An Ounce of Python Prevention
"Swamp Things," a fascinating article by Burkhard Bilger in the April 20 issue of The New Yorker, describes how the exotic pet industry has helped transform the state of Florida into "a biological cesspool of introduced life." As fads of exotic birds, reptiles, and primates have come and gone, nonnative species have established themselves in the wild -- transported by hurricanes or deliberately set loose by their owners. As Bilger explains:
On a single tree you could conceivably find plants and animals from six continents, including parrots from South America, mynah birds and Old World climbing ferns from Asia, vervet monkeys from Africa, ladybird beetles from Australia, and feral cats from Europe, via Africa and Asia...The state's ecology is a kind of urban legend come true -- the old alligator-flushed-down-the-toilet story repeated a thousand times with a thousand species.
There have been well-known cases of exotic species that should never have been introduced in the U.S. -- whether they are the zebra mussels, the snakehead fish, or the Gambian rats that caused the 2003 multistate monkeypox outbreak. But the biggest problem for Florida is the new population of Burmese pythons living in the Everglades. These former "pets" can grow more than 20 feet long, weigh 200 pounds, and swallow an entire leopard.
Such ecological invasions can be prevented by a new bill
being considered in Congress. The House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans
and Wildlife today held a hearing on H.R. 669,
the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Introduced by Subcommittee
Chairwoman Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam), a great friend to animals, the bill
would set up a process for evaluating exotic wildlife species to determine
whether they should be allowed or prohibited for importation and interstate
commerce. The legislation is endorsed by The Humane Society of the United
States, Humane Society Legislative Fund, Defenders of Wildlife, National
Audubon Society, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists, and a
number of other conservation and animal protection groups.
Some pet industry groups are yelping and howling over the proposal, claiming it will end all pet ownership. We hear this rhetoric all the time from our opponents who can't defend inhumane practices on their merits, so they concoct some "slippery slope" justifications -- they say that curbing abuses at puppy mills will end all dog breeding, that phasing out confinement of farm animals in crates and cages will end all agriculture, that toughening the anti-cockfighting laws will eliminate the right to own roosters. But they're barking up the wrong tree.
First, the bill is aimed at exotic wildlife, not domestic household pets. It includes a specific exemption for cats, dogs, rabbits, goldfish, and horses. And the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is allowed to add more exempted species as it sees fit. The HSUS and HSLF are specifically requesting that hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, and ferrets be added to the exempted list.
Second, the legislation wouldn't ban any species immediately upon passage. It allows the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to start a process, based on scientific information with public input, to determine whether an exotic wildlife species is harmful or not. During that process, which will take three years, there would be no restrictions on trade. If a species is then determined to be harmful, it would be added to the prohibited list.
Third, the bill grandfathers in any current exotic pets. So
if a wildlife species is determined to be harmful and banned in the future, it
would halt imports and interstate trade from that point forward. People who
already own those animals would not have them taken away.
As Chairwoman Bordallo said, this morning's hearing "should be seen as a starting point for a very important discussion. How can we proactively manage the influx of invasive species and reduce the economic and environmental costs associated with their establishment in the wild, but also be sensitive to legitimate concerns regarding the species that would be affected and realistic about the practicalities of implementation."
The fact is, this is a common-sense reform that takes a proactive approach. Hundreds of millions of wild animals are arriving in the U.S. at an alarming pace through Miami, Los Angeles, and other points of entry. By the time invasive species establish themselves here, it's often too late to do anything about the problems -- and attempts at doing so, even while tilting at windmills, are costly and inhumane. Preventing wild animals from entering this country in the first place, if they are determined to be dangerous, is better for the environment, the economy, public health, and animal welfare.
Contact your members of Congress and ask them to support H.R. 669. Tell them when it comes to nonnative wildlife, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Follow Michael Markarian on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mmarkarian
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Markarian writes, 'If a species is then determined to be harmful, it would be added to the prohibited list.' Also, no animals would be taken away!
I have NO problem with that!
I would have no idea how to care for an exotic animal, and they are called exotic for a reason. There have been so many tragic stories about exotic pets that have been attempted to be domesticated just this year, I thinks it's about time we stop people and animals from this danger that is bound to happen if we let it.
