***FISH BAN!***

[Malcontent]

On the freshwater forums they don't know whether to panic about this or the traditional boogeyman, "super-chlorination."

 

[italquam]

Can we.please.delete these threads? Or types of threads? Lol
Ty
D

Why ? You make zero sense saying that

 

[MinnieMouse2]

Sample letter (also lots of Talking Points below)
I implore you to stop the Lacey Act amendments found in the America COMPETES Act (Section 71102) as your constituent, dedicated advocate for ecological conservation, and pet owner. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
Not only would these amendments be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes (which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act), but millions of pet owners would be harmed. As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S. While a concern for only one state, all other states feel the unjust implications and restrictions. For example, even after Florida had addressed injurious threats from certain snakes, the federal government still listed them as injurious and harmed thousands of owners and businesses across the U.S. where the snakes could not possibly have an impact. And now, while Florida has completely banned these species, herpetoculturists in all other states would suffer from the overreaching government action should these amendments pass into law. Even though peer-reviewed science found that these species risks to the continental U.S. were isolated to southern Florida and possibly a small spot in Texas (both states that had already regulated these species), the federal government felt compelled to take tyrannical action.
If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets. This restriction would include prohibitions of interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency. This upholds that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them. States continue to take measures regarding such species and since the climate varies so greatly across the U.S., the states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone. I cannot elaborate enough on the need to regulate injurious species at the state and local levels, not nationwide by a federal agency.
The interstate transport ban under the Lacey Act is not my only concern. The bill’s section titled Presumptive Prohibition on Importation is especially alarming. This section would allow for every non-native species to be treated as injurious, even if not listed as such. This language creates a white list (accepted) that produces a black list (banned) by default. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness is disturbing!
Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously. I also believe that the role of the States should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Have a good day.
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points

1. These amendments will be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes, which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act.
2. Millions of pet owners will be harmed by this misuse of the Lacey Act.
3. As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S.
4. If one state has a threat, that state can address it. All other states should not suffer the unjust implications and restrictions.
5. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
6. Peer-reviewed science has been previously ignored in favor of garbage pseudo-science to artificially validate biased injurious species listings.
7. If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets.
8. This restriction would include prohibitions on interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family.
9. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
10. The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency.
11. The Court ruling upheld that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species.
12. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
13. Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states.
14. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them.
15. The states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone.
16. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness from this power grab is disturbing.
17. Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously.
18. The role of the state wildlife agencies should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements.
19. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
20. These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American.
21. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust.
22. The aquaculture industry alone anticipates losses of nearly half a billion dollars.

 

[MinnieMouse2]

Well-managed harvesting for the ornamental trade actually has a positive impact on wild reefs as it gives people whose only resource is the ocean a much more lucrative business on a per-animal basis than fishing for food would be. It actually significantly reduces strain on the reef because just a few ornamental fish are worth dozens if not hundreds of the same kinds of fish caught for food. The ornamental fish trade genuinely has almost no negative impact on reefs (unless cyanide or something is used), but food fishing these same areas (which has a lot of overlap in terms of species) absolutely does have an effect.

I love and will support captive breeding efforts for a lot of reasons including biosecurity and getting better captive specimens generally, but it's just plain wrong to say that wild capture is bad (if it's not done poorly). Some species are hard or impractical to breed in captivity and it would be sad to lose wild caught fishes over a bunch of emotional and counterproductive arguments about reefers pillaging the reefs. The sad part is the places with some of the best managed fisheries like Hawaii and Australia are also the jumpiest when it comes to restrictions and bans... Which leaves the collection in the hands of places that use cyanide and don't rotate collection zones or collect much data on what they're doing.

I am sorry but this puts a lot of power into the hands of a few. Also law is very vague and open to whatever they want. Furthermore, captive breeding and coral aquaculture are still in their infancy. They can not keep up with demand. No stock , who is going to want to set up a reef tank? As for the cyanide, a lot of nations have new laws banning it. Chinese are doing more damage to the ocean than anyone. They clear out giant clams to near extinction and rake the seas for their food and pet trades. Having a few of these animals in our tanks and being a caring pet owner is probably a good thing for some of these animals.


Talking Points

1. These amendments will be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes, which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act.
2. Millions of pet owners will be harmed by this misuse of the Lacey Act.
3. As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S.
4. If one state has a threat, that state can address it. All other states should not suffer the unjust implications and restrictions.
5. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
6. Peer-reviewed science has been previously ignored in favor of garbage pseudo-science to artificially validate biased injurious species listings.
7. If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets.
8. This restriction would include prohibitions on interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family.
9. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
10. The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency.
11. The Court ruling upheld that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species.
12. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
13. Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states.
14. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them.
15. The states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone.
16. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness from this power grab is disturbing.
17. Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously.
18. The role of the state wildlife agencies should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements.
19. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
20. These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American.
21. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust.
22. The aquaculture industry alone anticipates losses of nearly half a billion dollars.

 

[MinnieMouse2]

Any link to the thread??

This web site has a lot of into on the Lacey act, what it means to the hobby, jobs, and even a letter you can easily send to a senator. https://usark.org/federal-legislation-threatens-pets-zoos-and-aquariums-and-biomedical-research/