Take Action: Banning non-cat/dog pets

[asterroc]

The House of Representatives is currently working on a bill that would outlaw all non-native species of animals in captivity - that is, anything other than cats and dogs - whether as pets, for research, or for education. I urge you to contact your Representatives about this bill because it would not only decimate zoos and scientific research, but it would also severely limit the rest of my life with my bird Kappa.

Write your Legislators:
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=13098456

More detail and links - feel free to forward this to friends, family, and coworkers, and to copy or draw inspiration from my text to write your own letters.

H.R. 669, Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, would ban the breeding, sale, gifting, transportation, and possession of any species that is not native to the USA. Species exceptions can be made by the Secretary of the Interior, but all non-native species are by default illegal. Importation exceptions can be made on an individual basis by the SI for zoos, education, or scientific research, but there are no exceptions for breeding or transport across state lines. US zoos would no longer be able to breed non-native endangered species for research or for reintroduction to the wild. That's right folks, no more panda cubs. And don't forget that sun conures were recently declared an endangered species - their large population as pets in the US may be crucial to their continued existence in the wild.

The "grandfathering" clause is severely limited - people are allowed to retain any non-native species pets they currently have, but they are not allowed to cross state lines with the animal, they are not allowed to give up the animal to a shelter or a rescue, and they cannot transfer possession of the animal through a will. The bill specifies civil and criminal penalties for any persons found violating the law; the bill does not specify the fate of the animal in question though euthanasia is often the most expedient solution, especially if the species is not threatened in the wild.

I currently own a non-native species: Kappa, a dusky conure, is native to South America. Her life expectancy is 20-30 years. If this law passed I would be unable to leave the state of Massachusetts until I am 50-60 years old - it would be illegal to bring Kappa across state lines so I couldn't move for my career, and it would be impossible to find responsible care for her while I was on vacation or even visiting my family. In addition it would become increasingly difficult to find experienced veterinary care for Kappa as she aged, and I would have to make her diet entirely from scratch.

In case you think I'm overreacting when I mention how it will influence parrot ownership, today's House Subcommittee meeting on the bill did hear discussion about Quaker parrots specifically, saying they would be the first species to be banned (before even invasive plant species, which this bill is claiming to be primarily targeting).

Write your Legislators here:
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid=13098456

Summaries about the bill:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:h.r.00669:

List of cosponsors:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d111:HR00669:@@@P

Video of the Subcommittee hearing:
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=32&extmode=view&extid=246
(Quaker parrots mentioned around 24-25 minutes.)

Edit: amavia, guinea pigs are not among the exempt species (despite the fact that they are domesticated), so you might want to get your networks cracking on this.

Thanks for your time!

Comments

[calzephyr77.livejournal.com]

Ugh. I wish there was something I could do other than hope this doesn't pass.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Even if you're not a citizen, you can still write to random representatives. :) Or perhaps more usefully, you could donate to NAIA Trust, one of the groups leading the campaign against HR 669.

[calzephyr77.livejournal.com]

Thanks so much, I donated $35 :-) I'll see about the random reps part!

[demigoth.livejournal.com]

OK too bored/drunk to read the fine print but if they're defining "animals" as the dictionary definition, then we legally wouldn't be able to do any research with nematodes of the same species which can be found outside the U.S., potentially?

That's really lame.

Also didn't cats originally come from somewhere outside the U.S., if we're nitpicking? Stupid bills...

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

They're using the terms "non-native wildlife species" and "animal" interchangeably, so I'm not sure about nematodes. You'd possibly be able to get an exception to allow the importation of nematodes, but you better not let them reproduce or you'd be facing fines.

The bill specifically excludes a laundry list of domesticated species, such as cats, dogs, cattle, pigs; chicken and ducks; and goldfish. (All exempt species are named, to prevent arguments over whether other species are domesticated, such as cockatiels. Guinea pigs are not among the exempt species.)

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

The Secretary of the Interior is supposed to provide a preliminary approved list within 60 days of enactment that includes species that are either environmentally/economically safe or already widespread. The exclusion of guinea pigs would be a bizarre act of malice.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Within 60 days is when the SI will start accepting suggestions for the preliminary list of species exemptions. The SI only needs to accept suggestions for 10 months after that, then the process for new suggestions changes and I'm not clear on what it changes to.

