Democrats going after the pet industries

This is down right sneaky and will destroy businesses from mom and pop shops to the large chain stores . I've been in the industry for 25 years we have Fish and Wildlife why do we need a bill like this just what is their goal ? I'm in the process of trying to open a store this would utterly shut that down . It passed the house 221 to 1 Dem vote if this passes the senate we are in trouble . So if you own a fish tank , bird , reptile or any other small animal contact your senator USA !

By Art Parola
A last-minute amendment to the COMPETES Act, H.R. 4521, was slipped in, presumably to avoid attention and pushback from the millions of Americans who will be affected, and to bypass congressional hearings. The language creates a major change to the provisions of the Lacey Act that regulate species deemed by US Fish & Wildlife Service to be injurious. While promoted under the guise of protecting the country from invasive species, the true goal of the legislative change is to ban as much of the wildlife trade as possible. Many of the organizations pushing this change oppose keeping animals in zoos, public aquariums, research facilities, and sometimes even as pets. While these organizations do not have the public support to implement their agenda outright, they have been effective in hijacking otherwise legitimate initiatives to achieve their ideological goals quietly, piece by piece.

I figured this was coming, though I'm in canada. It's not directly related but our fall fairs have been struggling with protestors from animal rights organizations blasting through and taking photos of people's business cards and doxing them, being aggressive with young 4H kids, ranting about the size of cages etc even though they are carriers. We spend so much time having to address this like explaining that carriers are safest, comparing it to a horse trailer being small so horses don't get thrown about and babies in car seats. They still walk away disgruntled that they didn't get much of a fight. It has gotten so much harder as society is starting to think it's normal.

I raise small animals for reptile feed/raw feed and have to keep a really low profile. I show rabbits, well did before vaccines were mandatory, and rabbits are considered exotics so it might affect the whole rabbit show world which would be such a pity as the largest rabbit show is held every year in the states and has something like 75000 rabbits from mostly US and canada. There is such an effort to destroy society as we know it.

Sorry to hear it will affect you so much. Pets, furry and fish, were my joy as a child and I spent many hours dreaming in the pet stores.

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Couple of links to help.

rules.house.gov...
www.congress.gov...



Skimming through....

This will help with "Backyard Breeder" "Puppy Mill" operations, oddly there's no laws against it. So I am for that.

There's a PDF file too, but it starts downloading right when you click it. So I won't link that.


Edit: think link has a pdf link on the main page.

www.aamc.org...

a reply to: Bigburgh

I think dogs will fall under domesticated and will not be effected .

a reply to: Ravenwatcher

Thanks for posting. This is the first I've heard of this.

I'll dig a little more later.

Going to go out on a limb here... I think much of this relates back to the WEF and other huge think tanks that have infiltrated the university crowd. These are young idealistic people who mean well but most are city people, know nothing of farming and food production, and live in a protected bubble from reality. Where farmers and small business put in long hours and barely break even, there is always grant money available for conceptual change projects but little insight into the damage it will do.

Many of the measures have roots in valid problems like back when parrots and tropical fish were caught wild but so many died in transport, while wild breeding stocks were getting decimated. Now that most are bred in captivity it's a moot point. As far as protecting the environment, we have issues here with people dumping rabbits and roosters. Problem is it's easy to target farmers but I know for a fact it wasn't them dumping them as they won't dump a free meal. Social media escalates the problem by bowing to these demands and no longer allowing the sale of pets. Even the dog/cat pages can be vicious to anyone who needs to rehome a pet, no matter the circumstances.

I do understand the need to try and protect the environment of certain plants and animals but it will always be survival of the fittest.

If you look at what's happened to the Everglades from Burmese pythons and Tegu lizards it would be hard not to be for this bill, even if it means consequences to other species.

Banning exotic pet shops and even zoos from having species dangerous to the environment and humans in areas prone to hurricanes and tornados should be a no-brainer, but common sense is often missing from state regulations. It's sad, because it allows the government to step in and pass laws that are detrimental to an even larger section.

The welfare of the planet and its inhabitants always seems to take a back seat to money.

a reply to: nugget1

We already have tons of laws in place some strange like I can't send Sharks to Arizona I always found that one funny . Some I understand like I can't send certain Lion Fish to Florida and size regulations on certain species - The banning of using cyanide in fish collection .

Hawaiian ban on fish collection on certain sizes and species . We practice sustainable collection Collect in one area for a bit and move on to another and not return for at least a year .

a reply to: nugget1

Nothing wrong with controlling and regulating certain species, especially in critical environments. Bills that cover all exotics are problematic and I think you're right about it needing done at a local level where the specific needs are known. Hurricanes are a good point.

Adding to my post above about the WEF et al because I remembered discussions here on ATS about closing up large amounts of federal land to wildlife corridors and corralling people into megacities. I've had run ins with our regional district here in canada and even the words they used were right out of that play book yet when questioned, they had no idea what I was talking about. So it's trickling down from higher. I really believe it was in the works to do this and that people's compassion was being used to do it. Most people care and it's a good thing, but not if that care is being used to steer an agenda. Getting people to give up livestock, pets is part of the process of alienating them from nature. They will be happy to give up being in nature for protecting it. Not much of a life. Better solutions can be found.

a reply to: igloo
People at the local level have the option to put common sense above profit, but seldom do- and then the government steps in. Happens with everything that gets regulated.

If you aren't willing to do the right thing at a local level, you can bet it's only a matter of time before the government steps in to do the half right/half wrong thing.

People have only themselves to blame for the state of our country. We have been giving away our rights one tiny, tiny step at a time since the 1960's- that's as far back as my personal recognitions go. History of government taking tiny bits of freedom goes back much farther, and studying history is so old school now.

originally posted by: igloo
Going to go out on a limb here... I think much of this relates back to the WEF and other huge think tanks that have infiltrated the university crowd. These are young idealistic people who mean well but most are city people, know nothing of farming and food production, and live in a protected bubble from reality. Where farmers and small business put in long hours and barely break even, there is always grant money available for conceptual change projects but little insight into the damage it will do.

What does the exotic pet trade have to do with raising livestock or agricultural production?