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

[ThRoewer]

Please end this repetitive thread. I know it's been almost 2 minutes so people need to be reminded but let's try to go a little longer....

You might be on to something...I'm sure some have stuff to add, but the chips are on the table for the most part and there are several threads already discussing it.

This was the very first thread about the Lacey Act Amendment.
I would not have started it had there been another thread about it at the time.
If you want to complain about repetitiveness, please go to those other threads that were started after this one and complain about redundancy there.

 

[131696]

You'll have to get everything from your state no other state for fish and corals that's all ,nothing can be importEd over state lines .Get to know you LFS again which is a good thing give back to mom and pop stores again.or start boot legging them corals and sell them for 3 times as much like moonshine..lol

 

[|Frank|]

Error Code: 404

Not sure if this was posted yet. This resource helps you write to the senators in your area to oppose lacy act.

 

[131696]

Won't end the hobby Will end WWC well all distributors of corals ,you can still get them but have to get them in your state only ,Can't cross state lines with any fish or coral If it passes. Get to know your fellow reefers in your state .or bootleg corals for 3 times the cost but if caught years in prison.

 

[131696]

If they did this years ago they wouldn't have anacondas or iguanas in Florida that's causes huge problems for the state and it goes the animals to other states also just 1 example. It needs to be managed but fish and corals ,well people put fish in lakes ,river that's not part of this county mess up the echosystem and back in ocean the wrong ocean they came from it's all our fault.

 

[WVNed]

I welcome our new police state. I see many others do as well.

SWAT will be kicking your door in because someone reported you have illegal fish.

All this time all I had to do was throw some coral in the local river. Who knew?

 

[richiero]

Won't end the hobby Will end WWC well all distributors of corals ,you can still get them but have to get them in your state only ,Can't cross state lines with any fish or coral If it passes. Get to know your fellow reefers in your state .or bootleg corals for 3 times the cost but if caught years in prison.

Lol right if I go to NJ I can’t bring it home to new york … yeah im buying a coral for my newphew who lives in NJ

 

[richiero]

Won't end the hobby Will end WWC well all distributors of corals ,you can still get them but have to get them in your state only ,Can't cross state lines with any fish or coral If it passes. Get to know your fellow reefers in your state .or bootleg corals for 3 times the cost but if caught years in prison.

If anyone is ok with this you’re part of the problem in this country. The corrupt government needs to stay out of our lives !

 

[richiero]

If they did this years ago they wouldn't have anacondas or iguanas in Florida that's causes huge problems for the state and it goes the animals to other states also just 1 example. It needs to be managed but fish and corals ,well people put fish in lakes ,river that's not part of this county mess up the echosystem and back in ocean the wrong ocean they came from it's all our fault.

Right b/c people won’t get what they want from other sources ‍, they are going to keep these animals out Just like they keep drugs and illegal aliens out

 

[richiero]

Socialism is real !

 

[Unitylover]

Right b/c people won’t get what they want from other sources ‍, they are going to keep these animals out Just like they keep drugs and illegal aliens out

makes no sense. drugs and illegal aliens are well, illegal. They're bad and dangerous. Animals are a bruh

 

[Unitylover]

Fish are also a large part of our industry as well and we depend on them for our systems here and they are a big part of the hobby itself. The industry can not survive without fish. Our tanks would proably not survive without the fish and inverts as well.

I am also concerned they will find a way to include coral. Only time will tell.

I do wish it was more clear and easily understood. Once these things get into law then we would learn quickly what was impacted. It is very hard to say right now.

they have included them as inverts :skull:

 

[Unitylover]

I dont understand what they think will come from this. It will prob lower the economy, and millions of jobs lost.

 

[Unitylover]

also this is not gonna fix anything. Just gonna make black markets. What happened during prohibitation

 

[131696]

There taking away our freedoms 1 at a time that way it don't seem as bad ,they took away out privacy years and years ago with the start of 1 camera at a red light and nobody fought it.we are so gullible,we let them do it Because we don't fight anymore so basically it our fault till we all stand as 1 the government will do as it pleases.

 

[damsels are not mean]

Socialism is real !

 

[Lyss]

Have to admit that just made me lol

 

[Reefing102]

Unless I’m missing it, it looks like it worked. Using a word search, I can’t find the Lacey act mentioned in the senate version sent back to the house to resolve differences.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/4521/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22HR4521%22%2C%22HR4521%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1

https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4521/BILLS-117hr4521eas.pdf

 

[ppaige]

I will ignore what seems like a jab and give an answer anyway

To me it is pretty clearly designed to give the federal government an easier way to control invasive species. They tried to control some snakes through the lacey act and lost in court because as currently written the lacey act does not give authority to prevent transportation between states(other than hawaii). In some scenarios they have this power via other laws(like when the species is on endangered list). This bill gives them that power.

The other obvious thing the bill does is anything not added to the initial whitelist(and we could debate all day what will be on the list whitelist initially) would default to blacklist. I am in the minority, but this is an entirely sensible thing to do in my opinion. I mean we can blacklist pythons and lionfish all day it does no good if they are already here with a foothold. The current process of whitelisting by default and then blacklisting once the damage is done is just ignorant.

Finally this obviously shifts control on blacklisting invasive species from the states to the federal government. Again i am in the minority(within the hobby) but i find this completely sensible. Same example i have used multiple times....invasive animals dont know borders. States should not suffer ecological destruction because a bordering state does not make sensible bans on truly destructive invasive wildlife.

So to sum it up i think the bill does a lot and gives a lot of power to control invasive species. And yes of course PETA supports it because their entire ideology is based on restricting anyone from owning/eating/ animals etc and this bill will add some resteictions. That in itself does not make it a bad bill in my opinion.

