HR 669 and what it means for US zoos.

The KCZooman said:
Black Rhino: "It mentions nothing about zoos what so ever, so I wouldn't really worry about it."

Though zoos may not be mentioned, it doesn't mean that we should forget about this bill.

From my understanding on other posts, this bill (though intented to stop the next wave of alien exotics) has the potential to cripple the pet industry and make it impossible for zoos or other facilities to import and export new bloodlines to contiune or create new captive breeding populations.

All it takes is for some extremeist group to lobby to Washingtons' brilliant minds:rolleyes:, play on their emotions or ignorances, and before you know it the only wild (and dare I say domestic)animals we'll get see will be on TV or the internet.

I don't know about any of you, but I personally think ZooChat is a much more clever name than Watching Animals On The BoobTubeChat:D
Click to expand...

So you are saying zoos won't exist in a few years?
 
BlackRhino said:
So you are saying zoos won't exist in a few years?
Click to expand...

That's unlikely to darn near impossible. What IS possible is more government oversight and limitations to breeding programs and interstate/intercountry transit. It won't make things any easier on them. Why does the government need to oversee this anymore than they already do when the supposed species in question are fairly specific?

Also, the bill is not just about invasive species, though it is one of the main goals. It also call into question any species than can be construed as a threat to public health. I'd imagine this pertains to large constrictors and kids putting baby turtles in their mouth, but cases could easily be made for zoo species if accidents occur in parks, which they do from time to time, and get a ton of press to boot.

What if another person gets maimed or killed by a tiger as in SF not too long ago? What if some donor on a private tour gets an appendage cut to ribbons by a Komodo, as has happened before? What if an animal escapes (not IF, but WHEN.), as they do somewhat regularly. A gibbon escaped in Cincy and bit some guy last year. It wasn't the first escape from Jungle Trails. What if inclement weather floods a Southern zoo and frees it's non native captives? This happened during Katrina.

Make no mistake, some of the organizations (PETA) that favor this bill want zoos shut down altogether, as we all know. Things seen by us as freak occurences or odd examples of lax husbandry will just put more gas on their fire, and with this legislation in place, it will be much more plausible for them to push for anti-zoo policies.

Like I've said, go ahead and ban specific invasive exotics in places they can become established, but don't give them more rope than they need to do the job. Fish and Wildlife is grossly underfunded as is and I think it's much more likely that they would ban most exotics than take the time to ban the problem species.
 
Black Rhino@: So you are saying zoos won't exist in a few years?

I certainly hope this isn't the case. I personally think that zoos will be around as long as people are wanting to continue visiting them. When the Kansas City Zoo became stagnant awhile back, several families drove to cities like Omaha, St. Louis, Springfield, MO, and Wichita to so they could go to a zoo of some sort.

But make no mistake about it, PETA and its' extremeist allies will do everything within their power to spread its' propaganda to innocent animal-lovers and twist their minds to match their ideological beliefs.

That is why all of us in the ZooChat family must stand together and fight this ignorance with knowledge and continue to encourage our communities to support their local zoos morally and financially. Only then can we can give a much-needed response to PETA and its' cohorts.
 
okapikpr said:
SEC. 7. PERMITS.
(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.

This broad statement would provide for responsible husbandry and management.

Zoos are mentioned in the language of the bill in reference to the issuance of permits to display "unapproved" species.
Click to expand...

Although highly broad (what would a zoo need to do to show this? What if it is denied for a current species? Is it by institution or by species? Etc.) it says nothing about for breeding/survival of the species-type purposes.

While to some that might seem a 'given' under that it would be allowed, I think the fear is that what IF it isn't? What IF there requirements are stricter than lax, etc.
 
groundskeeper24 said:
What if another person gets maimed or killed by a tiger as in SF not too long ago? What if some donor on a private tour gets an appendage cut to ribbons by a Komodo, as has happened before? What if an animal escapes (not IF, but WHEN.), as they do somewhat regularly. A gibbon escaped in Cincy and bit some guy last year. It wasn't the first escape from Jungle Trails. What if inclement weather floods a Southern zoo and frees it's non native captives? This happened during Katrina.
Click to expand...


Something tells me a good portion of zoos--especially one with previous 'incidents'--are going to have a hard time getting a SEC. 7. permit. You can't say "I'm keeping the public safe from this animal and it will never happen and this animals breeding is essential to science" when it's caused a death at your zoo in the past few years.

We all know lobbyist will bring up each of those incidents you alluded to at every instance and it's a lot easier to get the 'pity' vote of "Look at this dangerous animal killing this poor stupid inebriated human!" than to explain it was human stupidity (specially talking SF here).
 
We have the right to bare arms, but not a puppy?

