[MarkS]

I wrote an e-mail about a week ago and got a call today.

I spoke with the man in charge with "staffing?" this bill. I got the obligatory thank you's and such and then we got down to business.

Apparently they have received hundreds of e-mails, letters and petitions from across the country. They were/are not quite prepared for this level of complaints and concerns. They are trying to admend the bill so that it only oulaws varieties of caulerpa that resemble C. Taxifola. This would mean all fern like varieties.

They are aware of the impact that this bill would/could have on the aquarium hobby and insist that that was not the intended outcome. They are aware of the use of live rock and how this bill would affect it's importation.

I really do not feel any different after talking to them. While the admendment would be better, this would still outlaw feather caulerpa. That is not good.

On a positive note, they understand that this law would be almost impossible to enforce. It is primarily directed at fish stores and wholesellers. Priviate individuals would not have to worry about searches; not that that would be legal without a warrant... I feel good about this point since the caulerpa in my tank did not show up until almost five months after adding live rock. It should be possible to import live rock without seeing any caulerpa. I also do not feel that the importation of live rock would be adversly affected by this bill. As long as the rock was not headed to anywhere in CA I do not think it would be stopped from entering LAX. If it is headed to wholesellers and LFS in CA, it would probably just be searched and be allowed to go on so long as as no feathery caulerpa is found. Judging by the government's searching for various things, this would probably be random and rare. I hope.

Anyway, just my thoughts....

Mark

------------------
Sicks munce Ago
I coodn't evin
spel gradjuwat
And now i Are One

[MaryHM]

It seems as though they are getting a little "concerned" with the overwhelming response from hobbyists and retailers all over the US. Wait until the leader of the Senate Committee on the bill gets all of my petitions faxed to him!! [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img] If we're going to change this bill, we MUST KEEP UP THE PRESSURE!! The petition drive is going great so far!

------------------
EDUCATION IS THE KEY TO A SUSTAINABLE INDUSTRY
www.reefsource.com

[Macimage]

Hi Mark,

I am really glad to hear that the phone calls are working. It really is important that they don't pass this bill in its present form.

Hopefully, everyone will take a minute to call them and keep the pressure applied until they back off on this bill.

Joyce

[LisaJill]

My apologies for interjecting into this thread, but I'm curious.

I've only just started reading these boards again after I uh, well.. forgot about them [img]/ubb/wink.gif[/img]

I assume this is an American move towards outlawing importation of caulerpa. I'll make the jump in logic that it has to do with some information months back about caulerpa taking over local waterways - please correct me if I'm wrong..

If this is the case, however. Are you seriouslypetitioning that they allow caulerpa to come in, regardless of its effects on the environment, simply so you can still have it in your fishtank?

I can see that you might want certain species still allowed, if its only the one thats a problem. But what is to stop some clueless person from dumping in say... C. Racemosa - or another commonly desired caulerpa - and it taking over? Or is it only the one type of caulerpa that is that stubborn?

I don't really believe you guys would petition against something that would help the enviroment, so hopefully someone can explain this to me..

Thanks!

-Lisa

------------------
http://www.lisa-jill.com

[Colin]

Hi Lisa,

The issue is that C. taxifolia has invaded the California coastline and is reeking havok.

The problem is that California is looking at a law banning ALL caulerpa (the entire genus), not just the trouble maker, or those believed to be invasive and able to thrive on the California coast.

Also, since California is the main point of entry for most live rock in this country, there is a concern that this law would prohibit that as well, seeing how there's lots of caulerpa hidden in live rock.

HTH

--Colin

[popcorn]

Mark,
Thanks for keeping us posted!

------------------

[waterboy]

Mary,
Just faxed some petitions to (805)986-4302. Did you get them OK?

-Brian

[SPasse]

MarkS,

Thank you very much for that update.

I took several days off of work to write letters, etc. and I am glad to see that we are having some effect.

Given the original scope of the bill, I guess that I could “live” with a ban of the “feather looking” species of caulerpa.

This would still leave C. sererrulata (razor), C. prolifera, and C. racemosa (Grape) among the “popular” varieties.

Finally, Mark, do you mind if I post your thread on some of the other boards?

LisaJill,

There is fairly good evidence that C. taxifolia that is infesting the coast of California is a mutated strain that arose in a European aquarium, and was introduced into the environment by the Monaco Aquarium.

But how it got to California is a very open question. Bilge water, ships anchors etc. are just if not more likely to have been the culprit.

Because of the almost universal presence of some form of Caulerpa on live rock, and because of the increasing use of macro algae filtration, we are working to insure that the entire genus of caulerpa is not banned.

Also there are other factors at work in the infested areas, such as pollution that are causing scientists to re-examine the whole question.
http://www.aquarium-design.com/reef/caulerpa.html

Regards,

Scott

------------------
The definition of an expert is a washed-up drip under pressure.
You can see my reeftank at http://www.homestead.com/spasse/

[Bamm Bamm]

sounds like a good deal if in fact they actually do amend the bill to read that way..

[ravenmore]

lisa-

most species of caulerpa will simply not live in californian waters - too cold for one. C. taxifolia is the exception and not the rule.

Some other points:
C. Taxifolia may not have come from an aquarium. It could have come attached to a boat in some fashion. (Ballast water, clinging to an anchor, ect.....). Californian waters are full of exotic, non-indigenous crabs, shrimp, ect.... already because of ships ballast water.

Believe it or not, it could have also come from a water change dumped down a toilette quite aways inland. If the caulerpa went sexual in someone's tank, they'd likely do a water change and dump the water in a drain or toilette. The water would be full of caulerpa spores which are extreemely hardy. Dr. Shimek mentioned that he believed it was possible for some of the spores to reach the ocean in viable form in this fashion.(this is not a reason against the ban, rather just to show that this could have come about in another manner than an aquarist dumping his tank in some bay. Makes you think twice about water changes, eh?)

Personally, I think it's too late and the ban won't do much good. Not saying we shouldn't try though.

------------------
I didn't do it. Nobody saw me do it. You can't prove anything.

Website

[LisaJill]

Hey guys,

Thanks all for the reply [img]/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

-Lisa

[MarkS]

Originally posted by SPASSE:
MarkS,

Thank you very much for that update.

You're welcome.

I took several days off of work to write letters, etc. and I am glad to see that we are having some effect.

Given the original scope of the bill, I guess that I could “live” with a ban of the “feather looking” species of caulerpa.

This would still leave C. sererrulata (razor), C. prolifera, and C. racemosa (Grape) among the “popular” varieties.

Yup. This is a very good thing.

Finally, Mark, do you mind if I post your thread on some of the other boards?

Go ahead. Post this everywhere. [img]/ubb/wink2.gif[/img]

Mark


------------------
Sicks munce Ago
I coodn't evin
spel gradjuwat
And now i Are One

[This message has been edited by MarkS (edited 05-15-2001).]