It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com 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: 2
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by ravenshadow13
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.


What fish I choose to keep in my tank has no effect on the natural habitat where I live.

There are a lot of idiot, uneducated, fishkeepers out there, and there needs to be more education by the people who are selling these fish to the customers.

Like not selling people 5 gallon tanks and an oscar or goldfish to someone on the same day and telling them everything will be fine. This greatly increases the chance that the fish will later be dumped in the local waters when it outgrows its home within a couple of months. Raising the price of the fish would also help to discourage the throwaway attitude so many people seem to have about them.

There are rules and standards in place for the care of mammals, sadly this is not the case when it comes to fish, which are IMO some of the most abused creatures on the planet.




posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:50 PM
link   

There are more than 9000 bird species, and thousands of species of birds are
kept in the US. There are many other non-native (exotic) species owned by
animal lovers across the US. How many bird or other non-native (exotic)
species do you think our government can afford to study and determine that
they can be added to this newly created "approved list"?

If the required study can't be made of a species, and the required finding
isn't made about a species, the animal won't make it to the approved list.
That applies to every species of non-native (exotic) animal.


www.afabirds.org...

Now do you want to trust the government to make decisions on which animals are deemed by the 'secretary' to be acceptable?

This is a dangerous bill and one that is not just some slight bill of insignificance or importance as suggested by others on this thread.


Originally posted by aecreate

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


This is also known as the ONE GENERATION OUT Bill, in other words if I own a South American Parrot which is not on the 'approved' list, which it wont be, and I go to my family in the Hampton's for the summer, I cannot take the pet across states to have it accompany me.

If I die in a plane crash on my way home from the Hampton's my beloved Parrot will by law have to be put to its death as it cannot be transferred or given away, released to the wilds, sold or bartered upon my death.

If I decide to move from say California to my summer home in the Hampton's and want to take my exotic Parrot with me, it will be forbidden. Again I will not be able to give it to another or do anything but have it killed. ONE GENERATION OUT.


(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.


Right providing I do not plan to pass the beloved pet onto my crying children if I die. ONE GENERATION OUT.

You are the one that shows the greatest ignorance in this serious matter, and I suppose you hang out in the political forums siding with the government in all issues. It is apparent from your deductions that there is nothing to protect here except perhaps a few boa constrictors that were owned by irresponsible inbreds that decided to cast them into the bayous of Florida rather than be responsible for them.

Ok and so all of those snakes should be rounded up with the wild mustangs and wolves and shot to their deaths after having been ripped to pieces by snipers first just for target practice. Got it.

You obviously do not have the educational background of my brother, nor his friends that gather 300 miles out in the middle of nowhere USA each year to train their exotic Falcons and teach them to hunt for the wild exotic prey on the massive prairie.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:19 PM
link   

(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.


How much clearer does THAT need to be? So if you own a husband and Wife of any given species which has been granted a stay of execution for the remainder of 'your' life, know that you will by law be permitted to keep only one of the individual species, so those children will be crying yes they will.

From what I understand, this will encompass many more domestic animals than what you are implying.

What I dont understand is why I feel to debate this issue with a fellow atser or two? It is pure insanity.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by antar
 


Show me exactly where it says your animals would be destroyed.


You are the one that shows the greatest ignorance in this serious matter, and I suppose you hang out in the political forums siding with the government in all issues.


You are sadly mistaken if that was directed at me!


Ok and so all of those snakes should be rounded up with the wild mustangs and wolves and shot to their deaths after having been ripped to pieces by snipers first just for target practice. Got it.


Please, highlight where I endorsed destroying animals...
You, are beginning to sound absurd.

Everytime I look up "One Generation and Out", I keep getting
your same source, regurgitated on other sites and forums. Please,
enlighten me, because I seem to be under the impression that
"One Generation and Out" is referring to the animal, not the OWNER.

For example- if the person breeds a wild cat with a domestic one, the
offspring is considered "One Generation Out" of the wild.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by antar
What I dont understand is why I feel to debate this issue with a fellow atser or two? It is pure insanity.


Maybe I'm not making my point straight enough...


I'm for the conservation of natural habitats.

If we can prevent NON-native species, from destroying OUR native
habitats and species, by restricting their importation, then that is GOOD.

