HR 669 is a bill proposed by Delegate Madeleine Bordallo of Guam. It would require the US Fish and Wildlife Service to sort all non-native species - every animal, fish, bird, etc. not indiginous to the US - onto one of two lists: approved or disapproved. Animals not on the "Approved" list could no longer be legally imported, bred, sold, or transported across state lines. Certain non-native farm animals are excluded in this bill, but common pets like gerbils, guinea pigs, chinchillas, and hamsters are not. They, along with all other non-native species, would need to be considered by USF&W and sorted onto one of the two lists.
Why It's a Bad Idea
This bill is bad for many reasons. While there has been a great deal of publicity already that the bill will make it illegal to own pets you have today, my reading of the bill does not support that extreme. But it clearly opens the possibility that gerbils could be listed as non-approved, especially because of their status in California. And because they could no longer be bred or imported, it would mean the end of gerbils in the US in just a few years.
Here are some other reasons, less mentioned in the current press, that make this bill bad:
Wrong Jurisdiction for Special Interests: Eight of the thirteen sponsors of this bill come from US protectorate islands (Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Marianas, and Virgin Islands) or from the states of California and Arizona, places with unusually delicate ecosystems. Of specific concern to pocket pet owners, many of these places have had very negative experiences with or have very restrictive views on invasive rodent species. While the committee itself will not create the actual lists of approved or disapproved species, the sponsor list for this bill shows that it is being promoted by a very selective group from places with a climate very different from much of the rest of the US. Federal legislation is not the place to solve these problems; state-by-state solutions make far more sense.
Too Much Government: There are very effective state laws already in place to protect against potentially invasive species, California's a chief example. Hawaii's import and export laws are legendary. If you've ever tried to take an apple onto a flight out of Maui, you'll know what I mean! We do not need Federal legislation for this problem. State legislation can and does solve the problem.
Duplication and Waste: There is already protection against the importation of injurious species through the Lacey Act which is formulated into a set of restrictions already enforced by USF&W under Title 50. This new bill is unneeded, duplicate legislation that creates a whole new, expensive process for a problem already covered by effective state and Federal legislation.
Unfunded Mandate: The bill proposes only one funding mechanism for this bill: that USF&W can use fees and fines collected as part of this new bill to fund the process. This funding mechanism is inadequate and without it, USF&W will be pressured to make a lot of important decisions without adequate staff to carefully consider each species. This is another unfunded mandate that will result in a poorly-constructed law and another byzantine Federal process.
In short... this bill is an overkill and is likely to be done badly by an overburdened and underfunded federal agency. It will not solve the problem it attempts to solve but will probably have unintended consequences of restricting and driving to extinction in the US many safe, legal pets currently in the hands of responsible pet owners. As always, it will do little to stop the bad guys who will ignore it anyway.
Where It Stands Now
This bill has been proposed by the chair of the House Committee on Natural Resources: Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife and currently resides in that committee. While it seems unlikely the subcommittee will fail to pass a bill proposed by its chair, this is the next step.
I read that Congress is temporarily out of session and returns on April 20. Therefore, a letter NOW is useful, followed up by a phone call on Monday, April 20. Don't think it doesn't matter - Congresspeople know that one person upset enough to pick up a phone means about 50-100 people who feel the same way but didn't bother!
What To Do NOW
It is extremely important for people with representatives on this subcommittee to contact them immediately to express your disapproval of this bill. These members are listed below with links to their district maps. [ subcommittee web page ] Gerbil lovers from these districts especially should take action now:
Guam, American Samoa, Virgin Islands, Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico: follow the link.
If we cannot kill this bill in subcommittee, it will proceed to the next committee, the House Committee on Natural Resources. It would be a good idea to contact your rep from this list and let him or her know you are watching this with concern, and could she or he please do the same? Check the full listing of members. In addition to the Representatives above, there are members from the states of West Virginia, Washington, California, Utah, Oklahoma, Georgia, Oregon, Tennessee, Texas, New Mexico, South Dakota, New York, Wyoming, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and Nebraska.
There are also a number of co-sponsors (click on "show co-sponsors") of this bill. Some of the co-sponsors are on the subcommittee list above, but others are not. They deserve a letter and phone call too, asking them to withdraw their support for this bill. These individuals are from the states of CA, MA, AZ, HI, FL, WI, MI and protectorates American Samoa and Guam.
If you want some help with wording your letter, www.nohr669.com has a tool that will let you start with a draft letter and send it to your representatives.
Special Note for Friends in MA
There are three representatives who should be contacted with a special message about this bill.
Rep. Ed Markey is on the House Natural Resources Committee, the parent committee that will oversee this bill if it escapes subcommittee. If you live in any of:
Remember to ask Rep. Markey to stop this bill if it makes it to his committee!
There are two congressmen from Massachusetts who are co-sponsors of this bill. Both are influential men in Washington and their support means something. Having them withdraw their support means even more. If you are represented by either of these congressmen, please write and ask them to withdraw their co-sponsorship for HR 669:
Rep. Jim McGovern: Ashland, Auburn, Attleboro, Boylston, Clinton, Fall River, Frankin, Holden, Holliston, Hopkinton, Marlborough, Medway, N. Attleboro, Northborough, Paxton, Plainville, Princeton, Rehoboth, Rutland, Seekonk, Shrewsbury, Somerset, Southborough, Swansea, W. Boylston, Westborough, Worcester, Wrentham
