H.R. 511 - Letter to the US House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisher

I went to the following website:

https://naturalresources.house.gov/contact/

and wrote this letter to the US House Natural Resources Committee, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, Oceans and Insular Affairs:

"Committee members,

First and foremost, I would be writing this letter out by hand and mailing it to you were I not currently stationed at a FOB in Afghanistan that doesn't have any postal facilities. My name is Bruce Archambault and I am a 1LT in the United States Army. At present I am stationed in SE Afghanistan in support of Operation Enduring Freedom 2012. I have spent the last 8 months here as part of an SFAT that advises the leadership of two different Afghan Infantry Battalions. In a couple of weeks I will be heading back to my home station of Ft. Carson, Colorado.

The reason that I am writing you is to ask that you do not support HR 511, which, as you know, you will be having a hearing for on 29 November, 2012. I studied ecology and evolutionary biology at the University of KS, where I received a BS in the aforementioned field, and I care very deeply about the health of every ecosystem found within the borders of this great nation, a nation which I have sworn to protect against all enemies.

The science that drove the passage of the ban of 4 large species of pythons in March of this year was flawed, as it compared the average temperatures of the home ranges of the snakes to the average temperatures in the SE United States. Temperatures in the SE U.S. fluctuate more than the temperatures in the home ranges of the species in question. This is important to note because with that greater fluctuation come lower temperatures around that average, and the factor that limits range with the species in question is the lowest recorded temperatures in a given year, not the average. Multiple studies in recent years suggest that none of the speices mention in HR 511 can survive for an extended period of time north of the southernmost portion of Florida (Avery et al. 2010; Dorcas et al. 2011; Mazzotti et al. 2011; Jacobson et. al. 2012).

The addition of the species named in H.R. 511 to the Lacey Act list of injurious species would have a great impact on many small businesses and families that breed these species. Please consider the following:
- Trade in reptiles and ancillary businesses are estimated to be a 3 billion dollar a year industry.
- More than 9 million reptiles are exported from the U.S. annually.
- More than 11 million reptiles are kept in the U.S. as pets, which breaks down to around 1 in 25 household having a reptile as a pet.
- The U.S. accounts for 82% of the worldwide trade in reptiles.
- The addition of these species to the Lacey Act list of injurious species would negatively impact at least 500,000 Americans and thousands of small family businesses would be destroyed.
- There are approximately 4 million boas and pythons and over 7 millions geckos, lizards, turtles and other reptiles in captivity in the U.S. today.

If boas, specifically, were to be added to the Lacey Act list of injurious species I would not be able to bring a boa constrictor that I have owned since it was a small hatchling, a snake which is a beloved family pet of my wife, my two sons and myself, the next time that I have to PCS to another state as part of my service to the nation and the United States Army.

I am not against any and all laws being passed in regards to the keeping of reptiles by individuals. I would, in fact, support legislation that focused on ensuring the safe and responsible keeping of the species in question in HR 511. These could range from establishing minimum caging requirements that would deal with size and security features in order to ensure the health of an animal and the safety of the owners, to requiring micro-chipping of animals so that any that are found released illegally could be traced to their owner for fines and other punishment. This said, an outright ban is not the correct answer.

Please, ladies and gentlemen of the committee, do not support HR 511. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Bruce Archambault
1LT, FA, U.S. Army"

I am hopeful that this will be seen and considered by the committe before the hearing but that may well be wishful thinking. Either way, I urge anyone that has the time to do so to go to the website that I have linked and write a letter yourself. There is strength in numbers! Let's do what we can to ensure that our individual voices are heard.

By suggesting that they should be microchipped and some what controlled by the government is not support against HR511 IMO. . . we need to push for freedom of ownership rights period. End of story. Not "if you can provide this ... that... and so forth" I already have to have a Controlled Exotic Snake Permit, Dealers Permit, and Non-game dealers permit in my state just to deal with the animals I currently have! And that in itself is too far. They don't want to keep tabs on it, they just want to be able to pocket at our expense at a state level. I'm sure plenty of vets that do microchipping would back up such an idea as that if push came to shove, because again rich would get richer, and poor would get poorer.

While banning is not the answer. Tighter government control is definitely not a substitute. There needs to be something done about people releasing their snakes. But I can not agree with the statement that you have put forth in your letter. . . Shawn Helfick of Python Huntes is going before congress today as an expert witness against HR511. Hopefully he makes a difference.

A well articulated argument for the preservation of our hobby. I hope your letter will reach the right people and make a difference. Thank you for your passion, and thank you for your service to our country.

