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

HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

Expand Messages
  • harry perry
    97 posts on this bill. Good grief!!!!!!! If we had this much activity a while back Mark would still be selling fish. Harry ... From: Ron Schulz
    Message 1 of 84 , Mar 23, 2013
    • 0 Attachment
      97 posts on this bill. Good grief!!!!!!!

      If we had this much activity a while back Mark would still be selling fish.


      ----- Forwarded Message -----
      From: Ron Schulz <beemster@...>
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2013 11:31 PM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife


      Any so called animal  shelter that euthanizes up to 90% of the animals entrusted to it has absolutely NO standing regarding any aspect of the pet industry. In view of the tremedous job most public and private shelters do to both spay and neuter abandoned animals as well as finding suitable homes for them, the PITA record is an absolute abomination.  I have heard many bad things about PITA.   This is the worst.

      On 3/22/2013 6:20 PM, Robert DeBonis wrote:
      OK, I'll bite, a PETA shelter in Virginia euthanizes animals, they don't deny it, so does the ASPCA, the Humane Society and hundreds of other Institutions
      that can no longer take care of the massive number of uncared for and sick animals that we throw away every year.
      But what this has to do with the statement that PETA wants to BAN Cats and Dogs?
      BTW You would have to pick the Daily Mail Company from the UK, Englands version of the National Enquirer and one of the most blatantly sensationalized Tabloids in England. Please try to come up with a news agency a little more reputable. If you like this kind of stuff you can go on to their website and see such
      earth shattering headlines on their front page as:
      I would tend to put more faith in these articles:
      But to repeat, What has this to do with the statement that PETA wants to BAN people from possessing Cats and Dogs as pets? The answer is nothing.
      As I have said, I have a number of issues with PETA and have no dog in this fight so to speak, but to me this reinforces their position on Spaying and Neutering of Cats and Dogs. Euthanasia of otherwise healthy animals is a complicated ethical question, euthanasia of unwanted and sick animals is less complicated and less ethical. Where did most of the animals that they euthanized come from? I don't know, but I would bet a healthy chunk of change that they were discarded by their "owners" and that most of these sick and unwanted animals were the result of uncontrolled and unwanted procreation. Animals will survive, they will eat and breed, that's what they do. If we are their guardians, it is our obligation to control their breeding so that unwanted animals don't come into this world to a sad, lonely and dismal life. 
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 5:10 PM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

      PETA Killed More Than 1,600 Cats and Dogs at its Virginia HQ Last Year


      ......almost  90% of the animals handed over to the PETA animal shelter are killed.......what a farce..........given the huge amount of donations this organization takes in.........
      this is an abysmal record

      My sister works for the Bergen County Animal Shelter (NJ) They are required to take ANY cat/dog dropped off at the shelter from anyone living in a member town. She claims only about 10% of the dogs and 15% of cats are euthanized. The euthanized dogs most commonly have either very serious health issues that the owner does not want to pay a VET for or are not adoptable due to serious behavioral issues. The euthanized cats contain a large % of feral cats.


      On 3/22/2013 4:58 PM, Robert DeBonis wrote:
      "Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and "set them free." What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren't home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world."
      Nowhere in the article does it say the word Ban. Sounds to me like they want us to reduce the number of  Dogs and Cats by Spaying and Adopting instead of buying them from Pet Shops, You call this a Ban? They don't want you to buy dogs and cats from Pet Shops, well neither do I and many other people, but so what!! I have adopted Pedigree animals from shelters and see no reason to buy them from Pet Shops that are notorious for dealing with Puppy Mills. I may disagree with them about Breeders because Breeders usually tend to take care of their animals for obvious monetary reasons and people who buy animals from breeders usually take good care of them. What bothers me about breeders is that they appeal to human snob appeal. I have a Russian Wolfhound whose lineage goes back centuries, or I have a Siamese Cat who's from Champion stock????? Who cares? What has that got to do with having a loving, well mannered pet. If people chose their spouses like they choose their Pets, there would be less divorces. Why people who are not going to breed their dogs and cats don't neuter them is beyond any reasonable logic. Neutered Cats and Dogs medically live longer, have better tempers and personalities and make much less aggressive pets, something which unless you have a guard dog I would think is desirable. I've heard all the arguments and none of them make sense. And in case you're interested,
      I am not a fan of everything PETA does for reasons that I can discuss offline if you wish, because this is really not the forum for Dog and Cat problems. You can do whatever you want, adopt or buy, however any Lawyer would destroy your Ban argument that PETA wants to ban Dogs and Cats in 2 minutes in a court of law.
      What they are interested in and calling for, is the reduction of unloved and uncared for animals and responsible pet ownership, something many of us don't seem to be able to do.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:25 PM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

      Robert,  I would suggest you click on this link, read a bit and then see what you think about PETA not wanting to ban cats and dogs.

