New Bill Threatens Aviculture & other Pets....

[waynesgarden]

Quote:
I'll thank this bsaffles individual to not put words in my mouth. If he/she disagrees with me, well and good but his/her condescending, feeble attempt to speak for me indicates a lack of respect for anyone that may have differing opinions.

Ellie_NY_chick: The text of the bill states the Secretary of the Interior will compile lists of species approved for importation. It will include non-native species except those that are deemed to be hazardous. Some here have not read this bill carefully or assumes that the Secretary will violate the law and include all non-native species.

As the bill stands, it does not say it will do what the original poster says it will.

Wayne

 

[B. Saffles Farms]

Well Wane excuse me for putting words into your mouth. Judging from your posts Im sure Im not the only one that has the same opinion of you wanting out goverment to take care of us. Lophura has stated facts and examples showing and telling about this bill. I for one do not think the goverment should regulate everything. Its just another way that the goverment is wanting to cotrol everything. You dont have to think this bill is anything to worry about then fine, no need in your fighting the ones that belive in getting this bill shot down. You are the same way on NAIS. You think its no big deal. Explain you stand on this instead of just telling everyone else there isnt anything to worry about.

 

[waynesgarden]

If you read the bill, you would not be asking the question.

The bill does not say it will ban importation of all non-native species.

Do I want government to take care of us? You did not here those words come from me. These are more words that you are putting in my mouth. My main point in this thread (and in others) is that when people post alarmist messages exhorting us to take action, they should demonstrate that what they are saying is accurate. When what they are claiming is not supported by documentation, expect disagreement.

You say "You are the same way on NAIS. You think its no big deal." Ridiculous. Again, putting words in my mouth. I made no claims regarding NAIS one way or another. On another thread I challenged the anti-NAIS posters to show me the documentation supporting the specific claims they were making. Nothing was forthcoming. (Anyone interested in truth and with time to waste can read that thread and try to find where I said it was "no big deal.")

Your idea that I should just keep quiet and let what I believe to be inaccuracies go unchallenged is ludicrous.

Now Bsaffles, if you want this debate to be about me and not the "issue," you will succeed in getting this thread locked just as the anti_NAIS thread has been. The same tactics were used there. Attack the person asking for documentation or for disagreeing rather than defend the claims being made.

This is as far as I'll get into your attempt to divert the thread away from a discussion of what is and what isn't in the bill towards a spotlight on what you believe I am thinking. Go further with me if you wish the thread locked.

Wayne

 

[B. Saffles Farms]

Why is your interpentation of this bill the right one? I have read it and the NAIS bill both and find them both very alarming. This always happens when people say their is nothing to worry about. If they had a defenite list of birds that will be effected by this bill then maybe it would not be a big deal. But when they do not list in exact words the birds effected, it causes worry that when it (if it) passes, then they can add a list of whatever they want to on it. Untill you can show me a list of birds that are definitley on or that are definitley not on the list, no one can assume it is harmless.
ETA: You never voice what you are thinking, just that our interprentation is wrong.

 

[monarc23]

Quote:
^^^ I agree with this 110% im worried until I know that my specific birds arent effected....when I know for sure that Lophoras birds aren't effected, and when it's not going to effect anyone that is really dedicated to what they are dedicated to. If it doesnt effect us great...but we dont' know that.

 

[seedcorn]

So let me get this straight? Some of you are arguing that your right to keep animals that will harm the environment/ecosystem are more important that stopping this?

Seems that is the same arguments corporate america made when a little pollution is alright. A few toxic chemicals with a little cancer in a few people is ok right? After all they are doing it on their land which is their right??

 

[B. Saffles Farms]

The majority of these animals that arent native to the US do not harm the enviroment/ecosystem. Mandrin Ducks, Pheasants, and Quail would be included in this under the wording. I honestly dont think those do any harm.

 

[monarc23]

My quail do no more damage than a chicken kept in a cage does.....so y es i want to protect my right to keep my quails thank you very much.

My quail are kept in cages...I dont release them.


btw last time i checked CHICKENS arent native to the US. Soo.....

Im just sayin

 

[seedcorn]

To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes.

Have you read the proposal? It does not stop what is here, it stops introduction and establishment of nonnative

I will not respond to the intent of some of the answers as it would get this shut down. My folks raised me that the safety of the many outrules the wants of the few.

 

[monarc23]

Quote:
well okay my quail have been here in the US for many decades that I know of.....as have many peoples pheasants and such....



so you're saying that you feel it's only for animals that are on thier way NOW into the country not that have already been here? If so that's good.