Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

Expand Messages
  • john nixon
    We pet owners in the US really can t stop habitat dstruction in other countries, at least directly. Habitat destruction by humans is almost invariably economic
    Message 1 of 84 , Mar 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      We pet owners in the US really can't stop habitat dstruction in other countries, at least directly. Habitat destruction by humans is almost invariably economic in nature, and unless we can provide a more lucrative option, citizens of other countries have the right to determine what happens within their own borders. Who am I to tell a Bolivian who wants to feed his family and provide for a better future for them not to clear a piece of land so he can earn a living on it, so a bunch of birds which if anything will make his work harder can live? Unless I give him a better offer, he'll laugh in my face, and rightly so. Luckily for Parrots they really do adapt well to humans, and humans can adapt well to them. Think about the multitudes of other species which aren't fortunate enough to be smart, beautiful and actually enjoy our company? We can only do so much, and we shouldn't waste effort just doing something. There have been numerous re-introductions of extirpated species with mostly good results. Przewalski's Horse is a good example in Mongolia. But again we can only do so much, and looking at the historical record, extinction is the rule.

      From: Robert DeBonis <rdebon@...>
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 2:15 PM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
       
      
      John,
       
      I absolutely believe in Species Management Programs, to save and re-introduce endangered species into their natural habitats. However as you have alluded
      to, these habitats are disappearing at an alarming rate due to human intervention. As I see it we may be able to save some of them but the vast gene pool will eventually be lost. There are only so many homes and Zoos that Parrots can be placed in.
       
      How do we as concerned pet owners stop Habitat Destruction?
       
      How can we re-introduce these animals into the countries they were captured in; or is it even plausible that animals can survive re-introduction into their
      former environment after they have been captured and lived domestically.
       
       
       
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:38 AM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

       
      I own a Blue Throat Throat Macaw, of which there are an estimated 100-150 individuals in the wild at current check. Two years ago I saw 150-300 bandied about as the wild population, so things aren't looking good. The bird is cursed with a limited and specialized habitat in Bolivia which is being converted into farmland. However anyone with the desire and $2500 can buy one, as the captive population is an order of magnitude larger, and it's one of the least commonly seen species in the trade. Hyacinths also are more numerous in captivity than in the wild, albeit quite a bit more pricey than a Bluethroat! If it weren't for the fact that these animals adapt well to people they'd never have gotten into trouble in the first place, and now they'd probably be gone. If Hyacinths saw human settlements as things to be avoided rather than food sources, they wouldn't end up in piles. Our mere presence and innate nature dooms many species, and if that same nature can be used to save a species from extinction, even if extirpated from the wild, shouldn't it be permitted to do so?

      From: "steve_01@..." <steve_01@...>
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 10:38 AM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
       
      > Now Robert, you're confusing reality with legality! The analogy stands. > Backdoor prohibition. And you don't want to see armed criminals take over > the illegal pet trade like they've taken over the illegal marijuana > trade do you? Before you dismiss this as ridiculous, consider the vast > amounts of money involved in the pet trade, and the emotional implications > involved in pet ownership. The foundation is there for a lucrative black > market. Illegality is the only thing missing from the equation. One personal observation I will share here, and BTW I agree with all the above. Going back to the whole wild bird ban.... I was in South America many years ago, and saw the beautiful and endangered species know as the Hyacinth Macaw. DEAD. Piles of them. Many piles of them. These were not dead because of smugglers or illegal trappers. The farmers obliterate them as they are detrimental to crop production. a parrot over 3' long can do substantial damage to a field in a very short time, hundreds can wreck entire communities. Legislation that is supposedly designed to protect them, is only guaranteeing their eventual extinction. And while I agree there are some idiots who should never be allowed to own a pet of any kind at all, I hate to thing such a magnificent species should perish for the whims of politicians who pat themselves on the back for a job well done, with no clue as to the ramifications of their actions. Anyone interested feel free to research the existence of the Spix's Macaw. Believed extinct in the wild last I checked, the only remaining specimens exist in captivity. I'd much rather see a legal method for allowing the importation and breeding of some of these animals, instead of just throwing a blanket ban on them. As far as fish are concerned, Rio Xingu is in danger of becoming a footnote in history, the native fishes becoming nothing more than pictures in a book. Personally I think that would be pretty tragic, but hey politicians know what is best for the animals and us right? I would personally advocate that any serious breeder work with the rare, endangered and threatened species. WE stand a better chance of preserving these species than lame politicians.
    • harry perry
      Didn t Mark ask for this crap to stop???? Harry ________________________________ From: Shawn To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com Sent:
      Message 84 of 84 , Mar 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Didn't Mark ask for this crap to stop????

        Harry


        From: Shawn <shawnc2k@...>
        To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:19 AM
        Subject: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

         
        Neither of the big box pet store chains have an adoption tank policy although at the managers discretion some local stores do take adoptions. For liability reasons they are not allowed to sell any of the adoption fish but will often let hobbyists who they know take them to give them a home and get them healthy. Often by the time a tank buster is brought to a big box store the animals has some type of ailment, usually due to poor water conditions.

        Two weeks ago I walked into my local store and was given an adoption fish, a breeder size male Koi angel with fins tattered because it had been in a 29 gallon tank with a 10 inch synodontus "eruptus" hybrid and a 8 inch sailfin pleco. The angel is now looking much healthier and will be out of one of my quarantine tanks soon.

