H.R. 5864 - Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act of 2012

[StudentoReptile]

If anyone remembers H.R. 669 back in 2008, this looks like "Round 2" of that.

News Article: U.S. Rep. Louise Slaughter Introduces Bill To Prevent The Import Of Harmful Non-Native Animals And Diseases - MarketWatch (http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-rep-louise-slaughter-introduces-bill-to-prevent-the-import-of-harmful-non-native-animals-and-diseases-2012-05-31)

Actual Text (both text and PDF): H.R.*5864* (ih) - Invasive Fish and Wildlife Prevention Act of 2012 (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5864ih)
-----

Summary: To establish an improved regulatory process for injurious wildlife to prevent the introduction and establishment in the United States of nonnative wildlife and wild animal pathogens and parasites that are likely to cause harm.

Pretty broad if you ask me. Interested to see how far it goes.

[StudentoReptile]

(9) Nonnative wildlife taxon.--
(A) In general.--The term ``nonnative wildlife
taxon'' means any family, genus, species, or subspecies
of live animal that is not native to the United States,
regardless of whether the animal was born or raised in
captivity.
(B) Inclusions.--The term ``nonnative wildlife
taxon'' includes any viable egg, sperm, gamete, or
other reproductive material or offspring of an animal
of a family, genus, species, or subspecies described in
subparagraph (A).
(C) Exclusions.--The term ``nonnative wildlife
taxon'' does not include--
(i) any taxon that is--
(I) specifically defined or
regulated as a plant pest or approved
for biological control purposes under
the Plant Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 7701
et seq.); or
(II) defined or regulated as a
threat to livestock or poultry under
the Animal Health Protection Act (7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.); or
(ii) any common and clearly domesticated
species or subspecies, including--
(I) cat (Felis catus);
(II) cattle or oxen (Bos taurus);
(III) chicken (Gallus gallus
domesticus);
(IV) common canary (Serinus canaria
domesticus);
(V) dog (Canis lupus familiaris);
(VI) donkey or *** (Equus asinus);
(VII) domesticated members of the
family Anatidae (geese);
(VIII) duck (domesticated Anas
spp.);
(IX) domesticated ferret (Mustela
furo);
(X) gerbil (Meriones unguiculatus);
(XI) goat (Capra aegagrus hircus);
(XII) guinea pig or Cavy (Cavia
porcellus);
(XIII) goldfish (Carassius auratus
auratus);
(XIV) domesticated hamsters
(Cricetulus griseus, Mesocricetus
auratus, Phodopus campbelli, Phodopus
sungorus, and Phodopus roborovskii);
(XV) horse (Equus caballus);
(XVI) llama (Lama glama);
(XVII) mule or hinny (Equus
caballus x E. asinus);
(XVIII) pig or hog (Sus scrofa
domestica);
(XIX) domesticated varieties of
rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus);
(XX) sheep (Ovis aries); or
(XXI) any other species or
subspecies that the Service determines
to be common and clearly domesticated.


Also interesting....no reptiles, amphibians, or tropical fish on the exclusion list. Agenda much?

[StudentoReptile]

SEC. 6. EMERGENCY TEMPORARY DESIGNATION.

(a) In General.--If the Service determines an emergency exists
because an unregulated nonnative wildlife taxon poses an imminent
threat of harm to individuals in or wildlife of the United States, or
the economy or environment of the United States, the Service may
immediately temporarily designate the nonnative wildlife taxon as
Injurious I in accordance with section 5(a)(1)(A)(i).
(b) Notice of Temporary Designation.--The Service shall promptly--
(1) publish in the Federal Register notice of each
temporary designation under this subsection; and
(2) make the basis for the designation available on a
publicly available Federal Internet site and through other
appropriate means.
(c) Determination.--Not later than 1 year after temporarily
designating a nonnative wildlife taxon using the emergency authority
under this section, the Service shall--
(1) make a final determination regarding whether the taxon
should be further regulated under either of clause (i) or (ii)
of section 5(a)(1)(A);
(2) publish notice of that final determination in the
Federal Register; and
(3) make the basis for the determination available on a
publicly available Federal Internet site.
(d) Limitation on Procedures.--The procedures under sections 4 and
5 of this Act and section 553 of title 5, United States Code, shall not
apply to temporary designations under this section.
(e) State Requests.--If the Governor of a State requests a
temporary emergency designation under this section, the Service shall
respond promptly with a written determination on the request.


