Ok, so I watched the video. Personally, I find it troubling that they shared little information about the Bill itself. The basis of their argument seems to be "The Bill will take our pets away". However it seems from what little information I could glean from the video that the intent is to prevent the introduction of foreign anmals and or plants into american ecosystems.  I live in MS and can look out my window and witness first hand the effects of bringing non-indigenous life into an ecosystem (Kudzu is affectionaltely called "the second Japanese invasion down here). Is it Brian's argument that the native species that die because of competetion from some new species that was released by irresponsible pet owners doesn't matter because they are not pets?

Secondly. They use the argument that Pet trade business will suffer if they pass the bill, from the big franchises to the mom&pops. How do people not see the absurdity in that point? Do they not realize that the exact same argument was used by slave traders to justify continuing that institution? o_0. Just because and economy is based on some accepted practice is not a reason to continue it.

Personally I am neutral at the moment on whether people whould be able keep/breed exotic pets. But I feel their argument is a weakly supported attempt to "tug at people's heart strings" to gain opposition against a bill whose intent is to protect the environment.