[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [APD] HR669



On quick glance I don't see where this would outright ban tropical
fish and other pets?  What I took from it is that it would provide
risk assessment to determine if a species has potential to cause harm
and based on that would ban some species.  There are quite a few
species that were imported for the pet trade that have become
established invasives in the United States and have greatly impacted
the environment and economy.

I noticed that the bill's sponser is from Guam.  I don't think the
Brown Tree Snake was imported as a pet or intentionally imported for
any reason.
This is really fueled by the latest incident where a pet chimp tore the face off its owner in CT. Look at the co-sponsors, a whole list of Dems from all over. Its being pushed by several radical Animal rights groups including 
PETA whose goal is to elimanate the pet trade.
The only pets on the approved list in the bill are dogs, cats, goldfish and 
selected farm animals. Even breeding animals not on the list would be
illegall.  Thats it. Period.

Maybe this will give you more info:

http://www.nohr669.com/
I still agree with the intent of the bill although it need some work so it doesn't adversely impact the pet trade. I look at the sponsor and co-sponsors and see Hawaii, Guam, Marshall Islands, American Samoa, California and Great Lakes states, all states and US Territories with irreversible invasive species problems that cost millions if not billions to keep under control. Not all but some of these species came from the pet trade. I think some species pose too much if a risk to the environment and economy to be kept as pets and should be controlled. I say this as someone who has owned and will continue to own a variety of animals as pets. 
_______________________________________________
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com
http://mailman.actwin.com/mailman/listinfo/aquatic-plants