HR 669 : CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING NONNATIVE SPECIES APRIL 23, 2009 ACTION NEEDED

[neoprodigy]

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING
NONNATIVE SPECIES
APRIL 23, 2009
ACTION NEEDED


THE ISSUE

The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee
would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act.

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious [harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of
wildlife resources of the U.S.

HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to “cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.” In order to be placed on the “Approved List” it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause “harm” anywhere in the
US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an “Unapproved List.” Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they
have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.


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.

THE IMPACT

Nonnative species in the pet trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, fish and a number of mammals (e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets) commonly kept as pets. It is immaterial under HR 669 that the



Vast majority of these nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, some for hundreds of years, and have not proven to be an environmental problem.
Numerous species are raised in the United States for many purposes, pets, recreational fishing and hunting, food, etc.
Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental problems, and this has generally been on a very localized basis (i.e. southern Florida, Hawaii).
Most states have exercised their authority to regulate problem species within their own borders through a mixture of management regimes ranging from permit systems to bans. HR669 - March 31, 2009
The HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative – that no harm has or is likely to occur within whole of the entire United States.
The “risk assessment” process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a a broader “risk analysis” that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management) measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies.


HR 669 would employ a 2-step process of a Preliminary and a Final Approved List along with the Services having to promulgate regulations not only to deal with creation of the lists but also regulating all aspects of this
rather complex bill. The Service would have to complete major portions of the list and regulation process within 24 months of passage. Imagine how the Service will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in
HR 669 within these timeframes when it takes on average 4 years for the Service to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act. The bill sets up the under-resourced Service for failure and numerous lawsuits by activist groups.

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 (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 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 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 analysis, using the following criteria. 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.


User Fees
HR 669 also calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following the adoption of the “Preliminary Approved List.” This has been a long term desire of animal activist and environmental protectionist organizations since they know that user fees can become cost prohibitive and virtually eliminate small interest groups or business from participating in the process. It can easily paralyze access except for the wealthy or those living off of tax exempt dollars who use the system to drive their agendas. Furthermore, fees are not made available to the Service until 36 months into the process. It is not clear how the Service would implement the first three years of work under HR 669.

RECOMMENDATIONS – TIME IS NOW!
According to the Defenders of Wildlife "For far too long the pet, aquarium and other industries have imported live animals to the United States without regard to their harm…" Defenders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are part of a coalition pushing hard for passage of this bill without amendments.

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.

A copy of HR 669 can be found on PIJAC’s website in the “Breaking News (http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=175)” and the “HR669 Forum (http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=504)” sections of the www.pijac.org (http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/www.pijac.org). Read the bill carefully since it could shut down major segments of the pet industry virtually overnight.

PIJAC POSITION -- PIJAC supports the underlying intent of HR 669 to establish a risk-based process in order to prevent the introduction of potentially invasive species. It has been clear for quite some time that steps are needed to enhance and improve the current listing process for species shown to be injurious under the Lacey Act. In addition to much needed appropriations to fund staff and other ancillary support aids, the Lacey Act needs to be modernized to make the process more timely, efficient and transparent. However, HR 669 falls far short of accomplishing this objective.

CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMITTEE (see contact information below) by



emailing or faxing your opposition to HR 669 to their offices in Washington DC urging them to amend
the bill
ALSO contact their district offices



voice your opposition
and request a meeting with the representative when they are back in the District

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.

A few talking points:

The approach taken in HR 669 will adversely impact trade and other activities involving nonnative species without utilizing a scientifically valid approach – even in the limited instances in which sufficient data are available on the biology and range of species, it will be virtually impossible to prove that they could not establish and spread in some portion of the US. Thus, it will be nearly impossible to get species on the “Approved List” unless they are so widespread in the country already.

The degree of uncertainty that will result by applying the “as if” criteria will result in virtually every species ending up on the list for which there is insufficient information to make a decision DESPITE THE FACT that most of these species have been in trade, recreational use, farming, etc. for decades with only a small percentage of species being problematic and then in localized situations

A one size assessment process fits all species is not plausible – what may be harmful in Hawaiian waters would not be harmful in Kansas or the deserts of Arizona or Texas.

HR 669 overly simplifies the complexity of the issue; bans all species unless they can get on an approved list; the criteria for the Approved List are not realistic; the lists are biased towards those entities that can afford to engage in the process – undoubtedly the USFWS will be paralyzed by activist animal rights and protectionist environmental organizations petitioning for species to be unapproved;

The USFWS does not have the capacity to implement the provisions given limited staff, money, and unrealistic timeliness; and the unintended consequences of a sloppy bill could actually be to facilitate the mass release of animals, and/or their mass euthanasia.

HR 669 does not take into consideration the socio-economic complexity of the issue. Stakeholders dependent upon access to non-native species include diverse interests: pet industry, sports fishing, federal/state hatcheries, agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment, hunting, food aquaculture. Currently, thousands of non-natives species are both imported and exported, as well as captive raised (in some instances farmed on ranched) within the United States. While most of these species are never
intended for release into natural environments, some of these species (e.g. oysters, trout, bass, deer, game birds) are managed by government and private entities throughout the US.

HR 669 calls for a risk assessment when, in fact, a risk analysis process is warranted. A risk assessment only considers biological indices related to potential invasiveness, while a risk analysis considers both these, as well as socio-economic factors, including potential management options. A risk analysis can enable strategic decisions to be made, such as enabling certain species to continue in trade/transport if the risks of invasion could be sufficiently management (e.g. d HR 669 treats the entire United States as if it is a single ecosystem and ignores the historic definition of invasive species that applies to a specific ecosystem, not the political boundaries of the United States as an ecosystem.

Setting criteria in statute removes flexibility that could be achieved through rulemaking since a “one-sizefits-all” process is not appropriate for all taxa, regions of the country, proposed usage of the species, etc.

Deadlines are unrealistic. While we recognize the rationale for placing timeframes on USFWS, deadlines cause lawsuits; deadlines mandate action for unfunded mandates; two (2) years is unrealistic to conduct an assessment (even a rough screen) of literally thousands of species (1) imported, (2) raised in US for local markets as well as exports, and (3) imported as well as raised in US.

Animals owned prior to prohibition of importation (Section 2(f)) is major departure from current prohibitions under Lacey Act. HR 669 would allow possession of “an animal” if prove legally owned pre-launch of assessment. There is no indication as to what it takes to prove legality? Nor would one
know when an assessment of a particular species was launched.

Assuming that more than a handful of non-native species end up on an approved list, enforcement of a list of species that have been in trade for decades will be more difficult than a dirty list. It is well established that only a small percentage of the species in trade have been shown to be “invasive.” The ornamental aquarium industry, for example, deals with more than 2,500 species of freshwater and marine fish. A handful of species have been found to be a problem in Southern Florida, but not elsewhere in the US; some found to be a problem in Hawaii are not a problem in Kansas.

Promulgation of regulations implementing the HR 669 process will be complex and doubtful if can be achieved within prescribed timeframe, especially if USFWS is to simultaneously conduct thousands of assessments on species already in trade.

ACT NOW – Also alert your employees, friends, neighbors, competitors, and any other like-minded people and urge them to take time to respond to this unworkable approach to dealing with f an issue of concern to all of us.

KEEP CHECKING PIJAC’S WEBSITE FOR UPDATES ON HR669

If you have questions or wish to express your views to PIJAC, please contact Marshall Meyers or Bambi Nicole Osborne by phone at 202-452-1525 or via email at bambi@pijac.org or marshall@pijac.org (bambi@pijac.org).



House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/226-0200 (Tel.)
202/225-1542 (Fax)


Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam)
427 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-5301
202/225-1188 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-0341 (Washington Fax #)

120 Father Duenas Ave., Suite 107
Hagatna, GUAM 96910
671/477-4272 (District Tel. #)
671/477-2587 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/bordallo/IMA/issue.htm



Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
1502 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2726 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-4580 (Washington Fax #)

Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd. – Room 4-104
Honolulu, HI 96850
808/541-2570 (District Tel. #)
808/533-0133 (District Fax #)

neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov



Henry Brown (R-SC)
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3176 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3407 (Washington Fax #)

1800 North Oak Street, Suite C
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843/445-6459 (District Tel. #)
843/445-6418 (District Fax #)

5900 Core Avenue, Suite 401
North Charleston, SC 29406
843/747-4175 (District Tel. #)
843/747-4711 (District Fax #)

http://brown.house.gov/Contact/index.html



Lois Capps (D-CA)
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3601 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5632 (Washington Fax #)

2675 N. Ventura Road, Suite 105
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
805/985-6807 (District Tel. #)
805/985-6875 (District Fax #)
301 E Carrillo Street, Suite A

Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805/730-1710 (District Tel. #)
805/730-9153 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/capps/contact/send_an_email.shtml



William Cassidy (R-LA)
506 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3901 (District Tel. #)
202/225-7313 (District Fax #)

5555 Hilton Avenue, Suite 100
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
225/929-7711 (District Tel. #)
225/929-7688 (District Fax #)

http://cassidy.house.gov/contact/index.shtml



Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
1032 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-7751 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5629 (Washington Fax #)

51 South University Ave., Suite 319
Provo, UT 84601
801/851-2500 (District Tel. #)
801/851-2509 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/chaffetz/contactform.shtml



Donna M. Christensen (NP-Virgin Islands)
1510 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-1790 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5517 (Washington Fax #)

Nisky Business Center
Second Floor, Suite 207
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802
340/778-4408 (District Tel. #)
340/778-8033 (District Fax #)

P.O. Box 5980
Sunny Isle Shopping Center, Space 25
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00823
340/778-5900 (District Tel. #)
340/778-5111 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/writerep/



Diana L. DeGette (D-CO)
2335 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4431 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5657 (Washington Fax #)

600 Grant Street, Suite 202
Denver, CO 80203
303/844-4988 (District Tel. #)
303/844-4996 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/formdegette/zip_auth.htm



Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP – American Samoa)
2422 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-8577 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8757 (Washington Fax #)

P.O. Box, Drawer X
Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA 96799
684/633-1372 (District Tel. #)
684/633-2680 (District Fax #)

faleomavaega@mail.house.gov
(faleomavaega@mail.house.gov)


Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
240 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2635 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-4386 (Washington Fax #)

1640 South Stapley, Suite 215
Mesa, AZ 85204
480/833-0092 (District Tel. #)
480/833-6314 (District Fax #)

jeff.flake@mail.house.gov (jeff.flake@mail.house.gov)



John Fleming (R-LA)
1023 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2777 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8039 (Washington Fax #)

6425 Youree Drive, Suite 350
Shreveport, LA 71105
318/798-2254 (District Tel. #)
318/798-2063 (District Fax #)

Southgate Plaza Shopping Center
1606 Fifth Street
Leesville, LA 71446
337/238-0778 (District Tel. #)
337/238-0566 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/fleming/contactform.shtml



Doc Hastings (R-WA)
1203 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4704
202/225-5816 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3251 (Washington Fax #)

2715 St. Andrews Loop, Suite D
Pasco, WA 99301
509/543-9396 (District Tel. #)
509/545-1972 (District Fax #)

302 East Chestnut Street
Yakima, WA 98901
509/452-3243 (District Tel. #)
509/452-3438 (District Fax #)

http://hastings.house.gov/ContactForm.aspx



Dale E. Kildee (D-MI)
2107 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3611 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-6393 (Washington Fax #)

432 N. Saginaw Street, Suite 410
Bay City, MI 48708
989/891-0990 (District Tel. #)
989/891-0994 (District Fax #)

515 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 401
Saginaw, MI 48607
989/755-8904 (District Tel. #)
989/755-8908 (District Fax #)

dkildee@mail.house.gov



Ronald James Kind (D-WI)
1406 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5506 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5739 (Washington Fax #)

205 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 400
La Crosse, WI 54601
608/782-2558 (District Tel. #)
608/782-4588 (District Fax #)

131 South Barstow Street, Suite 301
Eau Claire, WI 54701
715/831-9214 (District Tel. #)
715/831-9272 (District Fax #)

ron.kind@mail.house.gov



Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
314 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5311 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0254 (Washington Fax #)

102 Turpins Lane
Centreville, MD 21617
443/262-9136 (District Tel. #)
443/262-9713 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/kratovil/contactform.shtml



Douglas L. Lamborn (R-CO)
437 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4422 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-2638 (Washington Fax #)

415 Main Street
Buena Vista, CO 81211
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)

1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd., Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)

http://lamborn.house.gov/ZipAuth.aspx



Frank J. Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
237 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3006
202/225-4671 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9665 (Washington Fax #)

67/69 Church Street, Kilmer Square
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
732/249-8892 (District Tel. #)
732/249-1335 (District Fax #)

504 Broadway
Long Branch, NJ 07740
732/571-1140 (District Tel. #)
732/870-3890 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/pallone/contact.shtml



Pedro R. Pierluisi (NP-Puerto Rico)
1218 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2615 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-2154 (Washington Fax #)

250 Calle Fortaleza Old
San Juan, PUERTO RICO 00901
787/723-6333 (District Tel. #)
787/723-6333 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/pierluisi/contactform.shtml



Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-WV)
2307 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3452 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9061 (Washington Fax #)

601 Federal Street, Room 1005
Bluefield, WV 24701
304/325-6222 (District Tel. #)
304/325-0552 (District Fax #)

301 Prince Street
Beckley, WV 25801
304/252-5000 (District Tel. #)
304/252-9803 (District Fax #)

http://www.rahall.house.gov/?sectionid=9&sectiontree=9



Gregorio Sablan (I- Mariana Islands)
423 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2646 (Washington Tel. #)
https://forms.house.gov/sablan/contactform.shtml



Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
1330 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5456 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5822 (Washington Fax #)

33 Lowell Street
Manchester, NH 03101
603/641-9536 (District Tel. #)
603/641-9561 (District Fax #)

104 Washington Street
Dover, NH 03820
603/743-4813 (District Tel. #)
603/743-5956 (District Fax #)

http://forms.house.gov/sheaporter/webform/issue_subscribe.htm



Robert J. Wittman (R-VA)
1123 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4261 (Washington Tel. #)

3504 Plank Road, Suite 203
Fredericksburg, VA 22407
540/548-1086 (District Tel. #)

4904-B George Washington Memorial Hwy.
Yorktown, VA 23692
757/874-6687 (District Tel. #)

https://forms.house.gov/wittman/IMA/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm



Donald E. Young (R-AK)
2111 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5765 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0425 (Washington Fax #)

101 12th Avenue, #10
Fairbanks, AK 99701-6275
907/456-0210 (District Tel. #)
907/456-0279 (District Fax #)

Peterson Tower Building
510 L Street, Suite 580
Anchorage, AK 99501-1954
907/271-5978 (District Tel. #)
907/271-5950 (District Fax #)

don.young@mail.house.gov (ron.kind@mail.house.gov)


--> The H.R. 669 Bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf) (pdf)

SPREAD THE WORD !!

MFK :: HR699 ban on importation of many animals. PETITION THREAD! (http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230948)

AquariCentral.com Thread : http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188837

Facebook Group : http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86144566696

[ZaireBlue.com]

If you people want to keep getting fishes imported into the USA then you MUST speak up and vote against this bill.

See this link from another forum that deals with Herps:
http://forums.kingsnake.com/view.php?id=1651650,1651650

This is no joke...and it's not just about herps like it was originally....now it's about any animal that is NOT NATIVE to the USA.

It's in the House now, and with a Democratic majority and 10 sponsors it looks like this is going to pass unless people freak out and do something!!

[Loubard]

That would suck for you guys over there...

[ZaireBlue.com]

Yeah...and don't forget to read the thread on Kingsnake. Oh yeah, and it says that if it's illegal to import, it's illegal to breed!!! WTF??

[hmoobvwj]

That would suck! All the pet stores will basically have to close and no more arowanas, rays and all them monster fish out there!:nilly:

[krichardson]

Hack politicians,cant help save the country from financial collapse so they make a name for themselves by attacking the pet industry.What will they go after next,imported foods?

