The sponsor of a federal bill that would drastically change the way imported animals are allowed into the country conceded that House Resolution 669 needs improvement and promised to work with all parties, including the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (Washington), after an April 23 hearing of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.

Acknowledged Madeleine Z. Bordallo (NP-Guam), subcommittee chairwoman and author of the bill: “We recognize the bill is by no means perfect, and that changes will be needed to address various concerns before any legislation moves forward.”

Animal imports are governed by the 100-year-old Lacey Act, which requires the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine if species are potentially harmful and gives the agency the authority to ban them from entering the country or from being transported between states.

Critics say the system is cumbersome and prevents FWS from responding quickly to species that overrun native ecosystems. In its current form, H.R. 669 would require FWS to screen non-native animals before they can be imported. The animals would then be placed on an approved (white) or unapproved (black) list.

Marshall Meyers, chief executive officer and general counsel for PIJAC, testified in opposition to the bill as written and proposed that stakeholders work through the bill section by section.

The controversial bill generated a firestorm of protesting e-mails, calls and faxes from a diverse group ranging from pet owners who feared they would not be able to take their pets with them in an interstate move to fish farmers concerned they would no longer be allowed to raise tilapia, an increasingly popular, but non-native, food fish.

Henry Brown Jr. (R-S.C.) read several opposition letters from constituents, including one from Wild Creations, a manufacturer of miniature eco-aquariums based in Myrtle Beach, which noted the bill would affect 8,000 pet stores.

The bill’s co-sponsor, Eni Faleomavaega (NP-American Samoa), acknowledged the “impressive” outpouring from opponents. He thanked Meyers, who during his testimony held up a sheaf of letters that he said represented opposition from 20 different organizations, and Bill Martin, president of Blue Ridge Aquaculture Inc. (Ridgeway, Va.), for the input their grassroots networking inspired.

Many of those concerns were addressed in follow-up questions during the two-hour hearing.

When asked if the bill would take away current pets and if it would place every unapproved animal on a “black” list, Gary Frazer, assistant director for fisheries and habitat conservation for FWS replied “no” to both questions. He also said, under questioning, that current pet owners would be allowed to transport their non-native pets across state lines under guidelines that would be established for that purpose.

He also said the bill would not prohibit the majority of non-native species currently in trade, and that only about 10 percent are potentially harmful.

Other questions raised during the hearing focused on the scope of the proposed legislation, the need for both an approved and unapproved list of non-native species, and the practicality of implementation.

Professor David Lodge, a biologist at Notre Dame University, who testified in favor of the bill, said recent advances in species-specific risk assessment and other tools would allow the FWS to conduct pre-import assessments, “with the mandate and money.”

Frazer said his agency would seek additional resources, “but we can build a process to administer the bill.”

When asked by Faleomavaega if one unified federal system might be better than individual state laws, Meyers replied that the state role was important and said a mix of federal and state laws would better address specific situations unique to a particular geographic area. “We need to be creative with risk management,” he said.

Meyers also said charges that the pet industry is not interested in a solution to invasive species because of its vested interest in the pet trade was unfair criticism, noting that PIJAC has been actively involved on a number of fronts since the early 1970s in proposing solutions for this very issue.

One such initiative, Habitattitude, was commended by Arizona state wildlife manager Larry Riley, who testified in favor of the bill with amendments.

Legislators also heard testimony about a successful pre-import risk assessment system for potentially invasive species from wildlife ecologist Simon Nemtzov, director of the Israeli Nature and Parks Authority. According to Nemtzov, each government-conducted risk assessment takes 10 to 12 hours, and is paid for by the applicant who wants to import animals. The Israeli system, based on an Australian model, classifies non-native animals according to high, medium and low risk. Only low-risk animals are allowed into the pet industry. “It’s simple and it works,” said Nemtzov.

Following the hearing, Meyers noted, “It is clear that committee members from both sides of the aisle heard from the pet-owning public about their concerns with this bill. PIJAC will continue working with members of the committee, the executive branch and other stakeholders to ensure the process proceeds in a transparent, inclusive and strategic manner.”

For more information on PIJAC’s position, as well as Meyers’ full written testimony, visit PIJAC’s H.R. 669 Forum at www.pijac.org/governmentaffairs/hr669forum.asp.

For more information about the hearing, including the witnesses and the testimony they submitted, visit http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/index.php?option
=com_jcalpro&Itemid=60&extmode=view&extid=246.

[Posted 4/24/09, 9:25 AM]

—Cathy Foster