Jump to content


Photo

Ban on Exotic Animals in USA


  • Please log in to reply
242 replies to this topic

#13 Styx

Styx

    UberUBer

  • AdminiStyx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,347 posts
  • Location:Nowhere
  • Gender:Not Sure
  • Betta Count:1
  • Total Fish Count:1

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:06 PM

NOT MY MOURNING GECKOS!!!!! D:!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

#14 Julee

Julee

    Master of worlds.

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,530 posts
  • Location:Kent, CT
  • Real Name:Julee
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:18
  • Betta Count:Everchanging
  • Referred By:Petfish.net

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:08 PM

OK Ren, thanks for clearing that up.

I don't see why each state just shouldn't think of what species are potentially invasive and just ban them there...? Like I think that Fl has a ban on RES (dont quote me, not positive.) That's my opinion.

What about native animals that are kept as pets? Like anoles in FL? Or are those invasive (never done much research on anoles) ?

Edit- cresties seem like they might be at risk too, Styxie *hugs Rio and Harley* D:

Edited by shadowtheblacklab, 03 February 2009 - 04:09 PM.


#15 Kelso

Kelso

    Super-Delta

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 357 posts
  • Location:Virginia
  • Real Name:Kelsey
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:16
  • Betta Count:2
  • Total Fish Count:11

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:17 PM

QUOTE (Styx @ Feb 3 2009, 04:43 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Holy sh*t, I didn't think it would even get this far. I heard about the bills proposal on Kingsnake but nobody thought it would even get to this stage.

They're already wanting to ban all non-native boas and pythons in the US.


I didn't know we had native boas and pythons... coverlaugh1.gif

Seriously, though.. I'm agreeing with Shadow. If the bill has to be passed, it should be less extreme by letting the states decide what animals would be prohibited in their states.

#16 Alanna

Alanna

    Aran, my sexy new boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • Location:New Yorkachusetts
  • Real Name:Marisa
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:19
  • Betta Count:18.
  • Total Fish Count:18.
  • Referred By:Google
  • Statement:Ghost Shrimp are one of the only good male betta tankmates. REPEAT AFTER ME!

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:21 PM

Anoles if I recall correctly actually aren't native, or at least one or two species aren't. Can't remember. (checks wiki) Yup, only the green anole is native.

#17 Styx

Styx

    UberUBer

  • AdminiStyx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,347 posts
  • Location:Nowhere
  • Gender:Not Sure
  • Betta Count:1
  • Total Fish Count:1

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:41 PM

QUOTE (Kelso @ Feb 3 2009, 04:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
I didn't know we had native boas and pythons... coverlaugh1.gif


Exactly the point. However, there are some. Rubber and rosy boas, for example.

#18 katsrevenge

katsrevenge

    Queen Zombie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,260 posts
  • Location:Da Burgh, PA, USA
  • Real Name:Kat
  • Gender:Not Sure
  • Age:old
  • Betta Count:2
  • Total Fish Count:Some
  • Referred By:your mom
  • Statement:“The need to be right is the sign of a vulgar mind.” Camus

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:43 PM

Oy. This went far enough... bettas would be illegal. I can see some strains thriving in Hawaii or the deep South.

I dislike this bill. Intensely.

#19 Alanna

Alanna

    Aran, my sexy new boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • Location:New Yorkachusetts
  • Real Name:Marisa
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:19
  • Betta Count:18.
  • Total Fish Count:18.
  • Referred By:Google
  • Statement:Ghost Shrimp are one of the only good male betta tankmates. REPEAT AFTER ME!

Posted 03 February 2009 - 04:58 PM

RandomWiktor, I have to disagree with your interpretation.. Here's an excerpt with emphasis added.

QUOTE
SEC. 6. PROHIBITIONS AND PENALTIES.

(a) Prohibitions- Except as provided in this section or in section 7, it is unlawful for any

person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to--

(1) import into or export from the United States any nonnative wildlife species that is not

included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;


(2) transport between any State by any means whatsoever any nonnative wildlife species that

is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

(3) violate any term or condition of a permit issued under section 7;

(4) possess (except as provided in section 3(f)), sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to

purchase, or barter for or offer to barter for, any nonnative wildlife species that is

prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1);

(5) release into the wild any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being

imported under paragraph (1); or

(6) 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.


