It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


HR669 Animal Prohibitionist Agenda

page: 1
<<   2  3 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:11 AM


"ONE GENERATION AND OUT" is not just limited to purebred dogs and cats.
Now our "non-native" species" are targets of the animal prohibitionist
agenda. Under HR 669, "non-native" basically means if a species of animal
didn't live in the US before the arrival of Columbus it is "non-native", and
if HR 669 passes, most non-native species of animal (I.e., exotic animals)
won't remain in the US much longer. That means your exotic pet bird,
reptile, fish, or mammal.

In other words what this bill states is nothing short of the total eradication of all non native animal species. In other words if you have a pet that is not indigenous to America, then when you die the pet must be put to sleep, killed.

It is worded to further state that you may not pass the animal to others when you die. You may not take the animal with you across state if you move, the animal must remain behind for extermination.

This is one of the most diabolic moves on the part of the NWO to dispose of millions of animals in the United States.

I have to say that I first heard of this today from my Brother who is a Master Falconer and very concerned about this issue being passed.

I know many of you have pets that will fall under this bill if it is allowed to pass. Why has this only just now come to our attention? What can we do to stop the insane bills being thrown in before congress which not only strip our rights and freedoms from us but seek to murder some of the most beautiful animals on the planet?

Individuals are not the only ones who will be affected by this bill but private and public zoos conservation areas, animal sanctuaries, private breeders and more.

HR669 Is the anti animal bill and people need to be made aware before it is too late.

Even our precious ATS mascot is endangered by this proposed bill.

What really caught my attention is the 'wording' that is used , it is all encompassing to include even barter...

All import, export, transport across State lines, selling, buying, bartering
or offering to sell, buy or barter, and all breeding, and release, of all
non-native species not on the "approved list" will be prohibited - even by
zoos, sanctuaries, and licensed breeders. Permits authorizing only
importation" may be issued to "zoos, scientific research, medical,
accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational
purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the
Secretary". There is no requirement that any permits be granted. Even
if these institutions are able to obtain the required permits, where will
they obtain their imported animals? Habitat for many species is declining
worldwide, many species are endangered or threatened in the wild, and many
species cannot be imported to the US under the CITES treaty. The result
of this bill will be to put a stop domestic breeding of most endangered or
threatened species in the US for zoos, conservation, or reintroduction
programs. Zoos are not immune from the animal prohibitionist agenda.

There is hardly a pet or species in this country that was not brought here over the past 500 years, our tank of exotic fish? Even my pet chihuahua!

[edit on 13-4-2009 by antar]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:34 AM
reply to post by antar

Interesting topic. I find it strange why the people making this bill care so much about people ownig pets and exoctic animals, why do they care?
I think any animal should be allowed to live as long as it is not a danger to the public.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:57 AM
Thats right and also the creepy part of this whole bill. To take away the rights of Falconers you may as well place them in a cell, I know my brother probably read over 200 books cover to cover on the subject by the time he was 14 years old, he then continued his studies and passed every test he ever took 100% (yeah he got all the brains, lol)

It is not like they are getting tougher on the people who should not have exotic animals in their care, which does happen of course as those are the stories that hit the msm. But this bill seeks to end all life after this generation and the individual responsible for that pet cannot move out of state or pass the pet to another, breed it or trade, sell or giveaway, release the animal.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:55 PM
Here's what I posted in the other HR669 thread-
Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act - HR669

Well, if nonnative species are destroying the habitat of native species,
or killing the native species, then its a problem. As a resident of Florida,
I can attest to this. Exotic Animal Enthusiasts, or whatever you want to
call them, don't always retain that enthusiasm when the animals become
large or burdensome. So what do they do? They let them go in the wild,
where eventually over time, they start breeding, and before you know it,
there's a large population of nonnative species destroying the native

Why do people find the need to own exotic animals? Some of these
animals belong in their OWN native habitat, and not in someone's house.
I live in Orlando now, but I lived my whole life in Ft. Lauderdale, where
nonnative animals such as- Pythons, Boa Constrictors, Iguanas, Peacock
Bass, and dozens of other nonnative species run amock. If exotic pet
owners can't properly facilitate the animals they purchase, then they
shouldn't be allowed to own them.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 12:55 PM
I would like to add one more thing-

Think about the exotic animal trade. Just the entire business of capturing,
containing, distributing and selling these animals. It must be damaging to
the animals and native environments as well. More and more I'm finding
myself totally against exotic animal sales. Dogs and cats are a different
story, they're domesticated, and kind of need us.

