Bill HR 669

[Doodaa]

I agree with you Darth but this bill won't fix that problem because the sales will then go underground...

This is the whole problem and there aren't any good or easy answers. I like the analogy to guns in that if someone wants them bad enough, they'll get them. I want to shoot a fully automatic gun in my backyard just for the thrill of it, but I can't. Bills or laws such as this, as Nemo said, only punish law abiding citizens as they won't be able to keep such items. The ones that don't follow the law are the ones that are actually causing these types of bills to be considered in the first place.

I can go on and on, but it just frustrates me Somebody always seems to find a way to spoil a good thing somehow.

I know this will upset a lot of people, but part of me just wants to say why even care? Nature has a way of working everything out. Just because it doesn't suit us (humans) doesn't mean it isn't ok. Invasive species can take over, but when it gets too populated, something will come in and take advantage of it. Then we won't like that either so we'll complain even more and then new laws will be made. It's never ending.

As you can tell, I can see both sides and niether is right, but majority rules!

[Nemo Keeper]

I couldn't agree more!!! No one is ever completely satisfied....

[Ninong]

The subcommittee met yesterday for discussion on HR 669 and heard witness testimony by several people on this issue.

Here is the video of the entire meeting. (1 hr & 45 min)

If I remember correctly, bills similar to this one have come up in the past and didn't even get out of committee. I remember reading something about this a few years ago but maybe it wasn't as heavily sponsored and didn't get as much attention.

I don't think HR 669 is going anywhere.

[Parrothead]

Hey Ninong,

I haven't watched the meeting yet, but have read up on this as well, I agree with you as to HR 669 going anywhere, as you said it will more than likely die in commitee.
imho I believe if it does go anywhere, I believe it will be aimed more at Reptiles, furry creatures, and a few select fish and aquarium plants, and I think worst case scenario is we all would have to register and be licensed to keep some of our creatures, that wouldn't surprise me abit because there would be fees to acquire the license, thus generating revenue for the goverment. Thats if it gets that far. I really don't see it affecting the aquarium trade all that much if it does pass. Just my thoughts.

Tanks,
Robert

[Ninong]

Robert,

That was just a subcommittee meeting. I did watch the entire hour and 45 minutes of boring video. The subcommittee chair person simply read from the prepared text outlining the problem and why something should be done about it. The subcommittee ranking member reported that he was very surprised at the amount of "interest" expressed by people all over the country who voiced their opinions on this legislation. It is reported that more than 50,000 people sent in emails and letters expressing their "interest."

The ranking member is of the opinion that the bill, as currently proposed, is simply not going to work. The subcommittee chairperson pointed out that this is just a starting document that is open to improvement. Someone suggested that rather than having two lists, one for approved species and one for unapproved species, it would be better to have only one list that names unapproved species.

A single list naming unapproved species would be the best way to go as far as the hobby is concerned. That's what you have in some European countries. Unfortunately, even those countries (e.g. Germany) go overboard when they decide which species should be added to the banned list. Instead of banning by species, or even genus, they have a tendency to ban by family.

The bill as currently proposed would establish a list of approved species (mostly dogs and cats, etc.) and a list of unapproved species (mostly lions and tigers and Burmese pythons, etc.) and anything not on either list could not be imported unless the importer PAID to have the government run an investigation to determine if that species is a threat to our environment or not. The problem is that there are literally tens of thousands of species that would end up in limbo that would have to be investigated before they could be imported.

Just think about it for a minute. No one can predict how many different species of polychaetes, molluscs, crustaceans, cnidarians, etc. might be hitchhikers on imported live rock. And if any of those potential hitchhikers end up on the unapproved list, all live rock would be banned. That would suit some groups just fine because they want to ban the import of all live rock.

There is no way that they are going to put out a list of approved species that includes the more than one thousand species of marine fish that might be imported for the marine aquarium hobby. The bill as currently written would require the importer to pay the cost for each species to be investigated. Whoever wrote this bill is not in the hobby or doesn't care about the consequences. This bill was strongly influenced by those who want to ban the import of all non-native species of animal life. Period. PETA, for example, not only believes that nothing should be imported, they believe that nothing should be kept in captivity. They would love to see the closure of all zoos and public aquariums.

P.S. -- Another problem with the bill as currently written that was pointed out in the meeting is that it would apply to all 50 states and US territories equally even though species that might be a serious threat in Hawaii or Florida are not a threat in Wisconsin. And then someone else pointed out that if the bill is revised to allow for different lists based on individual states or regions, what would you do about people who have to move from one state or region to another. Would they have to leave their "pets" behind?

Another question that came up was what to do about people who already own "pets" that might be put on the unapproved list. There was virtually no discussion at this meeting about the reefkeeping hobby. I believe the word "aquarium" might have come up only once or twice and there was no mention at all of corals or other reef animals. Reptiles were mentioned a few times.

[Ninong]

It was obvious from the testimony at the subcommittee meeting that the government agencies that would be tasked with coming up with these two lists do NOT have the resources to adequately investigate thousands of different species, which is why the legislation as currently written proposes a list of approved species and a list of unapproved species as a starting point.

Everything that is not on either one of those two lists could not be imported until after the importer paid the full cost of an investigation. That means everything not on the approved list is on the unapproved list even if not yet named to that list.

[Parrothead]

Well we get to thank irresponsible pet/fish/reptile owners for this, I know here in florida the tiger oscar is considered a game fish down in the miami intercoastal waters, and a few other places. People have bought these cute little tank busters not knowing or being told that they will quickly outgrow that little 20 gallon tank they sold you, and they dump them. thats just an example, I see reptiles, primarily snakes and some of the lizard sp. But who knows. Maybe it will get swept away. Besides as you mentioned what about the people who already own certain items, what are they going to do, come in my house and take my reef tank? Enforcement will be a mother on this one.

Robert

[Ninong]

A few years back, when California proposed banning the entire Caulerpa genus, we were able to talk them into banning only 9 species: Caulerpa taxifolia and 8 other species that either looked like C. taxifolia (e.g., C. mexicana) or species that might be invasive if released into Southern California waters (e.g., C. racemosa). However, when the law came out, it did say that mere possession of any of those 9 prohibited species was a violation of the law.

As far as I know, not a single hobbyist has ever been charged under that law. At least two importers in Southern California were fined $10,000 each for repeated violations. I think that was a warning shot across the bow. Some of the banned species are being sold in California by out-of-state online vendors who willingly ship them to California customers. Other, more responsible, online vendors have notices on their website that that item cannot be shipped to California.