      From: Robert DeBonis <rdebon@...>
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 2:31 PM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
      I didn't even want to reply to this because it is so full of holes. Your reason for being against the proposed
      bill HR996 is ludicrous, because you obviously never read it. 
      Regarding the so called bird ban, if you want a Macaw or a non-endangered Parrot you can get one but
      not from your local Pet Shop, and you may even have to be licensed to show that you know how to take
      care of a real Parrot, which will ensure you are serious about keeping a bird that will outlive you. The fact
      that you think these Bird horror stories are fiction shows you don't really know the facts and are clueless.
      Ornithologists, avian biologists and respected investigative reporters around the country and the world
      can and have testified to these animal attrocities. Institutions and Bird Sanctuaries not to mention Pet
      Shops were loaded with parrots that people casually purchased and then realized they couldn't keep
      them because they had no idea how difficult they were. I know because I purchased a Yellow Headed
      Amazon from an public institution that raised them, for a good friend of mine that swore he knew how to
      take care of a Parrot since he had Parokeets. 10 months later, after putting the bird through all kinds of
      trauma and deciding the bird was too much trouble, he sold him to a Pet Shop. This is a bird that will live
      for at least 65 years and it is being treated like a Goldfish. Go work in an  adoption center and see how
      people treat Dogs and Cats so that they can have the "freedom" to do as they choose. We treat children
      as disposable so what makes you think we will treat animals any better?
      Regarding PETA, do you have any idea what they are about or against for that matter? Animal Furs
      trapping and poisoning, they are not against owning a Dog or a Cat. Have you ever seen a trapped animal
      in person and listened to the pain it endures, I have. I was a combat veteran in Vietnam and I have seen
      and experienced tons of shit, but listening to that animals cries of pain will stay in my memory.
      Your ID MadCow suits you.
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 9:50 AM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

      I am absolutely 110% against it period. If for no other reason than it was
      even brought up.

      One only has to look at previous attempts by the government to regulate
      things to know this is going to be a bad deal.

      Case in point, the bird ban from back in the 80's. WWF rolled out full
      page ads supporting the bill that were nothing short of outright lies and
      misrepresentation to force this bill on the public. Ads that showed
      absolutely normal baby macaws, mostly with their baby down, and ungainly
      looking, and described the image as 'look what horrors unscrupulous bird
      breeders are perpetrating' the birds were being portrayed as being
      deformed tragedies inbred by ruthless bird merchants out to make a buck.

      Now the pet bird trade is all but dead outside of parakeets and some
      finches, if you even find a bird in a pet shop anymore.

      As always, the government and their cronies have to meddle in the personal
      affairs of everyone, for our own good. The potential irresponsible actions
      of a few will be allowed to dictate to the responsible keepers what we can
      and cannot have.

      And where will it stop? First they will bet away with banning those
      species they can use as an example of bad... what happens when they want
      to come after your harmless kingsnakes? how long before they claim an
      iguana is a dangerous invasive species? what happens when they want to
      come for your tetras for some imaginary reason? They have already opened
      the door, all they need to do is manufacture an excuse. Heaven knows they
      are good at doing that.

      Like the bird ban, this is the start of a slippery slope that will lead to
      the eventual banning of pets of any kind.

      And earlier someone poo poo'd the idea of the dogs and cats argument, and
      yet PETA CONSTANTLY screams about animal rights and how we have no
      business owning ANY animal. Poo Poo an idea because it sounds ludicrous is
      being naive. The government LOVES to do things that are completely
      ludicrous. All they need is to manufacture a reason. Another pit bill
      mauls a kid, a cat gives a kid rabies..... someone will try to start a ban

      > Donna,
      > Quote from my next to last e-mail to Mark yesterday:
      > "One final comment on HR 996. After reading the whole 39 page bill I find
      > it to be a weak bill with no credible argument, and loaded with
      > ambiguities."
      > I'm certainly not for it, but I can't say I'm 100% against it because
      > after reading the whole bill I don't know what HR 996 is attempting to do.
      > If it is attempting to stop people from dumping fish into our waterways,
      > I'm fine with that. If it's attempting to stop us from owning fish that
      > are obviously no threat to our environment,
      > then I'm against it. This is probably not what most people want to hear,
      > but my world is not all Black and White. I'm going to turn the question
      > around and ask you Are you for or against it as written and why?
      > Robert

    • 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????


        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.