casademurphy
New member
Got this email from Chris Brightwell this morning and thought I would share.
**************************
Hello All,
Last week I had sent an e-mail to many of you outlining the piece of legislation that a congressional subcommittee is proposing; part of the end result is that the possession/sale/trade/breeding of all non-native species of fish in the U.S. would be outlawed. I have had time to compose a letter, which I have sent to my congressman; I will be sending copies to NPR, our local news media, and the President, and though not everyone may read what is written, I’m optimistic that at least some of them will listen. I urge you to either send a copy of the letter, presented below, to your congressional representatives and your personal and professional contacts, or better yet to compose a letter of your own and send it out as soon as possible, as the hearing on this resolution takes place on 4/23.
If you need additional information on this legislation, please go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billtype=H.R.&billnumb=669&congress=111 and read the body of the text. Contacting your congressional representative is a simple process that can be done by entering your zip code in the window.
If the body of my message in some way bothers you, please accept my apologies.
I am writing with regards to H.R. 669, legislation which has been drafted to ban the ownership of non-native species (which includes all animals other than farm livestock (including horses), dogs, cats, and goldfish); it will put every independent pet retailer in America out of business while the government undertakes a lengthy approval process for animals that have been maintained in this country without a single negative incident for decades. Banned species would include all tropical fishes, birds, small mammals, reptiles, and a host of other animals maintained as pets; these animals are basically guilty until proven innocent under this legislation. H.R. 669 will, if passed, have a devastating impact, both emotionally and professionally, on millions of people (including children), jobs, and businesses around the world, in addition to the loss of ability for the public and private sectors to further the general understanding of the biology and ecology of the restricted species (this resource is far greater than government funding would ever permit). I will briefly address these issues point by point to support my case that this legislation must not be allowed to pass as it is currently written. I implore you to read this document in its entirety because this legislation has a far-reaching impact that cannot be summarized in two or three sentences.
On an emotional level, the husbandry of wild animals in captivity is a means of comfort (providing psychological and physical benefits), intellectual stimulation, connection with the outside world, and perhaps even a mild form of escapism from the daily lives of millions of people across this country. People have such a deep connection with wildlife that they go to extremes in learning about the animals in their care, providing for their every need, and enjoying the companionship that the animal provides. Through these experiences, like-minded individuals meet and form relationships that are mentally stimulating, often times in which the understanding of the captive care requirements of the animal(s) in question are improved upon. A true devotion to the animals in their care is common among these people; they will often spend significantly more time and money caring for their charges than they spend on their own health care. One needs only to look at the annual sales in the pet industry as it pertains to the animals that would fall under this legislation; the aquatics industry alone is worth billions of dollars in annual revenue. This is to say nothing of the industries that cater to the care of birds, reptiles and amphibians, and small mammals. Further evidence is that the pet industry as a whole typically remains strong during times of economic turmoil for the sheer fact that people withdraw during these periods and indulge in pastimes that are closer to home, safer than investing, and which improve their mental well-being. The current state of the global economy is the worst it has been in decades, yet the pet industry remains essentially stable and many businesses are expanding.
The public and private sectors have far greater resources in terms of time and money to increase the understanding of the global environment and the biological, chemical, and physical requirements of the species that are currently maintained in captivity than government- or university-funded studies could hope to match; the reason for this is simply that people are eager and willing to spend their own resources on the care of animals, and would likely prefer to do so rather than take part in funding a wider study because they know how their resources are being used. It is no exaggeration to state that there are individuals in this country that know as much, if not more, about the various ecological requirements of a given species than even the most well-versed, degreed professionals. It is passion and curiosity which drives these individuals to understand as much as possible about the species in question. The inability for this exploration to continue will have a drastic negative impact on the current progress that is being made, which would otherwise quite probably help to save species from extinction at the hands of such problems as deforestation. Additionally, much of the interest of maintaining animals in captivity stems from interest of children; invaluable lessons learned and questions left to ponder often drive children into the natural sciences and mathematics fields, areas which this country is in desperate need of in terms of qualified teachers and professionals. These points are particularly true of the aquatics industry, in which the highest percentage of pet-owning homes with children is that which owns an aquarium. A tremendous resource will be lost. These reasons alone should be sufficient to dispel any notion that H.R. 669 could be of benefit as it is currently proposed. The monetary impact that this legislation would present, however, may be even more compelling given the current state of the US economy.
