Keep a ferret? For many, a ferret is every bit as lovable and bond-worthy a pet as any cat or dog, despite the naysayers (who’ve obviously never met a well-raised ferret). How about a Cockatiel? I never knew a more lovable bird than my first male Cockatiel, “Sydney.”
Now enter the US government with its proposed stipulations on who can own what kind of animal. Its H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, aims “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."
Make no mistake, for all its grandiose verbiage this is a bad bit of law––and not just because of its grammatically challenged legalese.
Its goal? To keep any non-native wildlife species out of our homes, out from under our ability to set them free to multiply, out of the trade in sensitive species, out of our native species’ habitats where they can wreak havoc. It proposes to make all wild, non-native pets illegal across the board––save for cats, dogs, common economic (livestock) species, and, of course the biggest native habitat home-wreckers of all...humans.
According to the bill’s supporting documents,
“....the term “wild” relates to any creatures that, whether or not raised in captivity, normally are found in a wild state; and the terms “wildlife” and “wildlife resources” include those resources that comprise wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), and all other classes of wild creatures whatsoever, and all types of aquatic and land vegetation upon which such wildlife resources are dependent.”
Aquarium fish, ferrets, hamsters, guinea pigs, many snakes, most lizards, chinchillas, sugar gliders and most any common pet bird you can name––all outlawed in the US. That is, unless a lengthy (and expensive) application process proves that an individual species is sufficiently non-threatening to human health or our native wildlife.
While its laudable, primary intent is to limit the environmental impact of released species (something we in South Florida know too much about), I have to wonder: Does it make sense to create a Federal standard that affects everyone in every state equally? Is there no room for those willing to seek specialized permits? No concessions for those whose regions could not possibly sustain an escaped lovebird or refrain from freezing their released snake?
Despite my hefty reservations about this bill, it’s clear that we Floridians could use a few more laws to help keep our pets from killing our region’s prized flora and fauna. Consider:
- pythons in the Everglades eating our threatened birds’ eggs and multiplying with impunity
- bufo toads marauding in our back yards and threatening our dogs’ safety
- hordes of gluttonous iguanas chomping down our native vegetation
- flocks of Macaws, Monk parakeets and other releasees chowing on other birds’ rightful fruit
I’ve seen spider monkeys in my back yard (albeit years ago). My home’s exterior hosted a Tokay gecko for a few seasons. And my mother’s dog keeps attacking those innocent-but-lethal toads. A couple of weeks ago it became clear that I couldn’t even go on vacation in the Keys without having to shoo the iguanas from the resort’s pool area into the mangroves (where they most certainly don’t belong).
But can anyone in, say, Minnesota, claim the same common sights? I don’t think so.
Sure, we need some way to limit the human impact on our habitats. We need to stop the trade in sensitive species. We need to go after those nefarious animal traders with poor records and poorer protocols.
But how can sweeping laws like this seem so urgent in the face of continued, wholesale slaughter of habitats through unnecessary human development? How can curbing our appetite for personal pets through legislation solve the underlying problem?
Laws like this that threaten to impact millions of individual animal owners adversely should be judiciously applied on an as-needed basis. They should be cautiously introduced so as not to decimate innocent industries that do play well with the environment. And they should not be considered an expedient means of saving our native habitats––not as long as the bulldozers keep making their slow progress across more of our terrain. Not while we, as a nation, continue to resist efforts to repatriate our ecological treasures (read: the Everglades and the Florida Keys) with their rightful water sources and native vegetation.
Come on, now. Kill big sugar and the like, first. Stop the relentless encroachment on these areas. Appropriately protect the habitats we do have. Next up, enforce existing laws leveled against evildoers in the pet trade. Only then will I consider giving up my right to keep a ferret.
Add Comment36 Comments
May I recommend the piece in the current New Yorker on this subject? I devoured it last night .... fascinating!
Gina Spadafori April 17th, 2009 11:15:35 AM
Technically, the domestic house cat would fall into that catagory too. http://wildlife.wisc.edu/extension/catfly3.htm
Connie April 17th, 2009 11:27:38 AM
I know they're bad but its kind of cool to see giant iguanas lounging around a local pond and then splashing off into the water and swimming away. It would be much less cool to see a python eating the ducks however...
Sheyna April 17th, 2009 11:41:09 AM
Figures this Sheidiot Bordallo would introduced this bill. She apparently stopped evolving in the 1940's when she was a teenager.
Evet April 17th, 2009 11:49:28 AM
Obviously this bill was designed to bend people to certain special interests will not intelligently address the problem.