If the NON-native species and habitats are being harmed by the
exotic animal trade, then restricting their importation is GOOD.


Where's the native species love?

Unfortunately, some ignorant and uneducated people do spoil it for the
truly responsible, so does that mean our native habitats and species
should suffer at the cost of pleasure derived from owning exotic animals,
particularly proven harmful or invasive species? I'm sorry, but I think not.

There's plenty of native species for you to impose your will on.

As for Falconry, I have respect for it. The relationship developed
between master and bird are similar to that of a loyal dog.
I don't see it being affected by the bill, especially when the military
deploys trained falcons.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:15 AM
link   
So how does this bill will affect the local Zoo?. I think this bill would be the right bill if it stopped illegal imports from the black market. otherwise, its another erosion of our rights.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 12:43 AM
link   
reply to post by aecreate
 


I am going to present your comments to my Brother via email and will get back to you, yet as far as I understand it will affect him and his trade hobby Falconry.

Good night and I urge you to continue looking into this Bill and be sure to let me know what you find out, we here on the forum have some truly great noses for the truth.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:19 AM
link   
You can scoff this post off if you want to but here's my take on yet another outrageous bill that has no point beyond this...

Try looking at the bigger picture.

What if you were monstrously rich and could effect an area or a whole nation by passing legislation that preserved the beautiful areas for your incestuously conceived young at the expense of the serfs.

Wouldn't you?

Try looking at the bigger picture.

Remember the spotted owl? We have to save that endangered species blah blah...

Try looking at the bigger picture.

It ruined the logging industry in Oregon where I lived at the time. Their economy is the worst in the nation.

Try looking at the bigger picture.

Ever been to Oregon? Ever been to the Sierra Madre, Halfdome or Lake Tahoe?

They are awesome areas.

Wouldn't you want to minimize damage to these areas and in fact the whole country by the serfs. Mindless serfs enjoying themselves or being productive at the expense of the environment.

Wouldn't you just want to kill them and take the whole thing for your bastard offspring? How ever many lifetimes it takes?

Try looking at the bigger picture.

Also, Where would all of those people that make 6 Billion a year off of exotic animals etc... go for work? Why the government can absorb some or most of them. They don't care. It's only worthless serfs.

[color=gold]Look at the bigger picture. What is in it for the monstrously rich people? Then look at it again.

As my wife has observed countless times; I'm usually right.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 07:55 AM
link   


I breed Ball Pythons,Red-tailed Boas, Leachie Giant Geckos. So im already battling this stupid bill tooth and nail.
There is NO Reason to do a Blanket Ban of all exotic pets because of of few people that cant contain their own. It would be like banning all cars because some people get in accidents. Or banning guns because of a few criminals.
The exotic pet trade is a Multi Billion dollar industry just with the reptiles. I only know a couple people who still import wild caught reptiles and we call them flippers. They are known as trash in the industry and we are always trying to get rid of them.

What we deal with are CAPTIVE BRED. And there are only a couple states in the US where if they were released they would thrive. I live in Nebraska and if any of my pets escaped they would be dead in a couple weeks. We make up 99% of the reptile industry and if this bill becomes law it will cause hundreds of thousands of people to lose their livelihood.
The reptiles I sell are priced from $500.00 dollars to $5,000.00 dollars. You think people are just going to carelessly loose them or let them go?

Its the flippers that are causing the problems and we should not all have to suffer for them.
What needs to be done is control. Register your exotic pets so they can be tracked and the owners held responsible.



posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:03 PM
link   
Captive bred species can cause issues when released into the wild or when given to careless owners.

*headdesk*

I mean, whatever, it's clear that some opinions cannot be changed. I have a few points.

1. If it wasn't for the government and some government funding and organizations, many endangered species would be in much worse shape.

2. It is not your right to be able to go gawk at captive wild animals at your local zoo. Some people think zoos are fine. In my opinion, unless they're rehabilitation facilities for individual animals which cannot ever survive in the wild, they are cruel funparks for humans.

3. I personally don't think it's okay to have any animals which cannot survive on their own. I also think it's not okay to breed fish to look prettier and prettier to keep them in a tank. Because this is often tied to genetic problems and, as I said, many of these fish die before they ever reach your tank.

