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

polyppal

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Feb 16, 2018
Messages
3,311
Reaction score
6,486
Location
Colorado
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Bertram capital, where are you? Our politicians need you!
meeting-southpark.gif
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
24,326
Reaction score
23,111
Location
Midwest
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
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.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
24,326
Reaction score
23,111
Location
Midwest
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
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..
Hawaii's Marine Fish Collection Ban Expands to Recreational Fishermen
 

fish farmer

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Nov 13, 2017
Messages
3,879
Reaction score
5,680
Location
Brandon, VT
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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.
And that's the tough one, making the law AND being able to prove that fish x came from person x.

Folks up where I'm at spread black crappie into literally any water body for fishing, same thing with other species.

We have laws on the books about transporting, importing, possessing, tossing fish carcasses near waterbodies, black listed waters where you can't move baitfish from, lists for all pet species as well.

A dead pacu was found on one of the power plant racks a few years ago. That one didn't make it through the fall.

There was an incident a few years ago when a mosquitofish was found in baitfish coming from Arkansas. Arkansas has a large industry around baitfish/feeder fish. They have clear Best Management Practices with regard to mosquitofish since they can be invasive, probably not much north of Nebraska, but still...one farm didn't follow the protocol for treating the ponds and they got included in the bait haul. Fines were issued to the receiving bait wholesaler and some bait was destroyed, not sure if the offending farm got slapped.
 
OP
OP
ThRoewer

ThRoewer

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
1,953
Location
Fremont, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Every animal no matter what it is could be deemed injurious by some pencil pusher.
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.
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
24,326
Reaction score
23,111
Location
Midwest
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
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.
Exactly
 
OP
OP
ThRoewer

ThRoewer

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
1,953
Location
Fremont, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I find it humorous that there are some people that still think politicians do anything for the benefit of anyone but themselves.
There may be a few idealistic first termers, but any career politician is primarily concerned with staying in office for as long as possible.
 

bnord

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
3,408
Reaction score
15,325
Location
Athens
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
So first of all there is a problem out there and Florida is the best example - have a friend who is a park ranger in the glades, he says the biggest job he had 15 years ago was making sure the visitors kept the raccoon-safe lids on the garbage cans. Says he hasn't seen a raccoon or an opossum for 5 years. Nile Monitors are breeding in south Florida eating every egg they can find, tegus are in Northern Florida, South Georgia wiping out the quail population. Ever walk a canal or drainage ditch in south Florida and not see it chocked with cichlids and tilapia? And of course torpid iguanas raining from the trees every 5 years is a fact. And south of there I have participated in Lionfish round ups in Belize; they are yummy, and plentiful.

And yes, you can blame a hurricane for blowing off roofs instead of people letting them go if that makes you feel better, but they were still here for the pet trade.

But each those are species should have been likely suspects for settling in a habitat and exploiting it. Seems states should establish state laws with sound input from professionals for what can be allowed in the state. Cobras in parts of the country where it doesn't freeze is never a good idea. Florida for nearly any poisonous reptile (just like you can't keep an aggressive pit but) is never a good idea.

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.

Of course that's just my opinion, and I could be wrong
 
OP
OP
ThRoewer

ThRoewer

Valuable Member
View Badges
Joined
Jul 16, 2016
Messages
1,251
Reaction score
1,953
Location
Fremont, CA
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
...
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.
...
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.
 

bnord

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Aug 15, 2020
Messages
3,408
Reaction score
15,325
Location
Athens
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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.
I understand that. My point is that we should get ahead of it and work at a more practical - local level
 

mdb_talon

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
4,938
Reaction score
7,809
Location
Illinois
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
By that it is a doomsday device because anything is invasive or harmful somewhere and pretty much everything would have to be banned everywhere.

Just 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.
 

mdb_talon

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
4,938
Reaction score
7,809
Location
Illinois
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I understand that. My point is that we should get ahead of it and work at a more practical - local level

The problem with local regulation is that invasive species dont know borders. Boas dont care if southern mississipi is a different state. Lionfish still have not figured out that the coastal waters of the Carolinas, mississipi, etc are not part of Florida.
 

Porpoise Hork

Well-Known Member
View Badges
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
998
Reaction score
931
Location
Houston
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
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.

How dare you make suggestions to proposed laws that actually make sense... ;Jawdrop
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
24,326
Reaction score
23,111
Location
Midwest
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Just 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.
Curious can you point to the portion that clearly states this? (Or quote it)? When I read it - it seemed contradictory in places
 

MnFish1

10K Club member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 28, 2016
Messages
24,326
Reaction score
23,111
Location
Midwest
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
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.
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).

One of the problems that I don't think I've seen discussed - is that at least one of these laws (I'm not sure if it was this particular one) - was thought (months ago) - to cause problems because - lets say fish or coral etc are imported into Florida - even though the intent is to export them to other states - importing them into Florida and then shipping them could be considered 'illegal'.
 

mdb_talon

2500 Club Member
View Badges
Joined
Dec 6, 2010
Messages
4,938
Reaction score
7,809
Location
Illinois
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@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.
 

Julchen

New Member
View Badges
Joined
Jun 17, 2021
Messages
6
Reaction score
5
Location
Liberty Township 45044
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
@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.
+1
 

HAVE YOU EVER KEPT A RARE/UNCOMMON FISH, CORAL, OR INVERT? SHOW IT OFF IN THE THREAD!

  • Yes!

    Votes: 32 45.7%
  • Not yet, but I have one that I want to buy in mind!

    Votes: 9 12.9%
  • No.

    Votes: 26 37.1%
  • Other (please explain).

    Votes: 3 4.3%
Back
Top