Current legislation

[MrMikeB]

As an active SANE reef conservationist and a fellow enthusiast I pay particular attention to the current rumblings in our legislative branch regarding the future of our hobby. I thought you all would be interested in the following concerning HR4928:

http://www.icriforum.org/Uploads/Case_coral_bill.pdf


Given I know most of you on here personally, I wanted to open a local dialog to discuss your thoughts on this. I think it fair to suggest it being an almost inevitable conclusion that regulatory control and outright banning of coral and other marine life importation is close at hand. Closer than we might all think.

Join the fray and let it out!

 

[maxdout]

wow, might as well stop the SW hobby if that law gets passed.

 

[djscribz]

we could potentially see a massive inflation over the next few years unless aquacultured products become more mainstream.

 

[MrMikeB]

An excerpt that sums up the bills' intent:
"IN GENERAL... it is unlawful
for any person toâ€"
(1) take any covered coral reef species within waters under the jurisdiction of the United States;
(2) import into or export from the United States any covered coral reef species;
(3) possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraphs (1) or (2); or
(4) attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) through (3)."

This is how it typically works with the government. Make everything illegal to get control of the situation, then slowly allow it back in under tight regulatory control and authority.

At the very least I would expect the cost of reefing will skyrocket dramatically initially while the demand is at its highest and supply is shot. This has prompted me to focus my efforts of responsible reef conservation through captive propogation research... although I fear I may be a day late.

Keep in mind this bill has not passed (obviously), and will typically go through many revisions before it put to a vote (if at all). Given the current makeup of Congress and the initial 'feel good' aspect of such a bill, it might just make it through. What do you think?

 

[maxdout]

i think that along with the whole global warming idea... this most likely will get passed or something similar. Or at least I hope that if something like this passes, it will be a less strict version. (lesser of 2 evils) and of course USA is going to be the biggest collector of these type of things. We are hobbyist... and i know that there are other pple in other countries that does it as well but i don't think it is to the extent of americans (we are spoiled ;| ). If that was the case we'd be in for a world of hurt already.

 

[MrMikeB]

According to the market research, the U.S. accounts for over 80% of the importation of marine life for non-sustenance type of activities - meaning we import them for something other than to eat them. I am not too sure how this figure was arrived, but I would imagine it stands to reason.

Perhaps if we imported Tangs for food... heh heh heh

 

[shiveley]

Isn't that bill from 2004?

 

[H20Sidhe]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9794872#post9794872 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by MrMikeB
An excerpt that sums up the bills' intent:
"IN GENERAL... it is unlawful
for any person toâ€"
(1) take any covered coral reef species within waters under the jurisdiction of the United States;
(2) import into or export from the United States any covered coral reef species;
(3) possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraphs (1) or (2); or
(4) attempt to commit any act described in paragraphs (1) through (3)."

Mike,

The way I read the bill, it says unlawful UNLESS the collector can prove to the appropriate secretaries that they are not using destructive practices; destructive practices are defined as cyanide, dredging, and explosives. I think as responsible reef-keepers we agree in theory with those restrictions.

The problem for the collectors becomes how to prove the absence of something (much more difficult than proving the presence of something) to the satisfaction of the secretaries listed. If this bill passes, the process of obtaining permits may become prohibitive for small business owners/individual divers. If anyone can manage the red tape, it will be a few large companies who will then be in a position to monopolize the trade & set prices as they see fit.

Maybe the hobbiests coulda/shoulda been proactive in addressing these issues before now, but hindsight is pointless & now is the time we have. We can write letters to our congress-people, but the truth is that while the hobby has a small impact compared to the other forces destroying the oceans' reefs - we do have some impact & we are the easiest to restrict.

Before we can take the stand that we are actually good for the reefs through our captive propagation programs, we need to continue to develop those programs to the point where we can at least fill our own hobby's needs. We can't repopulate the oceans with frags - frags don't have enough genetic diversity. We aren't propagating corals through sexual reproduction yet - although the technology is there. Why not? Maybe the motivation hasn't been there. In short, although we don't like being pushed, maybe it's what we need. The handwriting has been on the wall long enough.

 

[MrMikeB]

The original bill from what I gather was called the Coral Reef and Propagation Act of 2004 which was sent to subcommittee for review. As with most things in our legislative branch it seems they are reactionary in terms of priorities. I think the recent reports on Global Warming (or lack thereof depending on which camp you belong to), and Earth Day being yesterday are bringing about new found attention.

 

[matttaylor]

While this bill has good intentions, it is just another example of how the government thinks it knows whats best for us. This bill has been floating around for 3 years now, and still hasn't been passed, rejected, or from what i see (i could be wrong) revised. One problem with this bill is that it only covers corals in American waters and endangered species. It would be almost impossible to ban all corals, fish, and inverts since on a daily basis a new species is discovered and imported before it is identified.

I feel that there is a need to somewhat regulate the hobby, but within reason and without forcing the reef keeping public to remove and dispose of aquacultured specimins. Hobbyists tend to make most breakthroughs in our hobby because researchers are more interested in discovering medicinal uses as apposed to proper husbandry techniques. Some corals are extremely easy to propagate and are grown by us, as opposed to being collected from the wild, so why should they be banned. In addition, why should it become illegal to own something that has been raised and grown over several years in captivity? It shouldn't, but under that bill it would be.

 

[MrMikeB]

I think its pretty clear from my point of view the bill's intention is to stop the import of reef life altogether, through outright restriction or through the typical government oversight that becomes such a bureaucracy that the end goal is achieved through attrition. Personally, the whole idea of the bill being focused on the idea of destructive practices is a not so thinly veiled attempt to smokescreen the real purpose of banning imports altogether and playing the empathy card. I think it safe to say everyone here, and anyone with a conscious, would agree that cyanide bombing of reefs for profit is something you could not vote against.

