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

[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).]