H.R. 5864 - Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act of 2012

Status
Not open for further replies.

Baoh

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
1,827
Location (City and/or State)
Florida
So Baoh doesn't think H.R. 5864 is a big deal? That's fine. But if others such as myself would like to take extra precautions against it, why can't he just shut up, and let us? I suppose that is what is really irritating me about it.

Nothing says promotion of freedom when you would like yours at the expense of another's.

[/quote]

Okay Baoh, I would genuinely like to see things from your point of view. I'm not being sarcastic, or deliberately argumentative. Just trying to put myself in someone else's shoes.

After reading the entire bill, how do you not interpret that it will affect anyone who keeps non-native wildlife as pets?

And these tools you speak of. Would you care to elaborate? Again, I'm not trying to goad or be sarcastic. If you have useful or helpful information you would like to share, I am certain it would be appreciated by all.

I interpret that, if passed, it may be used to control nonnative wildlife that has been determined to be injurious or carry pathogens and/or parasites that could be harmful to humans or native wildlife. I do not imagine things in that have been left out.

As for the tools, perhaps some courses in logic would be of use. Not simply construction of a cogent argument, but also evaluation of the commonly employed logical fallacies so you can understand why and where things break down. Maybe a primer on the scientific method, too. Perhaps a piece devoted to how attempts to remove or silence another's voice is no different than the tyranny often decried. Wikipedia as well as free online college courses might help you out if you know how to use those resources. There are also, if electronic means are not to your preference, books devoted to these subjects.

As I may have mentioned once elsewhere, "your opinion is welcome as long as your opinion is our opinion" constitutes a significant portion of what I observe.

I value those who have the mental capacity to avoid falling into such an emotional trap.
 

StudentoftheReptile

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
1,705
Location (City and/or State)
Alabama
Baoh said:
I interpret that, if passed, it may be used to control nonnative wildlife that has been determined to be injurious or carry pathogens and/or parasites that could be harmful to humans or native wildlife. I do not imagine things in that have been left out.

Understandable. My only point of concern is this: The creators of the bill took the time to outline exemptions (livestock, and "conventional" pets: dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, rabbits, guinea pigs, ferrets & canaries), exemptions that arguably are as equally (if not more) injurious or capable of carrying pathogens as the many non-native species they chose not to specify. We all have seen/heard the statistics: more people are injured by livestock or dogs each year then any pet exotic animal species.

Of course, their use in agriculture or being "too common in the pet trade" are likely contributing factors for being excluded, as stated such in the bill's text.

Don't worry about anything that was left out, you may say. Well, then I read this in the bill's text:

SEC. 6. EMERGENCY TEMPORARY DESIGNATION.

(a) In General.--If the Service determines an emergency exists because an unregulated nonnative wildlife taxon poses an imminent
threat of harm to individuals in or wildlife of the United States, or
the economy or environment of the United States, the Service may
immediately temporarily designate the nonnative wildlife taxon as
Injurious I in accordance with section 5(a)(1)(A)(i).

(b) Notice of Temporary Designation.--The Service shall promptly--
(1) publish in the Federal Register notice of each
temporary designation under this subsection; and
(2) make the basis for the designation available on a
publicly available Federal Internet site and through other
appropriate means.
(c) Determination.--Not later than 1 year after temporarily
designating a nonnative wildlife taxon using the emergency authority
under this section, the Service shall--
(1) make a final determination regarding whether the taxon
should be further regulated under either of clause (i) or (ii)
of section 5(a)(1)(A);
(2) publish notice of that final determination in the
Federal Register; and
(3) make the basis for the determination available on a
publicly available Federal Internet site.
(d) Limitation on Procedures.--The procedures under sections 4 and
5 of this Act and section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall not
apply to temporary designations under this section.
(e) State Requests.--If the Governor of a State requests a
temporary emergency designation under this section, the Service shall
respond promptly with a written determination on the request.

I don't think there's really anything to imagine out of that. As Jacqui pointed out earlier, they can preemptively add whatever species/taxon they may suspect to be a threat, and THEN take a year to try and make it official. Not a big deal, you may think, especially if the said species/taxon isn't a threat. Well, check this out:

SEC. 8. INJURIOUS WILDLIFE DETERMINATIONS.

(a) In General.--Immediately upon the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall make more rapid determinations on proposals
for regulation of wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States
Code.

