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

» Site Navigation

» Home
 > FAQ

» Online Users: 797

1 members and 796 guests
Most users ever online was 47,180, 07-16-2025 at 05:30 PM.

» Today's Birthdays

None

» Stats

Members: 75,909
Threads: 249,113
Posts: 2,572,174
Top Poster: JLC (31,651)
Welcome to our newest member, KoreyBuchanan
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 34
  1. #11
    BPnet Veteran
    Join Date
    08-18-2008
    Posts
    2,754
    Thanks
    710
    Thanked 737 Times in 457 Posts

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by cenobite74 View Post
    Here is what gets me. Say this passes and my BP's and geckos are illegal. I'm no longer allowed to own any "non-native" or "invasive" species anymore. However I live in Alabama. And there are no regulations concerning the buying, selling or release of native venomous snakes. Now where is the logic in that?
    In Georgia you can't sell native species and you can't keep non-venomous native species but I can keep a copperhead if I want, without a permit at that.

  2. #12
    BPnet Lifer mainbutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-30-2008
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,690
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked 1,374 Times in 1,053 Posts
    Images: 7

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by cenobite74 View Post
    Here is what gets me. Say this passes and my BP's and geckos are illegal. I'm no longer allowed to own any "non-native" or "invasive" species anymore. However I live in Alabama. And there are no regulations concerning the buying, selling or release of native venomous snakes. Now where is the logic in that?
    This bill isn't about protecting people(for the most part), it's about protecting the environment. Releasing a native venomous snake into Alabama isn't going to hurt the environment.

  3. #13
    BPnet Lifer mainbutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-30-2008
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,690
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked 1,374 Times in 1,053 Posts
    Images: 7

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by AaronP View Post
    In Georgia you can't sell native species and you can't keep non-venomous native species but I can keep a copperhead if I want, without a permit at that.
    Georgia has odd captives laws that I don't understand the purpose of.

  4. #14
    BPnet Veteran Ladydragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-07-2007
    Location
    edge of insanity or PA take your pic. :D
    Posts
    2,630
    Thanks
    285
    Thanked 239 Times in 213 Posts
    Images: 22

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    nobody said the gov't was filled with brainiacs!!!! I just hope that our "voice" is/was loud enough to be heard to make a dent in the heads of some of the knuckle heads trying to "rule" this country.
    Doris



  5. #15
    Registered User puddintain's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-09-2009
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    267
    Thanks
    74
    Thanked 41 Times in 28 Posts

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    I was talking to the lady that ownes the pet store in Marksville,La. She had tgve up a marmaset (sp?) monkey that she owned for years when La. passed amaking it illegal to own a primate. She said it was so sad for her. The little monkey was adopted out of state. So there is no doubt in my mind that this bill can actually pass also. I have a hamster, tons of fish, and my snakes that I do not want to part with. Monday in school I am going to talk to my class about HR669. I am hoping to get a massive amount of emails out before Tuesday.
    2.1 corns- Zipper, Fox, Kellogg
    1.0 normal- Boo
    0.0.1- ADF- Fredward
    4.0- Betta splendids
    0.1-English Bulldog- Mable
    0.1-MUTT- Lucy
    0.0.1- Beardie- Stripe
    And too many other fish to count!

  6. #16
    BPnet Veteran
    Join Date
    08-18-2008
    Posts
    2,754
    Thanks
    710
    Thanked 737 Times in 457 Posts

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by mainbutter View Post
    Georgia has odd captives laws that I don't understand the purpose of.
    Georgia's a very spiteful state.

  7. #17
    Registered User
    Join Date
    04-16-2009
    Posts
    8
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    I hate the HR669 bill but i have read up on it. The best way to attack something is to to know all about what you are attacking, and the bill does stat however that any animal in your possession before the bill is passed is ok, but transporting between stats will be a nono

    BOOOO ON HR669

  8. #18
    BPnet Veteran redpython's Avatar
    Join Date
    03-28-2008
    Location
    Louisville, KY
    Posts
    858
    Thanks
    2
    Thanked 122 Times in 93 Posts
    Images: 6

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    to think that the purpose of this bill is to protect the welfare of "wild" animals and the "native" lands of the united states is completely crazy.

    the animals that are collected in the wild for the pet trade, would either be eaten or collected for some other trade such as skins. like it or not, this is how it is with other cultures.

    as far as protecting the native lands in the united states, Give me a break. if you believe this you are drinking kool aid. If this was the case, cats would've been outlawed many years ago. They are the most invasive and destructive animal alive...next to humans.

    These government people could care less about protecting native habitat of animals, most especially snakes.

    I find it rather odd that in states where it's illegal to collect or own native snakes it's perfectly ok to kill them all day long.

    As far as environmental impact on a snakes and other herps, what is the difference between killing a snake and collecting it to keep? The difference is killing is legal.

    i believe in the bill of rights it talks about the pursuit of happiness. if one can properly care for a snake and this is their passion, then it is their american right to keep whatever species they like.

    I only keep one snake currently, but i am not ready to give up my right to keep 100 if i choose.

  9. #19
    BPnet Veteran ivylea77's Avatar
    Join Date
    12-14-2005
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    380
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Images: 46

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    If we are allowed to keep our current pets how will we feed them? If rats and mice end up on that list then what? Manufacturers, distrubutors, and many others will be out of work not to mention all the breeders of these various animals. Its silly and has so many deep unthought out consequences.

  10. #20
    BPnet Lifer mainbutter's Avatar
    Join Date
    09-30-2008
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Posts
    5,690
    Thanks
    269
    Thanked 1,374 Times in 1,053 Posts
    Images: 7

    Re: HR669 is Illegal according to the US Constitution

    Quote Originally Posted by redpython View Post
    as far as protecting the native lands in the united states, Give me a break. if you believe this you are drinking kool aid. If this was the case, cats would've been outlawed many years ago. They are the most invasive and destructive animal alive...next to humans.
    There ARE a number of very serious invasive species that threaten entire regions of wildlife.

    Asian carp are going to destroy our rivers, especially if they continue their march to the great lakes and the mississippi. The common carp isn't good to have either, but their presence isn't 1/10th as bad as what happens as soon as asian carp move in.

    The problem is that this species will not be affected at all by the passing of this bill. People are already aware of the problem, there are already actions and legislation at the state level controlling them, and they are already established in our waters.

    One of the problems I have with this bill is that it really isn't going to protect native US land and wildlife from invasive species like it intends to.

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

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