Absolute Angels

Please be aware that there is a Congressional Hearing happening on April 23, 2009 which pertains largely to our hobby. This hearing is on the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, HR 669, a bill which wishes to revamp how species are regulated under the Lacey Act. Species not appearing on the “Approved List” could not be imported into the United States; therefore, all unapproved nonnative species could not be moved interstate. In addition, trade in all such unlisted species would
come to a halt – possession would be limited and all breeding would cease. Unless those species are included on the approved list import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation.

A HEARING has been scheduled for April 23 and the pet industry needs to be heard load and clear prior to the hearing! The anti-trade elements are hard at work to stop activities involving non-native species.

You can contact members of the subcommittee by emailing or faxing your opposition to HR 669 to their offices in Washington DC urging them to amend the bill. You can also contact district offices to voice your opposition or request a meeting with your Representative. It is also important to organize like-minded people in your district so several of you can visit with your representative at the same time.

Spread the word to fellow hobbyists, friends, family, and like-minded individuals and urge them to respond to this unworkable approach which is an issue for all of us. Call, email, and fax your local newspapers or tv stations. We need to get the word out.

More details can be found at the following link on

MFK: http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/fo...d.php?t=230852
MFK Petition : http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/fo...=230948&page=3


AC: http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums...d.php?t=188837
AC Petition : http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86144566696

MFKF: http://www.minnfish.com/forum/viewto...er=asc&start=0


A group has also been formed on Facebook at the following --> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86144566696


Take the time, show your support, make your voice heard to protect our hobby.

Relevant links:

Cast your Vote: http://www.govit.com/vote/congress.a...ll=2009-hr-669
The actual Bill: http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=504
Last two pages are the House Committee with contact information: http://www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf

Thanks to All!!

~Stacy

sirdarksol

The idea of the bill is a great one. I live in a state where the native fish are being devastated by a wide range of invasive species.
It is unlikely that this bill is going to go through without the majority of tropical fish on the "approved" list. Most of these fish can't live in our waterways, and thus would not be considered "injurious" to native populations.

That being said, the wording of this bill is not ideal, and could potentially cause harm to the aquarium industry.
I suggest that, instead of merely casting your vote at the above link, contact your representative and address your concerns that the language of the bill seems to not account for legitimate aquarists who are just as concerned about the release of non-native species.

Butterfly

Frequently this action gets more notice than a a randomly signed petition.
But we do need to do something about aquarium creatures being turned loose in our water ways.
Here is one such site educating us on why not- http://www.habitattitude.net/
carol

sirdarksol

Totally agreed.

I should reiterate that I am not pushing for people to ask their representative to nix these ideas. I would rather like to see that the bill take the aquarium trade into greater consideration.

I'd also like there to be better education about the topic, as much of the harm done by the release of non-native species is well-meant (much like this bill ). People think they're doing their fish a favor by releasing them when they can't take care of them.

Regal

Nonindigenous species have wreaked havoc on ecosystems all over the world. Living things evolve together and you can’t just throw something into the mix that’s not supposed to be there. What's it gonna eat? What's gonna eat it?

MizRamzi

Example: The Lamprey Eel. Introduced into the greater lakes of Michigan and Wisconsin. I give nature her due and believe every creature has it's use but these little things are horrible to our fish. We have spent millions in these states to eradicate them.
If you want to scare the heck out of a little girl fishing (experienced) let her catch a 28in Lake Trout that has a Lamprey attached to it. I still remember it well.

sirdarksol

Yeah, the lamprey, zebra mussel, and another type of mussel that lives in deeper water, are threatening to kill Great Lakes fishing by eradicating all of the large fish (mostly walleye and lake trout) that live in them. This fishing is a huge industry, both with food production and tourism, for all of the Great Lakes states.

Silver City Dave

Hi All,

We need to all band together on this fight against HR 669.

It's a "Guilty Until Proven Innocent Plan" and if passed into law as is will ban all non-native mammals, birds, reptiles, and tropical fish currently kept as pets.