(b) Streamlining of Determinations.--In carrying out subsection (a)
and other provisions of this Act, the Secretary--
(1) shall use the best available scientific risk screening
systems or predictive models that apply to the taxon under
consideration;
(2) shall forego time-consuming optional administrative
steps, unless the Secretary determines the steps to be
essential
; and
(3) notwithstanding chapter 6, and section 804, of title 5,
United States Code, may forego economic impact analyses.

If I understand that correctly, once/if the bill passes, they can then decide to remove steps to stream-line the process of adding a species/taxon to the injurious list.
--------

I dunno...just sounds like they're not too terribly concerned with using due process here. Looks to me like they want to be able to preemptively throw whatever animal species they want on there at will whenever they want as quickly as possible.
 

Tom

The Dog Trainer
10 Year Member!
Platinum Tortoise Club
Joined
Jan 9, 2010
Messages
63,265
Location (City and/or State)
Southern California
And here we go again with the subtle intelligence insults...

Baoh doesn't argue for or against anything. He only wishes to point out that YOU do not have the indisputable scientific evidence to back up what YOU are arguing for or against, and then takes subtle little jabs at your inability to debate, form cogent arguments, or your susceptibility to be controlled by your own overly emotional thoughts and feelings, or your lack of formal debate tools, etc...

Same story different day.
 

dmmj

The member formerly known as captain awesome
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 15, 2008
Messages
19,698
Location (City and/or State)
CA
I am gonna ask for no more insults subtle or otherwise, I have been enjoying the debate so far, let's keep it civil, thank you.
 

Baoh

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
1,827
Location (City and/or State)
Florida
StudentoftheReptile said:
Baoh said:
I interpret that, if passed, it may be used to control nonnative wildlife that has been determined to be injurious or carry pathogens and/or parasites that could be harmful to humans or native wildlife. I do not imagine things in that have been left out.

Understandable. My only point of concern is this: The creators of the bill took the time to outline exemptions (livestock, and "conventional" pets: dogs, cats, hamsters, gerbils, rabbits, guinea pigs, ferrets & canaries), exemptions that arguably are as equally (if not more) injurious or capable of carrying pathogens as the many non-native species they chose not to specify. We all have seen/heard the statistics: more people are injured by livestock or dogs each year then any pet exotic animal species.

Of course, their use in agriculture or being "too common in the pet trade" are likely contributing factors for being excluded, as stated such in the bill's text.

Don't worry about anything that was left out, you may say. Well, then I read this in the bill's text:

SEC. 6. EMERGENCY TEMPORARY DESIGNATION.

(a) In General.--If the Service determines an emergency exists because an unregulated nonnative wildlife taxon poses an imminent
threat of harm to individuals in or wildlife of the United States, or
the economy or environment of the United States, the Service may
immediately temporarily designate the nonnative wildlife taxon as
Injurious I in accordance with section 5(a)(1)(A)(i).

(b) Notice of Temporary Designation.--The Service shall promptly--
(1) publish in the Federal Register notice of each
temporary designation under this subsection; and
(2) make the basis for the designation available on a
publicly available Federal Internet site and through other
appropriate means.
(c) Determination.--Not later than 1 year after temporarily
designating a nonnative wildlife taxon using the emergency authority
under this section, the Service shall--
(1) make a final determination regarding whether the taxon
should be further regulated under either of clause (i) or (ii)
of section 5(a)(1)(A);
(2) publish notice of that final determination in the
Federal Register; and
(3) make the basis for the determination available on a
publicly available Federal Internet site.
(d) Limitation on Procedures.--The procedures under sections 4 and
5 of this Act and section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall not
apply to temporary designations under this section.
(e) State Requests.--If the Governor of a State requests a
temporary emergency designation under this section, the Service shall
respond promptly with a written determination on the request.

I don't think there's really anything to imagine out of that. As Jacqui pointed out earlier, they can preemptively add whatever species/taxon they may suspect to be a threat, and THEN take a year to try and make it official. Not a big deal, you may think, especially if the said species/taxon isn't a threat. Well, check this out:

SEC. 8. INJURIOUS WILDLIFE DETERMINATIONS.

(a) In General.--Immediately upon the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall make more rapid determinations on proposals
for regulation of wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States
Code.

