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.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2009-04-25 12:11 pm (UTC)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.