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