I am sure a number of you have been hearing about The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669). I only began to realize how many of you have been paying attention when I scanned YouTube and discovered so many very impassioned reactions to the introduction of this controversial bill.
In a nutshell, this bill will require the US Fish and Wildlife Service to produce two lists of pets after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species in the US to determine if it is likely to "cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' health or human health." In order to be placed on the "Approved List" it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely to, cause "harm" anywhere in the U.S. Otherwise it goes to the "unapproved list."
Before going any further there are two things that should be understood. First, "Nonnative Species" in the past trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, amphibian, fish and a number of mammals (e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets) commonly kept as pets. Second, the way the bill is written HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.
Species not appearing on the "Approved List" could not be imported into a United States, nor could they be moved in interstate commerce. Trade in all such unlisted species would come to a halt - possession would be limited and all breeding would have to cease. To reiterate: unless species are included on the Approved List import, export, transport and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation.
I agree with the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) and others in supporting the underlying intent of HR 669 to establish a risk-based process in order to prevent the introduction of potentially invasive species. It has been clear for quite some time that steps are needed to enhance and improve the current listing process for species shown to be injurious under the existing Lacey Act. In addition to much needed appropriations to fund staff and other ancillary support aids, the Lacey Act needs to be modernized to make the process timely, efficient and transparent. However, HR 669 falls far short of accomplishing this objective.
Among the serious concerns with this bill is the fact that the HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative - that no harm has or is likely to occur within the whole of the United States. We all know how difficult that is. Beyond this, the "risk assessment" process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a broader "risk analysis" that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management) measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies. Add to this the fact that because the Service does not currently have the capacity to implement the provisions of the act given limited staff and money, a disproportionately large number of species will not be able to be placed on the Approved List in a timely fashion.
The first hearing for the bill has been set for April 23 so if you find this is as troublesome as I do, you need to act quickly. I urge you to take the time right now to let your congressmen know your concerns. Also, alert your employees, friends, neighbors and any other like-minded people and urge them to do the same. For more information, you can go to www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf. Thank you for your concern.
Comments