I just heard about this, and I'm really confused.
Here's a link to the actual bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf
A synopsis in case you haven't heard about it: it says that species that are "likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ or human health" would be banned. Meaning, it would be a crime to import them into the US, transport between state lines, posses, sell, purchase, breed, or release.
Here's an interesting article showing a bit of both sides of the issue:
http://nohr669.com/blog/?p=294
The bill supposedly states that there would be a grandfather clause for exotic pets you have now, but there is some doubt about how that would play out in reality:
"Current pets will absolutely be affected and HR 669 obviously isn’t about domesticated animals. HR 669 IS about the 17 million households that could be affected if they can’t prove that they owned their bird, fish, lizard, hamster, or snake before a certain period in time."
I have no idea where this bill is now. Does anyone else?
Also, I'm confused as to weather I should be against this or not. I do think there should be more regulation on species that are dangerous/difficult to care for- I'm so sick of seeing 12 year old boys on youtube with every type of endangered species available rotting in their garage.
And I know that many common exotic pets have done a lot of damage to existing eco-systems- like red-eared sliders, for example, all because of irresponsible owners.
But this bill doesn't seem like increased regulation, it seems like out-right banning, which is stupid.
It also seems like un-fair persecution of exotic pet owners. Animals like dogs and especially cats do a lot of damage to native species too, but no one would dream of banning those in the US.
What does everyone else think?
Here's a link to the actual bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf
A synopsis in case you haven't heard about it: it says that species that are "likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ or human health" would be banned. Meaning, it would be a crime to import them into the US, transport between state lines, posses, sell, purchase, breed, or release.
Here's an interesting article showing a bit of both sides of the issue:
http://nohr669.com/blog/?p=294
The bill supposedly states that there would be a grandfather clause for exotic pets you have now, but there is some doubt about how that would play out in reality:
"Current pets will absolutely be affected and HR 669 obviously isn’t about domesticated animals. HR 669 IS about the 17 million households that could be affected if they can’t prove that they owned their bird, fish, lizard, hamster, or snake before a certain period in time."
I have no idea where this bill is now. Does anyone else?
Also, I'm confused as to weather I should be against this or not. I do think there should be more regulation on species that are dangerous/difficult to care for- I'm so sick of seeing 12 year old boys on youtube with every type of endangered species available rotting in their garage.
And I know that many common exotic pets have done a lot of damage to existing eco-systems- like red-eared sliders, for example, all because of irresponsible owners.
But this bill doesn't seem like increased regulation, it seems like out-right banning, which is stupid.
It also seems like un-fair persecution of exotic pet owners. Animals like dogs and especially cats do a lot of damage to native species too, but no one would dream of banning those in the US.
What does everyone else think?