(b) Streamlining of Determinations.--In carrying out subsection (a)
and other provisions of this Act, the Secretary--
(1) shall use the best available scientific risk screening
systems or predictive models that apply to the taxon under
consideration;
(2) shall forego time-consuming optional administrative
steps, unless the Secretary determines the steps to be
essential
; and
(3) notwithstanding chapter 6, and section 804, of title 5,
United States Code, may forego economic impact analyses.

If I understand that correctly, once/if the bill passes, they can then decide to remove steps to stream-line the process of adding a species/taxon to the injurious list.
--------

I dunno...just sounds like they're not too terribly concerned with using due process here. Looks to me like they want to be able to preemptively throw whatever animal species they want on there at will whenever they want as quickly as possible.

If executed responsibly, I have no issue with what have highlighted.

Tom said:
And he we go again with the subtle intelligence insults...

Baoh doesn't argue for or against anything. He only wishes to point out that YOU do not have the indisputable scientific evidence to back up what YOU are arguing for or against, and then takes subtle little jabs at your inability to debate, form cogent arguments, or your susceptibility to be controlled by your own overly emotional thoughts and feelings, or your lack of formal debate tools, etc...

Same story different day.

You made this about people rather than ideas. I prefer to discuss ideas.
 

StudentoftheReptile

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
1,705
Location (City and/or State)
Alabama
As for the tools, perhaps some courses in logic would be of use. Not simply construction of a cogent argument, but also evaluation of the commonly employed logical fallacies so you can understand why and where things break down. Maybe a primer on the scientific method, too. Perhaps a piece devoted to how attempts to remove or silence another's voice is no different than the tyranny often decried. Wikipedia as well as free online college courses might help you out if you know how to use those resources. There are also, if electronic means are not to your preference, books devoted to these subjects.

Well, I was actually hoping for specifics on the particular topic at hand, perhaps some references to those frequent scientific interfaces you seem to have access to with our wonderful government. Instead, it seems you were only interested in insulting my intelligence, and turning this into a pissing contest (although I can't for the life of me believe you actually suggested Wikipedia as a credible "tool"). If it wasn't clear before, your colors have truly shown now. You apparently have nothing to contribute to this discussion except a contrasting opinion founded on nothing but vague retorts.

As I may have mentioned once elsewhere, "your opinion is welcome as long as your opinion is our opinion" constitutes a significant portion of what I observe.

I don't know what all circles of which you frequent, but my personal motto is that any opinion is welcome, but if you voice yours, you should be prepared to back it up with something substantial. You have yet to deliver.

I value those who have the mental capacity to avoid falling into such an emotional trap.

I value those who can enter an intelligent conversation, make their point clear, and have the substance to back it up.

dmmj said:
I am gonna ask for no more insults subtle or otherwise, I have been enjoying the debate so far, let's keep it civil, thank you.

Sorry, didn't see that before my last post. I heartily agree.
 

Baoh

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
1,827
Location (City and/or State)
Florida
StudentoftheReptile said:
As for the tools, perhaps some courses in logic would be of use. Not simply construction of a cogent argument, but also evaluation of the commonly employed logical fallacies so you can understand why and where things break down. Maybe a primer on the scientific method, too. Perhaps a piece devoted to how attempts to remove or silence another's voice is no different than the tyranny often decried. Wikipedia as well as free online college courses might help you out if you know how to use those resources. There are also, if electronic means are not to your preference, books devoted to these subjects.

Well, I was actually hoping for specifics on the particular topic at hand, perhaps some references to those frequent scientific interfaces you seem to have access to with our wonderful government. Instead, it seems you were only interested in insulting my intelligence, and turning this into a pissing contest (although I can't for the life of me believe you actually suggested Wikipedia as a credible "tool"). If it wasn't clear before, your colors have truly shown now. You apparently have nothing to contribute to this discussion except a contrasting opinion founded on nothing but vague retorts.

As I may have mentioned once elsewhere, "your opinion is welcome as long as your opinion is our opinion" constitutes a significant portion of what I observe.

I don't know what all circles of which you frequent, but my personal motto is that any opinion is welcome, but if you voice yours, you should be prepared to back it up with something substantial. You have yet to deliver.

I value those who have the mental capacity to avoid falling into such an emotional trap.

I value those who can enter an intelligent conversation, make their point clear, and have the substance to back it up.

dmmj said:
I am gonna ask for no more insults subtle or otherwise, I have been enjoying the debate so far, let's keep it civil, thank you.