[Bogwoodbruce]

Thats very bad news for all you guys over there :O

[Bentho]

That would suck. Here is the link for it.

http://thomas.loc.gov/


Then enter H.R 669

[silverdragon]

Thats pretty simillar to what their doing here in Australia.. best of luck guys, cause if that passes, youll probably be paying the same prices we pay for exotics..

[Bentho]

INTRODUCTION OF THE NONNATIVE WILDLIFE INVASION PREVENTION ACT -- (Extensions of Remarks - January 26, 2009)


[Page: E142] GPO's PDF (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getpage.cgi?dbname=2009_record&page=E142&position=all)---
SPEECH OFHON. MADELEINE Z. BORDALLOOF GUAMIN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESMONDAY, JANUARY 26, 2009



Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, today I have reintroduced a bill to protect the United States from harm caused by invasive species. In the 110th Congress, I introduced H.R. 6311, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, in response to the increasing economic, environmental, and human health threats posed by invasive wildlife species. I am reintroducing this legislation as a proactive approach to combating invasive wildlife species by prohibiting their importation.


Nonnative plants and animals are known by scientists to have been introduced into ecosystems in all 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the territories. Invasive, nonnative species can harm the economy, environment, other animal species' health and human health. Such harm ranges, for example, from depreciating farmland property values and loss of irrigation water to increasing spread of disease. Additionally, collapse of buildings, competition with native animals, sport, game, and endangered species losses, habitat alteration, and other ecosystem disturbances, have all resulted from the introduction of certain invasive species.


Scientists and economists generally estimate the cost of damages caused by invasive species in the United States to amount to over $123 billion annually. The risks associated with the introduction and establishment of invasive species, and the costs of mitigation, will continue to rise concomitantly with the expansion of trade and increased speed and frequency of travel around the world and within the United States. The volume of cargo shipped and exchanged worldwide continues to increase and many communities across the United States are experiencing growth in tourism. These factors are reason alone to develop protocols and a system for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species that could be imported or introduced into the United States.


Preventing the introduction of invasive species is a significant challenge and priority for many communities across the country, including my district, Guam. Invasive species, for example, threaten the biodiversity and the ecology of the Florida Everglades, the Chesapeake Bay Watershed, and the Great Lakes, among other national environmental treasures. On Guam, the brown tree snake has caused the extirpation of many endemic forest birds and lizards. The coqui tree frog and the coconut rhinoceros beetle are the latest species to have entered Guam. Although these species were 1 accidentally introduced, intentional introduction of invasive species is something that can and should be controlled. The bill reintroduced today would protect citizens, the economy, and the environment from imported wildlife species that have the known potential to and that would likely harm our interests in the United States.


Absent a comprehensive federal law addressing the importation of nonnative species, the only protection is provided by the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. This law authorizes the Secretary of the Interior to designate wildlife species considered ``injurious'' to humans and prohibits importation of such species into the country. The process, however, to designate a species as injurious can take up to four years, at which point harm has already been done.


The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act authorizes the establishment by regulation of a risk assessment process to control the importation of wildlife species. The bill adopts a preventative approach by requiring the Secretary of the Interior to develop with public notice and public input a ``green list'' of species allowed to be imported and a ``black list'' preventing invasive species from entering the country. Prior to approving a species to be imported, the Secretary must evaluate its potential risk to human, other animal species, and environmental health. Any imports of species, which are not on the ``green list,'' will be subject to penalties under the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981. The Secretary, however, may permit importation of an animal of such other prohibited species for educational, scientific research, or accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes. Finally, import fees will be collected to cover the costs of the risk assessment process.


I look forward to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to advance this legislation and to strengthen the abilities of the federal government to more effectively manage and prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species.

[ZaireBlue.com]

People should not FREAK OUT....but just be aware of what's trying to be passed. Just be educated about this stuff.

[ewurm]

You would think they have better things to do. I'll have read further and find out exactly what powers they want the federal government to have and what their goal is before I make any prejudments on the efficacy and effectiveness of the bill and the detriment to the hobby, but it doesn't sound good.

[Bentho]

H.R.669
Title: To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD003+@4((@1(Rep+Bordallo++Madelei ne+Z.))+01723))) [GU] (introduced 1/26/2009) Cosponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/~bdYLSb:@@@P|/bss/111search.html|) (12)
Latest Major Action: 1/26/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/26/2009--Introduced.

Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations establishing a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, other than those included in a list of approved species issued under this Act. Sets forth factors that must be considered, 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.
Provides procedures for issuance and expansion of a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation and a list of nonnative wildlife species that are prohibited.
Establishes prohibitions on: (1) importation or transportation between states of nonnative species that are not included in the list of approved species; (2) permit violations; and (3) possession, purchase, sale, barter, release, or breeding of such species.
Exempts from such prohibitions actions by law enforcement personnel to enforce this Act or by federal or state officials to prevent the introduction or establishment of nonnative wildlife species. Declares that nothing in this act restricts the importation or transportation between states of such species by a federal agency for its own use if the species remains in its possession. Authorizes the Secretary to issue permits authorizing otherwise prohibited importation for scientific research, for medical, accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the Secretary if the Secretary finds that there has been a proper showing by the permittee of responsibility for the specimen and continued protection of the public interest and health.
Allows the imposition of fees on persons who submit a proposal to include a species in either of the lists to recover the costs of assessing risks of nonnative wildlife species. Establishes a Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Fund into which such fees and fines for violations will be deposited.
Redesignates the Invasive Species Council established by Executive Order 13112 as the National Invasive Species Council.

[FunWow!]

Wow just another thing to try and control people.... Freedom is on its way to an end. Buy your fish now before you cant!!!!!!!!!!!!

[ZaireBlue.com]

At first I did not think fish would be affected, but some others have told me otherwise. I did not mention this until now because I wanted to be sure, and now I am.

The key is to find out what fishes will be on the "approved" list. I have also been told that some South American countries, such as Brazil, are pushing for this as well...that way there will be less of their natives exported here. I think Suriname is also on board, and for those that know....Suriname is very difficult to get fish out of. Herps yes, fish...very hard.

[fatcat]

Hack politicians,cant help save the country from financial collapse so they make a name for themselves by attacking the pet industry.What will they go after next,imported foods?
yep

[LBathory]

In my opinion, there is too much money in this industry for this to be passed. Think about all the huge chains of pet stores that this would affect.

[stevenrox]

H.R.669
Title: To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep Bordallo, Madeleine Z. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD%28FLD003+@4%28%28@1%28Rep+Bordallo+ +Madeleine+Z.%29%29+01723%29%29) [GU] (introduced 1/26/2009) Cosponsors (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d111:1:./temp/%7EbdYLSb:@@@P%7C/bss/111search.html%7C) (12)
Latest Major Action: 1/26/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
SUMMARY AS OF:
1/26/2009--Introduced.

Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act - Requires the Secretary of the Interior to promulgate regulations establishing a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, other than those included in a list of approved species issued under this Act. Sets forth factors that must be considered, 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.
Provides procedures for issuance and expansion of a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation and a list of nonnative wildlife species that are prohibited.
Establishes prohibitions on: (1) importation or transportation between states of nonnative species that are not included in the list of approved species; (2) permit violations; and (3) possession, purchase, sale, barter, release, or breeding of such species.
Exempts from such prohibitions actions by law enforcement personnel to enforce this Act or by federal or state officials to prevent the introduction or establishment of nonnative wildlife species. Declares that nothing in this act restricts the importation or transportation between states of such species by a federal agency for its own use if the species remains in its possession. Authorizes the Secretary to issue permits authorizing otherwise prohibited importation for scientific research, for medical, accredited zoological or aquarium display purposes, or for educational purposes that are specifically reviewed, approved, and verified by the Secretary if the Secretary finds that there has been a proper showing by the permittee of responsibility for the specimen and continued protection of the public interest and health.
Allows the imposition of fees on persons who submit a proposal to include a species in either of the lists to recover the costs of assessing risks of nonnative wildlife species. Establishes a Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Fund into which such fees and fines for violations will be deposited.
Redesignates the Invasive Species Council established by Executive Order 13112 as the National Invasive Species Council.

think this would pass? because im 13 i still have my whole life o f fish keeping ahead of me!!!!

[channarox]

WTF is wrong with your government...:(
do waht you guys can!
although i honestly doubt this will go on.

[HarlanAshmore]

welcome to australia

[Aphilophus]

no its not australia. good bless socialist nationalism. may the lord help us now

[---XR---]

for a government leader that announced his primary action for the U.S economy is to support peoples jobs and keep 4 million people in work, than this seems like a step backwards. There a decent number of people who sell and breed these animals to make a living, great idea to take that away. :footinmou:shakehead:headshake:wall::lock:

[at2]

Hack politicians,cant help save the country from financial collapse so they make a name for themselves by attacking the pet industry.What will they go after next,imported foods?


No, but they are trying very hard to be in complete control of the foods we are able to buy/grow/consume with something called
Codex Alimentarius (http://eyesonthelies.com/2009/02/07/2584/)

[Neophyte]

I love how somewhere along the lines people/government forgot that this is supposed to be the land of the free. It seems like every day that something is being restricted or taken away.

[J double R]

you know, if people just kept fish in their tanks, and were responsible fishkeepers, there would be no need for things like this.

don't get mad at your politicians for wanting to preserve the natural beauty that is the waterways of the US... blame your idiot neighbor that flushed that gar down the toilet... or perhaps your stupid friend that turned the pacu loose in the local river because it got too big.

we brought this on ourselves. you wanna do something about it? show the rest of the country that we can be responsible with our pets. crying about it on the internet won't do any good.

[krzr3000]

you know, if people just kept fish in their tanks, and were responsible fishkeepers, there would be no need for things like this.

don't get mad at your politicians for wanting to preserve the natural beauty that is the waterways of the US... blame your idiot neighbor that flushed that gar down the toilet... or perhaps your stupid friend that turned the pacu loose in the local river because it got too big.

we brought this on ourselves. you wanna do something about it? show the rest of the country that we can be responsible with our pets. crying about it on the internet won't do any good.

agreed

[ShadowStryder]

Do you think the people brought over the zebra muscles, no the came over on the bottom of ships.
How many invasive species were introduced by the Consevation Agencies. How many were brought
over the leaders who colonized this country.
To blame it all on the citizens is rediculous.
Next they'll want to control our every bowel movement. Its all about control.
Everything is about Lobbyist such as PETA who want to shove their beliefs down our
throats. Screw them and screw the government.

[J double R]

Do you think the people brought over the zebra muscles, no the came over on the bottom of ships.
How many invasive species were introduced by the Consevation Agencies. How many were brought
over the leaders who colonized this country.
To blame it all on the citizens is rediculous.
Next they'll want to control our every bowel movement. Its all about control.
Everything is about Lobbyist such as PETA who want to shove their beliefs down our
throats. Screw them and screw the government.


who are conservation agencies consisted of? sovereign parties? nope. what about the people who started this country? they're citizens too. the point is, PEOPLE in general caused this. the animals didn't fly/swim/crawl here and say wow... this looks cozy. lets destroy an ecosystem.

quit whining about your big brother BS, and come up with a valid argument if you're going to cry about something.

zebra "muscles" are hardly the root cause of this, and you know it.

[zuz]

that stinks

[ShadowStryder]

who are conservation agencies consisted of? sovereign parties? nope. what about the people who started this country? they're citizens too. the point is, PEOPLE in general caused this. the animals didn't fly/swim/crawl here and say wow... this looks cozy. lets destroy an ecosystem.

quit whining about your big brother BS, and come up with a valid argument if you're going to cry about something.

zebra "muscles" are hardly the root cause of this, and you know it.

Its about Lobbyist and extremist who want to shove their beliefs down my
and everyone elses throats as I stated before. Its not bullshibby.
Everytime someone doesn't agree with something they want to create legisltation
to create that change. Make laws to fix laws. It called over governning.
Instead of constantly creating more legislation, educate and teach from a
younger age.
This website is a good example how many young kids would not have learned to rehome
their fish responsibly if it wasn't for MFK or others like it. It didn't take a new law, or species restrictions.

[krichardson]

who are conservation agencies consisted of? sovereign parties? nope. what about the people who started this country? they're citizens too. the point is, PEOPLE in general caused this. the animals didn't fly/swim/crawl here and say wow... this looks cozy. lets destroy an ecosystem.

quit whining about your big brother BS, and come up with a valid argument if you're going to cry about something.

zebra "muscles" are hardly the root cause of this, and you know it.
How valid is it at this point in time to grandstand about exotic animals that have been in this country since before this hack probably even got into politics?Any damage from soo called introduced animals is already done and it is nowhere near the damage done to our environment by way of pollution from factories and plants and construction but I dont see anyone trying to save our waterways by dealing with these areas.People may have caused this problem but people are also overacting and people like you are willing to allow them to do whatever they want.Nevermind that the country is heading towards record numbers of unemployment,job loss,and virtual financial ruin,there are non native fish and reptiles and dammit thats what we need to focus on.

[J double R]

I dont see anyone trying to save our waterways by dealing with these areas.


it's all about personal interest.. of course you don't see the regulations and measures being taken there, i'm sure you don't research on a daily basis for what's being done... but as soon as something threatens something you ARE interested in (ie. your fish hobby), you take notice reeeeeaaaallly fast.

if you think factories and plants and construction are polluting willy-nilly without ANY sort of regulation, you're sorely wrong. ever hear of the EPA? Environmental Protection Agency. the same people that have a huge hand in the emissions regulations of the cars you and i drive.

but i suppose it's all fake.. theyre not REALLY doing anything about it, are they?

oh.. and don't give me that "people like you" bull****. you don't know me.

[ShadowStryder]

Have you ever seen anything EPA as for as penalties. Companies are allowed to negostiate down there fines or even get them dropped. They are so under staffed that they can't even regulate the polluters. They are about as efficienat as OSHA.
Big business influences how they regulate also.

[krichardson]

Have you ever seen anything EPA as for as penalties. Companies are allowed to negostiate down there fines or even get them dropped. They are so under staffed that they can't even regulate the polluters. They are about as efficienat as OSHA.
Big business influences how they regulate also.
Sounds interesting and very well researched.I have of course heard of the EPA and I know what they are supposed to do.Thanks for reminding me that I dont know you,I wont take issue with you on any more of your points since it seems that you have no problem lapping up the BS that these hack politicians like to feed the public.Follow along with the rest of the lemmings.

[le patron]

the supporters of that bill would make a LOT of enemies, seeing as there are hundreds of thousands of petstores nationwide.
why would they want to worsen the already crappy economy by shutting down a pretty significant source of income for a lot of people?

[krichardson]

the supporters of that bill would make a LOT of enemies, seeing as there are hundreds of thousands of petstores nationwide.
why would they want to worsen the already crappy economy by shutting down a pretty significant source of income for a lot of people?
Good points which should hopefully kill this nonsense.

[liberator177]

If this got passed.....Id move to Canada!

[pupumole]

i dont know much politics or watever.... im just a teen.... but if tis past... man, wat a way to ruin a kid's interest, pets r IMO necessary to help learn responsibility and it doesnt take long to teach even a kid to understand never put ur fish other than in the tank ... i cant keep cats or dogs cuz it was written in the house contract, and hamsters n guinea pig ,err, i cant really learn much more than keepin em alive, and my parents dont like herps, so wat pet can i choose if all of them r not an option.... fish can teach about ecology , biology, chemistry ,responsibility and all those good stuff ... it would be silly if tis pass, gov't is already cuttin on education budget, and now a way to block kids education , wat a way to pave the road for a gloomy future for kids...

