Loving Anteater - and a pet law issue

Pua Love
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5poe2T68t7A
Bonding time with Pua. I can't believe the camera picked up the ad playing on my headphone! Part way through she is concerned of the car noise, sounds like a growling jaguar to her.

Now for a little public service announcement. A bill has been introduced into Congress that could have Pua ripped from her loving home and killed or if "lucky" placed in a zoo without a wash machine to sleep in or ketchup! We are talking about H.R. 669, a ban on nonnative species, bans import, breeding sale and ownership, grandfathers currently owned animals IF proof can be shown that they were owned before the law was enacted. Yes we have plenty of proof Pua has been here awhile but if we do get Pua a new mate before the law is passed and they happen to have a baby that would be a violation of the law and so they all could be taken.

Not convinced yet this is bad? Do you own anything that is not a domestic dog, cat or farm animal and is not native to the USA? If you do this will effect your animals.

All non-native species will have to be classified as safe or pottentialy invasive/dangerous. There are an estimated 10-100 million animal species. They will have 27 months to evaluate every species and list it as safe or banned. Everything not listed as safe or banned is to be treated as banned anyway. Will they forget to list hamsters as safe, can they prove that Sugar gliders aren't potentially invasive?

Here is more information. At the bottom is contact info for the members of the commity that will be hearing this on April 23rd. Email, fax and or call them all. Also inform your congressional representatives that you want them to vote no on this.

This could potentially cause the deaths of millions of exotic animals and devastate an industry that so far has been largely unaffected by the bad economy. All these exotic owners not only pay for the animals, buy supplies, food, vet care, gas to take them to the vet and get supplies, airline shipping charges, ect.

There is already a way for the government to deal with invasive species, things like mongooses are already banned based on enviornmental and invasive hazard. This bill bans everything that they don't decide to list as safe, that somehow must be proven as safe.

Alright then back to our usual programing


wake up Pua
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/...171efb6f_m.jpg
Laundry day


Good evening, have a nice nap
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3548/...01fe095a_m.jpg
She wanted to sleep in the bed instead of her hammock.

Nap time
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/...25f5e36b_m.jpg

Not quite ready to get up
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3328/...21a2edce_m.jpg

Stealing a bathroom drink
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tamanduagirl/3411104500/
She likes to visit all the water sources in the house, in case of drought she will know where to look.

Will do anything for cheese
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3409/...8f153f0f_m.jpg

Tongue action - you may need to look big
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3645/...a9cab98e_m.jpg

Are you looking at me?
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3638/...5b92ca5f_m.jpg

Yawn
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3385/...2b2ea44c_m.jpg
Yay, been awhile since I caught a yawn!

Have a nice nap
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3388/...2558834d_m.jpg

Oh no laundry day
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3596/...273c3af7_m.jpg
Not sure how she sleeps upside down like that. Cleaning under the washer lid is part of laundry day though the outside gets cleaned daily while Pua sleeps.


So that covered about a week, from one laundry day to the next.

No need for ant traps at your house, eh?? Pua is beautiful! I'd love to know more about Pua, like how you cut his nails, what you feed him, is he neutered, etc. Tell me more!!!

Hi Pua! Long time no see! So funny to see you "enjoying" the washer machine, lol.

And a yawn, OMG, yes, I DID have to make the photo big to appreciate the full impact! WOWZERS!

Thanks also for taking the time to educate us on this bill pending in Congress.

I was wondering if it was "fall out" from the 200 pound chimp who killed the lady in Conn.

Ok, now that there is pretty cool. I have heard of other similar cases, but the owner/caretaker was grandfathered in since they had the animals before the law passed. Hope you get to keep your beloved pet if it does get passed at a later date.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moosmom

No need for ant traps at your house, eh?? Pua is beautiful! I'd love to know more about Pua, like how you cut his nails, what you feed him, is he neutered, etc. Tell me more!!!

---

A link to me FAQ is in my signature. I file her nails mostly but can use a trimmer on the smaller ones. The large ones can split so I prefer filing. Filing also helps keep them in a more natural shape. Maybe it's because she doesn't use them enough but her nails stay blunt. So if I cut them flat they stay flat. I file them rounded so not sharp but a more natural shape. It is about time for a manicure.

If your really interested I have a lengthy care sheet. http://taqmanduagirl.blogspot.com/20...caresheet.html
It covers the diets we've used but the beef diet is the main one got her beefed up to a nice 17 pounds. Others have used it and had great results too.

In the past bans like this have been by state. My state does have a list similar but it only effects this state and anteaters are on the allowed list but other states have them on the banned list or not listed so as good as banned. This would effect every state. Any species not a domestic dog, cat or farm animal could potentially be banned. On average it takes them right now to determine a species a threat and banned, 4 years. Maybe that is to long but if it takes that long how are they going to be able to go through 10-100 million species in just a few months limited to make a list. Most will probably wind up on the not listed list which is the same as banned.

