How H.R 669 Will Affect You

On April 23^rd, 2009 there will be a hearing on a proposed bill called H.R. 669. The bill was proposed on January 26^th, 2009 by Madeleine Bordallo, a United States Delegate of Guam. The bill's goal is "To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes." I want to explain to all of my readers (all two of them), how important it is to stop H.R. 669 from becoming more than a proposed bill and how it will affect us negatively financially, medically, and how it will affect the environment.

In the proposed bill, section two states "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." However, this bill couldn't possibly do anything but exactly the opposite of its purpose.

My first question on reading about the bill and each of the sponsors was "Why does this woman from Guam care about invasive species in the United States?" and Google quickly provided me an answer. The Brown Tree Snake which is native to Australia arrived in Guam inside imported Cargo in the 1950's. The snake killed off ten of the thirteen native species of forest birds and nine out of twelve of the native species of lizard. Being a tree snake, it does often climb up power lines, which has resulted in numerous power outages, including island wide ones. The total cost of this snake to Guam yearly is twelve million dollars.

This bill however is not just about one snake. This bill will affect you if you own anything from a hamster to an iguana. Any animal that is not deemed "clearly domesticated" by The Secretary of the Interior is subjected to this bill.

By now you're asking me "Okay, please get to the point. What exactly does this bill do?" Well, this bill will prevent the breeding, transportation, and importation of any species that is not native to the United States or "clearly" domesticated. The clearly domesticated list includes horses, pigs, cows, cats, dogs, goats, donkeys, mules, sheep, llamas, ducks, geese, chicken, oxen, or certain varieties of rabbit. What I find incredibly interesting about this list is the fact that all these animals, excluding cats and dogs, just so happen to be major producers for the meat and clothing industries. They are all "clearly domesticated" according to the Secretary of Interior. But are they really more domesticated then some non-native species? To examine this closer I feel it is important to include the common definition of domesticated. According to Webster's dictionary, the definition of domesticated is "tame, tamed; - of animals. Opposite of wild." The definition of wild according to Webster's dictionary is "Living in a state of nature; inhabiting natural haunts, as the forest or open field; not familiar with, or not easily approached by, man; not tamed or domesticated." This leaves us to assume that any animal that does not live in its natural habitat must be domesticated and or tamed. According to Webster's dictionary, tame means "Reduced from a state of native wildness and shyness; accustomed to man; domesticated; domestic; as, a tame deer, a tame bird." The evolutionary biologist Jared Diamond, animals require six specific qualities to be considered domesticated. These are having a flexible diet, fairly fast growth rate, be able to be bred in captivity, friendliness, being unlikely to panic (I'd like to point out here that sheep are known for actually dying of panic, but they're "clearly domesticated" or in other words produce wool and meat so who cares right?), and being able to have a social hierarchy.

Well I could easily name off a dozen species that would fit this definition. For example, the rat is one of the tamest rodents due to its great ability to adapt. It has no "shyness" once it has become accustomed to its environment. The domesticated rat is easily approached by man, eats virtually anything, has a lifespan of two years average, breeds in amazing amount of time, rarely panics, and have very complicated social structures. Another example would be the ferret. Ferrets can't even be released into the wild or else they would die. In fact there is no such thing as a wild ferret. Before you say "What about the black-footed ferret?" it is not a very close relative to the domesticated ferret. Ferrets are in fact thought to be related more so to the polecat. The fact that the ferret could not even survive without human aid brings up an interesting point in itself. If most of these "invasive" species are banned, what will happen to them? Especially those like the ferret who simply wouldn't survive in the wild. Will they just die out? In all fairness, the bill does state it will not take away animals from people that were owned previous to the bill being passed. However, those of us who keep pets and truly care about them and really love the thrill of taking care of a "non native" species are finding it hard to accept that if this bill passes, and our current animals pass on, that will be it.

