New Bill Threatens Aviculture & other Pets....

[Ellie_NY_chick]

Quote:
Thanks Wayne. I think there's a lot of mistrust of the government, and understandably as some lawmakers seem to twist the original intent of some laws. Hopefully if this comes to pass, it will be implemented correctly and fairly. NAIS has a lot of people on alert, and I think rightfully so. I'm against NAIS, for the record.

 

[bishopschickens]

All in all its your basic, you give them an inch, they'll take it a mile!! They already make us have licenses for domestic birds, like bobwhite, ringnecks, chucker and wood ducks. So I do non natives like silver pheasants and courtunix. Besides if the economy goes to @@# in a handbasket, Im going to be able to feed myself.

 

[Lophura]

Quote:
Very well, although it doesn't compare. There was a mandatory cull in a region where a few wild birds were found to have Bird Flu.

What types of birds do you keep?

Dan

 

[deerman]

Quote:
There are already laws, from releasing these. Guess what they still do. Enforce the ones we have, dont need more laws.

 

[patandchickens]

Quote:
Well heck, by that logic we don't need laws for ANYthing, just education.

Like we should just *educate* people that they shouldn't drive too fast, or steal peoples' money, or kill each other, and then, you know, they would all just stop doing it.

Yuh huh

Quote:
No, if I'm reading this bill correctly, it has a new point: to prevent stuff being brought in that could pose a problem if released. Or anyhow to tightly control the conditions under which such things can be imported.

For instance, I would think that if such a law existed twenty years ago (with any decent enforcement), them flying jumpin' carp things (the name escapes me at the moment) that have INFESTED several major rivers in the midwest, eaten everything else in the river out of house and home, and are now poised to do the same to the great lakes as soon as one of them gets lucky, would not have been very likely to have happened in the first place. Or any of a number of other situations.

If you don't have the Problem Critters easily available at the retail level, you don't need to depend NEARLY so much on peoples' good will in terms of not letting 'em get loose.

I don't think the bill is all that likely to pass, personally, and I am not sure whether it's really written in the best way, but SOMEthing of that ilk would not be inappropriate, if you ask me.

Pat

 

[B. Saffles Farms]

Well I said I was staying out of this. But, why do people honestly belive more laws are the way to go when they dont or cant enforce the ones they already have. And by others way of thinking, if we have a law for it then no one ever breaks that laws. That works everytime.

ETA: The gray areas are what I am concerned about. If this is passed the way it is written now, then they can fill in the blanks with what ever they want. Show me a list of what is effected or what isnt effected then Ill make my decision. Untill then there is a reason to be concerned.

 

[deerman]

Quote:
Well heck, by that logic we don't need laws for ANYthing, just education.

Like we should just *educate* people that they shouldn't drive too fast, or steal peoples' money, or kill each other, and then, you know, they would all just stop doing it.

Yuh huh

Quote:
No, if I'm reading this bill correctly, it has a new point: to prevent stuff being brought in that could pose a problem if released. Or anyhow to tightly control the conditions under which such things can be imported.

For instance, I would think that if such a law existed twenty years ago (with any decent enforcement), them flying jumpin' carp things (the name escapes me at the moment) that have INFESTED several major rivers in the midwest, eaten everything else in the river out of house and home, and are now poised to do the same to the great lakes as soon as one of them gets lucky, would not have been very likely to have happened in the first place. Or any of a number of other situations.

If you don't have the Problem Critters easily available at the retail level, you don't need to depend NEARLY so much on peoples' good will in terms of not letting 'em get loose.

I don't think the bill is all that likely to pass, personally, and I am not sure whether it's really written in the best way, but SOMEthing of that ilk would not be inappropriate, if you ask me.

Pat

Guess if they had laws years ago about drug coming into the country, we wouldnt have a drug problem now. OH THEY DID??

 

[patandchickens]

Quote:
a) not necessarily the best example -- a not totally stupid argument can be made that the drug trade is worse *because* its illegal.

but more relevantly

b) obviously no law achieves 100% compliance. But don't'cha think they do SOME good?

If not, then you should be arguing against ALL laws period, not just this one

Pat

 

[deerman]

Quote:
a) not necessarily the best example -- a not totally stupid argument can be made that the drug trade is worse *because* its illegal.

but more relevantly

b) obviously no law achieves 100% compliance. But don't'cha think they do SOME good?

If not, then you should be arguing against ALL laws period, not just this one

Pat

Well here in the States, the illegal pet trade makes more money than drugs trades. All I am saying is we have enought laws with the animals control, if they would enforce them.

 

[gypsy2621]

With out knowing who the behind the scene co sponsers of this bill are, do you truely belive this could be anything other than an attempt at restricting the rights of the common person?

Is this bill 100% sponsered by Game and Wildlife.
doubtfull.
what makes me cranky is back 50 years ago and some more likely, the Gov introduced exotic species to control rampent pests, that turned out very well, the exotics took over the pest problem and didnt end the original pest, go figure.
The one thing this bill and others llike it create is the options of re write, meaning once its passed it can be added to/changed to suit the masses if all the open ended sentences havent been clarified.

I agree that un less there is a complete list of birds/ reptiles/fish/arachnids etc there is room for concern.
no listing or set in stone catagories anything can be added at a later date.

This proposal is un necessary to start with I believe the laws on importing exotics are already onthe books, so this would be a redundant law, basically another one of those re writes.