Comments on: HR 669 – The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Protection Act

By: escort hot

escort hot — Tue, 31 Aug 2010 11:41:53 +0000

It was extremely interesting for me to read that post. Thanx for it. I like such topics and anything that is connected to them. I definitely want to read more soon.

Julia Benedict

By: coetsee

coetsee — Wed, 30 Dec 2009 05:56:20 +0000

coetsee said i will do everything in my power to not let this law be passed, it is totally ridiculous and stupid, many people will chose to live elsewhere, for me that’s almost like saying, ” you are not allowed to have your favorite food unless its from china “

By: SueGeek

SueGeek — Mon, 25 May 2009 07:21:23 +0000

I agree with Christopher Funk. STOP THIS BILL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

By: Christopher Funk

Christopher Funk — Mon, 04 May 2009 01:10:29 +0000

The most frightening aspect of this bill is, if passed, the government would be given an empty list to fill with any species they see fit at any time. True they make it seem as if cats and dogs would never be effected by this law, but in reality cats and dogs are just as nonnative as a Ball Python. Take a second to think about the ferule cats and dogs on the streets. They pose just as much threat as a nonnative venomous snake. I have no evidence to support this but, I’m sure that more humans are harmed by ferule dogs than a boa constrictor. The point being that many people are not taking the time to look at the big picture presented before them. If an organization such as PETA gets enough people behind the ban on a certain animal it could be banned. I am not a conspiracy theorist by any means, but I do feel that this is once again presenting the government with far more power than then need.

By: John Rodgers

John Rodgers — Wed, 29 Apr 2009 16:05:33 +0000

What people like thuumper have to understand is that this is not a bill to protect animals from people in a sense where it will convince people to wear cotton, hemp, or synthetics or to promote vegan lifestyle. This law is to promote invasive non-native species integrating into different environments, and at the possible expense of responsible pet owners. The results of this bill could be far more negative than thuumper might realize. Try getting quality dog or cat foods at your local grocery because pet stores close due to innability to attain tropical or other non-native species. Get a clue. This bill is bad!!!

By: thuumper

thuumper — Tue, 28 Apr 2009 20:40:26 +0000

Animals Are Not Ours to Eat
Animals Are Not Ours to Wear
Animals Are Not Ours to Experiment On
Animals Are Not Ours to Use for Entertainment
Animals Are Not Ours to Abuse in Any Way
this law will protect animals from people.
It looks like your video is filmed in a room filled with snakes kept in tupperware containers.This law will not allow that to continue…
People need to think and try to understand what this bill intends.they dont want to take”pets” away from people they want to protect animals from people..

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 05:51:22 +0000

The animals already approved have already been posted, but what hasn’t been posted is the fact that 36 months after the bill is signed will be a period where the government will consider all other animals and conduct/listen to all scientific AND commercial evidence given by anyone for any pet. Being that fish/reptile/amphibian/bird trade has been going on for decades, and the fact that hundreds of thousands of jobs rely on the pet trade, I’m not entirely sure the bill is going to be that dramatic. Animals like large cats, bears, and maybe even things like crocodiles whose care products you wouldn’t find in a pet store would likely be outlawed, as well they should be. Plus, even after the 36 month period, anyone can proposition for any animal to be on the, or off of the approved species list. So even if your favorite pet didn’t make the list, if you got enough people together and have sufficient evidence (the evidence necessary is outlined in the bill), you could get that pet onto the approved list. My main concern with the bill would be the fact that many pets get shipped to Florida before making their way to the other states. Florida’s environment is favorable for many of the exotic species we keep as pets, and some have already found homes there (oscars, peacock bass, and even some snakes). I would be afraid that scientists in Florida would ask to ban these species as they DO pose a threat to the native species, the environment, and the people of Florida. But, as I’ve mentioned before, commercial evidence will also be considered and if there’s one thing the government has shown us over the years it’s that money runs everything. More than likely they’d see that the pet industry is a multi-million dollar business and do their best not to regulate it, seeing as how it’d put hundreds of thousands of people out of a job. Is there something I missed about the bill that I should be concerned about? I read it and really don’t see a problem with it. If you’re concerned about whether or not your pet will make the list I would suggest getting in contact with other people with those pets (most people are already in such contact via online forums or local pet clubs), and construct the necessary evidence to ensure that it does make the list. Sorry for the novel, there’s just a lot to say.

By: kk

kk — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 23:58:26 +0000

did you read the bill? I signed the thing against this bill earlier today thinking it would take away my beloved parakeet Buffy but I just clicked on the link to the bill above and it says if your pet was legal before the bill passed then you could keep them. so basically I don’t have to worry and can keep Buffy. You and this article/video are a bit misinformed/misleading. And it’s not just you its pretty much every other thing against this bill on the web that i have read so far (only a few but still). So I am not just picking on you. It’s most everyone. Although I do agree with most of what you are saying including the invasive and/or endangered species thing. Its just you are a bit misleading. However I just realized that although I can keep Buffy now I will never be able to buy another “Buffy” or aquarium or anything ever again. So never mind I do agree with everything you have said and am against the bill. please ignore what I said above towards the begining of this comment. that was before I realized I cant ever buy a parakeet or fish aquarium again if this passes. I am against this bill. sorry for the confusion.

By: Guppy

Guppy — Sun, 19 Apr 2009 16:22:39 +0000

As the bill stands now, it will not pass, but it seems very clear that this is about defining pets/livestock that will be TAXABLE when breeding, transporting or selling. I am sure as the aggravation toward the bill hits the representatives, the language will become more clear in defining the taxation of which species and by how much. This will also stamp harder fines and punishment to those who abandon their animals in the wild.

By: Raina

Raina — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 18:21:01 +0000

We are no longer a democracy. The gov’t tells us what we can do and when we can do it. Won’t be long they will tell us when we can go to the bathroom and eat. It’s time we ALL ban TOGETHER and fight for our animals. They need us and we need them. I would die for my animals. No gov’t will take mine away.