And how many stories about improperly cared for dogs and cats would there be if every one was deemed newsworthy? It's a false argument... and this bill does effectively take away people's pets. If someone with a parrot moves to another state, they won't be allowed to take it with them - and ultimately that means it ends up in a shelter, which likely does not have the proper knowledge to care for it as is currently the situation, so the animal gets put down. Accredited zoos generally do not take animals from the general public because of the risk of pathogens, and the lack of blood line information, so that isn't an option. Besides... this bill isn't supposed to be about exotic pets. It's supposed to be about invasive species - the vast majority of which are not invasive, but the bill grasps at straws to claim they are, or could be. Maybe the bill is really an admission of global climate change, and a realization that the US will become suitable habitat for equatorial species in the near future!
While dogs and cats make wonderful pets, wild animals are not appropriate pets. Only trained professionals can meet the needs of exotic animals, and we’ve all heard tragic stories about exotic pets being set loose to fend for themselves, people who have been injured or killed by dangerous exotics. Monkeys can transmit hepatitis and reptiles shed salmonella bacteria.
It’s inhumane for the animals and dangerous for people.
So then why aren't they suggesting a permit system for exotic pet ownership? Make sure those people, who number in the millions, are qualified? Most exotic pet owners wouldn't have a problem with having to get a permit, if it were done sensibly... no, they just want to outright ban things, because it's easier and less thought on lawmaker's part. Not to mention, this bill covers things that most of us would not consider 'exotic', nor dangerous... and things that certainly are not invasive. Hence the lie of the bill.
Zoonosis is also not a valid argument, there are many things one can get from cats, dogs and horses.. and given that there are more of those animals around, that means the risk is higher... and chicken you buy at the supermarket has a higher risk of salmonella contamination than picking up an otherwise healthy and properly cared for reptile pet. It is a similar story when it comes to risk for injury. Far more people end up in hospitals from dog bites than anything exotic, exotics just get the bad press because they're 'different' and someone who owns a big snake is more newsworthy than someone who owns a chow chow.
Most states already have laws against release of non-native species. They should be enforcing them. Animal cruelty laws should be strengthened, and widened to cover things like reptiles... and then actually enforced. Sneaking in a ban under the guise of another bill is not a solution.
From what I've read, the industry that supplies exotic animals to pet owners is really problematic - from wild-caught animals who endure highly stressful transport to captive-bred exotics who are mass-marketed for the pet trade. I don't doubt that there are people who have bonded closely with their exotic pets and wouldn't dream of intentionally releasing them into the wild, but it doesn't seem fair to pre-emptively exclue these species from consideration just because they became established in the pet trade before commonsense regulations were put into place. This bill wisely grandfathers current owners and establishes a process whereby each species can be considered individually.
Although the bill is aimed at invasive wildlife, it WOULD impact many many people's pets. The article is using scare tactics to show the python. Nobody would doubt that you don't want pythons running loose in Florida! So deal with the python. But this bill would also affect pets people have had forever like hamsters, parakeets, gerbils, bearded dragon lizards, etc. These have NOT been a problem in being introduced into the environment. So here our country is in a financial crises and we are going to be evaluating hamsters and parakeets to deal with pythons? Why not write a bill that just deals with the problem animals? Can you imagine how the system would get bogged down evaluating every single nonnative species with this bill?!! The majority of the nonnative species that have been introduced that have become a problem were "stowaways" on ships anyhow so a bill banning them is not going to stop that. THEY won't know that they aren't allowed in the U.S.! Another thing that the author states that is misleading is about it not affecting people who already have a pet. Yes, there is a grandfather clause. But the grandfather clause has many problems. Read up on the details. Please ask your representatives to vote against the bill and come up with a more reasonable workable one in its place.
