jhausman
04-29-2009, 02:34 PM
Here is the letter sent out to AFC membership from AFC President Jim Ingram.
__________________________________________________ ________
Dear American Falconry Conservancy membership,
The board composed the attached letter and it was faxed to all of the members on the committee below. I am sending this list so each of you may compose a letter to be sent or you may call their office to discuss with them how you feel about HR 669.
Thanks, Jim
________________________________________
To send to MS. Bordallo ASAP. Her e-mail address is:
http://www.house.gov/bordallo/IMA/issue.htm
This is a list of the members of the Subcommittee on Insular affairs, specific e-mail addresses for each of these members can be obtained by googling the name in case members want to forward messages or copies of this letter to their Representatives.
Majority Members (Democrats)
Member Name
DC Phone
DC FAX
Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU) [Chair]
202-225-1188
202-226-0341
Dale E. Kildee (D-MI)
202-225-3611
202-225-6393
Eni F. H. Faleomavaega (D-AS)
202-225-8577
202-225-8757
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
202-225-2726
202-225-4580
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
202-225-4671
202-225-9665
Gregorio Camacho (Kilili) Sablan (I-MP)
202-225-2646
202-226-4249
Donna M. Christensen (D-VI)
202-225-1790
202-225-5517
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
202-225-4431
202-225-5657
Ron Kind (D-WI)
202-225-5506
202-225-5739
Lois Capps (D-CA)
202-225-3601
202-225-5632
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
202-225-5456
202-225-5822
Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
202-225-5311
202-225-0254
Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR)
202-225-2615
202-225-2154
Minority Members (Republicans)
Member Name
DC Phone
DC FAX
Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC) [Ranking Republican Member]
202-225-3176
202-225-3407
Don Young (R-AK)
202-225-5765
202-225-0425
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
202-225-2635
202-226-4386
Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
202-225-4422
202-226-2638
Robert J. Wittman (R-VA)
202-225-4261
202-225-4382
John Fleming (R-LA)
202-225-2777
202-225-8039
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
202-225-7751
202-225-5629
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
202-225-3901
202-225-7313
__________________________________Letter below
Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo April 22, 2009
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
House Committee on Natural Resources
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: H.R.669; The Non-Native Wildlife Prevention Act
On behalf of the American Falconry Conservancy (AFC), a national organization representing American falconers, I would like to comment on H.R. 669. We oppose H.R. 669 as written and urge the Subcommittee to oppose the legislation.
We also oppose HR 669 due to the damage it will do to the rights of pet keepers and animal lovers here in America, and to a large segment of our economy. It will affect millions of Americans who love non-native pets and wish to have continued access to these animals. This bill represents an unjustifiable means of protecting the safety and interests of this nation. If certain non-native species are demonstrably harmful to the North American environment, then create a list of those species that are harmful and prohibit those species from crossing our borders. To prohibit access to the thousands of types of tropical fish and other species that have been commonly kept as pets for a hundred or more years, with no ill-effects to the environment or other native species, is to deny Americans the pursuit of their happiness since many Americans derive considerable happiness through their interaction with animals of every sort.
HR 669 proposes that a list of “approved” exotics will be required before “allowance” of importation of individuals from those “approved” species. This is a reversal of our system of government where all activities are allowed unless explicitly prohibited, and which are grounded in justifiable reasoning – at least this was the intent of the Framers. If an activity is or has the potential of being prejudicial to society, then that activity can be prohibited or regulated. Where exotic animals cause harm to society or the environment, government should and does have the authority to either prohibit or regulate it. Where no harm has been demonstrated, government has NO authority to prohibit or regulate an activity. The vast majority of exotic species commonly kept as pets in this country fall within this benign category – far too large a list for government officials to compile. Therefore, sound policy dictates that only those animals legitimately identified as harmful are legally within the scope of government regulatory authority.
This bill takes the approach that all non-native species are guilty of harm to the environment and therefore must be proven innocent. This certainly is contradictory of our judicial principle of innocent until proven guilty. However, it does serve the animal prohibitionist/protectionist agenda since the federal government will never be able to “prove” the innocence of so many non-native species. Many non-native animal species are held in large numbers by millions of Americans. This bill would ban the keeping of goldfish and koi carp, hamsters and canaries to list just a few. The effect it would have on hundreds of small businesses would be devastating. HR 669 will certainly cause severe economic damage to significant segments of our economy. In addition, for those individuals who would want to see their favorite pets included on this list but lack the evidence or information for government to establish a ruling upon, how can that governmental agency determine if a species is not going to be harmful? And if they can’t determine if a given species will not be harmful, they won’t be at liberty to decide if that species can be added to the “approved list.” Arbitrariness will rule decisions.
