Does your pet snake need a federal identity card?

I liveblogged the Congressional hearing on H.R. 669 over on PetHobbyist.com this morning... you can check it out here.



A few thoughts: First, several of the representatives mentioned that they'd heard from a lot of concerned pet owners on this issue -- well done. We have to make sure our voices are consistently heard on all issues that relate to our relationships with our animals.



Second, some of these folks seriously don't get it. This legislation as proposed puts all non-native species on earth on a blacklist, with the exception of a very few farm animals and three kinds of pets: dogs, cats, and goldfish, which are on a white list.



Blacklisted species -- which is every non-native species' default -- cannot be imported, bred, sold, or transported across state lines, but people who already own these pets will not be forced to give them up. Those animals will be "grandfathered in."



For a species to get from the blacklist to the white list will require a Fish and Wildlife Services risk assessment process. A similar process right now for certain species under the federal Lacey Act takes four years to complete. The cost of this process was not specified but was acknowledged to be currently enormous, and expected to be even higher under the new regulations.



In light of that, consider the comments of Rep. Lois Capps (D-Calif.). Saying she wanted to debunk some misconceptions, she asked that a few questions and answers be put "on record." (Note: This is from my liveblog; only things in quotation marks are direct quotes. The rest is simply a paraphrase, but a very close one):

Rep: Capps: Concern among pet owners. Yes or no, does this legislation take away pets that people currently own? No.



Will this legislation place every non-native animal on unapproved list? No.



Will this legislation only target those species that are non-native AND invasive? Yes.



Interstate transport of grandfathered animals -- people moving, vet care, etc. Suggestions to address this concern?



Dr. Lodge: We could explore a permitting function. Would require complex procedures to establish ownership, track that. It's not an insignificant process.



Rep: Capps: If we could guarantee some sort of registration or identity card it would go a long way to reassure pet owners.

Really? Seriously? People who own already-stigmatized pets that are blacklisted in the United States will be happy to know they can register them with the government and thus keep them when they move, or take them to another state to see the vet?



Have you missed seeing my head explode?



I have to agree with PIJAC's Marshall Meyers (which I don't often do, especially on his defense of the large-scale commercial breeding of dogs and cats) that this grandfather clause is "imaginary."



A hamster and many kinds of aquarium fish might live only two or three years; even if they don't make you give up an existing pet, you won't be able to get another one, unless someone has taken that species through the lengthy, expensive, and cumbersome process of moving it from the blacklist to the white list.



It doesn't matter that the intent of this bill is only to go after species that are both non-native and invasive. The default on every non-native species other than those already exempted -- and again, of species kept as pets, right now that's just dogs, cats, and goldfish, no matter how many reassurances the committee members might utter -- is "unapproved." There are over a million non-native species, and they'll all be presumed harmful until proven otherwise.



And proven where, and how, and under what circumstances? Will a fish that's a hazard in Hawaii or Florida be outlawed from the pet trade in Nebraska?



And speaking of fish -- how exactly do you refrain from letting your fish breed? Based on my reading of the current proposed law, if I have some non-native tank fish and they have baby fishies, I just violated its provisions.



I also got very tired of hearing about kudzu. While I'm not stupid and do recognize that the issues of invasive non-native plants and animals are very similar, this law actually doesn't include plants -- something one of its co-sponsors didn't even know, as evidenced by a question he asked. I find it extremely misleading to see photos of forests being strangled by kudzu used to put hamsters and angelfish on a blacklist. It's manipulative.



I was struck, however, with the respectful way that the representatives and witnesses spoke about the human/animal bond, and particularly with this comment from Lawrence Riley of Arizona's Game and Fish Department (again, this is a paraphrase from the liveblog, not a direct quote):

Says now with people losing their homes, we have to deal with pet surrender program to minimize effects of surrender of pets. People are reticent to surrender their pets if they know they'll be euthanized -- adoption? long term care? Also part of the ethical aspect of the bill.

No-kill; it's not just for dogs and cats anymore. When is the last time you heard anyone express the slightest concern about how someone might feel seeing their snake, lizard, or fish be killed?



Several folks have asked what's going to happen now, and my guess is that various stakeholders are going to meet with the committee and the author and sponsors of the bill to revise its language. They'll try to get rid of some of the most problematic language and concepts, add in lots and lots of stuff about permitting, perhaps introduce a bit more flexibility into the process, increase the numbers of exempted/white listed pet species, and then try again.



Oh yay. More liveblogging for me. My cramped aching hands can't wait.

Comments

[andrea o.]

Was anyone from rescue groups testifying? I'd hate to image what would this "complex" permitting process mean for rescues and shelters who transport animals across state lines everyday?

[H. Houlahan]

USDA also pushed the introduction of multiflora rose in the Northeast.



County agents told farmers to plant it -- "it will make a living fence."