Not really a fan of that, either.

SEC. 8. INJURIOUS WILDLIFE DETERMINATIONS.

(a) In General.--Immediately upon the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary shall make more rapid determinations on proposals
for regulation of wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States
Code.
(b) Streamlining of Determinations.--In carrying out subsection (a)
and other provisions of this Act, the Secretary--
(1) shall use the best available scientific risk screening
systems or predictive models that apply to the taxon under
consideration;
(2) shall forego time-consuming optional administrative
steps, unless the Secretary determines the steps to be
essential; and
(3) notwithstanding chapter 6, and section 804, of title 5,
United States Code, may forego economic impact analyses.

....or that.

[StudentoReptile]

SEC. 11. PROHIBITIONS.

~~~~~~~~~~
(1) In general.--Except as provided in paragraph (2), an
individual animal that was lawfully owned prior to the taxa to
which the animal belongs being regulated by the Service under
this Act as Injurious II may be transported interstate without
a permit by any person for noncommercial purposes only.
(2) Exception.--The exemption under paragraph (1) does not
apply to an animal of any taxa designated by the Service as
Injurious I.

Good to know! I guess...:sad:

[StudentoReptile]

Now, realistically, this bill will not pass in its current form. H.R. 669 has plenty of opposition from PIJAC, USARK and the pet industry in general. But I did post this to show everyone that these "dumbs laws" aren't going to quit.

Look at the difference between HR 669 and this one. H.R. 669 included ALL non-natives. This one made the point to exempt the "popular/domesticated" animals like livestock, dogs, cats, hamsters, etc. Look at what they left off that exemption list: exotic birds (parakeets, parrots, etc.), reptiles, amphibians, invertebrates, and tropical fish.

I would start typing out some letters and get ready to do what you need to do to fight this one.

[mykee]

There is a reason Wayne titled this thread 'The one and ONLY python BAN thread"....
Emphasis on ONLY.
http://www.ssnakess.com/forums/giant-python-discussion/89933-one-only-python-ban-thread.html

[StudentoReptile]

There is a reason Wayne titled this thread 'The one and ONLY python BAN thread"....
Emphasis on ONLY.
http://www.ssnakess.com/forums/giant-python-discussion/89933-one-only-python-ban-thread.html

I can read. Please do not insult my intelligence. I understand acutely that that thread is regarding the federal rule listing of 4 constrictor snakes on the Lacey Act.

H.R. 5864 is not a "python ban" and an entirely different piece of legislation. This involves all reptiles (and all exotics, actually)...not just big snakes.

I didn't see you complaining when someone posted a thread about the SB 310 bill in Ohio. How is this any different?

[Terranaut]

There is a reason Wayne titled this thread 'The one and ONLY python BAN thread"....
Emphasis on ONLY.
http://www.ssnakess.com/forums/giant-python-discussion/89933-one-only-python-ban-thread.html

I read the thread and feel this to be an entirely different bill. Not just snakes but all exotic pets would fall under the descriptions given. This would be ridiculous if passed. Similar agendas but more targets.
Hope Canada doesn't start this crap or even ball pythons could become illegal :wacky:

[mykee]

Double post.

[mykee]

Pretty unlikely. I feel Canadians are more responsible exotic keepers.
Ooops, flame away...

[StudentoReptile]

Pretty unlikely. I feel Canadians are more responsible exotic keepers.
Ooops, flame away...

Oh, no argument there.

[jarich]

Having lived in both places I can pretty safely say its the same nonsense both sides of the border. Its just a numbers game, more people equals more idiots.

[Terranaut]

Pretty unlikely. I feel Canadians are more responsible exotic keepers.
Ooops, flame away...

Unfortunately the law makers for the most part are not keepers and are purely driven by political agenda/advancement. No matter how responsible we are , sbakes are yucky to most of the population and we are an easily exploited minority.

[mykee]

BTW, how did the popping go?

[Terranaut]

Answered in my poping thread. Gotta practice what we preach :)

[StudentoReptile]

This is for anyone who genuinely is interested in what they can do to fight this thing. Regardless of the chances of success of any such legislation, I personally believe in being proactive against this kind of stuff.
----------------
Step 1: Compile the contact information of all your state senators and state representatives. This includes both the state office address and the capital address of each official, as well as phone numbers.

Step 2: Start writing your letter. Talking points can include:
- State your position as a concerned pet owner and how this bill could affect you and the animals you keep (it is your discretion whether you want to list every single species you currently possess). Be sure to include your experience working with animals and any such relevant information.
- In general, explain that this bill in its current form is very broad and would negatively impact the pet industry, and consequently the economy.
- Describe that outside of extreme southern Florida, there is no documented cases of exotic reptiles establishing themselves in the United States as a direct result of the pet trade. There are a few species of non-native gecko species, such as the Mediterranean gecko, that have been established in several states; however, this is a result of the species hitch-hiking on shipments through port cities incidentally, not deliberately.
- Also explain that even if passed, this bill would be very ineffective for preserving ecosystems or preventing pathogens or contagions. People who still currently own non-native wildlife will still be able to do so within their own state; if they are prohibited from crossing state lines with those animals (for example, if they have to move or relocate), they may be faced with the decision to either euthanize their pets or release them into the environment if they cannot find suitable homes for them.
- Animals in captive collections present little risk to the environment, and this bill would only restrict the freedoms of pet owners and negatively effect our nation's economy.

Step 3: Copy/Paste the name of each senator and state rep. into the address field of your letter. Print copies accordingly and then mail off all the letters.
--------------

This bill is still in the early stages and being reviewed by the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committees on the Judiciary, and the Budget committee. It may never make it beyond that, but if it does, a phone campaign may be in the near future.

At some point, when I finish my own letter, I'll post it here as an example for anyone to use and modify for their own.

[kernel]

This is for anyone who genuinely is interested in what they can do to fight this thing. Regardless of the chances of success of any such legislation, I personally believe in being proactive against this kind of stuff.
----------------
Step 1: Compile the contact information of all your state senators and state representatives. This includes both the state office address and the capital address of each official, as well as phone numbers.

Step 2: Start writing your letter. Talking points can include:
- State your position as a concerned pet owner and how this bill could affect you and the animals you keep (it is your discretion whether you want to list every single species you currently possess). Be sure to include your experience working with animals and any such relevant information.
- In general, explain that this bill in its current form is very broad and would negatively impact the pet industry, and consequently the economy.
- Describe that outside of extreme southern Florida, there is no documented cases of exotic reptiles establishing themselves in the United States as a direct result of the pet trade. There are a few species of non-native gecko species, such as the Mediterranean gecko, that have been established in several states; however, this is a result of the species hitch-hiking on shipments through port cities incidentally, not deliberately.
- Also explain that even if passed, this bill would be very ineffective for preserving ecosystems or preventing pathogens or contagions. People who still currently own non-native wildlife will still be able to do so within their own state; if they are prohibited from crossing state lines with those animals (for example, if they have to move or relocate), they may be faced with the decision to either euthanize their pets or release them into the environment if they cannot find suitable homes for them.
- Animals in captive collections present little risk to the environment, and this bill would only restrict the freedoms of pet owners and negatively effect our nation's economy.

Step 3: Copy/Paste the name of each senator and state rep. into the address field of your letter. Print copies accordingly and then mail off all the letters.
--------------

This bill is still in the early stages and being reviewed by the Committee on Natural Resources, the Committees on the Judiciary, and the Budget committee. It may never make it beyond that, but if it does, a phone campaign may be in the near future.

At some point, when I finish my own letter, I'll post it here as an example for anyone to use and modify for their own.

I am not very literary minded, so I'll wait for you to post your letter.