Vote for BP.Net for the 2013 Forum of the Year! Click here for more info.

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 2,839

1 members and 2,838 guests
Most users ever online was 6,337, 01-24-2020 at 04:30 AM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,031
Threads: 248,489
Posts: 2,568,439
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, isismomma
Results 1 to 3 of 3
  1. #1
    BPnet Veteran neilgolli's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-06-2007
    Posts
    648
    Thanks
    209
    Thanked 117 Times in 50 Posts
    Images: 30

    miami herald news story about hr669

    http://www.miamiherald.com/news/sout...y/1053356.html


    Everglades invaders targeted
    Invasive species like the giant Burmese pythons that slither through the Everglades could be banned under a bill that aims to stamp out dangerous nonnative animals.




    BY LESLEY CLARK AND CURTIS MORGAN
    LCLARK@MIAMIHERALD.COM
    Water managers dispatched two experts to Washington, D.C., recently to back a controversial congressional bill targeting an Everglades problem that seems to get bigger every year.

    The latest, largest evidence emerged last week: A Burmese python stretching 16 ½ feet, the longest yet of hundreds, perhaps thousands of the exotic constrictors the South Florida Water Management District has pulled off its lands and levees in the past few years.

    More sobering: The female, found on the L-67 levee south of Tamiami Trail, was pregnant, carrying a clutch of 59 eggs -- more proof the giant snakes are breeding in the wild.

    ''These are not little snakes running around. These are massive, dangerous animals,'' said district spokesman Randy Smith.

    The surge of invasive serpents is the prime reason the district, which oversees 2.2 million acres of state-owned marshlands, has thrown its support behind a House bill that could end the import and breeding not just of pythons, but a whole host of tropical invaders that have settled in South Florida.

    But at its first hearing in April, the bill ran into what a cosponsor quipped was a ''hornet's nest of opposition'' from pet owners, breeders, hobbyists and pet stores. They expressed outrage to lawmakers in telephone calls, e-mails and YouTube videos -- including one titled Pets in Peril, Politicians Gone Wild -- arguing that the legislation would bar the ownership of anything more exotic than a Doberman or a Siamese cat.

    ''One-third of our nation has nonnative species as pets, and apart from dogs, cats and goldfish, which are exempt [in the bill], virtually every species in those homes falls under'' the legislation, said Marshall Meyers, chief executive officer of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council. The board of directors of the trade group -- which comprises pet retailers, wholesalers and hobbyists -- spans the spectrum from executives with retail giants Petsmart and PETCO to the owner of the Gourmet Rodent in Jonesville, Fla.

    The bill, warned Meyers in a ''pet alert'' summoning pet owners to action, ``could shut down major segments of the pet industry virtually overnight.''

    Proponents, including a coalition of 15 major environmental organizations such as the National Audubon Society and the National Wildlife Federation, call the fears unjustified. They say the bill targets only species that pose a threat. Still, some suggest the language in the bill is vague.

    EXEMPT ANIMALS

    ''There were some legitimate concerns, no one doubts that,'' said Peter Jenkins, director of international conservation at Defenders of Wildlife. He notes that pet owners were alarmed when some animals -- ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs and others -- weren't named as species that would be exempt from the bill.

    ''It needs to be clear that many of these are entirely exempt,'' Jenkins said. ``We're only talking about 10 to 15 species that have been identified, that are risky, that are likely invaders.''

    The bill aims to stop destructive species, he said, like the raccoon-size Gambian pouched rat, which Florida banned in 2007, and the Burmese python that has been called the poster child for the legislation.

    ''We're spending billions of dollars at the state and federal level to restore the Everglades, and unfortunately both plant and animal exotics get into the ecosystem and really knock things out of balance,'' said U.S. Rep. Ron Klein, D-Boca Raton, one of four South Florida legislators who have co-sponsored the bill. ``To me it's common sense, looking at science and what is good for the Everglades.''


    The others signing on: Reps. Alcee Hastings, D-Miramar, and Miami Republicans Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

    Biologists argue that more than 400 of the 1,300 species on the endangered species list are at risk primarily because they compete with -- or are targets of -- invasive species.

    As one of the largest snakes in the world, sometimes topping 20 feet, pythons potentially could challenge the natural dominant predators of the Everglades or other wild places -- a concern illustrated in 2005 by the now-famous photos of a 13-foot python that exploded after swallowing a six-foot alligator. Scientists have since pulled out everything from deer hooves to endangered rats from their bellies.

    Smith said the impact is obvious along the L-67 levee.

    ''You won't find a rabbit down there anymore,'' Smith said. ``That's the most noticeable effect. It [the snake] doesn't seem to have any predators, and it preys on native wildlife.''

    Federal and state wildlife managers join the district in support the general intent of the bill but say they need to analyze the specifics.

    Scott Hardin, exotic species coordinator for the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, said the agency is preparing a position paper.

    ''The concept behind the bill is one that we support,'' he said. ``There aren't enough resources dedicated to screening which animals might be problematic.''

    His remarks were echoed at the hearing by Gary Frazer, assistant director for fisheries and habitat conservation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, who said the agency supports the intent of the bill, but that it would require more staffing and more money for risk assessment and enforcement.

