I agree with Lori referring to the overabundance of animals born into
back yard breeders, be it birds, dogs, cats, whatever. This is the
real problem, next to the uneducated people, buyers and sellers alike
who acquire many of these animals "on a whim" and have no clue as to
their true needs and demeanors, other than they are pretty or cool, or
whatever gesture suits their emotional frame of mind at the time of
acquirement. More likely than not, it is all about greed, and the
animals, in the end, are the ones who suffer. They become a liability
to the sellers and are sold to the highest bidder to ready for the
next batch. So sad. A vicious cycle in the end.
I have 4 rescue Birds in my possession, due to the fact that people
could no longer care for them and their overwhelming, everyday needs.
So many times the thrill has warn off and realization had sent in,
leaving people shaking their heads and popping more Tylenol than
needed to deal with these demanding, creatures of the wild, bred into
captivity, not giving one thought to the LONG lived life expectancies
and commitment required. Birds have become a "throw away pet" just as
dogs. I am all for stopping the breeding and selling cycles for the
welfare of these magnificent creatures, but also, I know I am only
grasping at straws stating this.
I have copied the portion of the bill in question, regarding the
ownership of existing pets, Lori was speaking of.
(f) Animals Owned Lawfully Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This
Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the
ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species
if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the
risk assessment is begun pursuant to subsection (e)(3), even if such
species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations
issued under this Act.
On 4/14/09, Lori wrote:
> What is the wording in this bill? That's what needs to be focused
> on. It's not surprising after that woman in CT. got her face
> ripped off by a 'domesticated' monkey. Don't fight the ban, try to
> influence what it says. Hybrid cats and dogs, Ferrets, rabbits,
> hedgehogs, sugar gliders, reptiles, fish, etc...let them know that
> these are, for the most part, harmless. Venomous snakes, large
> snakes, camen, spiders...safe for the educated enthusiast. It's
> tigers and chimps and other large, wild game that they're trying
> to ban...and rightly so.
> Remember, respectful requests go much farther than angry emails.
> You can be emotional without being rude. Let your reps know how
> you feel so they can ammend the bill to the liking of their
> constituants. They aren't trying to be evil, they're trying to
> keep their public safe. Let's help them with that.
> On 4/13/09, Lori wrote:
>> First off, exsisting pets are not going to be taken, second if
>> it doesnt come from US, and not native it does not belong. I for
>> one am so sick of people all over chatboards posting a site that
>> tries and tells everyone that their pets will have to go. BS!
>> It's a shame that our wildlife all over the world is getting
>> exploited, yes I am for control,My own belief is animal
>> population is out of control as well as backyard breeders. This
>> is only my Opinion and everyone has one, I know. So telling
>> people their fish, birds and ferrets will have to go, is nothing
>> but crap. Second, does anyone really think the import/export
>> will ever stop- NO That people really think pet ownership will
>> be dictated- Hell NO This is such a load of Bs. And No Im not
>> worried.There are so many here, there will never be a shortage
>> of parrots,The smuggling will never end, so the deaths of
>> parrots will never end, too many greedy parties. So for all the
>> people who post, you wont be keeping your pets are full of it.
>> No one is going to force you to hand over your pets..............
>> On 4/13/09, GreyLady wrote:
>>> Lori, I am curious as to your intrepretation of the whole
>>> bill. Yes, everyone needs to read it, in it's entirety.
>>> That's the only way to know what the true, long term intent
>>> is. But I'm interested in which parts you feel are only scare
>>> tactics, what are people saying that would be an attempt to
>>> people to "dump their pets" and why do you think the bill is
>>> acceptable, if that's what you think? Granted, I may be mis-
>>> reading your intent here so I'm sorry if that's the case. It
>>> sounds as if you are in favor of it. If so, can you share
>>> thoughts on it? Do you find it interesting that the sponsor
>>> from Guam? Two of the co-sponsors are from Hawaii and the
>>> Northern Mariana Islands? By all means, everyone owning a
>>> parrot or anything else considered "exotic" needs to really
>>> study this bill, word for word, and act accordingly.