        The issue with even a club taking in adoptions is that many of the tank buster species sold in big box stores require large tanks. Think of LFS that sell red tail catfish that while beautiful will grow to be a monster with a mouth big enough to swallow a duck whole. Between tanks size and dealing with getting a fish healthy, it is limited to those who are experienced and have the tank space.

        --- In anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Meyer" <michael@...> wrote:
        >
        > I wonder if this is a universal policy as our local big box stores do have
        > an "adoption tank". It wouldn't house the multitude of Oscars or Pacus that
        > need rescuing. We do see quite a few adoptions coming thru our club
        > website. It's hardly a dent, but it is a little. One of the local mom and
        > pop stores does take in large fish from hobbyists, but most do not. They
        > will not buy from hobbyists, breeders or former customers. The reason is,
        > they often would get sick fish that could contaminate the rest of their
        > inventory. Plus, as sort of mentioned already, the cost of maintaining the
        > fish does not compare to what they would be able to sell the fish for.
        > Selling fish does not make very many people rich and barely makes a living
        > for most people in the industry. I don't think it is reasonable to expect
        > any store to have a way to adopt a fish, but we should really show support
        > for those that do.
        >
        > Mike
        >
        >
        >
        > From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf Of Donna Ransome
        > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 8:14 PM
        > To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Petsmart-Petco will not take hobbyist fish.even easily sellable fish and
        > even for free.
        >
        >
        >
        > Public aquariums as well are tired of being the dumping grounds for
        > tankbuster fish that careless hobbyists bought without regard to long-term
        > care. They most often refuse to take the fish. How many giant plecos or
        >
        > Red tailed catfish can you put on display? If you don't have them in a
        > display, how do you get funding for their care?
        >
        >
        >
        > I know a hobbyist that had a large scale operation for the rescue of
        > tankbuster fish. He would rehome as many as possible. He had to stop after
        > many years because of lack of funding, even though he contributed more than
        > he could afford of his own money to the effort.
        >
        >
        >
        > How do you identify the culprit who dumped a fish in order to fine or
        > enforce?
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf Of Robert DeBonis
        > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:29 PM
        > To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Finally a voice of reason. Someone actually thinking outside the box.
        >
        >
        >
        > I like the idea "Why wouldn't it be possible to have your local big box
        > store (Petsmart-Petco- etc) set up a adoption tank for fish no longer
        > wanted?
        >
        > It makes sense and is absolutely worth a shot. Contacting them through an
        > Aquarium Society will give you more leverage.
        >
        >
        >
        > "Why wouldn't a public aquarium be willing to accept a fish that out grew
        > your tank?" Yes, I'm sure there are public aquariums that would accept fish
        > that out
        >
        > grow hobbyists tanks. They pay a lot of money for large adult fish. It's a
        > matter of contacting them, also preferably through an Aquarium Society, one
        > institution
        >
        > to another.
        >
        > There is one solution to HR996's general ambiguous solution that I can come
        > up with and that is to put together and introduce a bill specifically
        > banning the Dumping of Fish into our waterways and the Dumping of Pets into
        > our environment. This bill MUST HAVE TEETH or else it will be meaningless.
        > The fines for Dumping have to be substantial and must be enforced. In
        > addition, this bill has to be introduced to focus only on Dumping, not the
        > importation
        >
        > and possession of Ornamental Fish and other Pets. It should be solely
        > written to stop Dumping, not possession.
        >
        >
        >
        > I think if this were the case the Bill would have much wider acceptance.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        >
        > From: plantsrocksandfish <mailto:onsiteinatlanta@...>
        >
        > To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:29 AM
        >
        > Subject: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Very interesting discussion. Normally I don't like reading messages when I
        > receive the Daily Digest because they contain all the earlier posts and
        > often the messages have to be truncated, but this time I opened the complete
        > digest to read all the messages.
        > While I enjoyed the information I will say that I was a little disappointed
        > that no solutions were offered. Sure there was a strong Catholic Guilt, were
        > we are responsible for everything that happens, to the group that is in
        > complete denial. I do believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.
        > I do not have any answers but did think about it. I don't believe the ASPCA
        > has all the answers but they do try to rescue dogs and cats by putting them
        > up for auction. If there are no takers they sometimes have to put the animal
        > down. I certainly am not for that but if you have ever had a feral cat come
        > into your home, as I had, you can understand it.
        > Why wouldn't it be possible to have your local big box store
        > (Petsmart-Petco- etc) set up a adoption tank for fish no longer wanted? Why
        > wouldn't a public aquarium be willing to accept a fish that out grew your
        > tank?
        > I also play with rocks. I can normally donate something to a museum. But
        > once I do I lose all control. If they want to display them... great but they
        > can just as well use them for fill or gravel for a road. I can see any
        > donated fish just being humanly being put down. It would seem to me that
        > might help stop having fish released in the wild.
        > I certainly don't offer this as an answer but it might be a help and
        > everyone here, that works in the field, might be able to bring the ideas to
        > the attention of the correct people.
        > I would welcome any constructive criticism but really am offering this only
        > to get people to think of what they can do other than write to their
        > congressman. George Libby
        >



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.