[eskimo]

yes al move to cananda of al move to one state that's warm and make an exception there . Wxqa&²aé&e do not have that problem in belgium our goverment is constantly arguing what color the paper shoud be of the tax payer's tax bil ....they have no idea what is happening in the aqautic's industry


usa land of the free , as long as you do what they say you do .
Quite weird kind of freedom.

if they'd do that to the peaple here they woud rise op up on the street , last time here they wanted to get some hight taxes and farmers pumped the basement of the prime minister full of furtilizer :d

[Chris E]

We already have a similar thing here in New Zealand - 90% of what you guys can keep in tanks is banned over here, sometimes it is so depressing going to my lfs and seeing almost nothing but tetras (little ones) and barbs.
Hope it does'nt happen to you guys over there!

[jartist15]

you know, if people just kept fish in their tanks, and were responsible fishkeepers, there would be no need for things like this.

don't get mad at your politicians for wanting to preserve the natural beauty that is the waterways of the US... blame your idiot neighbor that flushed that gar down the toilet... or perhaps your stupid friend that turned the pacu loose in the local river because it got too big.

we brought this on ourselves. you wanna do something about it? show the rest of the country that we can be responsible with our pets. crying about it on the internet won't do any good.

This is a true oooo rraaa american this isn't about the letting your fish go, one fish doesn't reproduce on its own and its pretty damn hard to keep a fish alive in your tank, now letting it go in a river, you'll probably kill it, how many things have been brought in by the government that have screwed them over, just as stated before, zebra muscles weren't brought in by a hobbiest.

[K626]

Ok, read all the posts. I do have to say, this is a combination of inadvertent and ignorant introduction. I. E. The spiders that stow away on bananas, etc. And, our idiot neighbors dumping fish into our waterways and snakes into the everglades. I live in South FL. I've seen extensive evidence of what an idiot releasing a fish into the lake in their neighborhood can do. In Palm Beach, there's a lake with a THRIVING clown knife population. In Miami, there's jaguar cichlids and other SA cichlids galore. I caught an 18 inch pacu in my friends lake, and have seen a few more in there. For crying out loud we have pythons eating gators. :nilly: I'm not for the bill, or anything like that, but the general american population is a bunch of morons. It's not we resposible fish/animal keepers, it's the ones that don't know what the heck they're doing screwing it up for us. Maybe they should ban beginners from buying these harmful exotics? Or come up with a better solution than banning them all together from everyone. There's gotta be a better way.:irked::swear::WTF:

I'll get off my soap box.

[K626]

This is a true oooo rraaa american this isn't about the letting your fish go, one fish doesn't reproduce on its own and its pretty damn hard to keep a fish alive in your tank, now letting it go in a river, you'll probably kill it, how many things have been brought in by the government that have screwed them over, just as stated before, zebra muscles weren't brought in by a hobbiest.

But you know, if two idiots let their fish go, then there would be the chance of reproduction now wouldn't there?:D As for killing it by letting it go, not here in Florida my friend, the water down here is warm and comfy for most exotic species.

[Patron88]

Good read, interesting points all- dont think i'll be moving back to TX any time soon.

[Fishes33]

Too BAD!

Canada always THE BEST!!!
cheers! :D

[rucus]

This pisses me off

[SOKO]

Why is the government focusing on pets when they have more important things to do? Maybe they forgot about banks, constructions, factories, giving people work.

Yeh, a new era of change. Is it for the worst?

[Greenspot]

Another way to look at it would be to gain more of an apprecation for your own native fish, I live in australia where fish impots are pretty tight. going fishing has given me a true appreciation for our native fish, There is no way in the world if i had a massive tank would i fill it with those arowanas. Give me a grunter or mangrove jack or flathead anyday!

[pcfriedrich]

for a government leader that announced his primary action for the U.S economy is to support peoples jobs and keep 4 million people in work, than this seems like a step backwards. There a decent number of people who sell and breed these animals to make a living, great idea to take that away. :footinmou:shakehead:headshake:wall::lock:




back on the subject, any fish that is already listed as an invasive species should be exempt. what's the use of stopping the importation of oscars, jds, rds, jags.... when they already have substantial, reproducing populations in south florida? same goes for boas and pythons. if you can go out in the wild and catch one, you should be able to buy one in a pet store.

[Fishes33]

and

many USA mfkers were hoping to "BRING" back Asian Arowana.. I guess that dream will be on hold for a bit longer..

:(

[geeimatree]

time to start savin up cash to move to japan..

[fishyjoe26]

cool, someone got the link to work. that was the one I was trying to post under the tittle"time to start writing"

[kiko]

The proposed legislation seeks to protect a secific class of imported animals, those that can propose a danger of establishing populations that compete with native popluations. Invasive species do pose problems, many that are obvious, and some that are more difficult to identify. It is certainly easy to take pot shots at any legislation, especially when the attacks contain inaccuracies. Many of the criticisms I've read in this thread assume sinister motives all around. Maybe we can leave some room for considering that sometimes issues are complex, solutions complex, and not everybody can have everything they want all the time, without affecting someone elses legitimate interests.
Read the proposed legislation. It may pose threats to your interests, but it may also prevent unecessary environmental damage. Many of the responses in this thread are exaggerated worse case scenarios of the impact the legislation might have. Some of them seem unlikely.
It would be more constructive to calm down, and work towards the best solutions to the problems the legislation attempts to resolve.
It is easy to blame goverments and legislators, but the government we have is the government we elect, and the legislation we get, is the legislation we allow.
Getting angry doesn't help. Being smart can.

[spring007]

^^ Agreed...
The only problem I'm having is that why are they focusing on a thriving business that is worth millions of dollars when the economy is doing so bad?

I agree that there are many non-native fish in the rivers and lakes of our country but do you really think that there is any fish (kept in aquariums) that are not found in south florida or even in the US's water masses? If no then what is the point in stopping the trade now? Even if they do, I don't think that the government will spend many more millions to catch and destroy all the non-native fish found in our country. We will still have a thriving population of these non-native fish.

After that would they arrest me if I catch a gar in florida and bring it to keep it in my aquarium?

IMHO, public awareness, i.e., letting the pet owners know that releasing the fish in the wild is not really a good idea. I'm sure our government has money to put up TV commercials for that, just like the army and the national guard ads.

Hell, this law just sounds like saying "ethanol made from corn" is better to use in cars than regular gasoline.

[ShadowStryder]

Many legislations are slid piggy back on some other bill/legislation with out the public
even knowing about it. To believe that the government doesn't have alterior motives
is niave. Just look at all the rights they took away by implementing the Anti Terrorist
legislation after 911. They could wait to be able to grab anyone they wanted under
the guise of national security. The public is losing rights left and right under that nonsense.

[random fish guy]

BS, you would think they would focus on some real problems, like say our economy.

[mjuniorc]

HAHAAHAAHAA,,.... you guys are worrying to much.... either way.. were still gonna get what ever we want.... think about it... their are alot of illegals already banned from the U.S.... hmmmm and i wonder how people got ahold of them....

its called.... SHOW ME THE MONEY!!!!!...... hahahahahaha:ROFL:

just wanna note, i hope this doesnt pass!!!! cuz MFK has alot of devoted, dedicated MONSTER FISH KEEPERS!!! ;)

[DB junkie]

What's next? Lets close all the breweries to cut down on alcohol induced accidents?

Talk about cutting off your nose in spite of your face............

[krichardson]

Here's a novel idea,all of you drones who seem to go blindly support this nonsense and go on and on about the damage non natives can cause to our environment,how about you all turn in your fish ,sell off your equipment and discontinue being a member here.NONE OF THESE ANIMALS JUST GOT HERE RECENTLY,THE DAMAGE HAS ALREADY BEEN DONE.

[ShadowStryder]

What's next? Lets close all the breweries to cut down on alcohol induced accidents?

Talk about cutting off your nose in spite of your face............

Or stop the manufacturing of guns because of the thugs and idiots.

Oh yeah they are already trying to do that too!:screwy:

[cichlaguapote]

As I feel anything that affects what kind of species hobbiest's can or can't keep is an important issue.. Let's keep this clean so we can leave it open. No insults and no politics thanks.

[Otherone]

As a Landscaper and member of Green Planet I'm well apprised of the enviormental impact of forgiegn species in both the USA and Canada (for those of you who think Canadas in the clear) ........... it wouldn't suprise me to see the fish blacklist be state specific. In the case of the piranha it already is.......besides as you've all stated this countries about money and I believe I read a post alluding to this as well..........you'll be able to buy any fish or pet with a license...........they'll give'm away for a fee.

Best example I can think of is Cobras......theres only a handful of hospitals in the USA that carry Anti-venom yet with the proper import license I've seen dozens in my lifetime kept as pets........I don't honestly know all the red tape involved but I can tell you these cobras where licensed and not kept in zoos rather at a residence in an aquarium.

It doesn't suprise me one bit that the Feds are gonna push to make more money off of pets. It's reveanue, and the Democrates are gonna exploit every industry and hobbiest they can til' finally they tax the air.

I truley believe this bill is being pushed to please the enviormentalist and gain more capitol..........I believe every noxious species of plant, fish, and animal will still be readily available when it passes just at a greater cost to you the consumer.

If the feds really wanted to impact the enviorment we'd all be driving electric cars; but until the next US Civil War we're stuck with forever increasing taxes with bogus represtentation and obvious exploitation.

[Bsixxx]

I just want to let everyone know I am starting a website
BFK.com
stands for Banned Fish Keepers. The fastest growing online experiance, dedicated to keeping every banned fish imaginary. Come join us on BFK.com
:ROFL:


on a side note, this will never pass.
because everyone can argue, no dog,cat,cow, are american natives. think of all the food we would have to stop eating also..
:(

[89must]

i believe this bill is about the problems the snakes heads have caused around washington dc considering i think it was nat geographic did a tv show about them and the problems they are causing

[fishyjoe26]

um does anyone hear rage against the machine playing? running down odayo with a shot gun. can I hope that bill doesn't pass.

[artemis1]

um does anyone hear rage against the machine playing? running down odayo with a shot gun. can I hope that bill doesn't pass.
yeah im running down odayo with a shotgun, these people ain't seen a brown skinned man since they're grandparents bought one!

[artemis1]

btw, that's probably the best RATM song ever... intro is incredible, guitar is awesome... shame its not that well known :(

[fishfarm]

CONGRESSIONAL HEARING BANNING
NONNATIVE SPECIES
APRIL 23
ACTION NEEDED


THE ISSUE

The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee
would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act.

Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious [harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of
wildlife resources of the U.S.

HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to “cause economic or
environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.” In order to be placed on the “Approved List” it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause “harm” anywhere in the
US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an “Unapproved List.” Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they
have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.


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.

THE IMPACT

Nonnative species in the pet trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, fish and a number of mammals (e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets) commonly kept as pets. It is immaterial under HR 669 that the



Vast majority of these nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, some for hundreds of years, and have not proven to be an environmental problem.
Numerous species are raised in the United States for many purposes, pets, recreational fishing and hunting, food, etc.
Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental problems, and this has generally been on a very localized basis (i.e. southern Florida, Hawaii).
Most states have exercised their authority to regulate problem species within their own borders through a mixture of management regimes ranging from permit systems to bans. HR669 - March 31, 2009
The HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative – that no harm has or is likely to occur within whole of the entire United States.
The “risk assessment” process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a a broader “risk analysis” that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management) measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies.


HR 669 would employ a 2-step process of a Preliminary and a Final Approved List along with the Services having to promulgate regulations not only to deal with creation of the lists but also regulating all aspects of this
rather complex bill. The Service would have to complete major portions of the list and regulation process within 24 months of passage. Imagine how the Service will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in
HR 669 within these timeframes when it takes on average 4 years for the Service to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act. The bill sets up the under-resourced Service for failure and numerous lawsuits by activist groups.

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 (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 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 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 analysis, using the following criteria. 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.


User Fees
HR 669 also calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following the adoption of the “Preliminary Approved List.” This has been a long term desire of animal activist and environmental protectionist organizations since they know that user fees can become cost prohibitive and virtually eliminate small interest groups or business from participating in the process. It can easily paralyze access except for the wealthy or those living off of tax exempt dollars who use the system to drive their agendas. Furthermore, fees are not made available to the Service until 36 months into the process. It is not clear how the Service would implement the first three years of work under HR 669.

RECOMMENDATIONS – TIME IS NOW!
According to the Defenders of Wildlife "For far too long the pet, aquarium and other industries have imported live animals to the United States without regard to their harm…" Defenders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are part of a coalition pushing hard for passage of this bill without amendments.

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.

A copy of HR 669 can be found on PIJAC’s website in the “Breaking News (http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=175)” and the “HR669 Forum (http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=504)” sections of the www.pijac.org (http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/www.pijac.org). Read the bill carefully since it could shut down major segments of the pet industry virtually overnight.

PIJAC POSITION -- PIJAC supports the underlying intent of HR 669 to establish a risk-based process in order to prevent the introduction of potentially invasive species. It has been clear for quite some time that steps are needed to enhance and improve the current listing process for species shown to be injurious under the Lacey Act. In addition to much needed appropriations to fund staff and other ancillary support aids, the Lacey Act needs to be modernized to make the process more timely, efficient and transparent. However, HR 669 falls far short of accomplishing this objective.

CONTACT MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMITTEE (see contact information below) by



emailing or faxing your opposition to HR 669 to their offices in Washington DC urging them to amend
the bill
ALSO contact their district offices



voice your opposition
and request a meeting with the representative when they are back in the District

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.

A few talking points:

The approach taken in HR 669 will adversely impact trade and other activities involving nonnative species without utilizing a scientifically valid approach – even in the limited instances in which sufficient data are available on the biology and range of species, it will be virtually impossible to prove that they could not establish and spread in some portion of the US. Thus, it will be nearly impossible to get species on the “Approved List” unless they are so widespread in the country already.

The degree of uncertainty that will result by applying the “as if” criteria will result in virtually every species ending up on the list for which there is insufficient information to make a decision DESPITE THE FACT that most of these species have been in trade, recreational use, farming, etc. for decades with only a small percentage of species being problematic and then in localized situations

A one size assessment process fits all species is not plausible – what may be harmful in Hawaiian waters would not be harmful in Kansas or the deserts of Arizona or Texas.

HR 669 overly simplifies the complexity of the issue; bans all species unless they can get on an approved list; the criteria for the Approved List are not realistic; the lists are biased towards those entities that can afford to engage in the process – undoubtedly the USFWS will be paralyzed by activist animal rights and protectionist environmental organizations petitioning for species to be unapproved;

The USFWS does not have the capacity to implement the provisions given limited staff, money, and unrealistic timeliness; and the unintended consequences of a sloppy bill could actually be to facilitate the mass release of animals, and/or their mass euthanasia.

HR 669 does not take into consideration the socio-economic complexity of the issue. Stakeholders dependent upon access to non-native species include diverse interests: pet industry, sports fishing, federal/state hatcheries, agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment, hunting, food aquaculture. Currently, thousands of non-natives species are both imported and exported, as well as captive raised (in some instances farmed on ranched) within the United States. While most of these species are never
intended for release into natural environments, some of these species (e.g. oysters, trout, bass, deer, game birds) are managed by government and private entities throughout the US.

HR 669 calls for a risk assessment when, in fact, a risk analysis process is warranted. A risk assessment only considers biological indices related to potential invasiveness, while a risk analysis considers both these, as well as socio-economic factors, including potential management options. A risk analysis can enable strategic decisions to be made, such as enabling certain species to continue in trade/transport if the risks of invasion could be sufficiently management (e.g. d HR 669 treats the entire United States as if it is a single ecosystem and ignores the historic definition of invasive species that applies to a specific ecosystem, not the political boundaries of the United States as an ecosystem.

Setting criteria in statute removes flexibility that could be achieved through rulemaking since a “one-sizefits-all” process is not appropriate for all taxa, regions of the country, proposed usage of the species, etc.

Deadlines are unrealistic. While we recognize the rationale for placing timeframes on USFWS, deadlines cause lawsuits; deadlines mandate action for unfunded mandates; two (2) years is unrealistic to conduct an assessment (even a rough screen) of literally thousands of species (1) imported, (2) raised in US for local markets as well as exports, and (3) imported as well as raised in US.

