Tropical Fish Bann In The Usa

[SnakeBytesTV]

I'm sorry for spamming your boards here. This is about your right to keep tropical fish inthe future. We produced a video along with the help of PIJAC.or (Pet Industry Joint Advisory Counsil) about the proposed bill hr669. This would shut the tropical fish trade down along with the rest of the pet trade. We are asking for your help in helping you keep your beloved fish tanks as well as all our pets. Please watch the video and spread the word. Feel free to contact us at www.pijac.org if you have any questions at all. We need to act quick, the sub commity of congress has hearing on this on the 23rd of April. Thanks again and sorry for spamming. Brian(Sbtv)



http/www.youtube.com/watch?v=_FPfL212CB8...re=channel_page

 

[Tolak]

http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showtopic=280520&hl=

I'll watch the vid later, off to work for now.

 

[nmonks]

To play devil's advocate for a moment, the idea behind the HR669 is a good one.

The pet industry and especially pet owners have been incredibly bad at ensuring that the free trade of live animals doesn't cause harm to the environment. The list of animals that have become established outside in US, Australia and elsewhere. Even here in the UK, where the environment is too cold for most ornamental fish and reptiles, red-ear terrapins and bullfrogs have both become established.

Everyone wants to keep whatever fish and reptiles they want. But there is a responsibility that goes with that, and the hobby has, by and large, ignored that responsibility. In a sense, US lawmakers are bolting the door after the horse has gone, because the list of species established in Florida, California and the other warmer states is depressingly long. Oscars, non-native livebearers, pike livebearers, plecs, piranhas, etc. In at least some of these cases, ecologists believe there may already be long-term damage to the natural ecosystem. Plecs for example undermine riverbanks with their burrows, while pike livebearers feed on native killifish and minnows.

The fundamental problem with being a libertarian about such things is that the only thing preventing anarchy is self-restraint. Unfortunately, humans have demonstrated again and again and again that they are selfish and totally incapable of making long-term choices if those choices mean that they can't do the things they want to do.*

So you end up with a situation where the scientists are saying that the current situation cannot go on, and the only way to prevent things getting worse is through the use of law. I don't want someone to tell me what fish I can keep any more than you do, but if that's the only way to hold back the problem from getting worse, then my personal wishes will have to be overruled.

I'd encourage people to read the actual text rather than the spin given by any one lobby group. In a nutshell, what it aims to do is limit the sale and maintenance of exotic species to those with licenses, with those restricted exotic species being those deemed to have the potential to become established or otherwise cause harm, e.g., by introducing disease. Those with a real need to keep restricted species, such as scientists, will still be able to keep them.

Incidentally, similar legislation exists in the UK to restrict the sale and maintenance of coldwater fish likely to become established in UK waters. It has hardly affected the hobby at all.

Cheers, Neale

* If you disagree, please find me one -- just one! -- example of a situation where the "tragedy of the commons" hasn't developed without legislation being enforced first.

 

[kcharley]

Neale,

Thanks for linking to the actual text. I found it an interesting read. I will comment on the basis that any discussion stay civil and polite.

While I agree that invasive, non-native species can be problematic, I sincerely hope the bill doesn't pass in anything close to that form.

The bill starts with the general everything will be banned unless it is included on an approved list. During the first 60 days after enactment, somebody can request that species be considered for inclusion on the approved list. After 60 days, for a species to be considered for inclusion, the nominating person has to pay a fee and provide "sufficient scientific and commercial information to allow the Secretary to evaluate whether the proposed nonnative wildlife species is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ or human health."

What constitutes "sufficient scientific and commercial information" in not defined. Presumably the government gets to specify "sufficient" at its leisure and whim. Basically the bureacracy can make it impossible for anything to be included without having to justify its rationale to anyone.

Even if a species makes the approved list, its successful import is highly unlikely. See Section 9

"SEC. 9. TREATMENT OF NONNATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES AS NONMAILABLE MATTER.

Nonnative wildlife species included in the list of approved species issued under section 4 shall be considered and treated as nonmailable matter under section 3015 of title 39, United States Code."

The real problem is the government. It is a power hungry monopoly that wields its power for the whims of the bureaucrats and politicians. And once they get that power, it is extremely hard for it not to morph and grow and even harder to take it away from them.

The current example of this is the recent legislation to protect children from ingesting lead from toys. That has suddenly morphed into the banning of toys that are not possible to be ingested, eg motorcycles designed for children are banned from sale in the US. With a stroke of a regulatory pen the CPSC recently made $400 million of inventory unsaleable, and that is just the motorcylces.

