Apr 23 2009
HR 669
It was recently brought to my attention that there was a bill before congress entitled “The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act”, or HR 669. The law would outlaw the breeding sale and possession of non-native wildlife. If you read the bill, which you can do HERE, you will see that the definition of “non-native species” does not include things like cats, dogs, chickens, or “or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.”
Under the new law species would have to be added to an “approved” list in order to be exempt. To get on the list you have to be approved by Simon and voted in during an intense televised competition. OK really. To get on the list it has to be determined that that particular species is “not harmful to the United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health”, or if the species is harmful to any of the above, they can be included on the list if it is determined that they 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”.
I have mixed feelings about this bill. As a biologist I understand the negative impact an invasive species can have on an ecosystem. There are plenty of species in the pet trade that I could easily argue don’t make good pets.
While I don’t want to see places like the everglades overrun with Burmese pythons, as a reptile owner I can’t help but feel a little singled out by the bill. My corn-snakes are native to the US (even though with thier mutations they’d only survive in a florescent orange forest) but my leopard gecko isn’t. I find it doubtful that any herps will qualify as “clearly domesticated”, as unfortunately most people cannot (and don’t care to) even tell the difference between a piebald ball python and a garter snake you’d find outside.
So that leaves us with the other two options. I’ve seen enough harmless snakes intentionally killed by people claiming they we’re poisonous to know that there is already a bias against reptiles posing no threat to human health. So being widespread is the only option, which many pet herps are (at least from what I see), but who knows.
The issue of invasive species might be better dealt with on a species by species basis. If you are interested, there is a campaign to stop this bill, Check it out here: NO HR669.
Please leave comments either way, I see both sides of the argument and think there is some common ground. People who are into herps tend to want to protect wild herps and native wildlife as well. As with many conservation issues using this common ground to forge the way forward could end up producing a much better solution.
What’s the legal definition of “nonnative wildlife,” and who gets to decide what is or isn’t “harmful” to the “United States’ economy, the environment, or other animal species’ or human health”? Many of the most damaging introductions of non-native species (e.g. zebra mussels) were neither intentional nor anticipated, so how does this law plan to effect change? I think what I find so troubling about this bill is that it presumes to keep all but the most benign nature from entering US borders (pure fantasy!), and establishes a legal basis for evaluting all of nature in terms of its impact on the “United States’ economy” and “human health.” (It’s also naive enough to assume that the distribution of a given species will remain fixed over a long period of time, with and without our help!) Overall, this is where we were 100 years ago; except that we’re not shooting birds for pretty feathers and good fun, but eliminating foreign animals and plants from our shores for the good of God and Country.
If we want to make a big impact with this bill, let’s start by eliminating the most egregious offender of the phrase “nonnative wildlife” from the North American continent so we don’t muss up the other species’ backyards anymore than we already have. Oh, but that wouldn’t be good for the Economy, would it?