Animals owned prior to prohibition of importation (Section 2(f)) is major departure from current prohibitions under Lacey Act. HR 669 would allow possession of “an animal” if prove legally owned pre-launch of assessment. There is no indication as to what it takes to prove legality? Nor would one
know when an assessment of a particular species was launched.

Assuming that more than a handful of non-native species end up on an approved list, enforcement of a list of species that have been in trade for decades will be more difficult than a dirty list. It is well established that only a small percentage of the species in trade have been shown to be “invasive.” The ornamental aquarium industry, for example, deals with more than 2,500 species of freshwater and marine fish. A handful of species have been found to be a problem in Southern Florida, but not elsewhere in the US; some found to be a problem in Hawaii are not a problem in Kansas.

Promulgation of regulations implementing the HR 669 process will be complex and doubtful if can be achieved within prescribed timeframe, especially if USFWS is to simultaneously conduct thousands of assessments on species already in trade.

ACT NOW – Also alert your employees, friends, neighbors, competitors, and any other like-minded people and urge them to take time to respond to this unworkable approach to dealing with f an issue of concern to all of us.

KEEP CHECKING PIJAC’S WEBSITE FOR UPDATES ON HR669

If you have questions or wish to express your views to PIJAC, please contact Marshall Meyers or Bambi Nicole Osborne by phone at 202-452-1525 or via email at bambi@pijac.org or marshall@pijac.org (bambi@pijac.org).



House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/226-0200 (Tel.)
202/225-1542 (Fax)


Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam)
427 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-5301
202/225-1188 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-0341 (Washington Fax #)

120 Father Duenas Ave., Suite 107
Hagatna, GUAM 96910
671/477-4272 (District Tel. #)
671/477-2587 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/bordallo/IMA/issue.htm



Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
1502 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2726 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-4580 (Washington Fax #)

Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd. – Room 4-104
Honolulu, HI 96850
808/541-2570 (District Tel. #)
808/533-0133 (District Fax #)

neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov



Henry Brown (R-SC)
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3176 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3407 (Washington Fax #)

1800 North Oak Street, Suite C
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843/445-6459 (District Tel. #)
843/445-6418 (District Fax #)

5900 Core Avenue, Suite 401
North Charleston, SC 29406
843/747-4175 (District Tel. #)
843/747-4711 (District Fax #)

http://brown.house.gov/Contact/index.html



Lois Capps (D-CA)
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3601 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5632 (Washington Fax #)

2675 N. Ventura Road, Suite 105
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
805/985-6807 (District Tel. #)
805/985-6875 (District Fax #)
301 E Carrillo Street, Suite A

Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805/730-1710 (District Tel. #)
805/730-9153 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/capps/contact/send_an_email.shtml



William Cassidy (R-LA)
506 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3901 (District Tel. #)
202/225-7313 (District Fax #)

5555 Hilton Avenue, Suite 100
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
225/929-7711 (District Tel. #)
225/929-7688 (District Fax #)

http://cassidy.house.gov/contact/index.shtml



Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
1032 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-7751 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5629 (Washington Fax #)

51 South University Ave., Suite 319
Provo, UT 84601
801/851-2500 (District Tel. #)
801/851-2509 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/chaffetz/contactform.shtml



Donna M. Christensen (NP-Virgin Islands)
1510 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-1790 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5517 (Washington Fax #)

Nisky Business Center
Second Floor, Suite 207
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802
340/778-4408 (District Tel. #)
340/778-8033 (District Fax #)

P.O. Box 5980
Sunny Isle Shopping Center, Space 25
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00823
340/778-5900 (District Tel. #)
340/778-5111 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/writerep/



Diana L. DeGette (D-CO)
2335 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4431 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5657 (Washington Fax #)

600 Grant Street, Suite 202
Denver, CO 80203
303/844-4988 (District Tel. #)
303/844-4996 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/formdegette/zip_auth.htm



Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP – American Samoa)
2422 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-8577 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8757 (Washington Fax #)

P.O. Box, Drawer X
Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA 96799
684/633-1372 (District Tel. #)
684/633-2680 (District Fax #)

faleomavaega@mail.house.gov
(faleomavaega@mail.house.gov)


Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
240 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2635 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-4386 (Washington Fax #)

1640 South Stapley, Suite 215
Mesa, AZ 85204
480/833-0092 (District Tel. #)
480/833-6314 (District Fax #)

jeff.flake@mail.house.gov (jeff.flake@mail.house.gov)



John Fleming (R-LA)
1023 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2777 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8039 (Washington Fax #)

6425 Youree Drive, Suite 350
Shreveport, LA 71105
318/798-2254 (District Tel. #)
318/798-2063 (District Fax #)

Southgate Plaza Shopping Center
1606 Fifth Street
Leesville, LA 71446
337/238-0778 (District Tel. #)
337/238-0566 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/fleming/contactform.shtml



Doc Hastings (R-WA)
1203 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4704
202/225-5816 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3251 (Washington Fax #)

2715 St. Andrews Loop, Suite D
Pasco, WA 99301
509/543-9396 (District Tel. #)
509/545-1972 (District Fax #)

302 East Chestnut Street
Yakima, WA 98901
509/452-3243 (District Tel. #)
509/452-3438 (District Fax #)

http://hastings.house.gov/ContactForm.aspx



Dale E. Kildee (D-MI)
2107 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3611 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-6393 (Washington Fax #)

432 N. Saginaw Street, Suite 410
Bay City, MI 48708
989/891-0990 (District Tel. #)
989/891-0994 (District Fax #)

515 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 401
Saginaw, MI 48607
989/755-8904 (District Tel. #)
989/755-8908 (District Fax #)

dkildee@mail.house.gov



Ronald James Kind (D-WI)
1406 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5506 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5739 (Washington Fax #)

205 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 400
La Crosse, WI 54601
608/782-2558 (District Tel. #)
608/782-4588 (District Fax #)

131 South Barstow Street, Suite 301
Eau Claire, WI 54701
715/831-9214 (District Tel. #)
715/831-9272 (District Fax #)

ron.kind@mail.house.gov



Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
314 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5311 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0254 (Washington Fax #)

102 Turpins Lane
Centreville, MD 21617
443/262-9136 (District Tel. #)
443/262-9713 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/kratovil/contactform.shtml



Douglas L. Lamborn (R-CO)
437 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4422 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-2638 (Washington Fax #)

415 Main Street
Buena Vista, CO 81211
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)

1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd., Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)

http://lamborn.house.gov/ZipAuth.aspx



Frank J. Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
237 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3006
202/225-4671 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9665 (Washington Fax #)

67/69 Church Street, Kilmer Square
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
732/249-8892 (District Tel. #)
732/249-1335 (District Fax #)

504 Broadway
Long Branch, NJ 07740
732/571-1140 (District Tel. #)
732/870-3890 (District Fax #)

http://www.house.gov/pallone/contact.shtml



Pedro R. Pierluisi (NP-Puerto Rico)
1218 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2615 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-2154 (Washington Fax #)

250 Calle Fortaleza Old
San Juan, PUERTO RICO 00901
787/723-6333 (District Tel. #)
787/723-6333 (District Fax #)

https://forms.house.gov/pierluisi/contactform.shtml



Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-WV)
2307 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3452 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9061 (Washington Fax #)

601 Federal Street, Room 1005
Bluefield, WV 24701
304/325-6222 (District Tel. #)
304/325-0552 (District Fax #)

301 Prince Street
Beckley, WV 25801
304/252-5000 (District Tel. #)
304/252-9803 (District Fax #)

http://www.rahall.house.gov/?sectionid=9&sectiontree=9



Gregorio Sablan (I- Mariana Islands)
423 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2646 (Washington Tel. #)
https://forms.house.gov/sablan/contactform.shtml



Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
1330 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5456 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5822 (Washington Fax #)

33 Lowell Street
Manchester, NH 03101
603/641-9536 (District Tel. #)
603/641-9561 (District Fax #)

104 Washington Street
Dover, NH 03820
603/743-4813 (District Tel. #)
603/743-5956 (District Fax #)

http://forms.house.gov/sheaporter/webform/issue_subscribe.htm



Robert J. Wittman (R-VA)
1123 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4261 (Washington Tel. #)

3504 Plank Road, Suite 203
Fredericksburg, VA 22407
540/548-1086 (District Tel. #)

4904-B George Washington Memorial Hwy.
Yorktown, VA 23692
757/874-6687 (District Tel. #)

https://forms.house.gov/wittman/IMA/webforms/issue_subscribe.htm



Donald E. Young (R-AK)
2111 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5765 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0425 (Washington Fax #)

101 12th Avenue, #10
Fairbanks, AK 99701-6275
907/456-0210 (District Tel. #)
907/456-0279 (District Fax #)

Peterson Tower Building
510 L Street, Suite 580
Anchorage, AK 99501-1954
907/271-5978 (District Tel. #)
907/271-5950 (District Fax #)

don.young@mail.house.gov (ron.kind@mail.house.gov)




SPREAD THE WORD !!!

[joworth]

its too big of an industry and provides a lot of jobs. it wont happen. they should be worrying about other things.

[East_korea_loli]

hope they start arresting soon!!! cant stand them!!!

[invisyblegypsey]

here is the first reason this should be tossed out.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam) she needs to mind her own buisness on her littel island and not try to make policy for mainland US. i just mass Emailed all those on the list everyone else should do the same!

[fishfarm]

Everyone should e-mail the members of the committee and their own congressman.
Dude from Africa, do you know how much money the USA pours into your poor ass country buying fish that y'all indiscrimanently kill with pollution and deforestation. Get real. I've been there, they are better off in our tanks being bred and saved from extinction. Ken

[tcarswell]

This is absurd. Its gonna take a while but they will all get emails over the course of the day. THIS SHOULD BE STICKY

[DutchBoy]

This is absurd. Its gonna take a while but they will all get emails over the course of the day. THIS SHOULD BE STICKY

ya right! :headbang2

[arapaimag]

I just found this thread on AC

http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188797

If they are successful we and future hobbyists are in big trouble.

[Mr.Firemouth]

Hello Everyone

action is needed immediately by everyone who want to keep cichlids and other pet fish.

please read the attached bill in the House of Representatives - it will limit the import, the transport and ownership of fish along with many other pets

we need a grassroots effort by everyone to write, call email their representative and especially those listed at the end to NOT support this bill. do not delay - add your voice NOW

Here is a link....
http://acaforum.com/index.php?act=attach&type=post&id=902

This is not a Political discussion but a request to tell the Lawmakers in an email that we do not support this Bill.
Please send the an email expressing your feelings to the email addys at the end of the link. Send 1 email to each of the representatives listed as they are sponsors of the Bill. This is your chance to affect our future hobby :)

[krichardson]

This was discussed a few months ago and there were members who actually were not against this legislation.

[dbcb314]

i swear I see one of these threads every year

[killerfish]

:shakehead Looks like we may never see Channa again and ALOT of other fish by the sounds of it

Sticky this thread Mods i can't think of an issue more relavent to this site

[loganh83]

This is a list of all co-sponsors of HR 669. Check to see if your representitive is on the list. Either way contact your congressman and urge them to vote no on this bill. I work on the hill and know this works. Everyone needs to call, email, write etc...they will listen if we mobilize.

Fashfarm is right, also contact the committee. The bill can die in committee if they let it.

Please be sure to be polite and sound professional when contacting. "Crazies" do not get the time of day on the hill.



Rep Abercrombie, Neil (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Abercrombie++Neil ))+00002))) [D-HI-1] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Cohen, Steve (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Cohen++Steve))+01 878))) [D-TN-9] - 3/10/2009 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+DeFazio++Peter+A. ))+00279))) [D-OR-4] - 3/9/2009 Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Faleomavaega++Eni +F.H.))+00367))) [D-AS] - 2/3/2009 Rep Farr, Sam (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Farr++Sam))+00368 ))) [D-CA-17] - 3/9/2009 Rep Frank, Barney (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Frank++Barney))+0 0407))) [D-MA-4] - 2/9/2009 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Grijalva++Raul+M. ))+01708))) [D-AZ-7] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Hastings, Alcee L. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Hastings++Alcee+L .))+00511))) [D-FL-23] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Hinchey++Maurice+ D.))+00541))) [D-NY-22] - 3/30/2009 Rep Holt, Rush D. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Holt++Rush+D.))+0 1580))) [D-NJ-12] - 3/23/2009 Rep Kagen, Steve (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Kagen++Steve))+01 880))) [D-WI-8] - 3/9/2009 Rep Kildee, Dale E. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Kildee++Dale+E.)) +00631))) [D-MI-5] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Kind, Ron (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Kind++Ron))+01498 ))) [D-WI-3] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Klein, Ron (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Klein++Ron))+0184 2))) [D-FL-22] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Lee, Barbara (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Lee++Barbara))+01 501))) [D-CA-9] - 2/3/2009 Rep McGovern, James P. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+McGovern++James+P .))+01504))) [D-MA-3] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Miller, George (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Miller++George))+ 00808))) [D-CA-7] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Napolitano, Grace F. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Napolitano++Grace +F.))+01602))) [D-CA-38] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Pallone++Frank++J r.))+00887))) [D-NJ-6] - 3/23/2009 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Woolsey++Lynn+C.) )+01242))) [D-CA-6] - 2/25/2009

[Nic]

it will never pass...

[loganh83]

This is a link to all info on HR 669. It includes full bill text, major actions, summary, cosponsors etc...

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/D?d111,d110:1:./temp/~bdtXL4:dbs=y:|/billsumm/billsumm.php|

[loganh83]

Link above does not work. This is the official info.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/D?d111,d110:1:./temp/~bdtXL4:dbs=y:|/billsumm/billsumm.php|

[loganh83]

it will never pass...


This bill has 20 co-sponsors, and is being pushed through by the House Natural Rescources Committee. It is better to be safe than sorry on a matter with these sorts of implications. It will be much easier to pass without vast objections from member's constituency.

[arapaimag]

i swear I see one of these threads every year

I'm glad you read the whole thing because this might be the year. Were they all presented on April 23rd?

[r3d]

Well if this is the real thing then wow this will just turn everyone on this sites world upside down

[loganh83]

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/D?d111,d110:1:./temp/~bdtXL4:dbs=y:|/billsumm/billsumm.php|


Full bill text.

[loganh83]

This is a list of all co-sponsors of HR 669. Check to see if your representitive is on the list. Either way contact your congressman and urge them to vote no on this bill. I work on the hill and know this works. Everyone needs to call, email, write etc...they will listen if we mobilize.

Fashfarm is right, also contact the committee. The bill can die in committee if they let it.

Please be sure to be polite and sound professional when contacting. "Crazies" do not get the time of day on the hill.



