Congress is ready to kill our hobby

[stylolvr]

Someone mentioned on my local forum (Tampa Bay Reef Club) that this was largely geared toward freshwater species, such as the snakefish, and terrestrial plants. I am not completely sure how it will affect the saltwater hobby, but it would not suprise me to see it get swept in with the species that the bill is actually meant for.

The only reason the Lionfish is any more of an environmental threat than other marine species is that some doofuses let some go in the Keys and they are starting to breed. Any marine species, or freshwater for that matter, could do the same, but I do not believe that the import of all nonnative species will be distinguished.

Also, it would be near impossible (and extremely costly) to round up all of the nonnative animals that we all have in our tanks. The aquarium industry is a huge part of the American economy, and if this bill were to pass and affect the marine hobby as some of you are afraid of, it would put thousands of LFS owners out of business.

I don't think that this is something to sweep under the rug, as there is always the possibility of it negatively affecting our hobby, but I don't think it will hurt us quite as bad as many think.

What we should do now is focus on the corals we have in our tanks currently, and continue to trade/sell frags so we limit the quantity of animals being taken off the reef in the first place. Maybe some of the money that is spent on importing exotics could be spent on breeding programs.

Just my .02. Stepping down off the soapbox...........

 

[JNye]

seems more like a states issue, too broad on the national level. Like has been said, here by the Great lakes we have a much different set of threats then Florida or Hawaii or New York. Let each state handle their own enviroments....

 

[RobTop]

Every day since I posted this I have received e-mails from friends in the industry making sure I am aware of this bill and asking me to share it with the contacts i have. I am amazed and some what frightened by the level of attention this is getting. To have so many in the industry quite concerned makes me give this action a lot of validity.

What I do not get at all is during this economic time why would we do anything that would effectivlty put so many businesses out of buissness. Look at the sponsor list here, what would those companies do should this bill limit/eliminate the importation of saltwater organisims?

As noted earlier we do need to do something about the state of our reefs, that is were organizations like CITIES, Project DIBS, and MAC come in, while admittidly they are not perfect, case in point the poaching of the reefs in Japan Aussie. However it is a step in the right direction. Further there are plenty of breeding programs out there, we do certainly need more.

If you do nothing with regaurds to this bill except one thing, make that thing a desision to propigate one of your corals, or breed a pair of fish, something to help protect our hobby. We have a heard a dozen times that the legislation is coming that will limit our hobby greatly, this may be it, it may not be. Whatever happens start doing something to keep the hobby alive with in your tank today.

If you can take it a step further than 1 coral to prop the better, setting up a 10 gal frag tank is easy, a system to frag is fun, a brreding system I am learning is fun as well. If you are a member of a club I encourage you to push your club to hold a frag swap if it doesn't. No need to make it as big as No Ads!!! Once you get your club to hold an event you are doing an amazing thing. Think of it this way, every frag that is sold or traded is one less taken from the reef(not even counting the fact that for every one that makes it to our tank 2-3 die in transit) You could even take it a step farther and as a club donate a portion of your events proceeds to a reef conservation effort. Last Year The Midwest FragFest covered hosting costs for such an endevor and will do so again.

This early morning rant is really about 2 things. One this bill is serious we should do something to stop it. Second do something to help our hobby survive once such legislation does get pass, I hate to say it, but some day it will. The only question is will be ready to keep our hobby alive when it does

 

[NexDog]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14774613#post14774613 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Mister Scopas

In the EU its already illegal to possess many of the fish and coral that we take for granted here in the USA. It would be nice for the party to go on forever, but it won't.

What?

Been smoking meth? :bum:

Don't post again. Ever.

 

[Uncle Salty 05]

I am much more worried that their stupidity and spending will make it impossible to feed my family much less indulge in the hobby. Our granchildren will be paupers their whole lives no matter how hard they work.
Where congress is concerned this bill is the least of my worries.

 

[swims withthe fishes]

I think it is unwise to assume "This is just not going to happen".

It is a little to common lately that a bill slips through and gets out of hand.
"there is too much money in this hobby to let it happen" is not valid reasoning at all. The pet industry, and this hobby especially is composed of much more small business than corporate. Odds are you don't buy your corals, fish, and live rock from a company that gross' $1 billion a quarter. and as of late they are the only ones getting any recognition from congress.

This hobby, and the pet industry pays my bills, has for 9 years now. I would be a fool not to raise an eyebrow of suspicion at this bill and not consider what it is capable of.

 

[Sugar Magnolia]

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1616087

http://www.reefcentral.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1611684

 

[woochild86]

HR 669

HR 669

Here is the link to the actual bill. Personally I don't see this happening, but then again I never under estimate some crooked politician taking money from some other crooked jerk to pass some screwed up law that benifits only him or her and screws the rest of us. If it comes down to it I will march to Washington and do what ever it takes to see that this never happens to this industry.




http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf

 

[Matt850]

How do they plan on making a list of allowed species in 36 months? That requires research on the over one and a half million named species.... not to mention the fact that there are many millions more than that to be discovered in the years to come. It would take a whole lot of people to help the secretary working all day long through those three years to come up with a list. It is a poorly written bill that has no way of adding to the list in a reasonable manor. It just says that the secretary CAN add more later on. Like mentioned earlier, what can be done about Acros and Montis and other such organisms which you cannot describe as a species... most times they even have to be dead to tell the difference.

