I'm writing a paper - your opinions on anti-exotics legislation please!

[sorraia]

Speaking from a US perspective as a wildlife biologist and exotics keeper...

I don't think lawmakers, or agencies such as USFWS, are strictly trying to take away our rights. In all honesty, I don't think they are even looking at animal ownership as a "right" nor consider themselves taking away our "rights" by putting bans or regulations into place. I do think they are in some cases bending to public pressure, often pushed forward by media hysteria and incomplete or pseudo-science. I also think the pressure from the public is sometime pushed by an animal rights agenda, where there's a strong belief that no animal should be kept in captivity (it's just easier to pass bans and regulations on exotics that most people don't keep or understand, and feed off the lack of understanding and the fear the public may hold, rather than trying to regulate common pets such as cats and dogs). There is also a desire to protect our environment, and the public may believe that exotic animals are taken from their native habitat to be sold in the pet trade (sometimes true, many times not), but also may believe those exotic animals pose a threat to our native wildlife and habitats (sometimes true, sometimes not, depends a lot on what the animal is and where it is being kept).

I live and work in a very sensitive and biodiverse hotspot. In my job I DO see a lot of exotic invasive animals who ARE endangering and pushing out our native wildlife. The most common of these exotic reptiles and amphibians are bullfrogs, African clawed frogs, red-eared sliders, and soft-shelled turtles. I've heard unsubstantiated reports of large pythons in our area too (I'd believe they are out there, question is how well are they surviving). We also have invasive fish and bird species (fish were mostly introduced purposefully for sport or food purposes, such as catfish and bass, have seen goldfish out in native habitat though!). There are a few invasive mammals, though not many (unless you include the innumerable feral cats, or consider the unknown number of rats and mice). Exotic plants are another branch of the same problem. Exotic animals do pose a serious threat to our native wildlife and habitats, in this area. The species that are found here may not be found in other parts of the country though. Because of the danger these species do pose to native wildlife, and the inability of the public to realize how bad it is to release captive animals (both for the animal being released, and the animals who may be threatened by its release), from a biological perspective I would like to see more regulations on SOME animals. However I think regulations should be created and enforced on a local level, and not on a nation-wide level, because we do have different climates and habitats and not all animals are going to pose a threat in all areas.

From an exotics keeper perspective, I don't like the idea of regulation, because it would make things harder for me (and others in the hobby). I don't agree with outright and complete bans. I do think maybe some species (those who are especially sensitive and extremely hard to keep in captivity, or those who have been proven to be especially injurious to native wildlife, don't ask me for a list because I do not have the knowledge to create one, except for those species especially injurious to my specific area) should be regulated to an extent, with a permit system put into place. However I think that kind of regulation should again be done on a local level, and not a nation-wide level.

Now stepping out of the shoes of biologist and exotics keeper, and speaking as an armchair political activist... I think in many respects our governments (local, state, and nation) have it backwards. I think there are a lot of laws in place that make no sense, and others that should be in place but aren't. I think there are requirements for permits that make sense, and then others that don't make sense. As a biologist in the state of California, I am required to carry a CDFW scientific collecting permit to do my work. For some species I am also required to carry a federal USFWS permit along with an MOU. I also need a salvage permit to collect dead animals I find incidentally. I am currently on another person's USFWS permit and MOU, but I hold my own personal state permit. That permit now costs over $400 and requires a whole stack of paperwork be filled out with justification for my work. BUT if I wanted to go out as any Joe Blow on the street and collect reptiles, all I need is a sport fishing license (something like $50?), and follow bag limits. On the job as a biologist I don't even collect wildlife, I merely observe and take notes (in some studies I do handle herps and mammals, but they are always released), and to do that I have a lengthy and expensive process to get my permit. I need additional permits, as well as the authorities' blessing, to remove invasive harmful exotics from our natural wild areas. But to permanently remove native wildlife for no reason other than my personal whim, I only need $50 and a sportfishing license. Tell me how that makes sense? Any way... that might be a tangent, so rant over.