Rep Abercrombie, Neil (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Abercrombie++Neil ))+00002))) [D-HI-1] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Cohen, Steve (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Cohen++Steve))+01 878))) [D-TN-9] - 3/10/2009 Rep DeFazio, Peter A. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+DeFazio++Peter+A. ))+00279))) [D-OR-4] - 3/9/2009 Rep Faleomavaega, Eni F.H. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Faleomavaega++Eni +F.H.))+00367))) [D-AS] - 2/3/2009 Rep Farr, Sam (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Farr++Sam))+00368 ))) [D-CA-17] - 3/9/2009 Rep Frank, Barney (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Frank++Barney))+0 0407))) [D-MA-4] - 2/9/2009 Rep Grijalva, Raul M. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Grijalva++Raul+M. ))+01708))) [D-AZ-7] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Hastings, Alcee L. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Hastings++Alcee+L .))+00511))) [D-FL-23] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Hinchey, Maurice D. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Hinchey++Maurice+ D.))+00541))) [D-NY-22] - 3/30/2009 Rep Holt, Rush D. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Holt++Rush+D.))+0 1580))) [D-NJ-12] - 3/23/2009 Rep Kagen, Steve (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Kagen++Steve))+01 880))) [D-WI-8] - 3/9/2009 Rep Kildee, Dale E. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Kildee++Dale+E.)) +00631))) [D-MI-5] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Kind, Ron (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Kind++Ron))+01498 ))) [D-WI-3] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Klein, Ron (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Klein++Ron))+0184 2))) [D-FL-22] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Lee, Barbara (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Lee++Barbara))+01 501))) [D-CA-9] - 2/3/2009 Rep McGovern, James P. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+McGovern++James+P .))+01504))) [D-MA-3] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Miller, George (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Miller++George))+ 00808))) [D-CA-7] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Napolitano, Grace F. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Napolitano++Grace +F.))+01602))) [D-CA-38] - 1/26/2009 *Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Pallone++Frank++J r.))+00887))) [D-NJ-6] - 3/23/2009 Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. (http://www.congress.gov/cgi-lis/bdquery/?&Db=d111&querybd=@FIELD(FLD004+@4((@1(Rep+Woolsey++Lynn+C.) )+01242))) [D-CA-6] - 2/25/2009

[fishfarm]

It ain't just the democrates, there are just as many republicans on the committee. Everyone needs to e-mail their congressman. Ken

[loganh83]

It ain't just the democrates, there are just as many republicans on the committee. Everyone needs to e-mail their congressman. Ken

You are right. All members should contact their representitive, regardless of party affiliation. However all co-sponsors are Democrats. 5 of which are from California, where many of our members are from. These members have already pledged their support for this bill.

[loganh83]

You are right. All members should contact their representitive, regardless of party affiliation. However all co-sponsors are Democrats. 5 of which are from California, where many of our members are from. These members of congress have already pledged their support for this bill.


Clarification

[Tom]

The funny part is they can't do crap. They can't come into your home and monitor what you have. Things may be harder to come by. That is true. But they can't cripple the hobby all together. Keep it on the DOWN low

[paintboi101]

this better be a April fools joke! lol

[arapaimag]

The funny part is they can't do crap. They can't come into your home and monitor what you have. Things may be harder to come by. That is true. But they can't cripple the hobby all together. Keep it on the DOWN low
I don't want to use the black market I like being able to go to the pet shops.

[ceeej31]

if they pass this im packing my bags and moving to canada as soon as i graduate

[Thedaniokeeper]

That's what auz does...

[sapphire384]

this could actually happen.
congress is full of do-nothings led by the airhead pelosi.

you would think economic concerns would be paramount, not backwater issues like banning aquarium fish.
it would hurt an industry during a widely acknowledged economic downturn.

typical government doing the wrong thing at the wrong time.

[Thedaniokeeper]

GUYS!
It won't mean the END of fishkeeping, but like in auz, a lot of fishes are going to be out. Canada rules!

[liberator177]

if they pass this im packing my bags and moving to canada as soon as i graduate

I agree with you 100% dude!

[loganh83]

I do not want to move to Canada or be like the Australians! I want to live in America and keep Monster Fish!

This legislation cannot move forward.

[Kcameron]

ugh, just as I started to get into large south american species...this will not fly

[Kcameron]

How would LFSs gonna wait until 90% of their stock gets approved?

[neoprodigy]

[/URL][URL="http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf"]--> The H.R. 669 Bill (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf) (pdf)

[smpage]

Why are goldfish not banned if almost everything else is?...

[BushFishRox]

if this goes through I will be in buffalo every weekend selling gerbils and other pets out of my truck for hundreds of dollars... :D I might even bring a few asian arowanas ha ha

[Bottomfeeder]

:shakehead
do they know that cats and dogs are non native too?

[Midas Madness]

:WHOA: :bs:

[uncwnells]

whats the word on this?

[BushFishRox]

whats the word on this?

the word of the day is.... Ridiculous!

[gordonheimer]

what a load of crap

[Lupin]

Guys, whether you think this will pass or not, please do something about it. At the very least, better safe than sorry.

[BushFishRox]

start sending letters to Obama, he will stand up for you guys!!!

[Neophyte]

Ugh, I hate Mass for two more reasons now! Barney Frank needs to hurry up and kick the bucket at least he might be useful as fertilizer. :swear:

I frickin' hate this state between him and Do nothin' but take more of your money to make your life as miserable as possible Duval I'm losing my f'ing mind!

This is why we need to limit these people to two terms, so that they stop persuing BS like this and that some day you will never have to hear about their stupidity again!

[msjinkzd]

New facebook group pertaining to this: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86144566696

[dbcb314]

I sent an e-mail to my representative even though indiana wasn't mentioned on the bill that I saw

just in case who knows


Well I just realized the title of this thread is wrong and its 699 not 669

awesome... now he thinks i am a lunatic because I mentioned fish and Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)

[neoprodigy]

HR699 ban on importation of many animals. PETITION THREAD! (http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230948)!!

[eltrut420]

most responsible hobbyist's usually dont let there pets go free and ultimately wreak havoc on ecosystems. the problem is that it only takes one person to do that and there is a potential catastophic consequence. carp,zebra muscles,sea lamprey, eurasian ruff are species that ive encountered b4. i fished in florida and caught oscars,cichlids,non native gar. my opinion is that this legislation is WAY OVERDUE. im sure someone will figure out how to get fish here. its gonna get very pricey to keep fish but ive seen enuff invasive species to know that this is good legislation. invasive species usually take over(succesful species) an ecosystem bcuz native species cant adapt fast enuff. just my opinion. please dont send hatemail like i got in other forums. its an educated opinion

[invisyblegypsey]

most responsible hobbyist's usually dont let there pets go free and ultimately wreak havoc on ecosystems. the problem is that it only takes one person to do that and there is a potential catastophic consequence. carp,zebra muscles,sea lamprey, eurasian ruff are species that ive encountered b4. i fished in florida and caught oscars,cichlids,non native gar. my opinion is that this legislation is WAY OVERDUE. im sure someone will figure out how to get fish here. its gonna get very pricey to keep fish but ive seen enuff invasive species to know that this is good legislation. invasive species usually take over(succesful species) an ecosystem bcuz native species cant adapt fast enuff. just my opinion. please dont send hatemail like i got in other forums. its an educated opinion
:banhim:

[Aquamojo]

I didn't read through all of the posts here...but wanted to comment on just a few things. I read about this proposed bill a while back when a guy I know through some other guys wanted to do some "self regulating" on the big three of fish trying to get retailers and fish farmers to ban the sale of Pacu, Red Tail Catfish...and some other fish. Nothing you would expect like a large cichlid...I think it was one of the freshwater "sharks". At the time he set out the proposal (and I have his site somewhere and will post it) the people who got it all agreed that doing that would get some crazy politician to say, "see, if they are trying to stop them themselves they must be bad." and come up with some crap like whats being discussed here. Nah...that won't happen...well, bingo. IN all fairnes, I don't know if the chicken came before the egg here...but the coincidence going in either direction is amazing.

The rules as they are now are crazy in the US. Piranha are illegal in Kentucky, but you can drive across the state lie and buy them. I can't site other examples, but I'm certain there are similar instances.

First, don't NOT do something. Even if it's the fisrt time...write your representative, sign a petition..something. Crazy times.

Second, I think it would be TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to regulate what's already out there. Think about the number of people that would have to be added to prevent folks from selling fish at clubs, on line, etc.

Third, if you read the bill, it's ALL animals....birds, hamsters, gerbils, rodents in general, anything that is a pet. It might be this candy coated layer of $hit that helps the fish end of the deal There is too big a chunk of the economy that relies on the pet industry. They won't be taking any of this lightly. Pray that for the first time in our democratic society that the "lobbyists" do their job...in OUR favor.

Fourth, the part of the bill that scares me most is that it says, you might be able to keep them after they are "considered" Ok. They go on one list while they are considered THEN moved to either the yes or the no list. While being considered...right or wrong...you still can't have them.

Fifth, I believe it was a representative from Guam who introduced the bill. Yes, I know...it's the U.S. But no it not. Guam? Puhlease...

Finally, I would almost guarantee that SOMETHING will come of this billl. I don't think it will have a chance in hell in passing as it is...sorry Australia and all you other poor chaps with your parliamentary democracies...you aren't the U.S. and for the most part (eat me, Guam) we aren't as crazy...most of the time. LOL I STILL have more faith in OUR political idiots than I do yours. I love you guys...but still pump red, white and blue through my veins.

But regardless...something is going to happen with this. I think at a minimum...all of the private collecting trips to other countries will be memorialized in photos. I don't think we will be bringing fish back any more. They will probably finalize or firm up some of the interstate rules in regards to other species...fish, fowl, etc.

What really burns my a$$ is that with all this going on why don't they concentrate on a real problem like getting rid of back yard breeders of dog and cats. My wife and I work non stop with many of the shelters in our area. The amount of unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanized daily because they are not spayed or neutered and breed is mind blowing. We loose much more both in our environment and in our communities and out of our pockets because of feral "dogs and cats".

I think we should send over a couple crates of virile cats to Guam and let representative Madeleine Bordallo understand what a REAL problem can be. Joking, of course. I know that environmental threats are a serious topic. It just looks like they are trying to squash a bug with a sledge hammer here.

Write who you can...spread the word...keep the conversation civil. It's OUR HOBBY...we all SHARE a passion for this hobby.

Peace.

Mo

[Bud8Fan]

most responsible hobbyist's usually dont let there pets go free and ultimately wreak havoc on ecosystems. the problem is that it only takes one person to do that and there is a potential catastophic consequence. carp,zebra muscles,sea lamprey, eurasian ruff are species that ive encountered b4. i fished in florida and caught oscars,cichlids,non native gar. my opinion is that this legislation is WAY OVERDUE. im sure someone will figure out how to get fish here. its gonna get very pricey to keep fish but ive seen enuff invasive species to know that this is good legislation. invasive species usually take over(succesful species) an ecosystem bcuz native species cant adapt fast enuff. just my opinion. please dont send hatemail like i got in other forums. its an educated opinion

Cheers!

You mention "responsible hobbyists". I've worked in a Pet Store in the past. The "responsible hobbyist" is in the minority. There are WAY too many idiots out there.

[fishfarm]

I didn't read through all of the posts here...but wanted to comment on just a few things. I read about this proposed bill a while back when a guy I know through some other guys wanted to do some "self regulating" on the big three of fish trying to get retailers and fish farmers to ban the sale of Pacu, Red Tail Catfish...and some other fish. Nothing you would expect like a large cichlid...I think it was one of the freshwater "sharks". At the time he set out the proposal (and I have his site somewhere and will post it) the people who got it all agreed that doing that would get some crazy politician to say, "see, if they are trying to stop them themselves they must be bad." and come up with some crap like whats being discussed here. Nah...that won't happen...well, bingo. IN all fairnes, I don't know if the chicken came before the egg here...but the coincidence going in either direction is amazing.

The rules as they are now are crazy in the US. Piranha are illegal in Kentucky, but you can drive across the state lie and buy them. I can't site other examples, but I'm certain there are similar instances.

First, don't NOT do something. Even if it's the fisrt time...write your representative, sign a petition..something. Crazy times.

Second, I think it would be TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE to regulate what's already out there. Think about the number of people that would have to be added to prevent folks from selling fish at clubs, on line, etc.

Third, if you read the bill, it's ALL animals....birds, hamsters, gerbils, rodents in general, anything that is a pet. It might be this candy coated layer of $hit that helps the fish end of the deal There is too big a chunk of the economy that relies on the pet industry. They won't be taking any of this lightly. Pray that for the first time in our democratic society that the "lobbyists" do their job...in OUR favor.

Fourth, the part of the bill that scares me most is that it says, you might be able to keep them after they are "considered" Ok. They go on one list while they are considered THEN moved to either the yes or the no list. While being considered...right or wrong...you still can't have them.

Fifth, I believe it was a representative from Guam who introduced the bill. Yes, I know...it's the U.S. But no it not. Guam? Puhlease...

Finally, I would almost guarantee that SOMETHING will come of this billl. I don't think it will have a chance in hell in passing as it is...sorry Australia and all you other poor chaps with your parliamentary democracies...you aren't the U.S. and for the most part (eat me, Guam) we aren't as crazy...most of the time. LOL I STILL have more faith in OUR political idiots than I do yours. I love you guys...but still pump red, white and blue through my veins.

But regardless...something is going to happen with this. I think at a minimum...all of the private collecting trips to other countries will be memorialized in photos. I don't think we will be bringing fish back any more. They will probably finalize or firm up some of the interstate rules in regards to other species...fish, fowl, etc.

What really burns my a$$ is that with all this going on why don't they concentrate on a real problem like getting rid of back yard breeders of dog and cats. My wife and I work non stop with many of the shelters in our area. The amount of unwanted dogs and cats that are euthanized daily because they are not spayed or neutered and breed is mind blowing. We loose much more both in our environment and in our communities and out of our pockets because of feral "dogs and cats".

I think we should send over a couple crates of virile cats to Guam and let representative Madeleine Bordallo understand what a REAL problem can be. Joking, of course. I know that environmental threats are a serious topic. It just looks like they are trying to squash a bug with a sledge hammer here.

Write who you can...spread the word...keep the conversation civil. It's OUR HOBBY...we all SHARE a passion for this hobby.

Peace.

Mo

Mo I think you need to be in DC in the 23rd to represent us. Ken

[Rambo85]

Im not a US citizen but i feel for you guys. God knows what i would do if this type of law hit the UK.

Fingers crossed this never gets through.

[vladfloroff]

The funny part is they can't do crap. They can't come into your home and monitor what you have. Things may be harder to come by. That is true. But they can't cripple the hobby all together. Keep it on the DOWN low

Um, if they brand you an eco terrorist they damn well can. I very much doubt they would but make no mistake as to their ability to do so.

[vladfloroff]

:shakehead
do they know that cats and dogs are non native too?

Also to point out pale skin round eyes are not a native species either, as to their destructive capabilities there is little doubt.

[vladfloroff]

If you want to fix the snake head problem put a $50 bounty on them and a no limit hunt keep them banned from the aquarium trade for 5 years. Most of the invasive species are already here and most were not introduced by hobbits but by commercial interests. I'm not against having a banned fish list, that's actually a good idea. Snake heads should require a permit at the minimum since the will out grow all but the largest of home aquariums. It's the approved list that worries me, especially who says what's approved?

Mass has an approved gun list. The Dessert Eagle is not on the list, neither is most of Sig Sauer guns which I want, all of which are semi-autos. The UZI (yes the AUTOMATIC Israeli sub machine gun) is perfectly legal to own, don't believe me check, can't get to the link at work. I'm seeing some idiot equate south America Chilids(sp) as bad so now Discus end up banned. Mass has many similar examples especially in herping, all monitors are banned becasue some kids got mauled by some clowns adult nile monitor.

[neoprodigy]

I sent an e-mail to my representative even though indiana wasn't mentioned on the bill that I saw

just in case who knows


Well I just realized the title of this thread is wrong and its 699 not 669

awesome... now he thinks i am a lunatic because I mentioned fish and Protect Children from Video Game Sex and Violence Act of 2003 (Introduced in House)





the title of the thread is correct..

HR669 : Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669)

HR699 : Pledge Protection Act of 2007 (http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-699)

[dbcb314]

know why some are saying 699? I think that must have been the title somewhere as I think u went backa nd edited peoples post that said 699...

*confused*

[viking252200]

Looking at my red snakehead, while I'm typing this , I count myself fortunate to be living in Japan.
I really hope this bill does not get approved.:(

[kzimmerman]

I think it's interesting that goldfish are on the list of animals already approved, yet they are one of the few fish in the aquarium hobby that a- reguraly outgrows peoples tanks b-can thrive in the entire usa watershed, except saltwater c-are already somewhat of a pest in many locations due to being used as fishbait d- are clearly much more of a threat to our ecosystem than say, an angelfish.

[neoprodigy]

know why some are saying 699? I think that must have been the title somewhere as I think u went backa nd edited peoples post that said 699...

