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: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:19 PM
reply to post by antar

I'm an ecology and zoology major.

I think that one species (human's) ability to remove other species from their environments, breed them for their own use as pets, and throw off ecosystems is a really bad thing.

I understand that this is a conspiracy site but, come on, what? I can't fathom what you think my motive is, here.

Our right to choose a pet has been long abused. Many pure-bred dogs have all sorts of medical problems, and many of the breed are not natural breeds but have been created by what is basically genetic modification.

I mean, whatever, I support this bill. I think it will never get passed because humans are far too greedy to keep their little salmonella-ridden turtles and tiny cute dogs with hip problems and tigers that they don't know how to take care of when the actual natural tiger habitat is dwindling close to zero.

I think that the market, black or otherwise, for this sort of animal trade needs to be shut off completely and that humans need to reevaluate how humane it is to keep some of the animals as pets that they do.

My best friend is going into the field of falconry, and I understand that you feel close to this issue but it's really not related to this bill. Because that is a career normally, not just having a bird of prey for a pet, and typically the birds and owners are part of a rehabilitation program or audobon society, not just practicing in a backyard somewhere. They need to be certified and understand the risks involved. People who do not understand these risks should not have these animals in their houses, because even a domestic animal can turn wild in some situations. And any animal can cause harm to the environment if it is just released into the wild.

You're turning this into two sides. Alright, fine. It's like this: Pro-environment, anti-humans abusing their right to keep a domesticated pet; anti-environment, pro-humans abusing their right to keep a domesticated pet.

If you think people who have any sort of exotic or even domestic pet should not go through a certification process to assure that they are safe, responsible owners- then you need to seriously reconsider what some people do with their own pets that puts both humans and animals at risk.

The evidence is there. Ecosystems are very fragile, and removing one species from one and introducing it into another in -any- context is completely not okay unless everyone fully understands the repercussions from doing so.

It's not about certain species and their right to live, it's about ALL species and their right to live. If an invasive species was introduced as a domestic pet but is now killing off the mouse population, making the insect population rise, and therefore the... say, fish population rise, and now everything is affected, then yes that invasive species should be moved out of the area, placed in it's natural environment. If a certain species like a turtle has been placed into the wild and has reproduced in a neighborhood, and now small children are playing with the turtles in their yards and carrying salmonella and it triggers an epidemic, generally those domestic turtles cannot survive against the predators in an isolated marsh or lake environment, and they cannot be cured of salmonella and resold. So yes, kill the turtles or put them in an aquarium.

The pythons in Florida? Kill the pythons. It would be much less expensive for the towns to kill them than to hire certified handlers to recapture all of them and either put them in zoos, sell them to certified people, put them in reserve facilities, etc. And then the ecosystem can return to normal and we can fix the mess we started?

Ever heard of zebra mussels? They're invasive and we hate them because they were an accident, they were transferred on the bottom of boats and have taken over entire lakes, virtually destroying the ecology. But it's okay for us to hate them as an invasive species because they were an accident, and not something that we introduced on purpose as a domesticated pet?

[edit on 4/15/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:27 PM
The people that are cheering the passage of this bill don’t get the underlying philosophy behind it that makes it so sinister. That idea is that: because some people can’t control X then we all have to be controlled and monitored by the government when engaging in that behavior or it should just be banned outright.

The danger is that this sort of thinking has NO END.
Because some people misuse certain drugs – those drugs should be illegal for all.
Because some people misuse guns – all guns should be registered.
Because some people misuse the internet – anyone using the internet should be monitored.
Because some people are terrorists – everyone should be searched at the airport.

And so on and so on…..

With anything, there is always going to be someone that will abuse that thing. That does not mean the government has the right to impose sanctions on all of us. Every time you cheer the government for stopping something that you don’t like or approve of, you give them more power over you. Sooner or later they will hit upon something that you may care about and someone else will cheer them on in banning/controlling it. Pretty soon, nothing you do will be without oversight.

So keep cheering: “Yeah, get the smokers, get the fatties and the junkies and the pornographers and the owners of SUV’s and exotic pets, etc. etc…” Keep it up and pretty soon, they will get you too. By then it will be too late.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:29 PM

Oh now this is push coming to shove. This is the straw that will break the camel's back.

LOL, my dog a chihuhuah originated in Mexico, does that mean he would become an illegal if this passes.

I was doing a search and came across this one site talking about chihuhuas, and I thought it was typo when they referred to the breed as a GOD instead of DOG, but they repeated the same thing later in the article.
I'm not surprised.