Sorry, didn't see that before my last post. I heartily agree.



If you could show me where you asked me for my interfaces, which include the FDA, USDA, and some military branches, specifically, it would be helpful. There are some more, but they are not of the same frequency, so I would not claim them as equally concrete. I cannot seem to find where you asked for me to elucidate the interfaces. My suggestion of Wikipedia is its ready availability to most people and the current sections pertaining to the tool sets described are accurate. If you would like to point out the errors in the sections on what I have described, by all means, go ahead.

As for something substantial, YOU summarized the proposal as saying something it did not, so the onus is on you to back it up. I asked for your evidence, but you gave me not one example of what I requested.
 

StudentoftheReptile

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
1,705
Location (City and/or State)
Alabama
Baoh said:
If you could show me where you asked me for my interfaces, which include the FDA, USDA, and some military branches, specifically, it would be helpful. There are some more, but they are not of the same frequency, so I would not claim them as equally concrete. I cannot seem to find where you asked for me to elucidate the interfaces.

My apologies for not being clear. Could you provide any substantial evidence on how the U.S. govt has used accurate, scientific reasoning and fact-finding to support any of the previous laws that have restricted the freedoms of exotic pet owners?

As for something substantial, YOU summarized the proposal as saying something it did not, so the onus is on you to back it up. I asked for your evidence, but you gave me not one example of what I requested.

I am through debating this with you. I have presented the evidence to the best of my ability (short of copy/pasting the bill in its entirety), and you either cannot or will not accept it. This is clearly a case of when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I'm done trying to convince you of anything.

Honestly what it all boils down to, regardless of how one interprets this bill or its underlying intent or agenda...it is realistically not enforcable, and even if it was, it would have little or no impact on the environment anyway. At best, it would simply generate more work for little or no positive result. So even best case scenario, it's really not a great bill.
 

tortadise

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
9,560
Location (City and/or State)
Tropical South Texas
My thoughts are, I will be part of a voice of us exotic caretakers in the respect that it's a pointless bill to pass in our minds. We know these animals cannot possess an invasive manor or thereof similar to the Nile monito or Burmese python in te Everglades. However my thoughts are in the respect that this bill will enable a large amount of revenue to the unites states government in the manor of;

Forcing those owners to pay a permit fee.

Forcing those owners to pay a renewal fee.

And forcing us owners to bend over backwards to abide by this "new" and improved "communistic" approach on violating our right to posses them. In a way the constitution portrays no text that we can aor cannot posses these animals. So I think it's a way to increase government taxing and another form of "control" with a financial benefit.

I will fight and voice my opinion. But they will never know what I possess. Passed or not I will still do what it is I love and cherish, regardless of law or not. There isn't anyone that could ever even hold a gun to my head and force me to admit that my tortoises would ever "invade" or cause an "epidemic" outbreak harming our native fauna, and wildlife more so than BP ever did in our gulf of Mexico.
 

reticguy76

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
238
FDA, USDA, etc. Definitely not one sided "scientific evidence" source. They are part of the problem.

While the Constitution does or does not specify our rights to own these animals, it does give us natural human rights to decide for ourselves, not the government.
 

Jacqui

Wanna be raiser of Lemon Drop tortoises
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
39,941
Location (City and/or State)
A Land Far Away...
Baoh said:
If executed responsibly, I have no issue with what have highlighted.

Exactly, but who is going to decide what is "executed responsibly"? For instance, do you want this person to be somebody who thinks no animal should be a pet or kept by the "common" person? I know I don't want it that way. Nor do I want any law to be at the whim of somebody without having my right to fight it or to even know exactly what the law will really be or how it will be carried out.



dmmj said:
I am gonna ask for no more insults subtle or otherwise, I have been enjoying the debate so far, let's keep it civil, thank you.

I think a person or two sadly need another reminder....
 

Baoh

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
1,827
Location (City and/or State)
Florida
StudentoftheReptile said:
Baoh said:
If you could show me where you asked me for my interfaces, which include the FDA, USDA, and some military branches, specifically, it would be helpful. There are some more, but they are not of the same frequency, so I would not claim them as equally concrete. I cannot seem to find where you asked for me to elucidate the interfaces.

My apologies for not being clear. Could you provide any substantial evidence on how the U.S. govt has used accurate, scientific reasoning and fact-finding to support any of the previous laws that have restricted the freedoms of exotic pet owners?