*confused*
the thread title are correct... i dono where you see it at... :)

[Gr8KarmaSF]

Fifth, I believe it was a representative from Guam who introduced the bill. Yes, I know...it's the U.S. But no it not. Guam? Puhlease...

...you aren't the U.S. and for the most part (eat me, Guam) we aren't as crazy...most of the time.


For the most part I agree with you BUT you might want to look up Guams role in our history books. It was very strategic in winning several wars. Puhlease....

[xdragonxb0i]

Aren't dogs and cats imported animals
Are they included in this list

Thy are more dangerous and more invasive then any fish or reptile

[absoluteangels]

Here is another link to voice your vote.
http://www.govit.com/vote/congress.aspx?bill=2009-hr-669

Sorry if its already been posted.

~Stacy

[packer43064]

What will all of the pet stores do, close down? Will they track all of the owners with fish that aren't on the list. I don't see a way that they can regulate breeding of Oscars or such. It'll just become like any other illegal substance. I mean how are they going to know if I ship a clown loach to someone?

[xdragonxb0i]

is anyone willing to write a letter to your represented

Somome write one letter that we can all use and edit
And we can mass mail it to the government

[neoprodigy]

PIJAC's testimony opposing HR 6311 in front of the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and Oceans (http://www.pijac.org/files/public/HR6311_MM_Testimony.pdf).



TESTIMONY OF
MARSHALL MEYERS
PET INDUSTRY JOINT ADVISORY COUNCIL
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
HOUSE NATURAL RESOURCES COMMITTEE
June 26, 2008


Madam Chair and members of the Committee, I am Marshall Meyers, Executive Vice President and General Counsel of the Pet Industry Joint advisory Council (PIJAC). Thank you for inviting me to submit comments on the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (HR 6311).

PIJAC is a non-profit service-oriented organization comprised of members who care about pets and the pet industry. As a national trade association, PIJAC represents all segments of the pet industry: companion animal importers/exporters/breeders, wholesale distributors, product manufacturers, retail outlets, and affiliated hobby clubs, aquarium
societies, and other industry trade associations. Our members serve the 63% of the U.S. households that care for and maintain pets of all types, sizes and descriptions: the majority of these pets fall within the purview of the regulatory system contemplated in HR 6311.



PIJAC’s explicit mission is to:


“Promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare, foster environmental stewardship, and ensure the availability of pets.”




The pet industry, like several other industries, is dependent on the importation of nonnative species, most of which are farm raised. Pet owners across the US possess a wide variety of non-native species in significant numbers. This is not a new phenomenon. For generations, people have maintained a wide variety of non-native mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and fish as companion animals. Unlike some industries dealing in
nonnative species, it is not the intent of the pet industry or the majority of pet owners to place or release these animals into the natural environment.


Background


PIJAC is well aware of the problems posed by invasive species. Our involvement with this issue dates back to the early 1970s when the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) published a proposed list of “Low Risk” wildlife. Like HR 6311, that proposal would have banned all wildlife not otherwise appearing on the clean list as being “injurious” (invasive) under the Lacey Act. We challenged that approach because (1) it failed to provide science-based support for how it classified “low” versus “high” risk species, and (2) it was premised upon broad-based conclusions that all nonnative species were per se injurious until proven innocent. We successfully challenged the proposed regulatory action by making government officials and stakeholders aware of the fact that it placed an untenable burden on the trade to “scientifically prove” a negative – i.e. the absence of harm.

For many years, PIJAC has been providing leadership on invasive species issues, serving as an advisor to and collaborator with numerous government agencies. The PIJAC staff serves on various Aquatic Naissance Species Task Force (ANSTF) committees and regional panels, the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and a number of State invasive species advisory committees or working groups. Additionally, PIJAC leads several initiatives and proactive campaigns designed to minimize the introduction and
impact of invasive species. These campaigns reflect a strong collaborative effort between industry, the government, and other stakeholders.



PIJAC believes that effective measures should be in place to reduce the risk of the adverse impacts of invasive species. We further believe that the appropriate directives for risk management are contained in the Lacey Act, the National Invasive Species Management Plan (per Executive Order 13112), and several ANSTF initiatives, among others. As we have testified previously, the requisite human and financial resources have yet to be made available to the relevant federal agencies so that they can fully and
effectively implement and enforce existing policies and programs. Until the government is willing to invest in implementation and enforcement of the regulatory measures it has already enacted, additional regulations will serve only to cripple an already faltering system.

With regard to HR 6311, first and foremost I note that it reckons back to a failed, technically flawed approach of the early 1970s. As previously mentioned, it imposes on persons interested in importing or possessing a species for commercial or noncommercial purposes the task of having to scientifically prove a negative – that the species will not cause harm or be likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human and animal species’ health. Simply on the grounds of “Statistics 101” this
is unworkable. Absent a crystal ball, it is impossible to prove conclusively that no harm has ever nor will ever occur at any time, anywhere in the United States.



Thousands of non-native species have been in the pet trade for decades, yet the overwhelming majority of them have never established feral populations and even fewer have been demonstrated to have caused harm to the environment, economy, or human health. In rare instances where former pets have become invasive, the impacts have generally been to localized areas in urban and suburban contexts which are already
heavily impacted by habitat loss and degradation.

It is, thus, both unnecessary and unrealistic to conduct a risk assessment for every nonnative species in the pet trade (e.g., more than 1600 freshwater fish), let alone those brought in by other industries as well.



While we recognize that the Lacey Act process is inefficient in many ways, it is clear to us that this is largely due to the lack of capacity both in terms of staffing and funding. Because HR 6311 mandates a far more comprehensive process than currently exists under the Lacey Act, it is set up for failure. If enacted as drafted, HR 6311 would force the Fish and Wildlife Service into a managerial nightmare. It would have to:




conduct risk assessments on more than 10,000 species currently in trade,
many of which are not even scientifically identified to the species level let
alone extensively studied, and complete those assessments in time to meet the statutory deadlines set forth in Sections 3 and 4; or, upon failure to do so,
shut down a number of industries dependent upon nonnative species -- such as the pet industry, food aquaculture, and sports fishing.

Even if there was ample scientific information available to enable the risk assessment process, it is clear that the USFWS would not be physically able to complete a sufficient number of species assessments given its extremely limited staff and financial resources. It is also readily apparent that industries cannot exist on a handful of imported species for
the short or long-term.



HR 6311 is an overly simplistic approach to a very complex problem which involves much more than running a series of risk assessments in order to publish a list of approved species. The socio-economic, as well as biological, issues impact hundreds of millions of Americans and a more reasoned approach is needed to address the invasive species conundrum.



I, therefore, urge the Committee to take into careful consideration the findings and recommendations of the National Invasive Species Management Plan, as well as initiatives of the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force and numerous state agencies that are dealing with this issue. Initiatives under these programs already reflect stakeholderinclusive reviews on and recommendations to address the import of live organisms in the
invasive species context.


For well over a decade, government and industry have been working collaboratively to enhance prevention, improve early detection and rapid response, develop screening mechanisms applicable to different animal types, identify pathways and pathway related problems, and increase public awareness on the importance of not introducing nonnative species into the environment. A major component of that process is recognizing that
screening or risk analysis must be carefully constructed to ensure that the analysis is science-based, credible, transparent, involves stakeholders, and evaluates and promotes viable management policies. In our opinion, HR 6311 has the potential to jeopardize and set back achievements of the past several years.


For example, the 2001 National Invasive Species Management Plan (Plan), was developed through a transparent, science-based, stakeholder-inclusive process. It was intended to provide a constructive way forward for Federal agencies and partners to minimize the impact of invasive species in a manner that was timely, practical, and cost effective. Plan developers concluded that a phased-in screening approach was the most effective way to reduce the risk of import of potentially invasive species. In the first
phase of the process, relevant Federal agencies would work with stakeholders to screen species proposed for first-time imports into the US. Three years later, the second phase would broaden the approach for the systematic screening of species already in trade. PIJAC encourages members of Congress to review the Plan, and meet with NISC Policy
Liaisons and original members of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) in order to garner a better understanding of the process already agreed to by Federal agencies and stakeholders, as well as the underlying basis for the decisions made – such as the lack of scientific data, staff capacity, and economic implications.


If Congress decides to ignore the Plan, then we urge that HR 6311 be redrafted to direct a risk analysis process rather than a risk assessment. According to the definitions adopted under the Convention on Biological Diversity (and supported by the US), "risk analysis refers to: (1) the assessment of the consequences of the introduction and of the likelihood
of establishment of an alien species using science-based information (i.e., risk assessment), and (2) the identification of measures that can be implemented to reduce or manage these risks (i.e., risk management), taking into account socio-economic and cultural considerations.”



As evidenced at several recent meetings dealing with screening processes and other analytical approaches, it has become abundantly clear that such a process is complex and that there is not agreement within the scientific community or other interested parties on how to deal with this complex problem. Screening is one part of the process; risk management and evaluating socio-economic issues and other benefits is equally
important and challenging. We do not believe that this can simply be resolved via legislation mandating criteria that needs to be subject to scientific and legal scrutiny. That should be left to the regulators.

Unless socio-economic and cultural considerations are adequately accounted for in this process, numerous domesticated animals (e.g., domestic cats and livestock) are likely to qualify for the “black list” as there is considerable scientific data to indicate that these nonnative wildlife species (as currently defined by HR 6311) have caused substantial economic harm when they become feral. Furthermore, there are already management measures in place for some species that would reduce the risk of invasiveness. For example, ferrets that are spayed/neutered cannot establish viable populations. Finally, in the current economic environment, Congress must carefully consider both the financial costs and benefits of imported species. The loss of certain high-income fish, for example, could result in the collapse of the entire ornamental fish industry and have significant repercussions for product manufacturers, distributors, and retailers throughout the country.

Understanding the broad biological and socio-economic implications of developing lists of approved and unapproved wildlife species, countries such as Australia and New Zealand explicitly employ risk analyses. Reference materials for their programs are readily available on the Web.


The following comments address key sections of HR 6311.

Risk Assessment Process (Section 3)


PIJAC questions the advisability of the Congress mandating specific criteria that the Secretary must factor into the Department’s assessment protocols. As evidenced by the work of the Invasive Species Advisory Committee and the ANSTF. The Department’s scientists need flexibility to design analysis protocols depending on the taxa, the purpose of introduction, and other relevant factors. A “one-size-fits-all” set of factors will not enable an effective result.

For example, it is not technically feasible to identify some species in trade – including some very high volume and income species – to the “species level” (Section 3(b)(1)). Many armored catfish, a staple of the aquaria trade, are only identified with “L” numbers; they have not been scientifically described. Nor is it clear how the prescribed process would deal with taxonomic name changes in cases in which molecular studies indicate
that the classifications should either be “split” or “grouped.” If the scientific
classification changes, would the risk analysis have to be repeated for the affected species? Furthermore, how would agency staff address the fact that some countries (particularly developing, exporting countries) are using different taxonomic names (often “old” versus “new”) than others?

Section 3(b)(2) requires information on the “geographic source of the species and the conditions under which it was captured or bred.” Is this section designed to identify the evolutionary origin of the species, the geographic location of its initial export, or the last country of export before entering the United States? What is the relevance of analyzing the “conditions under which it [the species] was captured?” Is this introducing an animal welfare element into the risk analysis process?

Section 3(b)(3) incorporates terms such as “established,” “harm” and “spread” without the benefit of definitions. Is the USFWS free to adopt its own definitions? Does “established” mean a self-sustaining reproducing population? Is an analysis as to benefit versus harm part of the evaluation?

Sections 3(b)(4) through (10) incorporate the subjective, non-scientific standard of “likelihood” for determining the probability that a species will become established, spread, do harm, or be accompanied by a “pathogenic species, parasite species, or free living species…” Does “likelihood” connote some level of probability – a specific statistical term – or is it merely a subjective conclusion that something might establish, spread, cause harm or be accompanied with parasites? The mere presence of parasites or
other associated organisms is not necessarily problematic. Furthermore, an extremist could argue that any species has some probability of establishing somewhere in the U.S. given the right ecological conditions and propagule pressure. If that probability in scientific risk-based terms presents a negligible risk, how is it assessed under the “likelihood” doctrine? What methods would be used to determine or score “likelihood?”


Section 3 sets forth specific factors that must be taken into account in the USFWS’s evaluation of risk but offers no direction as to the manner in which such factors must be evaluated. A reasonable inference, however, is that a positive finding of one or more of those factors is sufficient to prohibit import. Far greater statutory clarity is required. Is the USFWS compelled to list a species as prohibited in any case in which some combination of these factors are determined in the affirmative? Is the mere absence of biological data, because it does not exist, sufficient to compel the USFWS to ban a
species that has been imported in the millions or farmed in this country for 30 to 50 years absent evidence of invasiveness?

Based on such a standard, common goldfish, many tropical fish, and myriad common species of birds and reptiles would be banned from the entire United States if it could be demonstrated that under Section 3(b)(4) there is a likelihood that “environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread…exist anywhere in the United States.” Marine organisms would be banned in Kansas because they might become established in Hawaiian waters; a parakeet would be banned in Minnesota because it could survive in south Florida. Absent inclusion of some qualifying language, the factors become mandates and mandates become prohibitions even though a likely adverse impact is never shown.

Transparency (Section 3(d))



Transparency is critical to the credibility of the process being mandated by this bill. Stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process is essential to attain the level of transparency recommended by the National Academy of Sciences’ National Research Council. PIJAC urges that language be inserted making it abundantly clear that there is stakeholder involvement at all stages of the process. Furthermore, language should direct that the persons making the management decisions are not the same people conducting the risk assessment(s).

List of Approved Species (Section 4)



The concept of assessing first-time introductions surfaced during the ANSTF “Intentional Introductions Policy Review” in the mid-1990s. In a report to Congress in 1994, the ANSTF focused on two main concerns:




“the need to make ecologically credible decisions; and
the need to strike a balance between greater risk reduction and accommodating current activities and economies that depend on the use of nonindigenous species.”

The ANSTF went on to conclude that:


“to the maximum extent possible, the decisions should be based on ecosystem considerations; and

the recommendations should generally apply only to new introductions.” (emphasis added)


The ANSTF further recommended establishing a Federal permit system for first-time imports coupled with a credible, science-based review process, and called for improvements in implementing the Lacey Act to include, inter alia, expediting the injurious species listing process, fostering compliance through clearer listings, and initiating a review system for species not listed. The ANSTF also made a series of proactive recommendations, including adoption of good business practices through codes of conduct promoting “continued commercial operations in a manner that is compatible
with the conservation of natural ecosystems” such as education and public outreach programs targeting invasive species issues.



The National Invasive Species Plan incorporated that concept following lengthy deliberations among the Invasive Species Advisory Committee (ISAC) and National Invasive Species Council (NISC). The Plan, at page 32, specifically calls for


“…the development of a risk-based screening process for intentionally introduced species in a series of steps or phases. During the first phase a screening system for first-time intentional introductions will be developed…The screening system will then be modified…during the second phase to deal with species already in the U.S.”



Several iterations of bills amending the National Aquatic Invasive Species Act (NAISA) incorporated the establishment of a “catalog” of organisms in trade. That was to be accomplished as a collaborative effort involving the Fish and Wildlife Service and concerned stakeholders. The language which subsequently appeared in at least five bills in the House and the Senate was agreed to by a diverse group of stakeholders including various nongovernmental environmental organizations. Any species not appearing on that list would be subject to a screening process as a first-time introduction. The screening process would evaluate the “probability of undesirable impacts.”



That legislation did not exempt species appearing in the catalog from risk assessment and possible listing under the Lacey Act. Rather, the catalog was to ensure that species that have been in trade with no apparent ill effects would not suddenly be prohibited absent a science-based risk analysis. This was recognized as the only reasonable and feasible method of addressing thousands of species that have long been imported into the United States and for which no adverse consequences have been identified. Moreover, a number of species in trade have been captive raised within the United States for decades with no demonstrated detrimental impacts.