History and Origin

The Chihuahua (often nicknamed as ChiChi) is the smallest god in the world. The Chihuahua originated from Mexico and was named by the state Chihuahua. The breed has long history. According the legends these dogs were involved in the religious worship of the Aztecs. Some carvings of The Chihuahua were found in the pyramids of Cholula, Mexico.

Temperament and Personality

These gods are very adaptable and hardy, but they are very sensitive to cold temperatures and can get cold. They also can suffer from heatstroke. The Chihuahua should not live outside. It is the breed for apartment living.

Size and Appearance
Weigh is 2-6 pounds, height 6 - 9 inch. Has cobby body and soft coat. Any color is accepted, fawn, chestnut,sand, silver prevalent. There are two varieties of the Chihuahua: long and smooth coat.

[edit on 15-4-2009 by Bombeni]

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:33 PM
reply to post by passenger

They're not going to just ban these species outright because they will still be permitted in zoos (including probably museums with live animal collections), aquariums, rehabilitation facilities, nature preserves and reservations, and universities and research organizations. People who know how to deal with them.

It's not hard to become certified to run a rehabilitation facility, either. That's what's going on in Texas and the midwest with large felines. I mean, it's not hard, but it takes effort and you have to know what you're doing in order to become certified.

But they can ban the species that are listed as endangered. And that's awesome. And what should happen. Because, you know, animals are living organisms just like us and we need to be responsible for them and their habitats.

It's not the same as guns or drugs because if you threw a rifle or some pot out into your backyard it wouldn't really affect the ecosystem that much, unless the pot was a live plant, in which case it could totally mess with the other species of plants and insects and herbivores and the animals that feed on those species.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:38 PM
reply to post by Bombeni

Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure they'll grandfather in your dog and any exotic pets that are currently owned, they won't take them away. But maybe, maybe not for being able to get another one if the bill passes. But for your reference (and you can check with your vet, too, they'll tell you the same thing):

Small-size dogs, or Toy dogs, suffer breed specific problems. The Chihuahua is not an exception. There are several congenital diseases (dogs are born with these diseases) that might present serious health risk in this breed of dog: patellar luxation, heart murmurs and eye abnormalities. If the timely and correct preventive care is provided and if the breeding stock is free from genetic defects, then you have a healthy Chihuahua.

That happens from the genetic consequences of pure-breeding. Most pure-breed dogs have one problem or another, that website provides a good list of the issues commonly associated with pure-bred chihuahuas. And it's true that the risk is decreased if you have a good breeder, because you can breed some of the negative traits out, but it gets expensive. And lots of breeders aren't so careful, and the dogs can have lots of medical problems later in life and go through a lot of pain. It's one of those cases where the bad guys ruin it for the good guys. Like the people who breed cats to have neurological or muscular problems to be "ragdolls" or.. what is it.. like "wiggly cats" or something. Dogs with huge, long ears have ear problems. Dogs with short legs often have hip problems. And it goes on and on. So you breed them to get the most distinguished traits, but in the process, you increase the risk for certain medical problems.

I mean, it's really awesome that your dog looks a certain way. But if that dog suffers because it is practically inbred after hundreds and hundreds of years, that's not okay.

Like, my dad had a pure-bred husky growing up, but I don't support pure-bred dogs or cats. I won't like, call you names or anything haha but one of my zoology teachers is really, really against pure-breeding for the genetic problems involved.

More links on the issue:

[edit on 4/15/2009 by ravenshadow13]

[edit on 4/15/2009 by ravenshadow13]

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 03:53 PM
reply to post by ravenshadow13

I'm not really into purebreds but not against them either. Gizmo is a rescue dog. I would like to have another one someday though, this is my first chihuhua and I really like the breed very much now.

I am not trying to go off subject, but is this what was on the Obama agenda all along? I mean every time I turn around I see some new thing being reported or new bill being launched to take more from us, not the change most had in mind.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 04:06 PM
reply to post by aecreate

No need to get snippy about it

I didn't have time to read the entire bill and was just wondering if anyone knew whether dogs counted as non-native animals. In any case, thanks for clearing that up.


posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:29 PM

Originally posted by antar
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.

Whoa! tug on those reigns and slow down just a little bit. It appears that the bill in question is not the only thing you're not reading. In my very first post in this thread, I made it pretty clear that I am against this bill. I do not agree with ravenshadow on the subject. I was simply illustrating that this bill can be logically debated, with legitimate arguments from both sides.

