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

[mdb_talon]

So by that logic, there’s pretty much no animal that could be imported since the US has such a diverse environment. No fish/coral since it could be invasive to Hawaii. No tundra animals since they could be invasive to Alaska. Desert animals, no luck, Arizona and New Mexico. Even rainforest animals would likely be invasive to the redwood forests in California.

The part you miss is this applies to newly imported species....not ones we are already importing "more than a minimal amount". The only issue i have with it is they dont define "minimal amount".

 

[Mr_Knightley]

The part you miss is this applies to newly imported species....not ones we are already importing "more than a minimal amount". The only issue i have with it is they dont define "minimal amount".

exactly, 'minimal amount' could apply to deeper-water corals and fish that are difficult to collect on a regular basis.

 

[ThRoewer]

The section in question starts on page 1661. The key section is this one on page 1663:

This is worded ambiguously enough to be used to ban nearly everything.

 

[Nate Chalk]

Unground hobbiest trade would still exist.

thats how i get majority of my corals. We will persevere.

 

[brmc1985]

exactly, 'minimal amount' could apply to deeper-water corals and fish that are difficult to collect on a regular basis.

Yes but the second part is could carry disease or be invasive.

 

[ThRoewer]

The part you miss is this applies to newly imported species....not ones we are already importing "more than a minimal amount". The only issue i have with it is they dont define "minimal amount".

The part you are missing is that it has never been decisively documented what is actually imported. The species names on import papers are at best educated guesses. And how would a customs officer keep one damselfish from another?

 

[brmc1985]

The section in question starts on page 1661. The key section is this one on page 1663:

This is worded ambiguously enough to be used to ban nearly everything.

Again no. It’s says unless 1. Imported into the US already in more than minimal quantity 2. Transported between states etc. this is literally saying that species we are already importing will not be affected.

 

[Sean_B]

Invasive isn’t just could an animal live in that environment. It’s more of “could this animal reproduce and take over and severely impact the natural habitat”

I think we can all agree that all major salt water bodies (locations where marketable fish are caught) are connected?

If fish that could thrive in a potential region, haven't already, why would there be a threat due to a possible influx in fish keepers releasing their spoils? Crap, most of the threads I read or happen upon are about keeping fish alive.

what's the chances of someone releasing their "wallets" back into the ocean? this is not the same topic as "foreign snakes in Florida".

just my 2*

 

[fishingchuck]

I could be wrong but I believe it could ban the interstate transport of many animals. While this wouldn’t cause problems with what we already have if you couldn’t sell/trade I’ve state lines it would be detrimental to a lint of people in different animal hobbies

 

[brmc1985]

I think we can all agree that all major salt water bodies (locations where marketable fish are caught) are connected?

If fish that could thrive in a potential region, haven't already, why would there be a threat due to a possible influx in fish keepers releasing their spoils? Crap, most of the threads I read or happen upon are about keeping fish alive.

what's the chances of someone releasing their "wallets" back into the ocean? this is not the same topic as "foreign snakes in Florida".

just my 2*

Search about lion fish in Florida

 

[i_am_mclovin]

 

[ThRoewer]

Exactly. The act is basically saying nothing is changing with common species in the trade. NEW SPECIES or ones that are not common like rare lizards, snakes, monkeys etc can be affected. But we don’t need every new dang animal in captivity. The intent of the act is to ban animals that could be harmful to humans via diseases (see Covid 19), livestock disease and invasive to the environment. That’s it

Common species in this context would be goldfish and guppies, things that are easily identified by the average customs officer. Any saltwater fish or coral from the wild could (and often does) carry Vibrio or other pathogens that could be harmful to humans. One case, however rare, could be enough to enact a prohibition.

 

[brmc1985]

I could be wrong but I believe it could ban the interstate transport of many animals. While this wouldn’t cause problems with what we already have if you couldn’t sell/trade I’ve state lines it would be detrimental to a lint of people in different animal hobbies

It’s only banning the interstate transport of injurious animals. And the act literally calls out as one of the reasons to not ban an animal is that it is being transported across states already.

 

[brmc1985]

Common species in this context would be goldfish and guppies, things that are easily identified by the average customs officer. Any saltwater fish or coral from the wild could (and often does) carry Vibrio or other pathogens that could be harmful to humans. One case, however rare, could be enough to enact a prohibition.

That is not the intent. Coral and fish are not going to create the next Covid 19. They are not dangerous to the general population and are not going to cause widespread disease so they would not be considered injurious.

 

[ThRoewer]

Again no. It’s says unless 1. Imported into the US already in more than minimal quantity 2. Transported between states etc. this is literally saying that species we are already importing will not be affected.

That is you assuming they identify species correctly and that there is actually conclusive documentation. And what is "more than minimal quantity"? Even the most numerous aquarium species that are imported are minimal in quantity if compared to species that are imported for human consumption. It opens the door to prohibitions being enacted pretty much on a whim.

 

[ThRoewer]

That is not the intent. Coral and fish are not going to create the next Covid 19. They are not dangerous to the general population and are not going to cause widespread disease so they would not be considered injurious.

Since when are laws interpreted strictly by their original intent?

 

[fishingchuck]

Palys can’t be injurious?

 

[ying yang]

I'm still waiting for world to end from 2012 ^_^

 

[mdb_talon]

The part you are missing is that it has never been decisively documented what is actually imported. The species names on import papers are at best educated guesses. And how would a customs officer keep one damselfish from another?

Again thay is simply not true. Importing any coral or ornamental fish into the US requires the scientific name on the paperwork. Listing "damsel" or "acropora" does not pass inspection by F&W. Speaking of F&W all imported wildlife must go through them to be imported. They document the scientific names of what is being imported so yes we do have a way of knowing what is currently being imported.

Of course at times the documentation may not be exactly correct, but for practical purposes they have a very good idea of everything that is currently being imported(via legal means anyway).

 

[Sean_B]

Search about lion fish in Florida

Lion Fish were introduced, presumably in the 80"s. Exotic BS livestock has been around for a long time, and will never be completely eradicated.

I can't/don't see the need to place parallels on an entire hobby9more precise fish hobby) based on a single or even a few species. Most online fish suppliers carry what, 50, 60 maybe a 100 different types of fish?