Federal legislation that would essentially prevent any non-native species from entering the United States has the potential to shut down the pet trade, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (Washington) testified recently before a Congressional subcommittee.

House Resolution 6311, also known as the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, proposes using a risk assessment approach to generate a list of non-native wildlife species that could be imported into the United States, as well as a list of unapproved species. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be responsible for conducting the risk assessments and compiling the proposed lists.

Non-native wildlife is defined as “any species of animal that is not a native species, whether or not raised in captivity, including any such species of mammal, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, insect, mollusk and crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate or other invertebrate, and any egg or offspring of these species.”

The risk assessment would be based on the “likelihood” that the species could harm the economy, environment, humans or other animals. That subjective, nonscientific standard could result in the prohibition of many types of common pets, testified Marshall Meyers, executive vice president and general counsel for PIJAC, before the U.S. House Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Oceans.

“Based on such a standard, common goldfish, many tropical fish and myriad common species of birds and reptiles would be banned from the entire United States if it could be demonstrated there is a likelihood that ‘environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread … exist anywhere in the United States.’ Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they might become established in Hawaiian waters; a parakeet would be banned in Minnesota because it could survive in South Florida,” Meyers said.

Meyers testified that the screening system submitted in the 2001 National Invasive Species Management Plan should be adopted rather than the proposed legislation. Under the plan, relevant federal agencies would work with stakeholders to screen species proposed for first-time imports into the United States. Three years later, the screening process would be broadened to species already in trade. This approach would not disrupt the trade of thousands of species that have been commonly traded for decades, Marshall testified.

“In the current economic environment, Congress must carefully consider both the financial costs and benefits of imported species. The loss of certain high-income fish, for example, could result in the collapse of the entire ornamental fish industry and have significant repercussions for product manufacturers, distributors and retailers throughout the country.”

Should Congress choose to disregard the 2001 management plan, it should redraft the Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act to take risk management measures and socio-economic and cultural considerations into account, Meyers said.

For more information, visit www.pijac.org, or contact Marshall Meyers at (202) 452-1525 or mmeyers@pijac.org. [October 2008 PET AGE]