After a quick Google search, check these out-

Illegal Animal Trade at $6 Billion Annually

Illegal trade in wildlife is a $6 billion-dollar-a-year global industry that is detailed in a new report by the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS).

In "State of the Wild 2006," the organization puts forth what they know about wildlife populations.

“Today, anything large enough to be eaten or lucrative enough to be sold is hunted on a massive scale for its meat, skin, fur or feathers, for the pet trade, or as an ingredient in traditional medicines,” said Elizabeth Bennett, director for WCS’s Hunting and Wildlife Trade Program. “Wildlife populations are crashing, and wild areas increasingly are losing their wildlife, becoming devoid of vibrancy and life.”

U.S. Smugglers Hot for Exotic Animal Parts

Tigers are among the most fearsome predators in the wild. They are also among the most lucrative commodities for even greater predators — traffickers in the worldwide trade in endangered and exotic animal parts.

Two of those alleged traffickers, Todd and Vicki Lantz, of Missouri, are set to go on trial today in a case that sheds light on the multi-billion-dollar business of selling rare, beautiful animals.

Humane Society -
The Whims and Dangers of the Exotic Pets Market

- In early August 2003, I found several tiger cubs available to the public via the Internet from a dealer in Arizona. Other cats, primates, small mammals, birds, and reptiles were available for sale, too. Tigers were priced from $900 to $7,000 each, depending on sex and color type. A baby chimp, however, would cost $50,000.
- Right now, 26 tigers in New Jersey await relocation to a sanctuary in Texas after lengthy legal proceedings against their owner. In California, 39 tigers await placement in as yet undetermined locations after the state filed 63 charges against the animals' owners, including 17 counts of felony animal cruelty.
- In the last five years, nine people have been killed by tigers. Each year, 90,000 people are treated for salmonella infection contracted from reptiles. Since 1975, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has banned the import and sale of turtles under the size of 4 inches because of the salmonella threat to small children. This July, the Department of Health and Human Services indefinitely shut down the import and sale of African rodents for the U.S. pet trade after an outbreak of monkeypox, a human health threat traced to Gambian rodents that subsequently infected native prairie dogs being sold as pets.

Sickening, really.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:05 PM
Originally Posted by antar

Why has this only just now come to our attention?

Probably because it is about to become law

What can we do to stop the insane bills being thrown in before congress which not only strip our rights and freedoms from us but seek to murder some of the most beautiful animals on the planet?

Protest-campaign against the laws idiocy
Defy the law
Let others bare in mind the need to support a new political party

The one area where I agree with this law is restricting imports from the wild. This can only ever make a bad situation worse, because natures creatures do (often) have a habit of finding a way. However that is where my sympathy for this legislation ends.

There’s nothing wrong with breeding animals providing they are kept in a fair environment. If legislators really care about pointless, sadistic animal cruelty, they should look up something called Battery Chicken Farming, and their campaigners should deter others from eating this immoral, animal medication saturated, meat.

This Law Will Not Work…
We know this because there are far reasonable laws concerning just importation of animals from the wild. These laws have done little except to create businesses for criminals and the formation of underground “animal lover” societies.
This Law is filled with the typical, idealistic arrogance that is expected of PC, left-leaning, university graduates, landing up with government jobs.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:16 PM
Good. It will make everything go black market, but the idea behind it is awesome. Invasive species are a HUGE problem, it's completely not okay to take species from outside one area and introduce them into another without considering... like... okay you get a python in the northeast USA and it gets out, it reproduces, it feeds off the rabbits and mice and squirrels and chipmunks and then you have a python population. Not okay.

Purebred domestic felines and canines are ridiculous and should be illegal. They are linked to tons of genetic problems, like hip problems, hearing issues, eye problems, all sorts of things.

It's an agenda, yes, but it's the right agenda... ecologically.

But some people don't care about ecology

They care that their hound has the longest ears possible, no matter the harmful effects.
Or they care that they can get a housepet that looks cool but is not accustomed to the climate, or being a housepet, that could come from a protected area illegally and you wouldn't even know.

