Proposed federal law: Prove your pets are safe, or we’ll ban them
By Christie Keith
April 10, 2009
Once upon a time, I had no idea why people owned un-fluffy pets. I thought my friends who kept fish tanks or turtles or rats were out of their minds. And why anyone would want, say, a pet python was completely beyond me.
After all, weren’t some of those pets kind of dangerous? And even the ones that posed no threat to humans, like angel fish — it’s not like they liked you, or really, even knew you were alive. What was the point?
But just like the folks who “know” things about pit bulls or feral cats, most of what I “knew” about unusual and exotic pets was wrong.
People are drawn to all kinds of pets less common than dogs and cats, for all kinds of reasons. Some of them may be bad reasons, but that’s no different from the fact that some people are drawn to Persian cats because they think they’re a status symbol, and others to Rottweilers because they think they’re macho.
Just like those of us who keep dogs and cats, people who keep pocket pets, tropical fish, birds, snakes and other exotic and unusual animals do so because they’re intrigued with them, care about them, and get something valuable out of the relationship.
The first stage of my enlightenment on this issue came when I lived with a woman who had a dozen or so rescued parrots. (She was a professional animal trainer and worked at a humane society, and we had a huge barn and outdoor aviary set-up for them — she was no kind of bird hoarder.) Before living with her, I’d have said that any birds as prone to biting as her rescued parrots shouldn’t be kept as pets, but she loved them madly, and they loved her.
I began to understand then that the human-animal bond can blossom between people and the most unlikely, and even apparently unloveable, of animals.
But my conversion was complete when I came to work for PetHobbyist.com, the parent website for kingsnake.com, the oldest and largest reptile and amphibian website in the world. That’s where I finally broke my last personal taboo: snakes and lizards, frogs and turtles. You know — creepy crawlies.
As I got to know people who kept herps, especially snakes, I realized that what moves them about their pets is not affection or companionship, but wonder. These people were the grown-up versions of the kid lying on her belly in the grass watching a garter snake slither by, or a little boy crouching for long minutes by a creek, waiting to catch a frog in his hands.
And once I got exposed to that wonder, I started to see it all around me. I picked up my nephew from day care, and saw they had a bearded dragon in the classroom. Friends read an article I wrote about snakes as pets for SFGate.com, and told me they’d grown up with corn snakes or little native boas, or even today kept lizards. I sat watching that same little nephew enthralled with a DVD called “Microcosmos,” an amazing film about the hidden insect life in a French meadow.
And I read books like field biologist Kate Jackson’s Mean and Lowly Things: Snakes, science and survival in the Congo, and realized just how many of those little kids who start out on their bellies in the grass end up running science programs at the Smithsonian, or teaching children about the wonders of the natural world in a grammar school science class.
That’s fine, you say, petting your purring cat. People who have snakes have the right to have them, and yeah, my kid brother had a turtle, and we did have hamsters in our grade school science class. Nature’s good. We get it. What’s the problem?
The problem is a well-intentioned but absolutely clueless law in front of Congress right now. The bill, HR 669, the “Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act,” would create a “guilty until proven innocent” list of animals that can’t be kept as pets in the United States without extensive and expensive scientific proof that those animals are safe and pose no risk to the environment.
The law targets all non-native animals — like most aquarium fish, nearly all species of pet bird, and even common pets like hamsters and guinea pigs. Dogs and cats are, in effect, grandfathered in, but if they weren’t, it’s worth noting they could never pass such a test. (Nor, for that matter, could human beings.)
Yes, of course there are dangerous animals being kept as pets; I’m not talking about pet tigers here. I’m talking about things like hamsters and cockatoos and corn snakes.
And I also agree that invasive non-native species — plant or animal — can be a risk to local eco-systems. But the same snake or tropical fish that’s a danger in Florida is no risk at all in Colorado. My friend’s cute little ferret is no more risk here in California, where he’s already illegal, than he is in Michigan, where he’s not. Your nephew’s hamster or gerbil? Gina’s parrot? The gecko your daughter finally persuaded you to buy her for her birthday?
We’ve had these pets in the United States for generations. “Snakes and snails and puppy dog tails” are an American tradition of childhood. And yet all of them (well, not the puppy dogs) are on that “show me you’re innocent” list.
Yeah, there are some folks opposing HR 669 that I have some problems with. PIJAC, for one, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, which is also a major apologist for and defender of the commercial puppy trade. But the issue should be judged on its merits, not in a knee-jerk rejection of the agenda of some of its opponents.