    Jenkins noted that even opponents like Meyers suggested invasive species need to be curtailed. But Meyers said the bill's approach is off the mark. ''We recognize it's a problem and we're not debating the issue of invasive species,'' Meyers said. ``Our debate is how to do it in a legitimate way without penalizing owners.''

    Meyers suggested lawmakers would be better off tightening the 100-year-old Lacey Act, a wildlife law that regulates the transport of invasive animals. Species with an appetite for destruction are banned after they land on the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service's ''injurious'' list.

    But the current bill's sponsor, Delegate Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, where almost a dozen species of native birds have been wiped out by nonnative snakes, said at the April hearing that such a designation is made only after the species has been found to have caused ``serious and widespread harm to the environment, the economy or public health.''

    Such a declaration can take four years or longer, she said, giving the targeted species ample time to establish a niche. The South Florida Water Management District filed a petition to list the Burmese python as ''injurious'' in June 2006, and it is not yet on the list.

    Jim Kavney, president of the Florida Keys Herpetological Society, said he fears a crackdown will affect enthusiasts like himself who enjoy amphibians and reptiles the same way other pet owners prize their poodles or tabby cats. He said he believes some animal rights and environmental groups involved in the legislation would like to keep all animals wild. ''Most people would wonder how can you love a lizard or a snake or frog, but it happens, people get emotionally attached,'' Kavney said.

    `STARTING POINT'

    Bordallo called much of the opposition ''a result of misunderstanding,'' but promised repeatedly at the hearing that she would improve the bill, calling it a ``starting point.

    ''To be clear,'' she said, ``this bill is not intended to affect ownership of people's pets, nor the importation of domesticated or common species.''

    Jenkins said supporters hope to introduce an improved bill in the Senate this fall; Meyers said he hopes the Fish and Wildlife Service will hold hearings to seek public input.

    ''There's disagreement over how we get there,'' Jenkins said, ``But I believe there is agreement to proceed.''
    Support my efforts to raise awareness and donations to the Alzheimer's Association in honor of my Grandfather Eugene......
    www.awalktoendalzheimers.com

    "No man's life, liberty or fortune is safe while our legislature is in session." - Benjamin Franklin

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to neilgolli For This Useful Post:

    Ladydragon (05-19-2009),Muze (05-19-2009),Wh00h0069 (05-19-2009)

  3. #2
    BPnet Veteran frankykeno's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-17-2005
    Location
    Toledo, Ohio
    Posts
    19,814
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked 871 Times in 478 Posts
    Images: 33

    Re: miami herald news story about hr669

    Ahhhh so the language in the bill is "vague" but it's our fault we "misunderstood" it and stood in opposition of it. Well that's just all so very clear now isn't it....well in a totally vague, open to misunderstanding sort of way.
    ~~Joanna~~

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to frankykeno For This Useful Post:

    neilgolli (05-19-2009),Wh00h0069 (05-19-2009)

  5. #3
    BPnet Veteran Adam_Wysocki's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-26-2004
    Location
    Bel Air, MD
    Posts
    9,027
    Thanks
    58
    Thanked 1,029 Times in 195 Posts
    Images: 1

    Re: miami herald news story about hr669

    Quote Originally Posted by neilgolli View Post
    ''There were some legitimate concerns, no one doubts that,'' said Peter Jenkins, director of international conservation at Defenders of Wildlife. He notes that pet owners were alarmed when some animals -- ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs and others -- weren't named as species that would be exempt from the bill.

    ''It needs to be clear that many of these are entirely exempt,'' Jenkins said. ``We're only talking about 10 to 15 species that have been identified, that are risky, that are likely invaders.''
    I'll say it ... Peter Jenkins is a liar. On April 23rd, at a lunch meeting immediately after the hearing, Marshall Meyers of PIJAC asked Dr. David Lodge (who testified at the hearing) to name five species currently in the pet trade that would not pass some aspect the "likelihood" test in section 3(b) and be placed on the "unapproved" list (resulting in a ban). Dr. Lodge could not. His blank stare back across the lunch table was a terrifying testament to how serious of a threat HR 669 is to all pet owners in the United States.

    It's funny how Peter Jenkins specifically names "ferrets, gerbils, guinea pigs" and then stops ... those are on the very short list of animals being added to the exempt section (Section 14(5)(d)) in the next revision of HR 669. Birds, fish, reptiles, and amphibians are in serious trouble. Stay vigilant and be ready ... round two is coming!

    -adam
    Click Below to Fight The National Python & Boa Ban




    "The world is a dangerous place, not because of those who do evil, but because of those who look on and do nothing."
    - Anna Sewell, author of Black Beauty


  6. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Adam_Wysocki For This Useful Post:

    asplundii (05-19-2009),dr del (05-19-2009),FatBoy (05-19-2009),JLC (05-19-2009),Kysenia (05-23-2009),Ladydragon (05-19-2009),monk90222 (05-19-2009),neilgolli (05-19-2009),rabernet (05-19-2009)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v4.2.1