As for something substantial, YOU summarized the proposal as saying something it did not, so the onus is on you to back it up. I asked for your evidence, but you gave me not one example of what I requested.

I am through debating this with you. I have presented the evidence to the best of my ability (short of copy/pasting the bill in its entirety), and you either cannot or will not accept it. This is clearly a case of when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object. I'm done trying to convince you of anything.

Honestly what it all boils down to, regardless of how one interprets this bill or its underlying intent or agenda...it is realistically not enforcable, and even if it was, it would have little or no impact on the environment anyway. At best, it would simply generate more work for little or no positive result. So even best case scenario, it's really not a great bill.



This was your quote:

StudentoftheReptile said:
I fear you are putting too much faith in the wrong places. The U.S. govt isn't exactly known for being reasonable and using sound science.

I responded to that. I did not add or remove argument-shifting qualifiers as you just did. I did not speak to exotic pet ownership when I specifically responded to a specific statement, but the practice of using sound science on the part of the US government is a frequent occurrence. It is not an infallible deity. It is a system of humans for humans.

I do not think it is a "great bill", either, but I see reasonable portions of it if not abused or pressed beyond its stated incarnation one way or the other. Abuse of some other bill has no more impact on this one's potential for it than flipping a coin once influences the outcome of a second flip.

Maybe the mistake with the concept of you trying to convince me is that there is no need for either of us to convert the other's viewpoint into something uniform. I do not see a need to convince you of my perspective on the matter. I am sharing my perspective, however, as I consider that to be my remit as a "free" person.

tortadise said:
My thoughts are, I will be part of a voice of us exotic caretakers in the respect that it's a pointless bill to pass in our minds. We know these animals cannot possess an invasive manor or thereof similar to the Nile monito or Burmese python in te Everglades. However my thoughts are in the respect that this bill will enable a large amount of revenue to the unites states government in the manor of;

Forcing those owners to pay a permit fee.

Forcing those owners to pay a renewal fee.

And forcing us owners to bend over backwards to abide by this "new" and improved "communistic" approach on violating our right to posses them. In a way the constitution portrays no text that we can aor cannot posses these animals. So I think it's a way to increase government taxing and another form of "control" with a financial benefit.

I will fight and voice my opinion. But they will never know what I possess. Passed or not I will still do what it is I love and cherish, regardless of law or not. There isn't anyone that could ever even hold a gun to my head and force me to admit that my tortoises would ever "invade" or cause an "epidemic" outbreak harming our native fauna, and wildlife more so than BP ever did in our gulf of Mexico.

Does this bill institute a fee for the ownership of nonnative chelonians?

For the reasons you stated regarding invasive potential, I doubt any tortoises are going to be targeted by this. Migration rate, generation time, predation susceptibility , and various other factors all work against the potential for that sort of harm.

reticguy76 said:
FDA, USDA, etc. Definitely not one sided "scientific evidence" source. They are part of the problem.

While the Constitution does or does not specify our rights to own these animals, it does give us natural human rights to decide for ourselves, not the government.

Well, they are not flawless, but a point of science is not to have one side in the first place. Science is meant to aggregate with a collection of information. Not a sword thrust where might makes right. The FDA, USDA, and others are also part of the solution, or do you consider it cool when quality fails and chondroitin is swapped out for heparin or melamine gets into dog food and infant formula? That is the basis for the development of these sorts of offices. I do not like all of their decisions and I really dislike the slow speed at which they can/do operate (this is only partly their fault, though), but they do provide a necessary set of services for a great many folks.

Jacqui said:
Baoh said:
If executed responsibly, I have no issue with what have highlighted.

Exactly, but who is going to decide what is "executed responsibly"? For instance, do you want this person to be somebody who thinks no animal should be a pet or kept by the "common" person? I know I don't want it that way. Nor do I want any law to be at the whim of somebody without having my right to fight it or to even know exactly what the law will really be or how it will be carried out.

Those who are given the responsibility of enforcement according to the letter of procedure.

I would not *want* that person to be in that position, but I also would not deny an effective agent who puts his or her feelings aside in order to fulfill their duties.

I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. I consider that to be a huge failure on the part of government, yet I recognize the reasons for why that type of failure exists (another example in this vein, depending upon how one views things, could be the electoral college). Then again, when I take into account the ability of the average voter to make decent long-term decisions, I have a sense of ambivalence.
 

