H.R. 669! U.S. members

[PhilinYuma]

Very important, especially to those with other animals as well. I, myself, am too young to, I believe, but my father is doing it.

Why, too young? You are not voting, merely expressing your opinion as a citizen! Go for it!

P.S. Just saw your edit of my April 18th post, Rick. I think you're right. I reckeoned that not many members would have that MOS, but whenever I have said, "Nobody would be dumb enough to do that," I've generally been proven wrong!

 

[Rick]

Why, too young? You are not voting, merely expressing your opinion as a citizen! Go for it!P.S. Just saw your edit of my April 18th post, Rick. I think you're right. I reckeoned that not many members would have that MOS, but whenever I have said, "Nobody would be dumb enough to do that," I've generally been proven wrong!

Glad ya understood why I edited it. I am likely going to fire off another letter or make a phone call this week.

 

[The_Asa]

Why, too young? You are not voting, merely expressing your opinion as a citizen! Go for it!

Then so I will

 

[Peter Clausen]

Update:

http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.php

Despite cries of victory around the hobby(s), the issue is not closed.

 

[Katnapper]

Update:http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.php

Despite cries of victory around the hobby(s), the issue is not closed.

Thanks for that link, Peter!

 

[Rick]

Update:http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.php

Despite cries of victory around the hobby(s), the issue is not closed.

Thanks Peter that is good news but far from a victory.

 

[Orin]

Yep, they'll keep pushing it through till people get tired of worrying about it or nobody is looking.

 

[asdsdf]

Hey guys, it seems that the bill was slowed. The huge amount of letters and phone calls helped a alot. (40 thousand?) It's a temporary win, so keep up the good work.

 

[rayg]

It really is frustrating to see this kind of uninformed legislation being brought before Congress. I have to admit that I haven't written my Rep yet; because it just seemed to flawed to pass. So seldom are the exotic pets the real problem species except cats, but they are exempted. However I think Phil is probably very close to the truth when he says a highly amended version may get through, and even that could be disastrous. So I will write now. As far as I can see this bill actually does nothing to address the real ecological disasters that are taking place in this country. Did you know that right now the only thing keeping the "flying" Asian carp out of Lake Michigan is an electric barrier in a canal in Chicago. We have such bigger problems than worrying about someones gecko. Maybe if our Congress really cared about the environment they would ban urban sprawl and develop some legislation to control habitat fragmentation. It is human activity that needs to be addressed if we are really going to make any progress in righting the spiralling deterioration of the ecosystems around us. Maybe writing to our Congress to tell them what we want might be a good thing too.

 

[PhilinYuma]

Peter, Katnapper, Rick, Orin:

I find it hard to believe, that as citizens interested in a judicial process that affects you deeply, you would turn to a mediocre puff piece like that at http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.php. Even its headline is nonsense. No subcommittee hearing in this bill or any other "decides" the passage or failure of the bill. I will not comment on its assessment of PIJAc's counsel as "the hero of the day." Marshall Meyers's firm is well known in AZ, where he practices law as the "lemon law king" and I had my DinL employ his company in that regard. He is a most capable lawyer, but, like any lawyer, he says what his employer wants him to say.

That you would prefer to read a biased paragraph when you have access to the vidotape of the actual hearing suprises me, and I choose my words with care. Has any one of you listened to the video recording (I cite the URL in this thread), or do you prefer to have your information predigested and condensed to validate the opinions that you already hold?

 

[Katnapper]

Peter, Katnapper, Rick, Orin:I find it hard to believe, that as citizens interested in a judicial process that affects you deeply, you would turn to a mediocre puff piece like that at referenced websiteEven its headline is nonsense. No subcommittee hearing in this bill or any other "decides" the passage or failure of the bill. I will not comment on its assessment of PIJAc's counsel as "the hero of the day." Marshall Meyers's firm is well known in AZ, where he practices law as the "lemon law king" and I had my DinL employ his company in that regard. He is a most capable lawyer, but, like any lawyer, he says what his employer wants him to say.

