Any thoughts here on HR 669?

The ornamental fish trade boards, pet forums, reptile/Herp forums and aquarium club forums have recently been ablaze about H.R. 669: Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. I did a search or two here and couldn't find any discussion on it.

Here's a little info, and a few links about the bill. I'm curious to see how NANFA members feel about this proposed legislation.

Here is the bill itself: http://www.govtrack....d?bill=h111-669

Here is what the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council PIJAC feels about this bill: http://www.pijac.org...c/US_HR_669.pdf

Here is a brochure supporting the bill: http://www.necis.net...-h.r.-669-2.pdf

Looks like the main supporters of the bill are the US Humane Society and PETA..........now what do those groups have to do with protecting native species?!?

Thoughts? Discussion?

I think all questions of this nature should be directed to the Admin Staff, I have lots of opinions, None of which are reflective of the opinion of NANFA, Nor do i feel i have the authority to comment on their behalf. No Offense. This is just another one of my opinions.

No dicussion because we don't talk about politics. Always at the top where it says Please follow these simple rules "Please refain from posting controversial discussion pertaining to religion and politics".

I might be overruled here but I see this as a topic about legislation and not politics. We're talking about a bill that if passed may very well effect the future of both native fish and hobbyist alike. Why can't this forum discuss such legislation? Sure this will be a heated topic but this forum can handle it's cool right?

I think all questions of this nature should be directed to the Admin Staff, I have lots of opinions, None of which are reflective of the opinion of NANFA, Nor do i feel i have the authority to comment on their behalf. No Offense. This is just another one of my opinions.

I don't see the problem of NANFA members voicing their thoughts on this legislation. I do respect the admin staff and would like to hear their thoughts but they certainly are not the authority regarding every aspect of a topic that might come up on the forum. They do have authority to determine if a topic is pertinent to this forum and oversee the discussion. Check the - Please follow these simple rules: Please keep discussions pertaining to laws and regulations from being influenced by personal opinion. Laws can be discussed according to forum rules.

The objections mentioned by the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council seem well thought out at first read through. I especially agree with the issue of having to have a species approved first rather then to simply have a list of "not approved" species.

This does seem like it could have a negative impact on the pet trade unneccessarily. I could also see how it could eventually lead to consequences regarding native enthusiasts.

I agree, in part with both Uland and Mike, I feel this is a good topic for discussion, or at least enlightenment of the general Forum members, and will speak only for myself here. To be very honest. i am not well enough versed in all the aspects of this situation. or all of its possible implications regarding what far reaching effects it would have on our goal as a group. I would love to hear this discussed by our staff in the body of this forum, or anyone they feel is qualified to offer input, and trust and support their findings. I however, do not feel, that uninformed, or just gut feeling comments would be productive. And could cloud even more for some, including me, things i maybe dont totally understand, But i do understand that this is a very important issue and could affect us all. So now if what i said has left everyone even more confused i understand and please proceed.

I could also see how it could eventually lead to consequences regarding native enthusiasts.

Could you elaborate on your thoughts to that end? I had a discussion about this bill in another forum a couple of days ago and didn't come up with a conclusion in that area at all, other than the same state-by-state legislation you run into with natives anyway.

The ugly truth is that this bill addresses a clear and present threat, although it's probably closing the barn door after the horses are gone. We're facing increasingly altered ecosystems as the result of humans facilitating the transport of species around the planet. Forget about the PETA bugaboo. Nobody has expressed shock that Fritz posted what might be a larval lionfish collected off the coast of North Carolina. Personally I would also support making the sale of Asian honeysuckle species and English ivy a federal felony in the United States which would make most people think I'm out of my mind.

I'm not convinced that this bill would make any difference. But I'd urge you to back off from the "har har, it's PETA!" view.

I have been stating for years now that this was coming and will come.. Now that it has it is not at all a surprise. I do not think the bill is perfect but it is better than what we have now which is nothing... It has been stated for years that the Pet industry has needed to address the issue of invasive and exotic species and they only did so half assed. Well then we will need to make sure things are clear. I think this makes it pretty damn clear that the past practices are no longer acceptable.

Heh heh, do y'all want me involved in this?

Heh heh, do y'all want me involved in this?

Jump on in Martin, the water is warm and I have my finger on the "ban" button Did I mention my index finger has been twitching lately?

nonindigenous list from the USGS.
http://nas.er.usgs.g...sp?Group=Fishes

Without knowing much about this bill I just want to say that I hope they're smart about it. I'm on board with such a bill if done properly but I would hate to see species banned in places they couldn't survive. I realize its more complicated than that, that even if a resident of Maine legally has a tropical fish he can more easily smuggle it South than he could if it had not gotten into the country at all but the rights of people need to be taken into account as well. I need to do more research before I take a stand on either side of the issue. Maybe that does not make me qualified to have an opinion at all but I do so all well.

Edited by sandtiger, 03 April 2009 - 11:25 PM.

Heh heh, do y'all want me involved in this?

I Do, I checked my list of respected opinions, and your name was there,very close to the top, But it had this little sign next to it for some reason.....>


And i just noticed at the top there are already 7 votes on this, so i guess some minds are already made up.

Edited by Jim, 04 April 2009 - 06:42 AM.

Does anyone know where we can see a list of proposed banned species?

One problem I have with the bill is that it covers the whole country. For instance, a fish that would be a problem in Florida would also be banned in Minnesota, where it wouldn't be a threat. If the gummint wants to do something like this, I think it should be on the state level. This bill would bankrupt the part of the pet industry that doesn't make its living off cats and dogs. And like fundulus said, "It's closing the barn door after the horses have gone." If the bill does pass and it outlaws keeping certain animals, it guarantees a mass dumping of them.