As we all know, right now our economy is not in the best state. This bill will help matters in any way. In fact, it will just make them worse. There are approximately 9,315 pet supply and pet store companies in the United States. Petsmart and Petco (the two largest companies) alone provide an estimate of 66,400 jobs. Then of course you have all the privately run pet stores and the suppliers of the pet store's products and their animals. Most small businesses will be forced to shut down. After all, six point four million households own birds, fifteen million own fish, four point eight million own reptiles, and six million own various small pets. That is just per household too! The total of actual "non native" animals owned comes to two hundred billion approximately. Last year alone, an estimate of $43.2 billion dollars was spent on pets by their owners. That is $43.2 billion dollars that is circulating and helping our economy. An estimated twenty-eight million is spent on small animals (rodents, birds, and rabbits mainly) and reptile food alone.

In recent years some Veterinarians have become exotic pet specialists. These board certified specialists earn an average of thirty thousand dollars more than a Veterinarian with just a doctorate in veterinary medicine. If this bill passes, there goes that thirty thousand extra dollars and also there goes the money these Veterinarians spent to achieve that specialist certification. In 2006 the total amount spent on specialty and exotic pets was an astounding four hundred and thirty-five million dollars. This total I'm sure has risen further in the last few years. This is not even counting birds. The total spent on vet care for birds in 2006 was one hundred and two point eight million dollars. The total amount spent on "non native" species vet care in 2006 comes to the staggering amount of $537,000,000! That's more money that the economy will never see if this bill passes.

I won't even begin to cover the amount of money spent on equipment for reptiles and fish, toys for small animals, and of course cages and tanks. I probably couldn't figure it out if I tried.

It is not specified in the bill whether or not these "invasive" species will be banned from use in animal testing. If this is so, we will not be able to continue our progression in dealing with human and animal disease. In all fairness the bill does state that "The Secretary may issue a permit authorizing importation otherwise prohibited under section (a)(1), for scientific research, medical, accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the Secretary, if the Secretary finds that there has been a proper showing by the permittee of responsibility for the specimen and continued protection of the public interest and health with respect to the specimen." But who will determine this? Not to mention this bill contradicts itself by saying "and health with respect to the specimen." If that were the case then they wouldn't allow the animal to be tested on since obviously that is not in the specimen's best interest.

Even reptiles are used to study certain diseases and ailments such as genetics, embryology, developmental biology, ethology, limb regeneration, endocrinology, and immunology. If rodents are included in the "invasive" species list then we can pretty much throw out any hope of cures for anything in the future, since rats are our main source of information on such matters.

Conservation of species will also be at stake if this bill passes. The bill mentions nothing of whether or not breeding of endangered species will be allowed. It only states that importation may be approved. There are currently six hundred and nine known animals that are endangered. This vastly outnumbers the amount of invasive animal species. This bill will not cut down the amount of invasive species in the least. The damage has already been done. The most serious invasive species are plants which are not even listed in this bill. Most invasive species came here decades ago and mainly due to man. For instance, the European Starling was introduced to the United States because we thought it would be a good idea to have all birds mentioned in Shakespeare's writings.

There is no doubt that invasive species are a problem. However, this bill will not solve it. More realistic solutions would be using animal birth control for feral cats, dogs, pigs, and other animals that we have the birth control available for. Another solution is that we need inspect cargo more carefully for invasive species. Some people have become concerned because of large reptiles being released. The solution this bill presents basically says "Let's just wipe out the species from captivity!" This is like saying that because some people don't care for their children we should just get rid of all children in general. This philosophy lacks compromise. Instead of ridding the United States of large reptiles, why not require licenses for snakes that grow over eight feet and lizards that grow over four feet? I also feel maybe some regulations should be put into place to prohibit anyone under eighteen from buying animals from pet stores without a parent's consent. It is unfair to punish all pet owners because some pet owners are irresponsible.

I feel it's important to state here that I care deeply about animals and have cared for all sorts of species over the years, from reptiles to rodents to livestock. I do not promote buying animals from a pet store personally but I believe in the right to do so. I promote responsible captive breeding and believe in living as cruelty free as you possibly can. However, this bill will cause more cruelty to animals (human and non human), then there already is.