the standards for what such a study would require are very vague and doing a study of every single species that is kept as a pet would require a huge amount of funding, and I think that especially in our current economic climate it is very unrealistic to expect proper funding for something like this. An animal could become illegal simply because of inadequate funding to do what is required to get them onto the approved list.
Out of the many species of pets kept in the US, the vast majority of them are non-native species, including everything from the common parakeet, canary and cockatiel, to iguanas, and chameleons, but those are only a few examples from a significantly larger list. Out of all the pet species, very few have become successful invasive species, and most pet species have been here quite some time.
This bill could also result in a species being illegal to keep, breed, sell etc... in all states, simply because they could become an invasive species in one or two specific states, for example a tropical fish which could survive in Hawaii, could become illegal every where in the US, even in Idaho, where there’s no ocean for the fish to get loose to and survive in. This is why I support state specific laws regulating species that could be a problem in the ecosystems of the particular state, such as for example California’s prohibited animals list.
This bill does nothing to deal with the very real problem of invasive species which are all ready thriving in the wild here in the US, such as the European starling, and the feral populations of domestic cats, and this bill is a far cry from adequate to deal with the problem of illegal animal smuggling.
The grandfather clause in the bill is also not adequate. While it would mean our current pets would be legal, we could not breed, sell or bring them across state lines, or give them away. This leaves us with no alternative but to put perfectly healthy animals down should we need to move, and the situation is no different if a pet’s owner passes away. To be putting down perfectly healthy animals when they could instead be given or sold to a loving home or simply moved with their owners I find truly appalling.
Further more this bill will be a devastating blow to the pet industry, which relies on a variety of fish, exotic birds, and reptiles being available; this will be an especially hard blow with all the hardships people are facing in this difficult economic time.
Please consider the pet industry, and animal lovers, as well as the well being of their animals, and do not support HR 669."
Zoos will be impacted by this, and so will all other organizations that use non-native animals for educational purposes, display, or for the sake of helping conserve endangered species. There is a permit that will allow the importation of species on the prohibited list, as well as those simply not on the approved list. Elsewhere in the bill it's explicitly stated species not on the approved list cannot be legally bred, and there's nothing in that permit that says that breeding would be allowed, or the bill's other limitations could be gone against by those with a permit , which means if a species is not on the approved list the only way to get new specimens will be to import them, this really runs counter to attempts to conserve animal populations. This will kill breeding programs that exist for conservation purposes if the animals are not on the approved list.
This could lead to zoos relying more on wild caught animals, if they can even manage to get a permit. I suspect that over all that zoos won't be doing very well though, importing animals has become more and more difficult, and it is a really bad thing to have to rely on to maintain a captive population. Really the most that animal importation should be relied on for is if the population in the place they are being imported to is very small, and/or there's a lack of genetic diversity, which new blood from outside the border can help increase genetic diversity.
So this act IS NOT just an attack on pet owners and the pet industry, whether or not part of its actual intention is to attack those whom use animals for education, or want to breed endangered exotics to help conserve the species as well it sure has started to look that way to me.
The below is right out of HR 669
(a) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary may issue a permit authorizing importation otherwise prohibited under section (a)(1), for scientific research, 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 with respect to the specimen.
(b) TERMS AND CONDITIONS.—The Secretary may include in a permit under subsection (a) terms and conditions to minimize the risk of introduction or establishment of the nonnative wildlife species in the United States