Any thoughts here on HR 669?

Did we just get some of the yahoos in Congress to read legislation prior to the vote?

Yeah, we did.
Amazing isn't it, and to think, all it took were tens of thousands of letters of howling protest.

And yeah, yeah, TNC does do some good stuff. Time will tell, though, if they actually keep that land protected.

Edited by Mysteryman, 26 April 2009 - 02:32 PM.

To clarify the PETA issue. PETA is not a direct sponsor of this bill. I wrongly posted that they were involved directly with this bill based on misinformation I was given on my local aquarium club forum. I have since gone back and asked the person who posted that "PETA was a sponsor of this bill" and asked him to cite a source for this. He admitted he could not cite a source and this was based on personal speculation. I apologize for the mis-information...there seems to be A LOT of misinformation floating around the web. It is good to see people here who have actually taken the time to watch the hearings and are not just passing around more mis-information. Thank You!

So I watched the hearing, not sure what arm waving was going on by the pet industry, seemed their response was very well thought out and even the co sponsor seemed impressed with the unified stance on this. I am not sure why the assumption is we (those opposed) havent read this because I read it twice before I ever made a statement on it. Even the simple question of how to allow people to take pets across state lines has to be a "complex system" that will include proving prior ownership and require a permit, which is exactely what many of those previous posters mentioned that those here that seem to support the bill basically blew off as no big deal. Also did you catch the part where "domesticated" has no legal meaning so your domesticated cat/dog may not be safe years down the road.. and exactley why arent goldfish going to be considered? Whats really odd IMO is that while I cant have a FW ray here in texas I can buy and use live goldfish as fishing bait and many fisherman 10 20 yrs ago tended to dump unused bait fish into a lake. The presumption and point of the bill as mentioned by the cosponsor is to have a single system controlled by the feds... then as long a FW rays make it onto the allowed fed list I would be able to have one..since fed trumps state and a single regulatory system would make state laws invalid, that was the point he made why have 55 permits when only 1 is needed.. So those of you support this also take note that the head Of the USFWS stated he doubt more than 10% in any of the current imported species would become part of the banned list, so again if the bill takes effect in a "federally" controlled form then it will void out all current state regulations because again only 1 permit is needed not 55 seperate permit and requlation system. Also those of you that "blame" the pet trade, give me a break, thats like blaming every home owner for destroying woodlands, grasslands, etc or those of us living in an area where our hydro electric power destroyed the water ways that were prime habitat 100 yrs ago, we all know the consequences of damming yet how many here recieve power form a hydro electric dam?.. it is the owners responsibility to properly dispose of unwanted pets and it is the owners responsibilty to know what they are buying. Maybe in the mid 1990's maybe I can agree a little bit but with all the information since the internet made it big in the mid 90's there is no reason for someone to not know the requirments of buying a pet.

Just to clarify, my statement about reading the bill was directed at everybody, and not just one opinion or the other. People like soundbites, and it's a lot easier to form an (ill advised) opinion by reading what others say than to trod through some proposed legislation.

I don't think being for or opposed to the bill means the person is right, wrong, or inbetween. This is by no means a black and white issue, and it is good to see some discussion and debate about it. Hell, congress should fly a NANFA panel in to debate the bill, then something good might come of the whole mess. Or, we might all go away with a few more enemies...

Also, we can't (legally) have FW rays in Texas, because they pose a direct threat to human health as well as the environment. I think the main driver on that law was human health. They could live and reproduce in spring systems, coastal, and South Texas.

Edited by rjmtx, 26 April 2009 - 05:10 PM.

Also, we can't (legally) have FW rays in Texas, because they pose a direct threat to human health as well as the environment. I think the main driver on that law was human health. They could live and reproduce in spring systems, coastal, and South Texas.

Thats what I was refering to when I stated that under HR 669 it would in essence, as presented by the co sponsor and rep from U.S. Somoa, void out all state regulations because as he stated it would be a one permit/regulation system instead of the current 55. So if it is legal to be possesed by the bill then it would be legal to obtain and posses everywhere. Another thing they didnt consider, of course USFWS is going to be on board it would mean more funding which equals more debt, more taxpayer dollars, etc..

As for the not reading it comment sorry if it seemed I directed at you but it seems that comes more form those that lean towards supporting this bill which I am not sure anyone does as it is written but there are a few that definately come across that they do. I look at it from both sides of the fence if it wasnt for the tropical communtiy we wouldnt have 99% of the things available to ensure our fish live and thrive. If it wasnt for a tropical fish I doubt many if any of us would be keeping any fish, I doubt that the majority here started out keeping natives.