So if my dusky conure (not at all a widespread species, and no more dangerous than Quaker parrots which are already illegal in 12 states) does not get onto the approved list, how much will I have to pay and how long will I have to wait to get the SI to reconsider dusky conures, with no guarantee of approval?

And what if the SI overlooks a dozen other species that are important in zoos or research? How much will the zoos and research institutions have to pay to get them approved? Do you really think the SI will be able to make a well-informed decision upon the hundreds of different species that zoos keep and breed? If the SI is going to be calling in expert help to be able to make the informed decision, can you show me where in the bill funding is provided for this?

Making the default be to ban every species unless a specific exemption is made is just ridiculous.

[sirroxton.livejournal.com]

The point about your fear-mongering about guinea pigs still stands.

There's an exemption for pets already owned before prohibition of importation.

The lobbying would be done by importers and breeders, presumably.

The US Fish and Wildlife Service has a science budget. Whether the process would be managed competently over the three years it'd take before a list came into being is a reasonable question.

Outlawing individual invasive species state-by-state doesn't make a lot of sense.

Developing an import list over three years with two periods of public review doesn't sound the worst system ever proposed. But maybe it's not worth it?

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

There's an exemption for pets already owned before prohibition of importation.

Section 3.f reads in part "This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun"

Note that this allows "possession" only. It does not allow the person to travel across state borders, as is forbidden for the unapproved species in Section 6.a.2.

Also the phrasing in the above quoted Section 3.f of "legally owned by the person" makes it unclear whether the original owner of the grandfathered animal is allowed to gift the animal to another individual (that is, neither selling nor bartering the animal [both of which are explicitly forbidden], but giving it free of charge). The reason this is a concern is because (a) many people give up exotic pets because they are no longer able to care for them (due to age, new children, allergies, job loss, home loss, or many other possibilities beyond simple failure to research the species), and (b) the lifespan of parrots is quite long for their size, and the parrot will need a new home should the original owners predecease the bird.

For example, the expected lifespan of dusky conures is 20-30 years. Kappa is 2 years old as of yesterday, and I am currently 31. I will have her until I am 49-59 years of age. There is a non-zero chance that I will predecease her in the next 20-30 years either through health or accident. I am her owner. If she cannot be gifted to another person in my will (such as T$ or a local parrot rescue), then she will be euthanized should I predecease her.

The lobbying would be done by importers and breeders, presumably.

There is no provision in the law for breeding. None. Section 4.a.1 reads "the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation into the United States." I don't see breeding in there anywhere, nor do I see any permission for breeding elsewhere in the document. (If you can find such a reference, please show me, because it would ease my fears about this bill.) Even if every species of parrot were approved, breeding them would still be illegal, wild capture is already illegal, and so the only recourse would be importation from countries where breeding is legal (along with prohibitive fees and quarrantine periods). Aviculture would likely cease in the US. In addition, zoos would not be able to breed animals for purposes of research, education, or conservation. No breeding pandas despite their being an endangered species.

Developing an import list over three years with two periods of public review doesn't sound the worst system ever proposed. But maybe it's not worth it?

IMO this is a conversation that should be had, not a bill that should be passed as is. If the wording were changed significantly to (a) make the default be that all species were allowed and the SI only came up with a banned list, and (b) permitted species may be bred, then I would be more willing to consider the bill. But as it is now all it needs is a little laziness on the part of a few officials to outlaw many pets, research animals, educational animals, and animals being bred for conservation efforts.

[demigoth.livejournal.com]

Hrm, with the nematodes, we already operate under pretty stringent permit rules, which means anything coming in from out of state has to pretty much be dead, and we certainly can't start any live cultures of it, unless we have a special permit, in which case technically it might contradict this bill.

You're right, it sounds like a crappy bill, but I guess most are. :-/

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

This bill would still allow stricter state regulations, so the only change would be that you couldn't get permits to start live cultures.

[the1hobbit.livejournal.com]

Again, it's too broad. Technically Horses are non native species, they where brought over from spain and europe. Most pure bred dogs aren't native. Both of these animals are causing economic 'damages' horses because a lot of people can't afford them and are letting the 'go' and how many stray dogs does the local humane societies have to bring in everyday?

There causing damange, why not get rid of all the damn animals and call it a day?

