WashingtonWatch.com - H.R. 6311, The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act

Comment by RVK (December 27, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 27 Dec 2008 00:00:00 EST

I think that this bill is very unfair. I personally think that this bill is too broad....I personally am an arachnid enthusiast, and I think that this will totally destroy the hobby....

Comment by envirogirl (November 17, 2008, 01:00:00)

Mon, 17 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

invasive species is 2nd, only after habitat distruction in the extiction of a native species. 20' pythons in the everglades is an obvious invasion. Many bugs, disease pathogens, and plants are also covered under this bill. The invasive species don't only attack Florida. Kudzu vine (Japanese) ruined the SouthEasts native decidous forest, and Zebra muscles affect every great lake in this nation. The microchip would work, but the key word was RESPOSIBLE pet owner. If they were responsible, the cute little baby python would still be in a glass tank living a misirble life as some ones captive....

Comment by greg noisom (November 8, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 08 Nov 2008 00:00:00 EST

These people who are for this ban need to rethink things regarding boas and pythons. They are not taking into consideration the fact that virtually none of the proposed species listed could even survive north of the everglades, and only six species are large enough to pose a serious threat to wildlife. The most dangerous, non-native, invasive species are the political lobbyist, and the uninformed politician...

Comment by Kyle Zimmerman (October 29, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 29 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I am in complete agreement with the above comments. This bill is extremely broad and vague, and allows for total bias regarding citizens' rights to keep pets that may pose absolutely no threat to the economy, environment, or public at large. Look at the damage feral cats (which technically are an invasive species) do to the ecosystem and the problems they bring...However I'll bet my last dollar no Congress member will dare propose banning cats. This is a hypocritical and blatantly ignorant piece of legislation that if passed, could negatively affect thousands, if not millions of responsible and law-abiding citizens whose lives and sometimes living incomes are greatly impacted by the animal/pet industry. The existing Lacey Act legislation that is already in place regarding much of the issues noted in HR 6311. Why are we looking to penalize a vast number of citizens who in 99.5% of cases aren't, and will not be causing any harm to their nation or neighbors?...

Comment by Shannon McPherson (October 21, 2008, 01:00:00)

Tue, 21 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

This is another way for PETA and there friends to take control of what people can have as pets and what we can hunt, if they get this bill passed the goverment will lose millions of taxes from the people that like to keep exotic animals and reptiles as pets. Why not just start a micro chip plan in the beginning and tell PETA and there friends to go sit on the fence and be quiet....

Revision by webmaster (October 1, 2008, 01:00:00)

Wed, 01 Oct 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 6311 would prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species' health.

Detailed Summary

Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations establishing a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, other than nonnative wildlife species that are included in a list of approved species issued under this Act. Sets forth factors that must be considered at minimum, including the identity of the organism to the species level, the geographic source, and the likelihood of spread and harm to groups of species or habitats.

Provides procedures for issuance and expansion of the approved-for-importation list.

Establishes prohibitions on: (1) importation of nonnative species or viable eggs; (2) permit violation; and (3) knowing possession, purchase, sale, barter, release, or breeding (including of prohibited species previously imported legally).

Allows the imposition of fees to recover the costs of assessing risks of nonnative wildlife species.

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 6/26/2008: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Comment by Cynthia (July 17, 2008, 01:00:00)

Thu, 17 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I question the "other purposes" stated in this bill description. The only problem I am aware of is the possible overabundance of pythons in the Everglades of Florida. That problem is quickly remedied with having owners microchip their snakes and thereby paying a steep fine if they were to release them. To me, the only reason for this bill is to gain control over what citizens can and cannot have as pets. This is a ridiculous waste of taxpayer money. There is no threat from non-native animals being imported into this country--why all of a sudden is this a concern?...

Comment by Donna (July 11, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 11 Jul 2008 00:00:00 EDT

I oppose this bill. It is very broad. It is almost impossible to prove that an animal won't have a negative impact, and would really hamper imports of many animals that really don't pose a threat. It would also have a severe effect on persons who own pet stores as many pets are imported such as snakes, and rodents....

Revision by webmaster (June 28, 2008, 01:00:00)

Sat, 28 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 6311 would prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species' health.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 6/26/2008: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Status as of June 26, 2008

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

6/26/2008: House committee/subcommittee actions. Status: Subcommittee Hearings Held.

Revision by webmaster (June 20, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 6311 would prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species' health.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to update the status of the bill!)

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Revision by webmaster (June 20, 2008, 01:00:00)

Fri, 20 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

H.R. 6311 would prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or human or animal species' health.

Detailed Summary

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to provide a detailed summary of the bill!)

Status of the Legislation

Latest Major Action: 6/19/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.

Points in Favor

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should pass!)

Points Against

(Log in to edit the wiki and be the first to show why the bill should not pass!)

Status as of June 19, 2008

Thu, 19 Jun 2008 00:00:00 EDT

6/19/2008: Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.