tags: HR669, pets, exotic animals, invasive species, pet animal trade, pet parrots, World Parrot Trust, politics
Those of you who are following the situation with HR669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act [full text : free PDF] know this resolution survived its initial House subcommittee hearing and will be heard again on an as-yet unnannounced date. Even though I support the stated purpose of this resolution -- preventing invasive nonnative wildlife from being introduced into the United States -- this bill, as written, will not accomplish that goal. I have been communicating with various agencies regarding this issue and have received letters that speak out against HR 669. Dr. James Gilardi, the Executive Director of the World Parrot Trust, kindly sent me a copy of his letter to the House subcommittee on 22 April. Yesterday, this letter became widely available to the public, so I am publishing the full text of this letter here for you to read, particularly because it raises important points that must be considered if this resolution is to be taken seriously.
22 April, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
Dear Subcommittee Members,
We have reviewed the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act HR 669, and thank you for the opportunity to comment at this time. We agree that invasive species create serious risks to our native biodiversity, and we strongly support your interest in working to prevent future wildlife introductions in the USA.
The World Parrot Trust is an international, member-based organization, with a focus on the conservation of endangered parrot species in the wild, and the welfare of the millions of these birds living in captivity here in the USA and abroad. Because wild parrots are often threatened by both invasive species and the international trade in wild birds, we have extensive experience recognizing these threats and responding with creative and effective solutions.
For the past 20 years, the World Parrot Trust has been a leader in ending the commercial trade in wild caught birds. We are staunch supporters of our Wild Bird Conservation Act, and we recently lead a campaign to urge the EU to adopt a similar policy. This EU campaign - which was supported by the American Bird Conservancy, Defenders of Wildlife, and the Humane Society of the United States and 230 other NGO's - came to fruition in 2007 with the EU following the USA's example.
With regard to invasive species here in the USA, the best available science is remarkably clear; past introductions now have profound impacts to both our ecosystems and our economy. We applaud this committee's interest in meeting existing and future challenges of this kind. As we have outlined below, the risks created by the ownership of exotic pets are by-and-large inconsequential, and the most threatening risks both in the past and the present, come from a number of categorically different sources. We hope your review will help clarify these essential distinctions, and lead you in the direction of more focused and effective solutions to these problems.
Exotic pets and American ecosystems:
In their scientific review of the current state of invasive species in this country, Pimentel et al* compiled a complete and rigorous evaluation of the sources and the impacts of animal and plant introductions. Most crucially for HR 669, among the long list of important invasive mammals, birds, reptiles, fish, and insects (Table 1), none of these listed species were introduced as a result of the keeping of exotic animals. Not one.
The listed species of greatest ecological or economic impact fell into one of three categories: 1) accidentally introduced pest species like rats or the brown tree snake, 2) purposefully introduced biological control agents like mongooses and House Sparrows, or 3) escaped domesticated pet species or livestock like cats, dogs, and pigs. HR 669 makes no attempt to address any of these threat categories, but instead focuses on exotic pets which this research found to be comparatively inconsequential.
Naturally, there are a few exceptions, both because some species have great invasive potential, and because some parts of the USA which are uniquely capable of supporting non-native wildlife. However, when adopted in a timely fashion, legislation at the state level has been an effective response to these concerns, and we strongly support this targeted approach to prevent such invasions on a case-by-case basis.
As crafted, HR 669 ignores sound science on established problems and known risks, and instead targets millions of American's exotic pets which themselves create almost no measurable risk to native wildlife.
Foreseeable adverse consequences:
If the motivation of HR 669 is in fact to prevent the introduction of non-native species, it would appear counterproductive to take steps which will predictably lead to the liberation of millions of pets into American ecosystems. Should the bill be adopted, many pet owners will live in fear that their animals will be confiscated, or that they will be penalized for possession. Many will feel that releasing their pets into the wild is a better fate than turning them in to authorities or euthanizing them, leading to the liberation of large numbers of exotic animals into the wild. Although most of these animals will perish - itself a cruel and unnecessary outcome - some will survive and establish new populations of non-native wildlife all across the country, which is precisely the opposite outcome of what this bill intends.
In addition to encouraging the release of exotic species, HR 669 can also be predicted to cause millions of exotic animals to be relinquished to exotic animal rescue facilities which are already dangerously overpopulated. The ownership provisions and the prohibitions on interstate travel with exotic pets coupled with our highly mobile society will ensure that millions of Americans will face the difficult choice of either acting criminally and continuing to care for their pets, or following the law and giving them up. This bill will therefore create an animal welfare crisis on a scale which is difficult to fathom. The current network of such facilities - accredited or otherwise - is already overburdened by an existing need which is tiny fraction of the demand created by HR 669.
In sum, we applaud this committee's willingness to address the risks of introducing non-native species into natural ecosystems here in the USA. However, as currently crafted, HR 669 avoids addressing the most serious invasive species problems and the most threatening risks of future introductions. Moreover, this bill would inevitably create problem of its own, including the release of millions of animals now in captivity and the relinquishment of millions of pets into institutions ill-equipped to cope with their numbers and diversity. We urge this committee to give due consideration to the best available science and to focus your invasive species concerns on a new and more practical solution which targets the root of the problem rather than avoiding it entirely.
Sincerely,
James D. Gilardi, Ph.D.
Executive Director
* Pimentel, D., R. Zuniga, and D. Morrison. 2005. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecological Economics 52: 273- 288
HR 669 Links:
Will HR 669 Transform Your Exotic Animals into Illegal Aliens?
