The federal government already has the power to ban injurious species from importation. They also have the ability to investigate and enforce state bans on any injurious species. In theory the government already has all the power it needs to classify goldfish and koi as invasive species(as far as I am aware they havent) The big change in this bill is once it is listed as injurious then the federal government can prohibit interstate trade even if the state does not specifically ban that species. Because of this I am not sure I get your point. If the US wants to ban koi from importation today they have that legal ability..... yet they havent?
This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521
- Thread starter ThRoewer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The federal government already has the power to ban injurious species from importation. They also have the ability to investigate and enforce state bans on any injurious species. In theory the government already has all the power it needs to classify goldfish and koi as invasive species(as far as I am aware they havent) The big change in this bill is once it is listed as injurious then the federal government can prohibit interstate trade even if the state does not specifically ban that species. Because of this I am not sure I get your point. If the US wants to ban koi from importation today they have that legal ability..... yet they havent?
OP
OP
ThRoewer
Valuable Member
1. Nobody from the government side will add anything to the Whitelist of allowed species!
The industry will have to petition new additions, accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence that the new species will not create a problem ANYWHERE within the USA and its territories.
Who is ponying up the funds and manpower to do the research?
And since every species will be invasive somewhere, it basically makes additions impossible. And PETA & Co will do their best to torpedo any new addition attempts.
So, what isn't on the whitelist from the start is highly unlikely to get added to it later.
2. Just because a species is in the trade doesn't mean it will be white-listed. The fundamental issue in the aquarium trade is that species names are often incorrect or broadly applied to whatever looks close enough. This is especially the case on the exporter side. So it is extremely poorly documented what is actually imported. And as the government is concerned, only what is documented counts.
3. It really doesn't matter whether corals are included or not. The aquarium trade is predominantly fish, and without fish, few will be interested in keeping just corals.
The way this bill is written, it will effectively end the pet trade.
As for invasive species, much of the damage that cold be done has been done, in most cases hundreds of years ago, and not accidentally by the pet trade but intentionally because people thought it was a good idea to introduce species for hunting from Europe and Asia to the Americas (and Australia, various Pacific Islands,...). International shipping by sea also carried more invasive species than were ever introduced by hobbyists.
Pandora's box has already been open for way too long and closing it now will not do much. A lionfish 2.0 is rather unlikely to happen.
And these days, you have airlines spreading mosquitos and other harmful insect around the world., something this bill doesn't even touch upon.
Another aspect that seems to be complete forgotten by those advocating here in favor of the bill is that there are no exceptions for academia or preservation efforts. Especially tropical freshwater fish are seriously under threat of extinction and many species are now only maintained in aquaria. There are actually organized aquarists who are dedicated to maintaining certain species. All this would be axed by this bill.
There may be good intent behind this bill, but, as usual, the opposite of "good" isn't "bad" but rather "good intent".
The industry will have to petition new additions, accompanied by sufficient supporting evidence that the new species will not create a problem ANYWHERE within the USA and its territories.
Who is ponying up the funds and manpower to do the research?
And since every species will be invasive somewhere, it basically makes additions impossible. And PETA & Co will do their best to torpedo any new addition attempts.
So, what isn't on the whitelist from the start is highly unlikely to get added to it later.
2. Just because a species is in the trade doesn't mean it will be white-listed. The fundamental issue in the aquarium trade is that species names are often incorrect or broadly applied to whatever looks close enough. This is especially the case on the exporter side. So it is extremely poorly documented what is actually imported. And as the government is concerned, only what is documented counts.
3. It really doesn't matter whether corals are included or not. The aquarium trade is predominantly fish, and without fish, few will be interested in keeping just corals.
The way this bill is written, it will effectively end the pet trade.
As for invasive species, much of the damage that cold be done has been done, in most cases hundreds of years ago, and not accidentally by the pet trade but intentionally because people thought it was a good idea to introduce species for hunting from Europe and Asia to the Americas (and Australia, various Pacific Islands,...). International shipping by sea also carried more invasive species than were ever introduced by hobbyists.