Evet April 17th, 2009 11:54:59 AM
I haven't read the bill but I thought when I heard about it that it was brought on because of the lady who got her face ripped off by a monkey in CT. I had no idea it had anything to do with wreaking havok on the environment. The domesticated ferret should not be included in that bill for the simple reason that they are sold altered and can't multiply. They are not found in the wild. I will be very upset about my bunnies though. I double dog dare someone to tell me I have to get rid of them.
Kristie April 17th, 2009 12:33:54 PM
Ferrets are sold altered.If only dogs and cats were also.
Robert Garnett April 17th, 2009 12:44:45 PM
And once again the government struggles to dictate to us what we can and can not do....wonder what's next...sound like a different country anyone?
LorriM April 17th, 2009 01:19:55 PM
Isn't this bill a lot like shutting the barn door after the horse has gotten out? Or will all the non-native animals just pack their bags and leave once it's passed? I'm still (vainly)hoping for more thinking, less reacting from politicians.....
rheather April 17th, 2009 01:21:05 PM
Gina: I read the abstract. Compelling! I'll have to borrow the real thing from my boyfriend tonight. Thanks!
Dr. Patty Khuly April 17th, 2009 01:39:12 PM
I amended this post a tad at the end. It makes me madder and madder to see how far we haven't come. That's why added the stronger wording. Hope you don't mind.
Dr. Patty Khuly April 17th, 2009 01:52:10 PM
thanks for blogging on the issue, Dr Khuly, of destructive, non-native species. Those that scamper off into the woods, rivers, and ponds, and those that scamper off to Washington. If we were to effectively hold exotic pet traders accountable, cast a net around the voters, too!
eli April 17th, 2009 02:11:12 PM
I'll be the contrarian here. While I am an old-fashioned Federalist, and hate big government more than most people, I like the notion of limiting onwership of non-native species. It is clearly obvious that we cannot trust the pet trade to police itself: there are problems at every level with habitat destruction, animal welfare and release/escape. One only has to see the level of devastation caused by escaped and released fish (oscars in the everglades), birds (ditto macaws and other pe birds), plants (ornamental aquarium plants choking our waterways), invertebrates (list too numerous to count), reptiles (ditto TNTC), and mammals (just look at everything from feral hogs to feral cats)to understand that this is larger that just a "I have my rights" issue. If individuals can't be collectively responsible, then maybe we do need tougher laws governing who can keep an exotic. And before everyone starts claiming that "responsible" owners shouldn't be penalized, I would answer that for every responsible owner, there are problably 9 irresponsible owners who would just as soon release that python, than maintain it in a good home after it is no longer "cool".
Paul April 17th, 2009 02:24:00 PM
IF people are to be regulated in exotic animal species strictly based upon enviromental impact, then it should be a state regulation, as obviously here in NJ, it is unlikely that an iguana turned loose would survive the winter to cause havoc on our natural wild vegetation (which is pretty much goldenrod and poison ivy)
There is no general one rule fits all as this bill tries to cover.
*Those that scamper off into the woods, rivers, and ponds, and those that scamper off to Washington.*
Well said....I think that those that scamper off to washington need to be spayed and neutered as well.
LorriM April 17th, 2009 03:05:43 PM
Doc. Off topic sorry. We have to treat our cat's ears with Otomax for 10 days. One drop each ear twice daily. Plus cleanings. I got up to speed last night and I'm now freaking OUT over Otomax and this deafness risk. Got in a nasty shouting match with my wife this morning. She wants to continue the treatment. It's yeast, no mites but slightly irritated ears. But not major.
The wax flys out easily with Cerumene cleanings. Is my freaking out warranted? He's a healthy five year old.
Evet April 17th, 2009 03:12:57 PM
Minnesota has serious problems with invasive plants and water creatures, and exotic cats, if released, could probably survive just fine, but no, the animals you point out are not common sights here. On the other hand, ferrets used to be illegal in Minneapolis (I wanted one, and the pet store guy asked for proof of residence that I lived elsewhere. I did not.) because the city council feared they would be able to survive in the wild and would upset our local populations of animals. I think they are legal now, though. You can overdo this kind of caution, it's true, and if the federal government standard is as strict as all that, it should be probably be loosened a bit. But unintended consequences are hard to foresee, and our wildlife doesn't need the stress of a foreign invader. I have seen parakeets loose in Minneapolis, though I don't know how long they lasted. Even if they don't make it through the winter, though, shouldn't our peregrine falcons be living off pigeons and squirrels or whatever, and not these easy little freebies? Won't that kind of thing throw off their hunting pattern? And what about diseases like monkeypox getting into our prairie dogs? Better to err on the side of safety, I would think.
