Bill outlining new import regulations

Thought some of us would be interested in this bill introduced in June. It is meant to stop importation of non-native animals that could potentially establish themselves in the US. I think it looks pretty good as long as there's decent science behind the lists of acceptable and banned species.  hr6311.pdf   60.09KB   24 downloads

This bill is a potential wolf in sheeps clothing... Especially to those who have hobby interest beyond just common species or have tastes for more exotic predatory animals.

I'm still on the fence as far as what I think of it..

Thanks for posting this Ben

I don't like it one bit. This is not the answer (nor the problem) and is going to result in confounded beauracratic stagnation that's going to make enjoying a fish or herp hobby impossible. Furthermore, it's discriminatory against the voiceless consumer while "their" ('they the lawmakers') shipping buddies (both shipper and channel engineers) still go unchecked (lets look at proportions of ownership on "the problem" here). This is purely political "Well, we did SOMETHING", and they pat each other on the butt and go have a vodka and tonic.

I hope the hobby lobbies are deeply entrenched on this (Marine Aquarium Council, for example). This could be baaaaaad news, friends. And unfortunately, a lot of us are too busy with life to do anything about it. I try to do my part... I'm working my way on projects to get a voice heard that science has been biased in looking at systems where the "invasives" are. Instead, we should be looking where they are NOT, YET should BE (or where they are, yet native communities persist or even improve!).

But I can't churn out science that fast, and that's only one voice among many who have much longer NSF Formatted CV's (Talk about a depressing academic right of passage ) Nor do I have time to write letters and go to Washington, like anyone would listen.

Same thing with the VHS debacle. I could use the EPA's Great Lakes Area Of Concern maps as a dispersal model (for VHS and Invasion Biology) and have highly significant findings depending on how I asked my questions. That's not science. That's a legacy effect that no one seems to get. And sadly, "falling skies" tends to get funded more regularly.

Now that climate thing... That's fer real

Speaking of, does anyone else get that Florida and the American Southwest are glacially influenced regions?

Think about that for a moment. That EPA map of the Great Lakes isn't the only map that works. There are other legacies besides pollution... and sadly, it seems the various DNR's are anxious to fill those gaps more efficiently than the shipping industry.

But yeah, it's GOT to be the live animal trades that's the problem.

Todd "Someone Get This La Nina OFF My Sample Sites" Crail

I agree that there are bigger threats to US ecosystems and there are relatively few establishments from the pet trade (ignoring Florida), but I also think there are some things that shouldn't be imported and this bill seems to have a decent outline. However, I can see implementation based on good science is unlikely and could result in harmless species being banned.

At one point I had 35 aquariums ranging from 10 to 125 gallons filled with South American, SE Asian, and African fish including cichlids, tetras, gouramis, and 'plecos'. I now only have 4 tanks, one in my daughters room with some angels and corys and three that are used to house my breeding group of Hypancistrus zebra, which I picked up a year before Brasil banned the exportation of them. It's upsetting when availability is limited because of political reasons. With H. zebra they won't export them, but they're about to dam the entire river (Xingu). However, I'm willing to give up the novelty of having a specific species, because I know that even though I, and most people I know, are responsible enough to not release them and take care of them properly even breeding them, there are also halfwits out there that aren't responsible. Banning importation is definitely the easiest way to legislatively deal with the problem. Some people in organizations like the American Killi Assoc. and Amer. Cichlid Assoc. have suggested that instead of limiting import, that hobbiest be licensed and required to complete a course. I think it's a bit elitist, especially as I've heard it presented, and in any case the states can barely regulate drivers licenses properly so I can only assume that a fish or herp keeping license would be an absolute mess.

I suppose I'm being optimistic when I read the bill in that I expect the 'no import' list to be based on decent research. I don't think most tropical exotics will have much of a problem, unless they decide that potential establishment in any state (Florida again) results in addition to the list. Additionally, it looks like the wording is such that the species establishment would need to be detrimental for addition to the list. Admittedly this is vague and probably impossible to determine effectively and could easily be used to ban lots of species that pose no real threat.

I disagree with the idea that if an invasive or established non-native doesn't 'harm' an ecosystem in any measurable way that there isn't a negative effect and it's somehow okay. Saying that these species have filled a previously open ecological niche and thus don't harm existing species maybe short sighted and too focused on ecosystems without considering evolution. If that niche had remained open who's to say that a native species wouldn't have begun to exploit that niche, potentially leading to divergence and a novel lineage. The way I see it, while there is no effect in this observable, snapshot of the system, it can reduce the diversity of the native flora and fauna through evolutionary time. I'm open to talking about this of course and think I could learn a lot from some other viewpoints.

Edited by bpkeck, 06 July 2008 - 06:32 PM.

This bill will not pass.

Congress has other things to worry about (like getting reelected)

I argue strongly, and I hope y'all read my writing in a friendly tone

Admittedly this is vague and probably impossible to determine effectively and could easily be used to ban lots of species that pose no real threat.

This is my concern. It's easier to blanket ban than to allow.

I disagree with the idea that if an invasive or established non-native doesn't 'harm' an ecosystem in any measurable way that there isn't a negative effect and it's somehow okay.

I disagree with this idea as well. I'm not advocating an Alfred E. Neumann type policy But you have to frame a reasonable universe in what you CAN reasonably protect.

What I am getting at is that there are systems that have shown resilience against both anthropogenic effects, as well as introductions... And then there are not.

