How would you talk about HR669 to an ecologist?

So I found a slide in my ecology class's lecture notes for this Friday that features the bogus map of the Burm invasion to the lower third of the U.S. I talked to my professor after class about it, and told him that the study had been refuted and was not accurate.

I got a much longer conversation than I wanted, and it led into me mentioning HR 669, which apparently he wasn't aware of.

To be perfectly honest I don't like arguing a point, nor am I good at it, and I prefer to just stay out of things. But, I care about these issues (obviously) and I didn't want him to present a one sided argument to our class. I sent him an email with some links about the US burm issue, as well as the GovTrack site on HR 669, and some of my own opinion... His reply included:

"I am not sure why you think HR 669 was poorly written, or why the import of non-native species into the U.S. should be dealt with on the state level, but maybe you can explain that on Friday as well."

Now that's where you all come in... What should I say to an ecology professor about HR 669? He'd probably rather let the pet industry go to waste than risk the tiniest possibility of an invasive species... I have no idea how to approach him, or if I even should... what do you all think? I would really appreciate some input...

You can point out that the bill didn't deal with only importing, but also with breeding, selling, trading, and transport. Then point out that non-native species include all commonly held pets, and also all alternative livestock(alpacas, swans, exotic fowl), and the aquaculture industry for food fish, in addition to aquarium fish, and even rats and mice that are commonly used for research and studies.
Then remind him that each of those industries has supporting industries, all with a lot of jobs attached, and if the pet industry alone is $11billion dollars, how much is the total loss... all for a bill that doesn't do anything to stop the most COMMONLY introduced species which are brought in by the government for deliberate release, or accidental as hitchhikers on shipments.
Then remind him what it might be like to not have ANY pets, except cats and dogs, which could actually get added in since THEY are a non-native species. No hamsters, birds, fish tanks, geckos, frogs, mice, nothing. It would be a huge stepping stone for PETA to get ALL animal ownership outlawed eventually, since ALL domestic species of farm animal and food animal are NON-native, and that is Peta's stated goal. So no meat, leather, milk, eggs, butter, etc etc...
That's what I would do. Have the actual bill printed out in front of you, and make a lot of notes so you don't foget anything.

i would let it die with this guy. i work in an ecology lab and have delt with invasive species before. i have discussed this bill with other ecologist here at work. they too, would like to see the bill pass because they don't want to see an invasive out break which is all too common here in FL waters. some people's minds are set and will not be changed. pointing out that it had to do with breeding and selling isn't going to help your case. in fact it will help his. many here frown on the fact that there are so many repitles kept in captivity. they see it as more chances for things to go wrong.

some ecologist could care less about the economy or business in general. in fact most believe (and i agree with this to some extent) that humans are the worst invasvie species of all. so to say to a hardcore ecologist that "this would ruin a market of non native animals", they will say "so what" and not really care about it.

so to clear myself, i am a biologist, and i don't support these bills at all. i see it as a way to get the public's eye off the true problem. this makes the government look like they care for the environment which makes them look good to some people out there. the case ive been trying to make with those ive emailed and mailed is that it does nothing to solve the problem.

so, i wouldn't bring it up again if i were you. his mind is set and he will make you look like you are doing something bad by having thiese animals. ive seen it all too often!! in my field im frowned upon for having a coral tank.

i would consider bringing up as why state level,that it is unfair because a snake can survive only in south florida,why force restriction in nebraska.and as for a breeding argument,most zoos and research places,and animal exhibiting,gets thier animals from breeders like us......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RebelYell83

i would consider bringing up as why state level,that it is unfair because a snake can survive only in south florida,why force restriction in nebraska.and as for a breeding argument,most zoos and research places,and animal exhibiting,gets thier animals from breeders like us......

---

an ecologist will say "with recently climate change it is possible for the snakes to increase their range"

been there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

the most COMMONLY introduced species which are brought in by the government for deliberate release, or accidental as hitchhikers on shipments.

---

Do you have any scientific articles to back that up? He is all about scientific articles (even though it didn't seem important to him that the Reed article about Burms was mostly opinion-based.)

Quote:

---

Then remind him what it might be like to not have ANY pets, except cats and dogs, which could actually get added in since THEY are a non-native species. No hamsters, birds, fish tanks, geckos, frogs, mice, nothing. It would be a huge stepping stone for PETA to get ALL animal ownership outlawed eventually, since ALL domestic species of farm animal and food animal are NON-native, and that is Peta's stated goal. So no meat, leather, milk, eggs, butter, etc etc...

---

Gonna be honest, I don't think I want to argue the "value of pets" point. To him, the natural environment is probably a lot more important than the preferences of humans.

Quote:

---

Have the actual bill printed out in front of you, and make a lot of notes so you don't foget anything.

---

I'm not sure I want to take this that far. I have to agree with Lucas that he probably won't change his mind. All I want is him to know that there's another, logical perspective.

I'll probably just say, that I am weighing in not only the ecological and environmental aspects of pet-keeping, but the economic and moral aspects as well. And that, I do not believe there is enough scientific evidence to warrant such a wideswept ban on so many animal species, which affects not only the pet trade but as you said, livestock and aquaculture as well.

And furthermore, that one way that the bill was poorly written is that it includes a nonsensical grandfather clause. First of all, snake owners could not buy snake food since it is illegal, so would have to either euthanize or illegally release their pets. Furthermore, with the collapse of the exotic pet industry comes the extremely reduced availability of exotic pet supplies (think: bird food for example). So this bill might actually result in a very high number of exotic species being released into the wild.

Bleh... well if anyone has any constructive criticism, or something to say, I'd love to hear it.