1-10 of 12 messages
|
Page 1 of 2
Next
|
Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by atwageman on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I was traveling for work and did not get to watch it. Just wondering what was said by all parties involved.
|
|
RE: Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by tigers9 on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
My (Zuzana Kukol) DRAFT notes regarding April 23, 2009 HR 669 hearing, Non-native invasion species act…
(I don’t remember all the names, early mornign for me, so I will ID people by seating arrangement from left to right)
Testimony table:
Fraser, USFWS guy:
Seemed uncomfortable answering many questions, sine the bill is very vague and therefore direct questions were hard to answer, so he wanted to be non committal.
Said something about some sections of HR 669 beign hard to enforce since Lacey’s act HR 669 is supposed to amend is old, and this HR 669 is a stand alone bill, and I guess there are some (definition/enforcement rules?) inconsistencies (I am not a lawyer).
He admitted his employer, aka, the enforcing agency’s should this bill pass, USFWS would need much more funding to pull this off. When Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH) asked if current pets would be grandfathered, Fraser said yes. When she asked if they could be transported acrsoo the state lines for medical treatment or household move, the answer was no she inquired if some permit system could be done where people could move with their pet. Fraser gave some feebly answer, however, this would require lots of time and money, considering how often people move. Also, permits would take long time to process, people often move on short notice, I myself moved from CA to WA in 3 days. That is not enough time to apply and process a permit, considering the speed (or lack of thereof) at which our federal government does anything. Considering the transfer to a new owner would be illegal under HR669, where would the animals go, while this supposed permit to move to another state without changing the owners would be processed?
Some scientist whose grandfather released some invasive plants ages ago
He was obviously for it and I found him annoying. He kept saying invasive species need to be controlled, and nobody was arguing that point, he just couldn’t get it into his thick skull that this bill is not workable in the real life as written.
Israeli Scientist
Gave overview of their still relatively new system with low risk animals (anybody can buy), medium risk (small zoos, etc) and high risk (only research and major zoos can get them). Kept saying that this system is mostly used for NEW species animals, that have not been kept in Israel until now. After listening to others speaking AGAINST the bill testimonies, he seemed to realize that what works in a tiny country like Israel with barely 8 million inhabitants, might not work in a huge geographically/habitat diverse country like USA with 300 million people.
Some Arizona state official
He seemed to be very real practical life oriented. He admitted the invasive species problem AZ state has is NOT exotic pet owners’ caused. He said he finds most exotic pet owners responsible, and the major AZ invasive species are NOT pets, but rather pests, aka zebra mussels or Talapia/Tilapia (spelling) non native food fish also farmed in the USA. He also warned (food for thought) that if somebody has to move across the state lines, and can’t take their exotic pet with them, and surrendering their beloved exotic pet (he reminded committee they too likely have pets to make the issue real for them) will likely mean the pet will be killed, to think how many will just release their pet or take it with them illegally (implied by his testimony, not really spelled out). I liked this guy.
Business man/fish farmer from VA
It looked like to me he wanted to steer the committee into exempting food fish farming together with dogs, cats, chicks and livestock. Some fish he farms are US natives, the main non native one is Talapia/Tilapia, that seems to have already established as invasives in AZ and could possibly do the same in FL, but nowhere else, since minimum water temperature needs to be 60 degrees, or the fish will go belly up (lawyers at the bottom of the sea) before the slaughter time.
He kept saying their business is indoors and contained and regulated. However if unfairly exempt (unfairly toward other species), they are allowed to sell live fish, and nobody can then prevent crazy PETA member to buy live Tilapia at fish market/restaurant and release it in some southern lake to be free (insert sarcasm).
So this argument si full of holes, exempt food fish so AR (animal rights) can buy and release them.
Marshall Myers, PIJAC
I loved him, short story; he told them they can not apply ONE SIZE FITS ALL to the whole USA. Different climate/environment, something that can be harmful in one state might just not do any damage in a different state. He lobbied for states keeping their rights to do their own invasive species control on a local level. HR 669 would take away the enforcing powers and control of many state wildlife agencies and assign it to bureaucratic federal government. NOT efficient. He argued that approved or not list process would take too long….
There should be a correct mix of federal and state control. He also brought 20 or so letters from different animal groups opposing this bill, and wanted them to be acknowledged for the record.
Committee members
Grrr, some smart, some born to be blond….
Bill sponsor Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam) was not as annoying as I expected (that is a compliment from me).
