Other Turtle Discussion :: DOMESTIC PET TURTLE MARKET ACCESS ACT

[steve]

It's dated: Feb 8, 2007

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/record. ... 0070208-41

---------

There are some ridiculous statements in there. I think I posted an article about LA farmers lobbying a few months ago... it seems they have made some unfortunate progress.

[Kallistos]

Wow, if this bill is enacted none of those big name pet stores will carry adult red eared sliders....that'd be way more expensive than throwing little ones in a 20 gallon aquarium. So many people would buy them since they look unbelievably "cute" when they're young and most of them would probably die. I mean even experienced turtle keepers sometimes lose babies since they're so fragile. I really really hope that this bill is squashed!

Sen. Mary Landrieu [D-LA]: "I support this bill, and I hope the rest of the Senate will join me in supporting this commonsense bill that will .......... and bring the joy of caring for pet turtles to millions."

Millions of baby turtle owners? If that happened we would have to barricade ourselves as hundereds of clueless people post obvious questions and then the urgent care section would become the most busy topic.

So yea, I don't support it at all!

[megcornell]

Well, that sure is interesting and unfortunate for millions of baby turtles everywhere. I'm sure in post katrina times that will be passed with flying colors. It would be best in my opinion if those farms just shut down, or down sized. On the good side, no one really values an LSU opinion that well, so I think the AVMA would have to step in and agree to the salmonella solutions.

[scripta_elegans]

There are gross lies in there. They may be able to treat Salmonella before the turtles leave, but one course of antibiotics will only kill the salmonella the baby was born with. It will absolutely pick up the bacteria again, if it doesn't die from killing off a naturally existing organism in it's GI tract. Then there's the issue of our cute turtles being an amazing resiliant invasive species taking over the habitat of native species. I think I need to write to my congress people.

[Kallistos]

Those are some very good points! I agree meg, it'd be best if all those farms closed down and you'd have to pay like $50 for a turtle, then they're woudln't be any of these kids saving their lunch money for a few days and buying a couple red ears. The whole how invasive they are never crossed my mind...the entire south is a great area for red ears. I would write a letter, but I'm not sure what a 15 year old Wisconsiknights (sp) opinion would be on Congress.

[steve]

Here is the actual text of the bill that has been proposed:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:S.540:

[SpotsMama]

Hey RESowner, if you write a letter, you don't have to mention that you are 15! The elected officials will only respond to voters, but then you are a future voter, so it's not really misleading to imply that you are a voter.

My guess is the best response would come to a health threat. Threats to health are always hot buttons. Second best response would be to invasion issues. Humanitarian issues would probably not carry much weight.

[SpotsMama]

I sent off a quick email to our elected officials in Washington. It's real easy to get contact information - just google what you want. For instance, I googled "Senators from Texas". I sent the email to our Representative, too just in case the bill gets that far.

Here's what I sent:

It has come to our attention that a bill has been introduced by Senator Landrieu of Louisiana called The Domestic Pet Turtle Market Access Act. We hope that you strongly oppose this Act.

As turtle owners who love our pet turtle, we are aware of the many issues associated with turtle care. We fervently believe the current law, which prohibits the sale of turtles under 4" but allows turtles over 4" to be sold as pets, is best for a number of reasons. It allows hobbyists who are seriously interested to enjoy turtle ownership, but prevents the market from being flooded with tiny, cheap baby turtles.

There are three reasons for opposing the Act:

1. THE TURTLES WHICH WOULD BE SOLD (RES) ARE HARMFUL INVASIVE SPECIES WHEN RELEASED IN THE WILD WHERE THEY ARE NOT NATIVE. The kind of turtle which would be sold under the new law is the Red Ear Slider (RES). This is the kind of turtle we have. They are beautiful but very aggressive. In fact, in any group of turtles the RES is always the most aggressive. They are also extremely hardy. In the wild they drive out local turtle species. In other parts of the world - Europe and Asia - where RES have been introduced this has become a terrible problem and local species have been driven to extinction. Many European counties now ban RES. If we were to allow millions of tiny cheap baby turtles onto the market, people who tired of them when they grew larger would release them to the wild in areas where they are not native where they would overrun local species.

Here is one link describing RES as an invasive species in the US. There is much more information on the internet about RES invasions in other parts of the world.

http://nas.er.usgs.gov/taxgroup/reptiles/default.asp

2. THE THREAT TO HEALTH HAS NOT BEEN SOLVED. I believe Senator Landrieu has been seriously mislead by her constituents. The reason for the ban on the sale of tiny turtles is to protect people - especially children - from salmonella, which is normallhy present in turtles. Senator Landrieu believes that a new treatment would "cure" little turtles of salmonella. However, the fact is that as soon as a treated turtle is exposed to the normal environment, it becomes re-contaminated, so the treatment is actually ineffective.