I made a mini-site on this that is very simple and user-friendly...you are all wecome to use it, change it, copy it, whatever...just do something.

Please help spread the word, I'm a Reptile Wholesaler...I'm crossing partisan lines here to unite us...you guys have the emails of other Fish Hobbyist and the Businesses Associated with the Tropical Fish Industry. Please send eveyone you know this information.

The Chair-Person for this legislation if from Guam and all of the Co-Sponsors are all Democrats. We have a Democratic Majority in the House, Senate, and Presidential Offices. This is not good.

The Humane Society of the United States is pushing this legislation very HARD on the new administration.

At least look at this mini-site I did and pass it along if you agree.

Here's the link:

http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislatio...H.R.%20669.htm

Fight the good fight to keep your rights to own pets.

Thanks Everyone
Silver City Dave
www.scserp.com

sirdarksol

This is entirely not true. The bill is aimed at animals that are capable of thriving in a non-native environment, and I believe that, in cases like this, "guilty until proven innocent" is the way it has to be looked at. Otherwise, such animals wouldn't be able to be banned until after they had been released and begun damaging the environment, at which point banning them is pretty much a moot point.

There is a middle ground here. If neither aquarists nor environmentalists (I happen to be a strong supporter of both groups) try to present that middle ground to the other side, we're either going to be left with no protection against invasive species in the pet trade, or this bill will become another "meant well, screwed up" law in America.
Taking an extreme for either side is not the way to go.

Dozey

I have to side with Sirdarksol. A “guilty until proven innocent” approach is IMO the correct approach. Banning a species after it has devastated a native species is a little too late. As a fish keeper I would most certainly respect that I could not purchase a species of fish because it could potentially have an impact on my environment and local economy.

Silver City Dave

I'm sorry but it IS true. The only animals that would be allowed are farm animals (cows, chickens, horses, etc.,..) and cats, dogs, and goldfish.

If this Act is passed into law then that's it...nothing allowed but what I said above. THEN USFW has to conduct the research to approve species....species which we can currently keep as pets would need to go though this process! It will be illegal to breed any currently owned animals until they are put on the approved species list.

You need to read the legislature...it can take 4 years to be put on the "Approved" list. Then, only AFTER rigorous studies to prove that the animals can't survive ANYWHERE in the US or cause ANY negative impact on the environment.

You are doing everyone here a serious dis-service making them think otherwise.

The states already regulate what animals are legal or not...we do not need any "knee-jerk" reactions from the Federal Government banning animals nationwide!

It means no parakeets, guinea pigs, ferrets, angel fish....please just read the legislature. If your Pro HR 669 say so...I say it will destroy the Pet Industry and if you read it you will have to aggree.

I thought that this was a "pro-pets" site...am I mistaken?

sirdarksol

No, it is not. If you read the text of the bill, only those non-native species that present a danger of being an invasive species will be affected. This is very clearly stated in the language of the bill.

No, I won't. I have read the entire text of the bill, and, as I've said, this bill does not automatically ban all non-native species.
My stance, posted in my above posts, was based upon the reading of this bill, and has not changed in any way.

No... but where you are mistaken is in your belief that the members of this website only care about animals that are pets. Most of us on Fishlore care about all animals, wild or tame, exotic or native, and have supported moves that limit fish available in the aquarium trade, if said move protects the natural world.

Silver City Dave

I'm not going to get lured into an argument....PIJAC (Marshall Meyers)...Segrest Farms...ARK ALL agree with me....Please let your viewers read the truth.

I already emailed Mike concerning your diatribe and misinformation.

Once more...They WILL ban all animals that are NOT on the APPROVED list.

Tropical Fish are NOT on the Approved list...OK?

Silver City Dave
www.scserp.com

Silver City Dave

They won't take your current pets away, but you won't be able to breed them...the following is cut and pasted off of PIJAC's PetAlert Concerning HR 669. From Marshall Meyers, Attorney, PIJAC Lobbyist (he's on the pet owners side).

