But you failed to pay the required fee I mentioned.@WVNed I told you not to post that pic of me.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
But you failed to pay the required fee I mentioned.@WVNed I told you not to post that pic of me.
Bertram capital, where are you? Our politicians need you!
Only if they are hazardous to humans, animals or the environment.
Hawaii ban LOLZ
i was watching a new one episode of meat eater on Netflix and Rinella headed to Hawaii to spear fish. They were spearing Nasos, Koles.. absolutely freaking pointless..
And that's the tough one, making the law AND being able to prove that fish x came from person x.Is it - or is it not (asking an honest question) unreasonable to assume that any species originally from area A - thats released into area B has the potential for 'invasiveness' or 'taking over the native population. Seems like the law shouldn't concentrate so much on 'keeping fish' or coral - but rather making it a huge fine for releasing ANYTHING back from captivity into natural waters. We have lakes now - with 1000's of huge goldfish - started from people who bought one - and said - its getting big - lets put it into the lake. Problem - I dont know how you would ever 'prove' person A released fish A. But - having a huge penalty and advertising for this behavior would seem to go a long way in helping the problem. I made a post several months ago - when people said 'the Hawaii ban is no big deal' - posting what various animal rights people were saying - about keeping ANY aquarium let alone a reef aquarium. There is certainly an agenda out there whether correct or not - IDK. But - if this law passes - and is taken to the extreme - the companies making salt etc etc - are going to stop making it. So - IMHO - the people suggesting that there will still be a 'black market' trade are incorrect.
Yep! Any animal could carry diseases that are transferrable to humans.Every animal no matter what it is could be deemed injurious by some pencil pusher.
You can go to any of the places where our fish come from and find similar sights. Angels, tangs, wrasses,... all are also caught for human consumption in quantities that dwarf what is taken for aquariums. And they take the biggest ones, the breeders, and by that actually reduce the potential offspring.
ExactlyYep! Any animal could carry diseases that are transferrable to humans.
Probably best to ban them all. Or better just kill 'em all! Who needs wild animals anyway?
Oh, and humans also transfer diseases to humans, so better let's get rid of them as well...
You can go to any of the places where our fish come from and find similar sights. Angels, tangs, wrasses,... all are also caught for human consumption in quantities that dwarf what is taken for aquariums. And they take the biggest ones, the breeders, and by that actually reduce the potential offspring.
A collector told me once, that the guys he hires to catch aquarium fish for him normally go out and catch pretty much the same fish in much larger numbers to sell them on the fish market. So by paying the local fishermen more to catch a much smaller number of smaller fish for the aquarium trade, the number of fish caught is reduced. On top of that, by realizing that such little fish actually have value, the locals have a greater incentive to keep the reefs intact.
There may be a few idealistic first termers, but any career politician is primarily concerned with staying in office for as long as possible.I find it humorous that there are some people that still think politicians do anything for the benefit of anyone but themselves.
The amendment in its current form doesn't distinguish between Florida, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Alaska, or Guam. By that it is a doomsday device because anything is invasive or harmful somewhere and pretty much everything would have to be banned everywhere. A small country that lies entirely within one biogeographic region may handle things like that, but a nation like the US, one that encompasses regions from the arctic to the tropics, needs a more regionally tailored approach....
Agree that the amendment is not the doomsday message it is being presented to be, but seems to me that us hobbyists SHOULD be out front in helping to present the known risk species (snakeheads? do we really need snakeheads?) to help guide reasonable state by state requirements - matched with strict enforcement.
...
I understand that. My point is that we should get ahead of it and work at a more practical - local levelThe amendment in its current form doesn't distinguish between Florida, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Alaska, or Guam. By that it is a doomsday device because anything is invasive or harmful somewhere and pretty much everything would have to be banned everywhere. A small country that lies entirely within one biogeographic region may handle things like that, but a nation like the US, one that encompasses regions from the arctic to the tropics, needs a more regionally tailored approach.
By that it is a doomsday device because anything is invasive or harmful somewhere and pretty much everything would have to be banned everywhere.
I understand that. My point is that we should get ahead of it and work at a more practical - local level
The amendment in its current form doesn't distinguish between Florida, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Alaska, or Guam. By that it is a doomsday device because anything is invasive or harmful somewhere and pretty much everything would have to be banned everywhere. A small country that lies entirely within one biogeographic region may handle things like that, but a nation like the US, one that encompasses regions from the arctic to the tropics, needs a more regionally tailored approach.
Curious can you point to the portion that clearly states this? (Or quote it)? When I read it - it seemed contradictory in placesJust to clarify for everyone who thinks that as soon as they have power to declare a species invasive that they will determine all species are invasive. They already have this power!
This bill simply means if some new lizard is found in the amazon and someone wants to start importing it that by default it would be illegal unless/until it is added to the whitelist. Fish/reptiles/mammals currently being commonly imported or traded across state lines would automatically be whitelisted.
I'm guessing that most of the law is designed to prevent invasive species from taking over native populations - as compared to causing injuries to humans (though a Cobra released into Florida could be a problem).Yep! Any animal could carry diseases that are transferrable to humans.
Probably best to ban them all. Or better just kill 'em all! Who needs wild animals anyway?
Oh, and humans also transfer diseases to humans, so better let's get rid of them as well...
You can go to any of the places where our fish come from and find similar sights. Angels, tangs, wrasses,... all are also caught for human consumption in quantities that dwarf what is taken for aquariums. And they take the biggest ones, the breeders, and by that actually reduce the potential offspring.
A collector told me once, that the guys he hires to catch aquarium fish for him normally go out and catch pretty much the same fish in much larger numbers to sell them on the fish market. So by paying the local fishermen more to catch a much smaller number of smaller fish for the aquarium trade, the number of fish caught is reduced. On top of that, by realizing that such little fish actually have value, the locals have a greater incentive to keep the reefs intact.
+1@MnFish1
See the section below. It basically says any importation or transport between the states is prohibited UNLESS in the prior year the species was imported in "more than minimal quantities" (or already being transported between states). In other words the stuff we already are importing and trading between the states would not apply to the presumptive prohibition. Basically we start out with a whitelist that has the vast majority of legally traded wildlife already, but to import anything new it would have to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and add it to the whitelist. I know I am in the minority, but I actually think that is sound policy. Maybe if we had this in place years ago our coastal waters would not be full of lionfish. The only reason I dont support the bill is because of the "more than minimal quantities" clause and the fact that the amendment does not define what "minimal quantities" are. Will also point out in below that any of section A(i), A(ii), or B being true would add the species to the whitelist. It does not require all three to be true. Also will add that you can clearly see this amendment does not include Coral. Whether an oversight or intentional this would have no impact on coral importation/trade unless another amendment is made to also include coral.
“(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 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, 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.