A blanket ban on non-native species would drastically impact the US economy, as well as economies in Europe, Asia, and developing nations in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans that are reliant upon US-based sales in the pet industry to continue to operate, and even to survive. In 2007, over 14.5-million households reported ownership of fish, over 6.4-million households reported ownership of birds, over 6-million households reported ownership of small mammals, and over 4.8-million households reported ownership of reptiles. The current trend indicates that the total money spent annually on pets by US consumers will be in the realm of $50-billion by 2010; a significant percentage of this is contributed by the afore-mentioned households due to greater care requirements relative to those of dogs and cats. If non-native species are banned on the whole, the impact would be felt by the following types of businesses:
Independent pet retailers
Pet retail “superstoresâ€Â
Collectors and breeders of freshwater and marine fishes, which are particularly important to the CA and FL economies, as well as to thousands of people living in underdeveloped island nations
Breeders of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals
Distributors of pet products
Manufacturers of pet products
Raw materials suppliers
Freight transportation companies
Companies and pet-sitters that perform installation and maintenance of aquaria and bird cages
Publishing companies that are heavily-involved with the pet industry
Small-animal and Avian veterinarians
Most of these companies, even the ones that are currently financially-stable due to sound business practices, would fail within the first few weeks or months of the legislation being passed. The beginning of the process will be the demise of the independent pet retailers; they fill a niche that larger national retailers such as PetCo, PetSmart, and even Wal-Mart and other stores carrying pet products cannot fill on the basis that they lack the experienced personnel to suitably inform customers about specialty animals. This being the case, many independent pet retailers focus on the sale of aquatics, birds, reptiles, small mammals, and the associated husbandry items; these businesses cannot compete with pet superstores on dry goods sales alone, and they will resultantly fail. Pet superstores will, by the way, be impacted because ~50% of money that is spent in the pet industry appears to funnel through them, and while savvy consumers may not be purchasing the bulk of their livestock from these stores, they are, as previously mentioned, certainly purchasing dry goods (e.g. aquariums, bird cages, assorted support equipment, etc.) from them. Resultantly, thousands of people would lose their jobs, the government would lose the taxes that these businesses pay, and a large percentage of the unemployed individuals would need to become trained in something unrelated to the pet industry in order to survive and find future employment. In the aquatics industry alone, several of the major retailers, manufacturers, and distributors are located in CA, NY, FL, and PA; the demise of these companies will hit those state’s budgets very hard. Where is the money going to come from to absorb this shock?
Speaking as a marine scientist and an authority on fish physiology and behavior, a published author, an aquarium hobbyist of nearly 30 years, and the owner of a manufacturing company, it makes little sense to pose a blanket ban on all non-native species and then compile a list of approved species at some later point in time, as H.R. 669 proposes; as discussed, the impact of this on the public would be devastating, and the impact on the private sector, and therefore the economy, would be swift and lethal. It would be far simpler to create a list of species that have been documented to actually have had some sort of bona fide negative impact on the environment and/or human health and place restrictions on ownership, trade, etc. As H.R. 669 stands, all non-native species would be condemned, the lives of tens of millions of Americans and associated foreigners would be negatively-impacted, a $50-billion annual industry would be decimated, and unemployment would rise. As a business owner, I have to make the proper decisions to enable my company to survive these times of economic uncertainty and continue to improve sales, which generates income for the government and creates jobs in PA. To have all of this, including the points that I have made throughout this document, felled by a piece of legislation based on problems that might be experienced with invasive species in specific areas of the country (or US-owned territories, as the case may be with this H.R.), and that should, if anything, be re-thought and taken to each state for individual approval, is utterly maddening. I am hopeful that similar comments will be sent to the various congressional representatives throughout the country from the individuals, learning institutions, and businesses that H.R. 669 will impact. I implore you to express your concerns to the congressional sub-committee responsible for this piece of legislation, and to urge them to re-think their approach. I sincerely appreciate your time and understanding.
I welcome your comments, and again implore you to take action now.
Kindest regards,
Chris Brightwell
**************************
Hello All,
Last week I had sent an e-mail to many of you outlining the piece of legislation that a congressional subcommittee is proposing; part of the end result is that the possession/sale/trade/breeding of all non-native species of fish in the U.S. would be outlawed. I have had time to compose a letter, which I have sent to my congressman; I will be sending copies to NPR, our local news media, and the President, and though not everyone may read what is written, I’m optimistic that at least some of them will listen. I urge you to either send a copy of the letter, presented below, to your congressional representatives and your personal and professional contacts, or better yet to compose a letter of your own and send it out as soon as possible, as the hearing on this resolution takes place on 4/23.
If you need additional information on this legislation, please go to http://www.congress.org/congressorg/issues/bills/?billtype=H.R.&billnumb=669&congress=111 and read the body of the text. Contacting your congressional representative is a simple process that can be done by entering your zip code in the window.
If the body of my message in some way bothers you, please accept my apologies.
I am writing with regards to H.R. 669, legislation which has been drafted to ban the ownership of non-native species (which includes all animals other than farm livestock (including horses), dogs, cats, and goldfish); it will put every independent pet retailer in America out of business while the government undertakes a lengthy approval process for animals that have been maintained in this country without a single negative incident for decades. Banned species would include all tropical fishes, birds, small mammals, reptiles, and a host of other animals maintained as pets; these animals are basically guilty until proven innocent under this legislation. H.R. 669 will, if passed, have a devastating impact, both emotionally and professionally, on millions of people (including children), jobs, and businesses around the world, in addition to the loss of ability for the public and private sectors to further the general understanding of the biology and ecology of the restricted species (this resource is far greater than government funding would ever permit). I will briefly address these issues point by point to support my case that this legislation must not be allowed to pass as it is currently written. I implore you to read this document in its entirety because this legislation has a far-reaching impact that cannot be summarized in two or three sentences.
On an emotional level, the husbandry of wild animals in captivity is a means of comfort (providing psychological and physical benefits), intellectual stimulation, connection with the outside world, and perhaps even a mild form of escapism from the daily lives of millions of people across this country. People have such a deep connection with wildlife that they go to extremes in learning about the animals in their care, providing for their every need, and enjoying the companionship that the animal provides. Through these experiences, like-minded individuals meet and form relationships that are mentally stimulating, often times in which the understanding of the captive care requirements of the animal(s) in question are improved upon. A true devotion to the animals in their care is common among these people; they will often spend significantly more time and money caring for their charges than they spend on their own health care. One needs only to look at the annual sales in the pet industry as it pertains to the animals that would fall under this legislation; the aquatics industry alone is worth billions of dollars in annual revenue. This is to say nothing of the industries that cater to the care of birds, reptiles and amphibians, and small mammals. Further evidence is that the pet industry as a whole typically remains strong during times of economic turmoil for the sheer fact that people withdraw during these periods and indulge in pastimes that are closer to home, safer than investing, and which improve their mental well-being. The current state of the global economy is the worst it has been in decades, yet the pet industry remains essentially stable and many businesses are expanding.
The public and private sectors have far greater resources in terms of time and money to increase the understanding of the global environment and the biological, chemical, and physical requirements of the species that are currently maintained in captivity than government- or university-funded studies could hope to match; the reason for this is simply that people are eager and willing to spend their own resources on the care of animals, and would likely prefer to do so rather than take part in funding a wider study because they know how their resources are being used. It is no exaggeration to state that there are individuals in this country that know as much, if not more, about the various ecological requirements of a given species than even the most well-versed, degreed professionals. It is passion and curiosity which drives these individuals to understand as much as possible about the species in question. The inability for this exploration to continue will have a drastic negative impact on the current progress that is being made, which would otherwise quite probably help to save species from extinction at the hands of such problems as deforestation. Additionally, much of the interest of maintaining animals in captivity stems from interest of children; invaluable lessons learned and questions left to ponder often drive children into the natural sciences and mathematics fields, areas which this country is in desperate need of in terms of qualified teachers and professionals. These points are particularly true of the aquatics industry, in which the highest percentage of pet-owning homes with children is that which owns an aquarium. A tremendous resource will be lost. These reasons alone should be sufficient to dispel any notion that H.R. 669 could be of benefit as it is currently proposed. The monetary impact that this legislation would present, however, may be even more compelling given the current state of the US economy.
A blanket ban on non-native species would drastically impact the US economy, as well as economies in Europe, Asia, and developing nations in the Atlantic, Pacific, and Indian Oceans that are reliant upon US-based sales in the pet industry to continue to operate, and even to survive. In 2007, over 14.5-million households reported ownership of fish, over 6.4-million households reported ownership of birds, over 6-million households reported ownership of small mammals, and over 4.8-million households reported ownership of reptiles. The current trend indicates that the total money spent annually on pets by US consumers will be in the realm of $50-billion by 2010; a significant percentage of this is contributed by the afore-mentioned households due to greater care requirements relative to those of dogs and cats. If non-native species are banned on the whole, the impact would be felt by the following types of businesses:
Independent pet retailers
Pet retail “superstoresâ€Â
Collectors and breeders of freshwater and marine fishes, which are particularly important to the CA and FL economies, as well as to thousands of people living in underdeveloped island nations
Breeders of birds, reptiles, amphibians, and small mammals
Distributors of pet products
Manufacturers of pet products
Raw materials suppliers
Freight transportation companies
Companies and pet-sitters that perform installation and maintenance of aquaria and bird cages
Publishing companies that are heavily-involved with the pet industry
Small-animal and Avian veterinarians
Most of these companies, even the ones that are currently financially-stable due to sound business practices, would fail within the first few weeks or months of the legislation being passed. The beginning of the process will be the demise of the independent pet retailers; they fill a niche that larger national retailers such as PetCo, PetSmart, and even Wal-Mart and other stores carrying pet products cannot fill on the basis that they lack the experienced personnel to suitably inform customers about specialty animals. This being the case, many independent pet retailers focus on the sale of aquatics, birds, reptiles, small mammals, and the associated husbandry items; these businesses cannot compete with pet superstores on dry goods sales alone, and they will resultantly fail. Pet superstores will, by the way, be impacted because ~50% of money that is spent in the pet industry appears to funnel through them, and while savvy consumers may not be purchasing the bulk of their livestock from these stores, they are, as previously mentioned, certainly purchasing dry goods (e.g. aquariums, bird cages, assorted support equipment, etc.) from them. Resultantly, thousands of people would lose their jobs, the government would lose the taxes that these businesses pay, and a large percentage of the unemployed individuals would need to become trained in something unrelated to the pet industry in order to survive and find future employment. In the aquatics industry alone, several of the major retailers, manufacturers, and distributors are located in CA, NY, FL, and PA; the demise of these companies will hit those state’s budgets very hard. Where is the money going to come from to absorb this shock?
Speaking as a marine scientist and an authority on fish physiology and behavior, a published author, an aquarium hobbyist of nearly 30 years, and the owner of a manufacturing company, it makes little sense to pose a blanket ban on all non-native species and then compile a list of approved species at some later point in time, as H.R. 669 proposes; as discussed, the impact of this on the public would be devastating, and the impact on the private sector, and therefore the economy, would be swift and lethal. It would be far simpler to create a list of species that have been documented to actually have had some sort of bona fide negative impact on the environment and/or human health and place restrictions on ownership, trade, etc. As H.R. 669 stands, all non-native species would be condemned, the lives of tens of millions of Americans and associated foreigners would be negatively-impacted, a $50-billion annual industry would be decimated, and unemployment would rise. As a business owner, I have to make the proper decisions to enable my company to survive these times of economic uncertainty and continue to improve sales, which generates income for the government and creates jobs in PA. To have all of this, including the points that I have made throughout this document, felled by a piece of legislation based on problems that might be experienced with invasive species in specific areas of the country (or US-owned territories, as the case may be with this H.R.), and that should, if anything, be re-thought and taken to each state for individual approval, is utterly maddening. I am hopeful that similar comments will be sent to the various congressional representatives throughout the country from the individuals, learning institutions, and businesses that H.R. 669 will impact. I implore you to express your concerns to the congressional sub-committee responsible for this piece of legislation, and to urge them to re-think their approach. I sincerely appreciate your time and understanding.
I welcome your comments, and again implore you to take action now.
Kindest regards,
Chris Brightwell