Listing Process - To list or not to list? -- That is the question!
The listing process is somewhat complex. To place a species on the Preliminary Approved List (which at some point in time converts to a Final Approved List) the Service must make a determination that those listed species,
based on scientific and commercial information, are
• Not likely to be harmful to the United State’s economy, environment or other animals’ 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.”
While proponents would argue that this test would not be as rigorous as the ultimate test set forth in HR 669,
PIJAC is at a loss how one proves “no potential harm” under the alleged simplified test for inclusion on the
“Preliminary Approved List.”
To get on the ultimate “Approved List ” (accomplished within 37 months), the Service would have to complete
risk assessments, not risk analyze, using the following criteria (and possibly others to be determined later in
process development). The assessors would have to make a determination based on:
• Species identified to species level, and if possible information to subspecies level;
• Native range of the species (which may or not be fully known);
• Whether species has established, spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other
animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems similar to those in the US;
• Environmental conditions exist in the US that suitable for establishment of the species;
• Likelihood of establishment in the US;
• Likelihood of speared in the US;
• Likelihood species would harm wildlife resources of the US;
• Likelihood the species would harm native species that are “rare” (not defined) or listed under Endangered
Species Act;
• Likelihood species would harm habitats or ecosystems of the US;
• Likelihood “pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for
importation;” and
• Other factors “important to assessing the risk associated with the species”.
Once a determination is made, the Service will place a species on one of 3 lists:
• Approved List
• Unapproved List
• The “Non-list” (section 4(2)(C)) for species for which “the Secretary has insufficient scientific and
commercial information to make a determination “ whether to approve or disapprove.

MaddieLynn

Can someone please post me a link of the actual approved list?

Silver City Dave

Hi Maddy,

Here is a list of animals NOT affected by the legislation

(RIGHT FROM THE HR 669 ACT)

(D) does not include any cat (Felis catus), cattle or oxen (Bos taurus), chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus), dog (Canis lupus familiaris), donkey or ass (Equus asinus), domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese), duck (domesticated Anas spp.), goat (Capra aegagrus hircus), goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus), horse (Equus caballus), llama (Lama glama), mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus), pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica), domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus), or sheep (Ovis aries), or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.

sirdarksol

Hmmm... Segrest Farms, PIJAC, and the like agreeing with you... I don't doubt it, but it doesn't mean much. That's like saying "Jack Daniels was against raising the minimum drinking age." These are groups that have a vested interest in as little regulation in the pet industry as possible.

Nobody can send an actual approved list (though there is a basic list of unaffected animals) as it has not been developed yet.

MaddieLynn

Why don't they just make it illegal to dump a fish? Or flush one?

It's like if a bill had been passed making it illegal to drive a car, instead of it being illegal to run a red light because there could be a wreck.

sirdarksol

It is illegal to do this, but it still happens. Something else needs to be done.

Silver City Dave

The Humane Society of the United States, amongst other groups have petitions on their web-sites for people to contact the subcommittee on this to approve it "as-is" with NO ammendments.

In addition to the 23 Congressional Sub-Committee members, here is a list of additional Co-Sponsors to the UN-Ammended Legislation:

Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1]
Rep Cohen, Steve [TN-9]
Rep DeFazio, Peter A. [OR-4]
Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. [AS]
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17]
Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4]
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7]
Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23]
Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. [NY-22
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12]
Rep Kagen, Steve [WI-8]
Rep Kildee, Dale E. [MI-5]
Rep Kind, Ron [WI-3]
Rep Klein, Ron [FL-22]
Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9]
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3]
Rep Miller, George [CA-7]
Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38]
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6]
Rep Sablan, Gregorio [MP]
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6]

Lucy

Maddy asked for a link so she could read it her self in it's entirety and make up her own mind. She didn't as for a copy and paste.

How dare you insult the members with this statement.

and? This forum allows member to express their view whether others agree or not.

Silver City Dave

Hi Everybody,

I have no other agenda here than to help Pet Owners know what's going on.

There seems to be an individual here who likes the legislation as is (which is scary)...and that's their perogative.

