Anemone_Fanatic
Valuable Member
Article and section? I don't think the Founding Fathers knew what an aquarium was, let alone said anything about it in our founding document.
Banggai Cardinalfish to be banned!? Even aquacultured ones!?
- Thread starter Nutramar Foods
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Article and section? I don't think the Founding Fathers knew what an aquarium was, let alone said anything about it in our founding document.
Townes_Van_Camp
Valuable Member
You need a civics class.
How laws are made | USAGov
Learn how a bill becomes a law, and how the process is different in the U.S. House of Representatives than in the U.S. Senate.
www.usa.gov
Nowhere dose that say to "defer to bureaucrats. Doesn't have to be specifically about aquariums. This is how guns have been attacked and the supreme Court continues to uphold that bureaus don't make laws.
Yet the bureaus continue to try. Sometimes they are stopped, others not.
Anemone_Fanatic
Valuable Member
You need a civics class.
How laws are made | USAGov
Learn how a bill becomes a law, and how the process is different in the U.S. House of Representatives than in the U.S. Senate.
Nowhere dose that say to "defer to bureaucrats. Doesn't have to be specifically about aquariums. This is how guns have been attacked and the supreme Court continues to uphold that bureaus don't make laws.
Yet the bureaus continue to try. Sometimes they are stopped, others not.
I don't think you understand what's going on with this. The law hasn't been passed yet. It's still going through the process, and if found to be unconstitutional, will be stopped. Maybe read the link you posted. If you're really so angry at this, then go reach out to your local representative.
OP
OP
Great question- and this can be accomplished though transparency in the supply chain for Banggai. Its all of our responsibility to be informed hobbyists, store owners, and industry operators, and deal with responsible suppliers who share our same values and passion for the animals and habitats.
Townes_Van_Camp
Valuable Member
I do. It's not a bill. It's a bureau writing code. Let me know when it's a bill being run through Congress.
Anemone_Fanatic
Valuable Member
In what sense do you think you're a victim of bureaucrats here? I'm curious as to why you think this is such as violation of your freedoms. People "defer to bureaucrats" all the time, it's a normal thing that happens.
Anemone_Fanatic
Valuable Member
Agreed. But it isn't enough to ask suppliers to be transparent. Many of them would make greater profits off of keeping open their old supplies of wild caught fish, and just being deceitful about their origins.
Townes_Van_Camp
Valuable Member
Normal doesn't mean legal. Politicians do things all of the time that are illegal yet normalized. Doesn't make it legal.
My liberty? None because I don't and won't ever own a cardinal. But as to those culturing cardinals got a living in the states. It's a massive encroachment.
We should stop though because I prefer liberty to statism. You clearly prefer to do things the state way. Let's part while cordial.
Anemone_Fanatic
Valuable Member
I've already seen a few people who seem to be under the impression that this is a ban. It isn't. It just stops imports and exports. If anything, this will help American fish breeders. Here's some specific text.
"This rule proposes to prohibit the import into and export from the United States and its territories. No other prohibitions under section 9 of the ESA would be applied. A person would continue to be able to deliver, receive, carry, transport, ship, sell, offer to sell, purchase, or offer to purchase Banggai cardinalfish in interstate commerce. Although we do not have current data, we believe there are a number of Banggai cardinalfish in the United States. However, we have no information to suggest that interstate commerce activities within the United States are associated with threats to Banggai cardinalfish or would negatively affect any efforts aimed at the recovery of wild populations of the species, and therefore we are not proposing to prohibit those activities."
It's not intended to harm anyone, or take away any liberties. It's intended to protect a species which has had 90% of its population disappear in the last 40 years.
Agree to disagree.
Solasis
Active Member
Good. Clearly we have decimated their wild population in the past - and they are still endangered. Let's support our fish breeders here since we clearly can't tell between captive bred vs wild caught from over seas. At worst, we pay $5-10 more for a fish that is healthy and sourced sustainably.
Something I have noticed with the saltwater side of the hobby is an entitlement to everything. Too many people think they should be able to have anything they want no matter the ramifications. Take copperbands/moorish idols or even worse obligate corallivores. Why are we still allowed to purchase these animals when most end up dead in a year?
Something I have noticed with the saltwater side of the hobby is an entitlement to everything. Too many people think they should be able to have anything they want no matter the ramifications. Take copperbands/moorish idols or even worse obligate corallivores. Why are we still allowed to purchase these animals when most end up dead in a year?
Anemone_Fanatic
Valuable Member
Yes. About 50% of wild collected fish die before they even reach the states. It's almost enough to make me quit the hobby. We are immensely privileged to be able to enjoy these animals in our own homes. However, we must first consider the fish themselves.
Townes_Van_Camp
Valuable Member
A lot of people don't. Probably the reason they stopped airing those. Can't have a population that understands government and civics if you want to trounce them with it.