HR 669


I am a mother. My kids have a wonderful Husky dog, a couple of fish and a hamster. I love animals and am proud of teaching my children how to care for other living creatures. Living in harmony without killing any animal large or small. I teach my children about the earth and how we should protect it's creatures. I tell them how fast the world's natural resources are begin used up. And how animals have no more wild to goto in most areas around the globe. The biggest lesson I teach my children is when animal and human have conflict, the animal ALWAYS looses.

With this Law, we will no longer have the right members of our family. These are not just animals to us, to my children and myself the are Family. My Children have grow up, easter egg hunted with, laughed till they cried with their furry and scaly friends. This law unfairly targets all non native animals. From hamsters, most fish in pet stores, even zoos, none of these animals are safe. How fun would a zoo be with no Tigers, Lions, Bears, Zebra, ect.... ?

This is madness!!!

I fully understand the need for protecting our wildlife ((everglades, yellowstone, wolves in alaska)) but please do not let them take my family's RIGHT to our loved and treasured pets.

We have the right to bare arms, but not a puppy???
 
KC, that's exactly the point I was making! Even the most well known and beloved types of pets-hamsters, guinea pigs, budgies, goldfish, even cats and dogs-are not native to the US.
 
Jacobea said:
KC, that's exactly the point I was making! Even the most well known and beloved types of pets-hamsters, guinea pigs, budgies, goldfish, even cats and dogs-are not native to the US.
Click to expand...

Yet they will not be affected by this proposed bill.
 
okapikpr said:
Yet they will not be affected by this proposed bill.
Click to expand...

Which means the bill makes even less sense :mad:

There are several examples of non-native pet birds like parakeets getting loose/be freed and making colonies; cats and dogs go feral, and cats are well known for contributing to the decline in small birds; horses arn't native but they run free in parts of the US. How are "exotic" pets like snakes and lizards much different :confused:

From what I gather, in many places in the US, most of the reptiles let loose would struggle to survive the winter. I can understand the trouble they have in the likes of, say, Florida, with introduced species, so why not a local ban/requirement of a license to own certain animals, and culls/recapturing (which could even generate money if they were to sell on those animals caught) done by the local Fish & Game people (I'm British, so not entirely sure who's in charge of managing nature). That would make more sense (although maybe just to me) and halt the persecution of millions of responsible exotic pet breeders and keepers, plus it wouldn't add to the rigmarole that zoos already have to plough through.

As for zoo animals-how many escapee orangutan colonies are there in the US exactly :rolleyes: ? Nor have I heard about freed elephants destroying crops in Wisconsin lately :p
 
Word on Kingsnake.com is that the bill in it's present form is officailly dead.

I sincerely hope a better bill is drafted to combat specific invasive species with less broad language. It's an issue that should be addressed, just not in such a broad manner, IMO.
 
Jacobea said:
Unless they're a native species ;)
Click to expand...

Pet rats, though now domesticated, are native to Asia and are probably one of the most invasive critters we have around! I agree that it's a sad day when I can't even have a pet rat!

If any species needs to be banned for the amount of damage it inflicts on the environment, it's the pet cat. Since cats aren't at the very top of the list, I think it's pretty safe to say that the PETA/HSUS/etc. agenda is what is really pushing this bill.

And excuse my ignorance, but aren't we prohibited from keeping most NATIVE species as pets also? Last time I checked, I could go to the store and by hamsters, gerbils, chinchillas, and ferrets because squirrels, possums, raccoons, and skunks were already illegal in my state.

I run a rescue for exotic mammals and birds. At this time, I have over 10 species of animals who are non-native. As a rescue, wouldn't this bill make it illegal for me to continue to do adoptions? And wouldn't it be illegal for people to bring me their unwanted exotic pets? Even if they are grandfathered in, what would people do with exotics they could no longer keep? Wouldn't they be pretty much forced to just kill them, since giving them away isn't an option?

I agree that protecting our environment is important, but this blanket legislation is ridiculous. Something like this would be much more effective if handled at the state level. Pythons might be hugely harmful in the Everglades, but I doubt they would last very long in North Dakota...
 
Cats are a scourge to native wildlife when they become feral. I like cats. Heck, I have two that are 15 years old. Mine are, however, fat and happy to stay in the house lounging around. Fact is, though, if a cat is kept as an outside cat, it will kill just about anything it can overpower, sometimes just for sport. My mom had one as a kid that would bring her dead birds and rabbits as "gifts" on the front doorstep. They are hardy, readily reproduce in the wild, and spead diseases such as rabies (major carrier, even more than dogs) and feline HIV to cats that are domestics. legislation for spaying/neutering would go farther than this bill ever could in protecting native wildlife, especially songbirds.

Also, many approved species on this bill are common livestock. What do people honestly think has done more damge to the enviroment in this counrty? Some escaped snakes in a few tropical regions or countless cattle that need tons of land to graze? This doesn't even take into account the natural predators decimated by ranchers looking to rid their charges of raiding pests. It's just much easier to pick on a small slice of the populace than it is to anger countless cat owners and people who sell, raise and eat cattle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top