Let's take a different example, fire ants. Until recently, everything I've read lead me to believe this is a horrible invasive species that shoud be eradicated. But now some reports are coming from ranchers that diseases among their cattle are significantly less once the fire ants migrated to their areas. Hmmm, something that was believed to be bad could actually be good. Now whether or not fire ants are good I don't know and if I ever find any in my yard, you can bet I will put insecticide on them. The point is the determination of good or bad is difficult to make and I am extremely uncomfortable with legislators handing their duty to make that determination to bureacrats whose decisions are virtually unreversible.

I think a much better approach to this proposed legislation would be for it to name the specific animals the importation of which are to be banned. It could then put the burden on those who believe something is harmful to petition to have that particular animal included on the banned list.

While the idea of banning the importation of damaging species is good, the wording of the bill strikes me as a massive and oppressive power grab by politicians and bureaucrats. Sorry, I just do not trust the government to really protect me from all these "life-threatening" dangers that we supposedly face.

Respectfully submitted.

Greg

 

[nmonks]

Hi Greg,

I think a much better approach to this proposed legislation would be for it to name the specific animals the importation of which are to be banned. It could then put the burden on those who believe something is harmful to petition to have that particular animal included on the banned list.

What you're talking about here is described in the trade as having a "black list" of restricted species instead of a "white list" of acceptable ones. The UK legislation is of exactly that type, with the law expressly naming the species you can't keep without a license, and anything not mentioned is available for trade (pending CITES restrictions and so on, of course). I'd agree with you that that is a more liberal approach. Whether the UK lawmakers ended up with this approach by luck or judgement I cannot say!

While the idea of banning the importation of damaging species is good, the wording of the bill strikes me as a massive and oppressive power grab by politicians and bureaucrats. Sorry, I just do not trust the government to really protect me from all these "life-threatening" dangers that we supposedly face.

At some level you have to trust your elected government to make difficult decisions. The problem for me -- trained as a scientist with some knowledge of ecology -- is that ordinary people, businesses, lobby groups, tend to make very bad decisions on this count. Only exceptionally have non-governmental groups delivered consistently good policies for wildlife; the most notable are hunters and anglers (but not, usually, commercial fishermen). While I don't enjoy hunting and certainly don't own a gun, I'm actually a very strong supporter of the hunting and angling lobbies precisely because they have proven themselves over hundreds of years to be excellent stewards of the environment and wild animal populations. Ironically perhaps, the folks who blowing the head off Bambi actually do more good in a year than PETA does in a decade. Science and sentimentality for animals are not the same thing...

Cheers, Neale

 

[kcharley]

Ni Neale

First, thank you for a civil conversation. You Brits certainly have a civilty that seems rare on the US side of the pond.

What you're talking about here is described in the trade as having a "black list" of restricted species instead of a "white list" of acceptable ones. The UK legislation is of exactly that type, with the law expressly naming the species you can't keep without a license, and anything not mentioned is available for trade (pending CITES restrictions and so on, of course). I'd agree with you that that is a more liberal approach. Whether the UK lawmakers ended up with this approach by luck or judgement I cannot say!

A good result is a good result however it happened. Given the civilty of you Brits I'm guessing it was good judgement. In our case, it will be a struggle to get this written better. Looks like I will be writing letters to my reprsentative and senators tonight.

At some level you have to trust your elected government to make difficult decisions. The problem for me -- trained as a scientist with some knowledge of ecology -- is that ordinary people, businesses, lobby groups, tend to make very bad decisions on this count. Only exceptionally have non-governmental groups delivered consistently good policies for wildlife; the most notable are hunters and anglers (but not, usually, commercial fishermen). While I don't enjoy hunting and certainly don't own a gun, I'm actually a very strong supporter of the hunting and angling lobbies precisely because they have proven themselves over hundreds of years to be excellent stewards of the environment and wild animal populations. Ironically perhaps, the folks who blowing the head off Bambi actually do more good in a year than PETA does in a decade. Science and sentimentality for animals are not the same thing...

Cheers, Neale

On the local level I have seen some good judgement. Heck on the local level, I even know some of them. Pretty standup people interested in making the best decision. Unfortunately I am also seeing the extremists, those convinced that their opinions are fact, demonstrate that they have no morals in forcing others to live by their beliefs. This seems particularly bad at the national level here. As you note this tends to result in bad decisions. The financial crisis is the big one hitting everybody now. I am afraid the environmentalists are setting up to repeat the mistake with their agenda. (I don't consider myself an ecologist but still my wife and I have reduced what we send to a landfill by 75% with voluntary recycling and careful purchasing. I'm using the water quality of our aquariums to teach my youngster the importance of just keeping things clean and being careful what is disposed of and how.)

Seems like common sense, common courtesy and open-mindedness would go a long ways. Guess I just have to stay active and do what I can. Hopefully things will work out without too many people being unemployed while being careful with the environment.

Thanks again. Refreshing to have a civil conversation.

Greg