The same reason laws are written in legalese. So nobody can understand it.
Laws actually passing through the legislative branch. So retro. Unelected bureaucrats know what is best for us. Stop resisting.
Daniel@R2R
Living the Reef Life
Staff member
Super Moderator
Reef Squad
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Photo of the Month
Article Contributor
Hospitality Award
Article Administrator
Reef Pumpkin Carver
R2R Secret Santa 2023
My Tank Thread
Just a reminder that we have a rule that calls members to be nice to one another and treat one another with dignity and respect even when disagreeing with one another. Please be sure to follow that rule. Individuals who are found to be insulting or condescending toward other members may be removed from this conversation.
By identifying the species on the no take list the act will prohibit trade in that species. Source of the fish/animal isn't considered in the ban.
The last time this was discussed the environmental groups who want to save the species in the wild said that there was almost no significant captive breeding program. That has changed, but the effort to ban that trade and wild caught is their goal.
More importantly, NOAA got many thousand replies that were spawned by "add your name and click" software from the websites of the anti-fish groups and 4 replies from folks who wanted to allow the fish to not be listed (and allow captive breeding to be expanded.)
So now we have captive breeding, and if the hobbists don't take the time to reply to NOAA then you can kiss this fish goodbye. I wonder what they will declare endangered next? Try coral from Australia. The cry of alarm that the reef is dying has already been raised. We are concerned, but the truth is that coral census and reef health is no older that SCUBA. There is no long term data set but they have found that at the edges of coral zones the heat stress routinely stresses the coral. Lots of other nonsense is bantered about but for sure if you want to keep the hobby available without being a criminal then you should click on the links in the first post and for the hobbys sake leave a note for NOAA to try and balance the flood that will come from the "No fish is good fish" people who are pushing this agenda.
Sorry for the rant, but if I didn't tell you'all now you could blame me later. We all need to stick together to keep the hobby safe for everyone.
EDIT: If I wasn't nice or sounded out of tune please forgive me. I am passionate about the subject but don't want to hurl insults or such at anyone. Peace to all!
Northern Flicker
Valuable Member
By identifying the species on the no take list the act will prohibit trade in that species. Source of the fish/animal isn't considered in the ban.
The last time this was discussed the environmental groups who want to save the species in the wild said that there was almost no significant captive breeding program. That has changed, but the effort to ban that trade and wild caught is their goal.
More importantly, NOAA got many thousand replies that were spawned by "add your name and click" software from the websites of the anti-fish groups and 4 replies from folks who wanted to allow the fish to not be listed (and allow captive breeding to be expanded.)
So now we have captive breeding, and if the hobbists don't take the time to reply to NOAA then you can kiss this fish goodbye. I wonder what they will declare endangered next? Try coral from Australia. The cry of alarm that the reef is dying has already been raised. We are concerned, but the truth is that coral census and reef health is no older that SCUBA. There is no long term data set but they have found that at the edges of coral zones the heat stress routinely stresses the coral. Lots of other nonsense is bantered about but for sure if you want to keep the hobby available without being a criminal then you should click on the links in the first post and for the hobbys sake leave a note for NOAA to try and balance the flood that will come from the "No fish is good fish" people who are pushing this agenda.
Sorry for the rant, but if I didn't tell you'all now you could blame me later. We all need to stick together to keep the hobby safe for everyone.
EDIT: If I wasn't nice or sounded out of tune please forgive me. I am passionate about the subject but don't want to hurl insults or such at anyone. Peace to all!
I don’t think NOAA should be taking our selfish opinions nor environments lobbyist opinions when coming to a science based decision.
Just because we have reef tanks does not mean we should get whatever we want. If we can’t reliably trust exporters to only send fish from the farms, then you have to remove the flow of fish completely.
Aqua-cultured coral and fish are abundant. Our hobby is not “less” because we don’t have free reign to keep whatever we want.
Actually, the folks who have spent the money to captive breed these fish would not risk having the whole shipment seized to mix in wild fish. The governments in the places where these are bred don't like getting played and they would shut the operation down if that seemed to be the case. Folks catching them in the wild and shipping them as captive bred would be ratted out by the legit operations to prevent unfair competition. The fish importation business is kind of a small niche market and it has improved with regulation, but yes there will always be poachers. Making the laws work to catch them should be the goal, not to deprive legit fish breeders a chance to make a living for their families.
That's the process that the government has created for environmental reviews. Public comment periods for these things is routine. Not having a public comment period would probably make the proposed rules to be challenged and stuck down in court.
So you’ve reviewed the science behind their decision or are you just taking them at face value? What percent of cardinals are bred and imported vs bred in the US? What percent are wild caught and imported?
Similar threads
