You hit the nail on the head. This is a states rights issue and should be approached as such. Boa constrictors in Florida: potential problem. Boa Constrictors in Alaska: not a problem.
HR-669
- Thread starter noonesname124
- Start date
Help Support Reef Aquarium & Tank Building Forum:
You hit the nail on the head. This is a states rights issue and should be approached as such. Boa constrictors in Florida: potential problem. Boa Constrictors in Alaska: not a problem.
No need to start flaming........and fwiw, ignorance is contagious. Take someone ignorant and have him preach to others, some will follow, hence contagious : ) Its not spread by a sneeze or cough though.
tomz
Reality; an open mind
No, it is not contagious; it has to exist in the first place before others will follow the preaching of another ignorant.
Ignorance: the lack of knowledge or education
I'll let you explain how lacking knowledge is contagious
Next word of the day "Irony"
Not trying to start "flaming" but if you follow the rules and keep you personal political opinions off the reef board then we will not have to worry about it.
Ignorance: the lack of knowledge or education
I'll let you explain how lacking knowledge is contagious
Next word of the day "Irony"
Not trying to start "flaming" but if you follow the rules and keep you personal political opinions off the reef board then we will not have to worry about it.
Let's please do our best to keep this thread on track and out of politics!! So, in order to get it back on track, I'll ask...
Does anyone have any updates to any decisions that have been made regarding this proposed bill? I'll wait a bit for some useful responses and then post some of what I've recently read.
Does anyone have any updates to any decisions that have been made regarding this proposed bill? I'll wait a bit for some useful responses and then post some of what I've recently read.
Scooterman
Well-known member
Yea keep this thread non political please!!
jhampton_wsu
Well-known member
Thanks for the link. Here's another that shows just how much of an effort was made by pet hobbyists and industry, to inform the chair members of just how damaging this bill would be. A lot of the committee members were unaware of the possible effects of this bill. Unfortunately, a lot of bills are passed, without a full understanding of their effects. Even though, it looks like the bill is dead, this time, there are still almost 2 weeks left, before a final decision is made. HSUS, PETA and other powerful activist organizations are pushing this and I wouldn't be surprised to see another attempt next year.
http://www.fishchannel.com/fish-news/2009/04/23/hr-669-update.aspx
http://www.fishchannel.com/fish-news/2009/04/23/hr-669-update.aspx
tomz
Reality; an open mind
It is too drastic and definitely not what is needed right now, but if we want to keep this hobby viable in our lifetime and for future generations we all need to be proactive about how resources are utilized and the hobby is perceived.
It seems inevitable that the number of people participating in the hobby from other countries is going to increase greatly (in our lifetime) as they become more industrialized and have more money to spend; kind of like automobiles. The process of collecting from the wild will eventually not be sustainable (assuming it is now).
Keep in mind that some if not most of the people pushing this bill view it as the easiest way to avert the eventual destruction of what we all love. There’s a compromise needed but it needs to be approached from both sides. A change has to be made… some day. Antagonistic attitudes will only make the situation worse.
It seems inevitable that the number of people participating in the hobby from other countries is going to increase greatly (in our lifetime) as they become more industrialized and have more money to spend; kind of like automobiles. The process of collecting from the wild will eventually not be sustainable (assuming it is now).
Keep in mind that some if not most of the people pushing this bill view it as the easiest way to avert the eventual destruction of what we all love. There’s a compromise needed but it needs to be approached from both sides. A change has to be made… some day. Antagonistic attitudes will only make the situation worse.
gotfish
Well-known member
The problem I see for the most part is Americans in general have this idea that if we do it, the rest of the world will do the same. So we ban harvesting of livestock for importation into the U.S. Like Tomz says, the 3rd world countries, are now becoming 2nd world and are or will be rich enough to be able to afford the hobby. The harvesting won't stop just because the U.S. doesn't do it anymore. How long has America had a ban on whaling yet many other countries still do it.
The only thing this will do is create a bigger black market for fish, reptiles and birds. Think back to the prohibition of alcohol and look at what that did.
The only thing this will do is create a bigger black market for fish, reptiles and birds. Think back to the prohibition of alcohol and look at what that did.
Saltyfish
Banned
Petsmart and Petco have released a statement saying that they will close their doors if this passes
This bill has nothing to do with harvesting of any species. It's supposed to be about protecting our own native species, from non native species being introduced and having a negative effect on the native species. The reasoning behind the bill is sound. It's the process that the bill imposes and implies that is unsound. Hobbyists of other countries will have no effect on the passage or not of this bill. Nor will it effect them, except where they're getting livestock from the US.
