When Good Science Goes Bad: Ecology and Culture Go Head to Head in the Political Arena

In late January, Delegate Madeleine Bordallo of Guam, the Chair of the Subcommittee of Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee, quietly introduced a bill that would prohibit the importing of nonnative species into the United States. HR 669, short-titled, “the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act’’ seeks to prevent the “introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species’ or human health, and for other purposes.” I know what you’re thinking: That sounds smart; why do I care?

The bill takes aim at a good goal. There are several examples of places within the United States where the local ecosystem is threatened by an invasion of a nonlocal species that upsets the ecological balance in the area. The states you’d want to visit the most, like Hawaii and Florida, tend to have the biggest problems because their tropical climates allow for the most delicate ecosystems. There is a real problem to be solved, but HR 663 misses its target and fails to solve the problem while creating other, different problems for Americans.

HR 669 is written in way that would prohibit the import of all nonnative species that aren’t specifically exempted. The bill includes a short list of exempted species that avoids outlawing cats, dogs and basic necessities like chickens and sheep. But it doesn’t go much farther than that. As written, it would be illegal to import, sell or trade over 2500 species of freshwater fish and thousands more marine fish; nearly all the fish you can buy at your local pet shop would be illegal. In fact, the only fish that would be spared is the goldfish. Also on the outs are common pets like hamsters and guinea pigs, and a multitude of birds, reptiles and amphibians.

There’s a clause that allows for future exemptions for species that don’t present a threat, but the burden of proof is on the negative and requires the proving to be done by a government agency. The US Fish and Wildlife Service must prove that the species doesn’t pose a threat to any part of the US ecosystem. This will be a costly process to be sure, if it’s even possible, and none of that can even happen until the Secretary of the Interior and the USFWS create a process for doing it.

The language of the bill also leaves no room for regional flexibility. If an animal is a threat to the Hawaiian ecosystem but is perfectly safe everywhere else, it’s on the outlaw list for good. And though there’s a grandfather clause that will allow current owners to keep their then-illegal pets, it prohibits any transfer of ownership and prohibits transporting the pets over state lines for any reason. That means if an owner dies or moves to another state, the law will require the pets to be euthanized. It’s probably safe to assume that in many cases, the owners will choose to break the law, either by taking their pets with them (that’s good) or by releasing them into the wild (that’s bad; see rationale for HR 669).

It’s also looking rough for zoos, who will have trouble importing and breeding the animals that we go to see, and researchers, who will see heavy restrictions placed on their ability to access the animals they study to learn more about how to protect endangered species and our fragile ecosystem. It’s looking even worse for owners of pet stores and the people who work in the pet support industry.

Even the science of the bill is flawed, which seems odd for a science-based bill. The bill seeks to prohibit the intentional importing and breeding of these many animals, but the most common way for the alien critters that cause the most harm to get into the country is not intentional. Many nonnative species come across the oceans as undetected stowaways on container ships and seep into the ecosystem like Fievel Mousekewitz.

The biggest problem with HR 669 is the threat it poses to our culture. The freedom to have pets may not be a constitutional guarantee, but it is an important part of our culture and is a joy that shouldn’t be outlawed. Certainly there is a way to protect the environment that doesn’t tread on a child’s cultural right to have a pet. We need those gateway pets to test our responsibility before we move on to dogs and cats. And some of us would be very sad if we couldn’t get fish and frogs for our home aquariums.

We need a law that protects the environment, but we need to write it in a way that makes sense. There are hundreds of species of wildlife that have no business coming ashore in the United States, but we don’t need to give up our pets or our freedom to stop them. Let’s hope our congressmen realize that as they debate the bill. If you want to learn more or get involved, here are a few links that will help:

Learn more about the issue and why we need a bill like this from Mike Dunford

Learn more about the problems and why this bill is the wrong way to solve them from GrrlScientist

Follow a Call to Action from the National Animal Interest Alliance

Read the full text of HR 669 in PDF format

Fake Death Not So Easy in Real Life

We’ve all seen it plenty of times in the movies. I’ve even written about it myself here at The Hank Spot. When a character of great intelligence and unlimited means needs to disappear for nefarious reasons, he or she fakes his or her own death. Its seems easy and usually works. Sometimes even for the most righteous of reasons in the fictional realm, a fake death is not a tall order.

So what, then, when a person of less intelligence and more limited means attempts to dispel his or her own existence? Avoiding any metaphysical questions of existentialism and focusing only on observed results, it would appear that the common man is less successful at faking his own death than the fictional man. Or at least, the idiots who make the news didn’t fare so well.

Last week, a man was wanted for DUI-related charges of homicide and related crimes was arrested in New Mexico a month after he attempted to fake his own death. This scofflaw had attempted to elude authorities by publishing a fake obituary of himself and having his wife report his death to an attorney. Not to be outdone by the drama of Hollywood, this man was eventually found hiding under a pile of rocks in the desert. It kind of makes you wonder: if this is what your life is going to be, what’s so bad about jail?

If you want to read more about this particular story, click here for coverage at KRQE.com. Not enough? Find a similar recent story in the Republican-American.

If nothing else, I think we can agree that this man assumed the ultimate responsibility for his own acts of free will without any certain acknowledgement of what is right or wrong or good or bad.