I will ignore what seems like a jab and give an answer anyway

To me it is pretty clearly designed to give the federal government an easier way to control invasive species. They tried to control some snakes through the lacey act and lost in court because as currently written the lacey act does not give authority to prevent transportation between states(other than hawaii). In some scenarios they have this power via other laws(like when the species is on endangered list). This bill gives them that power.

The other obvious thing the bill does is anything not added to the initial whitelist(and we could debate all day what will be on the list whitelist initially) would default to blacklist. I am in the minority, but this is an entirely sensible thing to do in my opinion. I mean we can blacklist pythons and lionfish all day it does no good if they are already here with a foothold. The current process of whitelisting by default and then blacklisting once the damage is done is just ignorant.

Finally this obviously shifts control on blacklisting invasive species from the states to the federal government. Again i am in the minority(within the hobby) but i find this completely sensible. Same example i have used multiple times....invasive animals dont know borders. States should not suffer ecological destruction because a bordering state does not make sensible bans on truly destructive invasive wildlife.

So to sum it up i think the bill does a lot and gives a lot of power to control invasive species. And yes of course PETA supports it because their entire ideology is based on restricting anyone from owning/eating/ animals etc and this bill will add some resteictions. That in itself does not make it a bad bill in my opinion.

While I do agree with you mdm_talon and I believe the bill will do more good than harm. I do have to ask where in the bill (H.R. 4521) does is say that a whitelist will be created? I’ve read the Lacey Act as well as the the new purposed bill that everyone seems to be freaking out over and I’m not finding where they’re purposing a whitelist.

 

[mdb_talon]

While I do agree with you mdm_talon and I believe the bill will do more good than harm. I do have to ask where in the bill (H.R. 4521) does is say that a whitelist will be created? I’ve read the Lacey Act as well as the the new purposed bill that everyone seems to be freaking out over and I’m not finding where they’re purposing a whitelist.

It depends on which version of the bill you are looking at. If you look at the version the house passed it is below. The senate passed version does not include this language. They have to reconcile differences so in theory it could still be included in any final bill. I put in bold the sections directly relating to the white list.

SEC. 71102. LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS.

(a) In General.--Section 42 of title 18, United States Code, is
amended--
(1) in subsection (a)(1)--
(A) by inserting ``or any interstate transport
within the United States,'' after ``or any possession
of the United States,'' the first place it appears;
(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
(C) in subsection (b), inserting ``knowingly''
before ``violates''; 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
America COMPETES Act of 2022, is not prohibited under
subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless--
``(A) during the 1-year period preceding the date
of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, 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, Puerto Rico, or any territory 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.

SEC. 71103. SHARK FIN SALES ELIMINATION.

(a) Prohibition on Sale of Shark Fins.--
(1) Prohibition.--Except as provided in subsection (c), no
person shall possess, acquire, receive, transport, offer for
sale, sell, or purchase shark fins or products containing shark
fins.
(2) Penalty.--A violation of paragraph (1) shall be treated
as an act prohibited by section 307 of the Magnuson-Stevens
Fishery Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1857) and
shall be penalized pursuant to section 308 of that Act (16
U.S.C. 1858).
(b) Exceptions.--A person may possess a shark fin that was taken
lawfully under a State, territorial, or Federal license or permit to
take or land sharks, if the shark fin was separated after the first
point of landing in a manner consistent with the license or permit and
is--
(1) destroyed or disposed of immediately upon separation
from the carcass;
(2) used for noncommercial subsistence purposes in
accordance with State or territorial law; or
(3) used solely for display or research purposes by a
museum, college, or university, or other person under a State
or Federal permit to conduct noncommercial scientific research.
(c) Dogfish.--
(1) In general.--It shall not be a violation of subsection
(b) for any person to possess, acquire, receive, transport,
offer for sale, sell, or purchase any fresh or frozen
unprocessed fin or tail from any stock of the species Mustelus
canis (smooth dogfish) or Squalus acanthias (spiny dogfish).
(2) Report.--By not later than January 1, 2027, the
Secretary of Commerce shall review the exemption contained in
paragraph (1) and shall prepare and submit to Congress a report
that includes a recommendation on whether the exemption
contained in paragraph (1) should continue or be terminated. In
preparing such report and making such recommendation, the
Secretary shall analyze factors including--
(A) the economic viability of dogfish fisheries
with and without the continuation of the exemption;
(B) the impact to ocean ecosystems of continuing or
terminating the exemption;
(C) the impact on enforcement of the ban contained
in subsection (b) caused by the exemption; and
(D) the impact of the exemption on shark
conservation.
(d) Definition of Shark Fin.--In this section, the term ``shark
fin'' means--
(1) the unprocessed or dried or otherwise processed
detached fin of a shark; or
(2) the unprocessed or dried or otherwise processed
detached tail of a shark.
(e) Enforcement.--The provisions of this section, and any
regulations issued pursuant thereto, shall be enforced by the Secretary
of Commerce. The Secretary may use by agreement, with or without
reimbursement, the personnel, services, equipment, and facilities of
any other Federal agency or any State agency or Indian Tribe for
purposes of enforcing this section.
(f) State Authority.--Nothing in this section may be construed to
preclude, deny, or limit any right of a State or territory to adopt or
enforce any regulation or standard that is more stringent than a
regulation or standard in effect under this section.
(g) Severability.--If any provision of this section or its
application to any person or circumstance is held invalid, the
invalidity does not affect other provisions or applications of this
section which can be given effect without the invalid provision or
application, and to this end the provisions of this section are
severable.