I'm sorry that you feel that the laws in place regarding your keeping of your animals are above the top and unnecessary. Unfortunately for you, the role of the government is to serve the people of this great nation, and enacting laws to protect our natural resources (the ecology of the Everglades, for example) , falls within that realm. Will banning the ownership of certain snake species erase the cological damage that has been done in the Everglades? No - it is a knee jerk reaction to something that at this point cannot be stopped. Legislation promoting responsible ownership, however, could make a difference. Governing is about also compromise (and sadly none of policians in power today realize this). You can't please all of the people all of the time and you will always have groups with ideas, views and opinons that are diametrically opposed to each other, irreconcilable views or opinons being the root cause. The HSUS will never believe that any animal should be "subjected" to being a pet, period. At the same time you and I will never agree that we shouldn't be allowed to keep pets, so long as their basic needs are met and they are cared for in a humane manner. I wouldn't agree to a piece of legislation on a middle ground in regards to keeping reptiles in order to compromise with the HSUS. I would, however, do it for the sake of ecologists being worried about feral reptile populations causing damage to an ecosystem where a species becoming invasive would cause the ecosystem to suffer a great loss of biological diversity, in turn decreasing the staibilty of the ecosystem (one of the basic tenets of ecology is that diversity begets stability). Like I stated in my letter, I do not support an outright ban, but I would support legislation that would be aimed at ensuring responsible ownership and holding pet owners accountable.

Now if only we could get legislation passed that would hold the same standards to cat owners we'd be doing alright, in my opinon... :rolleyes:

Also, it would appear that you only have to have two of your permits because you breed and/or sell certain species. This is not a problem in my opinion, as reponsibility can be enacted at a higher level in order to control lower levels. Case in point - take out drug suppliers, not drug users, as going after users doesn't affect the larger issue at hand. In this case, ensuring that a breeder will follow the laws and not sell species that are either illegal or to someone without a permit, then irresponsible individuals won't get their hands on to the animals in the first place. I'm not sure what your permits require you to do but I was just using it as an example. People that go through the trouble to get permits are less likely to conduct illegal business than those that aren't. For example - concealed carry permit holders are 4 times less likely to commit a crime with a firearm than someone who doesn't have a concealed carry permit.

I would have been completely fine with paying a fee for a permit and inspection of my facilities before I was allowed to buy two American Alligators. To be honest I feel that the process was entirely too easy.

In Texas there are requirements before even applying for a permit to keeper american alligators, including state inspection of outdoor caging. . . and even to keep them you have to have at the least two permits (Controlled exotic snake permit and non-game collectors permit). None the less, I'm just strongly against the government putting more regulations overhead to make difficult task more difficult. No one here is for the Lacey Act additions, that is not arguable in the least. It's a terrible thing they are doing to us, and the science that backs it up is horrifying! If they want to claim its for the sake of protecting a species . . . cats as your mentioned, are the number 2 killer for endangered birds, yet we do not have hefty fines imposed for outdoor cats. Instead, we have "Outdoor formula" cat food! WE SUPPORT IT.

This is all the HSUS fighting against snakes as a pet. And the regulations where you would have state inspection and micro chipping (which is being done in Florida for all grandfathered in snakes) is just a way to impose more taxation on people who chose to invoke their rights to own these amazing animals. Not everyone should go out and buy a retic or burmese. Not everyone should go out and buy a dog. But for the people who chose to, there should not be a government micromanaging the entire situation.

Thanks for writing the letter and I think that your arguement is clear and precise. I also agree that the role of the government is to protect the interests of society as a whole and that adequate regulation is absolutely essential. Making arguements that regulations and permit fees are a conspiracy to make the rich richer and poor poorer, is a bit of a straw man arguement. I think micro-chips for the animals would be a good idea, particularly for larger breeds. Hope your letter finds the committee members before the hearing. I will take a few minutes to write a letter as well, thanks for the link.

It's not a conspiracy, it's a fact. It's a form of taxation. If it wasn't a simple registry process would work would it not? None the less, the job of the government is to protect our rights as a country. Look at the constitution. The job of the government is not to over regulate things which already have working regulations in place. I'm just saying they need to save the power of pet regulation toward the states. There is no evidence in their argument of why these species are considered a threat to the environment that has a leg to stand on. Just my two cents or a "straw man" argument. . .