I am not insulting anyone...in fact I came here to help, only to be picked apart and insulted myself. Nice way to get thanks for spending my personal time protecting total strangers. I was just protecting myself from an over zealous moderator...now there is another one criticizing me for not helping a member---or did I---I saved her time by finding exactly what she wanted...hmmm?

Love you all...I was just trying to help...good luck with your opinionated moderators...I was merely being factual

I hope most of you can see through all of this

BTW-ALL of the CO-SPONSORS are Democrats...probably like your moderators

Bye

Ricardo_NY1

I don't know what direction such a bill/law would take down the road, I can't predict the future...........but I will have to say that as long as it is directed toward any non native species that has the ability or capacity to survive in a US habitat not native to it..........then it is more than fine with me if import of it is regulated. There are too many irresponsible individuals out there as it is. My ultimate opinion is that anything that has the potential to damage our systems should be regulated in whatever means necessary to avoid situations like the ones that have already occurred, even if it needs to be labeled guilty until proven innocent.

The true aspect is that someone's luxury or supposed right to keep an animal should not overshadow what is ultimately good for our country or world for that matter.

Lucy

Sorry you took this as criticism, it wasn't. I was just merely pointing out that she asked for a link.
Hmmmm, don't even know what to say about that remark.
Honestly, we don't judge our member's on their political preference.

Regal

Silver City Dave Guilty until proven innocent is the only way to go on this one.

Guam? really? didn't there used to be birds there? I mean before the snakes hitched a ride and ate them all.

If one of those cane toads would have been asked to prove he could hop up and eat one of those beetles off the sugar cane plants he was hired to protect then he might not have got the job.

Lucy

Sorry this is way The Jack Daniel's Brewery is in Lynchburg, Tn located in Moore County which ironically is a dry county.

Sorry, didn't mean to stray so far off of an important topic.
Carry on.

FL CommunityFans

Diatribe? IF there is any annoyance here, it's you spouting on and on. SD has a very valid point which many of us side with.

I'd rather have natural wildlife preserved over the cost of our hobby. of course people who MAKE the money off this trade are going to be in an uproar about it. people who actually LOVE wildlife are going to be for it or some form of better regulation with how some animals are allowed access to areas where they could pose a serious risk to the wildlife or the surrounding areas.

I find it hard to believe you have no 'vested interest' in this with the amount of stew your churning. This is an extremely pet friendly and pro-friendly site. Maybe if you took the time to read the forums and the helpful thoughts and posts people make, you could see that.

Instead you are here for one purpose and that is to promote your needs. You disgust me as a person by coming here and throwing wild accusations and inflammatory comments to and about people who you have never talked to or have no inkling of an idea of what or who they are.

You do not want people making their own minds up. You are force feeding/cramming thoughts or at least trying to, in to peoples heads. It's severely evident by the few posts you have made in this thread.

ps:

Ricardo_NY1

That is exactly my point. Some people are too self centered to give a rats butt about anything but what they feel they need or benefits them. I'm not feeling sorry for whoever doesn't get to keep or continue buying their exotic or whatever animal that could one day create a huge mess on any land.

FL CommunityFans

And to further that, I am one of those who enjoys exotic and rare species! if it means making sure this type of devastation doesn't continue to happen, then I'm all for giving up the ability to acquire such animals.

soldieroffortune1974

Here's a link to the bill: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.669:

I haven't made up my mind as to the impact of such a bill. The bill is a sound idea,but the problems with legislation dictating what we can and can't do gets to me. That's more political than causal. The problems will crop up in the ammendments of the bill when/if it is passed. That's the way legislation works,add an ammendment to include fishing license fee increases or such notions.

There's already laws in place governing quarantining exotic species, releasing species into the wild population, and controlling what is imported from what country. Not only will this bill possibly limit what can or can't be brought in,but it will also increase the value of these species on the black market trade.Whose to say it wasn't brought in before the ban,the hobbyist already owned such and such animal. It could negatively impact all hobby trades and business,but be almost impossible to stop the illegal marketing of such trade.

So like I said,I am still up in the air about it. I agree it may help in the long run,but it will also have unintended adverse affects as well.