tags: HR669, pets, exotic animals, invasive species, politics
Let's watch the legislative process in action: Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife Legislative Hearing on H.R. 669. [Archived Video].
Will anyone add this hearing footage to YouTube? For some mysterious reason, I cannot view it on my laptop and cannot find it on YouTube yet, either.
A brief synopsis of the Subcommittee Hearing:
The Subcommittee hearing was the first step for this bill. Chair Bordallo repeatedly stated that the committee members were there to learn and get input. When the meeting was adjorned, Bordallo stated the hearing would continue for ten days to allow for further input.
It was abundantly clear that the Subcommittee members heard animal-lovers' voices; many comments were made about phone calls, emails, and letters. There was definitely real concern about the feelings of pet owners, and we made that difference.
The witness testimony was very interesting and it was easy to see all of the different agendas at play. All agreed that invasive species are a problem that needs to be dealt with. Many wondered if HR 669 was actually an achievable way of tackling invasive species. It seems like there needs to be a lot of discussion and back and forth to find some common ground that achieves he goal of providing a real solution to the invasive species problem and protects our pets at the same time.
Marshall Meyers of PIJAC did an outstanding job of representing the interests of the entire pet industry and was hands down, the hero of the day! He also entered 20 letters from various organizations into the public record.
Dr. Lodge, the scientist from Notre Dame whose research is nonnative invasive species, especially marine types (He is involved in aquatic conservation), said that ALL nonnative species must undergo formal scientific Risk Assessment prior to approval. When asked about creating a Black List instead, he said, NO...you can never tell when a species which has been here for years will suddenly become "invasive" (threatening the environment or our native species).
Committee Member Shea-Porter, is an ardent supporter of HSUS, according to various sources. She made a point of asking the USFWS official, Mr. Frazier, if the bill would "take away" people's pets and he said NO. Then she asked if people would be able to transport pets across state lines. At that point, Mr. Frazier hemmed and hawed and said there might need to be a "permit system" put in place. In other words, the bill makes no allowance for the legally owned pet to cross state lines. She never asked if a person could give away, sell or transfer their exotic animals, or breed them.
Committee member Brown entered "several boxes of letters" into the public record.
Make no mistake; HR 669 is still on the books in Congress. In reality, the only way it can actually go away is for it to expire at the end of the 111th session of Congress with no further action. Until then, it will linger out there. It seems that the plan of the subcommittee at this point is to get together all of the relevant parties and have them sit down and work out real solutions to the problems with HR 669 in an attempt to go forward responsibly. How long will that take? Well, stand by. It could be a two weeks, a month, or 6 months, but at some point, and in some form, we'll see HR 669 again.
A more comprehensive report will follow in a day or so.
HR 669 Links:
Will HR 669 Transform Your Exotic Animals into Illegal Aliens?
PetSmart Speaks out Against HR 669.
The New England Aquarium Speaks Out Against HR 669.
My detailed analysis of HR 669 and its impacts.
Brief Factsheet (printable) regarding HR 669 and its impacts.
Video discussing some of the impacts HR 669 will have on exotic animal breeders, pet store owners and scientists.
- Log in to post comments
The webcast format was not Macintosh compatible, even if you have RealPlayer installed. I wasn't able to watch it on my MacBook either. Had to fire up the household PC and listen to the audio. Video webcast connections were probably swamped and I wasn't able to get that going.
Here's a link to the page where people can access webcasts of committee hearings.
111th Hearings and Markup Videos
http://tinyurl.com/ctqs7d
I should add that the issue of non-native pets was discussed throughout the hearing, as were other issues. No question but that they're aware of people's concerns.
Did they discuss scientific uses of non-native species?
I have Windows Media Player installed on my Mac, and I was able to play the hearing although it got kind of jerky near the end (and I skipped past the middle since I was pressed for time); my guess is the RAM started to get fragmented even though I have plenty installed for graphics stuff.
Thank you for your objective reporting; over on one of the herp forums they were "claiming victory" (meaning the bill was defeated) for gosh-only-knows what reasons. I've seen a lot of the kind of partisan politics the last administration subjected us to (with exactly the same sort of scare mongering), which is why I got out a few baseball bats and started swinging.
Nobody wants to take away anyone's pets or livelihood derived from responsible business practices, and it was clear that politicians on both sides of the aisle were sensitive to animal caretakers' concerns.
I look forward to your final report and will pass it on in those circles, offering them an appropriate "reality check."
Concolor1, thanks for the tip about installing Windows Media Player. That did the trick for my MacBook. No longer have to run to the PC to watch these videos or other Windows Media files for that matter.