Posted: Thursday, June 4, 2009 12:00 am
Contrary to the assertions of one of your readers ("Invasive species: So?", May 29), the proposed Non-native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), would not ban possession of animal species outright. The bill, which is supported by The Humane Society of the United States, Defenders of Wildlife, The Nature Conservancy, Union of Concerned Scientists and many other organizations, would require non-native species of wild animals to be assessed for risk before they can be imported or moved in interstate commerce.
It does not apply to domesticated species, such as cats, dogs, rabbits, gerbils, hamsters, goldfish and guinea pigs, at all. Non-native wildlife species would be assessed based on scientific information, with public input, to determine if they pose risks to people, the environment or the economy. Non-native species found not to be risky could still be possessed and traded, and even those found to be risky could be kept by people who already have them.
This bill addresses a shortcoming of the current law. Now, trade for species found to be injurious is stopped only after substantial damage has been done and costs incurred. By that time, it may be impossible and inhumane to remove the animals. H.R. 669 takes a proactive approach. If the United States had H.R. 669 in place previously, damaging and costly invasions could have been prevented such as Burmese pythons, red lionfish, northern snakehead fish and the Gambian rats responsible for a multistate outbreak of monkeypox. Millions of animals are imported every year with very little oversight. H.R. 669 is long overdue to protect people and native wildlife. We applaud Rep. DeFazio for his leadership in co-sponsoring this important legislation.
Kelly Peterson, Portland
Kelly Peterson, a former Linn County resident, works for the Humane Society of the United States.