China and the USA are the top two spots for illegal animal trade, often from protected areas. Like, you may think that your Madigascar star turtle is completely awesome now. But when there are none left in it's natural habitat, and their food sources explode, and their predators die off, it's like... oh... getting that animal wasn't worth it. It's like that for everything from certain types of geckos, to chinchillas, to flying squirrels.... chameleons... many of these animals have such a reduced lifespan in a domestic habitat that is completely not worth it.

Ugh, people make me mad. Like, good for you that you can keep your dachshund and bearded dragon and jellyfish pets. Because it totally doesn't mess up ecosystems and the health of your actual pets when you do that.

[edit on 4/13/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:22 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

Thank you! I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees that there is actual
logic to this bill. For once, Congress might actually pass something that
would have a positive impact for, everyone, including exotic animals.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:41 PM
Aecreate and Ravenshadow Of course there is some good in this bill but what is the harm in breeding endangered animals in captivity, in a climate where they will pose little harm.
Surely this is acturally a way to prevent them going extinct?

Most of the traditional exotic animals have had ample oppurtunity to go wild, but in many cases it's been no problem (though like with rabbits in Australia, and European worms in American forests there are countless examples of where it has been a disaster).
All I personally am against is legistating against those non-native animals which have been shown not to thrive in the wild U.S.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:58 PM
There is no logic in abolishing all non native species from our country simply to erradicate the irresponsible, think about it if that were the case then it makes perfect sense as to why the NWO seeks to bring the worlds population down by about 6 billion people...

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:36 PM

This is a serious matter which if allowed to pass will be punishing the responsible pet owners both private and professional. The wording is so wide spread and it will cost our economy 10s of thousands of jobs and untold loss to our economy.

Parakeets, angel fish and other animals deemed as exotic that you would never imagine possible.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:43 PM
Figures the NWO would target animals too. Might as well eliminate the food supply and those animals those 'worthless eaters' love dearly. Assholes.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:54 PM
First they will kill the animals, then they will kill people! Interesting to see how they are trying to approach it


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:03 PM
reply to post by kid_of_3NKi

They won't kill them unless they're spreading disease or could severely impact the environment that they've been brought into.

The issue is that most of them shouldn't be here in the first place.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:35 PM
Interesting how the same mentality which brought non native plants and animals to our vast country are the same mentality which now seeks to create this stranglehold to completely eradicate all non indigenous creatures and plants.

Because of the few and irresponsible the many will be forced into a bill which will seek to destroy 500 years of our heritage rich in abundance in both profitability and personal enjoyment.

African honey bee, Asian clam, fire ants, European gypsy moth, Russian wheat aphid, salt cedar, zebra mussels, these are but a few of the insane imports that cause this to even become an issue.

Had there been controls in place in the beginning for these types of proven irresponsible agendas against the Americas, again I will tell you this would not even have a leg to stand on. It has been yet another conspiracy against America which only now begins to unfold to the few aware, fighting it and in full knowledge of what this bill means in the long run.

Will it stop the African honeybee from avoiding the traps set up by our shipping harbors? No. They will continue to ride in on crates and cargo and fly past these check points and into the country unhindered by the traps or this bill.

Will the bill stop the others from contaminating our water and soil? No. It will however make it impossible to own a Falcon and to breed certain types of exotic fish, fowl and flowers like the Orchid. So much for the prom corsage.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:45 PM
Here is a partial list from just America of some of the non native transplants or alien species, admittedly, many arrive here due to environmental factors and human populations taking over the natural habitats forcing migration. Weather change and loss of direction also attributes to the natural migration of many species.

So if nature itself brings many species to our shores, then should nature also be punished and fall under this bill if passed? Are we attempting to eradicate nature in its entirety? And if so to what possible evil end?

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by antar
So if nature itself brings many species to our shores, then should nature also be punished and fall under this bill if passed? Are we attempting to eradicate nature in its entirety? And if so to what possible evil end?


Let's read the exact bill-

A BILL: To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species’ or human health, and for other purposes.

It says nothing about eradicating what's already there, in fact it says
nothing about exterminating anything.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.

Seems pretty straightforward. Obviously alot of research will be involved.

This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate. The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.

Let's look further into this "nefarious" bill-


(a) In General- The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall promulgate regulations that establish a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, other than nonnative wildlife species that are included in the list of approved species issued under section 4.