The New England Aquarium Speaks Out Against HR 669.
PetSmart Speaks out Against HR 669.
My detailed analysis of HR 669 and its impacts.
Video discussing some of the impacts HR 669 will have on exotic animal breeders, pet store owners and scientists.
Brief Factsheet (printable) regarding HR 669 and its impacts.
- Log in to post comments
I think Pimentel et al need to up date their update. They didn't include the burmese python, Gambian rat, snakehead fish, poison spined red lion fish, and great green tree frog - all recent invaders = directly associated with the pet trade. Well, I guess the gambian rat just brought in monkey pox and that didn't cost much money and didn't harm the environment - so what's a human health epidemic scare among friends? At least a few people got to have a neat looking rat. It our right to exploit the wildlife of other countries however we want darn it!
Thank you for this information, Grrl Scientist.
Re the comments about Gambian rats...the reference to this rat and the outbreak of a FEW cases of monkeypox is so overdone it is ridiculous. No one died. Yet, in the US 90,000 people go to the hospital every year for x, y or z and come away with a FATAL disease contracted at the hospital. I don't see any outcry about that, nor push for legislation either, not even requirements for better medical protocols on the part of doctors and nurses.
If the sponsors of HR 669 were serious, they would have included feral and free roaming cats on that bill. To fail to do that puts the whole purpose of this bill in doubt. It begins to look like the purpose of this bill is to eliminate exotic pets from our homes!period!
This bill FAILS to take into account any of the conservation projects or captive breeding projects for rare species, whether hoofed stock, cheetahs, or Blue headed macaws.
A serious approach to invasive species would be to target those already here causing problems (feral cats for one) and those that were APPLYING for entry. This bill approaches ALL nonnative species already in the US that have NOT created a problem with the same regulations that should apply to KNOWN invasive problem species or to unknown species applying for entry. That doesn't make sense. It wastes taxpayer dollars and wastes agency officials time.
Let us at least argue with the facts. The bill does take into account conservation projects that involve breeding -heck it even exempts display by scientific institutions or accredited zoos and aquariums.
I know pet breeders like to fancy themselves conservationists but get real. If they really become involved in some serious effort they would be brought in under the banner of "scientific" exemption and be covered by a permit.
I also know the introduction of a new disease is nothing to get upset over, especially if preventing it means someone might go without a cool looking rat. The SARS outbreak in China brought by the civet was no biggy either I suppose.
Natlie, we don't need scientists to breed endangered animals. We need, essentially, farmers. This is "getting real."
Why do some scientists think that they are entitled to privileges over the common citizen? The idea of human rights is expressly such that all citizens have the same rights and privileges. Academic achievement isn't the only way or the best way to learn how to handle animals.
And Laurella, we most certainly should not target feral cats. I know that they are hard on some bird species but plagues of rodents, which can only be controlled by feral cats, are destructive to food supplies for those same birds, and to their eggs, and to the environment in general.
Farmer to breed exotics, eh? Except that there are very few exotic animal farms in the US, mostly we have zoos and very dedicated hobbiests/professionals. There is no government branch that's breeding stockpiles of genetically viable rare animals. Instead, we have zoos and professional breeders. And those folks don't make a lot of money (which is why it's so easy for breeders and zoos to suck.) Yet, if we effect the transport and sale of these exotics, the zoos, who work with breeders on carefully managed and internationally executed Species Survival Plans, will simply not function in the USA--Because some congress-moron decided large parrots, as a group, are an invasion risk the USA would be unable to functional in breeding and release programs, and we know so much more now than we did in the 1980s when the thick billed project failed.
It exempts them for scientific or display purposes only, not for conservation. And it only allows them to import the animals, not breed them.
It's an incredibly badly worded bill.
Natalie,
I think your heavy broad hand fails to consider the emerging synergy between conservation and the pet trade. There is some genetic material that has been preserved in large part because of the pet trade industry. An example is the Blue Throated Macaw. Breeding programs that are underway now are being largely populated by pet birds. Had we not had these we could have lost the bloodlines all together. A great example of a tragedy that could have been prevented in this way is the Carolina Conure, one of our two indigenous parrots in the USA. They bread easily in captivity and had they been serious about establishing a good breeding program, they would still be here and we would be talking about reintroducing them, rather than mourning their loss. (I realize that the Conuropsis Carolinesis was a native bird, but the principle is the same)
In addition, in regard to Psitticines in general, the scientific knowledge base has been expanded GREATLY by the pet industry. We know so much more about these animals' nutritional needs and medical issues because the pet industry needed to understand these issues to be successful. The scientific knowledge base on many of these birds is extremely limited. It is our breeders and vets that have carried this study forward.
Non-native animals are indeed a threat, but HR 669 is like putting a tack in the wall with a sledge hammer.
"emerging synergy between conservation and the pet trade"
I literally laughed out loud.
A few more thoughts, first, the Blue Throated Macaw is threatened in the first place BECAUSE of the pet trade! If you rob a person and steal his car, then give him dollar to take the bus home this is not "synergy."
For all its talk of conserving the species, the exotic pet trade has an ongoing fascination for mutations and hybrid populations. The characteristics they select for in pairing animals have nothing to do with the survival needs of the species in the wild and everything to do with personal whim and market demand.
One serendipitous example hardly proves any rule,one can point to numerous examples of the demand for exotic pets helping to drive species toward extinction.