To me it is just legislation that takes a whole lot of time to do a whole lot of nothing. It also seems as though the people introducing this bill are in states with the problems.. i.e Florida and California.

This I found to be hilarious...
To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species’ or human health, and for other purposes.

It is like saying, "Because I said so..." quite ridiculous if you ask me.

 

[tmantaylor18]

anyone have the spark notes on this

 

[Orin]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=14776389#post14776389 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by stylolvr
I am not completely sure how it will affect the saltwater hobby, but it would not suprise me to see it get swept in with the species that the bill is actually meant for.

Everything is covered! Propagating any non native coral will be a felony offense punishable by up to five years in prison.
This is directly from H.R. 669:
"(C), means any live species or subspecies of animal that is not a native species or subspecies,
whether or not born or raised in captivity;
(B) except as provided in subparagraph
(C), includesâ€"
(i) any such live, wild species or subspecies of mammal, bird, fish, reptile, amphibian, insect, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, and..."

Everything is Covered! All nonnative corals will be illegal propogate.

 

[treedesign]

If you guys want to send a petition letter to your local reps you can go to nohr669.com The site just went up this morning.

 

[pastelball]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stylolvr
I am not completely sure how it will affect the saltwater hobby, but it would not suprise me to see it get swept in with the species that the bill is actually meant for.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Doesn't matter what species this bill is meant for it should never come to this period

 

[Crawf71]

from MACNA and edited by Kevin Kohen...

Thought this little tidbit was interesting

A few talking points:

The approach taken in HR 669 will adversely impact trade and other activities involving nonnative species without utilizing a scientifically valid approach â€"œ even in the limited instances in which sufficient data are available on the biology and range of species, it will be virtually impossible to prove that they could not establish and spread in some portion of the US. Thus, it will be nearly impossible to get species on the “Approved List” unless they are so widespread in the country already.

The degree of uncertainty that will result by applying the “as if” criteria will result in virtually every species ending up on the list for which there is insufficient information to make a decision DESPITE THE FACT that most of these species have been in trade, recreational use, farming, etc. for decades with only a small percentage of species being problematic and then in localized situations

A one size assessment process fits all species is not plausible â€"œ what may be harmful in Hawaiian waters would not be harmful in Kansas or the deserts of Arizona or Texas.

HR 669 overly simplifies the complexity of the issue; bans all species unless they can get on an approved list; the criteria for the Approved List are not realistic; the lists are biased towards those entities that can afford to engage in the process â€"œ undoubtedly the USFWS will be paralyzed by activist animal rights and protectionist environmental organizations petitioning for species to be unapproved;

The USFWS does not have the capacity to implement the provisions given limited staff, money, and unrealistic timeliness; and the unintended consequences of a sloppy bill could actually be to facilitate the mass release of animals, and/or their mass euthanasia.

HR 669 does not take into consideration the socio-economic complexity of the issue. Stakeholders dependent upon access to non-native species include diverse interests: pet industry, sports fishing, federal/state hatcheries, agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment, hunting, food aquaculture. Currently, thousands of non-natives species are both imported and exported, as well as captive raised (in some instances farmed on ranched) within the United States. While most of these species are never intended for release into natural environments, some of these species (e.g. oysters, trout, bass, deer, game birds) are managed by government and private entities throughout the US.

HR 669 calls for a risk assessment when, in fact, a risk analysis process is warranted. A risk assessment only considers biological indices related to potential invasiveness, while a risk analysis considers both these, as well as socio-economic factors, including potential management options. A risk analysis can enable strategic decisions to be made, such as enabling certain species to continue in trade/transport if the risks of invasion could be sufficiently management (e.g. d HR 669 treats the entire United States as if it is a single ecosystem and ignores the historic definition of invasive species that applies to a specific ecosystem, not the political boundaries of the United States as an ecosystem.

Setting criteria in statute removes flexibility that could be achieved through rulemaking since a “one-sizefits-all” process is not appropriate for all taxa, regions of the country, proposed usage of the species, etc.

Deadlines are unrealistic. While we recognize the rationale for placing timeframes on USFWS, deadlines cause lawsuits; deadlines mandate action for unfunded mandates; two (2) years is unrealistic to conduct an assessment (even a rough screen) of literally thousands of species (1) imported, (2) raised in US for local markets as well as exports, and (3) imported as well as raised in US.

Animals owned prior to prohibition of importation (Section 2(f)) is major departure from current prohibitions under Lacey Act. HR 669 would allow possession of “an animal” if prove legally owned pre-launch of assessment. There is no indication as to what it takes to prove legality? Nor would one know when an assessment of a particular species was launched.

Assuming that more than a handful of non-native species end up on an approved list, enforcement of a list of species that have been in trade for decades will be more difficult than a dirty list. It is well established that only a small percentage of the species in trade have been shown to be “invasive.” The ornamental aquarium industry, for example, deals with more than 2,500 species of freshwater and marine fish. A handful of species have been found to be a problem in Southern Florida, but not elsewhere in the US; some found to be a problem in Hawaii are not a problem in Kansas.

Promulgation of regulations implementing the HR 669 process will be complex and doubtful if can be achieved within prescribed timeframe, especially if USFWS is to simultaneously conduct thousands of assessments on species already in trade.