Except for the negative financial impact it would have on our economy, the employees and on our hobby, petsmart and petco closing their doors wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing...lol.
Except for the negative financial impact it would have on our economy, the employees and on our hobby, petsmart and petco closing their doors wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing...lol.
Saltyfish
Banned
Are we reading the same bill? Maybe the way you and I understand it is very different, that is why I ask
The way I understand it:
It bans the import export buy sell trade and GIFT of ANY fish / corals (and other things) that is not native to the USA. Yes you heard it right we would not even be allowed to trade corals unless they came from the USA. How boring would the hobby get and even more so how many shops will close, and people get laid off.
As far as petsmart and petco closing, it would be horrible thing to the employees that work in their stores to the truck drivers that deliever the products to the store. Not to talk about all the suppliers that would be out of business because they cannot sell enough to keep their employees paid and the lights on.
The way I understand it:
It bans the import export buy sell trade and GIFT of ANY fish / corals (and other things) that is not native to the USA. Yes you heard it right we would not even be allowed to trade corals unless they came from the USA. How boring would the hobby get and even more so how many shops will close, and people get laid off.
As far as petsmart and petco closing, it would be horrible thing to the employees that work in their stores to the truck drivers that deliever the products to the store. Not to talk about all the suppliers that would be out of business because they cannot sell enough to keep their employees paid and the lights on.
Last edited:
My response wasn't directed towards your comment. It was directed towards the comments that talked about collection and other countries. Some people think that this bill is meant to stop collection of tropical species of animals, in order to preserve them in the wild. This bill has nothing to do with that.
I agree that the closing of Petco and Petsmart wouldn't be good for the economy, but it'd be good for the life, or should I say, massive death, that both of those chains deliver to tropical fresh and saltwater life. Proven estimates show that both of these national chains deal with over 65% mortality of FW fish species and, nationally, Petco has an average of 85% mortality of SW species. So for every SW fish purchased, 7-8 died in their tanks or in transportation. That's a dismal rate of death and these 2 chains need to make some major modifications in the ethics of their fish keeping practices. However, this thread isn't about either of these chains, so I'll stop ranting now....lol.
I agree that the closing of Petco and Petsmart wouldn't be good for the economy, but it'd be good for the life, or should I say, massive death, that both of those chains deliver to tropical fresh and saltwater life. Proven estimates show that both of these national chains deal with over 65% mortality of FW fish species and, nationally, Petco has an average of 85% mortality of SW species. So for every SW fish purchased, 7-8 died in their tanks or in transportation. That's a dismal rate of death and these 2 chains need to make some major modifications in the ethics of their fish keeping practices. However, this thread isn't about either of these chains, so I'll stop ranting now....lol.
Yeah, the bill's spoken/written agenda is to protect our native species and environment, but the bill itself seems to speak a hidden agenda to me. I'm sure animal activists played part in this bill and the effects of it in the US would mean you can't own those animals "period" regardless of where you got them unless you can prove you owned the animal before the bill was passed.
Don't get me wrong, I can see where animal activists are coming from to an extent, but I don't think all species not native to our area should be banned.
Do I think it would be better for the animals to stay in their natural environment? Yes.
Would I miss keeping saltwater fish, hamsters, etc.? Yes (well I could do without the hamster).
Obviously a lot less animals would be harvested as it would be illegal to own them in the US. If the politicians could write laws for foreign countries, I bet they would, but they can't.
There are a lot of animals that suffer and die in our hobby. I know I killed a few first starting out and my tank is nothing compared to the ocean, but I still enjoy the hobby and hope to keep it going.
Nope, that would be banned too. It wouldn't matter where you got the animal from if you can't prove it was in your possession before the bill passed (grandfather clause), you'ld be breaking the law. It would also be illegal to breed any banned animals even if the breeding is accidental and you owned the parents before the bill was passed.
(Oops, nevermind I miss understood what you said. Yeah we could keep coral native to the US shores, but we couldn't get non-native corals from others in the US)
As far as petco and petsmart are concerned: You can get saltwater supplies for less at Petsmart. Petco has saltwater fish food, but I wouldn't buy anything else there as Petsmart is cheaper. Both of these stores are closer to me than the local fish stores. I wouldn't buy livestock from either of them though.
It'll never pass though, but I do think a state wide solution may at some point. I could even see coral harvesting from the ocean becoming illegal to help protect our oceans.