Caro April 17th, 2009 04:48:56 PM
Hopefully I'm just being an idiot.
Evet April 17th, 2009 05:16:37 PM
Evet: 1 drop in each ear isn't going to make it down to the inner workings of the ear in 10 days. Don't sweat it. Live in harmony. :-)
Dr. Patty Khuly April 17th, 2009 05:53:56 PM
Thankyou it's sincerely appreciated. His ears look better already since Wed's Vet check. Anxiety . . arrrrrgh!
Evet April 17th, 2009 06:48:34 PM
yeah, we need some kind of governing regarding exotic species, only because humans (too many of them) are totally ignorant. But the federal government continues to encroach upon our personal freedom. The laws should be passed by the smaller government entities, where they can be based on enviroment and necessity. As a people, we continue to give away our freedoms to a government that has no interest in our needs. It has to stop.
cyndi April 17th, 2009 06:48:54 PM
Thank you for posting about this. The bird community is up in arms about this - it would mean the entire end of aviculture. The provisions for grandfathering in existing individual pets in this bill are also truly minimal. The current owner of an individual pet would be allowed to keep it, but would not be allowed to cross state lines with it (so couldn't move out of state) or give it to another individual (so couldn't give it to a rescue if unable to care for it anymore, couldn't will it to someone in case the original owner died, and might not even be able to board the animal with a vet or boarder).
zandperl April 17th, 2009 08:22:55 PM
This is a tough problem because there are some species that can become a real problem when released in certain areas. The ecological damage they cause, in habitat change/destruction, and/or predation on eggs, young, and adults of native species changes ecosystems, and almost never in a benign way. I'm thinking, in particular, of the snakehead fish issue in various parts of the country, and I'm sure there are many other 'food' species. I think the place to go to stave off these issues are the animal importers/brokers. Those who think they should be able to bring in eggs or live fish and reptiles/amphibians for sale in food markets are a group that (theoretically) should be easier to control - no live food imports, period. We don't have enough inspectors? We have a lot of unemployed people who could be trained for this job. Yes, black markets exist and could increase, but we have a lot of people who could be trained and employed to work in law enforcement right at the source, before creatures get released into the wild. There can can be issues of imported, sick birds infecting native birds if they escape, but they usually die too quickly to be a major threat. Again, more inspectors could help keep this from becoming a huge problem.
I'd also like to see an increase in the number - or actually a new classification of inspectors/veterinarians(?) who would be charged with checking on the health and well-being of animals in pet stores, from dogs to hissing cockroaches, to make sure that they are being kept in adequate spaces with correct food/water/heat, and that every store had good information to give prospective buyers about the specific needs of different creatures. Iguanas and turtles can't live on iceburg lettuce and hamburger... I should stop right there, but I hope you understand what I mean. If people were better informed it could prevent some (never all, I'm not thinking everyone won't be stupid) of the horrid outcomes for pet store critters.
But saying that hamsters, gerbils, other rodents, guinea pigs, bunnies, and ferrets can cause the same kinds of problems is mostly silly, in that their chances of surviving in the wild are low (lots of birds of prey and even crows would love an easy to catch hamster or domesticated rabbit, let along all the outdoor cats and dogs - my hamster's called Hors d'oeuvre 'cause that's what my dogs think it is). I think this should be a state/local issue. Considering that there's still the ridiculous ability to be able to buy lions, tigers, and bears in Ohio, let's do something about animals that can cause serious damage before we start in on pocket pets.
KateH April 18th, 2009 06:16:51 PM
I own some aquatic snails of the Ampullariidae family (aka Apple Snails). This includes the pomacea bridgesii (aka brigs), the Marisa cornuarietis (aka Columbian Ramshorns), and I have owned some pomacea canaliculata (aka Cana). The USDA has regulated that the only species of the Apple Snails that can be transported over state lines is the bridgesii. Even then, you have to have a permit for EACH state you want to ship the snail to. This doesn't stop folks from doing it, though. Check the snail section of Aquabid and you'll see all sorts of illegal activity. Folks still get caught and pay hefty fines and get to see all of their snails, legal or not, destroyed.
I also own goldfish (non-US native) and Koi (non-US native). I also own bristlenose plecos (Loricariidae Ancistrus sp. and non-US species) and the red cherry shrimp (Neocaridina denticulata sinensis and non-US species). The home aquarium industry is huge. There's no way they are going to let the extremely expensive Koi market disappear in the US. Not only would the pet-fish industry fold, but so would all the pond plant folk, the pond building folk, etc etc. As for goldfish, what else would kids get to take home from the carnival?