Since there are federal regulators who mistakenly take the position that Constitutional protections do not apply to regulations, but only to statutes, we need definitive listing criteria that will limit the ability of hostile or overzealous regulators from making draconian regulatory interpretations. Any amendment of current statutory provisions (we don’t need new statutes to deal with this problem) dealing with harmful exotics should incorporate wording that specifies guidelines and requirements that the regulatory agency must adhere to in order to demonstrate that a given species is harmful.
An excellent example of a group of non-native species with a demonstrated history of never causing problems are the various species of birds of prey (raptors) trained by falconers. Falconers have imported and exported raptors all over the world for at least 1,500 years, and there has never been a single recorded instance of any non-native raptor ever becoming established as a resident exotic species or causing environmental problems anywhere.
AFC recognizes that some exotic species have or reasonably may become, established as non-native species doing damage to native ecosystems. Should the Subcommittee determine that it is necessary to provide a legislative solution to this problem, AFC would like the opportunity to offer testimony and viable solutions before the Subcommittee. AFC believes that a reasonable list of the screening criteria used to make these determinations should be defined by Congress and included in the legislation as passed. In those cases where species have the potential to do harm to our environment is the proper place for government power to be applied. A statute such as HR 669, should it pass in it’s present form leaves such decisions totally to the discretion of the regulatory agency. We do not believe that USF&WS is adequately prepared to deal with the complexity of this issue, and will be unable to adequately craft the necessary regulations. As presented, H.R. 669 will cause virtually all citizens who keep pets other than a dog or a house cat to suffer under the sting of arbitrary government.
The American Falconry Conservancy would like to re-state our opposition to H.R. 669, and ask that these comments be entered into the Subcommittee’s permanent record. Thank you for your consideration of our comments regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. James Ingram
President,
American Falconry Conservancy
__________________________________________________ ________
Dear American Falconry Conservancy membership,
The board composed the attached letter and it was faxed to all of the members on the committee below. I am sending this list so each of you may compose a letter to be sent or you may call their office to discuss with them how you feel about HR 669.
Thanks, Jim
________________________________________
To send to MS. Bordallo ASAP. Her e-mail address is:
http://www.house.gov/bordallo/IMA/issue.htm
This is a list of the members of the Subcommittee on Insular affairs, specific e-mail addresses for each of these members can be obtained by googling the name in case members want to forward messages or copies of this letter to their Representatives.
Majority Members (Democrats)
Member Name
DC Phone
DC FAX
Madeleine Bordallo (D-GU) [Chair]
202-225-1188
202-226-0341
Dale E. Kildee (D-MI)
202-225-3611
202-225-6393
Eni F. H. Faleomavaega (D-AS)
202-225-8577
202-225-8757
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
202-225-2726
202-225-4580
Frank Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
202-225-4671
202-225-9665
Gregorio Camacho (Kilili) Sablan (I-MP)
202-225-2646
202-226-4249
Donna M. Christensen (D-VI)
202-225-1790
202-225-5517
Diana DeGette (D-CO)
202-225-4431
202-225-5657
Ron Kind (D-WI)
202-225-5506
202-225-5739
Lois Capps (D-CA)
202-225-3601
202-225-5632
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
202-225-5456
202-225-5822
Frank Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
202-225-5311
202-225-0254
Pedro Pierluisi (D-PR)
202-225-2615
202-225-2154
Minority Members (Republicans)
Member Name
DC Phone
DC FAX
Henry E. Brown, Jr. (R-SC) [Ranking Republican Member]
202-225-3176
202-225-3407
Don Young (R-AK)
202-225-5765
202-225-0425
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
202-225-2635
202-226-4386
Doug Lamborn (R-CO)
202-225-4422
202-226-2638
Robert J. Wittman (R-VA)
202-225-4261
202-225-4382
John Fleming (R-LA)
202-225-2777
202-225-8039
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
202-225-7751
202-225-5629
Bill Cassidy (R-LA)
202-225-3901
202-225-7313
__________________________________Letter below
Honorable Madeleine Z. Bordallo April 22, 2009
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife
House Committee on Natural Resources
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
RE: H.R.669; The Non-Native Wildlife Prevention Act
On behalf of the American Falconry Conservancy (AFC), a national organization representing American falconers, I would like to comment on H.R. 669. We oppose H.R. 669 as written and urge the Subcommittee to oppose the legislation.
