Another HR669 thread... what the words really say

[Smith285]

From section 2 of the proposed act:
"The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' health or human health."

This is saying that the purpose is to establish a way to determine if the introduction of a new species would harm the U.S. economically or environmentally or potential harm animals and human health.

Unless I'm missing something here (which I very well may be) this act will not take away any of the existing pets, but could possibly deter any new animals from being brought into this country.

From the proposed act as written at Congress.org

(a) In General- The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall promulgate regulations that establish a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, other than nonnative wildlife species that are included in the list of approved species issued under section 4.

(b) Factors To Be Considered- The regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall include consideration of--

(1) the identity of the organism to the species level, including to the extent possible specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity;

(2) the native range of the species;

(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States;

(4) the likelihood that environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread of the species exist in the United States;

(5) the likelihood of establishment of the species in the United States;

(6) the likelihood of spread of the species in the United States;

(7) the likelihood that the species would harm wildlife resources in the United States;

(8) the likelihood that the species would harm native species that are rare or native species that have been listed as threatened species or endangered species in the United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

(9) the likelihood that the species would harm habitats or ecosystems in the United States;

(10) the likelihood that pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation; and

(11) other factors important to assessing the risks associated with the species, consistent with the purpose under section 2.

I don't see anywhere in those words that say the sale of species already in the U.S. would become illegal.

Also as written at Congress.org

SEC. 5. LIST OF UNAPPROVED SPECIES.

(a) Requirement To Issue List of Unapproved Species-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species that are prohibited from importation into the United States except as provided in section 7.

(2) INCLUDED SPECIES- The list under this subsection shall include--

(A) those species listed as injurious wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States Code, or under regulations under that section, as of the date of enactment of this Act; and

(B) any other species the Secretary determines under section 4(c)(2)(B) is not approved for importation.

(b) Proposal for Inclusion on the List of Unapproved Species-

(1) PROPOSAL-

(A) IN GENERAL- Any person may submit to the Secretary a proposal to add to the list under this section any nonnative wildlife species.

(B) INFORMATION REQUIRED- Any proposal under this subsection must include sufficient scientific and commercial information to allow the Secretary to evaluate whether the proposed nonnative wildlife species is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' or human health.

(2) NOTICE- The Secretary shall publish notice of a complete proposal in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for 30 days of public comment on the proposal.

(3) DETERMINATION- Based on scientific and commercial information provided in a proposal under paragraph (1) or otherwise available to the Secretary, the Secretary shall make one of the following determinations regarding such a proposal in a reasonable period of time and in accordance with regulations issued under section 3:

(A) The nonnative wildlife species is not approved for importation except as provided in section 7, and is added to the list of unapproved species under this section.

(B) The nonnative wildlife species is approved for importation.

(C) The Secretary has insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination under subparagraph (A) or (B).

This states that there must be scientific fact backing up the determination of the unapproved list.

What am I missing that says our ball pythons will no longer be able to be bred and sold within the United States? I'm hoping Adam or BHB can enlighten me, because I don't want to push something onto my friends that I'm not entirely sure about.

And here is a link to the proposed act: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...?c111:H.R.669:

[Smith285]

I'm also curious as to whether anyone has actually read the act, and not just the summaries provided to them by Adam, BHB, PIJAC, etc. (nothing against Adam and Brian, you are both great with your heart in the right place, just not quite lawyers...or maybe you were at one time? heck, I'm probably wrong here, I just really want a better explanation)

[kc261]

SEC. 6. PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES.

(a) Prohibitions- Except as provided in this section or in section 7, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to--

(1) import into or export from the United States any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

(2) transport between any State by any means whatsoever any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

(3) violate any term or condition of a permit issued under section 7;

(4) possess (except as provided in section 3(f)), sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase, or barter for or offer to barter for, any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1);

(5) release into the wild any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1); or

(6) breed any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1), or provide any such species to another person for breeding purposes.

No importing or exporting, no transporting across state lines, no selling, purchasing, trading, no breeding. It seems pretty clear to me. Perhaps I misread your question?

Yes, it is true that we will be allowed to own the ones we currently have (although we won't be able to feed them, because the breeding of mice & rats would also be illegal), but no selling, no taking them with you if you need to move to a different state, and no getting new ones.

EDIT: And, yes, I have actually read the whole act. It is scary. No, I am not a lawyer, but enough of it is in pretty plain English for me to know I do not support this act or anything vaguely close to it.

[truthsdeceit]

I read the full text version. What I got out of it was that 'they' are going to make a list of all the animals they deem safe. If your pet is not on the list then it's illegal to sell, breed, or trade it. Of course the animals you already own with be grandfathered in. But here's hoping you don't have to move cause the animal can't leave the state.

What I'm worried about is that the lists are not yet made. So if this bill gets passed the lists of legal and illegal animals could change to include even you most basic and harmless pets. It's vague enough to not be scary but had the potential to be very very scary.

edit: I'm not an expert on law, so this is just my opinion.