(b) Factors To Be Considered- The regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall include consideration of--

(1) the identity of the organism to the species level, including to the extent possible specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity;

(2) the native range of the species;

(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States;

(4) the likelihood that environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread of the species exist in the United States;

(5) the likelihood of establishment of the species in the United States;

(6) the likelihood of spread of the species in the United States;

(7) the likelihood that the species would harm wildlife resources in the United States;

(8) the likelihood that the species would harm native species that are rare or native species that have been listed as threatened species or endangered species in the United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

(9) the likelihood that the species would harm habitats or ecosystems in the United States;

(10) the likelihood that pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation; and

(11) other factors important to assessing the risks associated with the species, consistent with the purpose under section 2.

Sounds pretty logical to me

(d) Transparency- The Secretary shall ensure that the risk assessment process established by the regulations under subsection (a) is based on sound science and is consistent with sections 4 and 5.

Looks like they're going to play by the rules too.

And wait for it...

(f) Animals Owned Lawfully Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun pursuant to subsection (e)(3), even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.

So relax already, the Pet Police aren't going to take your
precious pets and eradicate them in front of your crying kids.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:59 PM

Originally posted by antar
...Even my pet chihuahua!

I wouldn't worry about your Chihuahua...

(D) does not include any cat (Felis catus), cattle or oxen (Bos taurus), chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), donkey or ass (Equus asinus), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated Anas spp.), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus), horse (Equus caballus), llama (Lama glama), mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus), pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica), domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), or sheep (Ovis aries), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.

While strange to some of us, you're Chihuahua still counts as a dog, and as such, falls into the any dog category.

The most profound affect will be felt by those interested in exotic fish and birds, with a few of the reptile crowd as well.

Off the top of my head, I know that pythons have become a huge problem in Florida. So, I can understand the intent of this bill, it sets a dangerous precedent I fear. One more aspect of our lives that Uncle Sam sees fit to "regulate". I also take a moral exception to it. After all, we're the most invasive, destructive non-native species here.

In the end, I wouldn't be too concerned at this point, as it doesn't look like the bills got a lot of traction anyway. 13 cosponsors, and no action since it was referred to the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife on Feb. 4th. One to watch however, this is one of those "sneak up on your civil liberties" types of legislation.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:07 PM
It's not a civi liberty to destroy the natural habitat of where you live and the rest of the world.

Oh wait, I forgot, of course it is.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 06:39 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

You may retract your claws now ravenshadow, I wasn't implying that people should be able to freely destroy their environment. Although, that hasn't stopped us, as humans from doing so anyway.

What I'm against, is some bureaucrat telling me what kind of fish I can put in my tank.

Oh, and forgot, I was a bit taken aback by your statement:

originally posted by ravenshadow13
Purebred domestic felines and canines are ridiculous and should be illegal. They are linked to tons of genetic problems, like hip problems, hearing issues, eye problems, all sorts of things.

Please explain this statement. I simply cannot comprehend where you're coming from on this. You're saying a purebred dog, like my Alaskan Malamute should be illegal? I should only be allowed to have some mut?

What about ranchers who depend on collies to keep their herds in check? And I guess drug traffickers don't have to worry about the super-effectiveness of the German Shepherd as a K-9 cop anymore. Maybe those pesky Inuits will finally break down and by snow-mobiles, y'know, without their Huskies, they won't be able to speed across tundra without one. And without the mighty Malamute, they won't be able to haul all those darn essentials from port to village.

Oh, and you're reasoning of being "linked to tons of genetic problems" has more holes in it than a screen door. These "genetic" problems have nothing to do with a dogs breed. They may be due to irresponsible breeders, but not the breed themselves. Most of these issues, like hip problems, hearing issues, eye problems
, etc. don't have anything to do with genetics anyway. Nearly 100 percent of the time, eye and ear problems come from undiagnosed allergies. Allergies these animals suffer from their whole lives because their fed processed crap that their primitive internal systems (not mucked around with by us) are simply not designed to handle. Did you know that dogs are incapable of digesting grain? Did you know that the foundation of most commercial dog food is grain?

You'd be amazed how happy, healthy, and long-lived even the most troublesome breeds can be, if you give them meat. Raw meat.

Human's playing god may have mucked around and created abominations like the Shar Pei by breeding and breeding and breeding, but the inside remains the same. The OP's chihuahua's internals function the exact same as a pure, native wolf. Don't see a whole lot of wolf packs grazing in the fields now do we...

Funny, we see eye to eye on most things, but this "purebred dogs should be illegal" nonsense I cannot agree with.

new topics

top topics

<<   2  3 >>

log in