At the hearing

[kc261]

I was lucky enough to be able to attend the hearing in person, with my husband Matthew and our 7 yr old daughter. I won't go into much of a description of what happened during the actual hearing, since most of you have probably already watched the video. I'll just share some of my impressions, as well as a little of what happened before & after the official hearing.

My first impression was dismay at how few people were there for our side. We got there early, and when we first arrived there was no one there I recognized, and pretty soon someone walked around handing out green "Vote YES on HR 669" stickers, and most of the people there took one and put it on. Really depressing.

Pretty soon Tom Wolfe arrived, and we got to meet Andrew Wyatt, President of USARK. But they almost immediately dashed off to do something, so we were "alone" again. We started talking with the people who were in line (waiting for the doors to the room to open) near us. Curiously, almost as soon as the conversation started, one of them pulled off the green sticker, saying he was still undecided, but just put it on because someone gave it to him. I don't remember what group he said he represented, it was one I had not heard of before.

When the hearing started, I was halfway relieved and halfway dismayed to hear Bordallo admit in her opening statements that the bill would have to be modified. Relived to know it has no chance of passing as is, and dismayed because I know what will happen is they will add a few species to the exempt list, and make a few other changes to appease a few other groups, and then the people concerned about those few species or whatever other change was made, will no longer be united with us in the fight against the bill. With many things, I'd say modifying it would be great, but this bill seems so fundamentally floawed in so many ways, I can't imagine any way to make it acceptable to me other than to throw it out and start over.

It was SCARY when one of the reps was confused and thought the bill applied to plants as well. These people don't even know what the laws say, yet they are voting on them and making our laws?!?

And I was ANGRY at the very carefully worded questions from Lois Capps (California). She asked for a "yes" or "no" answer, and the questions were worded such that with only a one word answer, HR 669 came out sounding good. There were 3, and at the moment I only remember 2. No, the bill won't take away pets that people currently own, but that doesn't change the fact that it WILL take away their right to get another pet of the species that they love. The third one was the worst, because I feel the answer from the USFWS person was incorrect. She asked if the bill would affect any species other than invasive species, and he said no. Um, YES IT WILL! I guarantee you, with the thousands of species in question, there will be at least some that fall through the cracks, possibly never get a request for them to be evaluated, and even though if they were evaluated they'd be deemed non-invasive, they'll be banned under by virtue of the "guilty until proven innocent" way this bill is written. Grrr! I also think that this is something that we need to do what we can (not exactly sure what that is) to get something put in the record to contradict that answer. It seems to me that those 3 questions were asked so that there would be something in the record that they could later point to in order to prove that people who oppose HR 669 are overreacting and it really is a good bill. "See, this is what the expert said, those pet owners don't actually know anything," type stuff.

There was no vote today. I don't know if it was ever likely, but it was obvious from Bordallo's opening statement, admitting the bill needs work, that they would not vote on it today. So it is still in the subcommittee, which means we still have more time to work on the subcommittee members before we have to worry about the whole committee or even the whole House.

After the hearing was officially over, a lot of people hung around and talked a little bit. There was a reporter who talked to several people. She said she was from "Roll Call", and I goggled it when I got home and found this link:
http://www.rollcall.com/
So I guess watch there in the next few days for the article to come out.

I haven't mentioned it yet, but Adam Wysocki and Pete Kahl were there too. I hope I haven't forgotten anyone, but I think that is it as far as people I recognized (or in the case of Andrew Wyatt, met for the first time) from the reptile industry. Of course, Marshall Meyers was there representing the entire pet industry, and I saw a person wearing a name tag that said something about Ferrets.

Overall, despite the fact that I was disappointed at the small number of bodies that showed up that seemed to be on our side, I don't think we did badly. It was clear that everyone there knew the bill would need significant modifications.

On the flip side, we don't dare let our guard down. They'll modify it to make the fish farmers and the ferret keepers happy, and the reptiles will get left out in the cold if we aren't very vigilant and continue to make our voice heard.

[Alice]

Casey, thanks for such a great recap.

[juddb]

Great post, thanks for sharing.

[wilomn]

I don't suppose those who have sponsored this bill have put out a definition as to what THEY consider "invasive," have they

The wording of that definition will be critical.

[juddb]

Excellent point.

[rabernet]

Thanks for the re-cap Casey! I'm anxious to read Adam's blog tonight, because Kelly indicated on Facebook that it went well for us and he'd update us later.

[kc261]

I don't suppose those who have sponsored this bill have put out a definition as to what THEY consider "invasive," have they

The wording of that definition will be critical.

"Invasive" and quite a few other things should be more clearly defined.

Someone (I think the FWS guy) said that probably 10% of the species would be found invasive, meaning that 90% would be approved. To be honest, I would be really scared of a definition of invasive that found only 10% invasive, by the time you consider that some would be invasive in Hawaii, others in Arizona, etc.

It utterly baffles me how they think this can be done on a national level.

Of course, one could word it slightly differently and say "so extremely invasive it needs to be banned", and I'd think the percent should be way smaller than 10%. Banning should not be necessary in most if not all cases if a good permit system is put in place and strictly enforced.

[RebelYell83]

am the only one that relised,the gentleman from america somoa who asked about the plants,asked the guy from fish and wild life services who HEADS federal laws,about permits needed for tigers,or pythons,and chimps,and HE DID NOT KNOW THE ANSWER??? how is that humanly possible,to head the organzation that makes these laws,and be clueless as to what they are?

[Denial]

trust me none of them know. When I was trying to find out if I needed a permit for my hometown to own a canadian lynx. I called EVERYONE! fish and game , usda, my local government to find out zoning restrictions and everything it took fish and game 3 weeks to give me a straight answer!

[rabernet]

am the only one that relised,the gentleman from america somoa who asked about the plants,asked the guy from fish and wild life services who HEADS federal laws,about permits needed for tigers,or pythons,and chimps,and HE DID NOT KNOW THE ANSWER??? how is that humanly possible,to head the organzation that makes these laws,and be clueless as to what they are?

I think that the rep from American Samoa genuinely wanted to understand the bill and asked good probing questions, despite not completely understanding the bill. He asked questions that needed to be addressed.

I liked that the Fish and Wildlife guy looked like a deer caught in the headlights and was desperately looking behind him for some sort of clue! LOL