Not exactly fall out from the recent incidents but that is fuel for the ban bills. They tried to pass a ban in my state last session it is back and being taken more seriously. Never mind they have a permitting system that works. If you want say a tiger you need years of experience and an inspected and approved facility ect. but if you want a fennec it's not as intense but still need to have a vet and show them you have knowledge about them and inspected facilities still. But point at one horrible incident and say we need a ban.

Well first ever face transplant was a lady who had her face eaten of by a domestic dog. Around the same time as the chimp there were a couple cases of dogs attacking killing and yes in one case tearing up a boys face. Bad things happen, bills, even bans wont stop that. Considering the number of exotics estimated to be owned the numbers of problems are extremely low.

I did the numbers recently and .009% of dogs are reported as abused and only .001% of exotics, not directly anything to do with this bill except abused animals are more likely to have issues that could make them dangerous or neglected ones escape. And considering millions of exotics and probably millions of species owned and only a handful have become invasive, it is actually a pretty good record too. By the way European rabbits are an invasive species and there are many warrens of many hundreds of bunnies across the USA and is a big problem. It's just not as news worth as pythons and snake-head fish. By the way that is why European rabbit are already banned, but the wild variety. If you right the species name when importing a rabbit it will not be allowed in to the USA but write domestic rabbit as species instead and they let it in. Still it's domestic bunnies found in feral warrens.

Just pointing out it's not just exotic species. Stallions and bulls are mighty big and dangerous and usually kept behind just a few strands of wire. Banning by species is just as bad as banning by breed. Though I can fault states for putting some safe guards in place for potentially invasive animals but if it were really about the environment they would put the same safe guards on invasive domestics too. but this will be a mass banning of many species if they can't prove it safe. Hard to prove something could never happen.

Thank you so much for that educational link. I am fascinated!!! What do they feel like? And I thought MooShoo the hairless cat was high maintenance!

love the piccies!

I just wanted to mention, so people get a real understanding of that bill..dont just think of exotics like anteaters and monkeys and such, this bill affects Hamster, Gerbils, Guinea pigs, Parrots, Chinchillas etc... ANYTHING that is not native to the US aside from cats, dogs and livestock.

Thanks for sharing more photos and vids of Pua!

As for that ban, that stinks majorly. I don't want to lose my geckos. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by moosmom

Thank you so much for that educational link. I am fascinated!!! What do they feel like? And I thought MooShoo the hairless cat was high maintenance!

---

They are not soft but personally do not find them course either. I tend to say like a well washed goat, no grease to their fur at all so not like a normal goat but a washed one.

I saw a special on anteaters years ago and found them to be so sweet and loving. Now I hate ants, hate hate hate. Disgusting things. But the eater well he is precious and I certainly hope that all works out well. He looks happy and well cared for and that is all that matters in the end.

I know fresh water sting rays are banned in a few states. Ild hate to see this law nation wide.

Cute anteaters.

Send a email to your representatives about this bill easily here, one stop sending. You can even make a letter just by clicking to include their points, though I strongly suggest writing something yourself or at least rewriting the points a bit so they don't just get a bunch of the same. But please be polite. They wont listen to a bunch of crazy rude people, not that you would be but just saying it helps to be polite.

Send emails here:
http://www.capwiz.com/naiatrust/issu...ertid=13098456

Sample letters here:
http://www.rexano.org/HR669_Wildlife_Invasion_Frame.htm

Pua is GORGEOUS. I love the video :love:

I hope all turns out well with the bill.

To be honest, if they choose wisely, I think the ban could be a good thing. How would you feed if tamandua's became the next fad pet to hit the big chain stores? Yes, the current pets should be grandfathered, but is it that bad that new ones may not be able to be kept as pets anymore? Do we really need to domesticate more wild animals to end up in our houses for our own entertainment?

I believe some animals do not belong as pets, chinchillas and sugar gliders do not make good pets because of their needs. Yeah there are a lot of people capable of meeting those needs, but for every good owner there are a hundred bad ones. Multimammate mice are totally unnecessary in the pet trade. And do we really need degus? Turtles like red-eared sliders too often are kept in a 10 gallon tank and then released into the wild when they get too big. If not being banned, something should be done so that they cost $100 instead of $20. Lots of reptile permits or something to discourage an impulse buy.

I truely think that hamsters and gerbils and such will be spared from this law, along with anything domesticated like rabbits and ferrets. I think there will also be far too many other pets that are spared from being banned when they should. Just my opinion though.

What study did you get your statistics from?
With the numbers from pet abuse dot com and the numbers of pets estimated to be in the USA only .001% of exotics are abused while .009% of dogs are abused. If the ban were meant to stop abuse then why are dogs not banned first?