Even if the goal is to make folks jump through hoops and hurdles for all the right reasons, if the bill passes and goes into affect, the import will pretty much cease altogether while importers/wholesalers/lfs/hobbyists/etc get their head around the new scene and way of doing business. Not to mention the government figuring its own processes out for handling audits, applications, oversight, etc. Like you pointed out the ones that are savvy enough to withstand the test of time and pressure will remain while the others will quickly die off which would cause a new pricing and availability model to go into affect. Joe Blow diver can no longer head out on his boat and collect fish/corals and sell them to the local wholesale front like is commonplace now.

So as controversial as it might be given our direct implications... what do you all think about the Bill in its current form? Are you for it or against it and why?

 

[Nu2SW]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9795807#post9795807 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by matttaylor
One problem with this bill is that it only covers corals in American waters and endangered species. It would be almost impossible to ban all corals, fish, and inverts since on a daily basis a new species is discovered and imported before it is identified.

How many fish and corals actually come from American waters... VERY few and that would be from hawaii. They are covering on banning anything from being imported into the US from anywhere in the world.

"(5) The term ‘‘foreign commerce’’ includes any
transaction between persons within one foreign country, between persons in 2 or more foreign countries,
between a person within the United States and a
person in a foreign country, or between persons
within the United States, where the coral reef species in question is moving in any country or countries outside the United States."

SO this cover's Indonesia, Fiji, Marshall islands, Hawaii and anywhere else.

 

[matttaylor]

In it's current form, i am completely against it. This bill will turn all of us into criminals. There needs to be some hobbyist and industry involvement in a bill of this nature.

 

[djscribz]

im 100% for the bill. if saving the reefs means giving up this hobby, id rather find a new hobby to ensure my kids will some day get to see the beauty of our world.

^ i guess this is a bit dramatic. id just like to see certain practices banned, even if it means spending more on livegoods.

it also might be time to invest in some stony corals considering they make up reefs, i feel sps and lps will eventually cost 2-3x the price they cost now.

 

[pv1191]

There is no provision for what is already here. So everything will be subject to seizure and possible prosecution. I understand conservation and I'm all for it. But this is crap! The eco freaks will get something through sometime. I just hope it is not this. It would kill and entire industry world wide and open up and black market that would make all of criminals. however if you did have the means you could make ALOT of money. Look at Pablo Escobar. Before he got whacked he was reported to be one of the top 5 richest men in the world. And he was just slingin dope. Coral is much more profitable even now. Ban it and the sky is the limit for what you can charge.

 

[MrMikeB]

Ironically, I call my reefing habit..well just that... a habit. Might even be more expensive than dope.

This is great feedback... always like seeing different point of views on these types of things. When this came out originally I thought it was just your typical feel good legislation put forth to satisfy constituents and pet projects but really had not much a chance of success given the makeup of the legislative body. Not to get too political, but with mounting pressure on conservation and being more friendly to the environment practically in your face every day, I think the upcoming political change that is pretty much a guarantee is exactly the recipe needed for more drastic changes. When a country is outraged at the current pace or direction it is heading, is typically when you see radical shifts in policy.

What does this all mean? Just the larger possibility something like this could make its way into law by riding the current political momentum and frustration by the country to do something different than its doing now.

As for me, I am opposed to this legislation. I believe in conservation and being responsible for our actions just like the next reefer. In fact so much do I believe in it I have started the California Center for Reef Conservation and funded it for the purpose of studying and understanding reef conservation through captive raising and propagation of marine life. I am hoping my efforts are able to give a little back to the hobby and the cause in general. Even with that background I do not agree with this legislation for a couple reasons. One is that I do not think the government has proven its capable of managing much of anything effectively, let alone overseeing trade and collection practices for that are not under our own jurisdiction. The other reason is I think it simply is not effective at addressing the issue it sets out to solve. Taking an extremist approach has never solved anything in my book and although I agree 'something' needs to be done, I do not feel this 'something' is the answer.

Could go on for ages, and might already have.

 

[matttaylor]

If this does ever pass, i'll be the first black market dealer in the area. Everyone that has my phone number in the area should save it. I'm gonna be a millionaire!

My name is Ivana Humpalot
I live at .....

 

[H20Sidhe]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=9797146#post9797146 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by pv1191
There is no provision for what is already here.

Read the bill more carefully. We get to keep what we already have. There is no further habitat destruction from what is already in our tanks. Some of our critters never came from the reef in the first place. The others do not: "present a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species or of its coral reef ecosystem; or (ii) result in high mortality rates for individuals of that species due to poor survivorship in transport or captivity."

 

[Sheldon337]

Nothing has been done on this bill since July 2004.

The synopsis given to the Senate Ways and Means Committee indicated the following that the following would be exempted:

(2) a cooperative breeding program; or (3) an aquaculture and mariculture facility; (4) scientific, museum, or zoological purposes; or (5) personal consumption. Denies an exemption for species taken using any destructive collection practice (e.g., reef-dredging, explosions, or poisons).

I wouldnt worry about it.

 

[Sheldon337]

Nothing has been done on this bill since July 2004.

The synopsis given to the Senate Ways and Means Committee indicated the following that the following would be exempted:

A cooperative breeding program; or (3) an aquaculture and mariculture facility; (4) scientific, museum, or zoological purposes; or (5) personal consumption.

And an would be denied for species taken using any destructive collection practice (e.g., reef-dredging, explosions, or poisons).

I wouldnt worry about it.