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

[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.