Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: New Pet Laws in the US

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    37

    New Pet Laws in the US

    So, there are two pet laws trying to be passed by anti-pet organizations like PETA and HSUS. One is a law that is trying to add boa constrictors, DeSchauensee's anacondas, green anacondas, and Beni anacondas to the Lacey Act. The Lacey Act prohibits the animals listed as injurious from being transported across borders or imported into the US. This means that breeders cannot introduce new blood into their stock, and anyone moving out-of-state must leave their beloved pet behind, animals can't be taken to another state for demonstrations, you can't buy/adopt pets out-of-state, etc., or they will become a federal criminal. The other law would allow USFWS to add any species to the list of injurious species under the Lacey Act, without due process. This includes reptiles, amphibians, fish, small mammals, and birds. They wouldn't need any scientific proof to show these animals are injurious, and they wouldn't need to research the species' economic impact in the pet trade. This doesn't just affect reptiles! Here are some links to help combat these laws, you only have until the 31st! Please, complete these and share them with as many people as you can! And keep a look out for future bills by joining USARK's newsletter, if you'd like.
    http://usark.org/press-releases/acti...-as-injurious/

    http://usark.org/action-alert/usfws-...l-exclusion-2/

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Waltham, MA, USA
    Posts
    37,120
    Thanks for alerting us to these. It is hard to keep track of everything happening in legislatures etc., so I am glad you posted this.
    I've Been Frosted

  3. #3
    The only problem with the legislation is that in the southern US< particularly the Everglades, anacondas and boas are highly invasive and damaging species.

    They SHOULD be controlled.

    Just because you're a responsible owner and don't plan on releasing your pet into the wild, many do.
    The one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind wasn't king, he was stoned for seeing light.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    North Carolina, USA
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Lady's Human View Post
    The only problem with the legislation is that in the southern US< particularly the Everglades, anacondas and boas are highly invasive and damaging species.

    They SHOULD be controlled.

    Just because you're a responsible owner and don't plan on releasing your pet into the wild, many do.
    For one, even in Northern Florida these snake find it hard to live (and there have been no recorded cases of these snakes surviving the winter in the rest of the Southern US). And two, this isn't just about snakes. This is also about bettas, goldfish, cavies, pacman frogs, etc. Basically (if not every) pet owned in captivity. Third, most of the population of snakes in Florida is caused by a massive break-out of one breeder's stock when a hurricane hit. Most (not all) can be traced just to that guy's stock. Pet owners releasing their animals makes up a very small percentage. And fourth, if this was a licensing law, I would be all for it. A license should be required for ANY pet, imo. I completely don't agree with bans or the Lacey Act, however. If I move out, I don't want to just get rid of my snake who I've had for so many years, just because I can no longer take it with me. Just like a dog/cat owner wouldn't want to leave their dog/cat behind. Being unable to transport across borders also seriously affects breeders' abilities to sell, and thus those animals become less common and more expensive.

    This isn't about controlling these animals. This about getting rid of all pets altogether, and this is just the first step to banning all pets. They realized that when they tried banning reticulated pythons and Burmese pythons a few years ago, and it fell through. They had to settle with the Lacey Act. That's what we were willing to put up with, but it won't stop there. They'll pick it back up again when people feel more comfortable with it.

  5. #5
    Just because someone wants an animal/particular species for a pet, doesn't mean they should be able to have it. The amount of damage done to the environment by invasive non-native species is staggering. With fish, in particular, the rate of growth and propagation can be astounding. Snakeheads and certain types of carp brought into the country from Asia are doing major damage to the freshwater ecosystem in the US.

    Burmese pythons are a problem in the everglades in part due to the aforementioned hurricane, but there are releases as well.

    Frankly, we have enough issues with invasive species, and the Lacey act is the main legal means of control.
    The one eyed man in the kingdom of the blind wasn't king, he was stoned for seeing light.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Waltham, MA, USA
    Posts
    37,120
    I once saw a TV show on people in Florida taking advantage of an unusual cold snap and using it to capture iguanas that people had released and are now an invasive species in parts of Florida. I wish there was a way of legislating common sense, but that doesn't seem to be the case. If only we could make everyone adopting or even buying a pet take a class - yes this tiny little iguana is really cute, and can fit in the palm of your hand, but it will grow, sometimes to 6 feet long, and live a long time! Are you prepared to house and feed a six-foot-long lizard ten years from now? No? then buy your kid a plastic dinosaur, and leave the live animal for someone who IS prepared.
    I've Been Frosted

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Copyright © 2001-2013 Pet of the Day.com