3. A RES HABITAT IS COMPLEX AND EXPENSIVE, A FACT WHICH IS NOT USUALLY DISCLOSED TO PET BUYERS, RESULTING IN SLOW PAINFUL DEATHS OF RESs OR THEIR RELEASE INTO THE WILD. Pet stores consistently grossly understate the effort required to maintain a RES in order to increase sales. This is already a big problem but it would be hugely compounded if millions more tiny RES were to be sold. Here is a link describing what is involved in RES ownership:

http://www.redearslider.com/index.html

Thank you for your support.

[VelvetAlley]

Your response is nice but answer me this.

How many people here buy their turtles from a pet store in which the turtle is 4 inches long?

How many of us got our turtles from shady sales people selling them illegally?

How many pet shop turtles die of complications due to the care they recieved while growing before being able to be sold legally?

How many hatclings that are sold by shady street peddlers die of complications due to the care they recieved before sale?

Wouldn't making this legal cut down on the illegal sale of hatchilings; hatchlings which are commonly sick due to poor care by the seller?

I see healthier turtles sold in pet shops, to people who may be illinformed but with the potential to become informed with a nontainted turtle.

It is true that a percentage of those who would buy a turtle from a petshop are not going to properly care for their RES, however that's the same for the hatchlings sold by peddlers, the difference being that the turtles at the petshops will have had better care up until the point in which you purchase the turtle. IMO a hatchling sold under this bill has a greater chance of survival than a hatchling sold by a peddler.

[SpotsMama]

Good points. The illegal sale of the little ones is a big problem of enforcement. The illegal traffic, however, is relatively small in the great scheme of things. So far as what I've heard it's mostly confined to certain areas on the east coast and west coast because the law isn't enforced and people aren't concerned about breaking it.

I think if the trade in tiny turtles were legalized you'd see a huge increase in volume overall. I remember when I was a child - long long ago - before the current law was passed, little turtles were sold everywhere in Texas. They were sold and given away as prizes at the fair, and every five and dime store had them - frequently with little palm trees painted on their backs. I got one at the fair and kept it in a tiny death bowl and it died a slow death after several months. My cousin got one and her turtle's shell got softer and softer until I believe it just feel apart. She still remembers the experience with horror.

These things aren't happening around here now because of the law. And I don't think they are in most of the country but I'm sure they'd start up again were the current law to change.

[VelvetAlley]

Being somebody who is anti-vegan I have a real big problem with justifying one treatment for one animal and a different one for the next.

Goldfish are given away as prizes at fairs. Does anybody complain about that? Is there a huge Goldfish forum where people are going nuts about the mistreatment of goldfish?

What about all the minnows, crickets, mice, and mealworms who are simply harvested to be food, what about their rights?

Who are we to say that one species is more important and deserves better treatment? Why the mammal over the reptile over the fish over the insect? Is it because of brain size? Body size? Vocalization? Recognitition of co-existance with a caretaker?

I have a big problem with animal rights because it is an ethic purely dependant upon popular opinion of a culture from one time to another. It changes with boarders and there isn't a recognized absolute law which crosses borders to tell mankind treating X in Y way is wrong.

That's the ideology that is within that causes me to question laws like this. If I could have it my way, I would have turtles "made to order" instead of just a stock supply which needs to be consumed away.

[SpotsMama]

The ethic is that it's wrong to cause pain to a living creature. Just as simple as that.

But you are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[adam85491]

I wanted to do my contoversial issue paper on this, however, because it is a fairly new issue, I could not find it on a Deep Web site like ask.com or webbrain (no google allowed).

[jenaero]

Goldfish are given away as prizes at fairs. Does anybody complain about that? Is there a huge Goldfish forum where people are going nuts about the mistreatment of goldfish?

Yes, probably. Google it.

What about all the minnows, crickets, mice, and mealworms who are simply harvested to be food, what about their rights?

I hear a LOT of people pitching fits about that too.

Who are we to say that one species is more important and deserves better treatment? Why the mammal over the reptile over the fish over the insect? Is it because of brain size? Body size? Vocalization? Recognitition of co-existance with a caretaker?

I don't think anyone is saying res are more important than other pets. But this is a RES forum so that's what's most talked about here.

I have a big problem with animal rights because it is an ethic purely dependant upon popular opinion of a culture from one time to another. It changes with boarders and there isn't a recognized absolute law which crosses borders to tell mankind treating X in Y way is wrong.

To each his own I suppose

That's the ideology that is within that causes me to question laws like this. If I could have it my way, I would have turtles "made to order" instead of just a stock supply which needs to be consumed away.

I wonder how well that would work if you applied the same principle to cars, grocery items or pharmaceuticals <blink>

[pumpkinsherbet]

the idea here is to go with what's safest for both caretaker and animal. that means regulation and education.

i do know for a fact that people do get in an uproar about the goldfish. i got my lectures, too. i don't believe in one over the other. i do believe in a food chain, and will root for my turts when they catch their fish. doesn't mean i don't feel for the rosie that my little one's chomping down on.

and mice... i'm sure if you google it you'll find plenty on people getting angry over the conventional mousetrap. it's another argument i've been a part of quite a bit.

i'm going to leave this thought incomplete, because i seem to be having difficulty articulating it at the moment.