BEWARE OF PIJAC!!!!

Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman

That's very pessimistic even if you are eventually correct. Resistance is futile.
I think that is one of the biggest disappointing mindsets of our time. We are doomed to fail no matter the effort made. I would certainly like to beleive that is incorrect.

You give a little this time then you give a little the next round of regulations and then the next.

No, I disagree. You do both. You resist any regulation and still propose more friendlier alternatives. Then you oppose those. Lower the government's bar.

It's only a foregone conclusion if you let it happen. Propose all you want, but I say no to any compromise. You fight each bill that comes up with the same passion as the last even if it was something proposed by the "industry".

I respectfully disagree Dennis. I don't think my stance is at all pessimistic...it is simply realistic. This industry has sailed along for many years with little or no federal regualtion. It was great while it lasted but simple 100% resistance to anything pretty much guarantees that some form of the legislation will eventually pass as proposed. If that is the only tactic we use we are doomed to eventual failure. It might work this time and the next but it won't work for long. I would much rather have a pro-active voice in deciding how my industry is regulated than to simply shout NO! at the top of my lungs every time regulation of some sort is proposed.

One more thing,compromise is not defeat,it is not giving in.It is agreeing to what we feel we can work with.They are coming after this tax base,they will keep trying.

Why do people think any industry automatically needs federal regulation? What this country needs is LESS federal regulations and to allow individual states to govern themselves they way things were meant to be.

Originally Posted by Joe Hiduke

http://resourcescommittee.house.gov/...ony_meyers.pdf

That was dated April 23, the meeting I speak of took place after that date.

Quite frankly, this whole thing just smells bad to me.

Firstly, the government smells a new revenue source. Kind of like blood in the water attracting a school of sharks. The government isn't truly interested in protecting anyone and only uses that as a pretense to charge licensing fees that they can pocket.

Secondly, generally when regulations of this sort are considered, what happens is that only some of the larger concerns in the particular industry are consulted. What they do is to take a look a their own business and propose regulations that they already are in compliance with, yet would be a hardship to smaller competitors to conform to. They will claim it's for the sake of protecting their industry, when in reality the law proposed would be an effort to reduce competition across the board by putting those smaller companies out of business via regulation and red tape.

And lastly, I've seen "compromise" when it comes to laws affecting gun rights. What will happen is that the proposal will, in effect, want to ban 10 guns. The compromise offered will be to request only 5 of those guns being banned. Yeah, certainly a compromise, but you STILL lose. A REAL compromise is that you would be willing to lose something if you can GAIN something in return. I don't see this being the case here. The compromise is going to be either lose a lot, or lose a little, but we will STILL lose.

Rich,I agree wholeheartedly with your view.I stated before that this is about tax revenue,plain and simple.I also further qualified my idea of "compromise" as "being something we can work with",not capitulation,which some will do because they get what they want,and really do not care about the masses.

Lest they forget,the big breeders need someone to sell to,and without a community who is having their right's threatened,what good is a PIJAC if there isn't any community to protect.Unless they are simply protecting a cherished few.Bring on the transparency.Let's see what proposal they have,let's see where the rubber meets the road.Forget some ambiguous mission statement.If they cannot reveal what they are truly doing,they do not warrant the support they are asking for.Better to support another body such as USARK. I am not a member of either but I am leaning towards one,because the threat is real,and will not give up.


I like to watch and see what is done by action,not spoken word,then make an informed decision as best as can be made by what we have in front of us.As someone who has sat in on a labor negotiation before,deals our hashed out,and sometimes you can win in a compromise.That link that Tom Crutchfield posted is somewhat troubling,regarding PIJAC.It raised some valid concerns.

Originally Posted by varnyard

HR669 is not dead; we were told it was by PIJAC and USARK. The fact of the matter is, it is alive and well, it is being re-written and is going to be re-submitted this month. The new and improved HR669 will go something like this:

Small breeders will not be able to breed, sell, trade, import, export, or ship any reptiles. Only larger breeders that have an on the premises herp vet will be able to do so. Also USDA and USFW must inspect them and approve the facility, caging, care etc. The animals produced will only be shipped to pet stores, zoos and animal education facilities.

As for a response, we are not getting one; PIJAC, and USARK are not telling us the bill is still alive, why? I called one of the top board members at PIJAC; he knows what is going on, he said I was the first one to call him about it. He said he knows the bill is not dead and it is being re-written.

Do not let your guard down; there is much yet to be seen on this. PETA, USPS and PIJAC are now discussing the new HR669.

The "NATIONAL RODENT IMPROVEMENT PLAN" is still in the works, it will be slid through after HR669 passes, and it will pass.

Bobby,
The USDA IS NOT quailified nor trained to inspect the health and well being of herps. The USDA has zero jurisdiction over reptiles/amphibians.

Randal Berry

Maybe someone could invite representatives of these two groups(PIJAC and USARK) here to openly discuss there intentions and ideas how to combat this threat.That will help us all to be truly informed.

I'm going to have to agree with some folks here - I don't see why federal regulation is a foregone conclusion, and I generally think it's a crap idea. Sounds like another layer of middlemen and government's greedy hand to me.

About the only regulation I could agree with have to do with wild imports/exports... because that's about the only thing the federal government ought to be messing with.

[quote=Rich Z;704430]Quite frankly, this whole thing just smells bad to me.

Firstly, the government smells a new revenue source. Kind of like blood in the water attracting a school of sharks. The government isn't truly interested in protecting anyone and only uses that as a pretense to charge licensing fees that they can pocket.QUOTE]

I agree with Rich totally on this point. If the government really wanted to protect people they would outlaw cigarettes. BUT NOOOOOOO they will not give up the revenue from the taxes even though people will die because of it. Granted these people made a choice and have to live with it (no pun intended). The government could save thousands by outlawing smokes. I wonder why, when they are SOOOOO interested in what is good for you and me, they don't?

Well at least the present occupant at 1600 Pennsylvania steps out to the back yard for a heater, so all the smokers won't have to worry about that for at least the next 3+ years or so.