The real problem with the Stanford scandal

What little faith I had in human intelligence is severely shaken. What gets me is that Robert Allen Stanford could be so stupid about it! Are there no evil geniuses left in the world? All we have now are evil dumbasses? How does a guy do a thing like this and then just sit around waiting to get got? Why didn't he run away? He knew the SEC was onto him and the FBI was looking for him. He defrauds thousands of people, steals billions of dollars, and then hides in Virginia. Did he not think the FBI knows how to get to Virginia? I know it feels far away from Texas, but he knows what the U in USA stands for right? He's smart enough to hide his banks in Barbados but he's not smart enough to get his person to the Dominican Republic or someplace that doesn't extradite? What the heck do they use those corporate jets for anyway?

Same with that financial advisor dude from Indiana or wherever it was that tried to fake his own death. He plans the whole thing out to the last details, jumps out of a multimillion dollar plan, lets it crash in the everglades, and then limps into a Motel 6 still dragging his parachute like Will Smith in Independence Day? He didn't think the hotel manager would call the cops?

Considering the mental handicap these guys are dealing with, it's no wonder they've turned to a life of crime.

No Pants at Obama Ceremony

Washington , DC -- If you're lucky enough to get your hands on a ticket to president-elect Barack Obama's swearing-in ceremony, be sure to bring your enthusiasm – but leave your pants at home. Security procedures in place for the historic inauguration ceremony for America 's first-ever president whose last name begins with a vowel* include restrictions on a number of usual items such as sticks, strollers and Thermoses.

Many of the bans are based on simple common sense – since only 240,000 tickets have been issued, it wouldn’t do to have attendees drinking soup or coffee from a Thermos when they should be drinking in the magnitude of the moment. It just wouldn’t be fair to other Americans who weren’t lucky enough to get one of the hotly sought after tickets, or smart enough to show up in the no-tickets-needed standing room area that will accommodate another 750,000 people.

Strollers have been banned because most of them are made from hollow tubular metal. Although the Secret Service have declined to comment on the hazards of tubular metal, statements made by Carole Florman, spokeswoman for the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies, would seem to indicate that they’re afraid people could hide their weed inside the stroller frames and cut into the committee’s own profit margin. Concession sales of basic necessities such as bottled water and illegal drugs inside large events like the presidential inauguration are typically a huge financial boon for the sponsoring organization.

And although the stick was itself recently inaugurated into the National Toy Hall of Fame for its all-purpose, no-cost recreational qualities and its ability to serve either as raw material or an appendage transformed in myriad ways by a child's creativity, sticks will not be allowed at Obama’s swearing-in ceremony for fear that attendees could end up having too much fun or poking each other.

At such a momentous occasion, attendees have a responsibility to history, major news networks and their fellow Americans to behave appropriately, and that means following the security procedures posted on the Senate’s Inaugural Webpage (http://inaugural.senate.gov/2009/accessibility.cfm). Despite earlier reports that all types of clothing could be worn to the ceremony, the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies has instituted a ban on pockets by placing them fifth on the list of prohibited items.

“It wasn’t our intent to ban pants entirely,” said a committee member who spoke on condition of anonymity, “but rather, we felt that allowing people to bring pockets into the ceremony could create a culture of concealment that would not be an appropriate beginning for this administration that so highly values transparency in government.”

Although the ban on pockets was initially the a result of a typographical error on the Inaugural Webpage (they meant to ban pocket knives), it was decided that it should be left in place because everyone knows that Obama and his disciples are perfect and incapable of mistakes. After discussing the issue at the committee level, a decision was made to disallow any article of clothing that has pockets, which includes jeans and trousers.

“Rather than edit the website, it was decided that we would create a reason that sounded plausible in retrospect,” said the same committee member.

The ceremony’s organizers have pointed out that even though most kinds of pants are banned, and showing up pantsless is preferred, attendees are still welcome to wear sweatpants and biker pants.

* With the exception of John Adams, John Quincy Adams and Chester Arthur, who don’t count because it was a really long time ago.

Experiencing US Election Day in Oz

They're partying in the streets of Sydney tonight too. It has been a great day to be an American. So many Australians have congratulated me and have reacted with true joy at the news of our election results. Miri and I watched the whole thing on an MSNBC live feed on my laptop over crappy Internet in a hotel lobby in Port Douglas, and a number of passersby stopped to watch for a minute over our shoulders and comment on the election. We were there for about 5 hours, corresponding to 7:30-12:30 DC time, and the hotel staff cheered with us at the 11PM announcement. I cried a little. The victory speech was amazing and I've watched it like 5 times now.

I missed the communications and multimedia overload I've grown accustomed to on election day, since it turned out there was no CNN on the hotel cable and I couldn't run both Instant Messenger and streaming TV at the same time on my laptop. And no cell service. After the speech we drove to the Cairns airport and flew to Sydney, and thank goodness for Sir Richard Branson adding live TV to his planes, cause we were able to watch CNN on the flight here. Oh, and Fox News too. There was a guy in an Obama T-shirt on the plane and I said, "Hey, nice shirt." And we shared a nice moment.

I can't believe I still have a computer...

Ever wonder what happens when you pour an entire pint glass of Zeigler's apple cider into the keyboard of your laptop, and then put your laptop under the faucet of the kitchen sink and run water through it?

Either did I, but now I know. Gives new meaning to the concept of "sticky keys."