4. The more animals permitted in captivity, the more can be snuck in. If tighter limits are put on what you can and cannot have, it might save quite a few lives of the animals which ARE being illegally imported or taken unjustly from their natural environments.

5. Falconry is a different matter entirely but I'd like to make it clear that usually the falcons are bred for use in falconry or are being rehabilitated, and they can typically survive in the environments where they are kept.

6. It is because the worthless serfs make their lives off of this. It is. But they don't understand how devastating their impact is, and they don't care. With the right approach, they can be placed into other career fields and make a livelihood there.

7. This is kind of like the whole gun thing. People are angry about more gun regulation. But if you're a responsible, careful person, you will be able to get a gun with no problem. And if you're not, you won't be able to get a gun. In this case: if you're not harming anything and want to responsibly care for a pet, you can do it, no problem. If you're doing something wrong, you'll be caught. I do believe that there will be a way to keep exotic pets if you have the appropriate know-how and if you are there with them for enough time during the day and know about all the risks involved. There are certification programs for that. But if you're some bum who decided to keep a monkey in their house, and will let it out into the wild, or do something wrong with it or accidently make it sick, you shouldn't be able to have it in the first place.

Like you think this is great now but if you were a cattle rancher and your neighbor decided to keep a venomous snake, and the snake somehow got outside, and killed all your cows, you might see this differently.

If you notice all these insects around all of a sudden and some might be spreading disease or just being annoying, you wonder why more this year. Maybe there are no mice because your neighbors exotic pet got out and ate them all.

Maybe your neighbors exotic pet was a carrier of a disease and it spread to all the wildlife in your pond.

You may not think it matters. But I know it does.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:29 AM
link   
So what about species of dogs that aren't native to America? Irish Setters, Lhasa Apsos, Dobermans, etc. ? Does this bill mean we're going to be limited in our choice of pet dog? If so, that's is absolutely ludicrous.


TheAssociate



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:34 AM
link   
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


Most certainly many breeds will not make the approved list. They cannot decern between pets raised in a great enviroment verses those raised to become dangerous to the public at large.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 12:52 AM
link   
Just in case you do not think that this bill has the chance to make it through with flying colors, then take a look at another issue within HR669:


Fact Sheet on H.R. 669: Protect Children From Video Game Sex & Violence Act of 2003
Easy access to video games with mature content: The video game industry’s voluntary rating system has not prevented children from buying or renting games with sexual or violent content.


This is a low blow to the responsible Exotic Animal Industry and to the individuals who are private buyers of those pets which will have to suffer from this outrageous proposal.

To place this bill in the same package as this issue is almost certain death for the Exotic pet industry.



Last year’s bill, H.R. 4645, had 35 co-sponsors and the endorsement of:
Traditional Values Coalition
Center for Successful Parenting
The Lion and Lamb Project
Mothers Against Violence in America
American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry
American Academy of Pediatrics
National Association of School Psychologists
H.R. 669, the Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003 will impose penalties on those who sell or rent to minors video games that depict:
nudity,
sexual conduct, or
content harmful to minors AND contain graphic violence, sexual violence, or strong sexual content.
“Harmful to minors” is defined as content that:
appeals to minors’ morbid interest in violent or sex
is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community, and
lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.


Now who is going to vote against this?



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by TheAssociate
So what about species of dogs that aren't native to America? Irish Setters, Lhasa Apsos, Dobermans, etc. ? Does this bill mean we're going to be limited in our choice of pet dog? If so, that's is absolutely ludicrous.


TheAssociate



Originally posted by antar
reply to post by TheAssociate
 


Most certainly many breeds will not make the approved list. They cannot decern between pets raised in a great enviroment verses those raised to become dangerous to the public at large.


Obviously, neither of you have read the bill!
Why do I even bother?


(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.


And this Bill is NOT part of
"H.R. 669: Protect Children From Video Game Sex & Violence Act
of 2003"



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:27 AM
link   
ANTAR

From my impression, your intentions are good, but you've done
nothing but post alarmist material, that has no proof, which is
intended to incite fear amongst the community, when all everyone
needs to do is just RESEARCh before you REACT. Myself and others
have clearly illustrated how this Bill is not as sinister as its made
out to be.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I am planning to link this thread to some of the most respected Falconers in this and other countries, I would say from the lack of support against this bill which they the highly educated find threatening and very serious, it will more than likely place me in a poor light as this can be some of their first visits here and I obviously have not made it clear as to the underhanded and potentially life threatening importance for so many innocent victims in the long run.