USFWS is already grossly underfunded. Ask anyone who has tried to get a species listed under the ESA. That's why people resort to suing the FWS, so that a judge might compel them to come up with the necessary money to fund the studies needed for a listing decision. We can thank earlier, failed parts of the tropical business for most of the fish releases across Florida in particular. If you want cheap, tropical exotic fish, be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Yes folks, it's great to consume.

USFWS is already grossly underfunded. Ask anyone who has tried to get a species listed under the ESA. That's why people resort to suing the FWS, so that a judge might compel them to come up with the necessary money to fund the studies needed for a listing decision. We can thank earlier, failed parts of the tropical business for most of the fish releases across Florida in particular. If you want cheap, tropical exotic fish, be careful what you wish for, you might get it. Yes folks, it's great to consume.

No disrespect intended and I am not trying to start an arguement here, maybe I am missing your point, most of us realize that the USFWS is under funded, but this project will only increase their burden, this funding will have to either cut other projects or come out of our pockets which will mean increased taxes. I will have to do some research but I personally dont believe it was "failed parts of the tropical business" that contributed toa any fish releases it was natural disasters (hurricanes) and is irresponsible pet owners, blaming the tropical business for released pets is like blaming the gun manufactures for gun violence in my humble opinion. Tropical fish have always been cheap, that is why many people do not properly care for them and dispose of them into water ways, but that isnt the fault of the pet trade, that is the fault of the owner. I have purchased many fish and each chain store does have "protect your local ecosystems do not release fish" or something to that effect printed on the fish bags, so they have been doing their part, the problem is that the average joe doesnt have a clue that that 2in oscar is going to reach 15inches and need a 55 gallon aquarium, but is that the responsibility of the pet stores..not really, it is our responsibility to research something before we buy it, it would be courteous if the LFS informed buyers of that and some do, even the petsmart here will refuse to sell fish to someone if they do not know the care requirments or have the space for them, the employees at the local petsmart here are trying to convince corporate what not to carry and have to some degree been successful, so a blanket blaming is completely off base, because many stores have been doing the right thing for years, but they can not control what happens after a fish leaves their store.

On the its great to consume comment, we all consume products everyday that contribute to the decline of natural spaces and wildlife. Farming, construction, even driving contributes to chemical run off, pig farming is one of the most damaging livestock industries in this country not to mention the feral hog populations are growing across the United States. The houses we live in sit on what was once prime habitat for something. So we are all consumers the only thing we can do know is work to reduce the damage done and try to reverse it but banning is not going to do this, what will do it is education and the consequences non native wildlife can cause in an eco system. Now how do we as a whole do that. Well by forums such as this one or the many good tropical forums online,
The point IMO is states already have laws in place that make certain species illegal, but these laws are not easy to find or access by the average joe, Texas has very restrictive laws but my guess is that you can find illegal species in atleast 1 out of 10 stores, the laws need to be better enforced at the state level, but again that would require more funding. The only fault I would place on the pet trade is they should know that if I order a fish or plant that is illegal in my state they should have to inform me and not ship it, there are numerous forums that have lists and links to prohibited species by state if someone takes the time to research that.

Edited by brian1973, 26 April 2009 - 07:24 PM.

Information here. The video is linked too. Click on the names of the witnesses to see their written testimony. This bill is not perfect, but it is not what the many media accounts have made it out (I think there is little chance that it would have any effect on neon tetras or the most common aquarium species or guinea pigs or hamsters). The bill does need a lot of tweaking, and the argument that there just are not enough resources to do this is a good one, though I think debateable.


http://resourcescomm.......w&extid=246

I will have to do some research but I personally dont believe it was "failed parts of the tropical business" that contributed toa any fish releases it was natural disasters (hurricanes) and is irresponsible pet owners, blaming the tropical business for released pets is like blaming the gun manufactures for gun violence in my humble opinion. Tropical fish have always been cheap, that is why many people do not properly care for them and dispose of them into water ways, but that isnt the fault of the pet trade, that is the fault of the owner.

Has anyone else here ever sampled in the streams in the vicinity of tropical fish or goldfish farms? Unbelievable "diversity" and abundance of non-native species is the rule.

Re: Cats and goldfish

To those that argue that the bill makes no sense if it does not outlaw these and other abundant and obviously detrimental non-natives:

The text says that to place a species on the Preliminary Approved List under Section 4(b)(1), the Service must make a determination that those listed species, based on scientific and commercial information:
“are not harmful to the United State’s economy, environment, or other animals species’ or human health ; or may be harmful…but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.”

Goldfish and cats would fall under the latter category - it would be impossible to ban them at this point.

PIJAC Continues Leading Fight Against HR 669, Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, As CEO Testifies Before Congressional Committee
If Passed in Current Form, 669 Could Negatively Impact Pet Businesses and More Than One-Third of the U.S. Population

WASHINGTON--(BUSINESS WIRE)--Marshall Meyers, CEO and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), testified before a Congressional Committee this morning regarding HR 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. Meyers, representing pet owners and the pet industry, spoke against the bill in its current form, explaining why, if passed, it could have devastating effects on pet owners and the pet industry.

Anyone owning pet fish, birds, reptiles, amphibians, small mammals, or invertebrates could be affected by this bill, as would companies selling pet products or services. This bill would ban nonnative species of wildlife not specifically approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Apart from dogs, cats and goldfish, virtually every species falls under the tarp created by HR 669.

In his written testimony submitted to the House Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife, Meyers stated, “We support the development of a strategic, risk-based process to prevent the introduction of invasive species (harmful nonnative species) into the United States.” However, the current draft of HR 669 “fails to be strategic in that it does not adequately take socioeconomic issues and risk management options into account,” and would “require funds and staffing not currently available, nor likely to be available, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.” Unfortunately, if passed, the existing bill could result in the mass release and/or euthanasia of pets.

According to the bill, if an animal is not on an approved list, it would be banned for possession (unless you could prove you owned it prior to a risk assessment), breeding, sale, trade, or movement between states. So, if an unapproved pet species of fish reproduced in your aquarium, you’d be in criminal violation of the law. Likewise, if your son or daughter owned an unapproved species and you had to relocate to another state, you’d be in criminal violation if you took the pet with you.

Testifying before the subcommittee, Meyers reiterated the pet industry’s interest in working with authors of the bill to craft more realistic legislation that serves the public and affected industries alike. He offered, “I propose getting the stakeholders together after this hearing to review the bill section by section, to see what needs to be reworked and how to rework it.” Meyers also submitted comments from more than 20 organizations as examples of the thousands of letters expressing concerns about the bill. In addition, a report from a multistakeholder workshop convened by PIJAC last month was submitted into the record.

Subcommittee Chairwoman, and author of the bill, Madeleine Z. Bordallo (NP-Guam), acknowledged, “We recognize the bill is by no means perfect, and that changes will be needed to address various concerns before any legislation moves forward.” Subcommittee member Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP–American Samoa), a co-sponsor of the bill, congratulated Meyers and the pet industry for the tremendous grassroots response that has been generated, noting that it is important to have input from constituents on these issues.

Following the hearing, Meyers noted, “It is clear that committee members from both sides of the aisle heard from the pet-owning public about their concerns with this bill. PIJAC will continue working with members of the committee, the Executive Branch and other stakeholders to ensure the process proceeds in a transparent, inclusive and strategic manner.”

For more information on PIJAC’s position, as well as Meyers’ full written testimony, please visit PIJAC’s HR 669 Forum at www.pijac.org/governmentaffairs/hr669forum.asp. For media interviews, please contact Meyers at 202-256-6726.

Since 1970, the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has protected pets and the pet industry – promoting responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, fostering environmental stewardship, and ensuring the availability of pets. PIJAC members include retailers, companion animal suppliers, manufacturers, wholesale distributors, manufacturers’ representatives, pet hobbyists, and other trade organizations. Through the combined voice of these people, PIJAC serves the best interests of the entire pet industry. For more information, please visit www.pijac.org.

Contacts
Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council
Kari Ardolino Rudgers, 202-452-1525
Kari@pijac.org

Has anyone else here ever sampled in the streams in the vicinity of tropical fish or goldfish farms? Unbelievable "diversity" and abundance of non-native species is the rule.

If that is the case and the releases were caused by a failure on the part of the fish farmer then they should be required to pay for fixing the problem, but if the problem was natural disaster which is a reason that some non natives have escaped and ran free in southern states then were should the penalty lie? I havent had time to do any research on the topic so I am shooting from what I remember from a program I recently watched on animal planet about non natives in florida, that claimed they believed the majority of non natives in florida where the result of irresponsible keepers and natural disasters. I will try to research that some more today.

I think we all agree that we need stiffer regulation but the how is where we disagree, like I said the states already have the regulations for the most part and rather we like or dislike those that is what we currently have to abide by. I think that the sponsors of the bill did realize they need alot of work on it and maybe they will revise it to a point of usefulness.

If that is the case and the releases were caused by a failure on the part of the fish farmer then they should be required to pay for fixing the problem, but if the problem was natural disaster which is a reason that some non natives have escaped and ran free in southern states then were should the penalty lie? I havent had time to do any research on the topic so I am shooting from what I remember from a program I recently watched on animal planet about non natives in florida, that claimed they believed the majority of non natives in florida where the result of irresponsible keepers and natural disasters. I will try to research that some more today.

I think we all agree that we need stiffer regulation but the how is where we disagree, like I said the states already have the regulations for the most part and rather we like or dislike those that is what we currently have to abide by. I think that the sponsors of the bill did realize they need alot of work on it and maybe they will revise it to a point of usefulness.

You really can't "fix" exotic releases in most cases. You simply have to accept them forever in natural waters. Can't really hit a go back button on that one and this might be the reason for legislation to regularly show up in the past several years. Makes no difference who is releasing them....they are going into natural waters and thriving. Hurricanes don't release fish, people do.

Sorry for the soundbites but floods happen, big ones too. Fish get out and populations that have existed for thousands of years are suddenly changed forever. I think everyone agrees our natural heritage requires protection.

States have reliably proven unable or unwilling to handle this situation I'm sorry to say. I can't honestly see individual state bills working for the benefit of all in this matter. If Minnesota takes a very light stance on this issue and releases fish into the Mississippi headwaters, how does that protect states downstream? Just one example from potentially thousands. I can't say I'm especially fond of the mechanisms that will be required to protect native species on a federal level but hobbyists, the "pet industry" and states have failed miserably to handle exotic introductions.

You really can't "fix" exotic releases in most cases. You simply have to accept them forever in natural waters. Can't really hit a go back button on that one and this might be the reason for legislation to regularly show up in the past several years. Makes no difference who is releasing them....they are going into natural waters and thriving. Hurricanes don't release fish, people do.

Sorry for the soundbites but floods happen, big ones too. Fish get out and populations that have existed for thousands of years are suddenly changed forever. I think everyone agrees our natural heritage requires protection.

States have reliably proven unable or unwilling to handle this situation I'm sorry to say. I can't honestly see individual state bills working for the benefit of all in this matter. If Minnesota takes a very light stance on this issue and releases fish into the Mississippi headwaters, how does that protect states downstream? Just one example from potentially thousands. I can't say I'm especially fond of the mechanisms that will be required to protect native species on a federal level but hobbyists, the "pet industry" and states have failed miserably to handle exotic introductions.

Very good points. Let me clarify just so there is no confusion.. during the sub commitee meeting they gave costs that states have spent to try to control introduced species, if these can be linked as in the example above by sampling directly next to a fish farm then that fish farm should be financially responsible for clean up not the tax payers. And I do realize that pet owners are the main cause of this but I do not contribute that to the "pet industry" I guess you could because if they didnt sell them then they wouldnt be released but with that logic if we didnt have cars no one would die from car accidents, if we didnt have guns the murder rate would be lower, so it is all relative but in my opinion completely seperate, those arguements could go on for days but the blanket comments about tropical keepers and pet industry do nothing more IMO than alienate anyone that may be interested in coming over to the native side of the aquatic hobby.

Edited by brian1973, 27 April 2009 - 04:07 PM.

Do you really believe (let's say hypothetically) Arkansas allows import of an exotic carp and it manages to travel many hundreds of miles of Illinois rivers by the millions, Illinois should be able bankrupt the state of Arkansas to eradicate? By that time, who cares if Illinois spends (or takes) billions to eradicate-- the damage is done and the carp is here to stay. Is Illinois liable if the fish should happen to make it into the great lakes? Can Illinois then further sue Arkansas for damages inflicted upon Illinois via legal action of other states since Arkansas was the origin of the release?

If you ask me to flip a coin and take a side on saving the wild animals of North America vs. enjoying fishes from around the world at home, I'll tell you I wish there were a middle ground and exotic introductions could be eliminated but who is forging the middle ground??? There simply isn't middle ground to be found on this issue.

Do you really believe (let's say hypothetically) Arkansas allows import of an exotic carp and it manages to travel many hundreds of miles of Illinois rivers by the millions, Illinois should be able bankrupt the state of Arkansas to eradicate? By that time, who cares if Illinois spends (or takes) billions to eradicate-- the damage is done and the carp is here to stay. Is Illinois liable if the fish should happen to make it into the great lakes? Can Illinois then further sue Arkansas for damages inflicted upon Illinois via legal action of other states since Arkansas was the origin of the release?

If you ask me to flip a coin and take a side on saving the wild animals of North America vs. enjoying fishes from around the world at home, I'll tell you I wish there were a middle ground and exotic introductions could be eliminated but who is forging the middle ground??? There simply isn't middle ground to be found on this issue.

I dont believe I ever said that at all, I never said anything about a state paying... I did say that in the example that was given of sampling next to a fish farm and finding that there are non native species that can be linked to that FARM then that FARM should be expected to pay the expense.. pure and simple it has nothing to do with a state it has to do with individuals and companies taking responsibility for the negligence of there operations/actions.

So what in your opinion will happen to this hobby since there is no middle ground in your eyes? If there is no middle ground and hypothetically all non natives where banned, where are you going to get prepared foods, medication, etc..what happens if you need to purchase a new tank because yours cracks..why would a company invest in making these products if there is little or no need for them? Many states do not allow native fish to be kept becauae they see it as more of a hazard than non natives so what about htose people..they just get left out? There is always middle ground for everything, you yourself said they can not be eliminated so whats the point in banning them now, do you believe banning stop the spread?


Sorry I am not trying to argue here I am trying to understand various opinions.

Edited by brian1973, 27 April 2009 - 05:01 PM.

Well, a state would have to approve of such and import right? Besides, there isn't a fish farm in the US large enough to secure via assets or liability insurance the eradication or a single exotic release.
My point is...both sides have what seems an unworkable approach but one protects our natural heritage and one leaves it with permanent scars.

Well I guess a better question from me to you is do you believe all non native should be banned or just invasive species based on region? We both agree that our natural heritage comes first. The arguement is mute on both our parts really given that the witness for the USFWS stated that less than 10% of the current species would be banned. I also think you may be missing my point that as stated by the Rep and co sponsor from US Somalia that if we had one federal regulation instead of the current individual 55 state/territory regulations that would in theory void out what is currently banned in my state if it is allowed in yours if the bill was to pass without additions for regional differences.

Also individuals/companies have been held liable for environmental damages in the past regardless of assests or insurance. Wouldnt making a single entinty liable cause them to be more cautious in there operations. Just an example that is not fish related the individual that started the Hayman fire in Colorado was held liable for 14.6 million dollas and given a hefty prison sentence, now this will never be paid back in full but it definately makes responsible people more responsible knowing they may be held liable for the damage they cause.

I personally do not see how the approach of no middle ground protects anything, since as said earlier in this thread the damage is already there, will banning certain species change that? No. and if the populations are self sustaining banning home aquarium fish will not reduce that threat, unfortunately those that have caused most of the problem are not even aware this bill is in existance, because the responsible fish keepers are the ones like you and I that do give a damn and research information, etc.. the ones that release pets I doubt have ever visited a fish forum rather it be native or non native in nature.

Again please do not take this as me being arguemenative I know it may seem that way.

It is not a choice, we can have both.

Note that some species have, for whatever reason, not established themselves in Florida. They escape, yes, but never become established(barbs, some anabantoids). More study is needed. I agree fishfarms in FL need to address this problem if further species are imported for the pet trade.

However, the government should be looking at other areas too. The pet trade invasives are not the only ones, and probably not the worst. Whether it is government stocking programs or shipment of other goods, it sure is not related to the pet trade.(people always mention the brown tree snake when talking of the reptile trade. Please read how this invasive was established!). Perhaps better screening at our important borders would be a key?

I think a banned list would be better than an approved list. Again funding is a problem and many species that are imported are kept my only a small number of people...that are not harming the environment.

I do think that plants need to be regulated alongside of animals. Many known invasive plant species are still sold regularly. But most plants(again), are not a threat.

Edited by critterguy, 27 April 2009 - 05:29 PM.