According to this excerpt (and people on the Anubias Design group) this is a blanket ban until approved - kinda like saying someone's guilty until proven innocent. It's a FAR more dangerous prospect, as the list of approved species would not be created until after the bill was passed.

Edited by Alanna, 03 February 2009 - 04:58 PM.


#20 Saucy

Saucy

    Spread the love

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,833 posts
  • Location:Chicagoland
  • Real Name:Alison
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:28
  • Betta Count:3
  • Total Fish Count:TONS
  • Referred By:BettaMomma!!
  • Statement:"The measure of a society can be how well its people treat its animals." ~ Gandhi

Posted 03 February 2009 - 05:01 PM

This is completely ridiculous. So we won't ban dogs because they're "all American pets," but we'll ban stuff that's a little unusual because it scares us and a couple idiots have messed it up for all of us. Maybe if we taught people that releasing non-native animals was ILLEGAL and we gave them better options for rehoming their animals, there wouldn't be such issues.

I'll be writing a letter soon.

Alanna - the issue is what idiot will be writing the list of "approved" species? And these lists will only come out AFTER they pass the bill. It's like signing a blank check. Never know what it's going to be written for.

#21 Alanna

Alanna

    Aran, my sexy new boy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,116 posts
  • Location:New Yorkachusetts
  • Real Name:Marisa
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:19
  • Betta Count:18.
  • Total Fish Count:18.
  • Referred By:Google
  • Statement:Ghost Shrimp are one of the only good male betta tankmates. REPEAT AFTER ME!

Posted 03 February 2009 - 05:05 PM

QUOTE (RandomWiktor @ Feb 3 2009, 05:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
Any animals that get LISTED would be prohibited;


^ I was disagreeing with that statement; my quoting of the bill was to clarify what the bill is proposing, as it's the complete opposite of what Wiktor said.


#22 Styx

Styx

    UberUBer

  • AdminiStyx
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,347 posts
  • Location:Nowhere
  • Gender:Not Sure
  • Betta Count:1
  • Total Fish Count:1

Posted 03 February 2009 - 05:10 PM

You know what's even more absurd? They are likely to ban my cresties because they may get loose and populate Florida and devistate the cricket population there, but I have a very strong feeling it'll do nothing against, say, people owning tigers where it's still legal because tigers can't possibly thrive anywhere in the US.

#23 Julee

Julee

    Master of worlds.

  • Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,530 posts
  • Location:Kent, CT
  • Real Name:Julee
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:18
  • Betta Count:Everchanging
  • Referred By:Petfish.net

Posted 03 February 2009 - 05:23 PM

Oi, and I bet a tiger could survive somewhere in the US! Feral dogs - they aren't native, but they could survive. Feral cats, ect. in theory, should be banned as well then. I'm pretty sure that many of our pets could survive, and therefore be invasive (unaltered, that is).

People should just leave things be, and educate the public >_>

#24 Saucy

Saucy

    Spread the love

  • Super Moderator
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,833 posts
  • Location:Chicagoland
  • Real Name:Alison
  • Gender:Female
  • Age:28
  • Betta Count:3
  • Total Fish Count:TONS
  • Referred By:BettaMomma!!
  • Statement:"The measure of a society can be how well its people treat its animals." ~ Gandhi

Posted 03 February 2009 - 05:24 PM

No, it's really not... here's a quote FROM Section 4, which you're referencing in your reference... So it's a slight wording issue... that doesn't mean they won't stop import of stuff that isn't listed. Try and prove something isn't the species that is prohibited... good luck.

QUOTE
SEC. 4. LIST OF APPROVED SPECIES.
(a) Requirement To Issue List of Approved Species-
(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation into the United States.
(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN SPECIES- The Secretary shall not include in the list--
(A) any species included in the list of prohibited species under section 5; or
(B) any species, the importation of which is prohibited by any other Federal law or regulation of the United States due to the likelihood of causing harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health.
(3) REVISION- The Secretary may revise the list issued under this section based on available scientific and commercial information.







0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq