HR669 Bill "Dead"

I believe that you could write the bill technically if you could get 2 senators or reps to endorse it.... which in most cases you could not :) I think most folks in that line of work like to put things in their own words. Bills are even written by congress and not voted on if only one person will sponser it IIRC. It's been a few years since civics class.

Jay-
Botanists are up in arms that this bill is ignoring their research and the past and potential future costs of invasive flora. The amount of money used to combat hyacinth alone begs that this bill is inadequate to deal with the scope of invasive species... but plants don't make the news very much. I would argue that insects are covered in this bill. I hope that microbes are covered by some law to bring them into the country.
 
Jeremy,

The way I read it, insects are not covered by the bill because there is a section that states that the bill does not cover any animals that are already being regulated by another federal agency (so they won't make enemies by stepping on the toes of other feds). In that case then, insects would still be covered by USDA-APHIS. They are the ones who recently determined that giant millipedes pose a risk, so you don't see them in pet stores any longer....

Jay
 
You know I could not even imagine what would happen if that thing had gone threw. Can you imagine a billion dollar a year industry like ours gone. That would have been the worst thing for this country. I know it would have hurt me dearly. How did this bill even get started in the first place? What was there primary goal if this went threw?
 
birch03,

While the pet business is substantial, so is the cost of dealing with invasive species. The reason that pets are being targeted this time around is probably due to the two high profile examples: Burmese pythons in S. Florida and lionfish in the Atlantic.

This bill has just emerged from its first committee - it is by no means "dead". The only questions really are what form will it return in, and can the pet industry work with it then?


Jay
 
I would like to think that the strong show of support for the pet industry would show enough strength that they are willing to do some consensus seeking. There is need for reform of invasive species. I have hope still that a reasonable compromise can be found.

I think the recent Ape attack of the.... I am thinking it was a chimpanzee that went nutso despite being licensed; also was a contributor to this bill having more support this year. This is not the first time a bill like this has been introduced, it has been much more salient.
 
I can see where that recent ape attack may have brought this about a lil faster. I herd about the lion fishes but never anything about the pythons. But look at snakeheads and plants come to think of it I can thing of 3 other species in my area that were origionally pets and now are wild and causing problems in my local area. I just wish people when they got sick of there pets just to find a new home for them instead of letting them loose into the wild.
 
I find invasive plants to be the bigger issue with this bill. We have some legislation here about stores not being allowed to sell certain species of plants/trees anymore becuase they are invasive/non-native. Species like, honeysuckle, multiflora rose, phragmites, japanese knotweed, and spotted napweed are serious problem plants and should never be sold in the US.

At its core the bill has some good ideas, but the whole two lists idea is very confusing and difficult to manage. If there was a quick prosses of determining species would make the bill a lot better.
 
I'm not convinced that the chimpanzee attack helped this bill along. The bill is meant to prevent any more cases where people release enough individuals of a given non-native species inside the US that they form a breeding population and start muscling out native species. If HR669 put chimpanzees on the "black list", the reasoning would be that escaped chimps could establish a breeding colony, not that upset chimpanzees are dangerous to nearby humans.

HR669 is not meant to ensure that pets have reasonable and appropriate living conditions. Neither is CITES. If someone wants to outlaw goldfish bowls, dressing monkeys up in human clothes and treating them like children, putting tangs in 10 gallon aquaria, and feeding rabbits all the iceburg lettuce they can eat, then that will require a separate law.
 
Last edited:
While this is good news, I think most people did not really consider this bill to have any real potential chance of passage. Even the most environmentally conscious MC can see that banning the importation of thousands of species of fish, coral and inverts that can only survive in salt water is a little silly. I don't think any of them want to explain why they want to put thousands of hard working Americans involved in the exotic pet trade out of work in the middle of the worst recession in decades ;)
 
<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14977468#post14977468 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by KarlBob
I'm not convinced that the chimpanzee attack helped this bill along. The bill is meant to prevent any more cases where people release enough individuals of a given non-native species inside the US that they form a breeding population and start muscling out native species. If HR669 put chimpanzees on the "black list", the reasoning would be that escaped chimps could establish a breeding colony, not that upset chimpanzees are dangerous to nearby humans.


Chimpanzee's should probably be included... Haven't you seen Planet of the Apes?!?! :p
 
Back
Top