rileyrk190

Has anyone else heard about this ridiculous act?? I went to my LFS today and saw a sign on the door saying "keep the government from shutting us down." Apparently the owner told me that there has been a bill proposed to the house of rep. putting a ban on non-native species! I can only hope that such a bill will never be passed! All i would have left would be my dog which i am allergic to.

Tony G.

IIve heard about it too! its horrible!! It basically takes all the non native animals out of the country (bettas, parakeets, chinchillas, parrots,etc) I hope it doesnt pass. Is it in the whole country or just some states?

matt6765

WHAT!!!!!!! Where in NY are you......

I will have to import my fish from you

Tony G.

hahahahahahaha

Tavel

if that's the same bill I'm thinking of, the aquarium trade is already exempt and there's no reason to get all whirred up about it.

rileyrk190

I believe its the whole country

[quote=matt6765;631857]WHAT!!!!!!! Where in NY are you......

i'm Near syracuse



Well i guess my LFS was misinformed, but still i have an iguana and hermit crabs which i have had for many years.

sirdarksol

HR 669 was voted down months ago. And no, it would not have banned all non native species, only those with the strong potential to become invasive in the US. It would not have shut down all of your favorite fish stores. Claims to the contrary were exaggeration meant to engender the precise response you had. The bill was poorly worded, however, in that it left a lot of room for misinterpretation and slow response time (non-invasive animals could be left on the ban list for an extended period of time, or, conversely, invasive animals may take far too long to get on the ban list).

While I think that HR 669 was worded improperly, something needs to be done about this problem. There are growing numbers of animals that have become invasive species due to people releasing their pets. The current legislation has no teeth to combat the problem.

From the look of the bill, it is unlikely that it was ever meant to pass. The point was to get people paying attention to the problem and spur Congress to come up with a workable solution.

rileyrk190

Well apparently the owner was very misinformed. I tried to find a copy to read, but have been unsuccessful. I do agree however that some species are becoming a nuisance and at the very least, there should be regulations put in place.

sirdarksol

I apologize. I appear to have been misinformed about it being voted down. It is still listed as active in the government websites http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669 (you can also find the text of the bill there.
I don't recall any aquarist exemptions, but it's possible that the text has been changed since I last read it.

Tony G.

what is ecemption?


this sucks alot...

sirdarksol

An exemption would be someone, something, or some circumstance that is not affected by (exempt from) this law. In other words, if Tavel is correct, and if the aquarium industry is exempt from the law, it would not affect what fish could be bred or sold in the US.

While it's poorly worded, it doesn't suck as much as it seems. It's far less terrible than the damage that invasive species are doing to other industries, from fishing to farming to lumber.

Angela_96

This type of bill comes up very often, espeically with a new congress, new president. Someone draws up this ridiculous bill and it gets shut down.

I do think they need to get a few species more controled, ie the iquanas and pythons that are wrecking havoc in Florida and educate pet owners on the danger of just tossing out pets in the wild.

bolivianbaby

Don't forget about the tarantulas in Florida! correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't they introduced as well?

sirdarksol

Correct.

As far as H.R. 669 being a product of the current administration, it is important to note that this bill is more or less a reintroduction of H.R. 6311, which was introduced last year but was not voted on before the end of the 110th Congress.

Angela_96

This is why I am no longer worried about this "bill".
I honestly think before they pass something like this the states will step in and pass some laws on certain species in general, such as the pythons, etc.
Also passing laws and fi ning people for turning pets loose in the wild, and being strict about it.

I don't think we have to worry about having our fish.

sirdarksol

The reason our federal representatives are looking at a way of dealing with this is because state-level regulations (most of which focus on fines for people who release animals into the wild) are not doing their job, and also because animals don't care about state lines.
However, the biggest problem is that it's nearly impossible to catch a person releasing an animal into the wild.

Banning the sale and transport of potentially invasive animals is easier to monitor, and, if done right, will only limit a small number of animals (even HR 669 wouldn't touch most of our fish... they're tropical fish with pretty specific requirements to successfully inhabit a given environment), and hopefully will only limit them in and near areas in which they could become invasive.

In a perfect world, none of this would be necessary, as people wouldn't buy pets they couldn't care for. Until that world comes about, however, we have to do our best to protect our native flora and fauna from invasive flora and fauna.

Angela_96

Good point!!
Its sad that people do that with their pets.
I have been "stuck" with a cat for over a year now because I cannot find a home for her, and a shelter is not an option, neither is putting her outside. At least she is in a home where she is loved and will only go to another loving home.
If other people could have that kind of heart when it comes to their pets and be responsible.

Tony G.

i read somewhere that people release cichlids into local rivers/lakes/ponds, and they kill off some native species. Same with goldfish, is this true?