Section 4(c) provides a mechanism to add nonnative wildlife species to the approved list and requires the Secretary to make a determination “in a reasonable period of time” in accordance with the Section 3(b) factors. PIJAC urges the insertion of a specified time frame within which the USFWS shall make such determinations, similar to time limits imposed under other laws. If history is prologue, there is a high likelihood that few new additions will be made to the list absent a statutorily imposed deadline, and perhaps not even then.

When a list is published will there be any grace period for an importer or person possessing listed species already in the United States to revamp their operation(s) and ethically dispose of animals in their possession or do they become violators of this Act, as well as the Lacey Act, overnight? The perception, alone, that this would be the case is likely to motivate frightened individuals to abandon animals. In short, it could facilitate the introduction and establishment of numerous non-native species.


Deadlines (Sections 3(e) and Section 4(a)(1)).



The prescribed timeframes to implement HR 6311 are unrealistic. According to Section 3(e)(1), the proposed regulations and an initial list of approved species must be published within two years of enactment of HB 6311. The final regulations, the initial list of approved species and a notice of the list of prohibited species must be published, pursuant to Section 3(e)(2), no later than 30 days before the date on which the Secretary begins assessing the species . The assessment process must start within 37 months of HR
6311’s enactment (Section 3(e)(3). Yet Section 4(a)(1) mandates that the list of approved species be finalized and published no later than 36 months following enactment. How is this possible?

History has demonstrated that agencies are often unable to comply with such mandated timeframes. Will the USFWS be provided adequate appropriations to fund this initiative? How will the USFWS be able to develop regulations, publish them in the Federal Register seeking public comment, review and finalize the regulations, seek and obtain OMB clearance and publish final rules and lists within such brief timeframes? To date, the USFWS has required an average of four years to accomplish such a process for a single species proposed for injurious wildlife listing.

The NISC and ANSTF approaches referenced earlier alleviate the USFWS’ need to expend significant effort assessing species documented as being in trade and allowed it to concentrate on first time introductions as well as go back and selectively review and assess any of the species in the catalog. The USFWS was not subjected to a series of artificial time frames it could not meet. We recommend a return to the previously agreed upon Catalog approach as a more workable mechanism – a mechanism that is sciencebased, measurable, transparent and implementable.

List of Unapproved Species (Section 5)



Section 5 calls for the Secretary to publish a list of nonnative wildlife species prohibited or restricted from entering the United States. The list would incorporate those species listed under the Lacey Act as well as any other species added pursuant to this Act. Is this intended to be an amendment to the Lacey Act?


Since violations of the proposed Act would also constitute a violation of the criminal provisions of the Lacey Act, full and complete lists of what is legal and illegal should be published by the USFWS to ensure adequate notice of what constitutes a violation of law.

Due process calls for no less. To ensure proper notice and avoid confusion, the approved and unapproved lists should contain every species in the animal kingdom to ensure that the public is aware of what is illegal as well as legal inasmuch as they are subject to a strict liability criminal statute.

Prohibitions and Penalties (Section 3(f) and Section 6(3), (5) and (6)).



Interestingly, a person already engaged in the captive propagation or farming of a species in the United States that does make the “approved list” finds him or herself in the rather awkward position of being subject to conflicting provisions of the law. According to Section 3(f), the “Act shall not interfere with the ability of such people to possess an individual animals of a species that was imported legally.” Yet a close reading of the prohibitions in Section 6 raises significant issues which will undoubtedly compel millions of frightened people to kill or abandon their pets. Once a species appears on the “unapproved list,” the imaginary grandfather clause of Section 3 apparently evaporates because it would be illegal to breed, possess, sell, barter any nonnative species appearing on the Section 4 prohibited list!


The prohibition section will significantly impact not only the pet industry, but also food aquaculture, sport fisheries, the bait industry, and the livestock industry. These sections need to be revisited.

Fees (Section 8)



The establishment of a fee-based risk assessment system is fraught with problems. Apart from trying to ascertain how the amount of the fee(s) will be determined, this system will result in rank discrimination whereby small business will no longer be able to compete. It places the entire financial burden on larger companies willing to assume the financial risk of going through a nondescript assessment and listing process. This becomes a
significant burden if the importer imports hundreds or thousands of species for which there is sketchy biological or scientific data, yet the species has been in trade in extremely large numbers for many, many years absent adverse impacts.


Unlike other areas of the economy where fees are assessed to seek government approval of a patented or proprietary drug or chemical product, importers of nonnative species would be funding an assessment not only for themselves but for all of their competitors, and even other industries that trade in the same species for other purposes. How will the USFWS determine which importer is selected to bare the costs? Risk assessments and risk analyses are expensive undertakings. Will the fees be $10,000, $25,000, $50,000 or $100,000 or more per assessment per organism? How will the figures be determined and consistently applied?

Definitions (Section 11)


Failure to provide a clear definition of “wildlife” further adds confusion to HR 6311. As crafted, “nonnative wildlife species” includes “any species that is not a native species.” The definition goes on to specifically cover the entire animal kingdom including insects, mollusks, crustaceans, arthropods, coelenterates, and all other invertebrates.


By this definition, many species of animals that are longstanding staples of the pet industry, food aquaculture, sports fishing, and livestock would have to go through the process to ascertain if they pose the “likelihood” of harming the environment or other factors set forth in HR 6311. These would include cattle, cats, dogs and numerous animals considered “domesticated.” A clear definition of “wildlife” is essential.



Conclusion



On behalf of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC), thank you for providing us an opportunity to share our thoughts and concerns regarding HR 6311. Despite our reservations about HR 6311, we remain committed to working with your Subcommittee to address this important environmental issue.



We believe that we have raised a number of valid issues regarding HR 6311 and its potential for shutting down several industries dependent on nonnative species. Additionally, it could end up encouraging rather than preventing the release of nonnative animals.

We respectfully suggest that the bill as currently crafted sets the USFWS up for failure. Its whole approach is one that defies practical implementation, and demands exorbitant resources. In short, it would not visit upon the public the beneficial results to which it aspires. The measure demands the nearly impossible task of conducting thousands of scientifically valid risk assessments in a short time-frame, and presumes that all species
subject to these assessments shall be prohibited pending a contrary finding, even though no evidence of adverse impact exists. Unlike a risk analysis, it does not explicitly account for socio-economic and cultural considerations. The bill assigns such an impossible task to an agency woefully bereft of resources for the job, and holds hostage several vital sectors of a challenged economy.


We believe that there is a better way to achieve a superior result. To that end, we recommend that a working group comprised of various stakeholders be convened to offer recommendations on the most effective method for moving the screening process forward, as called for in the National Invasive Species Plan. A number of key industries need to be at the table. This is not simply a pet industry issue. A number of pathways have proven to be far more significant vectors of nonnative species than pets.

We look forward to working with your Subcommittee in crafting more realistic legislation that will serve the public and affected industry alike in concert with the National Invasive Species Management Plan and the Executive Orders calling for such a plan.

[BigTim15]

I think that there is no chance that this will happen and that Obama will go through with it but everyone still right a letter to their state rep. or somehintg!!

[Mr.Firemouth]

I am completely against this legislation!
I am sending an e-mail to every one on the email list in the other threads as this must be stopped!

[arapaimag]

This bill is being pushed mainly by Democrats supporting the Animal Rights Group.

If it passes in the US it will be pushed in many Western countries including Canada.

I supported groups who have fought against similar restrictions in Ontario. Canada (Milton 2004 and Toronto 2000). The Milton one would have restricted anyone to owning more than 2 individuals of any animal group. Which would have restricted residents to 2 fish, 2 birds, 2 dogs, 2 cats, 2 reptiles etc.

Both were defeated because lawyer hobbyists (who owned birds) acted on our behalf for free to fight and either defeat most proposals or at least get amendments which allowed us to remain status quo. The reptile hobbyists however were placed with restrictions in both cases.

I don't know if any lawyer/hobbyists in the US would be willing to help but without their assistance, smarts and knowledge of the legal system it will be a tough go.

I found in both instances the strongest group that fought this were bird owners and without their participation I feel that both areas would have lost.

Americans please take this very personal.

This if passed will affect every type of pet we own such as birds, reptiles, mammals etc, not just our beloved fish. We can be tough and say we will go underground if this bill is passed, but unfriendly neighbors, large fines and jail might quickly change our will.

Their plan will be to appear to give us concessions by allowing us to keep the pets we own but not allow us to replace them when they pass away.

Remember the animal rights groups do not want us to have ANY PET.

If they win this one it might be only the first knife to be thrust into our ribs by them.

[danz]

I don't understand what they think this will accomplish, there will always be a demand for non native species and they will just hand over this work to drug cartels giving them more money. I could understand if they wanted to make the import of specific thing illegal or having some decontamination process to prevent tag alongs but banning it all together?



http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/hunting/news/story?page=c_news_wildlife_smuggling_Mexico

[OddBaller]

This bill is being pushed mainly by Democrats supporting the Animal Rights Group.

If it passes in the US it will be pushed in many Western countries including Canada.

I supported groups who have fought against similar restrictions in Ontario. Canada (Milton 2004 and Toronto 2000). The Milton one would have restricted anyone to owning more than 2 individuals of any animal group. Which would have restricted residents to 2 fish, 2 birds, 2 dogs, 2 cats, 2 reptiles etc.

Both were defeated because lawyer hobbyists (who owned birds) acted on our behalf for free to fight and either defeat most proposals or at least get amendments which allowed us to remain status quo. The reptile hobbyists however were placed with restrictions in both cases.

I don't know if any lawyer/hobbyists in the US would be willing to help but without their assistance, smarts and knowledge of the legal system it will be a tough go.

I found in both instances the strongest group that fought this were bird owners and without their participation I feel that both areas would have lost.

Americans please take this very personal.

This if passed will affect every type of pet we own such as birds, reptiles, mammals etc, not just our beloved fish. We can be tough and say we will go underground if this bill is passed, but unfriendly neighbors, large fines and jail might quickly change our will.

Their plan will be to appear to give us concessions by allowing us to keep the pets we own but not allow us to replace them when they pass away.

Remember the animal rights groups do not want us to have ANY PET.

If they win this one it might be only the first knife to be thrust into our ribs by them.
When your young and your not liberal... you have no heart... when your old and not conservative you have no brain... my .02

[T1KARMANN]

do you think this has anything to do with the out brake of snakeheads that have found their way into the US water ways

i can understand a ban on some types of fish as their are many tank busters that come on to the market that most people just cant house

TSN,RTC,silver aros black aros arapima just to name a few and some rays to some extent some of the hotter states already ban some of the fish named (i think)

but i don't feel all tropical fish should be banned

[stealthops69]

yes. the just put a bill into congress about not being able to have your own garden in your back yard bs. and all farms would be shut down basicly, except the big boys.

[stealthops69]

Hack politicians,cant help save the country from financial collapse so they make a name for themselves by attacking the pet industry.What will they go after next,imported foods?

yes. the just put a bill into congress about not being able to have your own garden in your back yard bs. and all farms would be shut down basicly, except the big boys.

[Allan01230]

A-holes can't balance damn budget or fix real promblems so lets lose all our money in the stock market. But lets make sure no 4 inch max size plecos are brought in to the U.S. Not just the pet industry all U.S. citizens should be outraged that our country is falling apart in its infustructure and opur great politicians are worried about pet fish. CRAZY!

[sas853]

if this is seriously pass from the court...just try to buy as much as you guys can...and breed out of them... :P
no offense but where is the freedom that you guys got?? you guys blame china for freedom...you guys are getting similar things now...**** man...even little innocent creatures want to be controlled by the government...what else they want to control more from you guys..I feel really sad for u guys if this really Act will pass

[redwine]

Stop interfering in my hobby. Choosing what type of fish that I may want to import and/or purchase is my business, not yours. Let the market place decide what I should or should not enjoy and/or purchase.

[viking252200]

Sections 3(b)(4) through (10) incorporate the subjective, non-scientific standard of “likelihood” for determining the probability that a species will become established, spread, do harm, or be accompanied by a “pathogenic species, parasite species, or free living species…” Does “likelihood” connote some level of probability – a specific statistical term – or is it merely a subjective conclusion that something might establish, spread, cause harm or be accompanied with parasites? The mere presence of parasites or
other associated organisms is not necessarily problematic. Furthermore, an extremist could argue that any species has some probability of establishing somewhere in the U.S. given the right ecological conditions and propagule pressure. If that probability in scientific risk-based terms presents a negligible risk, how is it assessed under the “likelihood” doctrine? What methods would be used to determine or score “likelihood?”
Reading this and remembering the "great snakehead" scare, could anyone tell me about the present situation?..have snakeheads taken over every pond, lake, stream and river in the US?

I goggled it, and lo and behold..while it has apparently established small populations a few places, it has not had the impact on the native wildlife
everyone expected.....and this was supposedly the "ultimate" invasive species!

IMO, this just goes to show how little the so called "experts" really know about this.

A species may have an impact on a local area, but then let that area decide...I mean banning a bird, a fish or any other kind of animal,because it can live outside captivity in FL..OK that MAY be the way to deal with that "problem", but banning the same animals in Alaska, where they would surely parish, makes no sense...

[vladfloroff]

Stop interfering in my hobby. Choosing what type of fish that I may want to import and/or purchase is my business, not yours. Let the market place decide what I should or should not enjoy and/or purchase.

And here is why the proponents are going batty about the whole thing. Certain animals should not be owned without special training and permit. You as an untrained private citizen can not ensure that this animal is safe for the general population. Therefore I do support banning some animals, but only specific animals (not groups) that either pose a substantial risk to the community at large, or to the eco system. Banning all snake heads is dumb, but trusting the average jo jackass aquarist with what every he/she can get is equally bad. It's this trust in ignorant or malicious idiots that allowed such a law to even be considered. Unfortunately when people get the crap scared out of them they over react :nilly:, wild/ semi feral pythons and wild snake heads scare the crap out of people.

In an ideal world I'd actually agree with you. No one get animals they can not keep safely and stupid laws are not passed. When you find this place let me know and I'll give you a fat finders fee.

[vladfloroff]

I goggled it, and lo and behold..while it has apparently established small populations a few places, it has not had the impact on the native wildlife
everyone expected.....and this was supposedly the "ultimate" invasive species!



Really I got the impression that where they were established they did batter the carp out of native species, just not the expected "Walking Fish Pandemic" predicted.

[krzr3000]

most responsible hobbyist's usually dont let there pets go free and ultimately wreak havoc on ecosystems. the problem is that it only takes one person to do that and there is a potential catastophic consequence. carp,zebra muscles,sea lamprey, eurasian ruff are species that ive encountered b4. i fished in florida and caught oscars,cichlids,non native gar. my opinion is that this legislation is WAY OVERDUE. im sure someone will figure out how to get fish here. its gonna get very pricey to keep fish but ive seen enuff invasive species to know that this is good legislation. invasive species usually take over(succesful species) an ecosystem bcuz native species cant adapt fast enuff. just my opinion. please dont send hatemail like i got in other forums. its an educated opinion

Cheers!

You mention "responsible hobbyists". I've worked in a Pet Store in the past. The "responsible hobbyist" is in the minority. There are WAY too many idiots out there.

Agreed on both counts.

I think think this may be a bit extreme, but something has to be done. The damage is done and will continue. And its a pretty effective solution to take these animals out of the hands of many everyday newbies. I think besides the negative economic issues associated with this, we need a bigger argument than just our desire to keep animals in glass tanks.
The pet industry is devastating to wild populations (collecting), native populations (illegally releasing)...and is characterized by lots of unnecessary negative attention.

How many people have been killed or almost killed by someone burmese python? Had their face disfigured by a primate? Were those even cases of "irresponsible" owners? Probably not...its the fact its a potentially deadly animal...

I'm not for this as i think there are way bigger related issues out there, but i would like to see something done. Not like its going to happen anyways...

