This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521

[Aquius]

Good and sensible bill.

I also keep birds (parrots hawks/falconry). My dream parrot is a Golden Conure. Literally impossible at present due to interstate restrictions. I would also love to fly an Aplomado falcon someday. This bill will kill that dream since most birds bred here in the States originally came from South America.

Not to be too on the nose about this, but if you think there will not be regulatory overreach if this bill passes, you are very very naive, or are smoking crack.

 

[mdb_talon]

My dream parrot is a Golden Conure. Literally impossible at present due to interstate restrictions.

Off topic but why cant you get one still? They were removed from endangered list a couple years ago and i believe should be allowed to be shipped between states now? If not you could always do a "breeders trade" to your state? I know in my state they always been available as we have had a breeder with them for awhile, but i believe they are pretty much readily available almost everywhere now.... For a cost

 

[lost66]

When can we expect any outcome for this bill? Is there any date it will be voted?

 

[Aquius]

Off topic but why cant you get one still? They were removed from endangered list a couple years ago and i believe should be allowed to be shipped between states now? If not you could always do a "breeders trade" to your state? I know in my state they always been available as we have had a breeder with them for awhile, but i believe they are pretty much readily available almost everywhere now.... For a cost

Last I checked, not in Ohio. No breeders here. I considered setting myself up as one, but I have my toes dipped in so much that I can honestly say my application wouldn't pass scrutiny. So we just stick with what we can. Sun Conure, Red Tail or Kestrel, Great Danes, reef tanks, etc...

Just the regulatory aspect of falconry alone has made me want to pull my hair out on occasion. I can honestly say that if one tenth of that interferes with reefing, get ready for a $2.5k purple tang, $1,200 designer clown, and $800 pulsing xenia.

Reefing would essentially die.

 

[MnFish1]

What parts do you find vague(other than the "more than minimal quantities" part)?

To me it seems pretty specific otherwise.

That is the main one - what does it mean? How many clown triggers do you think are imported - compared to clownfish? My guess it would fall under the category 'minimal'

 

[Grumblez]

#1 This is only for 3 years. It is not a plan to stop invasive species. It is a plan to weaken animal keeping hobbies.

#2 Many non native species are already here. Owners need to be responsible and we have to have rights.

#3 Invasive species can be smuggled in or get in by other non hobby imported methods. This bill will largely not stop invasive species. They are also not even sure how the lionfish got here. Many experts think it was NOT from the aquarium hobby. There are many possibilities. I agree things like lionfish are a big issue and should be solved. I do not agree this is the way to do it.

These are all bad points.

1. Someone show me one source that substantiates this. It was cosponsored by Marco Rubio last I checked he wasn't exactly an Animal rights activist.

2. Okay... Yeah people should be responsible, but they aren't, how many feral cat colonies are there? Even if everyone was responsible cats sometimes run away despite best intentions. Not saying house cats should be banned just using them as an example.

3. The classic why make anything illegal when people can just break that law argument. And yes, no-one is saying the pet trade is the number one source of invasive species but that doesn't mean it's not problematic.

"REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to define the term “minimal quantities” for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(A) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code"
There's no way the 10,000s of thousands to thousands of each of the common fish that are bought/sold/imported don't meet this threshold. And even if an animal doesn't meet that threshold for it to be permanently banned it has to be determined to be in some way to be an invasive threat.

Could this bill potentially be disruptive in ways of delaying livestock shipments or "blacklisting" somewhat rare/niche but mostly harmless exotic animals? Yeah sure but it's not gonna be the nail in the exotic animal trades coffin.

 

[MnFish1]

We are 100% for black lists and we are 100% for doing all we can to prevent any invasive species.

MAKE NO MISTAKE. This is not to protect against invasive species. It's a 3 year proposed legislation change. That is not going to stop invasive species threats. Those wont go away in 3 years. It is designed to weaken these hobbies and industries.

Fish are 100% in this bill. It is a threat to our ability to keep them in aquariums. Without fish we have no industry. This includes aquacultured fish as well!

We are not for the broad language of this bill that gives much more power and decision making to the government. It is so broad in fact, that all of the legal experts we spoke with are confident it could include coral as well.

We know for sure that this will change things to a white list. Past situations have proved that getting animals added to a white list is very tough and/or impossible. Instead of the government having to prove that it is bad we would have to prove that 100% it could not be bad in any part of the country since this is federal and not handled state to state. States have always had the power to regulate this in the past. This would change things in a big way.

It is not just imports. It regulations state to state commerce and travel of animals. If they arent on the white list you can NOT ship or take a zoanthids across state lines. Could zoanthids be injurius to humans? I think so. Many animals can if not given the proper respect and care they should be. It could be a slippery slope into us having no hobby and no rights to own aquarium life.