There has been a lot of damage already done in Florida, would something like this prevent worse damage? That's something I'd like to know. I think there needs to be more education, but I also think there will always be jerks dumping animals.

I believe that Lake Erie's problems stemmed from freighter ballast and not pet releases. Is anything being done about that? Or does that industry have too much political clout to let any more regulations in? Does PETA care about freighter ballast? I doubt it.

Policy is a mess. It would be fantastic if the states had reasonable laws in place that would help prevent invasions. Unfortunately, this isn't the case. If states did have a hold on the issue, the Feds would have no reason to stick their noses in the issue. Now, what worries me is what will happen in the hands of the USFWS. I just hope that they go about making their lists in a sound, scientific manner (like it states in the proposed legislation). Unfortunately, I am a person with little faith. Also, they have the public response clause in the law. Since I have no faith in these types of clauses, either, I hope they don't keep all of the list making in house, and accept the consultation of experts in invasion biology and ecology.

First off, they'll have to split the list up regionally for it to make any sense whatsoever. For example, suckermouth catfish that can survive temperatures in the upper 60s (the big common aquarium ones) should be banned in Texas because they some of the biggest invaders in spring systems and the lower parts of the rivers of the state (Oscar keepers, now is the time for torches and pitchforks). Why should we restrict suckermouths in, say, Michigan? They're not a problem there. They have other coldwater problems there that wouldn't apply down here.

I think the biggest problem, as it has been stated before, is that invasions are tough to predict, and are usually noticed when it's too late. Will we ban all fish from Asia, because they potentially carry the asian tapeworn, a known invader? If the bill is followed as it is written, we should. Will native invasions be regulated by the Feds? That's a state problem if I ever saw one...

In times like these, I hope the policy folks use some common sense and sound judgement when making the rules... Some solid science wouldn't hurt, either.

Edited by rjmtx, 04 April 2009 - 01:46 PM.

I think that this bill is just another example of legislative over-activity gone wrong. Who's going to put together a list of every species on the planet and decide whether it's "harmful" or "not harmful"? And what gives that person or people the right to decide? I do have more to say about this, but am time-limited right now. I'll try to chime-in later with more.

Brian

Ok ive read this long enough to form an opinion... I think this is a bill that should have been passed a long time ago, and enforced at all costs, At this point, i think it is still a good thing but the enforcement will still have to be strict, and i also dont think this or anything else is going to repair what has already been done in any of our lifetimes, and even with NO INVASIVES ALLOWED signs posted everywhere, It still will happen. Mother Nature has a way of healing herself, when she no longer has help from humans who think they know better, she will correct this all. But it will take a long time, because we, as the human race have done all we can to mess it up. No Offense Intended. We as an organization, devoted to the preservation of our natural resources, can not save the world, We can only keep a steady hand, and fight the good fight.

Edited by Jim, 04 April 2009 - 09:41 PM.

I appreciate the input and the decision to allow this discussion. I have seen a lot of discussion on this bill online lately and it has all been very one sided. I honestly wanted the opinions of people who not only value their tropical fish, but also the native fishes of this continent. I want to assure the people here my goal in posting this was not to be controversial, but to hear some different opinions on this subject. Thank You.

For one I dont believe any introduced fish from the hobby has caused damage to the extent we need to ban the importation or sell of most of these fish and herps on a federal level, this is a state issue. The human race does more damage on a regular basis with sewage spills, chemical runoff, etc. than with an invasive species. As was mentioned many of the invasive species that are causing problems in the great lakes are believed to have come from ships ballasts correct? So how is banning the sell of an pleco or oscar or pacu going to stop that in that area?

I also take the whats next stand, I know that the typical house cat does more damage to native rodent and bird populations than any natural predator, so since many of us let our cats outside maybe they should be banned, and those of you that live in the country know the damage a few dogs dumped off can do to both native wildlife and young livestock, so we should ban dogs as well? Oh but that livestock in the case of pigs is causing all sorts of ecological problems in many states so then we need to ban pigs, etc etc.. I could keep going but I am sure you get the point.

I do understand the problems caused because of introduced species but the fact is banning the sell and importation will not stop the real causes of our problems, we cause more problems with construction and deforestation and everyday life. Not to mention there are laws that ban certain fish and plants in each state but they are not easy to find, I for one had a species of plant bought locally from another hobbiest that I was unaware of being illegal in my state, I happened to be doing some research and stumbled across it, I have since destroyed what I had to make sure it couldnt spread but my own lack of knowledge caused me to believe I had a legal species because I bought it locally from a knowledgable hobbiest who bought it from a reputable dealer as well. So it is a matter of laws and identification being easily accessable and not loaded with legal terminology, lets put it out in lamens terms if something is banned then just say it is banned, not it is banned under section 5 but may be allowed under provision 7.

Lets say it does pass, this will force most businesses based on the sell of fish and herp related products out of business in maybe 4 yrs? Eventually those of us that depend on frozen/prepared fish foods will be out of the hobby completely because supply is limited to demand and if many tropicals are off the market the demand is going to drop dramatically correct, because lets face it native fish are not a major item in the fish hobby and in some states they are illegal to keep at all.

And if someone is irresponsible enough to release a piranha then whats to say he isnt going to order a fish from one of the native vendors and maybe it's carrying VHS, and he decides to dump it in the local pond, stream, etc. well with ban everything mentallity then we might need to stop movement of all fish species across state lines.

This same legislation was around in the late 90's or early 2000 but dealt with the herp hobby, it didnt pass then and I truly hope it doesnt pass now.

Anyway not attacking anyone for their beliefs or opinions just trying to offer some other points of view.

Edited by brian1973, 04 April 2009 - 11:06 PM.