However, you're not rationally arguing your perspective. You're trying to scare other people into agreeing with you by announcing that the pet police are going to come for our dogs and cats.

Your hyperbolic use of the phrase "one generation and out" is also out of line, and an obvious indication that you have no idea what it means. Frankly, it's irrelevant to this discussion. "One Generation and Out" is a phrase taken out of context from a Wayne Pacelle.
The quote is as follows:

We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding ...One generation and out.

I'm sure you're not going to bother looking it up, so I'll tell you. Wayne Pacelle is the President of The Humane Society, and was referring to abominations created by cattle breeders.

You are letting emotion triumph over reason here. There are plenty of reasons to be against this bill. "They're going to take my Chihuahua" is not one of them, because they're not. Starting a panic is not the way to fight it either. Think about the big picture for just a moment. Hundreds of people flood their representatives phones, faxes and email boxes asking them to oppose this bill because they want to keep their puppies. Their representatives read the bill, find out that their constituents concerns are unfounded, and ends up supporting the bill.

Had those hundreds of people brought valid concerns about the bill to their representative's attention, concerns that are not satiated by merely reading the bill, the opposition can then grow and gain momentum, and the bill could be defeated.

This is why even the most heinous legislation must be opposed with logical, reasonable, and most importantly factual arguments. Spreading unfounded panic serves only to defeat your own agenda.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:44 PM
Here's the rest of HR669 that I did not present earlier in this thread on page 1.


(a) Requirement To Issue List of Approved Species-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation into the United States.

(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN SPECIES- The Secretary shall not include in the list--

(A) any species included in the list of prohibited species under section 5; or

(B) any species, the importation of which is prohibited by any other Federal law or regulation of the United States due to the likelihood of causing harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health.

(3) REVISION- The Secretary may revise the list issued under this section based on available scientific and commercial information.

I'm highlighting the above to reiterate, this Bill is just about
restricting the import of nonnative species into the U.S.
It says nothing about eradicating anything, nothing about
collecting anyone's pets they currently own, JUST, restricting
something potentially harmful to YOU, your pets, OUR
environment and native species within.

(b) Preliminary List-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall include in the preliminary list under this section nonnative wildlife species that the Secretary finds, consistent with the factors described in section 3(b) and based on scientific and commercial information that is provided in a proposal under paragraph (2) or otherwise available to the Secretary--

(A) are not harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health; or

(B) may be harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health, but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.

Highlights are mine. This one is for you Boa, Python, Iguana,
Parrots, Birds whatever enthusiasts. Basically, since some nonnative
species are already so widespread, restricting their imports would be
useless. So, some of you can relax, your nonnative animal just
became a native.


(A) shall, by not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, publish in the Federal Register, and make available on a publically available Federal Internet site, a request for submission, by any interested persons (including persons that import or that intend to import nonnative wildlife species), of proposals of nonnative wildlife species to be included in the preliminary list under this subsection and supporting documentation for such proposals
(B) shall accept such proposals for 10 months after the date the Secretary publishes the request for submissions; and

(C) may propose a nonnative wildlife species for inclusion in the preliminary list.

If your nonnative animal you want to import isn't on the Secretary's
"Preliminary Approved List", you, or a bunch of enthusiasts, can
make a proposal for inclusion on said list, but ya better have
supporting documentation to make your case. Chances are,
if you don't plan on owning a Chimp, Tiger, or something
really extravagant, you'll be fine.

(3) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT- Before issuing the final preliminary list of approved species under this subsection, the Secretary shall--

(A) publish in the Federal Register and make available on a publicly available Federal Internet site, the proposed preliminary list; and

(B) provide for, a period of not less than 60 days, an opportunity to submit public comments on the proposed preliminary list.

(4) PUBLICATION OF LIST- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register and make available on a publicly available Federal Internet site, the final preliminary list under this subsection.

We can only hope they READ the entire Bill and List before
submitting emotional knee-jerk reactions as public comments.
If you don't like the preliminary list, you and/or the enthusiasts
can voice your opinion and make your case, wisely I hope.

(c) Proposal for Inclusion on the Approved List-


(A) IN GENERAL- After publication of the final preliminary list under subsection (b)--

(i) any interested person may submit to the Secretary in accordance with subparagraph (B) a proposal to include a nonnative wildlife species in the approved list under this section (including a request to import such a species that is not in the list published under this section and section 5, respectively); and

(ii) upon receipt of a complete proposal under clause (i), the Secretary shall publish notice of the proposal in the Federal Register and provide an opportunity for 30 days of public comment on the proposal.