Honestly, do they really think this is a good idea?!

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

There is a list of species that are specifically exempt, and horses and dogs are on that list, as are cows, chicken, donkeys, and a few other domesticated species.

I suspect PETA is backing this, but I haven't seen anything about it yet.

[q10.livejournal.com]

do you reallly mean ‘non-native’? because calling cats aren't native either.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

The title of the bill is "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act". A number of domesticated species are specifically exempt, such as chickens, cats, dogs, horses, pigs, and goldfish. The stated purpose of the bill is to prevent invasive species from getting a toehold.

Edit: But I don't think this is an effective way to reach the stated goal. This is throwing out the baby with the bathwater, or using a shotgun to kill a fruit fly.

[framefolly.livejournal.com]

Yeah. Your edit is how I feel, too.

[fireaphid.livejournal.com]

Thanks for posting this! I had no idea anyone would consider passing a law that's so poorly thought out.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for your support, and I hope you are willing to click on the link to write to your Rep. Birds and parrots have been a huge part of my life, from little zebra finches and cockatiels, to my current dusky conure (pictures in my icon), to my future dream of fostering cockatoos or an African gray. I have allergies to everything with fur, so if I want a warm pet that I can snuggle that leaves me only birds.

[q10.livejournal.com]

sorry, i didn't read your longer summary before looking at the text. it appears that your longer characterization is correct.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the correction. To clarify in case it's still unclear, I've read through most of the text of the bill and it's my understanding that non-native species start off as banned by default, and can be made exempt for import by the Secretary of the Interior, but that no exceptions can be made for breeding.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

I don't think so - the relevant portion on breeding is:

Sec. 6(a)(6): "[it is unlawful to] breed any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1), or provide any such species to another person for breeding purposes."

The relevant paragraph (1) prohibits importing/exporting "any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4."

Section 4 describes making a list of approved species that "(A) are not harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health; or (B) may be harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health, but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States."

Pandas, many nonnative pet species, and so forth are clearly going to get onto this list, under criterion (A). So they won't be unlawful to import under Section 6(a)(1), so they won't be unlawful to breed under 6(a)(6).

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Oh, okay I get it now. (I didn't read this before posting the other comment.) I wonder if this means that Quakers and cherry-headed conures would get on the approved list since they are already widespread in the US.

(As an aside, it's interesting to me that our only native species of parrot, the Carolina parakeet, now extinct, is being replaced by other feral species.)

[q10.livejournal.com]

i would point out that there are invasive feral populations of quaker parrots - but not of dusky conures, in the US, so it's hard to tell exactly how worried you should be.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

You are correct that there are invasive feral populations of Quakers (aka monk parakeets). However, in the 12 states in which they are banned as pets, it is my understanding that the basis for banning them was fear of crop destruction (which has never been documented) rather than the reasonable fear of large nests causing damage to utility poles. (It's my understanding that most of the laws banning Quakers predate utility poles.) It's also worth noting that in many of the places where Quakers have established themselves, (for example, Brooklyn, NY) they fill the same niche as (and therefore their primary competitors are) pigeons (aka rock doves), which are also an invasive feral species - they are not threatening any native species. My point is that I don't feel decisions to ban species of parrots have been made on a reasonable basis at the state level in the past, and I do not think they will be made on a reasonable basis at the federal level in the future.

Even if they decide duskies are entirely exempt and quakers are not, my next worry is about enforcement. While I expect state border enforcement to be sporadic and lax, I expect airport enforcement to be rigorous and uninformed. I fully expect that many TSA agents will be unable to tell the difference between duskies and Quakers visually. If they also have to be able to distinguish many other green parrots such as Nanday conures and Indian Ringnecked Parakeets, I have serious doubts about whether the average security officer will be able to appropriately enforce these laws, and therefore I worry about Kappa's life if I have to travel by air with her even if duskies end up exempt.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

Since it looks like species exemptions would be made for all non-native species that don't pose a serious risk to human health or to the ecosystem, I think it's highly unlikely that the law will affect the breeding of panda cubs or dusky conures. Plus, there's an exemption for animals whose population in the US is already really large.

