HR 669
This is the bill that actually inspired Two Uncommon Cents.
Truthiness
I was recently alerted to nohr669.com on a message board, by a genuinely concerned pet owner. Here’s the video, by Brian Barczyk:
If it doesn’t load, or if you don’t want to bother, here’s a few quotes that sum it up:
“This bill will affect anyone that keeps pet fish, birds, reptiles or small mammals.
The bill would ban all non-native species from being sold, bred or transported.
If you own a parakeet, a cockatiel, betta fish, angel fish, this bill will affect you.
Even if you own a hamster, gerbil, guinea pig, or virtually all reptiles, this bill will affect you.
If by chance your kid had two hamsters, and they happened to have babies, with this bill you would be in violation of the law. Your pets would be subject to confiscation, and terminated. And don’t even think about leaving state with your pets. It would be strictly prohibited.”
“If passed, this will cost the economy tens of billions of dollars, and millions of jobs.”
Truth
Most of the video is very alarmist, and only partially true.
There are two lists to be composed within 36 months of passing the bill, by the Secretary of the Interior. (Ken Salazar) One will be a List of Unapproved Species. Importation and breeding of these species will be prohibited in the United States. (except when permitted)
This list 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;
While Secretary Salazar has the authority to add more to the list, and anyone may propose a new addition, most of the species to be affected are banned already.
Now the other will be a List of Approved Species. The preliminary list shall include:
(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; orCommentsClose CommentsPermalink
(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.
This suggests strongly that Secretary Salazar should take into account the effect his lists will have on the economy. Plus, last I checked hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs and fishes are far too widespread to do anything about, and they probably don’t pose much of a threat anyway.
By the way, pet owners are exempt, at least as far as possession goes, via a nifty grandfather clause if they own their pets before the law is enacted.
However…
This is all not to say that you shouldn’t be concerned, especially if you own an exotic non-native pet. You won’t lose your pet, and there is nothing in the bill to prevent sale of equipment for the proper care of your pet. BUT, sale of equipment and food directly related to your pet will fall, and prices will rise. Even if you own a similar pet to one on the Unapproved list, (eg one with the same needs) you will be hit. Each list will be made public 60 days before it goes into effect, though.
In Review
You won’t lose your job, or your pet, if this bill passes. But it may become more difficult to take care of your pet, and impossible to ‘replace’ him, for lack of a better term. In other words, most of the video above is alarmist, but it is built on a very real concern.
Sources and Further Reading
http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h669/show — Resources and full text of HR 669
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/[...] — Full text of HR 669
http://nohr669.com/index.htm — NO on HR 669. Resources for spreading the word, and contacting your representative.