(B) INFORMATION REQUIRED- Any proposal under this paragraph must include sufficient scientific and commercial information to allow the Secretary to evaluate whether the proposed nonnative wildlife species is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ or human health.

(2) DETERMINATION- Based on scientific and commercial information provided in a proposal under paragraph (1) or otherwise available to the Secretary, the Secretary shall make one of the following determinations regarding such a proposal in a reasonable period of time and in accordance with the regulations issued under section 3:

(A) The nonnative wildlife species is approved for importation, and is added to the list of approved species under this section.

(B) The nonnative wildlife species is not approved for importation, unless permitted under section 7.

(C) The Secretary has insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination under subparagraph (A) or (B).

(3) TREATMENT OF UNAPPROVED SPECIES- If the Secretary makes a determination under paragraph (2)(B) that a nonnative wildlife species is not approved for importation, the Secretary shall include the nonnative wildlife species in the list of unapproved species under section 5.

Now there's something to look out for, if you submit a proposal for
inclusion on the "Approved List", and the Secretary finds that nonnative
animal harmful or whatnot, its automatically put on the aptly named,
"Unapproved List" -


(a) Requirement To Issue List of Unapproved Species-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species that are prohibited from importation into the United States except as provided in section 7.

Section 7 is for the Zoo, Aquarium, Educational purposes people,
but we'll get there in a second...

(2) INCLUDED SPECIES- The list under this subsection shall include--

(A) those species listed as injurious wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States Code, or under regulations under that section, as of the date of enactment of this Act; and

(B) any other species the Secretary determines under section 4(c)(2)(B) is not approved for importation.

(b) Proposal for Inclusion on the List of Unapproved Species-


Basically, I can make a proposal to DENY imports of a specific
nonnative animal, provided I have scientific data which shows
how destructive that particular species is.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 05:45 PM
Here's the section I would highlight if I were against this bill-


(a) Prohibitions- Except as provided in this section or in section 7, it is unlawful for any person subject to the jurisdiction of the United States to--

(1) import into or export from the United States any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

(2) transport between any State by any means whatsoever any nonnative wildlife species that is not included in the list of approved species issued under section 4;

(3) violate any term or condition of a permit issued under section 7;

(4) possess (except as provided in section 3(f)), sell or offer to sell, purchase or offer to purchase, or barter for or offer to barter for, any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1);

(5) release into the wild any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1); or

(6) breed any nonnative wildlife species that is prohibited from being imported under paragraph (1), or provide any such species to another person for breeding purposes.

2, 4, and 6 will definitely piss people off, but remember, this is about
restricting something potentially harmful to YOU, your pets, OUR
environment and native species within. I just don't know though,
if breeding or selling is prohibited if you currently own the
individual animals. It also mentions nothing about prohibiting
someone from inheriting an animal. We need a resident ATS
Master of Laws to shed some light.

There's hope in Section 7-


(a) In General- The Secretary may issue a permit authorizing importation otherwise prohibited under section 6(a)(1), for scientific research, medical, accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the Secretary, if the Secretary finds that there has been a proper showing by the permittee of responsibility for the specimen and continued protection of the public interest and health with respect to the specimen.

(b) Terms and Conditions- The Secretary may include in a permit under subsection (a) terms and conditions to minimize the risk of introduction or establishment of the nonnative wildlife species in the United States.

Even if the animal is on the Prohibited List, you can be issued a permit if
its for science, medicine, zoo/aquarium, educational purposes. The Zoos
are safe, the classroom pets are safe.. The catch is what kind of terms
and conditions are applied. It might make people more responsible.

The rest of the Bill isn't worth posting, except maybe-


(a) In General- Nothing in this Act preempts or otherwise affects the application of any State law that establishes stricter requirements for importation, transportation, possession, sale, purchase, release, or breeding of, or bartering for, any nonnative wildlife species.

So if there's stricter State laws involving a particular nonnative species,
this bill gives all thunder to the State to punish and enslave away.