For example if it is determined (by the government) that a coral or fish could be injurious to the eco system in FL or Hawaii we would not even be allowed to ship it from Ohio to another state (Even if that state is not FL or Hawaii). Your local fish store or online store likely wont be able to acquire any aquarium livestock to sell.

This bill is an overreach of government power at the federal level. They have tried this before and the reptile industry had to overturn it because it was not legal and fought them and won. Those things took a lot of time and money. Many people were out of business in the mean time and the hobby and industry suffered.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wanted to take the time to provide mine to you all who might care. I have spent a ton of time on this subject as my life's work literally depends on it. You can do with it what you wish.

We firmly believe in responsible pet ownership and we are firmly opposed to amendmets to the Lacey act.

I disagree with you that its not 'governmental overreach' - at least based on precedent. I agree with all of the rest - but they will do what they do.

Example - Is it possible for you/me to buy a giraffe? No. its forbidden. Its the same 'precedent' - right or wrong

 

[Grumblez]

Idk this sounds to me like you believe it will only apply to species that aren’t available today. When if the species available today are not “minimal quantities” then they will be affected.

I’m not trying to argue with you but it does seem like something that could be a negative for the industry.

They still have to meet the second criteria.
"the Secretary of the Interior determines, after an opportunity for public comment, that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to the United States and publishes a notice in the Federal Register of the determination."

Worst case scenario from this bill it seems like is temporary ban on the more "niche" fish aka mostly the expensive ones.

 

[Aquius]

Off topic but why cant you get one still? They were removed from endangered list a couple years ago and i believe should be allowed to be shipped between states now? If not you could always do a "breeders trade" to your state? I know in my state they always been available as we have had a breeder with them for awhile, but i believe they are pretty much readily available almost everywhere now.... For a cost

Addendum...

I just looked it up and you are absolutely correct about Golden Conures!!! I had honestly given up. Thanks for prompting me to look into it...

The counterpoint is the vagueness of the bill, especially whitelists. Since I brought up Golden Conures, take a look at this...

Regs backfire and make Golden Conure recovery more difficult.

 

[MnFish1]

These are all bad points.

1. Someone show me one source that substantiates this. It was cosponsored by Marco Rubio last I checked he wasn't exactly an Animal rights activist.

2. Okay... Yeah people should be responsible, but they aren't, how many feral cat colonies are there? Even if everyone was responsible cats sometimes run away despite best intentions. Not saying house cats should be banned just using them as an example.

3. The classic why make anything illegal when people can just break that law argument. And yes, no-one is saying the pet trade is the number one source of invasive species but that doesn't mean it's not problematic.

"REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to define the term “minimal quantities” for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(A) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code"
There's no way the 10,000s of thousands to thousands of each of the common fish that are bought/sold/imported don't meet this threshold. And even if an animal doesn't meet that threshold for it to be permanently banned it has to be determined to be in some way to be an invasive threat.

Could this bill potentially be disruptive in ways of delaying livestock shipments or "blacklisting" somewhat rare/niche but mostly harmless exotic animals? Yeah sure but it's not gonna be the nail in the exotic animal trades coffin.

I dont know about the bill - but just for fun - google PETA's attitude towards aquaria - freshwater, saltwater, etc - THEY SAY THEY ARE UNETHICAL AND SHOULD BE BE BANNED. So - just curious what should the average person with an aquarium expect? The the rules are going to become less - or more stringent? You have to be kidding - or have rose colored glasses on

 

[mdb_talon]

That is the main one - what does it mean? How many clown triggers do you think are imported - compared to clownfish? My guess it would fall under the category 'minimal'

Yes i completely agree with that concern. I dont think in any way the intent is to really ban 99.999% of what is currently in our hobbies, but since they dont define minimal quantities we dont really know what they will decide(and of course it will largely depend on who has power when/if this ever passes). That is the only part i really do worry about overreach.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes i completely agree with that concern. I dont think in any way the intent is to really ban 99.999% of what is currently in our hobbies, but since they dont define minimal quantities we dont really know what they will decide(and of course it will largely depend on who has power when/if this ever passes). That is the only part i really do worry about overreach.

Its too bad we dont know. right? Ask PETA?
EDIT - im not for or against PETA here - I'm just passing along their words of wisdom about keeping 'fish in glass boxes'

 

[Grumblez]

We are 100% for black lists and we are 100% for doing all we can to prevent any invasive species.

MAKE NO MISTAKE. This is not to protect against invasive species. It's a 3 year proposed legislation change. That is not going to stop invasive species threats. Those wont go away in 3 years. It is designed to weaken these hobbies and industries.

Fish are 100% in this bill. It is a threat to our ability to keep them in aquariums. Without fish we have no industry. This includes aquacultured fish as well!

Did you miss this part of the bill "During the period during which an emergency designation prescribed under this subsection for a species is in effect, the Secretary of the Interior shall evaluate whether the species should be designated as an injurious wildlife species under the first sentence of this paragraph".