There are plenty of wonderful animals whose owners are very scared about this law and the impact it will have on their right to keep the pets they love. Aquarium fish, parrots, ferrets, hamsters, and an endless list of harmless and beloved snakes, lizards, birds, and other critters are on that “black list.” There’s virtually no chance most of them will be “proven safe,” because such proof is very costly and time-consuming.
Certainly there are animals that don’t belong in the pet trade because they’re dangerous or unsuitable. But a lot of people feel that way about pet cats — believe me, I see them commenting on my SFGate.com column all the time — and certainly about pit bulls and many other dog breeds. I’m not saying a line can’t be drawn somewhere, but this law draws it so far in the wrong direction it’s hard to believe anyone can be serious about it.
Take a bunch of animals kept by millions of American kids and say, “Prove they’re safe”? On a national level? If there’s a problem and you have evidence to demonstrate it, tackle it with local regulation and legislation. Even if an animal is a genuine threat nation-wide, which I find hard to imagine happens too often, the solutions to that problem would vary greatly from rural to urban, warm to cold, or northern to southern regions. Does one-size-fits-all, draconian national legislation make any kind of sense?
This law is bad for animals, it’s bad for the people who love them, and it’s just plain bad law.
So please, however you feel about slithery critters or the people who keep them, contact your Congress people and tell them you oppose HR 669. Particularly contact those on the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee, which will be holding a hearing on it on April 23. I’m by no means endorsing PIJAC as an organization, but they have a good overview of the provisions of the bill and contact information for the committee members here (PDF). (Update: Another easy summary and contact site, including a “one click” way to email members of Congress, here.)
Even if your dogs and cats aren’t threatened directly by this law, contact them on behalf of tomorrow’s field biologists and science teachers, or just the guy down the street with a tankful of tropical fish.
Tell Congress to leave our pets alone.
Letter sent. That is just ridiculous legislation. Considering the current economic problems, the government should not be messing with my right to have pets. They should be thankful I can still take care of them.
Comment by Raven's Mom — April 10, 2009 @ 5:59 am
The Bees are not happy about this:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c.....m-of-bees/
Comment by Original Lori — April 10, 2009 @ 6:18 am
Amen, Christie. Eddie the Caique parrot, who is smarter than half of Congress, says this is utterly unacceptable.
And so do the chickens.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 10, 2009 @ 6:19 am
Interesting point! How many of our farm animals are technically “non-native”?
Hmmmmmmmmmm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 10, 2009 @ 6:37 am
Dear PeTA,
Get out of my Congress.
Thank you,
Lori
Comment by Original Lori — April 10, 2009 @ 6:56 am
One other thing to mention when writing Congress is that this bill will drastically impact - negatively - the business of veterinarians specializing in exotic pets and birds. If they won’t listen to common sense, they might be willing to listen to a negative financial impact on their constituents. And who knows how zoos would be affected?
Comment by Phyllis DeGioia — April 10, 2009 @ 7:33 am
Great point, Phyllis! And a friend pointed out to me that the big pet stores, which do NOT sell puppies and kittens, devote more than half their floor space to supplies, tanks, cages, and other equipment for aquarium fish, birds, pocket pets, and other less-common pets. A law like this would be a brutal blow to the very stores who have “done the right thing” by dogs and cats (although I recognize there are issues with other animals).
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 8:17 am
Good post. And I tend to view poorly thought out legislation like this as a “slippery slope” toward outlawing ALL pets. Sounds ridiculous, I know but then, look at what’s before Congress at this very moment with HR669.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 10, 2009 @ 8:45 am
It’s weird, I’ve always been more partial to other types of pets. I loved the dogs I’ve met, and wish I could love cats (allergic), but I’ve loved the hamsters that have been in my life, or the fish, and especially the gerbil I had in college, just as much. Recently, I’ve adopted geckos that are pretty kickin’ themselves.
It always blows my mind when people with solely dogs or cats wonder why someone would have other pets and love them like a dear friend. Don’t they get that’s how petless people feel about them?
With herps or fish, I think more of the attraction is the wonder and the beauty, but to say there isn’t companionship there isn’t right either. I know of an iguana who gets to watch tv with his family and of a bearded dragon that goes on walks. I talk to my leopard geckos the same way I talk to my dogs, and we’re working on getting them more used to small amounts of handling.
And of course, there’s companionship when you factor in small mammals and birds. They have personalities in their own way, especially birds, who are freakishly intelligent.
Of course, the drawbacks, or bonuses, depending on the breed, are the life span. Many birds and herps live super long with the proper care. How can you know, for sure, that you’ll be able to take care of your parrot in 20 years? On the other hand, who wouldn’t want their talking dog to keep them company for 30+ years?