Why fight a "zoogeography" problem AND an "anthropogenic disturbance" problem AND an "exotic species" problem that is already out of control and directly proportional to the other two problems? Esp where you have politics that permit new introductions? You could have invest the limited money protecting something that stands a chance against all the above.

What I support is a Central Highlands Aquatic Reserve system. We can worry about the rest once we at least have SOMETHING protected. That's more what I'm getting at. I wanna take the map from you and Tom's 2005 paper (maybe it was the evides paper, I can't remember) and reserve it, starting from the top, the best streams. Then we can worry about the rest ESA and current management ain't working for these critters, it's extremely dismal when you get into Unionids and gastropods. My opinion is that it's time to rethink the issues and try something completely different.

And this is only with regard to the Feds. Individual states should continue working on T&E in their charges... but they should also consider the above arguments and find what is most prudent to protect, again, starting from the top and working down. I mean, I wouldn't expect Maine or Wyoming to spend money on riparian easements for some weird Elimia that lives in Alabama. But I'm not opposed to the notion either

Todd

This is pure, diabolical evil and it must be stopped. Who ARE these people who introduced this bill, anyway? Why do I have a feeling that they are members of PETA? I see a deliberate and sneaky attempt here to shut down everything, not an attempt to actually do any real good.

This is a BAD bill. The potential for abuse is amazing. The authors of this bill undoubtedly know this full well, and that has to be their intent. It was obviously written in such a way as to influence the politicians to pass it, and they sadly won't likely see it for what it is until it's too late. I'd like to give them more credit than that, but it's difficult to do so, and the bill's authors are obviously well-versed in the language of legislation, making them doubly irksome. People incredulously laugh when they hear that the aquarium hobby has some major and dedicated foes, but now that they're going after all exotic plants and animals, maybe now they'll realize that this is no laughing matter.

Gambusia, never underestimate the powers of stupidity and manipulation. We're in real trouble this time.

From reading the bill it appears to be intended as an updating or strengthening of the Lacey Act. I don't know the history or specific hidden agenda of the listed sponsors. As mentioned above, the single biggest threat to aquatic systems in this country is ballast water discharge; for a truly scary, encyclopedic analysis of one ecosystem, San Francisco Bay, check out "Nonindigenous Aquatic Species in a United States Estuary: A case study of the biological invasions of the San Francisco bay and delta", by Andrew Cohen and James Carlton, published by ANS Task Force Reports and Publications in 1995. It's available online as a monstrous pdf if you want to bathe in mindnumbing details and extensive lists of exotic inverts.

So I don't know if this proposed bill reaches the level of a PETA plot, but it seems to be too little too late even if it makes out of committee with a favorable vote and reaches the floor of the House and then the same through the Senate.

The way I see it, it appears that someone is disappointed that the Lacey Act still allows people to import anything, and they hope to use Lacey as a precedent and starting point to finally get their way.

My words in my previous post were a bit ill-chosen and knee-jerky, but I still don't like this one bit. I'm always against anything that can easily be twisted to an end not intended, especially when a much better solution to the problem exists. Hmmmm... I know a much better solution that should make everybody happy and improve the situation greatly. I wonder how I could go about getting a bill sponsored?

Edited by Mysteryman, 07 July 2008 - 11:26 AM.

After a quick read, I like the bill. I can't remember how many times people have asked me why we don't study a species before we bring it here, to see if it will be harmful. Now, if they'd only do the same for plants...

The only section I have a problem with is that approved species will be considered "non-mailable matter" (section 9). That part doesn't make sense to me. It almost makes me wonder if it is a typo and meant to say "non-approved".

It makes perfect sense if you'd stop to consider the evil behind this for a moment. This bill's authors are obviously aware of the fact that the post office people, who often can't even agree on whether they even accept fish at all, are in no position to try to figure out whether they can accept any given species or even identify it, and therefore the mail service will simply wind up disallowing all fish just to play it safe. This is what they want, of course, to put a complete stop to our hobby, and taking away the one thing that can keep it going is certainly going to be a big part of their agenda.
Ironically, the fish hobby's existence is a major contributor to environmental awareness, and without THAT, the people trying to stop it wouldn't feel any need to bother. If they win, then in several years environmental awareness will fade significantly, leading to much bigger problems than the one they think they're solving.

This bill's authors are obviously aware of the fact that the post office people, who often can't even agree on whether they even accept fish at all, are in no position to try to figure out whether they can accept any given species or even identify it, and therefore the mail service will simply wind up disallowing all fish just to play it safe. This is what they want, of course, to put a complete stop to our hobby, and taking away the one thing that can keep it going is certainly going to be a big part of their agenda.

Where do you find evidence that the bill authors "obviously" have this agenda? I do not see it.

I'd assume the bill's authors are ignorant of the fish keeping hobby.

Probably think anyone who keeps a fish is keeping a goldfish in a bowl

I'd assume the bill's authors are ignorant of the fish keeping hobby.

Probably think anyone who keeps a fish is keeping a goldfish in a bowl

Their not ignorant at all to it..

This bill was written with backing by several top name people that work with Exotic and invasive issues. This idea (federal approve / Un-approve list) is also not at all new and has been tabled before. Pet industry joint advisory council (PIJAC) fought it and came to a compromise with USFWS, USGS and USDA to ensure education on invasive and exotic issues. I.E. http://www.habitattitude.net/ and other very minor attempts (A few rare hard to get fish bags with instructions not to release animals)... Pet industry backed out of the deal and shrugged it off so now we have this back again....