Even pretending your numbers were right one out over every 100 exotics treated well simplify to one out of 99 so we can say 99% are abused. You ban exotics and these abusers can now only own domestics. That's okay? Domestics aren't as important to save from abuse? But again those numbers are not even close to real. All people see is the bad because that is all they and the media choose to focus on. Someone fed their pet today and took good care of it simply is not news, no body cares, no one wants to hear it.

Less exotics are abused because they cost more and are harder to obtain while a domestic gets brushed off as just a dog and a dime a dozen, could get another free tomorrow from the paper. Barring typical pet store animals people have to do some searching to find the exotic of choice, which means they tend to learn at least a bit about care in the mean time too. They often require an investment of 100s-1000s of dollars. People are less inclined to just throw that money away by abusing the animal. Again based on actual reported numbers dogs are nine times as abused as exotics.

99.999% of exotic owners do not abuse their animals but need to be banned because .001% abuse their animals? If so then again why not ban dogs who are abuse nine time as much? If bans were to address abuse why not start with the most abused?

Laws certainly shouldn't be based on need, does anyone really need a dish washer? Do them by hand. Dogs and cats are not NEEDED either. Stop all animals as pets and make everyone go veg and then think of all the space and carbon we would save. Just because most people are happy with dogs and cats does not mean everyone has to be. No one needs fancy clothes we could all wear uniforms or make our own. No one really needs a freezer. We could save a lot of carbon if we banned freezers, which would force everyone to buy local or raise their own food. Why not, it's not needed, and a ban would provide a benefit?

As for release into the wild there are feral warrens of hundreds of rabbits that pose a serious problem that they just do not publicize. Rabbits are already on a national banned list they just do not enforce that one unless they find you have one of wild descent, that same lists bans mongooses and many others and those are enforced, because there is already a system in place to deal with invasive species.

The problem here is your opinion is that your opinion/morals should be law. Laws should not be based on morals. While you may think it is morally wrong to keep anything non-domestic some think it morally wrong for women to work. You show moral disgust at animals being kept for entertainment. Who cares what the reason for having the animal is so long as it is cared for properly? Is someone who rescues an animal from some situation only to neglect it somehow better than someone who buys one for the fun of it and takes good care of it? Simply not liking something or the reasons behind something is no reason for a ban on it. I do not like white pants. I hate seeing people in white pants.

Laws don't really prevent anything either. Prohibition of drugs, alcohol, the speed limit. Any law you can think of that has actually stopped the activity that was made illegal? So trying to ban all exotic owners because .001% of exotics are abused is not only unfair, and unconstitutional it also wont work. Might cut the numbers down. Laws punish, you get a ticket for going over the speed limit, you go to jail for dealing drugs. You get your animals taken away usually to be killed, you are finned and may face prison time, for owning a banned exotic, even if you were giving it great care. Laws are to punish what is considered a harmful acts(Murder, rape, speeding because you could kill someone). So where is the harm in owning an animal of any species?

Harmful if..
If released could be harmful, there are laws against releasing them, generally not enforced, so easier to ban. Ownership does not = resleased

Harmful if Abused, abuse and neglect is already illegal and even a felony some places. Still often not enforced but varies by area. Ownership does not = abuse

Danger factor, animal at large and public endangerment laws cover that. Also not often enforced. You have a 1 in 4 chance of dying in a car accident. No one really needs a care people lived without them at one time. Just owning a exotic or a car is not dangerous it is in how they are handled that could cause harm.

The problem is not a need for more laws we already have laws covering all of the problems. It is an enforcement issue and more laws will not fix that.

As for the actual intent of the bill, to prevent invasive species, each state already has their own laws in place as they see fit. California bans ferrets and gerbils already claiming they could be invasive. Agree or not it makes more sense than a national ban because a species could survive in one state.

This is also not just a pet ban law but an exotic animal ban on any level except for permits for scientific research and AZA zoos. AZA is a private group not a government license. If a private group can keep them that is run by human beings then there is no reason a private human being would not be able to do the same. Even sanctuaries aren't exempt.

Was a very good chance this would pass committee with a full third of the committee being cosponsors of the bill, means a third are guaranteed to vote yes.

Now this(though I don't know the original source)
Quote:
> Just got a call, as of right now, the committee on HR669 has gained enough
> people behind the proposal for it to come out and become a full bill on the
> floor.


Call or fax TODAY
Last chance to stop it in committee

We have ten days to send more letter! They discussed it today and the committee can ask questions of the witnesses and get answers back in writing. Call or fax and give them some more ideas to ask questions about.

You can watch the meeting here. Some have passed on notes that were taken and are planning to put them on a web page soon, but you can see for yourself if you have time.

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...view&extid=246

Argh, I don't even want to think about what HR 669 would do to the reptile hobby...to the pet store industry.....it would hurt SO many people and animals. I am NOT giving up my snakes, period. :mad:

And of course, Pua is stunning, as always. :)