as stated above there is a 50/50 split, with the tie-breaking vote going to the VP, however, there is currently one Democratic Senator in the hospital so depending on when this is voted on there will not be a democratic majority, even if there was there would have to be 0 out of 50 republicans (52 if you want to include Manchina nd Sinemea) who would not Filibuster the bill which would require 60 votes to save it. In all likelihood, unless nobody cares about this bill and it just gets passed "under the table" its not making it past the Senate.
This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521
- Thread starter ThRoewer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
This bill, passed on nearly complete party lines, will be reconciled with S.1260 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/1260) before any vote. Many provisions in the crazy D-produced house version will not stand - this will likely be one of them. That said, the most important thing to do, if you really care about these things, is to identify who is writing and lobbying to place text like this into these bills. What will be difficult for many is that what we will likely find is that many of the environmental groups supported by hobbyists and industry people alike are the very ones either supporting, or creating, these anti-trade efforts. Many of these environmental groups are not friends of the hobby. So be careful where you send your money. Maybe even ping them and ask them, without leading the question, how they come down on these provisions in HR4521. We are continuing to place info on this bill up on www.reefingreport.com if you want access to some of the things we have dug into and found so far.
Last edited:
A Young Reefer
Valuable Member
I saw the name snorkel bob and peta, and I knew that this is up to no good.
I think people need to reprioritize their problems, how about we first end world famine and provide children with a better future then start creating organizations and enacting laws to ban the trade of animals and end a hobby that is heading to a much more sustainable future?
why is it not people for the ethical treatment of humans?
Don't get me wrong I do not support any inhumane practices on animals, but there is much more important things that people need to care about.
I think people need to reprioritize their problems, how about we first end world famine and provide children with a better future then start creating organizations and enacting laws to ban the trade of animals and end a hobby that is heading to a much more sustainable future?
why is it not people for the ethical treatment of humans?
Don't get me wrong I do not support any inhumane practices on animals, but there is much more important things that people need to care about.
Also, our weekly livestream is tonight at 5/8PM PST/EST on youtube (https://www.youtube.com/c/reefingreport) or facebook (https://www.facebook.com/ReefingReport)
Malcontent
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,225
- Reaction score
- 1,200
Never going to give up my thylacines.
Malcontent
Valuable Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2018
- Messages
- 1,225
- Reaction score
- 1,200
Strange how we ban species that can't survive except in HI and south Florida but we subsidize feral cat colonies across the nation.
Peace River
Thrive Master
Staff member
Super Moderator
Reef Squad
Reef Squad Leader
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Article Contributor
Hospitality Award
Article Administrator
Reef Pumpkin Carver
This is a highly charged subject that has the potential to affect our hobby in some way so thank you for engaging in this discussion here and other places as you deem appropriate. While you are expressing your thoughts, please remember that political rants are not in line with the R2R terms of services.
I highly doubt any politician wrote the text in this bill. They rarely do. It was likely given to them from some special interest group(s) who told them this is the way to curtail invasive species and preven coronavirus. Don't believe me, here is proof - read this over-the-top bit of praise - https://awionline.org/press-releases/america-competes-act-passes-house-big-wins-animals - many "animal welfare/rights" groups with great names are not friends of our hobby. Another one is the Sierra Club, Earth Justice, and the list goes on and on. The politicians are just their tools.
SUPPORT HB2154 to end the aquarium fish trade — CapitolWatch | Sierra Club of Hawaiʻi
Protect Hawai‘i’s reef life from the commercial aquarium fish trade! HB2154 - ending the commercial harvest of marine life for the aquarium pet trade has been scheduled for a hearing this Thursday, Feb. 6th at 9:15 AM ( agenda here ). This bill is the highest priority issue for our Hawai‘i
www.hawaiicapitolwatch.org
Protecting Hawai'i’s Reef from the Aquarium Trade
Aquarium collectors capture hundreds of thousands of fish and invertebrates from Hawaiʻi’s reefs every year. Alarmingly, the Hawaiʻi’s Department of Land
earthjustice.org
Taylor810
Community Member
Hopefully the regulators don't find out about palytoxin...
Sean Clark
7500 Club Member
I'll argue that road signs are involved in more injuries to people annually than palytoxins.
@Thales will be a guest on our livestream tonight at 5PM discussing this topic with Mark and me. Please join us!
EDIT: After some clarification with @mdb_talon I dont think this will be as big of an impact as the new outlets have suggested with the language as proposed. However, the language is vague for minimal quantities.
@brmc1985
I understand the amendment is requiring both A AND B. Hence its white listed and the law can be interpreted as the articles states. If you believe I am wrong, please let me know.
Furthermore, B does not state the timeframe that the decision will be made in and further increases the financial and regulatory burden. How do you prove a negative? That it doesn't have an injurious effect? Loin fish are invasive in Florida, not in Colorado. Can they do blanket genus whitelists? Bill says species. How do we prove every species in the genus will not cause injurious effect to all of the USA?
Last edited:
Looks like it changes the Lacey act from mainly importing into the continental USA to interstate commerce.
Sharkbait19
10K Club member
In all seriousness, this is not good. Every single time this act is amended, the pet industry dies more and more. And quite frankly, these past few years have been hard enough for local fish stores, with frequent imports being so difficult these days. I seriously hope this doesn’t get passed, because if it does I have two options:
1) say goodbye to my reefing future, or
2) go to the lfs and stock up on every last dangerous species I can find. If they want my pack of hungry piranhas, they can stick their hands in and grab the fish themselves.
Yes i do believe you misunderstand. For part A one of the two criteria must be met("i" or "ii"). Part B requires the Secretary of Interior to essentially approve it but that is not needed if Part A applied. That is why there is an "or" between Part A and B.
Again i have some concerns with the amendments and would rather it not pass, but do not believe in any way that the way some are representing it is anywhere near accurate. It simply does not match the actual language of the bill(lets not forget Coral is not part of this). I find it is hyperbole to inflame the various hobbyist groups and believe they are using dishonest means to do so which is my problem.
This bill is really about controlling newly introduced wildlife entering the US and I may be in the minority here but I dont think that is a bad thing at all. I would actually support the amendments personally if they would define "more than minimal quantities"
Similar threads