StudentoftheReptile

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
1,705
Location (City and/or State)
Alabama
Baoh said:
...the practice of using sound science on the part of the US government is a frequent occurrence. It is not an infallible deity. It is a system of humans for humans.

I do not think it is a "great bill", either, but I see reasonable portions of it if not abused or pressed beyond its stated incarnation one way or the other. Abuse of some other bill has no more impact on this one's potential for it than flipping a coin once influences the outcome of a second flip.

Jacqui said:
Baoh said:
If executed responsibly, I have no issue with what have highlighted.
Exactly, but who is going to decide what is "executed responsibly"? For instance, do you want this person to be somebody who thinks no animal should be a pet or kept by the "common" person? I know I don't want it that way. Nor do I want any law to be at the whim of somebody without having my right to fight it or to even know exactly what the law will really be or how it will be carried out.

Those who are given the responsibility of enforcement according to the letter of procedure.

I would not *want* that person to be in that position, but I also would not deny an effective agent who puts his or her feelings aside in order to fulfill their duties.

Again, your experiences and observations of our government has apparently been different than my own. Given what I have witnessed of our judicial system, our legislative process, the integrity and discretion of law enforcement and politics in general (not just in matters regarding the environment and/or special interest groups within the pet industry, but in others as well)...I have very little faith in our govt and that pieces of legislation like this can or will be implemented reasonably or responsibly.
----------------
I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. I consider that to be a huge failure on the part of government, yet I recognize the reasons for why that type of failure exists (another example in this vein, depending upon how one views things, could be the electoral college). Then again, when I take into account the ability of the average voter to make decent long-term decisions, I have a sense of ambivalence.

This I can agree on as well, but I would very much like to keep to the topic, as I see this divulging into a discussion about politics in general.
 

Jacqui

Wanna be raiser of Lemon Drop tortoises
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Aug 28, 2007
Messages
39,941
Location (City and/or State)
A Land Far Away...
Baoh said:
I would not *want* that person to be in that position, but I also would not deny an effective agent who puts his or her feelings aside in order to fulfill their duties.

I don't think I would want the job either. :cool: IF the person could really do the job correctly and without personal prejudices, it would atleast be a step in the right direction. I just fear they would not be finding such a person and I don't know if such a person would really want the job either. It still boils down to the openness bothering me from the get go before I ever get to the "real meat" of the proposal
 

StudentoftheReptile

Active Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Sep 8, 2011
Messages
1,705
Location (City and/or State)
Alabama
Yeah, then there's the issue of training said individuals who would be performing this job: time = money = tax increase and/or some permit system will get implemented to offset cost of training. The alternative would be to...not train them, and simply leave it to the discretion of the officer, or whatever. Here's where I see an issue with that.

For the sake of argument, let' say that they did decide to add the genus Chelonoidis (redfoots & yellowfoot tortoises) to the injurious list under this Act. Now we got people who come on this forum who find a box turtle in their yard and think its a runaway redfoot. You think wildlife officers are exempt from such mistakes? Now I'm not using the example to call anyone stupid or anything; its simply a matter of educating one self to identify/distinguish certain species from others. Not long ago, a Florida member here was telling the account of bringing a hatchling gopher tortoise to their local FWS office to confirm the identity. They told her it was NOT a gopher tortoise and that she could keep it! LOL...that was Florida Fish & Wildlife not being able to identify one of their own native species (a federally protected one, no less).
 

tortadise

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
9,560
Location (City and/or State)
Tropical South Texas
It does portray in the text whether or not it will be stated that the permit is of a cost. In seeing the results from the ban on the large species of snakes. You have to acquire a permit, just like a fishing permit at even Walmart. To possess those snakes, here in Texas that permit to posses those species of pythons and anacondas is 80 dollars or an annual fee. So yes this would take into play a source of generated income for the government. In a small way I think but how many reptile enthusiast have to get that permit now? For something that was a freedom before 2008? I don't know how many exact people have gotten that permit for the large snakes. But I imagine quite a few.
 

