U.S. Senators and Representatives recommending a ban on the international trade of wildlife.

BRS
Corals.com

hatfielj

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
1,911
***We ask you not to post any political posts. All political posts will be removed***

From PIJAC

A letterauthored by leading pet care industry groups to Senators Cory Booker and Lindsey Graham and Representatives Mike Quigley and Michael T. McCaul was sent in response to an April 8, 2020 letter which recommended a ban on the international trade of wildlife. Please use the form below to submit a request if you would like your name to be included on this letter.

You can find the form here.

As the unprecedented situation surrounding the global coronavirus pandemic develops, we in the safe, responsible, and regulated pet trade understand that government officials are considering policy changes while working to stop the spread of COVID-19. It is important for those in the legal and regulated U.S. pet trade to share their concerns on potential impacts to both domestic and international trade and ensure these officials receive accurate and science-based information on issues of concern.

Response to letter from U.S. Senators and Representatives recommending a ban on the international trade of wildlife to international organizations.

LtrResponseLogos04212020.jpg


Open Letter to Senators Cory A. Booker and Lindsey O. Graham and Representatives Mike Quigley and Michael T. McCaul Regarding Your Requested Ban on the International Trade of Live Wildlife

We in the responsible pet care community are extremely concerned by the threat to human health posed by the rapidly evolving coronavirus pandemic, and applaud many of the steps taken by government at all levels to help control the spread of disease and support economically devasted Americans. However, we urge you to reconsider the sweeping prohibition on international live wildlife trade that you requested in your April 8, 2020, letter to the WHO, OIE and FAO. This action would provide little defense against future novel widespread infections, while doing dramatic damage to American businesses.

Like you, we are dedicated to preventing the spread of zoonotic diseases, but so-called “wet markets,” where novel human diseases have originated, should not be conflated with the broad legal international wildlife trade. The COVID-19 virus was not spread internationally through wildlife, but instead through human-to-human contact. Wildlife has been legally imported into the U.S. for over 50 years without creating a zoonotic incident, and these animals pose no more threat to human health than imported and domestic animals that are already in the country.

According to the 2019-2020 APPA National Pet Owners Survey, 67% of American households (84.9 million) own at least one pet—and the ideal pet for over 19.5 million of those households is a reptile, small mammal, bird or fish. Many of these are wild-caught or farm-raised internationally. Those that are raised domestically come from breeders who must regularly acquire new animals from unrelated bloodlines to prevent inbreeding. Halting the legal international trade of these species would eliminate the opportunity to enjoy the physical and emotional benefits of pet ownership, such as lowering stress and blood pressure, for millions of Americans.

Just one example is aquarium stores. A ban on the importation of wildlife would unnecessarily devastate the aquarium hobby, as fish pose zero risk of being infected and carrying COVID-19, and pose little risk of carrying any zoonotic disease. There are very few marine species collected or bred in the U.S., so a ban would end saltwater aquarium keeping and the thousands of American small businesses that provide equipment, fish, supplies and maintenance services to those hobbyists would be forced to close.

Captive breeding of reptiles and arachnids has been highly successful in the United States, but these programs must continually have access to new breeding stock to ensure genetic diversity. Breeders often bring in new animals from responsible, well-regulated overseas breeding facilities. Also, many of the reptiles, small mammals such as ferrets, and arachnids bred in the United States are exported to other countries. A ban on wildlife trade would destroy the market for those artisanal breeding operations, which are often small local businesses.

We ask you to work with the WHO, OIC and FAO to ensure that these agencies’ response to the COVID-19 pandemic focuses on the true threat from “wet markets” and does not create unintended consequences for responsible pet owners and businesses. Live animals for the pet trade have moved between countries successfully for decades under a heavily regulated and internationally monitored system that protects both human and animal health. A broad ban on the existing legal trade in live animals will do little to protect Americans from another novel zoonotic disease outbreak. It will only do great harm to already suffering small businesses and deprive millions of families of the joys of pet ownership.

If you have any questions or need additional information, we in the responsible pet care community stand ready to help you develop thoughtful and science-based measures to safeguard both human and animal health and well-being.

Sincerely,

Mike Bober, President and CEO, Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Steve King, CEO, American Pet Products Association
Vic Mason, President, World Pet Association
Celeste Powers, President, Pet Industry Distributors Association
Kevin Erickson, President, Marine Aquarium Societies of North America
Phil Goss, President, United States Association of Reptile Keepers
Robin M. Turner, Executive Director, Animal Transportation Association
Patti Strand, President, National Animal Interest Alliance
So, let me get this straight...you post something that is by definition political, but then you tell us we can’t discuss anything political? I’m confused.
 
Lazys Coral House

hatfielj

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 8, 2007
Messages
2,300
Reaction score
1,911
I will not be signing this. Something needs to be done to prevent future viruses from spreading from the animal world to the human world. The way that China and other countries freely buy and sell wildlife is what caused this epidemic in the first place. Furthermore, American factory farming is another major risk for future pandemics and something needs to be done to address those practices as well.
 

Pablopufferfish

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
304
Reaction score
766
I will not be signing this. Something needs to be done to prevent future viruses from spreading from the animal world to the human world. The way that China and other countries freely buy and sell wildlife is what caused this epidemic in the first place. Furthermore, American factory farming is another major risk for future pandemics and something needs to be done to address those practices as well.
I respectfully disagree.

Plus I thought all political post are to be removed.
 

jcolliii

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Jan 9, 2020
Messages
448
Reaction score
500
Which part do you disagree with?

1) The virus shows remarkable similarity to a virus that infects pangolins. 2) Pangolins and their parts are hunted, bred, killed, and consumed in China for various 'medicinal' remedies. 3) The virus originated in a country in which this use is well documented. 4) Some viruses are known to be able to cross species boundaries.

I don't know if this delves into political arguments or not, but my $0.02 - While I do think this is a problem, I don't think closing off imports of wild animals into the US for *this reason* will be effective. Do we use pangolin parts for 'medicine' here? Did we still get this virus here? Again, I think this is an important conversation, one well worth having - but not for this reason. I do think that because of the problems reefs are having, declining fish stocks, fewer pristine reefs; unsafe, wreckless, or destructive collection practices - I think for *those* reasons that all wild animal imports should be banned. We have more than enough collective stock for aquacultured corals and fish to be produced that will be better adapted to aquarium conditions. And, such a system would increase reefer-to-reefer trades and commerce and incentivise captive breeders to produce more captive-bred species.
 

Pablopufferfish

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Apr 11, 2020
Messages
304
Reaction score
766
Which part do you disagree with?

1) The virus shows remarkable similarity to a virus that infects pangolins. 2) Pangolins and their parts are hunted, bred, killed, and consumed in China for various 'medicinal' remedies. 3) The virus originated in a country in which this use is well documented. 4) Some viruses are known to be able to cross species boundaries.

I don't know if this delves into political arguments or not, but my $0.02 - While I do think this is a problem, I don't think closing off imports of wild animals into the US for *this reason* will be effective. Do we use pangolin parts for 'medicine' here? Did we still get this virus here? Again, I think this is an important conversation, one well worth having - but not for this reason. I do think that because of the problems reefs are having, declining fish stocks, fewer pristine reefs; unsafe, wreckless, or destructive collection practices - I think for *those* reasons that all wild animal imports should be banned. We have more than enough collective stock for aquacultured corals and fish to be produced that will be better adapted to aquarium conditions. And, such a system would increase reefer-to-reefer trades and commerce and incentivise captive breeders to produce more captive-bred species.
I don’t wish to get into a political battle. I have my reasons why I disagree regardless of the points you provided. This is R2R not Reddit and R2R shouldn’t include political upheaval. That is what I believe is best for this for forum. If this was person to person I would to discuss this just not on R2R.
 
Lazys Coral House

VJM 21

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Sep 19, 2018
Messages
208
Reaction score
168
Location
PA
I will not be signing this. Something needs to be done to prevent future viruses from spreading from the animal world to the human world. The way that China and other countries freely buy and sell wildlife is what caused this epidemic in the first place. Furthermore, American factory farming is another major risk for future pandemics and something needs to be done to address those practices as well.
Selling bats for human consumption at a wet market is a problem, but it has nothing to do with the collection and trade of marine life for the ornamental fish industry. Lumping everything together in one knee-jerk piece of legislation is a mistake.
 
Top Shelf Aquatics

AltitudeAquarium

Active Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 12, 2018
Messages
191
Reaction score
277
My fish are too small and too expensive to eat. I would deserve to get sick if I did that.. I think a broad brushed ban is not the right environmental management approach. Politicians forget to research and listen to the people they represent. I agree with the Reefer in Buena Vista, Colorado. I've seen the effects of zebra mussels, carp and other invasive species that have been wrongfully been introduced and had a negative impact on the environment. But, to wrongfully sell wildlife is devastating to the animal populations and it appears that it is bad for our human health. I signed the letter to make a voice be heard.
 
BRS

Are you currently running a reactor and media on your reef tank?

  • Yes (please tell us what in the thread)

    Votes: 66 41.8%
  • NO but I run media from time to time

    Votes: 45 28.5%
  • NO I don't use filter media

    Votes: 44 27.8%
  • Other (please explain)

    Votes: 3 1.9%

Online statistics

Members online
2,545
Guests online
7,179
Total visitors
9,724
Cherry
Top