Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (U.S. House of Rep.)

Jennewt,

There seems to be a typo in H.R. 6311 that you posted. They left out the conjunction "or" in Sec.6(a)(3). It should read .... or any descendants of such a species.

Sounds like a loop hole to me.
 
I dont totally understand this. Is it ilegal to own non-native herps? Im not giving up my buddies. They are family. Or is just a ban on shipping them? Is it going to be ilegal to sell, trade, buy them? This sounds very stupid!:mad:
 
Good questions, AJ. From what I can read, some non-native species would be approved for import, some will be banned. There's no indication of how many species would end up on the banned list; it could be just a few, or it could be every herp. (All reptiles and amhibians can carry parasites and diseases, so I can see the possibility for this law to ban them all.) There is nothing in this law that seems to prohibit owning or breeding non-native species that are already here. But it would be hard to trade or sell any of them legally if they become non-mailable.
 
I would recommend taking a close look at Section 3(f) which states: "this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to posses an individual animal of a species even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under regulations issued under this Act. That means one individual animal per person.

Furthermore, Section 6(a)(6) states: "No person shall-- knowingly sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase, barter or offer to barter for, release, or breed any nonnative wildlife species referred to in section 3(f)."

So once a species is on the banned list you are only allowed one animal that is already in the country and you can not propogate them.
 
So what are we sopposed to do if we cant find homes for all of them and have extra of one species? Are we sopposed to kill them? And if we cant breed them, eventually all of the non-native species in private collections will go extinct in the USA, and if there arent good enough collections in the other countries of the world, then most likely the whole species will go extinct because most herps, especially newts and sals are going extinct in the wild and the captive bred populations are all that is left. And really, not too many people get sick and dye because of herps. Ban ciggerattes and/or alchohol if you want to save lives. And I can see that some non-native species can really damage the native species but just put restrictions, not bannings. I mean, lets say that burmese pythons are getting lose in Florida and recking havec. If I were in charge I would make people buy permits and only release a few permits, and if it was the only option ban them in Florida, but not the whole United States. I think that my state WI shouldnt have any restrictions really though because non-native species couldnt make it here. I think that each state having its own set of rules/regulations is a very good solution rather than banning all species. What does everyone else think? We must do something.
 
caudatadude28 said:
I think that my state WI shouldnt have any restrictions really though because non-native species couldnt make it here.
Click to expand...

Are you sure about that? I'm sure some species of European and Asian caudates would do just fine in our climate.

caudatadude28 said:
And if we cant breed them, eventually all of the non-native species in private collections will go extinct in the USA.
Click to expand...

The number of people with collections of caudates in the US is low compared to the number of people keeping reptiles. There is a fair number of people keeping and breeding a lot of species in the United States who don't share information on the internet. I can assure you that if caudates were illegal, there would be a huge group of hobbiests packing up their collections and running for the hills (I know I would!).
Think about it like this: Just because it's illegal to drive over 55 miles per hour when the sign says so doesn't mean everyone on the road obeys it;) People are going to do what they want.

caudatadude28 said:
Ban ciggerattes and/or alchohol if you want to save lives.
Click to expand...
This would seem like a good idea...at first. Alcohol was banned for a while and look what happened. People started gangs to smuggle it into the country any way they could, and others brewed it from home and made it stronger. If keeping newts is banned people will still get them here.


I keep newts and nobody died!

Jake
 
caudatadude28 said:
If I were in charge I would make people buy permits and only release a few permits, and if it was the only option ban them in Florida, but not the whole United States
Click to expand...

I liken this to guns: If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns. If you make people buy permits to keep animals, then you're deluding yourself into thinking that people without permits won't keep animals. When, in fact, it's the people who DON'T abide by the permits you have to worry about.

caudatadude28 said:
I think that my state WI shouldnt have any restrictions really though because non-native species couldnt make it here.
Click to expand...

Like... purple loosestrife? Phragmites? Pheasants? Starlings? Chinese Chestnut? Gypsy moth? I could go on and on... The point is that no where is impervious to invasive species. Granted, caudate natural history does not lend itself easily to 'infestation' levels, but if you released amphiuma or tiger salamanders into a pond where a rare, small species bred (just for argument's sake, example: Ambystoma texanum, which is endangered in Michigan), those larger sals would happily predate the smaller.
 
Jake said:
I can assure you that if caudates were illegal, there would be a huge group of hobbiests packing up their collections and running for the hills (I know I would!).
Click to expand...
We in no way endorse such behaviour but in Australia foreign amphibians are illegal (other than the axolotl) and there are at least a few individuals who keep and breed newts there. If the Aussies can't stamp it out completely then the US certainly wouldn't be able to, so to my mind a blanket ban does not make sense.

Kaysie said:
I liken this to guns: If you outlaw guns, then only the outlaws will have guns.
Click to expand...
Ever live in a country where guns are very tightly regulated? No? Please stick to newts and salamanders because ignorance like that can be rather offensive.
 
John said:
We in no way endorse such behaviour but in Australia foreign amphibians are illegal (other than the axolotl) and there are at least a few individuals who keep and breed newts there. If the Aussies can't stamp it out completely then the US certainly wouldn't be able to, so to my mind a blanket ban does not make sense.
Click to expand...

This is a major flaw in the heart of the proposed legislation. With a goal of achieving "To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species’ health, and for other purposes." It very likely would create an uncontrolled underground industry for caudates and other animals, which would be even harder to track and regulate as needed.

At its core I think this law is a fascinating issue to debate. I tend to fall on the side, which would believe that every acorn falls hoping that a squirrel will carry it off to an open field and be forgotten. There it can grow and prosper, forever altering and shaping the environment around it, and such is the nature of nature. Though living in this heavily introduced state of CA with it's eucalyptus, signal crayfish, wild pigs, ice plant, european garden snails, barred tigers, non-native savannah apes (like myself), etc.... I do wonder what this place was like a few hundred years ago.
 
My father taught Biological Statistics at the University of Illinios. He once said to me, "The problem with analogies is that they are all false."

Perhaps instead of confusing the issue(s) with related thoughts we should concentrate on arguements against (or for) HR 6311.

I would argue to my representatives:

1) This federal Act is too broad and such regulations should be left to the States.

Next ..... Any one else?

2) ???
 
Regarding the gun thing, that article you linked was written by someone who no one could call unbiased (click her name and read). I don't want to push this so I'll leave it alone now.
 
I wonder if it is possible to chemically sterilize nonnative wildlife before shipment? They do it with some tropical fish (like fansy guppies) that the foreign breeders don't want us to propagate.

If so, bait and pet animals (fish, crayfish, salamanders) could be sterilized to prevent possible breeding of escaped or released individuals.

Arguement 2) HR 6311 it is too broad and doesn't allow for the import or possession of more than one sterile animal or plant.

3) anyone?
 
Well, I hope all of you interested in this thread are also writing your politicians. I think I'm going to write them all again.

michael said:
I'm joining PIJAC . I think they can work against over legislation in the amphibian hobby better than I can.
http://www.pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=1
Click to expand...

I read a little about them. Do you think they do enough for amphibians/caudates?

Jennewt said:
There's no indication of how many species would end up on the banned list; it could be just a few, or it could be every herp.
Click to expand...

When I think of the list of salamanders/newts banned in WA, I fear it could be bad.
 
They missed more than they tagged I think, and their naming is out of date for several species. Also, they're using at least one of of my photos without notifying me (though it's not commercial so I suppose that's alright).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
General chit-chat
Help Users
  • No one is chatting at the moment.
    sera: @Clareclare, +2
    Back
    Top