The only thing left unaswered would be what happens to the nonnative
animal on the "Unapproved List", say- if you were caught selling them.
If Chimps and Tigers make the "Unapproved List" they certainly don't
destroy them, do they? What about lesser forms of life? Do they take
they time to properly transport them back to their native country, or what?
Those are some questions I'd like to see answered.

reply to post by TheAssociate

Snippiness was not directed at you, and I'd like to apologize all-around
to anyone I may have jumped on, this is a sensitive issue for both sides.
Its been an educational experience to say the least.

posted on Apr, 15 2009 @ 07:38 PM
reply to post by Bombeni

My son was telling me that he and my Grandpa were watching a History channel show on dogs last weekend and one of the pets were the chihuahua, well the chi actually was bred from the fox. I kind of figured it would be a rat or something...

Now I am just finishing a very tiring day, but wanted to say I appreciate the comments made above and if you look at my links you would find the same points of interest, actually from the same link, so discredit me, but I think in the long run we all have valid points to be made here and we can discuss the issue rather than argue the points.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:33 AM
Our great country has been blessed with a varied landscape which has the ability to house not only the people who became the first settlers but also a broad range of non native species who now call this country their home.

As many of our neighboring countries are being encroached upon by the multitudes of corporations which seek to destroy native and natural environments, it is abundantly clear that we have a true responsibility to house many species which at the time of Christopher Columbus did not in fact thrive in our wide range of climates and landscapes from the jungle like bayous to the wide open praries and rich mountainous regions and extensive desert areas to name but a few.

Just as the borders were at one time open to the hordes of settlers looking to enrich their lives and continue to grow and prosper so too do many non native species seek refuge in this time of climactic and natural change.

Yes there needs to be responsibilities of those who by choice and trade work within and enjoy the benefits of non native and exotic species. Yet where do we define a line so fragile in the views of a broader vision of tomorrow and of necessity?

At what stage of HR669 will there be a point of no return? We all can agree that when government steps in to regulate something so important and with such vigor that it is of the utmost importance to not dive in and sign something which may have long range implications unseen at this time.

Just as President Obama called for a transparency in Government so too do we need to call for a transparency in this important issue. The gray areas of this bill are what need to be removed from the shadows and discussed in the open with consideration for all people involved as well as for the non native species which will be affected by this bill if passed without consideration for their now native habitats.

How short a time in this abundantly rich country does a species have to be here by nature before it is deemed native? To say before Christopher Columbus is unfair and unrealistic.

All I am saying is that we need to take time with an issue this sensitive and not rush in where fools tread.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:42 AM
I gave this more thought, and if this helps the plight of animals, and that is the focus and intent of this legislation then I am for it. Something has to be done to help the plight of helpless animals, I guess they have to start somewhere.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 10:42 AM
reply to post by antar

1. If a chihuahua was bred from a rat, it would be a rodent, and not a canine.
2. Non-native species that should be here is not inclusive of tigers and other large species like chimpanzees, endangered species, etc. They do not make this great country any better when kept as household pets.
3. Those who work in an area with these animals and who are licensed to do so can still do so under section 7.
4. I don't see any grey areas in this bill. What I do see is some flip-flopping going on in this thread, and an attempt to make a discussion about animals not about animals.

I think that aecreate has done a great job going through the bill's exact language and suggest that before making comments which seem like assumptions and are false, perhaps one should take a peek at that.

posted on Apr, 16 2009 @ 03:31 PM
Well I was sickened by the bill when attempting to take some time to read it this morning, I suppose depending upon your views and or agenda of preconceived ideas the bill as stated sounds fair enough.

What got my attention was the amount of funding which is being spent on the issue of invasive species, billions of dollars going to unknown areas of research, this is not the first time something like this has happened and will not be the last.

So how important is it to look at the flow of money when considering HR669? Again it depends highly on the angle which you chose to side with. Let me put it this way, with all the monies being funneled into this issue, which side has made the most? Common sense can tell you that it is the back room deals being made and not the responsible Stewart's of industry.

posted on May, 31 2009 @ 12:51 PM
Even though I'm done discussing this with some individuals,
here's something to chew on-

Everglades swamped with invading pythons (thread by whaaa)

THE EVERGLADES, Florida (Reuters) – The population of Burmese pythons in Florida's Everglades may have grown to as many as 150,000 as the non-native snakes make a home and breed in the fragile wetlands, officials said on Thursday.

Wildlife biologists say the troublesome invaders -- dumped in the Everglades by pet owners who no longer want them -- have become a pest and pose a significant threat to endangered species like the wood stork and Key Largo woodrat.

"They eat things that we care about," said Skip Snow, an Everglades National Park biologist...

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2   >>

log in