Baoh

Well-Known Member
10 Year Member!
Joined
Nov 18, 2007
Messages
1,827
Location (City and/or State)
Florida
tortadise said:
It does portray in the text whether or not it will be stated that the permit is of a cost. In seeing the results from the ban on the large species of snakes. You have to acquire a permit, just like a fishing permit at even Walmart. To possess those snakes, here in Texas that permit to posses those species of pythons and anacondas is 80 dollars or an annual fee. So yes this would take into play a source of generated income for the government. In a small way I think but how many reptile enthusiast have to get that permit now? For something that was a freedom before 2008? I don't know how many exact people have gotten that permit for the large snakes. But I imagine quite a few.

Only if determined to be injurious and such, though, yes?
 

reticguy76

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
238
The government and its agencies (usda, fda, etc) are way from flawless and corrupt. A big problem with these agencies is that, for example, we have radiation exposure to most of our foods. The just keep raising the amount of what they "feel" is "accptable" amounts of radiation allowed in our bodies. None is accetpable. Just because these agencies "test" and use "science" to justify these things, doesnt mean they are good and legitimate. Thats what the government does, instead of fixing and eliminating problems or potential problems, they just raise the bar and whats acceptable exposure. That is just one example. That is dishonest, deceitful and unconstitutional, and full government control, which is what they are trying to do with this bill proposal.
Its no different than a wild coyote coming into my backyard and infecting my dogs with some sort of parasite or other communicable disease. We should then destroy all wildlife native to America, with this logic

If I choose to purchase a non-native animal and have it shipped to me here, it is my right and personal resposibility to make sure its healthy and does not spread potenital communicable disease/pathogens to other animals or native wildlife, not the governments right to tell me I cant.

Anybody that believes our government is pure and not after full control and tyranny, is either blind or just doesnt want to admit it. They will put spin on anything to make it sound like its "the right thing to do" to the general public. If they are that worried about disease, in the wild, then why dont I have the right to shoot any animal that comes into my backyard with "potential" disease possibly able to infect me, my family or my "legal" domesticated pets??

If they left it up to We The Poeple, it would be shot down before any of them would even know it, because its wrong and they know it, and most of us know it.
 

tortadise

Well-Known Member
Moderator
10 Year Member!
Joined
Mar 2, 2012
Messages
9,560
Location (City and/or State)
Tropical South Texas
That would be my understanding, of the text. Obviously this bill will undergo a huge opposition as well as a huge supportive. In the case that it does like the original bill, obvious conclusion in reality is that we the hobbyist will speak up and portray that tortoises are not a so called "invasive" species for the mass of the united states. The only real location would be southern Florida, southern Texas, and possibly southern California. Hawaii already has very stringent laws that do not allow a vast majority of reptiles as pets. The problem I do see with having a scientific concrete debate about the listed species that COULD pertain to be invasive would solely rely on a very minimal scientific and weak or sickly pathogen in a specific species. Take for instance Greeks, marginatas, and other testudos that the herpes virus is rather common in and can also hibernate winters, allowing this species to be perhaps a possible threat "if" in the event it were released in to the wild. HOOOOWEVER. A single tortoise being released into the wild here on soil doesn't sustain it to be invasive at all to me because for chelonians to thrive. They have to

A; be released with numerous others as well as with adult specimens of opposing sexs to sustain and establish a wild population.

B; be released only females that are gravid, and eventually pose an invasive like manor.

C; neither A or B is realistic.

It's hard enough for us as experienced. Keepers to keep our animals thriving even in "perfectly designed enclosures" the soils are not typical to allow a vast majority of chelonians that are not native to successfully even hatch out and become a part of that Eco system. The foods differ, the temperatures differ, the rainy seasons differ, the winters differ, or aren't even known where some species originate from.

I think a small percentage could survive and become "invasive" but it's not practical to blanket all order of chelonians to be "banned".

We will see what happens when this bill is brought to the table and reasoning and good strong arguments brought by us the keepers unfold a realistic approach of why chelonians "can" be invasive but it's such a small percentage of success that it would be impractical to remove our prized animals from our possessions or force us to no longer purchase ten without a permit.

I'm sure I made a lot of nonsense my fingers hurt from this damn iPhone.
 

reticguy76

Member
5 Year Member
Joined
Apr 25, 2012
Messages
238
Another thing to think about, what about all the dog and cat owners that have their pets get parvo, or feline aids and they dont want to treat them, so they just set them free. They will infect other animals (wild as well). This bill has no real and true basis

I cant tell you how many parvo and feline aids and luekemia cats we get in my emergency animal hospital as strays running around, even in the desert where wild native life is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

New Posts

Top