house Bill H.R. 2603
Removing Non-Native Animals From the Endangered Species List So It’s Easier For Zoos and Breeders to Move Them Between States
Argument in favor
This bill would eliminate a duplicative permitting requirement for buying and selling non-native endangered species across state lines by delisting those species, making it easier for zoos and breeders to ensure the survival and genetic diversity of at-risk animals.
08/11/2017
We really have to vote on this. Do you think maybe we could address some real issues,like illegal immigrants. Or undocumented voter lists.
···
08/12/2017
Removing the regulatory burden on zoos and other breeders will make it a lot easier to increase the population of these endangered species and improve their genetic diversity. The goal is to get them off the endangered list, isn't it?
···
08/11/2017
This bill would eliminate a duplicative permitting requirement for buying and selling non-native endangered species across state lines by delisting those species, making it easier for zoos and breeders to ensure the survival and genetic diversity of at-risk animals.
Argument opposed
Eliminating protections for non-native endangered species like elephants by delisting them could create enforcement challenges related to wildlife trafficking by making it more likely that populations of those species will face threats in their native territory.
···
08/10/2017
Surely there is a way to facilitate easier movement of the animals without removing them from the Endangered Species list.
08/10/2017
No, this seems like a roundabout way to not protect these animals. Zoos can operate within the regulations or you can create regulations specifically for them but do not take these creatures off the endangered animals list!
···
08/10/2017
No!!! Absolutely keep all of the regulations protecting endangered species! If zoos need more freedom to move them around, write a bill for that purpose only. Private breeders should NOT get a break from considering these animals endangered.
We really have to vote on this. Do you think maybe we could address some real issues,like illegal immigrants. Or undocumented voter lists.
Surely there is a way to facilitate easier movement of the animals without removing them from the Endangered Species list.
No, this seems like a roundabout way to not protect these animals. Zoos can operate within the regulations or you can create regulations specifically for them but do not take these creatures off the endangered animals list!
No!!! Absolutely keep all of the regulations protecting endangered species! If zoos need more freedom to move them around, write a bill for that purpose only. Private breeders should NOT get a break from considering these animals endangered.
An endangered species is threatened by extinction regardless of it's location. An elephant in North America or one on the African continent are no different. Both belong to the same species and that species is endangered. The regulations governing the management of endangered species are designed to protect the species as a whole, not just one random animal somewhere on Earth. That one may be the last one alive. Many zoos are attempting to breed endangered species in captivity to be reintroduced to the wild but those in the breeding program as part of the species are just as endangered regardless of their location. This is just an attempt by this Administration to lower standards to a point where non-Native endangered animals may not be missed if not monitored closely.
Surely you can see this as the thinly-veiled attempt to further gut the endangered species act that it is?! These species are endangered in the world, you know, outside of this country, which this regime keeps forgetting about. Zoos exist in the name of conservation, if this bill is truly to ease the burden of conservancy, then write it specifically so. You cannot further abandon animals that already need our help the most.
Really? This would be a no. They are on the endangered list for a reason. Keep them there.
I don't get the correlation. These animals must be protected. Move them according to regulations for breeding.
They are animals not in their habitat. I think we should be very cautious about breeding just to have caged animals to look at on a Saturday afternoon.
Removing the regulatory burden on zoos and other breeders will make it a lot easier to increase the population of these endangered species and improve their genetic diversity. The goal is to get them off the endangered list, isn't it?
This is a clever and devious way to weaken the endangered species act, something that many members of Congress, business, and industry have wanted to do for a long time. I see this as nothing more than a way to render this very important act completely impotent in the long run. It is a very small step from removing non-native animals from endangered species protection to removing many other animals from that protection. Humans are responsible for the endangered status of all of these animals; we should try and do the best that we can to protect the few remaining members of these species.
Why make endangered species easier to kill? Why do Republicans want to kill sick people? Why do they want to kill wild mustangs in Nevada? Is killing everything in sight supposed to be macho?
Removing endangered species from the endangered animals list sounds a lot like ending healthcare. The GOP wants all non-white, and non-males who are not ostensible Christians dead. Now they want all animals dead. Or at least to be able to horribly kill them to imagine themselves to be virile. No! No ploys to allow extinction for the entertainment of the wealthy few.
Listing animals that technically are endangered as non endangered seems like a slippery slope. Also "private" purchasers raises a lot of questions about what types of conditions these animals will live in and who they would be sold to. Regulations are not a bad thing. They are a means of checks and balances.
This is just an excuse for the trumps to hunt endangered species on their golf courses.