Some small mammals, particularly that gerbil in college, though, don’t seem to live long enough.
Comment by Christine H — April 10, 2009 @ 8:46 am
OMG, there’re nutters in Congress. Oh. Wait. That’s nothing new. What is new is that this type of poorly thought out sweeping legislation has reached the national level instead of just percolating at the city and county levels, where such bubbles have risen to the top of the nonnative pet pot for years. Time once again to crank the heat down…
Comment by Melissa — April 10, 2009 @ 9:37 am
oy… is there a middle ground?
I can’t understand the problem with having ferrets, or hamsters, or captive-raised parrots as pets.
But chimps? tigers? Or THESE guys: http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....456.htm???
Comment by EmilyS — April 10, 2009 @ 10:19 am
I wouldn’t call that a “middle” ground, Emily, because this law is so far to one side that restricting genuinely dangerous animals from being kept as pets is way way way way way off to the other side.
What this law is REALLY doing is playing on those sensationalistic tragic stories and using the fear they generate to regulate all kinds of other animals that are either harmless or no more harmful than dogs and cats (and sure as hell less harmful than humans).
If they want to ban tigers and chimps as pets, how about if they do that, instead of this?
As to the python drama, I personally think it’s ludicrous. Sure, FLORIDA has a problem. And perhaps, if magic transported the Florida pythons to California or other temperate regions, we could have problems there, too.
But there are pythons and big boas a lot closer to California than Florida is, with a lot less in the way of snowy mountain ranges between us — Latin America.
So where are the pythons here?
Florida has all kinds of issues with invasive species that are particular to that region. Why should I have a law restricting the kind of animals I can keep that’s based on a problem that’s only in Florida?
But what really bugs me is not the issue per se, but the sloppy science and sensationalistic reporting that goes along with the “python eats baby” type story. It means that when there ARE genuine issues, they get lost in all the crying wolf and sky is falling we’ve already heard over and over.
And we get more and more laws based on fear and myths, and fewer and fewer on rigorous science and the idea of the LEAST regulation that will achieve what’s needed.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 10:55 am
I have to say this somewhere, and I chose this posting. I hope Christie Keith will forgive me. My cats did not like the gefilte fish, but my husband does. Good Friday holiday, all, and may everyone enjoy this Easter Sunday, believer or not!
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 10, 2009 @ 11:05 am
This makes perfect sense. There is definately nothing more imortant that our government should be working on right now then banning hamsters. Hamsters are obviously the biggest threat to our safety as a country.
Comment by mike — April 10, 2009 @ 12:14 pm
Hamster cells right now are plotting to take out the Obama’s new puppy.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 12:30 pm
I get it!
Ban The Hamsters—save the country!
(But please, please do not take out Obama’s new puppy.)
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 10, 2009 @ 12:34 pm
If hamsters do take out the new puppy, this law will be passed the next day.
However, the pythons have a plan to take out the hamsters, so…
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 12:40 pm
no Christie: first the puppy eats the hamster, then the python eats the dog…
;-)
(your comments on the fear-based nature of this produced laws are very well taken)
Comment by EmilyS — April 10, 2009 @ 3:36 pm
If we don’t pass this bill, the hamsters win!
Wait a second, I meant that to be sarcastic and humorous but it’s also factually correct. Darn.
Comment by YesBiscuit! — April 10, 2009 @ 4:59 pm
I hate when that happens, yo!
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 5:27 pm
Ok, it’s Friday and time for…. http://www.hampsterdance.com/
I love having cats and a dog, but, I gotta say, when there was a big bust of neglected reptiles last year and about 80 animals (30+ turtles, nile monitor lizard, bearded dragons,etc)came into the shelter, I did some fast research on chameleons, because two were part of the seizure and I’ve always thought they were mucho cool.
The care requirements turned out to be a lot more than I was in a position to deal with, not to mention the species (can’t remember what they were) was not appropriate for beginning reptile keepers.
But I did have an anole (which we all called chameleons, remember?) when I was in junior high. I made it a little leash out of thread, pinned it to my sweater and wore it to school a few times. I’d probably be arrested or at least expelled for doing that these days.
Comment by Susan Fox — April 10, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
OMG the folks at hamsterdance.com must fight this threat to their existence, and also convince their rogue members to leave the Obama puppy alone!
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 6:00 pm
I phoned. I may also arm my corydoras catfish. Battle catfish, yeah!