Seeing how the illegal pet snail trade is regulated, I don't see how the heck the US gov't can regulate the ownership and sale of all those other critters they deem "wild". "Grandfathering" in something is even more of a mess. It places a lot of the burden on the owner. What happens when the owner decides the mound of paperwork and fees is too much? The USDA is underfunded and understaffed. There's no way they can regulate the mess this bill would cause. No way in heck.
PaulaO April 19th, 2009 03:04:08 PM
PaulaO: Not to mention all the "exotics-only" veterinarians. Don't see it happening.
Dr. Patty Khuly April 19th, 2009 05:24:16 PM
I adore ferrets and in the past kept one. However I think it is very poor logic to say that because toher things are works for the environment, ferrets should be permits. The state of the pot does not excuse the state of the kettle if both need a good scrubbing. This is like the farmer saying their use of microbial is probably a fairly minor factor compared to their use in human medicine. This is probably true--but no good reason to continue on blithely. I have seen the results of stray animals on the nests of flightless birds. And many of these birds are so endangered that they cannot easy absorb any of the multiple threats of pollution, traps, joy riders, etc etc. Oh and that ferret I once had? I found it wondering stray in a wildlife preserve. Ferrets are escape artists and killing machine. The fact they are cute means we want to keep them and pronbably will--but I think it pays to be honest about the selfishness of the choice.
emily April 20th, 2009 10:52:27 AM
This is obviously an issue that is best left for the individual States to deal with. Of course, the 10th Ammendment is the one most often disregarded and shat upon by our Federal legislators, so why should this issue be anything new? Invassive species are something I deal with in my professional day-to-day life, and it's certainly a major issue. However, it is an issue that varries in taxa and severity from location to location, and a one-size-fits-all Federal mandate is certainly not the answer.
el chuppacabra April 20th, 2009 12:46:44 PM
Emily, I strongly disagree with your statement about ferrets being killing machines. Yes, some ferrets, like some cats and some dogs, are intensely prey-driven and will attack smaller mammals or birds. But other ferrets could care less, and much prefer their bowls of kibble. I've never been able to get my ferrets to eat fresh or cooked meat, no matter how I've tried. I have been on online ferret groups for many years, and many ferrets lack a killing instinct, as those who have tried to get their ferrets on a live prey diet have found. Escape artists, yes. Survivors? No. Even if my ferrets could get out and support themselves through hunting, they wouldn't have the sense to be afraid of the local coyotes, feral cats, hawks, etc. Ferrets have established feral colonies in New Zealand *with human support* and have indeed had a negative impact on flightless birds there (as did cats, dogs, pigs and rats and wild polecats, so it's really hard to blame just the ferrets there). But nowhere else in the world does mustela putorius furo, the domesticated ferret, exist in the wild. If they were such effective escape artists and killers, surely they'd have overrun the world by now.
Dr. Khuly, thanks for addressing this issue. The more I learn about it, the more strange I find the legislation. Ultimately, the hypocrasy of declaring some of the most environmentally destructive animals okay because they are useful or cherished while banning other far less pernicious animals really gets my domesticated goat.
regina April 21st, 2009 12:32:59 PM
دردشة سعودي منتديات سعودي
منوعاتt7b.com April 21st, 2009 07:38:59 PM
شات كام , شات سعودي , ;hlhj
ksacamat May 3rd, 2009 03:34:39 PM
شات
amal_ May 22nd, 2009 10:00:26 AM
Learn Chinese in China,Study Chinese in China,Mandarin School in China,Study Mandarin in China.Learn Chinese in China's Best tourist city - Hangzhou! Mandarin Capital was and is the first Mandarin School in Hangzhou
adf June 1st, 2009 03:09:50 AM
good information
sem and search engine marketing
sem June 1st, 2009 03:11:23 AM
دردشة
منتديات
يوتيوب
dddf June 26th, 2009 12:21:14 PM
The only ones ghd hair iron among you who will be really happy ghd mk4 iron are those who will have sought and foundhow to serve. When the fight begins ghd iv dark styler within ghd iv kiss styler himself, a man's worth something ghd hair iron .
GHD Hair Iron September 12th, 2009 04:50:43 AM
Nothing in nhl jerseys life is to be feared. It is only to be understood. The soil in return for her service, keeps the tree tied to her, the boston bruins sky asks nothing and leaves it nhl jersey sales online free. High buy edge jerseys expectations are the key to every chicago blackhawks thing. If you wait, all that happens is that you get older. http://www.nhlbuy.com/
nhl jerseys October 5th, 2009 02:39:17 AM
weight loss tips
blackberry cases
coach handbags
coach handbags November 3rd, 2009 02:52:19 AM
Add Commment