The ban on Quaker parrots is probably a result of the fact that there are rather large feral Quaker parrot populations in the United States and they are in fact a pretty serious problem for those ecosystems. It looks like the statute is poorly drafted with respect to gifting of animals that are already currently pets; if you want to prevent the animals from being released into the wild and doing damage, you'd probably want to allow people to give their pet to someone else instead of just abandoning or releasing it. That said the main prohibitions are on sale or barter; it's possible that gifting is allowed by omission.

I think it makes sense to have a default no-import rule, with a number of exceptions for safe species: there are simply too many species in the world to list all the nonnative species that aren't known to be safe for the US ecosystem. I agree though that this bill is poorly drafted - it should be far more specific about pet species that would be allowed, and its grandfathering provisions should be way more flexible.

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

Since it looks like species exemptions would be made for all non-native species that don't pose a serious risk to human health or to the ecosystem, I think it's highly unlikely that the law will affect the breeding of panda cubs or dusky conures.

Can you clarify for me where it says that species exemptions allow breeding of the exempt species? I am reading it that only those species outline in Section 14.5.D or those determined to be "common and clearly domesticated" are allowed to be bred, while all others on the approved list can be imported but not bred (Section 4.c.2.A). Neither pandas nor dusky conures are "common" or "clearly domesticated," so my reading is that they could be imported but not bred.

My other concern is that I just don't trust the Secretary of the Interior to (a) include the full scope of animals that are kept as pets, for research, or for education, nor do I trust the Secretary to (b) respond positively to all other species recommended by individuals or zoos. Even if I did trust the process, it still requires a proposal that includes "sufficient scientific and commercial information to allow the Secretary to evaluate whether the proposed nonnative wildlife species is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ or human health," which would likely take time, training, and money that the average person doesn't have.

I think it makes sense to have a default no-import rule,

I see your reasoning *if* we accept that we need these additional regulations in the first place. There are already many regulations upon the importation of species into the US - CITES (and laws based upon its framework) already prevents the importation of endangered species; 12 states that feel Quakers are a threat already have regulations in place banning their breeding, sale, and importation. Other states where Quakers are feral (such as NY) do not feel they are a sufficient threat to enact laws. I just don't see why this is a big enough deal that we need a sweeping federal bill to deal with it, rather than state laws dealing with it on a species-by-species basis.

Thanks for your input.

[sammka.livejournal.com]

I agree, I don't particularly trust the SI to do things right. That said, I also understand why Congress would delegate these decisions to the SI rather than including the whole list of approved species in the bill itself (that's usually how these things are done, because Congress lacks expertise), and why you'd need federal legislation on this on top of CITES. First, since most invasive animal species are mobile, states can't adequately protect themselves: even if NY doesn't care about quaker parrots, New Jersey might, and New Jersey can't deal with the problem adequately if, regardless of what NJ citizens do, quaker parrots can just fly over into New Jersey from New York, which hasn't banned them. Second, this bill isn't really concerned with endangered species being introduced here, but more with really hardy invasive species like the snakehead fish. CITES would not have stopped people from bringing live snakeheads into the country and releasing them into the streams, and even if states could ban snakeheads, they can't adequately protect themselves this way if they live downstream from a state that doesn't care about snakeheads.

I'd probably support this bill if it just gave clearer directions to the Secretary of the Interior, was more explicitly flexible about what you could do with a grandfathered animal (like gifting the animal or transporting it across state lines for personal purposes), and was clearer on how it would be enforced (which would answer your concern about people who can't tell between a conure and a quaker).

[zandperl.livejournal.com]

I would be either neutral or at least less against it if in addition to what you suggest in your last paragraph, the Secretary of the Interior were specifically directed to seek expertise in making the decision, and the process for requesting adding a species to the permitted list were in a manner that did not require a large outlay of money by private individuals. (It's my understanding that the current process requires a formal proposal, so if I wanted to suggest exemption for dusky conures after the initial period, I would need money to pay a lawyer and a biologist.)

[And to clarify just in case, there are many different species of conures - your wording comparing conures to Quakers implied that you thought conures are a single species. "Conure" actually refers to between two and eight different genera, depending on who you talk to (aratinga and pyrrhura are the two genera everyone accepts as conures), and each genus contains 1-5 separate species. On the other hand Quaker parrots (aka monk parakeets) are a single species (myiopsitta monachus).]

[soapfaerie.livejournal.com]

Thank you, i am posting.