Any thoughts here on HR 669?

There have been many bowfin captured and reported as snakeheads, including one that hit the newspapers identified incorrectly as a bullseye snakehead last month.

And that's a real shame, too... I've seen lots of misidentified "snakeheads" that are bowfin. I've seen violet gobies (dragon fish) called snakeheads. We even got a fish ID email the other day from somebody on the Neches that had "a snakehead looking fish." It was a fat sleeper goby. I think a lot of the unconfirmed snakehead reports are a media induced sort of mass eco-hysteria. Shoot, I have a friend that tried to convince me that grackels were invasive the other day. I think he finally conceded because he was sick of hearing me explain what a native invader was.

Education is the only way around this type of dangerous misidentification. Right now, I'm pessimistic at best.

If cats are not at the top of this list, then it is a pile of B.S! I think we all remember the laughing stock Wisconsin became when it tried to do something about feral cats here. Some animals are more equal than others.

Many pet animals that become contraband will be released, it is simply human nature. It is already illegal to do so, but it does not stop it. Making criminals out of many people will then cause many of them to react with that end.

My pets do not bother anyone anywhere. No noise, they don't go in onto other peoples property and eat their pets and wildlife, they don't attack their families or make walkers and bikers fear passing my home.

I am still waiting for 25 years to have rusty crawfish eat every plant and animal out of every kind of water in Wisconsin. That is exactly what they said would happen, yet it has not happened! Mentioned above, cleaning up is the way to go. The river here was packed with rusties and carp. Then when it was cleaned up native species exploded. It has to be some of the best fishing inland in the state now. Not just for game fish, but if you wanted to go catch bait. Oh wait, we can no longer catch bait thanks to VHS, which was no fault of hobbyists or sportsmen - the two groups that get the blame, or at least face the results of legislation that is run through because it sure sounds good on paper.

Unintended consequences never seem to affect bureaucrats, but affect the enjoyment of life for many of their constituents. That seems to be just fine by them, since they just keep on doing what they do best, micro-manage everything we do. They enjoy nothing but power.

Folks,
This bill is likely to get out of committee and has a good chance of passing the house. It has been fasttracked for approval. If you haven't read the bill, please take the time to do so. This bill affects all animals except dogs, cats and farm animals. It makes a significant change to the way that the potential impact of a species is considered. Under current law, a species must be banned. Under this law, species will be banned until proven to be safe, and all known species are to be considered by the USFWS within 2 years and a list developed that will be in effect within 3 years. All this with no increase in funding or staffing to get this done. I submit to you that this will result in the wholesale banning of animals based on their family, i.e. if one species in a family is a potential problem, all species in that family will be banned. All fish currently being pondraised in Florida will be banned as they can obviously survive there. And, again, it's not just fish. Most reptiles, birds and small animals in the pet trade will be banned. The bill makes it illegal to breed, transport across state lines or transfer ownership of any banned species. The pet industry as we know it will be killed if this bill passes. All shops that specialize in fish, herps, birds or small animals will go out of business as will all the companies that breed, import or wholesale these species. The chains will survive but they will suffer greatly. I would expect all of them to go bankrupt in order to get out of their leases. The new locations will be much smaller. This bill has worldwide repercussions as exports of many species to the US market provide income for local peoples and an incentive to protect their environment to protect the future of the species in question. If there is no longer any value in a cardinal tetra, there is no reason to protect its habitat, yet this species has clearly been demonstrated as a sustainable fishery in which millions of specimens are exported every year.

I personally believe that the bill is a thinly veiled attack on the pet industry under the guise of protecting our domestic environment. If this passes, cats will be next as the feral cat problem is significant. And, of course, the feral dog problem is a real one, too. Then again, it's really immoral of us to eat meat so why do we need farm animals? You may think this is funny but it is the agenda that many of the groups pushing this bill want to follow. The president of the HSUS has publicly stated that he thinks pet ownership should be illegal. At a time when PIJAC's membership and income continues to fall, big bucks are being pumped into the radical animal rights community. Even if we defeat this bill, we must remain vigilant as another attempt will be made each year to pass similar legislation.

A better approach would be to increase funding and staff and to streamline the process under the Lacey Act. I do believe that the industry should have done a better job at not selling inappropriate species. I understand the need for the government to act to ban species which have the potential for harm, but would like to see an approach that takes all factors into consideration and bans species in areas where they have the potential to become established rather than everywhere in the US. Blanket exclusions are also not a good idea. There is no reason we should not be allowed to import African snakeheads, which are generally smaller than their Asian cousins and can not survive cold temperatures. A ban of all species that grow in excess of 16" or species whose natural habitat ranges north of a given line would have made more sense.
Mark

Hey Everyone,
The following is the official position of the International Betta Congress in reference to HR 669. The AKA also has an official position which can be viewed on their website.
Mark

The International Betta Congress is an international organization of Betta fanciers with approximately 700 members. We are opposed to HR 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Protection Act, and ask you to join us in our opposition.

One of the cornerstone activities of the IBC is our show circuit. Many members are actively involved in showing Bettas they have bred at sanctioned shows in the US, Europe and Asia. In sanctioned shows in the US, members show fish in 57 classes this show season. These fish compete for awards in their class and division at each show. Points are tallied throughout the season to determine the year end awards. A typical show may have anywhere from 200 – 400 fish entered. American-bred fish are shipped worldwide to enter shows in Europe and Asia and fish bred in Europe and Asia are shipped to the US to be entered in shows. An auction is held at the conclusion of each show where some fish are sold. The exchange of fish among breeders is important in maintaining the genetic integrity of specific color strains and instrumental in adding genetic diversity to existing strains in an attempt to improve the line or to develop new color patterns or fin shapes. Passage of HR 669 may result in our inability to breed and show our fish as well as the inability to import fish from foreign breeders or to ship fish to shows and to other breeders in the US or elsewhere.

Many of our members are involved in the IBC’s Species Maintenance Program, which seeks to set up captive breeding of the various species of the genus Betta. There are currently over 70 known species, several of which have not yet been scientifically described. New species are discovered on an ongoing basis and a fish thought to be extinct in the wild was recently rediscovered on the Indonesian island of Java. Maintaining a species in captivity and keeping it true to its wild form requires that one trade fish with other breeders to maintain its genetic diversity and to avoid the deformities that may develop from excessive line-breeding. It is also desirable to add wild fish to the breeding program occasionally if possible in order to ensure continued genetic diversity within the population. A number of Betta species are threatened or endangered in the wild, primarily due to habitat destruction. It is thus critically necessary that we maintain these species in captivity so that they do not become extinct. Further, it is our hope that some of these species may be reintroduced into the wild if their habitat can be saved. The passage of HR 669 could result in our inability to breed our fish and to exchange fish with other breeders as well as to import new stock or export the fish to repopulate an area of their habitat which has been saved or recovered.

Another potential problem with HR 669 in reference to species maintenance programs is the requirement that each unlisted species be studied prior to its being placed on the approved or banned list. The cost of this may be borne by the person or entity wishing to import the species. We are a group of hobbyists and fish that are part of the SMP are traded, not sold, so it would be difficult if not impossible for us to cover the costs involved in studying the potential environmental impact of each species. The provisions of HR 669 require the USFWS to study the potential impact of all known species in the pet trade and to create a list of approved and banned species within 3 years of its passage. This is a monumental task and one for which no additional staffing or funding is provided under the bill. We greatly fear that animals will be added to the list at family level in order to speed the process. If that is in fact the case, Bettas may be banned on the basis of one or a few species in the family which have the potential to become established in the US. If the list is compiled at genus level, another potential problem is how to handle species whose genus has been changed. As it currently stands, there are a number of species complexes with the genus Betta. It is expected that when a thorough review is completed these species complexes will be raised to genus level, resulting in a situation in which a species which may be approved under one scientific name will not be on the list under its new name. That will in all likelihood result in the inability to import, breed or ship these species until the lists are updated to reflect the name changes. Another problem is how to list known species which have not yet been scientifically described. How does one refer to these species in order to add them to a list?

We agree that certain species may be inappropriate for the pet trade but current law already provides a mechanism to prevent the introduction of nonnative wildlife. The Lacey Act List of Injurious Wildlife is in place in part to keep certain taxa out of the pet trade. Rather than circumventing the Lacey Act by establishing an approved list of species, a better approach would be to increase the funding and speed up the review process for addition to the List of Injurious Wildlife under current law. Current law also includes provisions for the CDC and APHIS to stop trade in potentially injurious species, as they have done with potential carriers of the monkey pox virus and tortoises known to carry Amblyona ticks, which are vectors of heartwater, a noncontagious infectious disease affecting cattle, sheep and goats.

Because many species are only potentially invasive in certain states whose climate is similar to their home range, this issue is better left to the states with the Lacey Act as the overriding law. This is the state of affairs under current law. There are many species that are illegal in states such as Florida, California and Hawaii that are legal to keep in states such as Pennsylvania, Illinois and Montana and that is reflective of the ability of those species to survive in those states. States have taken a variety of approaches to prevent the introduction of potentially invasive species, from permit processes to the banning of certain species. Some states have also acted to prevent the introduction of species that are native to other states in the US. The federal government would not have the ability to take this action.

Please join us in opposition by writing a letter to, or calling, your congressman to express your opposition to HR 669. In addition to contacting your own congressman, write letters to the members of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, which will consider this bill in a hearing on April 23, 2009.

Mark I. Denaro
President
International Betta Congress

As I see the law, it will stop the importation of any non native species (except a certain few such as goldfish) from being imported into the United States. The natives of South America that collect the neon and cardinal tetras help keep the natural balanced state with the trees and other species unmolested. If this bill goes through then the natives will not have the ability to make a living while preserving the environment as they do now and logging will process at a faster rate. Since trees are great carbon filters, it would follow that there would be more carbon dioxide in the air to help increase the warming effects that are already in effect. Warming the Earth will affect many species and cause many of them to go extinct.
Also the bill says that any animals that are on the banned list will not be able to be reproduced but many of them are only found in hobbyist possession, they are extinct in the wild and therefore will become extinct completely.
We have an economy that has a very high rate of unemployment right now and that rate will become even higher is this bill becomes law I realize that something has to happen and this bill is a well meaning bill but not very well thought out so many people such as scientist as well as Fish and wildlife specialist, pet industry personnel and others will need to sit down and iron out the best (or at least better) way to address this problem.

Just as a devil's advocate here, if one is arking an endangered species that is disappearing because of habitat destruction, what happens if the habitat is gone for the foreseeable future? Gray wolves in North America are one thing, but habitat in SE Asia is under a wider range of pressures with a much more uncertain outcome. The real discussion shouldn't be about the typical chumps importing and keeping snakeheads, etc., but buying and preserving land in key parts of the world so they don't get converted to palm oil plantations or cattle farms. And again I say, forget about the PETA/HSUS bogeyman, don't let your hotbuttons be pushed for nothing.

Just as a devil's advocate here, if one is arking an endangered species that is disappearing because of habitat destruction, what happens if the habitat is gone for the foreseeable future? Gray wolves in North America are one thing, but habitat in SE Asia is under a wider range of pressures with a much more uncertain outcome. The real discussion shouldn't be about the typical chumps importing and keeping snakeheads, etc., but buying and preserving land in key parts of the world so they don't get converted to palm oil plantations or cattle farms. And again I say, forget about the PETA/HSUS bogeyman, don't let your hotbuttons be pushed for nothing.

If this bill is passed, chances are all these species become extinct. If it's not passed, we'll keep them alive in captivity and maybe have a chance at reintroducing them to the wild at some point. Some of the people involved in the IBC's SMP program have been involved in reintroducing fish in Asia. If this bill passes, most of the Lake Victoria cichlids, which will surely be banned because they can survive in south Florida) and many other species that are endangered for a variety of reasons throughout the world are in real danger of becoming extinct. It will be up to the folks living in other countries to keep them alive.
Mark

If this bill is passed, chances are all these species become extinct. If it's not passed, we'll keep them alive in captivity and maybe have a chance at reintroducing them to the wild at some point. Some of the people involved in the IBC's SMP program have been involved in reintroducing fish in Asia. If this bill passes, most of the Lake Victoria cichlids, which will surely be banned because they can survive in south Florida) and many other species that are endangered for a variety of reasons throughout the world are in real danger of becoming extinct. It will be up to the folks living in other countries to keep them alive.
Mark

So, your reading of this bill in its current form means that there would be no exceptions for legitimate research or conservation purposes? It's a funny thought, I haven't heard to date of Victoria cichlids going feral here although a place like the Everglades would seem to be a good potential habitat. Maybe we can introduce Nile perch for a better sport fishery?

Maybe for educational institutions or AZA members but absolutely none for anyone else.
Mark

ps No worries about the introduction of Nile perch unless we start importing them live as food fish! Then again, maybe they'd eat the ruffe in the Great Lakes!

So, your reading of this bill in its current form means that there would be no exceptions for legitimate research or conservation purposes? It's a funny thought, I haven't heard to date of Victoria cichlids going feral here although a place like the Everglades would seem to be a good potential habitat. Maybe we can introduce Nile perch for a better sport fishery?

From firsthand experience, I don't think funding is a major issue for this project. The task of making a "safe" list is daunting, and I believe impossible to do just because of how taxonomy is not a static science. Most likely, the job will be contracted out to a number of universities for grad students to work on for slave wages. This keeps the real work out of USFWS hands, and in the hands of academia. There's enough money floating around USFWS to regionally dole some out for graduate-level projects across the country. If this were my project, the most logical way to approach it would be to primarily focus on fishes with high invasive potentials. They immediately (with documented reasons) would be on the "no" list based on the region in question. Then the "safe" list would be made by analyzing fishes that wholesalers are moving into pet stores. Many fishes would be immediately placed on a "safe list" because they pose no invasive threat. Questionable fish could easily be analyzed in controlled experiments in labs, or better yet, experimental ponds and raceways. It would be a task, but I don't think it's an impossible undertaking. Hopefully science will remain true, and the invasive potential of fish will really be considered instead of a knee-jerk reaction to ban just because the fish might be able to live in a certain area. Just because a fish might be able to live in a certain area does not mean it will necessarily make a noticable impact on the ecosystem.

For instance, I've mentioned the scurge of suckermouth catfish on spring-fed systems in Texas. Detrimental? Definitely. Should they have been banned in this state a long time ago? Certain species of suckermouths, yes. On the other hand, back in the 1890's rock bass were introduced in the San Marcos River. Sure, they probably eat some endangered salamanders and fountain darters, but they are not considered invasive because they are pretty much kept in check by eeking out a living in a niche filled by the warmouth and other centrarchids.

I don't think fish will be banned across the US just because of invasive potential in Florida. Maybe Florida will be forced, due to regional regulations (which they needed to get a hold of a long time ago), to change how they run their farms.

People have brought up blanket bans on flora and fauna in Australia and parts of Western Europe. If commmon sense prevails (maybe, there's a chance), it will be made apparent that, for the most part, this idea is ludicrous in the US. Regionally, many problems could have been avoided west of the rockies and in Florida if people had understood invasions and natural resource protection for the past 100+ years. This didn't happen and now we're in a mess. Most of the invasives in this country are from this country, anyway.

Maybe the pet industry will be forced to take some responsibility in the push to protect ecosystems. A system that is healthy (as in not dammed up, stripped down, polluted, etc.) is generally more resilient and resistant to invasions. When systems become degraded, the natives that have evolved to live in them don't do as well, and niches are freed up/created just waiting to be filled. If the pet industry wants to move an animal that is questionable on it's invasion potential into an area for the pet trade, they will have a much better chance on getting a green light on that species if they can justify why the animal/plant they want to sell has a low invasion potential. The statement "animal x could not withstand the seasonal drying/flash flooding" would definitely help get an animal a green light if it was in question for an area.

As has been said before, it all falls back on the responsibilty of the pet industry to educate its patrons. It has failed miserably in this respect. Also states, for the most part, have failed miserably by allowing wholesale stocking of native invaders into altered/degraded systems. As for fish farms, we know hurricanes hit. We also know that ponds flood and get mixed around when this happens. Fish get released into the surrounding environment, and in South Florida, become established. Knowing all of this, what has been done to prevent it? Walls or dyes might be a start. There are other solutions, too, I'm sure. Nobody seems to have jumped on these solutions, and we need to address the issue.

For the Betta folks, I don't think y'all have anything to worry about. I think the fear of people getting their fish taken away is about on par with the fear of getting your guns taken away. Have you tried to buy ammo lately? It's ridiculous.

I hate the idea of a nanny state, but this is beyond the issue of the gov't just telling us what to do to save us from ourselves. In it's purest sense, I think regulations on the pet/plant industry are to protect a resource that is all of ours from a minority that has a track record of putting it at risk, directly or indirectly, for personal profit. What has the pet industry done to negate its impact on the environment in South Florida, as well as other places prone to invasions? Not much that I can tell. If they had any sense, they would work something out very soon for the PR aspect if nothing alse.

Edited by rjmtx, 22 April 2009 - 11:16 PM.

Isn't it ironic that it allows for goldfish, which are notoriously invasive and spread nasty viruses?

It's obvious that these yahoos don't really care one bit about the environment. They just want to keep raking in the cash.
It sure would be nice if we could somehow get a big expose made about these crooks plastered all over the place.

It's obvious that these yahoos don't really care one bit about the environment. They just want to keep raking in the cash.
It sure would be nice if we could somehow get a big expose made about these crooks plastered all over the place.

Which yahoos? The government yahoos, the foreign fish collecting yahoos, the wholesaler yahoos, the fish farmer yahoos, the petstore yahoos, the "environmentalist" yahoos, the lobbyist yahoos, or just the general yahoos. I was called a hooligan the other day, and I'm trying to figure out if that's a subset of yahoos. Also, I think exposes would be very informative, infuriating, and entertaining for all yahoos listed above.

The hearing on the bill was today.

It appears that HR 669 will die in subcommittee.

Edited by Seedy, 24 April 2009 - 01:27 AM.

It didn't die.

They simply agreed that it was a sucky bill that needed reworking, and they declared a ten day period to hammer out the flaws before reviewing it again. They're still very, very much in favor of passing something very much like this, but they're also keen on not REALLY pissing off 50 million voters. They apparently had no clue about just how harmful this bill really is, but several thousand letters and phone calls of vehement protest did actually give them a hint that perhaps the warm fuzzy feeling they wanted to get for saving the world would have come at a terrible price.

The yahoos are HSUS, PETA, and TNC, three little peas in a pod.

TNC lumped in with PETA and HSUS? That stings. I guess preserving the few pristine places left in this country is a radical idea. TNC even allows hunting on some of their lands...

Anyway, if this does pass, there is a lot they need to iron out. THe main sticking point, for me, is the general language in it pertaining to the ban. THe blanket ban is stupid, and maybe somebody pointed that out. Do they release trnscripts of what was said in committee? I'd like to know some of their reasoning.

Of course they had no Idea how harmful this bill was. They never seem to have a clue what is going on outside of D.C.

My prediction is they do the typical, divide and conquer. They will make the fish owners suspect the small mammal owners, reptile owners suspect that the bird owners are the problem and round and round. Then chip off the "weakest" factions until there is only one left standing, and then everyone else's support will be gone since they are already out with no help.

That is a lot of work however, they probably will rewrite it a bit, then just slide it through in the dark of night.

I watched the hearing live yesterday. At one point I believe the good ole Tilapia guy actually indicated that even if Tilapia escaped...people could eat them!

This link should get you to a video of the hearing. http://resources.edg..._23_insular.wvx

I'm an hour into this, and am really impressed with the dialogue. I think the Israeli scientist has brought up some stellar points. The sustainable fish farmer is also raising some good points. Everyone that's taken part in this thread really needs to first, read the bill before pounding the keyboard, and then watch the hearing.

Ignorance is the enemy here. The pet industry seems to be doing a lot of hand waving stemming from ignorance. If you don't understand risk assessment, don't write it off as a subjective approach...

Edited by rjmtx, 24 April 2009 - 11:43 AM.

I did read the bill, over and over again, trying to find any reason to not panic. I couldn't. I'm very glad that the subcommittee was able to see through it's flaws.

As for lumping TNC with HSUS & PETA, I've made my opinion of TNC plain enough around here enough times that it shouldn't surprise anyone. I know that many of you are enamored with these people, or at least with what they claim their goals are, and you should be, but their practices do not match their stated aims. I'll leave it at that for the sake of not starting a huge fight.
Oh well, there is no dissuading you true believers, so I'll not bother trying. You just don't try to tell me how wonderful they are in return, and we'll all get along fine. I will allow that they at least DO occasionally try to do just enough good along the way that they aren't a total waste, which is certainly much more than can be said for the others.

I did think it very funny how the one who sponsored this bill kept finding out, time and again, just how off-base she was on many points. Watching her backpedal made my day.

Edited by Mysteryman, 26 April 2009 - 07:58 AM.

I don't know, without the intervention of The Nature Conservancy the Walls of Jericho tract, 21,000 acres on the Alabama/Tennessee border, would be supplying the pulp timber industry rather than preserved by both states as broad-use parkland. I don't see the hand of PETA in that; the deer and turkey hunters would be surprised, too.