That you would prefer to read a biased paragraph when you have access to the vidotape of the actual hearing suprises me, and I choose my words with care. Has any one of you listened to the video recording (I cite the URL in this thread), or do you prefer to have your information predigested and condensed to validate the opinions that you already hold?

You make a valid point, Phil. Yes, I almost always prefer to read over watching video of any news-type events. And I admit, I did blindly trust the article to give me the gist of what had gone on. You got me. I am very interested in the developments and truth to what is going on with the Bill. But I haven't taken or made the time to investigate the issue thoroughly for myself. Going right now to watch the video.... and thanks for the reality check!

PS... You bashed us very politely and succinctly! Good job!! :lol:

 

[Rick]

Peter, Katnapper, Rick, Orin:I find it hard to believe, that as citizens interested in a judicial process that affects you deeply, you would turn to a mediocre puff piece like that at http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.php. Even its headline is nonsense. No subcommittee hearing in this bill or any other "decides" the passage or failure of the bill. I will not comment on its assessment of PIJAc's counsel as "the hero of the day." Marshall Meyers's firm is well known in AZ, where he practices law as the "lemon law king" and I had my DinL employ his company in that regard. He is a most capable lawyer, but, like any lawyer, he says what his employer wants him to say.

That you would prefer to read a biased paragraph when you have access to the vidotape of the actual hearing suprises me, and I choose my words with care. Has any one of you listened to the video recording (I cite the URL in this thread), or do you prefer to have your information predigested and condensed to validate the opinions that you already hold?

Link you gave doesn't work Phil. I went to the link Peter posted but that doensn't mean I "turned" there or am getting all my info there so let's not assume anything. I have an actual .gov link in my first post. I am the first to admit I am no expert on the workings of government but have read the actual bill and get my info from the legit sources, IE the .gov sites.

 

[Katnapper]

The link in your post doesn't work, Phil. The other ones do, however. Here it is again (choose "watch archive"). http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.php

I watched and listened to over 35 minutes of the testimony by the first 4 speakers, and I'm sorry... but I just couldn't take any more. The gentleman from Arizona about put me to sleep (not you, Phil... hehe). I hate politics, debates, and boring testimony. It sounds like a poor excuse and a very apathetic stance to take. I do care. I just don't have the time or inclination to listen to hours of testimony at the hearings, or spend hours researching every fact and following every step of the progression of the issue. It may be sad, but it's true... and I admit it.

I would much rather someone else who has more time and the inclination (a hopefully impartial party who maybe gets paid to do it) do the in-depth and comprehensive study on the issues, and then give me written concise report. I believe I can still do a little bit to support my position, even if I'm not thoroughly steeped in the goings on of every aspect of the progress of the bill. And that's about all I really have to say about that.

 

[PhilinYuma]

The link in your post doesn't work, Phil. The other ones do, however. Here it is again (choose "watch archive"). http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.phpI watched and listened to over 35 minutes of the testimony by the first 4 speakers, and I'm sorry... but I just couldn't take any more. The gentleman from Arizona about put me to sleep (not you, Phil... hehe). I hate politics, debates, and boring testimony. It sounds like a poor excuse and a very apathetic stance to take. I do care. I just don't have the time or inclination to listen to hours of testimony at the hearings, or spend hours researching every fact and following every step of the progression of the issue. It may be sad, but it's true... and I admit it.

I would much rather someone else who has more time and the inclination (a hopefully impartial party who maybe gets paid to do it) do the in-depth and comprehensive study on the issues, and then give me written concise report. I believe I can still do a little bit to support my position, even if I'm not thoroughly steeped in the goings on of every aspect of the progress of the bill. And that's about all I really have to say about that.

Thanks, Rick and Katt for pointing out the faulty link.

I know. We are flooded with information, and as a consequence live in an age of Cliff's Notes and three minute sound bites. I am no better. Years ago, I thought that I could talk with Christians better if I had a sound grasp of Covenantism and Dispensationalism. Got it, too! Passed my own post test! Now, I understand, we have Neo Dispensationalism and Reformed Covenantism, so I have given up.

The problem with finding an impartial synopsis is that such synopses are usually written by partial persons, those who have something to gain by one side or the other's winning.

