Carly Lu’s Flight Blog

GrrlScientist is preparing an Op-Ed piece for the New York Times about HR 669. If you do research or conservation work on exotic species that would be negatively impacted by this bill, she would like to include that in her editorial. She needs, within the next day:

A statement that includes (1) their research species (2) a basic
description of their work and (3) how HR 669 will negatively impact
their work. They can include anything else they wish to say, but their
response MUST have those three details so i can use them in my
writing.

The identities of all who respond will be kept strictly confidential
UNLESS the respondent says otherwise.

Please email me or comment here and I’ll pass her contact info along.

Also, if you are a member of any of these organizations, please consider contacting them. They are part of the National Environmental Coalition on Invasive Species (NECIS) which strongly supports this bill (taken from their web site):

* Center for International Environmental Law
* Defenders of Wildlife
* Ecological Society of America
* Environmental Law Institute
* Great Lakes United
* Healing Our Waters-Great Lakes Coalition
* Lady Bird Johnson Wildflower Center
* National Association of Exotic Pest Plant Councils
* National Audubon Society
* National Wildlife Federation
* National Wildlife Refuge Association
* Natural Areas Association
* Natural Resources Defense Council
* The Nature Conservancy
* Union of Concerned Scientists

On her blog Living the Scientific Life, GrrlScientist does a fantastic job of explaining and critiquing HR 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. She is a PhD zoologist/ornithologist who has done research on lories.

Some of my work involves studying the transport of invasive marine species, so I’m no stranger to the subject. If there were any kind of rational, sound, scientific merit to the bill I would be the first to point that out. But this bill fails to deal with the most basic problems of invasive exotics, as well as some of the most harmful species, while applying draconian prohibitions on hundreds of animals frequently kept as pets. It would literally be a death sentence for many animals whose species had not gone through the usually lengthy — and in HR 669 undefined — process of exemption.

GrrlScientist lays out some of the most glaring shortcomings and logical inconsistencies, so I’ll let her do the work!

I have found many positions taken by the “anti-animal rights” lobby to be overreactions to sound policies. This one isn’t. I’m actually stunned that many respectable environmental organizations are supporting it.

UPDATE: Look for an Op-Ed piece by GrrlScientist in the New York Times in the coming week.