New letter to send

[PythonWallace]

I already sent out a manilla envelope of 25 envelopes with the "default" letter to the committee members and my state reps, but I just wrote this one to send out as well. I am looking for some input before I print them out. I don't want to send anything that could hurt the cause. Thanks for input.

http://jwexotics.com/HR669%20Letter.pdf

[PythonWallace]

This is a first draft. I've already fornd a mistake. The line that says potentially dangerous snakes should read, "potentially dangerous constrictors", since almost all of the injuries and fatalities from snakes come from drunks messing with rattlesnakes in the wild.

[PythonWallace]

Any thoughts? I only have 30 minutes to email this is I want to get them printed today.

[kc261]

I think sending something other than the form letter is a good idea. Everything I've sent I've at least somewhat re-written, because I figure it won't take the staff very long to realize they are seeing a bunch of the same thing, and then each one will have less weight.

I'd keep it short. I'd also be careful with some of the stuff in your letter that could come across as anti-dog. I understand the point you are trying to make (snakes aren't the biggest problem), but not everyone will. We've already seen a few examples where people have gotten replies "thanks for your support of HR 669", so it is obvious the letters aren't getting read closely.

[PythonWallace]

I think sending something other than the form letter is a good idea. Everything I've sent I've at least somewhat re-written, because I figure it won't take the staff very long to realize they are seeing a bunch of the same thing, and then each one will have less weight.

I'd keep it short. I'd also be careful with some of the stuff in your letter that could come across as anti-dog. I understand the point you are trying to make (snakes aren't the biggest problem), but not everyone will. We've already seen a few examples where people have gotten replies "thanks for your support of HR 669", so it is obvious the letters aren't getting read closely.

I hear what you are saying about dogs. I don't want to slam dogs, but I thought it would show that there is no real problem where they are saying there is one. And I think they will have a much harder time taking our dogs than our snakes and fish tanks. Dogs have always been the All American pet.

I can't believe people are getting replies that say "thanks for supporting this". Maybe I should change my letter to one that just reads, " NO TO RIDICULOUS BILL H.R. 669!", in 80 pt. Impact red. Maybe we should just start including cover letters that say that.

[PythonWallace]

I deleted the 2nd page and a few points about dogs and sent it off for printing. Thanks for all the opinions.

[PythonWallace]

Here is the final version in case anyone wants to use it, or just to read it for some points that haven't been mentioned very much.

Dear Committee Member,
I am writing you to express my strong opposition for House Resolution 669,"The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act". As written, this bill as an overbearing and vague attempt to completely ban pet ownership in the United States by using the excuse that thousands of non-native species are a direct threat to our environment, and our safety, with domestic dogs and cats obviously being the exception, for now. The facts show that the reasoning for this proposal in nearly complete fiction, and the proposed solution of a nationwide ban on the importation, breeding, selling and transporting of these thousands of species is an outrageous attack on pet owners, breeders, and pet stores, as well as the hobbies and indeed the livelihood of millions of Americans. The exotic pet trade currently employs millions of Americans, and generates tens of billions of dollars annually. Besides banning the pets and hobbies of millions of Americans, this bill will be yet another huge blow to the economy and the employment level. After knowing the facts, it becomes apparent that any arguments in favor of a bill such as H. R. 669 are not realistic, and that if the environmental concerns are sincere, the USFW and congress should look into imposing restrictions or safeguards on the importation of goods and building materials from foreign countries, as well as implementing safeguards on international watercraft using our waterways.

• While researching the government’s list of invasive species that are causing problems to the native environment at http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov
nearly every species on the list was not introduced through the pet trade, but through piggy backing in cargo and in ballast water of ships and barges, while some were brought in for agricultural purposes and got out of hand. The largest problems seem to be insects and fish that came to the U.S. from Asia in ship water and cargo.
• Thousands of non-native pet species have been in the U.S. for decades with very few problems.
• Non-native pet species that have caused problems have nearly all been restricted to small, specific localities, with most species only being able to survive in very specific environmental conditions. Any restrictions on such species should be well researched by independent scientists to determine the possible threat on a case by case basis, and restrictions presented on a very local level, only in areas where there is real potential for each species to thrive.
• Every species of potentially dangerous constrictor has very specific survivable environmental conditions that are limited in this country to the southern tip of Florida. Any restrictions that are reasoned by environmental concerns of competition with native species should be limited to the southern counties of Florida.
• Feral domestic cats in areas across the U.S. are responsible for more competition with native wild life than any non-native animal introduced through the pet trade.
• Only 15% of the snakes, worldwide are potentially dangerous to humans, with most states already having regulations in place for the ownership of such species.
• Reptiles are only responsible for less than 12 deaths annually. Most are attributed to venomous snakes, and most of those are attributed to native wild life, the Eastern and Western Diamondback rattle snakes, to be specific.
• The national average for snake bites is 4 people in every 100,000, with most being harmless, needing no medical treatment, while the national average for dog bites is 2,000 people in every 100,000, with 1 in 6 requiring emergency medical treatment. Dog attacks are responsible for more than 30 deaths annually. The average for domestic cats is about 900 in 100,000 people, with 80% of cat bites becoming infected and needing treatment.

Sources:
http://www.invasivespecies.gov
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snakebite
http://www.dogbitelaw.com/PAGES/statistics.html