Last edited:
gotfish
Well-known member
Returnofsid, there is always, always an agenda behind what the government does. They say they are trying to protect the native species, but what does that mean? It means we are banning the importation of non native species right? Which means we are banning the harvesting of animals for said importation. Don't think for a second that it's all just about native species preservation. There are already laws against releasing non native fish and animals into the wild. This would just be redundant. This is about stopping the harvesting of wildlife.
This goes for ALL politicians, you know how you can tell if they're lying?
Their lips are moving.
This goes for ALL politicians, you know how you can tell if they're lying?
Their lips are moving.
NC2WA
Well-known member
FWIW,
I received this reply from my Representative today:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. I appreciate hearing from you.
Like you, I believe we must make sure that any regulations that seek to prevent the harmful proliferation of foreign species in local habitats doesn't have unintended effects on pet owners. H.R. 669 would establish a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, based on factors including the identity of the organism to the species level, the native range of the species, whether the species has caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in similar ecosystems, and the likelihood of establishment or spread of the species in the United States. H.R. 669 has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come up for consideration in the committee.
I understand that many rare species are brought to the U.S. because they face extinction in their native habitats. That is why I was proud to introduce H.R. 411, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009, which was recently passed by the House on April 21st by a vote of 290-118. H.R. 411 would assist in the conservation of rare felids and rare canids by supporting and providing financial resources for national conservation programs in countries with a the range of rare felid and canid populations as well as projects with demonstrated records of expertise in the conservation of rare felid and canid populations.
You may be interested to know that I received a 100% rating from the Humane Society of the United States based on my voting and sponsorship record on animal rights issues. This criteria was based on my cosponsorship of legislation in the House of Representatives and votes to protect animals in law enforcement, end the use of steel-jawed leghold traps, and prohibit cockfighting. I will continue to look for ways to responsibly protect wild life.
Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures in the House cause delays in receiving postal mail. For more information on my activities in Congress, and for information on services that my office can provide, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/inslee. If you would like to subscribe to my email updates, please visit http://www.house.gov/inslee/signup.htm.
Very truly yours,
JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress
I received this reply from my Representative today:
Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. I appreciate hearing from you.
Like you, I believe we must make sure that any regulations that seek to prevent the harmful proliferation of foreign species in local habitats doesn't have unintended effects on pet owners. H.R. 669 would establish a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, based on factors including the identity of the organism to the species level, the native range of the species, whether the species has caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in similar ecosystems, and the likelihood of establishment or spread of the species in the United States. H.R. 669 has been referred to the House Natural Resources Committee, of which I am a member. I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind should this legislation come up for consideration in the committee.
I understand that many rare species are brought to the U.S. because they face extinction in their native habitats. That is why I was proud to introduce H.R. 411, the Great Cats and Rare Canids Act of 2009, which was recently passed by the House on April 21st by a vote of 290-118. H.R. 411 would assist in the conservation of rare felids and rare canids by supporting and providing financial resources for national conservation programs in countries with a the range of rare felid and canid populations as well as projects with demonstrated records of expertise in the conservation of rare felid and canid populations.
You may be interested to know that I received a 100% rating from the Humane Society of the United States based on my voting and sponsorship record on animal rights issues. This criteria was based on my cosponsorship of legislation in the House of Representatives and votes to protect animals in law enforcement, end the use of steel-jawed leghold traps, and prohibit cockfighting. I will continue to look for ways to responsibly protect wild life.
Please continue to contact me about the issues that concern you, as I both need and welcome your thoughts and ideas. I encourage you to contact me via email, telephone, or fax, because security measures in the House cause delays in receiving postal mail. For more information on my activities in Congress, and for information on services that my office can provide, please visit my website at http://www.house.gov/inslee. If you would like to subscribe to my email updates, please visit http://www.house.gov/inslee/signup.htm.
Very truly yours,
JAY INSLEE
Member of Congress
Pentagona
Snail Turd
Thank you for that NC2WA. I can understand the goals and intentions of the bill, and I agree in-part with a lot of what it wants to achieve, but as Sid has stated the means by which it intends to achieve it's purpose leave a lot, if not everything to be desired. I would probably support a similar bill "if" some sort of fairly comprehensive list of "okayed" species were set in place upon the bills passage. I would also like to see language offering a means by which to have a species that would also be banned under their blanket restriction added to the nice list. Better yet, make it a state level decision as they already do with noxious plants, etc. Is it at all likely that a lot of your tropical fish and corals are able to even survive NW waters versus say Floridian or Gulf waters let alone proliferate?
Similar threads