Comment by Eucritta — April 10, 2009 @ 6:48 pm
First to go will be the hamsters, then the dogs, and then—OMG—it will be the CATS—No, not the cats. Never the cats. Never, never, never. I will maintain my own army—recruitment is starting now, just in case.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 10, 2009 @ 7:18 pm
I just sent an e-mail to congress, as you suggested.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 10, 2009 @ 7:39 pm
YAY!
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 7:43 pm
Christie, I am not going to start my own army because I remembered it was illegal—may be called sedition, I think.
I might get locked up with all those hamsters.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 10, 2009 @ 8:03 pm
Those hamsters are hardcore.
I mean… look at the drive, the destructive capability, the potential for mayhem….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELmHDcfnuvk
Comment by Christie Keith — April 10, 2009 @ 9:15 pm
Ya, if I get in jail with them they probably would steal all my carrots—boo-hoo!
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 11, 2009 @ 6:15 am
The hamster uprising has begun…
http://www.doggedblog.com/.a/6.....eaf970c-pi
Comment by Christie Keith — April 11, 2009 @ 10:46 am
We ought to tell Obama about this revolting development before he gets his dog.
He might need an army of dogs to help out in this crisis!
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 11, 2009 @ 12:42 pm
Well, maybe some nice rescued bust dogs?
Comment by Christie Keith — April 11, 2009 @ 12:48 pm
Ya, I think so.
Those hamsters are smart and well-armed.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 11, 2009 @ 1:13 pm
Hello. My name is Elf. I am very, very good at hamster control. I can even open hamster cages and remove them stealthily. Pretty good for a dog that’s only 19” at the withers.
I suggest you hire me to help fight this insidious hamster invasion. I am not PETA approved; being a purebred, AKC registered and titled, and an opportunistic carnivore. I even carry an AKC AG height card to prove it!
I have no doubt that there are other dogs who read Pet Connection’s blog who would love to aid me fighting those dastardly hamsters. A little cage opening training and we’d be good to go. And just think how pleased Congress would be as they wouldn’t have to pass the legislation!
Comment by Anne T — April 11, 2009 @ 4:05 pm
I don’t know that my cats would welcome the competition for small tasty critters, although the gophers seem to be keeping them occupied right now. They’re working the holes in shifts.
Comment by Susan Fox — April 11, 2009 @ 4:32 pm
No discrimination on this blog.
If you are ready, willing, and able, you can aid in this fight against those hamsters who think they are clever, smart, and cute.
Cat, dog, whatever, you can be of service to your country.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 11, 2009 @ 4:49 pm
We also welcome patriotic hamsters who reject the radical hamster agenda.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 11, 2009 @ 5:11 pm
Good thinking, Christie.
We must not classify all hamsters as bad. I have seen many a hamster who just wants to be loved and has no thoughts of joining a hamster cell. The hamster I am talking about just wants his carrots, water, and hamster food. He wants a place to exercise. He also wants a friend hamster to play with. These are not the bad guys.
Comment by Colorado Transplant — April 11, 2009 @ 5:44 pm
I’m sorry, but all this hysteria about HR 669 is being stirred up by the Pet Industry Joint Information Council, which should tell you all you need to know! These are the people who want to defend your right to own 20 foot Burmese pythons, even though the Florida Everglades are being decimated and the pythons are now moving into the Florida Keys.
This legislation concerns INVASIVE animals. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with your pets or parrots or hampsters! No one is going to break down your door and take your pets away from you.
And no one has to PROVE their pets are safe. That is just total NONSENSE!!!
Comment by The Zen Parrot — April 11, 2009 @ 9:33 pm
Zen … suggest you read the legislation.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 12, 2009 @ 6:43 am
Another person drawn in by the Exotic Pet Industry hysteria.
>>This law IS NOT AIMED AT
” most aquarium fish, nearly all species of pet bird, and even common pets like hamsters and guinea pigs. Dogs and cats”
It merely directs the Secretary of the interior to draw up a list of approved animals based on current scientific data. In this way the Pet Industry can’t keep coming out with the latest new craze and start breeding and importing without first proving it won’t cause harm.
Comment by Evan Peterson — April 13, 2009 @ 5:16 pm
Read the bill. Doesn’t matter its intentions: Read the bill.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — April 13, 2009 @ 5:17 pm
It merely directs the Secretary of the interior to draw up a list of approved animals based on current scientific data.
First of all, lovely selective quoting to include dogs and cats when we’ve repeatedly said they’re not impacted by this.
The second part, Gina already said. Read the bill. Creating a “guilty until proven innocent” list is exactly what I’m objecting to here. It’s bad law, and it’s bad science.