Pandora's box has already been open for way too long and closing it now will not do much. A lionfish 2.0 is rather unlikely to happen.
And these days, you have airlines spreading mosquitos and other harmful insect around the world., something this bill doesn't even touch upon.
Another aspect that seems to be complete forgotten by those advocating here in favor of the bill is that there are no exceptions for academia or preservation efforts. Especially tropical freshwater fish are seriously under threat of extinction and many species are now only maintained in aquaria. There are actually organized aquarists who are dedicated to maintaining certain species. All this would be axed by this bill.
There may be good intent behind this bill, but, as usual, the opposite of "good" isn't "bad" but rather "good intent".
The bill includes language on what it does apply to(and again Coral is not included).... it does not detail what it does not apply to. I mean it does not list Iphones as being excluded either but I am pretty sure we will still be allowed to import Iphones.
Did any of those experts point out that because you've been importing them in the past year it doesn't apply?
Again this is incorrect. The Lacey Act includes provisions for permitting import of injurious wildlife for approved uses. This amendment does not stop that. The key part is here
"“Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation an emergency designation prohibiting the importation of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species.........."
There are already provisions in the Lacey Act allowing importation of injurious species and those would still apply. I am sure such provisions are not applicable to your home hobbyist, but they are certainly used and granted to research organizations.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Yes - so - then - I ask you - what is the purpose of the amendment? They can already ban injurious species?
MnFish1
10K Club member
the bill does not say that. It says 'minimal quantities' - which is yet to be defined
MnFish1
10K Club member
I just asked you to quote/copy/paste what you're talking about
MnFish1
10K Club member
If true, why is interstate transport of species 'not on the whitelist ' - which of course is not defined - not allowed. Its a poorly written piece of legislation - that is vague - adds questions not answers - and is in the end potentially going to ruin this hobby. (and btw. yes - im changing my opinion - I at first read it as - affecting snakeheads being released into the Mississippi. Now - I view it as diference
MnFish1
10K Club member
Can you just copy and paste the language? The iPhone thing (sorry to say) - is a ridiculous argument
MnFish1
10K Club member
Can you quote that section of the bill too?
LOL are you really asking me to retype my response to the question you already asked my opinion of and I already answered? See above. This amendment certainly does quite a bit.
I have copied and pasted the language multiple times in this thread. It really is a very small amendment. Anyway in bold below do you see any category that coral would fall under (hint: no). Coral is not a mammal, a bird, a fish, an amphibian, or a reptile. Again this is very different language than applies to the Lacey Act overall which makes sure to include essentially every living thing (other than when it comes to plants the Lacey Act has much narrower definition of what is included).
"
(a) In General.—Section 42 of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in subsection (a)(1)—
(A) in the first sentence, by striking “shipment between the continental United States” and inserting “transport between the States”; and
(B) by inserting after the first sentence the following: “Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation an emergency designation prohibiting the importation of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, as injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States, for not more than 3 years, under this subsection, if the Secretary of the Interior determines that such regulation is necessary to address an imminent threat to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. An emergency designation prescribed under this subsection shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, unless the Secretary of the Interior prescribes an effective date that is not later than 60 days after the date of publication. 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.”; and
(2) by adding at the end the following:
“(d) Presumptive Prohibition On Importation.—
“(1) IN GENERAL.—Importation into the United States of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the Lacey Act Amendments of 2021, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless—
“(A) during the 1-year period preceding the date of enactment of the Lacey Act Amendments of 2021, the species was, in more than minimal quantities—
“(i) imported into the United States; or
“(ii) transported between the States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States; or
“(B) 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.
“(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(1).”.
(b) Conforming Amendments.—Section 42(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—
(1) in paragraph (2), by inserting “and subsection (d)” after “this subsection”;
(2) in paragraph (3)—
(A) by striking “the foregoing” and inserting “paragraph (1) or subsection (d)”; and
(B) by striking “this Act” each place the term appears and inserting “this section”;
(3) in paragraph (4), by inserting “or subsection (d)” after “this subsection”; and
(4) in paragraph (5)—
(A) by inserting “and subsection (d)” after “this subsection”; and
(B) by striking “hereunder” and inserting “under such provisions”.
