Quote Originally Posted by BrucenBruce View Post
Keep in mind folks, that "Non-native wildlife" includes a lot more than the reptiles we love - near as I can see, that definition would include every single non-domesticated animal. By its strictest definition, that could be just about every single non-native species except cats, dogs and traditional livestock.

That's parakeets.

Ferrets.

Canaries.

Hamsters.

Parrots.

Guinea pigs.

Tropical fish, from neon tetras to snakeheads. Tilapia? Who's writing the definitions? P.E.T.A.? Hope you like tofu.

The upside is - we're not quite alone here - though the bird hobby has already lost most of its importing, they still rely on captive breeding and transportation across State lines. So does the tropical fish industry. (And compare the size of the fish section with the size of the reptile section at your local pet shop.) Of course, there'll be exceptions made for laboratory research - which H.S.U.S. and P.E.T.A. activists can then concentrate their efforts on - and release all those animals into the environment.

My (fairly cynical) $.02 - and I may owe you change.

~Bruce
That's the main thing I noticed when reading the bill. It doesn't say anything about any species in particular. It's ALL non-native animals.

And there is a section to include animals to be exempt from the restrictions. That's what we need to work on. Getting our beloved snakes on the list of animals that WILL be allowed. This seems like a more constructive and likely scenario, as opposed to trying to get the bill thrown out all together.

With the Great Lakes right in my backyard I've seen firsthand the damage invasive non-native species can do (zebra mussels, goby's, certain aquatic plants).

IMO The bill could be a good thing just as easily as it could be detrimental. What we need to do is make our voices heard so that responsible, educated pet owners still have the right to enjoy our hobby.