[Bob]

THE ISSUE

The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam)
Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee
would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act.
Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service (hereafter Service) is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious
[harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare
and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S.
HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a
risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to “cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.” In order to be placed on the
“Approved List” it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause “harm” anywhere in the
US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an “Unapproved List.” Furthermore, HR
669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they
have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.
Species not appearing on the “Approved List” could not be imported into the United States, nor could they be
moved in interstate commerce. Trade in all such unlisted species

would come to a halt – possession would be
limited and all breeding would have to cease. To reiterate: Unless species are included on the Approved List
import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to
pet owners across the nation.

THE IMPACT

Nonnative species in the pet trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, amphibian, fish and a number of
mammals

(e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets) commonly kept as pets. It is immaterial under HR 669
that the

•

Vast majority of these nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers
for decades, some for hundreds of years, and have not proven to be an environmental problem.

•

Numerous species are raised in the United States for many purposes: pets, recreational fishing and
hunting, food, etc.

•

Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental problems, and this has generally
been on a very localized basis (i.e. southern Florida, Hawaii).

•

Most states have exercised their authority to regulate problem species within their own borders through a
mixture of management regimes ranging from permit systems to bans.

•

The HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative – that no harm has or is likely to occur within
whole of the United States.

•

The “risk assessment” process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a broader
“risk analysis” that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management)
measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies.

full text

[Thurax]

I really do not understand this as a non-american.

My knowledge of the United States legal system makes me think this would be unconstitutional.

[Bob]

It not unconstitutional!

But it is on the back burner for now

[sanderson]

This was a big deal for me as a reptile owner even here in the UK since we get most of our stock from the US, what's happened to this now?