(c) Regulations; Effective Date.—
(1) 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, as added by subsection (a)(2).
(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (d) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(2), shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act."
Its been a good debate, but I am done with the thread unless there are actual updates to the bill that change the language. There is only so much debate you can have on a 1 page piece of legislation and I am not interested in debating what special interest groups from either side are saying about the bill when the language is clearly available for all of us to see (unlike many of the bills our Congress passes I will add).
‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Importation into the
7 United States of any species of wild mammals, wild
8 birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), am-
9 phibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any
10 such species, that is not native to the United States
11 and, as of the date of enactment of the America
12 COMPETES Act of 2022, is not prohibited under
13 subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless—
14 ‘‘(A) during the 1-year period preceding
15 the date of enactment of the America COM-
16 PETES Act of 2022, the species was, in more
17 than minimal quantities—
18 ‘‘(i) imported into the United States;
19 or
20 ‘‘(ii) transported between the States,
21 any territory of the United States, the Dis-
22 trict of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
23 Puerto Rico, or any possession of the
24 United States; or
Given that coral is both imported quite a bit AND transported between states on a daily basis this whole thing is a bunch of people freaking out because someone told them to freak out and apparently nobody can read for themselves. Even if you and to quibble about what minimial means , the (ii) bit makes the whole argument pointless.
I just read through this thread and wanted to say that unless I'm missing something, the link in the OP is to a special interest group petition that doesn't link to the actual amendment, only a "fact sheet and issue summary" and messaging crafted by a public affairs/comms firm to help activate folks like us to do what the interest group wants. Not saying what they want is nefarious or necessarily bad, but wanting to point out that it's all language built to nudge folks into action without having any further knowledge of what exactly they are acting on. I work for a public affairs/comms/PR firm and work on many advocacy campaigns -- some for issues I am passionate about and some not so much. All will employ similar tactics.
Edit: Also just for reference, product advertising is regulated to protect consumers -- so a big corporation or brand can't lie about their products to get consumers to buy them (well, they can, but they will be fined and get into serious trouble if they do). But political advertising is not regulated b/c it falls under political speech. It's up to the public to do due diligence and make sure what we're being fed is 100% true and we actually do agree with it.
Edit: Also just for reference, product advertising is regulated to protect consumers -- so a big corporation or brand can't lie about their products to get consumers to buy them (well, they can, but they will be fined and get into serious trouble if they do). But political advertising is not regulated b/c it falls under political speech. It's up to the public to do due diligence and make sure what we're being fed is 100% true and we actually do agree with it.
Last edited:
MnFish1
10K Club member
It doesn't matter to me frankly - the same conversation happened before the hawaii and Indonesia ban. They will do what they do - and we will pay 400$ for a yellow tang - if you dont think those things are related - I disagree
OP
OP
ThRoewer
Valuable Member
This would do more than jacking up the price...
MnFish1
10K Club member
@mdb_talon.
IMHO- you cannot read 'the amendment' alone - without reading the whole Lacey act. You already admitted that the Lacey act covers coral.
The way I read the language you quoted, is those are potential examples - not a list of everything that COULD be included.
But - just to back up a bit - I don't know if you saw my question or not - for a second, forget the 'specific language' debate - What is the PURPOSE of this bill? it is already illegal in most states for people do dump their pets/wildlife, into the wild. So - what exactly is this amendment supposed to achieve? IMHO - its designed to extremely limit the non-domestic animal trade.
IMHO- you cannot read 'the amendment' alone - without reading the whole Lacey act. You already admitted that the Lacey act covers coral.
The way I read the language you quoted, is those are potential examples - not a list of everything that COULD be included.
But - just to back up a bit - I don't know if you saw my question or not - for a second, forget the 'specific language' debate - What is the PURPOSE of this bill? it is already illegal in most states for people do dump their pets/wildlife, into the wild. So - what exactly is this amendment supposed to achieve? IMHO - its designed to extremely limit the non-domestic animal trade.
Similar threads
