Happy Medium of HR669

Alright, so I am 100% against this bill. I am doing my part by sending out fliers, spreading the word, and sending e-mails.

Clearly, as there have other 'invasive species' bills in the past, these people are determined to do it every year. If they keep hitting us with bills like this every year, I'm sure each bill will slowly get further and further into the process of being passed.

So if an 'invasive species' bill had to be passed, if you could write it, what would it be and why? Where would the invasive species craze come to a happy medium?

This is more of a curious thread than anything, I just want to see what information some of you guys can come up with..

My happy medium would probably involve importation from other countries of 'common pets' without a permit.
If worst comes to worse, certain larger snakes need a permit of some sort (if living in an area where they could thrive).
However, my invasive species would not include most of the animals from the pet trade. Some of the information I have learned on here, is that most of those animals are already established and if they have been invasive, it is too late (mice and rats for example). People don't realize that hogs, cats, dogs, goats, sheep and even earthworms have some of the most negative impact on nature in this country. (Obviously none of those should or could ever be banned, but I'm just discussing more invasive species over others being attacked.)

Hopefully that makes some sense. Thoughts?

An "invasive" species should be something that could reproduce rapidly in the wild and cause actual envrionmental problems. Like what happened with the frogs in Australia or the Zebra Mussel problems etc... A few pythons getting out in every single state except Florida are not going to do anything except maybe eat someone's cat or scaring someone and then when winter hits...no more pythons.

A strict ban on all Asian carp and all Asian beetles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PythonWallace

A strict ban on all Asian carp and all Asian beetles.

---

Even with a ban, those two species have already invaded, bred, and thrived. It's useless to ban already 'invaded' species, but rather species that could be similar to those that have become invasive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackcrystal22

Even with a ban, those two species have already invaded, bred, and thrived. It's useless to ban already 'invaded' species, but rather species that could be similar to those that have become invasive.

---

I was being sarcastic. The invasive species that are an actual threat don't come through the pet trade, and can't be stopped, or even slowed down for the most part. But if politicians want to get their panties in a bunch about invasive species, they should call a congressional meeting to work on the existing species that piggy back on cheap goods and materials from trading with Asian countries. And if their concerns lie in the harmful to humans and wildlife aspect of dangerous animals, they should focus solely on domestic dogs, which are responsible for nearly all the animal related deaths and injuries to humans and animals in the U.S., and are the number one cause of emergency room visits. Or maybe domestic cats, which thrive everywhere, and in places like areas in Wisconsin, thrive in abundance, endangering local wildlife populations. If you look up the statistics for any issue they are trying to use as a reason for these ridiculous bills, you will always find reptiles at the bottom of the lists.

You might want to take a look at the "talking points" listed in PIJACS pet alert from last week to see some of the issues with HR 669 that can (and should) be tweaked for it to be taken at a realistic piece of invasive species legislation.

http://www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf

I don't know of anyone that is against the idea of what is proposed in HR 669. The problem is that HR 669 as written is unrealistic, overly broad, and won't ever achieve it's goals.

Hope this helps.

-adam