You make it sound like this bill only last for 3 years then disappears. Its saying they can blanket ban species for a max of 3 years and past that they would have to prove a species is invasive.

I'm sorry ether you're acting on misinformation or bad faith. Is the bill problematic? Maybe but you and well many other people are flat misrepresenting it. Unfortunately, something very common when it comes to bills/laws,

 

[Aquius]

They still have to meet the second criteria.
"the Secretary of the Interior determines, after an opportunity for public comment, that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to the United States and publishes a notice in the Federal Register of the determination."

Worst case scenario from this bill it seems like is temporary ban on the more "niche" fish aka mostly the expensive ones.

Temporary ban of how many years? I can personally vouch that people like us, whatever the type of animal, whether it be fish, coral, birds, etc, do more for the preservation of these animals than we harm them. Bills like these seem well intentioned, but the practical result is that people who would ordinarily get into the hobby simply don't. And that is a loss.

 

[pulpfiction]

Yes i completely agree with that concern. I dont think in any way the intent is to really ban 99.999% of what is currently in our hobbies, but since they dont define minimal quantities we dont really know what they will decide(and of course it will largely depend on who has power when/if this ever passes). That is the only part i really do worry about overreach.

Problem is, they have been after the reptile hobby for a long time. Though this also effect many other hobbies. Trying to take over having a say for who can have what inch by inch. They are the kind who, when given an inch, will take a mile with their power. This act was previously in a lawsuit that they lost in. This is the same act but with slight wording change so they can get around the lawsuit.

 

[mdb_talon]

Problem is, they have been after the reptile hobby for a long time. Though this also effect many other hobbies. Trying to take over having a say for who can have what inch by inch. They are the kind who, when given an inch, will take a mile with their power. This act was previously in a lawsuit that they lost in. This is the same act but with slight wording change so they can get around the lawsuit.

Just to clarify. The snake ban was overturned because nothing like this bill was ever passed and the government tried to use the Lacey act as justification for the ban, but the Lacey act did not actually give authority to ban trade between states(other than Hawaii). You are right though this bill would give them that legal authority in the future if it passes.

 

[Grumblez]

I dont know about the bill - but just for fun - google PETA's attitude towards aquaria - freshwater, saltwater, etc - THEY SAY THEY ARE UNETHICAL AND SHOULD BE BE BANNED. So - just curious what should the average person with an aquarium expect? The the rules are going to become less - or more stringent? You have to be kidding - or have rose colored glasses on

PETA also doesn't think people should own dogs last I checked no one was worried about their dog being banned. I get your point that public consesus/laws will move towards restricting exotic animal trade. Will wild collection bans periodically come and go to various regions? Sure, but noone is going to ban aquariums.

Temporary ban of how many years? I can personally vouch that people like us, whatever the type of animal, whether it be fish, coral, birds, etc, do more for the preservation of these animals than we harm them. Bills like these seem well intentioned, but the practical result is that people who would ordinarily get into the hobby simply don't. And that is a loss.

A max of 3 years during which time it must be proven to be invasive to continue to be banned. Once again, yes I agree exotic animal trade does not normally harm the conservation status of most animals, especially fish. However, once again that's not the spirit of or written into this bill anywhere. It specifically relates to banning exotic animals determined to be potentially invasive.

There are other laws and regulations that relate to endangered animals and or animal welfare and that's a separate conversation.

 

[Aquius]

PETA also doesn't think people should own dogs last I checked no one was worried about their dog being banned. I get your point that public consesus/laws will move towards restricting exotic animal trade. Will wild collection bans periodically come and go to various regions? Sure, but noone is going to ban aquariums.



A max of 3 years during which time it must be proven to be invasive to continue to be banned. Once again, yes I agree exotic animal trade does not normally harm the conservation status of most animals, especially fish. However, once again that's not the spirit of or written into this bill anywhere. It specifically relates to banning exotic animals determined to be potentially invasive.

There are other laws and regulations that relate to endangered animals and or animal welfare and that's a separate conversation.

I noted my personal experience with Golden Conures. I had been pushing changes there for literally ten years before I gave up. The basic concept that the regs decided by the "suits" were actually negatively impacting the species they were "ostensibly" there to protect fell on deaf ears.

"We are the government, we can't be wrong..."

The whole point is that this bill opens a can of worms that will never go away. We flip out when Hawaii or Figi imposes a restriction. Imagine when a candy cane is under a three year review...

Or they just refuse to authorize anyway. They do that too. Legal or not. This bill gives them the leverage to try that angle. Don't give it to them.

 

[EyeCatchingCoral]

Some good input on the subject here:

Aquarium Apocalypse? Can Lacey Act Amendments Really Cripple

No, there is no

www.reef2rainforest.com

AND Here

 

[Clownreef]

Yep… sad and just dumb.