Letter written :)

@reptileexperts, it sounds like you are saying that every tax is a way for rich to get richer and poor to get poorer, so with that I disagree. Taxes are needed to have agencies such as the FDA, EPA, etc. While there are going to be problems with any solution, I think that the regulations are needed and I would not want to live in a place where such agencies do not exist. I also doubt, wholeheartedly, that a registry process would fix the problem. I could say that I have an adequate enclosure for my retic (don't own one but just an example) at an office or on a online submission while keeping the animal in a cardboard box. The only way to ensure that I'm not lying in that situation would be to have an inspector check it out. A tax may be necessary to pay for an inpector. If the people of the state don't agree that many resources should be directed to the regulatory body then the fees will fall on those who choose to own such pets. I understand that people are going to gripe about any fee, that is just human nature. I see the straw man as not describing what the fees associated with breeding and keeping of these animals could be responsibly used for and simply stating it as the man trying to keep the herp lover down :)

You seem to be missing the bigger picture here - it's about the government controlling rights that have no need to be controlled? The more snakes that get put on the lacey act the more power we give the government to regulate what is and isn't considered an injurious species. This argument is not even being cross examined here - you seem to have an issue with my reference to it be like a tax? We'll suck it up, it is a tax in Texas to own these animals. Look at where the money goes for your registration and you will see that. As someone who keeps animals currently on the Lacy act and more being "fought to add" on the lacey act. I keep up with my local and federal laws constantly.

My point for this entire matter though is we do not need more regulations as was suggested in the written letter - I am for there being alternative ways to handle the situation, but quite frankly there is no situation outside of the southern florida area. There are literally no other populations in the US?! Florida handled the situation within their state for what's going on. That should've been enough. . . The federal government needs to take two steps back and realize that it is not helping the bigger picture, and imposing more rules, regulations, fees, and registrations is not the answer to what "free america" is all about people. That simple.

There is no reason whatsoever to control or pass regulations on large constrictors. The wild population of constrictors has never attacked a single human. It is a localized situation which impacts a localized ecology and there are localized regulations in place which are preventing the problem from being solved. For instance, there is a 3 month hunting season on burms in Florida, if we want to get rid of the animals, simply get rid of the "season" and allow year round hunting of the animals. Get rid of barriers to entry for small business and you will begin seeing Burmese skin sellers which will give the hunters more reason to hunt them and create growth in the local economy. Another large problem which is completely evident here is the problem of the commons, which is best solved by relinquishing public ownership of land over to private hands and allowing the owners of the private land dispute resolution through the courts if their land is damaged (by burmese in this case).

I agree that the legislation should be left up to the states, however I still stand by my opinion that regulaion is not a bad thing. It is no different than haing a posted speed limit or having to get a driver's license to operate a motor vehicle. You have to have your "permit" to drive and to keep certain species of animals as pets that could be dangerous to others. Once driving you are required to follow traffic laws and once you are keeping these species you are required to keep your animals from doing damage to either another person or your local ecosystem. Why am I not seeing you up in arms about having to get a drivers license and use your turn signal? Nothing in the constitution about that, so it is unconstitutional, right? Same with being required to have insurance...

I do not disagree with having speed limits on roads, I do not disagree with having a "permit" to drive on said roads, or being required to have some form of insurance to drive on a road. My issue is with the involuntary nature of all of these "regulations" when they are in the public sphere because of the monopoly that the State holds on these agencies. For instance, I have no choice but to drive on public roads because nothing else is offered to me, so I have to "obey" (like anyone does that) the laws on the road. What I would prefer would be to have the choice to choose the road service that best fit my preferences as a consumer.

I could care less about the constitution aswell, since appealing to it is simply an argument from authority which is illogical. Roads can easily be provided without having a monopoly on the service and safety on said roads (if thats what people want - Which I do) would boost sales for the company that was the safest.

And again, these burmese are not a danger at all, the "problem" is such a miniscule one. If your going to go on a crusade to regulate anything and everything that has killed 10-20 people over 40 years then go right ahead but I can tell you that a central planner could never in their wildest dreams achieve it. Keep in mind too that every law from the State is simply a gun pointed at someone if they do not obey it and resist arrest. So if your going to start talking about regulations and laws you'd better be pretty airtight that what your doing is right and/or worth the amount of violence/power your legitimizing.

My argument in this matter could simply be put that these regulations are laced by the state at the push of the government. You give up certain rights to achieve the benefit of driving. But again these laws are not federal but state. State speeds. State license. We already have state laws in place that protect idiots from owning these animals yes. That should be enough. We do not need federal intervention in any way shape or form for the procession of these animals that pose no threat except to the person who keeps them. Name one death from a snake that was found outside of its owners home or property?? It all happens in the confines of that persons home. Most of the time it's the keeper who is hurt. Other minor instances have been participants in school events getting hurt from a bite but these have been mainly minor (I do know of a major one that resulted in a pretty large law suite but another time).

So am I against speed limits? No that's fine your on public access. But in my home, don't tell me what snakes I can possess at my own risk when it does no harm to others.

For everyone's info: vote has been postponed 24 hours. House now votes on the 30th of November.