Well -- I believe that the MOST invasive species on this continent is US. We have met the enemy and they is US. We have done more to mess up this planet than any wildlife you could name. So given that, I think that we need a bill to manage US...not the four wonderful parrots that live with me, in my home. They were born in the US, so they are naturalized citizens. This bill would make it impossible for people to enjoy their company. So, having put everything in perspective -- I happen to agree that something could be done to better control some of the activities that are going on -- but the text of the bill is flawed, it is impossible to actually implement what it suggests, and it throws the baby out with the bathwater. Shame on HSUS and Michael and everyone else that is part of this shoddy and thinly disguised attempt to mess with some basic freedoms. It seems to me (and here I believe I am not the only one) that right now we have more important fish to fry -- er ah, native fish to fry.
I think most would agree that there are some species better not kept as "pets." I, for one, would include the Burmese python as something I'd rather admire in the zoo. But, this is a very poorly worded bill which bans all exotics - until they get approved - if they get approved. It would affect many who have companion birds, tropical fish, and various other species which have been kept and bred in this country for years without posing a problem. It's the equivalent of finding them all guilty without any facts to substantiate it. If this bill should pass, it would also have an adverse effect on our ability to care for the animals we now own.... it will put food, toy, housing manufactuers out of business - something our economy doesn't need at all! There are far too many downsides to this bill as worded. It's real simple... identify the specific problems and then address them!
This article is seriously biased in favor of animal rights activists. There are millions of Americans that love animals but do not agree with the animal rights agenda. That agenda, as in this bill, is intent on stripping American's of their right to keep pets. This bill would effectively ban many species of common pets, including most parrot species currently kept and loved in American homes. It would also ban such healthy pet activities seen with these trained parrots at http://www.wingsatliberty.com/videos.html Why should pets like these be banned from activities that have never caused any invasive species trouble and are highly unlikely too do so in the future? The truth is that this bill is not actually intended to address the main causes of invasive species but is instead another ploy by animal rights activists to limit the right to own pets. Pets in America are not causing invasive species problems. Cargo and trade are. Please consider who is supporting this pet unfriendly bill and ask yourself why you would want to support such people. Also consider that they are not being honest with you with articles like the above. Please contact your congress person and ask them to not support H.R. 669 so long as it threatens common pet ownership of pets like parrots.
Fact is, this proposed law known as HR669 would have lead to the loss of many pets. HSUS (Mr. Markarian is one of their officers) is anti pet and anti breeder. I have exotic birds, all of whom were hatched in this country. One of them is third generation, perhaps fourth generation. Note that HSUS did not suggest that Exotic birds be placed on the 'acceptable" list.
Facts are this law would have prevented me from
1. Giving my birds to anyone, including a sanctuary. If I got to a point that I could no longer care for my birds, I would have had to have them destroyed.
2. Prevented me from moving across state lines with my birds or even taking them across state lines for medical care.
3. Prevented me from leaving my birds with a family member if something happened to me.
I am a pet owner. I do not have breeders, do not sell birds, do not even make money in anyway. In this country there are over 10 million pet birds (American Veterinary Association estimate) and those pet owners pump billions of dollars into the economy for cages, vet care, toys and food.
This law is a bad law and just one step towards the goals of HSUS and PETA to deny all of us the loving relatioinships with our pets.
Simple fact is, most of the species the bill would affect are not invasive and outright banning the imports of hundreds of species on that guise is disingenuous at best. If they want to ban exotic pets, then they should just say so. The Everglades are not representative of the entire country, and the insinuation that animals like Burmese pythons are suddenly going to be everywhere in the US is patently absurd. HSUS has been lobbying to ban exotic pets for a long time, and this is supported by them for that purpose. It has nothing to do with actually protecting animals. When questioned on the bill, the law makers repeatedly had no answers for basic things like a permit system or who would actually enforce it, or where the millions of dollars necessary to enforce it would come from. It's grossly wide sweeping bill, poorly written, by someone who doesn't actually understand the issue of invasive species so instead just wants to throw out a blanket ban instead of actually dealing with the problem in an educated manner. There are already laws in place for a good number of species that actually are invasive, like the brown tree snake in Guam, or the zebra mussel. There is no reason why those laws could not be amended to cover further specific species that are deemed harmfully invasive.
Of course... the domestic cat is among the most destructive invasive species we have. I don't see anyone trying to ban them.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