My anger, in my earlier post was at the writer of the article that Peter posted. His premise (in the title) was specious, his value judgments ("hero of the day") were both biased and unsupported, and he gave one gross misstatement of the facts ("black list" versus "white list").

Still, I shall end on a cheerful note that hasn't been dwelt upon by opponents of the bill (like me, remember?) as much, perhaps, as it should be. A number of introduced species that have done considerable harm in the US, such as kudzu, and zebra mussels, were cited, but not one was introduced by the pet trade, and witnesses who mentioned them were at pains to point this out. There were also a few unitentionally funny moments, as when a proponent of the new legislation asked if under current law, it was not possible to keep a tiger in your back yard. Right now, I have Tucker guarding the patio from invasive tigers and other felines.

 

[Rick]

Thanks, Rick and Katt for pointing out the faulty link.I know. We are flooded with information, and as a consequence live in an age of Cliff's Notes and three minute sound bites. I am no better. Years ago, I thought that I could talk with Christians better if I had a sound grasp of Covenantism and Dispensationalism. Got it, too! Passed my own post test! Now, I understand, we have Neo Dispensationalism and Reformed Covenantism, so I have given up.

The problem with finding an impartial synopsis is that such synopses are usually written by partial persons, those who have something to gain by one side or the other's winning.

My anger, in my earlier post was at the writer of the article that Peter posted. His premise (in the title) was specious, his value judgments ("hero of the day") were both biased and unsupported, and he gave one gross misstatement of the facts ("black list" versus "white list").

Still, I shall end on a cheerful note that hasn't been dwelt upon by opponents of the bill (like me, remember?) as much, perhaps, as it should be. A number of introduced species that have done considerable harm in the US, such as kudzu, and zebra mussels, were cited, but not one was introduced by the pet trade, and witnesses who mentioned them were at pains to point this out. There were also a few unitentionally funny moments, as when a proponent of the new legislation asked if under current law, it was not possible to keep a tiger in your back yard. Right now, I have Tucker guarding the patio from invasive tigers and other felines.

Well what we have are people making laws about stuff they know nothing about. Not the first time and won't be the last.

 

[Omen414]

Are goldfish non native to the US? They better not take away my piranahs! :'( their good...well...evil little fish

 

[Rick]

Are goldfish non native to the US? They better not take away my piranahs! :'( their good...well...evil little fish

I think both are. They won't take them away they just won't allow anymore to be brought in or bred.

 

[Peter Clausen]

In a previous post I simply "intended to" share a link to a website that had information (spin, spun or otherwise) about the "ongoing" nature of a situation that was being announced in terms of a "final victory" on other hobby forums. No more, no less.

 

[Orin]

Are goldfish non native to the US? They better not take away my piranahs! :'( their good...well...evil little fish

If the bill passes you won't be able to breed them, ship them or buy more if they die. You'll also need unspecified documentation to prove you bought them prior or face a prison term of up to five years per fish.

 

[Dinora]

If the bill passes you won't be able to breed them, ship them or buy more if they die. You'll also need unspecified documentation to prove you bought them prior or face a prison term of up to five years per fish.

Nice! Just very nice!!!

I had a stalker once. Called me all hours of the day and night letting me know he was watching me.

How did he get my number you ask? It turns out, after watching me for I don't know how long, he figured out that if he hits my car with his car we would have to exchange contact information. So he did, while I was sitting at a red light he hits my driver's side door and my leg got pinned. I was only bruised but the door got jammed and I couldn't open it to release my leg so I had to wait for help to get out of the car.

After 2 weeks of harassing calls (and seeing that they were increasing each day) I contacted the police who told me as long as he pays for the damages to my car, they can do nothing for me until he actually physically hurts me. I pointed out that he did hurt me in the car "accident" to which they replied he has to "actually raise his hands to me."

He frightened the frick out of me for months, and NOTHING happened to him and now they are making laws that someone will do jail time for doing a good job caring for their pets?!!

Sorry for being so angry, but really?! REALLY?!! :angry:

Fargin' Iceholes!!!