We also oppose HR 669 due to the damage it will do to the rights of pet keepers and animal lovers here in America, and to a large segment of our economy. It will affect millions of Americans who love non-native pets and wish to have continued access to these animals. This bill represents an unjustifiable means of protecting the safety and interests of this nation. If certain non-native species are demonstrably harmful to the North American environment, then create a list of those species that are harmful and prohibit those species from crossing our borders. To prohibit access to the thousands of types of tropical fish and other species that have been commonly kept as pets for a hundred or more years, with no ill-effects to the environment or other native species, is to deny Americans the pursuit of their happiness since many Americans derive considerable happiness through their interaction with animals of every sort.
HR 669 proposes that a list of “approved” exotics will be required before “allowance” of importation of individuals from those “approved” species. This is a reversal of our system of government where all activities are allowed unless explicitly prohibited, and which are grounded in justifiable reasoning – at least this was the intent of the Framers. If an activity is or has the potential of being prejudicial to society, then that activity can be prohibited or regulated. Where exotic animals cause harm to society or the environment, government should and does have the authority to either prohibit or regulate it. Where no harm has been demonstrated, government has NO authority to prohibit or regulate an activity. The vast majority of exotic species commonly kept as pets in this country fall within this benign category – far too large a list for government officials to compile. Therefore, sound policy dictates that only those animals legitimately identified as harmful are legally within the scope of government regulatory authority.
This bill takes the approach that all non-native species are guilty of harm to the environment and therefore must be proven innocent. This certainly is contradictory of our judicial principle of innocent until proven guilty. However, it does serve the animal prohibitionist/protectionist agenda since the federal government will never be able to “prove” the innocence of so many non-native species. Many non-native animal species are held in large numbers by millions of Americans. This bill would ban the keeping of goldfish and koi carp, hamsters and canaries to list just a few. The effect it would have on hundreds of small businesses would be devastating. HR 669 will certainly cause severe economic damage to significant segments of our economy. In addition, for those individuals who would want to see their favorite pets included on this list but lack the evidence or information for government to establish a ruling upon, how can that governmental agency determine if a species is not going to be harmful? And if they can’t determine if a given species will not be harmful, they won’t be at liberty to decide if that species can be added to the “approved list.” Arbitrariness will rule decisions.
Since there are federal regulators who mistakenly take the position that Constitutional protections do not apply to regulations, but only to statutes, we need definitive listing criteria that will limit the ability of hostile or overzealous regulators from making draconian regulatory interpretations. Any amendment of current statutory provisions (we don’t need new statutes to deal with this problem) dealing with harmful exotics should incorporate wording that specifies guidelines and requirements that the regulatory agency must adhere to in order to demonstrate that a given species is harmful.
An excellent example of a group of non-native species with a demonstrated history of never causing problems are the various species of birds of prey (raptors) trained by falconers. Falconers have imported and exported raptors all over the world for at least 1,500 years, and there has never been a single recorded instance of any non-native raptor ever becoming established as a resident exotic species or causing environmental problems anywhere.
AFC recognizes that some exotic species have or reasonably may become, established as non-native species doing damage to native ecosystems. Should the Subcommittee determine that it is necessary to provide a legislative solution to this problem, AFC would like the opportunity to offer testimony and viable solutions before the Subcommittee. AFC believes that a reasonable list of the screening criteria used to make these determinations should be defined by Congress and included in the legislation as passed. In those cases where species have the potential to do harm to our environment is the proper place for government power to be applied. A statute such as HR 669, should it pass in it’s present form leaves such decisions totally to the discretion of the regulatory agency. We do not believe that USF&WS is adequately prepared to deal with the complexity of this issue, and will be unable to adequately craft the necessary regulations. As presented, H.R. 669 will cause virtually all citizens who keep pets other than a dog or a house cat to suffer under the sting of arbitrary government.
The American Falconry Conservancy would like to re-state our opposition to H.R. 669, and ask that these comments be entered into the Subcommittee’s permanent record. Thank you for your consideration of our comments regarding this matter.
Sincerely,
Dr. James Ingram
President,
American Falconry Conservancy