Jump to content


Any thoughts here on HR 669?


  • Please log in to reply
110 replies to this topic

Poll: HR 669 support or oppose? (49 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you support or oppose HR 669?

  1. Support (12 votes [24.49%])

    Percentage of vote: 24.49%

  2. Oppose (37 votes [75.51%])

    Percentage of vote: 75.51%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#21 Guest_rjmtx_*

Guest_rjmtx_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2009 - 12:55 AM

I have some experience with illegal fish and people that kept them from when I worked at the fish store. Down here piranhas, FW stingrays, Asian Arowanas, etc. are illegal, but people still have them. However, by being illega, they are hard to get and expensive. This weeds out the people that might buy them on a whim and release them when they become a burden. I'm not condoning breaking the law for a fish. I wouldn't mess with it, because in my case, it could ruin my chances at future employment. Also, on a cost/benefit ratio, it's not worth breaking a state, fderal, or international law IMO just to have a plant or animal in captivity.

I don't think this law will kill the pet industry or anything like that. I bet they are a powerful lobby and there's lots of money in the buying and selling of livestock that's not for food. There are already lists of banned animals in every state, and I don't think it'll change that much.

As an extension to this legislation, we should also change the endangered species act to make it an endangered ecosystems act. When the ESA is used at the ecosystem scale, it is effective. It's really worthless when a species is trying to be saved in a trashed environment. Degraded ecosystems are also more prone to invasion. When you have a healthy, resilient ecosystem, the chance of invasion goes down. Many invasion problems in California are due, primarily, to altered streams. If the natural flood/drought cycle were in places, many Mississippian fish wouldn't be able to outcompete the natives, even though it is naturally a depauperate system.

What I'm trying to say, as others have mentioned already, is that banning species alone will not solve the problem. There needs to be a sea change in how we manage the integrity of ecosystems and diversity within and among species. Even if we stop importation to halt invasions, native invasions and declining numbers of native fishes are primarily caused by habitat alteration. Shoot, 40% of Tx native fishes are listed as being species of concern. The problem here, for the most part, is not from a foreign fish, but our actions.

Focusing on a species level is probably much easier to legislate, but that doesn't mean it's what we need to be legislating. With that said, I think something is better than nothing at this point.

Edited by rjmtx, 05 April 2009 - 12:59 AM.


#22 Guest_gzeiger_*

Guest_gzeiger_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2009 - 05:51 AM

I'm surprised nobody has commented more on the dumping issue mentioned on the first page. This bill as written seems like a disaster to me, because it effectively prohibits *possession* of species that are presently legal to possess. Even if it "only" prohibited their movement, people move all the time, and making it illegal to take your pet with you makes for a hard choice. I can't see how the result of this could be anything but an immediate introduction of a whole bunch of newly banned animals when their owners find out they are illegal. Individuals dumping a fish they've grown tired of is far less dangerous than the simultaneous dumping of a large number of such fish so that they could establish a breeding population.

I appreciate the goal, but it seems like a poorly written law that will do more harm than good.

I'm also not happy with the prospect of expanding a group of laws about which it is nearly impossible to become properly informed. I already call my DNR office and can't get a straight answer about what is and isn't legal. I think it's categorically unacceptable to have laws on the books that make private citizens unable to determine if their activites are legal. This seems like another of those.

#23 Guest_rjmtx_*

Guest_rjmtx_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:18 AM

Dumping animals already is illegal by most state laws, I imagine. I know it's a state law down here. Getting general info out to the public is tough, and it's the responsibility of pets stores and plant nurseries to do this. When I worked at an LFS, we accepted any fish brought to the door just so they wouldn't get dumped. The national chains sent their customers to us to get rid of fish. It was a major burden, and the large chains should have done their part. That goes back to my illegal animal idea; when things are easy to get, they become disposable.

#24 Guest_sschluet_*

Guest_sschluet_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2009 - 08:20 AM

Here are my thoughts, in a perfect world this would have been done years and years ago, akin to Australia's reaction to their exotic species troubles. Is it worth implementing now, not sure - we need a crystal ball to fully know. I am sure there is something else on the horizon that will be a problem that currently is in every pet shop (much like snakeheads, that were in every pet shop when we were younger). I agree with Bruce that the barn door is getting closed much too late. Living near the great lakes I would find it hard to swallow until they implement full legislation on ship ballast water as that is a much bigger problem and on-going threat than pet shop patrons. Working for the govt, I immediately question how much this will this cost to implement. At this point, I think the money may be better spent on preservation of aquatic resources, land use education, and pet ownership education. Just my 2 cents.

#25 Guest_Carptracker_*

Guest_Carptracker_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2009 - 09:56 AM

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'm a newbie here so don't want to step on too many toes, but I felt the need to comment on this issue. This is a difficult issue, and I think this legislation has nearly zero chance of passing, at least without much stronger support in Senate, which I don't believe even has a companion bill at this time. Some of the arguments put forward by the pet industry are astute - notably the fact that this would be very difficult to implement and would either require a lot of funding to move forward or else would pull USFWS off of other other important efforts to address this problem. However, I do support something like this bill. I've had a lot of experience with the Lacey act and what it takes to list an undesireable organism. Because of this, there are only a handful of taxa on taxon-non-grata list - about half a dozen, including silver carp, black carp, snakeheads.

There are a lot of other legislations in the work regarding ballast water issues. There are a lot of other people working on that problem. To argue that we should not address the intentionally imported invasive species issue because there also exists an unintentionally imported invasive species issue is a bit like saying that we should not address car thieves because people are also robbing banks.

I've seen what armored catfishes can do to a place - some rivers in Mexico and Japan are now nearly monocultures (fishwise) of the darned things. They also severely damage levees and dikes, by digging tunnels. Arkansas just poisoned the entire Big Piney drainage (right under the area where the ivory billed woodpecker was supposedly spotted) at a cost of $750,000 with the intent to kill out the introduced northern snakehead (introduced before it was banned on the Lacey Act) before it can spread further. Most people don't seem to think they will be successful in that effort. It is not limited to aquatics - think Monk Parrots all over, which cause many ag and industrial problems. Also monkeys, iguanas, monitor lizards, pythons in Florida (something like 4% of the known population of one endangered rodent has been found in the stomachs of pythons - and that is just the pythons they've caught and opened up). There were human fatalities in N. Central USA associated with a plague organism imported with naked mole rats. [Do people REALLY NEED a naked mole rat? For chrissakes, get a cat. You can even get a hairless cat if you are allergic.] Lionfish in the Atlantic could change things dramatically in the future. Fishing in Florida is like fishing in a darn tropical aquarium. I added 4 new (non-native) species to my life list in two hours fishing in the Miami canals. Most of the fish I caught were not native. [I note that some people think is this is not necessarily a bad thing - hey, it is increased diversity! - but I would personally rather catch Florida fish in Florida, not South American and African fish.]

Anyway, I have to say that I have long supported the idea of a "clean list" rather than a "dirty list" for importation of exotic species. It does make sense that, once screened at original importation for pathogens, obligate tropical species would make the clean list in temperate areas. The legislation perhaps needs some tweaking in this regard. Species that have been around a long time with no substantial damage (guinea pigs, siamese fighting fish, neon tetras, angelfish....) should make the clean list easily, if sufficient resources are invested in constructing the clean list, and the requirements for making the clean list are not onerous. I think that those in the FWS who would be developing the list would be smart enough to include these species on the clean list rapidly with little investment of effort. But there will be judgement calls, and there will be people on both sides that will be P.O.d because their particular species of interest was not placed on the list they liked. In those cases, it should be the responsibility of the interested party to present their case.

I spent three years in Central America (raising non-native aquatic species, so perhaps I am part of the problem). During that time I met several individuals from North America (including a Canadian who was editor of a cichlid fanciers magazine) and one from Japan who were in the country (acting independently from one another) looking for new species to export for use in the aquarium trade. There are few controls on what you can bring into the USA if you don't release it into the wild. But once those animals leave the store, there is a substantial chance that the animal will end up in the wild - certainly if enough are sold, some will make it into the wild. I don't think I should have to pay (through environmental damage or health risks) for someone else's right to have a naked mole rat.

Autrailia, New Zealand, Britain, most western European countries already have similar legislation. They have learned this through terrible experience with establishment of undesirable exotic species. It is time that we (USA) learn from our experiences, too.

#26 Guest_BTDarters_*

Guest_BTDarters_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 April 2009 - 09:33 PM

I'll chime-in once more about this, and then I think that's it. I have to say that I agree completely with brian1973's statement. This is kind-of a "what's next" type of law. When we ban all (or most) fish, what's next? Grandma's New Guinea Impatiens? Now, of course, there are going to be people out there who will say that we need to ban plants, too. Who's going to do the research necessary to compile these lists of approved and unapproved species? I don't want my tax dollars being spent on that! The smart thing to do would be to ban dumping of aquatic species in our waterways. As a matter of note, I am already doing things to help prevent this even though it's not a law yet. I offer (and have always offered) "re-homing" of fish that people get from me if they no longer want or need them. Please see my page http://www.btdarters...protectdoc.html for more information. I also ship a notecard from Habitattitude with every order, which encourages people not to dump their aquariums. What we need is education, not legislation!

Brian

#27 Guest_EdBihary_*

Guest_EdBihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 April 2009 - 12:58 PM

Several people here have commented that this should be regulated at the state level, not the federal. I will point out that The US Constitution, Article I, Section 8, among other things, grants Congress the power: "The Congress shall have power... To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes..." So constitutionally, this is a federal matter. And it makes sense to me that it should be so. Notwithstanding, as others have already said, regional needs should be considered, and states should be allowed to pass their own laws (IMHO). I have mixed emotions as to whether the bill itself is a good idea. People have made good arguments on both sides of that issue.

I can't see how the result of this could be anything but an immediate introduction of a whole bunch of newly banned animals when their owners find out they are illegal. Individuals dumping a fish they've grown tired of is far less dangerous than the simultaneous dumping of a large number of such fish so that they could establish a breeding population.

This is just not going to happen. If fish that are already in people's aquariums are suddenly banned, few, if any, would head straight for the local creek and dump their fish. Most would be unaware of the new ban. Of those who are aware, most would simply keep their existing fish until they grow old and die. They simply would not be able to find replacements for them, because their importation and sale would be banned.

Getting general info out to the public is tough, and it's the responsibility of pets stores and plant nurseries to do this. When I worked at an LFS, we accepted any fish brought to the door just so they wouldn't get dumped. The national chains sent their customers to us to get rid of fish. It was a major burden, and the large chains should have done their part. That goes back to my illegal animal idea; when things are easy to get, they become disposable.

Now this is right on the money! I think that the stores that sell these fish should be required to put large, prominent signs on the doors and throughout the stores, advising customers that it is illegal and environmentally harmful to release any fish sold in the store. It should be printed on the receipts, and the employees should be telling the customers verbally. Further, they should be required to take back anything that they sell. My LFS will not only take it back, they will usually buy it back! Typically, by the time it is returned, it is bigger, and can be resold for more money. So they will buy it back at a "wholesale" price, quarantine it for a while, and then mark it up and sell it after being sure that it is parasite- and disease-free.

I offer (and have always offered) "re-homing" of fish that people get from me if they no longer want or need them. Please see my page http://www.btdarters...protectdoc.html for more information. I also ship a notecard from Habitattitude with every order, which encourages people not to dump their aquariums. What we need is education, not legislation!

I have received those cards. Brian, you are doing it absolutely right! Kudos!

#28 Guest_Irate Mormon_*

Guest_Irate Mormon_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 April 2009 - 11:08 PM

I really don't see the point. I mean, your state DNR's are introducing what they deem to be desirable game fishes regardless of the consequences. Then there's Mosquitofish.

So now we're worried about "invasive" species? Can we have a ban on Bureaucrats??

#29 Guest_fundulus_*

Guest_fundulus_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2009 - 07:39 AM

So now we're worried about "invasive" species? Can we have a ban on Bureaucrats??

Sure, and we can have a ban on the Lacey Act too, to take it to its logical conclusion. Many states either have been or are prone to doing dumbass things. It doesn't seem to be the most efficient way to deal with issues of invasive species, whether tiger muskies in NM or armored catfish species of your choice, but the federal government can trump state actions. That's the raw power issue we're talking about here, as Ed mentioned in his post. Is the particular bill in question the right answer? Maybe not, probably not, but I'd think it's an issue that people on this list would give a poop about. Otherwise we're just another bunch of dopey tropical keepers oblivious to the real world.

#30 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 07 April 2009 - 12:04 PM

I only wish it covered plants, too. Really, the only part I don't like is that approved species will be considered "non-mailable matter".

It appears that some folks are commenting above when they haven't read the act itself. The text of the act is here:
http://www.govtrack....d?bill=h111-669 I suggest we all read the act before commenting.

For example, people will be able to keep the individual animals they already have, even if they are on the un-approved list. So no-one should be dumping their animals simply because they are illegal. Also note - the bill expressly does not include "species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated"

I really, really don't think this will pass. Too many undefined issues and interested industries involved.

#31 Guest_Gambusia_*

Guest_Gambusia_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2009 - 12:54 PM

Lot of folks dumped their snakeheads once they became instantly illegal (contraband)

#32 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:02 PM

Lot of folks dumped their snakeheads once they became instantly illegal (contraband)


Yes, but many states banned the possession of snakeheads. The HR 699 does not do that. It expressly says that it does not apply to animals already in possession.

#33 Guest_Gambusia_*

Guest_Gambusia_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2009 - 02:37 PM

The Feds banned snakeheads first.

And as far as I know there was no grandfathering.

They were instantly illegal to possess

#34 Guest_nativeplanter_*

Guest_nativeplanter_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:56 PM

The Feds banned snakeheads first.

And as far as I know there was no grandfathering.

They were instantly illegal to possess


I haven't read the snakehead regulations thoroughly, but I thought the feds just banned importation and interstate movement.

But the point I'm trying to make here is that just because people dumped snakeheads doesn't necessarily mean that HR 699 will result in the same thing, since it does NOT ban possession. Now if the states then turned around and banned possession, that could result in a different story.

#35 Guest_Gambusia_*

Guest_Gambusia_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2009 - 04:22 PM

Agreed

Good points

#36 Guest_harryknaub_*

Guest_harryknaub_*
  • Guests

Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:48 PM

Autrailia, New Zealand, Britain, most western European countries already have similar legislation. They have learned this through terrible experience with establishment of undesirable exotic species. It is time that we (USA) learn from our experiences, too.


I think that as I was reading about this legislation last week, I noted that it was sponsered by a delegate from Guam, an island that's had it's ecosystem decimated by an invasive snake. Feel free to correct me if i'm wrong, that's just my recollection from last week.

Harry Knaub

#37 Guest_Clayton_*

Guest_Clayton_*
  • Guests

Posted 10 April 2009 - 03:23 PM

I've read through this a few times from seeing it posted on a different hobbyist board.

My main concerns are:

1.) The process for moving an animal to the approved list is not clearly defined and not likely to be easily paid for.
2.) Now those people who must enforce this such as customs will have to be able to correctly identify a MUCH larger number of species that makes up the allowed list, than the current method.
3.) It takes a FL problem and makes it an Indiana problem. Few tropicals are capable of reproducing outside of the southern parts of the continent.
4.) It will likely increase movement of native fishes and other animals. Likely spreading diseases and animals much more likely to thrive in the differing environments.
5.) How do I declare my current non-native stock as legal? How are my breeders going to be regulated?

Things I like:
1.) It will probably help limit new invasive species being introduced by the pet trade, unless someone makes a bad judgement and classifies something as safe.
2.) It will probably bring more native fishes to the forefront of the hobby. However, this ties back to concern 4.
3.) It could potentially lower demand on some heavily poached species where CITES has failed.

All in all, I don't think it will be a good thing as too much is not defined. As much as I'd like to see the government doing something more to help in these areas, I just don't feel like this is the way to go about it.


I should note that with point 5 above, the legislation doesn't make them illegal. However, it also doesn't offer any method of proving that these animals were imported prior to this legislation going into effect. Essentially, if I'm sitting around with a few hundred non-natives that are declared invasive how do I prove that I'm not smuggling them into the country? If an animal wasn't previously protected somewhere else there is likely no permit attached to it.

Edited by Clayton, 10 April 2009 - 03:35 PM.


#38 Guest_EdBihary_*

Guest_EdBihary_*
  • Guests

Posted 12 April 2009 - 01:29 PM

Essentially, if I'm sitting around with a few hundred non-natives that are declared invasive how do I prove that I'm not smuggling them into the country?

What's to prove? As noted above, possession would not be illegal. If you're not caught crossing the border with them, then you would have broken no laws. No problem.

#39 Guest_Clayton_*

Guest_Clayton_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2009 - 09:47 AM

What if I move? What if I sell them? How do they enforce the law if I have a way of smuggling them in, since they can't refute my claims of rightful ownership once I've got them here?

There are plenty of reasons that you'd want to be able to prove legal importation/ownership of an animal that is restricted.

#40 Guest_Carptracker_*

Guest_Carptracker_*
  • Guests

Posted 13 April 2009 - 12:00 PM

The Feds banned snakeheads first.

And as far as I know there was no grandfathering.

They were instantly illegal to possess



The Feds listed all species of snakeheads under the Lacey Act. Listing under the Lacey Act makes it illegal to import the fish or transport them across state lines. It has no effect on possession whatsoever. There is still no federal law that bans possession of snakeheads. Some states may have such laws. In Missouri it is illegal to breed or sell them.

I also have a problem with the statement that "lots of people dumped their snakeheads when they became illegal to possess." I think that statement lacks corroboration. Certainly, there have been more snakeheads found since they became more elevated in the national conciousness, but those appear to be cases where the fish were present prior to listing. The Arkansas snakeheads and the ones in Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia and Delaware all appear to be populations that were present prior to listing. I know of one solo fish (not a cold-tolerant species) that was captured in Tennesee after the listing, but there is no evidence as to when it was released. There have been many bowfin captured and reported as snakeheads, including one that hit the newspapers identified incorrectly as a bullseye snakehead last month.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users