Join for FREE | Take the Tour Lost Password?
[x]

deviantART

 
:iconshiari:

~shiari

shinoarii at large! wark!
ProfileGalleryPrintsFavesJournal

NO on HR669!

Mon Apr 13, 2009, 5:02 PM
[link]

This proposed bill would make the ownership of common pets such as hamsters, goldfish, parakeets and most reptiles no longer available. Breeding and taking them across state lines would become illegal. While there is provisions for a list of exceptions you know that a lot of common pets aren't going to make it out of fear that they will form wild populations.

Okay, I understand, yes invasive species are bad things and people who dump their animals are dipshits. However, dipshits like that are going dump animals whether they're native to this country as a whole or not. Cornsnakes, for example, are NOT native to california, and could cause severe harm to the genetic integrity of any native ratsnakes or could push out entirely certain snake populations. So... why are they automatically "better" than a hamster or a betta fish?

The approved list for this POS would have to be submitted within 13 months of this passing. In the mean, as nothing is approved, say goodbye to most mom and pop pet shops, your aquariums, your parrots and parakeets, your pocket pets, your ball pythons. Then, maybe, in 13 months you can have new ones. In the mean time, that means that only large super chains are going to have the means to import and breed these approved animals causing a severe reduction in competition and skyrocketed pet prices...

And the best part is the hypocritical fact that this bill isn't going to touch upon our pet dogs and cats... because there's no effing way it would have a snowball's chance in the middle of a supernova of passing.

So, go to that website. Send an email to your representative. Let them know that they need to find a *different* way of handling the release of non-native species into the wild that does not involve banning ALL non-native species.

  • Mood: Anger

Devious Comments

love 0 0 joy 0 0 wow 0 0 mad 0 0 sad 0 0 fear 0 0 neutral 0 0
:iconspartydragon:
That won't pass. It'd be a pain in the ass to enforce and they already lack the resources.

--
"Who am I? I'm the most bad-ass high flying soap bubble of 'em all!" - Sakata Gintoki, Gintama Volume 3, Chapter 22
:iconmonkeydanceguy:
Agree with below. The States have bigger problem right now than tracking down people who smuggle tortuses in their pants. Although, I can't see how hamsters can influence the environment in any way, other than joining the coyote and birds-of-prey food chain.

--
Drawing is kind of like peeing, it`s hard to do with people watching.

Join the revolution: [link]
:iconkatara-alchemist:
No way will this pass. There's more people with these pets then without them.

--
10 days till we die
9 days till we cry
8 days till we run
7 days till we scream
6 days till we plan
5 days till we learn
4 days till we suspect
3 days till we disappear
2 days till we laugh
1 day till we play our last game

Poem is posted in gallery
:iconkuramathespiritfox:
This wont pass. Too many people have those pets, we're talking about 90% of the population and we've got better things to worry about. Besides if it was passed, cops will be either too lazy or too overwhelmed to enforce it. I'm sure if they had to chose against a druggie in an airport and someone with a gecko in their pocket, they'd swing more towards the druggie.

--
HARG! My name is Pix. Feed me cookies! >:E
:iconjake-kelton:
I agree with most of what was stated above in that even if it gets passed it will shortly be retracted once they realize the impossibility of being able to control it.

--
Anteru - Elven Dragon Rider
:iconraeth:
Suits me; you shouldn't be keeping animals cooped up in tiny cages anyway.

--
Something something something rebel scum.
:iconshiari:
You need to define tiny. After all, one could consider having a dog inside a house is confining it to a 'tiny' area since they would have far larger territories "in the wild".

A lot of species are being protected against extinction from habitat loss thanks to the pet trade industry. While my personal animals are not threatened, a lot of parrots are. And while there are dipshit owners, there are damn good ones too. My mom always used breeder/flight cages for her parakeets, and the parakeets got to fly around the house for three hours a day and happily went back into their cages to play with their many many toys. People build huge homes for their rats and ferrets and rabbits.

The thing is, this bill doesn't affect just pet owners, but also places that are conservatories and specifically aiming to breed endangered animals to save their populations. Those creatures too are kept in "tiny cages"... which are actually quite spacious and what they lack in sheer acreage, they also lack in predators and food shortages and death from curable illnesses.

And it *doesn't* prevent the keeping of native animals, which you must have missed. It only prevents exotics. So we can still keep our various native reptiles, native birds, mice, rats, etc in "tiny cages" with no consequence.
:iconthree-stripes:
huh? why are the putting this bill up in the US anyway? i dont see why they shud? you got more info on this bill so i can feed my curiousty?

--
i love chocolate and all things sweet and salty
:iconcrescentsword:
That is just possibly the dumbest law I have ever heard of.

Also, you still want some chocolate from the UK, yes?

Site Map