I curse every one of them in the most vile possible terms as I tackle each vicious foot of neglected fenceline -- commingled barbed wire, smooth wire, vines, brambles, and #@!^% multiflora rose! (It's in the middle of the pastures, too, but there I can go at it with Tractor-San first.)



I just ripped the thumb out of a pair of heavy-duty leather work gloves on a multiflora thorn.



I had to send Rosie into a multiflora thicket when the morning duck-herding went awry. There was no way I could roust those ducks myself. One came out with a ripped back that I had to treat.



Kudzu is actually a useful plant in moderation, and makes good pasture, and doesn't have thorns.



Multiflora is Satan's landscaping. Nothing native eats it. It won't keep your cows, goats, horses, or poultry in, but it will catch and hold your sheep forever.



I can't think of a single invasive species of ANIMAL that came through the pet trade -- OUTSIDE OF SEMITROPICAL AREAS.



IOW, California and Florida and Hawaii should look at what regulations they need to protect ecosystems and agriculture and human safety -- though I think the horse has been out of the barn a long time in Florida and Hawaii -- and the Feds shouldn't worry about boas naturalizing in Wyoming or cavies taking over Connecticut.

[Trudy]

Kudzu? They were really comparing non-native animals to kudzu, the vine that ate the South AND was introduced by the USDA, not by gardeners. So maybe if they want to pass a bill that would keep the USDA from introducing non-native invasive species . . . .

[straybaby]

Ferrets are also illegal in NYC. Not sure about the state, just remember Rudy's famous ferret rant on the radio . . .

[Kim]

I found it heartening that Mr. Brown of SC had caught enough grassroots hell about this bill he tore himself away from some seriously devastating wildfires to voice his opposition to it.

[Gina Spadafori]

tabkat, that would depend on where you live. For example (and most notably) ferrets are illegal in California.

[tabkat]

what list or regulations are there on owning, breeding, or adopting ferrets?

[straybaby]

But I don’t think even we were paranoid to image that it would end up “then they came for the hamsters”..



Comment by EmilyS — April 23, 2009 @ 11:09 am



yeah, I don't think anyone saw this one coming!

[JenniferJ]

Well, yes, ole Lightbulb was on my mind when I read your post... ;-)

[Rochelle Lesser]

You are a saint to do this for everyone. A pure saint. Have I talked you into lots more liveblogging, yet?

[Christie Keith]

LOL -- it's like childbirth. You forget.

[JenniferJ]

"LOL — it’s like childbirth. You forget."



When? :-D

[EmilyS]

well, the pit bull folks have always adapted the Niemoller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...) quote to "first they came for the pit bulls..." But I don't think even we were paranoid to image that it would end up "then they came for the hamsters"..



Thanks for the report, Christie

[Gina Spadafori]

[M]ost politicians are career politicians who went directly from school to the world of wheeling and dealing for political gain and advancement. They don’t come from anything else and have nothing to go back to if they can’t find some other political office.





Comment by JenniferJ — April 23, 2009



Case in point: The ousted Lloyd Levine, nanny-state ninny behind the California forced spay-neuter bill defeated last year. (But rearing its head again this term ... and we're watching.)

[JenniferJ]

lovin the disconnect. Not.



A friend made the observation that once upon a day many politicians were people who had been successful in life and went into public service out of a sense of civic obligaton. That meant they had a connection to the real world and a basic understanding of it.



Now, like it or not, most politicians are career politicians who went directly from school to the world of wheeling and dealing for political gain and advancement. They don't come from anything else and have nothing to go back to if they can't find some other political office.



What would these politicians know or care about hamsters, rainbow boas or cockatiels?



Far more non-native and invasive species make it here in the bilge of ships or in freight shipments as hitchhikers than are imported intentionally. Most non-natives cannot survive because they are non-native.



What might survive in Hawaii or Florida will not make it in Duluth! It's why states (I am talking to YOU Florida) can make their own laws to determine what is permissible but the Federal Gov needs to stay out of it. The states will screw up enough on their own anyway (come on California, you need $$$ so why not license all those ferrets that are already here?).

[suzanne]

For three summers I worked for the Forest Service doing nothing but documenting and combating invasive weeds in one part of one national forest. We had a tiny budget (enough to hire one person for three months - me) and that was only because the botany department at my office (one full time person) worked hard to get the funding.



It's infuriating that they would even CONSIDER a federal law to take away trade in pet animals when you can't even get funding for stopping the spread of critters and plants that are ALREADY a known problem.

[YesBiscuit!]

I want to know what's going to be done about the kudzu dammit! That stuff is EVIL and strangled our poor Weeping Willow to death (along with countless other trees). Can't say I've had any run-ins with hamsters but I'm all for going back in time to quash this kudzu idea.

[Original Lori]

My friends who live in NC told me that there were actual old recipe books out there for how to make kudzu palatable, from when it first began to take over down there.

[Pamela J. Betz-Baron]

This is nuts!