Quote Originally Posted by Crowfingers View Post
Not to stir the pot too much, but I think that the language of the bill is taking the word "imports" far too loosely. To me, there is a difference in say importing Thailand / Japan bred fancy goldfish like Ranchu and Lion-heads and importing parrot hatchlings taken from the wild in the amazon. If they can't even manage to define minimal quantities how can they decide what the larger impacts of importing some species will be at all? I don't think limiting what is already here and what can be sold online is the important part. They are focusing on species that may cause problems if released and able to establish wild populations, but ignoring the impact that removing these same species will to to their habitat of origin.

I would be a full supporter of banning imports of wild-caught animals for the pet trade, but not necessarily banning captive bred animals from other countries. But this does not seem to take the source of the import in question into account.

I know that there are some laws regulating this, especially where certain island species are concerned, but so many animals that end up in the pet trade do so at the expense of the wild population which isn't right. This goes beyond just our reptiles.

Poaching for the pet trade is becoming the second biggest threat to many species and their environments outside of habitat loss.
In a logical world that would make some bit of sense. But the world is being run by illogical scorched earth philosophies these days, be it out of sheer ignorance or as a guise to gain ever more power over the unwashed masses those in the upper echelons see us as. "There are some invasive species in select areas of the country? RESTRICT AND BAN EVERYTHING!"