Perhaps I was a poor choice to bring this to the forum as I have little time for research on the matter and have not sat down and read the bill in its entirety 'yet'. I do however trust 100% the people who have asked for me to contact my Congressmen and Senators and to get this out to as many as will listen to their plight.

Again I say that it will not only be the predatory invasive species affected by this bill, but an opportunity for big government to continue to displace the responsible through the irresponsibility of the few.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by antar
Perhaps I was a poor choice to bring this to the forum as I have little time for research on the matter and have not sat down and read the bill in its entirety 'yet'. I do however trust 100% the people who have asked for me to contact my Congressmen and Senators and to get this out to as many as will listen to their plight.


I agree, without actually reading the bill, you can't argue against it very effectively.

Nobody here is even implying that there are not some people this bill will affect in a negative way. On the flip side, we can all see how something of this nature is required. Ravenshadow has done a fine job in illustrating several valid arguments for a bill such as this. Contrarily, your arguments against it amount to nothing more than fear mongering. Statements to the effect that people will lose their dogs and cats, etc. do nothing but evoke knee jerk reactions. I was less than a minute into reading the bill before I discovered that dogs and cats were among those animals exempt from the bill.

Now, I don't think you were the wrong person to bring this to our attention, I just think you brought it to our attention at a time at which you were unprepared to present the facts.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
Ok so here is in part the email sent to me from my brother when I asked for his help on this thread and to possibly link me to some sites that could help me in this obvious debate on my favorite forum...


I don’t have that info. they like to pass this crap in the dark of night on the weekend so why would there be any info on it easily available to the public? These problems you have mentioned need to be addressed case by case not with a blanket proclamation by the king "THOUGH SHALT NOT... ", that’s just another way to restrict your right to the pursuit of happiness. One more twist of the grip on the balls of the people. AGAIN, the gov sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. Of course freedom equals responsibility and some accountability is needed but this is simple bad government incursion, the big guy on the block flexing his muscle, stupid emotional rhetoric (who would want Johnnie eaten by piranha on vacation at Disney World?) not a reasonable rational decision based on scientific fact. Typical. Why did you enter into a debate you weren't prepared for? Just put out the info and forget it. Besides a decent debater can win the debate for or against no matter what the issue. Sophestry. It matters not. This is about bad laws by stupid government not the flocks of parrots in every American city for the last forty years. Besides they may only survive here since they are eaten like chickens by the starving hoards in their native areas and with global warming the tropics will be extending back up here soon anyway.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Unit541
 


I will concede to your words of wisdom and for the most part truth.

However , your attempts at mocking me for my emotional response to this matter is unwarranted.

You may agree with the evidence that ravenshadow has so easily produced from any number of designated sites against my stance however her motives to me seem quite shadowy at best with several of her comments about different species and their right to live.

Please feel free to continue to produce evidence as to why this bill is something you feel in the best interest of our country and I will continue to argue against it. It is that simple, this 'feels' wrong to me and as a sensitive fairly alert human being who trusts her own inner instincts, I will continue to look for the answers which will prove why this is going to hurt far more species that it is going to conveniently help.



posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:15 PM
link   
All i can tink of that might mean anything when it comes to socalled pure breads is that vary rarely is it that new strains of the same breed get introduced to those pure breds. If you don't believe me take a good look at justone breed of dog. lets take for instance Irish Setters. They used to be considered an intelligent breed and very sturdy as a working class of dogs. Now, do to the interbreeding over the last 75 years, you have a breed that is stupid, has terrible health problems and couldn't be trained to work or survive in the wild any longer. Thatsjustone breed of animal. Nowlets consider a few of the plant species that have found their way into our eco system. Think KUDZU!!!! Try erradicating that and tell me we don't need to do something! These advanced species of plants are actualy geneticly changing n the wild and making it near impossible to controll. This bill might be a bit over thetop but its prety damned near what actualy needs to be done to save areas of the planet and some spcies of animals, pet or otherwise!
Zindo



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join