Henry Brown (R-SC) was delayed by fires/FEMA issues in Myrtle Beach, SC. I loved him, he (and others) acknowledged the grass root efforts and marveled at all the letters and emails they got. Brown mentioned 4 boxes of AGAINST HR 669 letters.
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP – American Samoa) mentioned some fish bill nobody else seemed to know anything about, that somewhat reduced rights to commercial fishing on his island?... so now they really have to import lots of smelly fish to feed the fish hungry human population, and this bill would make Samoans go fish hungry?:-)
I liked him, he seemed like he would be more comfortable on fishing boat than in Washington DC hearing, he remained me of Jackie Chan.
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI) somewhat managed to get the people present distracted, and to go on a tangent of dangerous pets. OK, an animal potentially dangerous to humans they mentioned/named (tiger, chimp, Taipan) are not necessarily an invasive species, as many of them can’t survive in the USA. Take tigers, for example, big animals, need big prey to feed, stay with mom in the wild for 2-3 years to learn how to hunt. Any escaped tiger in the USA would be a tiger with a death sentence, they can’t survive on their own, they will never be invasive species. USFWS guy Fraser failed to correct them committee members on Captive Wildlife Safety Act which makes it harder to get a pet (aka non federally USDA licensed) big cat.
Eventually the debate go back from scary pets that would not make in invasive list to the invasive list, but seems like at the end there were more unanswered questions than real answers.
Please submit more comments, I would like to make this into official REXANO website editorial/commentary with more than one author, combined efforts of animal groups
Zuzana Kukol, www.REXANO.org
contact@rexano.org
|
|
RE: Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by tigers9 on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
archives, why do u travel so much, what r u sellign?
http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option=com_jcalpro&Itemid=32&extmode=view&extid=246
|
|
RE: Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by atwageman on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Thanks Tigers9 for your response. I wonder where we go from here? Maybe I should start a thread asking that very question.
Reading your response, one can tell very easily that many of these politicians are in the financial bag to the AR groups.
|
|
RE: Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by atwageman on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I'm watching the replay right now. So far I've learned who I can blame for kudzu.
|
|
RE: Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by FangsandFelines on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I think the point that we need to try and push before the bill is introduced to the floor is that it should be the states decision on what constitutes invasive or native.
I spoke with Jed Bullock, the legislative director for Rep. Bordallo last night and specifically stated that the constitution was designed to give the states the power to make those types of decisions, NOT the federal government. He said that Rep. Bordallo hadn't really considered the constitutionality of the bill.However, I do believe that she is sincere in her desire to protect our native wildlife she (along with everyone else in Washington) just seems to believe that its the federal government's job to do it. I kept reinforcing this idea to Mr. Bullock and also my desire to pursue a career as an exotic animal veterinarian. If 669 passed, I wouldn't have a career.
Mr. Myers was the only witness who seemed to have even a basic understanding of constitutional law; everyone else seemed to be fixated on being politically correct and not call the bill what it is: UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Let the Federal government deal with the issues and powers it is allowed to as PERFECTLY stated in the Constitution; all other decisions get differed to the states.
Anyone reminded of late 18th century colonial America?
|
|
RE: Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by brandonsthaman on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
I watched it and I think everyone, including those that are for the bill, realize it has MANY problems...
I have to say that Henry Brown's statement made me proud to be a South Carolinian. =)
Although I did wince a little bit when the Representative from US Samoa started throwing around questions about if there were any laws against keeping tigers, taipans, and gorillas... Hopefully that won't lead to a new House Resolution to fight...
|
|
RE: Did anyone watch the HR669 webcast?
|
Reply
|
by atwageman on April 23, 2009
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Well I've had some time to digest what was said at today's hearing. Some of what I heard I liked. Other things I didn't.
There were loose ideas thrown around about permits of some type. My short answer to this is no. But lets say I have to obtain federal permits for my collection of bitis. I can only imagine what they could potentialy charge for the permits.
And while I'm on the subject of permits, will they make understanding and filling out the permit applications a pain in the ass. Anybody out there who has done their own leg work with CITES applications can fully understand what I'm talking about. Knowing our government there will be a zillion different permit applications like there are for CITES permits, etc., and then each permit application will be titled slightly different so has to confuse the crap out of folks on exactly which permit applications need to be filled out and sent in. Heck sometimes just navigating some government websites like the usda, fws, etc. is worse than dealing with the fine print on a credit card application or a mortgage.
All I know is this.....we need to keep up the fight because this is only the beggining.
Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|