[muddoc]

Casey,
You beat me to it. Thanks for including the actual verbiage.

Truthsdeceit,
If you read the bill, they have 2 years after the bill is passed to finalized the lists. After the two year period there will be ways to add/remove animals from either list, but there will be fees involved that have not been decided on yet. Hopefully the Bill will fail, and the list won't get made (for now).

[kc261]

The lists are not yet made, so we don't know what will be on them. Also, there is no explanation in the bill of where the money will come from to be able to make those lists! It will costs tens of thousands of dollars, probably a lot more, to properly research all the thousands of species affected by this bill. My belief is that it just won't happen, so the number of species that get put on the approved list will be few to none.

[greenex]

It's vague

that is why I don't like it. It COULD turn into something really bad


my first post btw

[truthsdeceit]

Truthsdeceit,
If you read the bill, they have 2 years after the bill is passed to finalized the lists. After the two year period there will be ways to add/remove animals from either list, but there will be fees involved that have not been decided on yet. Hopefully the Bill will fail, and the list won't get made (for now).

Exactly what I mean, they want us to pass the bill first then let them make lists.... I don't think so!

The lists are not yet made, so we don't know what will be on them. Also, there is no explanation in the bill of where the money will come from to be able to make those lists! It will costs tens of thousands of dollars, probably a lot more, to properly research all the thousands of species affected by this bill. My belief is that it just won't happen, so the number of species that get put on the approved list will be few to none.

Another good point. Once the bill is passed who's to say the proper research will be done. We could lose lots of pets to the illegal list just because someone was too lazy to spend money on proving them safe.

that is why I don't like it. It COULD turn into something really bad


my first post btw

Welcome to the forums! Good to have you on board.

[Adam_Wysocki]

Ball pythons, parakeets, hamsters, are all non-native species ... please show me in the bill where it says that they will not be placed on the "Unapproved List" ... I can show you where it says cats, dogs, goldfish, and a dozen other animals are safe, but I can't find the part that specifically states 100% that any other animals will be "Approved".

HR 669 is a very dangerous bill, because it gives USFW the power to ban all of our birds, fish, small mammals, and reptiles .... all they have to do is do nothing actually and 36 months after the bill becomes law, they'd all be banned automatically. The bill as written assumes that all non-natives species are invasive and requires USFW do tons of work to prove otherwise ... for thousands and thousands of animals that have been in the pet trade for decades.

I'm certainly not a lawyer, but I'm on the phone with lawyers for the pet industry every day ... I know HR 669 inside and out ... and I know what it has the potential to do if it passes.

Don't sleep on this bill because it's hard to understand ... it was written that way on purpose.

-adam

[PythonWallace]

I see pessimism every day, so when I see some optimism, it sucks that it's so ass-backwards, dismissing something so vague and dangerous as a harmless piece of feasible legislation. These bills seem to be getting introduced more frequently and with more vague and insensible reasons and proposed solutions. These psychotic lobbies and animal rights groups are powerful and dead serious about their goal of banning all pets.

I think that this bill should be the straw that breaks all our backs and puts us all on the serious offensive of doing everything in our abilities to make it clear to every representative in power that we are here in large numbers, we are dedicated, we take our pets and hobbies very seriously, and not only do we vote, but we band together and do what it takes to make sure all these proposals don't gain an inch before being crushed, and that politicians need to stop wasting their, and our, time with such ridiculous knee-jerk legislation. We will do all that we can to make sure that any politician in support of any bill that puts our pets or our hobbies in danger won't be seeing another term, nor will any politician who hands jobs to appointed officials who threaten our pets, hobbies and livelihood.

I'm not very patient with this kind of stuff, so this is the final straw for me. These crazy animal rights lobbies are going to keep this up, more and more often, to try to wear us down. They know our numbers will start to drop off if we have to pull campaigns like this every couple of months. We need to make it very clear to our elected and appointed officials that this B.S. needs to end, or we'll have a completely fresh generation of elected officials who are in support of common sense legislation and personal freedom.

"This aggression will not stand."
-Walter

From section 2 of the proposed act:
"The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' health or human health."

This is saying that the purpose is to establish a way to determine if the introduction of a new species would harm the U.S. economically or environmentally or potential harm animals and human health.

Unless I'm missing something here (which I very well may be) this act will not take away any of the existing pets, but could possibly deter any new animals from being brought into this country.

From the proposed act as written at Congress.org


I don't see anywhere in those words that say the sale of species already in the U.S. would become illegal.

Also as written at Congress.org


This states that there must be scientific fact backing up the determination of the unapproved list.

What am I missing that says our ball pythons will no longer be able to be bred and sold within the United States? I'm hoping Adam or BHB can enlighten me, because I don't want to push something onto my friends that I'm not entirely sure about.

And here is a link to the proposed act: http://www.congress.org/congressorg/...?c111:H.R.669: