Any thoughts here on HR 669?

On some level this is almost like a debate whether or not just anyone should be able to have children. This sounds at once goofy and totalitarian, but once someone has children we all have to deal with the consequences of these children being present and needing support, or causing problems if the parents are deadbeats. Same with some bozo with snakeheads or other potentially obnoxious fish. If they don't release the fish and are discrete about it, no one knows and there's no problem. If they release the fish through ignorance or stupidity we all have to clean up afterwards and deal with the consequences. Neither situation has a real middle ground; do we require licenses to reproduce (sometimes I think so...), do we try to minimize the number of exotic species being pumped into circulation to anyone with the asking price in hand? It's back to the concept of government as protecting most of us from the actions of a few. Government is an imperfect tool, so I guess we're weighing the benefits of no more cichlid releases against the costs of expanded government vigilance and intervention. Excuse me whilst I dust off my copy of The Federalist Papers.

This is a pointless debate really. Fact of the matter is The Pet industry has sucked for a long time and so have the State and federal governments in coming up with a solution for this very time needed issue. As far as I'm concerned I'm glad it is on the radar of all three parties and now maybe they will work out a decent solution to something they all have been avoiding.... for far too long. This was actually an issue in the fricking 70's and 80's.. IT IS NOT NEW.

Hobbyists really need to get through their heads that you need to change. We can not keep doing this business as usual with you always getting your way. Things have got to change and restrictions need to be put in place. Likewise to the Governmental agencies we can not blanket ban everything out of a whim without being careful. Neither the full allowance approach or Full ban approach is correct The idea of this bill is actually correct but it fails in many areas. In the end this Black and white list is the correct path. How that path is developed and created is the biggest issue.

Really rather than partisan bickering between parties with stupid sniping back and forth why do you all not work on coming up with an honest solution to this very important and time sensitive issue?

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.

I don't want to see all imports banned but this legislation will not do that in any case. I do think a system must be put in place to regulate what fish can be introduced where. A real system, not some unmanageable mess. I really didn't miss the point of trumping state law. Many states take an approach of "ban what frightens people" instead of looking at what fish has the potential to cause permanent damage to a region.

I see no point in bankrupting companies and still have invasive fish. Who can I sue for the introduction of bighead, silver and black carp in Illinois on behalf of it's citizens? It really doesn't matter anyhow since there isn't enough money or resources to eliminate them now.

My "no middle ground" comment is not an approach, it's just I don't see any. Indeed invasives are here but not all of them...yet. This bill could put in place a system to prevent future introduction. I do understand this bill could unnecessarily remove animals from responsible pet owners and really don't like that. I think as Americans we need to look at the broader picture and get a system in place prevent all aspects of potential introduction.

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.

Beg to differ on that. I have mostly experience with water plants, so here goes: Salvinia, Hydrilla, Egeria densa, Purple Loosestrife, Water Hyacinth, Water Lettuce, Curly leaf pondweed, Eurasian Water Milfoil, for starters. These plants together cause hundreds of millions of dollars worth of damage, worldwide, every year. Aquaria owners and suppliers are together probably the second or third worst offender in this, with the first being the water gardeners, and transport on boat trailers probably beating out the aquarium trade. Just saw a really good paper on this. Lots of water garden supply places on the internet, and Minnesota DNR folks tried to order illegal-to-own-in-Minnesota plants and legal ones both. They usually got the illegal ones when they asked, but the real shocker was that most of the time the plants they got were misidentified or contaminated with other plants which are potentially invasive, including illegal ones sometime. And they got animals with them too, which is not that great of a surprise. Try selling or transporting plants in quantity without also sending snails and other critters. Some of those things can be invasive too, and then there are disease organisms....

My apologies to critterguy - misread his comment and got on my high horse a bit - seems like critterguy is already aware of the problems with aquatic plants.

My apologies to critterguy - misread his comment and got on my high horse a bit - seems like critterguy is already aware of the problems with aquatic plants.

No problem. I agree. Considering that plants can ultimately alter the very makeup of an ecosystem from bottom up they can be terrible invasives. I do think that ponds/watergardening has serious issues due to the fact that their is a much higher chance of invasive plants/animals getting out due to a more intimate connection with the outdoors(particularly with natural or particularly large ponds). Perhaps the use of native species needs to be spearheaded?

But again, many plants are nonnative and can be used by gardeners with little to no fear of an invasive species. So much more can be said for creatures in the aquarium and pet trade which are, for the most part, kept contained. I agree that stricter penalties for releasing pets are in order. I've heard to many of those stories "it grew too big or we didn't want him anymore so we put chucky(the goldfish) in the pond at the park. I bet he is still there..."

Ponds in Socal are a pretty good illustration with tons of red ear sliders(here's a species that I wouldn't mind it being regulated in CA, I think we should be allowed to make turtle soup of not only those in waterways but also in park ponds)and softshell turtles(and perhaps occasionally other species show up, but do not establish).

I think it would be going way to far to ban, say, RES. I do believe people can keep these guys responsibly without causing problems for other species(in the case of CA some suspect it competes with our native pond turtle...
).

Edited by critterguy, 27 April 2009 - 08:46 PM.

Uland, Fundulous brooklamprey Thank you....I do understand your points, and I think we agree more than it seemed earlier. Even though we dont agree on liability or who is ultimately responsible..lol.

My apoligies if anyone felt I was trying to push my opinions on anyone I was just having a friendly discussion on the topic at hand.

The plant thing is the exact problem with both state laws and sellers.. it is hard to find what plants are illegal in your state unless you actively search for it and if ordering online I would be willing to bet I can either have a known illegal plant shipped to me from a reputable dealer or have it come in as a hitchhiker. In that case it is in my opinion the dealers responsibilty to know what they are sellign and if it is illegal. I myself identified a plant in my tank as an illegal species sold under the scientific name of a non illegal species.. and it was hard to eradicate but I would much rather eradicate it than face the slim chance of getting fined.

Edited by brian1973, 27 April 2009 - 09:06 PM.

Uland, Fundulous brooklamprey Thank you....I will step out of this thread since I do understand your points, and I think we agree more than it seemed earlier. Even though we dont agree on liability or who is ultimately responsible..lol.

My apoligies if anyone felt I was trying to push my opinions on anyone I was just having a friendly discussion on the topic at hand.

Your not out of line and have perfectly good statements.
Really however I'd like to see this debate move to something useful. What is the real solution to this problem? Something has to be done and we all know it. What however is that? How are we to help in this and suggest a reasonable solution?

I see no need to apologize as I thought this discussion was not meant to jab individuals in any way. I hope you don't feel as though I was personally attacking you.

Well i edited my post to discuss the plant issue a bit..

That is a very good point how do we as a group come up with a reasonable solution.. unfortunately I dont know, because while I fully believe that if some one is caught and proven to been releasing harmful species then they should be penalizied regardless of the price, unfortunately I have worked as both a gov. employee and in the civilian sector as a construction equipment mechanic, what I have found is that while gov. agencies such as EPA are quick to fine other gov. agencies they seem to ignore the civilian sector unless the is a news worthy problem. I worked for 10yrs in the civilian sector and never saw any inspections from EPA, OSHA but when I was in the army and as a gov. civilian now we see them every couple months. I know that doesnt relate to the topic but it shows how the Gov seems to ignore things.

And no I didnt take anything personally but since there is no emotion in typing I would rather clarify than risk offending for no reason.

I don't think making up lists, reviewing them, and putting them in the books is really the hard part. Especially if done regionally and farmed out to universities. Regions could be a modified version of USDA hardiness zones that take animal needs into account. I'm a graduate student, and this whole idea reeks of a series of theses for budding invasion ecologists. I think the hard part will be enforcement. Who will enforce it? Will it be up to state game wardens to look out for a federal list? They're already stretched thin as it is. I think on the commercial level, so much is done on the internet, that a dude in an office could set up stings; at least enough to get fear and paranoia out to those who intend to break wildlife laws. Fines should go to habitat rehabilitation, since degraded habitats are more prone to invasion.

Florida keeps coming up like it is naturally welcoming to everything that sets foot there. South Florida is an extremely degraded system due to drainings, diversions, and a multitude of human impacts. It's also prone to major disturbances. Combine these factors and a whole smorgesboard of others, and you have a system that has chinks in its armor that invasives can move in to. Make stiff fines and don't waste them on some species eradication that will never work. Fix the environment for the natives to move back in to a natural regime and thrive. It's not as simple as I put it, but I think it's a start.

I think states should be following this model as it is, but deer breeding studies demand more cash than a potential problem that is somewhat abstract as to the whens and hows. Anyhow, the majority of invasions in Tx are government facilitated. We had government fish (carp) in every drainage before any real serious fish work was done in the state. White bass belong nowhere in the state other than the far northeastern corner, but they range all the way throught the Rio Grande. So yeah, it's also time for the people in charge to be put in check as to what is released. That's a whole nother can of worms, though.

Edited by rjmtx, 27 April 2009 - 10:46 PM.

I know the perfect solution to this whole problem.

A multilevel certification system modeled after the one the SCUBA industry uses seems a pretty good idea.

A private agency that needs no government funding could easily run the whole thing from the sale of studyguides and examination fees, just like the SCUBA agencies do, and enforcement would be fairly simple as well via spotchecks and harsh fines for violators. The USFWS or somesuch would probably have to handle the implementation of the fines after the violators were reported by the agency, but they shouldn't mind having free leads supplied to them without any need for any legwork of their own.

All that would be needed would be a law decreeing that such a system would have to be used, and that no one could import anything without the proper certification. After that the multilevel certifications all the way down to the hobbyist level would take care of themselves, just as they do with SCUBA. Both parties of any transfer of animals would have to be certified, and sneaky spotchecks would help ensure this. A violation means a big fine and revocation of certification.

The upshot of all this is that the main root cause of the problem is finally addressed. Certified hobbyists would no longer make foolish purchases, and certified sellers could no longer sell things to people who have no business buying them.
Education is the key. Currently there is no reason for Petsmart to NOT sell an Oscar to a newbie with his first 10-gallon tank. Faced with the possibility of having it's stores all effectively shut down for violations, though, the stores will suddenly be VERY careful to only sell Oscars to people with a Level 2 certification and an Oscar Endorsement rider. After going to all that trouble take the tests and learn all about Oscars before being allowed to buy them, the hobbyists won't be very likely to release them, especially when the stores are suddenly forced by law to take back any tankbusters.

This can really work. I've only mentioned the very barest basics, but you should get the idea. Exotics releases should grind to a near halt in a hurry, and the overall level of care given to all fish on every level would improve. We'd also see a nice phasing-out of those species which simply have no good place in the hobby while simultaneously still allowing for their trade for those with the proper proven ability to house and care for them. ( oh yes; certification for those species needing special endorsement isn't simply a matter of paying a fee and filling out a questionaire )
Fairness for all !

Aye...a very expensive solution(for hobbyists if it is anything like SCUBA...though yes it will not need government funding)

As I predicted, H.R. 669 is dead. Sadly, they chose to kill it rather than try to fix it. Not a surprise, though, after the hyperbolic and coordinated response from the pet industry. Any congressman who wants to be re-elected would have run screaming. This white-list black-list debate has been going on for at least 3 and a half decades, and I think we are simply going to continue to suffer this onslaught of new species as long as there are species to introduce. From Meyers comments (see video) you'd think we had not tried the black-list method already. I'm surprised that I'm disappointed, because this had no chance from the beginning. But worse than that, this abject failure will probably adversely affect better-thought-out bills such as NAISA (National Aquatic Invasive Species Act), and eliminate whatever chance those bills had of getting somewhere useful.

Yeah, money doesn't talk it swears....

I can't find anything trustworthy to indicate this bill is "dead". Don't get me wrong, a snowballs chance from the start but I'd like to see what legislators have to say about it's failure.

I can't find anything trustworthy to indicate this bill is "dead". Don't get me wrong, a snowballs chance from the start but I'd like to see what legislators have to say about it's failure.

http://www.citizen.c...9923/-1/CITNEWS

http://www.citizen.c...9923/-1/CITNEWS

I would not count this article as a trustworthy source. The author interviewed an opponent of the bill, and quotes her opinions, but he doesn't indicate that he got any of his information from the congressional panel itself. He notes that opponents are calling it "effectively dead". In my mind, that statement by itself means nothing.

I would not count this article as a trustworthy source. The author interviewed an opponent of the bill, and quotes her opinions, but he doesn't indicate that he got any of his information from the congressional panel itself. He notes that opponents are calling it "effectively dead". In my mind, that statement by itself means nothing.

I read it again, and you are right - it just says the "opponents" are calling it dead. I first took it to mean that opposing congress members were calling it dead, which would carry a lot more weight. So far this is just opposing letter-writers patting each other on the back. I still don't give it much chance, but I agree that it is premature to call it dead at this point. I stand corrected.

Edited by Carptracker, 29 April 2009 - 04:27 PM.

Out of curiousity because I cant remember and now dont have time to watch the hearing video again..what was the point of the 10 days they gave? Was that before they would look at it again or was that to fix it or was that something totally different?

Edited by brian1973, 29 April 2009 - 08:18 PM.