Comment by Christie Keith — April 13, 2009 @ 5:55 pm
Here are the species that are exempt:
“any cat (Felis catus), cattle or oxen (Bos taurus), chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), donkey or ass (Equus asinus), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated Anas spp.), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus),horse (Equus caballus), llama (Lama glama), mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus), pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica), domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), or sheep (Ovis aries)….”
Comment by Christie Keith — April 13, 2009 @ 6:05 pm
But I did have an anole (which we all called chameleons, remember?) when I was in junior high. I made it a little leash out of thread, pinned it to my sweater and wore it to school a few times. I’d probably be arrested or at least expelled for doing that these days.
Comment by Susan Fox — April 10, 2009 @ 5:31 pm
OMFG. I thought I was the only kid who ever did that.
Eighth grade. I thought my English teacher (whom I loved) was going to have a coronary when my “jewelry” moved.
I loved that little guy. I want one.
Comment by H. Houlahan — April 13, 2009 @ 6:12 pm
I haven’t seen one in many years, but found this tidbit on a National Zoo Fact Sheet:
“Green anoles have a stereotyped set of behaviors. Male anoles perform rituals of dominance and territoriality. They show their dominance by bobbing their heads, usually through pushup-like movements.”
Doesn’t that remind you of some of the guys who showed up at the 9th grade dance without a date?
Comment by Susan Fox — April 13, 2009 @ 6:31 pm
Come on folks, this bill will effect everyone owning a pet anything! The manufacturers of animal cagings, supplies, and food will be probably go out of business. Pet stores, both big chains down to the licensed inhome pet stores, will no longer have animals or supplies to offer to the pet owner. In turn, will be out of business. People will be out of a job. Even the vets will be effected. Do you really think this wont effect owning a cat or a dog? Do some research on where your cat or dog’s ancestory line comes from. Where they here before Columbus landed on the America’s coast? IF not, then they too are considered to be “nonnative”. If you have a animal/reptile/fish as a pet, look at what you purchase for them. All those companies will be effected as well. Where will you go to provide your animal, that you care so much about, with its food, toys, and medical care?
Yes, we need some restrictions and controls. Yes there are some real issues out there. But why should we all be punished because of the carelessness of a few??
Do your part to save our pets. Please, I love all of ours: 3 UKC registered dogs, 2 cats, 2 different birds, several fresh and saltwater fish, and many reptiles. We do exhibits edcating as well as breeding a few animals that are close to extinction in hopes of reintroducing some species back into their natural habitat. Mind you, it was the human that has destroyed the places where some of these animals live. So what does that say about us?
Comment by PJ Coombs — April 20, 2009 @ 5:19 am
P.S. Sorry for the typos and such, too early and no coffee. Let’s stand strong together, no matter what you own for a pet. Dont you love your pet? Dont let the government take them away from us. I could not destroy any of my animals. I would take the fines and jail time first.
Comment by PJ Coombs — April 20, 2009 @ 5:23 am
I have written all of my senators and representatives about this bill. I did it about 2 weeks ago when I first got wind of it. I shudder to think what would happen to me and my ferrets if they outlawed them. . .
Comment by Kristy B — April 21, 2009 @ 1:51 pm
PJ Coombs - Dogs and cats are being “grandfathered in”. (Probably only because the legislators know how many of their voting constituents are dog and cat owners!)
Comment by The OTHER Pat — April 21, 2009 @ 2:02 pm
I have been a long time owner of iguanas, small snakes, horses, dogs, cats, gerbils, + birds.
My opinion as to what animals should be banned to own by the average person, I believe that all constricting snakes, such as pythons, + boas, as well as all poisonous snakes should NOT be allowed to be kept in a home. I also believe that all of these type of snakes, as well as gila monsters, or any other poisonous reptiles should not be kept by any average person at home.
The ONLY persons that should be allowed to have these dangerous animals is a herpetologist, a zoo, or a person that milks a snake for it’s venom, to make
antivenin. The only time that these animals should be kept is under strict rules, + only with a permit. These snakes have NO reason to be in someone’s home, under ANY circumstances. They should always be in appropriate secure facility to guarantee prevention of escape.
As to protecting the environment from all foreign animals, if the paperwork was kept as for where, these animals go, + if to a pet shop, the paperwork should also reflect who purchased the animal, so that if the animal is found loose, it will be proof of the owner releasing the animal, + then that owner should be held accountable, + severely fined. If they can afford to purchase such an animal, they can afford the fines, if the animal causes damage to our environment.
It seems we should give each animal a microchip when it is brought into our country, then it will have a permanent no., so it can be kept track of no matter where in the U.S. that it goes.
Comment by Cynthia L. Reese — June 1, 2009 @ 11:52 pm