URGENT:
To: Members of the Ferret Community
Re: HR 669 - Non-native Invasive Species Act (2009) [Congressional
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs - 111th Congress]
I applaud the FML posting (and the poster) that brings to your
attention this Bill, which is rapidly making its way through Congress.
If passed, HR 669 could have a devastating and far-reaching impact on
your rights - as Ferret folks and as Pet people.
WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT DO---- Don't sit back and wait for the American
Ferret Association to speak for you. AFA's position, posted Sun, 19
Apr 2009 19:05:24 -0800, as described by D. Gaines (AFA legislative
director) is grossly simplistic and overlooks the Bill's greater
problems and unintended consequences that will undoubtedly be created.
BUT what Gaines omits to disclose is his OWN affiliation with both HSUS
and PETA: a Conflict of Interest!
What Gaines's said:
>anything that PIJAC says publically must be balanced against what
>organizations such as the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS),
>which is very pro-ferret welfare
[REALLY?? - AND YOU KNOW THIS BECAUSE?]
>The science behind this is beyond dispute (regardless of what
>PIJAC says),
[SHOW US THE DATA!]
>and in any event the bill addresses an issue that has nothing to do
>with the domestic ferret
[REALLY????]
>and therefore we [AFA is] are not taking a position on any of
>the bill's provisions except section 14(5)(D), that part of the
>definitions that spells out which animals are specifically excluded
>from the bill's definition of "nonnative wildlife species."
>.. I [D. Gaines] have been communicating with HSUS, a major supporter
>of HR 669, and they've agreed to ask that _mustela putorius furo_ be
>added to the list of exempted species in section 14(5)(D) of the bill.
>This is very good news. If the bill's sponsor, Delegate Madeliene
>Bordallo of Guam, with whose office I am also in contact, is amenable
>to that, then the bill becomes completely moot from our perspective
>and no one needs to worry any longer if it passes or not.
[NOT EXACTLY.]
What Gaines does not seem to recognize is that his organizations, HSUS
and PETA, are ANIMAL RIGHTS groups, holding the pretence of concern
regarding ANIMAL WELFARE-just enough to garner donations from an
unsuspecting and uneducated public. What he -and obviously the AFA-
fail to recognize is the overly broad, unscientific language of the
bill would have a much wider impact.
Any of you who has fought the "good fight" to legalize or re-legalize
ferrets should be clued into the not so subtle language used in HR 669
that is both dangerous and precedent-setting.
PROBLEMS WITH HR 669:
The purpose of this Act is "to establish a risk assessment process to
prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States
of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or ARE LIKELY TO CAUSE
economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' health
or human health." Below are list of concerns that go beyond the
omission of ferrets:
1. Bill fails to define what constitutes "common and clearly
domesticated"
2. Obvious political bias is selection of the list of "approved"
species: dogs and cats are probably the most destructive of the
domestic species - to both the environment and public health.
3. Risk Assessment process is too vague and subject to interpretation
and political whim!
4. Mandated criteria require proving a "negative," that is, to prove
that a species poses NO potential risk of causing harm anywhere within
the United States. [COMMENT: This is scientifically - mathematically-
IMPOSSIBLE. What California State would like to see for Ferrets!]
5. Bill fails to state that mandated "user fees" must be "reasonable"
or "affordable" [COMMENT: Could result in a few tax-exempt
organizations or wealthy individuals using the law to force
unnecessarily restrictive agendas on the public!]
6. Important limited to only "zoos, scientific research, medical,
accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational
purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the
Secretary". [COMMENT: How about the rest of us?!]
7. USFWS inspectors lack the necessary training to accurately and
knowledgeably identify the majority of native and non-native genera
and species, and any potential or existing hybrids, nor would they be
likely to know which species are native to specific regions of the US;
and further, these inspectors would be unlikely to be able to
accurately identify and distinguish all those thousands of species,
cryptic species and hybrids that are not native to the United States.
[Again -sounds like California all over again!]
8. Bill could also result in particular species being listed as illegal
in ALL STATES, where in fact they may possess the potential to become
established in just one or two specific states or geographic regions:
Example: Hawaii is a very different "eco-system" than New Jersey!
9. Bill will seriously damage the Pet Industry - the ENTIRE PET-RELATED
INDUSTRY, that would extend to: specialty veterinarians, feed stores,
pet boutiques, pet care providers and consultants who specialize in
caring for exotics.
10. Oddly and inexplicably the Bill ignores the tremendous economic,
environmental, and habitat damage caused by invasive exotic plant
species [COMMENT: Smells like another "agenda" is at work - one to
eliminate the PET INDUSTRY and PET OWNERSHIP!]
11. Recognize the Subcommittee's bias: 25% of the Subcommittee's
Members are from ISLAND (Guam, Mariana's, Virgin, Hawaii, Puerto Rico),
which have very special ecosystems that are NOT FOUND in the remaining
US states and territories!
WHAT YOU SHOULD DO:
Write your OWN LETTER to each of the Subcommittee on Insular Affair's
members. To find this information, please go to:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Natural_Resources_Subcommittee_on_Insular_Affairs>
[Wikipedia site is selected because it is current and provides LINKS to
each of the members.]
DO NOT RELY ON ANY ONE ORGANIZATION OR INDIVIDUAL TO VOICE YOUR
CONCERNS. Also - numbers do count!
Regards,
F. A. Hoffman
The American Council for Ferret Health, Welfare and Policy
Washington, DC
Freddie Ann Hoffman
Washington, DC 20011-6809
T: 202.545.6843 F: 202-545-6844
E-mail: <mailto:[log in to unmask]>
[Posted in FML 6309]
|