[ewurm]

The issue is that the states already are governing themselves. Minnesota and Florida do not need the same laws pertaining to non-native species, because most of them can't survive here anyway. The same goes for any other state. If California, Florida, and Guam would like to toughen their laws, it's fine by me. They probably need it. As far as a sweeping ban on importing non-native animals and an approved "list", this list will be drafted by people who are not hobbyists and don't understand the industry. The hobby will virtually die in this country. The bill is poorly written and too broad to be of any value. It will cost millions to enforce while USFW is strained for resources. It's not a good bill even if you are a stringent conservationist.

[CichlidsRool]

Because it's much easier to do. This was talked about last year and was open for discussion with the American public where it may have been nixed right then and there. Apparently, they didn't get the message then and are going to push to make it a reality.

You can bet that the AR groups will be pushing to get it passed, so why not fight back while we still can?Actually, goldfish are on the can have list.

[Musha]

Im so confused right now... I have to read it again to make sure I fully understand. This bill is to band Animals that could possibly harm people or the enviorment correct. That goes for fish like snakeheads and such right? If I am making the correct assupmtion than I am all for this law. I really have to read this again to understand it fully. A law is already passed to prohibit state to state selling for certain states right?

[CichlidsRool]

Im so confused right now... I have to read it again to make sure I fully understand. This bill is to band Animals that could possibly harm people or the enviorment correct. That goes for fish like snakeheads and such right? If I am making the correct assupmtion than I am all for this law. I really have to read this again to understand it fully. A law is already passed to prohibit state to state selling for certain states right?

ok check this out.ON April 23rd 2009 The Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669, a resolution that will in effect ban importation, interstate transport and the private ownership of most birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish as pets. Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following nonnative animals
would be allowed:

any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or *** (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)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Should this resolution be adopted into law as written it will have a devastating impact on every pet owner and business in the United States. Action is needed TODAY to protect your rights to keep your pets!

[bigspizz]

Im so confused right now... I have to read it again to make sure I fully understand. This bill is to band Animals that could possibly harm people or the enviorment correct. That goes for fish like snakeheads and such right? If I am making the correct assupmtion than I am all for this law. I really have to read this again to understand it fully. A law is already passed to prohibit state to state selling for certain states right?






FH imports would be banned.

[ewurm]

Sent a letter to the University of Florida Aquaculture department faculty asking for their support in opposing HR 669. The aquaculture industry would be devastated by this bill as well.

[neoprodigy]

the Pet Industry around the world will crash..... if this passes...

[CichlidsRool]

here you go guys...i got the info we need this is serious BIG time!!! call them!!!!please call or email dont just sit there an do nothing about it please,,,, i am going to! so do the same...

House Committee on Natural Resources
Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife
187 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/226-0200 (Tel.)
202/225-1542 (Fax)
Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam)
427 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-5301
202/225-1188 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-0341 (Washington Fax #)
120 Father Duenas Ave., Suite 107
Hagatna, GUAM 96910
671/477-4272 (District Tel. #)
671/477-2587 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/bordallo/IMA/issue.htm
Neil Abercrombie (D-HI)
1502 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2726 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-4580 (Washington Fax #)
Prince Kuhio Federal Building
300 Ala Moana Blvd. – Room 4-104
Honolulu, HI 96850
808/541-2570 (District Tel. #)
808/533-0133 (District Fax #)
neil.abercrombie@mail.house.gov
Henry Brown (R-SC)
103 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3176 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3407 (Washington Fax #)
1800 North Oak Street, Suite C
Myrtle Beach, SC 29577
843/445-6459 (District Tel. #)
843/445-6418 (District Fax #)
5900 Core Avenue, Suite 401
North Charleston, SC 29406
843/747-4175 (District Tel. #)
843/747-4711 (District Fax #)
http://brown.house.gov/Contact/index.html
Lois Capps (D-CA)
1110 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3601 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5632 (Washington Fax #)
2675 N. Ventura Road, Suite 105
Port Hueneme, CA 93041
805/985-6807 (District Tel. #)
805/985-6875 (District Fax #)
301 E Carrillo Street, Suite A
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
805/730-1710 (District Tel. #)
805/730-9153 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/capps/contact/send_an_em
ail.shtml
William Cassidy (R-LA)
506 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3901 (District Tel. #)
202/225-7313 (District Fax #)
5555 Hilton Avenue, Suite 100
Baton Rouge, LA 70808
225/929-7711 (District Tel. #)
225/929-7688 (District Fax #)
http://cassidy.house.gov/contact/index.shtml
Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
1032 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-7751 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5629 (Washington Fax #)
51 South University Ave., Suite 319
Provo, UT 84601
801/851-2500 (District Tel. #)
801/851-2509 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/chaffetz/contactform.
shtml
Donna M. Christensen (NP-Virgin Islands)
1510 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-1790 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5517 (Washington Fax #)
Nisky Business Center
Second Floor, Suite 207
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00802
340/778-4408 (District Tel. #)
340/778-8033 (District Fax #)
P.O. Box 5980
Sunny Isle Shopping Center, Space 25
St. Croix, VIRGIN ISLANDS 00823
340/778-5900 (District Tel. #)
340/778-5111 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/writerep/
Diana L. DeGette (D-CO)
2335 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4431 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5657 (Washington Fax #)
600 Grant Street, Suite 202
Denver, CO 80203
303/844-4988 (District Tel. #)
303/844-4996 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/formdegette/zip_auth.htm
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP – American
Samoa)
2422 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-8577 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8757 (Washington Fax #)
P.O. Box, Drawer X
Pago Pago, AMERICAN SAMOA 96799
684/633-1372 (District Tel. #)
684/633-2680 (District Fax #)
faleomavaega@mail.house.gov
Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
240 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2635 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-4386 (Washington Fax #)
1640 South Stapley, Suite 215
Mesa, AZ 85204
480/833-0092 (District Tel. #)
480/833-6314 (District Fax #)
jeff.flake@mail.house.gov
John Fleming (R-LA)
1023 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2777 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-8039 (Washington Fax #)
6425 Youree Drive, Suite 350
Shreveport, LA 71105
318/798-2254 (District Tel. #)
318/798-2063 (District Fax #)
Southgate Plaza Shopping Center
1606 Fifth Street
Leesville, LA 71446
337/238-0778 (District Tel. #)
337/238-0566 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/fleming/contactform.
shtml
Doc Hastings (R-WA)
1203 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-4704
202/225-5816 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-3251 (Washington Fax #)
2715 St. Andrews Loop, Suite D
Pasco, WA 99301
509/543-9396 (District Tel. #)
509/545-1972 (District Fax #)
302 East Chestnut Street
Yakima, WA 98901
509/452-3243 (District Tel. #)
509/452-3438 (District Fax #)
http://hastings.house.gov/ContactForm.aspx
Dale E. Kildee (D-MI)
2107 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3611 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-6393 (Washington Fax #)
432 N. Saginaw Street, Suite 410
Bay City, MI 48708
989/891-0990 (District Tel. #)
989/891-0994 (District Fax #)
515 N. Washington Avenue, Suite 401
Saginaw, MI 48607
989/755-8904 (District Tel. #)
989/755-8908 (District Fax #)
dkildee@mail.house.gov
Ronald James Kind (D-WI)
1406 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5506 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5739 (Washington Fax #)
205 Fifth Ave. South, Suite 400
La Crosse, WI 54601
608/782-2558 (District Tel. #)
608/782-4588 (District Fax #)
131 South Barstow Street, Suite 301
Eau Claire, WI 54701
715/831-9214 (District Tel. #)
715/831-9272 (District Fax #)
ron.kind@mail.house.gov
Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
314 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5311 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0254 (Washington Fax #)
102 Turpins Lane
Centreville, MD 21617
443/262-9136 (District Tel. #)
443/262-9713 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/kratovil/contactform.
shtml
Douglas L. Lamborn (R-CO)
437 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4422 (Washington Tel. #)
202/226-2638 (Washington Fax #)
415 Main Street
Buena Vista, CO 81211
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)
1271 Kelly Johnson Blvd., Suite 110
Colorado Springs, CO 80920
719/520-0055 (District Tel. #)
719/520-0840 (District Fax #)
http://lamborn.house.gov/ZipAuth.aspx
Frank J. Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
237 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515-3006
202/225-4671 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9665 (Washington Fax #)
67/69 Church Street, Kilmer Square
New Brunswick, NJ 08901
732/249-8892 (District Tel. #)
732/249-1335 (District Fax #)
504 Broadway
Long Branch, NJ 07740
732/571-1140 (District Tel. #)
732/870-3890 (District Fax #)
http://www.house.gov/pallone/contact.shtml
Pedro R. Pierluisi (NP-Puerto Rico)
1218 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2615 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-2154 (Washington Fax #)
250 Calle Fortaleza Old
San Juan, PUERTO RICO 00901
787/723-6333 (District Tel. #)
787/723-6333 (District Fax #)
https://forms.house.gov/pierluisi/contactform.
shtml
Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-WV)
2307 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-3452 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-9061 (Washington Fax #)
601 Federal Street, Room 1005
Bluefield, WV 24701
304/325-6222 (District Tel. #)
304/325-0552 (District Fax #)
301 Prince Street
Beckley, WV 25801
304/252-5000 (District Tel. #)
304/252-9803 (District Fax #)
http://www.rahall.house.gov/?sectionid=9&sectio
ntree=9
Gregorio Sablan (I- Mariana Islands)
423 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-2646 (Washington Tel. #)
https://forms.house.gov/sablan/contactform.
shtml
Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
1330 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5456 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-5822 (Washington Fax #)
33 Lowell Street
Manchester, NH 03101
603/641-9536 (District Tel. #)
603/641-9561 (District Fax #)
104 Washington Street
Dover, NH 03820
603/743-4813 (District Tel. #)
603/743-5956 (District Fax #)
http://forms.house.gov/sheaporter/
webform/issue_subscribe.htm
Robert J. Wittman (R-VA)
1123 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-4261 (Washington Tel. #)
3504 Plank Road, Suite 203
Fredericksburg, VA 22407
540/548-1086 (District Tel. #)
4904-B George Washington Memorial Hwy.
Yorktown, VA 23692
757/874-6687 (District Tel. #)
https://forms.house.gov/wittman/IMA/webforms/i
ssue_subscribe.htm
Donald E. Young (R-AK)
2111 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
202/225-5765 (Washington Tel. #)
202/225-0425 (Washington Fax #)
101 12th Avenue, #10
Fairbanks, AK 99701-6275
907/456-0210 (District Tel. #)
907/456-0279 (District Fax #)
Peterson Tower Building
510 L Street, Suite 580
Anchorage, AK 99501-1954
907/271-5978 (District Tel. #)
907/271-5950 (District Fax #)
don.young@mail.house.gov

[viking252200]

Another thing, that this bill would surely lead to if passed is increased poverty in the fish exporting countries around the world.

If it's suddenly illegal to import fish to the US, many fish farms in Asia and elsewhere, are going to go out of business....and what then, are these people going to do??...I can imagine a number of things.....

[Acestro]

ok check this out.ON April 23rd 2009 The Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669, a resolution that will in effect ban importation, interstate transport and the private ownership of most birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish as pets. Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following nonnative animals
would be allowed:

any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or *** (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)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Should this resolution be adopted into law as written it will have a devastating impact on every pet owner and business in the United States. Action is needed TODAY to protect your rights to keep your pets!

LOL, there are serious invasive pests on that 'allowed' list!!! Pigs are HORRIBLE invasives. More destructive than 99% of the fish they'd ban.

[ewurm]

If you can afford it, join PIJAC: one of the 4 non-federal invited attendees at the subcommittee hearing.

http://www.pijac.org/files/public/AFForm_2009.pdf

This organization needs your support

[ewurm]

Email from Marshall Meyers, Head of the Pet Industry Joint Action Council:

"I will be one of the 4 invited witnesses not in Federal Government.
The most important steps that need to occur ASAP
1. People need to contact via mail, FAX and/or email their comments
2. They also need to contact the subcommittee members district offices to
a. let the District Offices know their concerns because they are they people who are on the ground within the district and most likely to get the message through to key staff in DC and to the Member
b. request a face to face meeting with the member when they are in the District
3. The Spring Break is about to occur and many members will hold town hall styled meetings. People need to attend and ask them questions re HR 669 and see how they respond and if they really understand the implications of the bill

Letters in opposition from thousands of people, especially constituents, need to be recevied by their offices not delivered by me if want greatest impact.

Quite honestly, petitions have little affect and are normally treated as one opposition.

ANOTHER issue is convincing people that most of the species in their possession are nonnatives. Amazing how many people are confused by fact animals born here are nonnative! Also, people mislead by arguments that this only affects "IMPORTED nonnatives." What they need to understand is that one lists become effective, possession of nonnatives not appearing on the Approved (Clean) List can not be bred, sold, moved interstate, etc.

Attached is a revised PetAlert. We will also be producing a simplified PetAlert addressing some of issues above for pet owners and people not as familiar with the Lacey Act as commercial dealers.
Thanks and let's keep in touch.
Marshall
PS Can talk over weekend if want."

We all need to contact the subcommittee members regarding our stance. I will be posting the contact information for the subcommittee.

[xdragonxb0i]

Agreed on both counts.

I think think this may be a bit extreme, but something has to be done. The damage is done and will continue. And its a pretty effective solution to take these animals out of the hands of many everyday newbies. I think besides the negative economic issues associated with this, we need a bigger argument than just our desire to keep animals in glass tanks.
The pet industry is devastating to wild populations (collecting), native populations (illegally releasing)...and is characterized by lots of unnecessary negative attention.

How many people have been killed or almost killed by someone burmese python? Had their face disfigured by a primate? Were those even cases of "irresponsible" owners? Probably not...its the fact its a potentially deadly animal...

I'm not for this as i think there are way bigger related issues out there, but i would like to see something done. Not like its going to happen anyways...

Isnt a diamond back, or any poisonous snake more dangerous then a burmese python? large ones that can kill people are large, and move slowly.

If this bill pass. anything non-native animal that is not on the Approved list will be banned, until someone fight for a species to be added into the list.

IMO this bill is crap, the current approved list has some of the most invasive species.
We should be concerned with controling feral cats and wild dogs, not what an animal can do. Because any animal can kill and affect an eco system.

[CichlidsRool]

LOL, there are serious invasive pests on that 'allowed' list!!! Pigs are HORRIBLE invasives. More destructive than 99% of the fish they'd ban.

lol!!!!! i cant imagine no more pets bro.... here check this out....see how much we love our pets...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2FX9rviEhw

[Cholly]

More than half of the animals on the "approved" list are banned inside many city limits and I didn't see anything providing for zoos or public aquariums. This bill is garbage.

[Jesse]

ok check this out.ON April 23rd 2009 The Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669, a resolution that will in effect ban importation, interstate transport and the private ownership of most birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish as pets. Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following nonnative animals
would be allowed:

any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or *** (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)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Should this resolution be adopted into law as written it will have a devastating impact on every pet owner and business in the United States. Action is needed TODAY to protect your rights to keep your pets!
You're misreading the proposed statute. Those species would be statutorily exempt from regulation. The USFWS would be required to promulgate regulations listing "approved species." The determination of what species would ultimately be listed in the "approved species" list to would depend on public input and the factors set forth in the proposed statute.

IMO, this a completely asinine way to regulate. It reminds me of Australia, which has a similar regulatory scheme. Given that potentially harmful non-native species comprise a small percentage of total non-native species, it makes vastly more sense to regulate by listing the few prohibited species, i.e., the current Lacey Act regulatory scheme, than to list each and every conceivable harmless approved species. Australia has a similar regulatory scheme to what is proposed w/ HR 669 and it's a complete clusterf**k. Datnoids are illegal in Australia, not because they are potentially harmful to the local biota, but because someone neglected to put them on the approved species list. If HR 669 is passed, USFWS will have its hands full compiling a list of the hundreds of thousands of harmless "approved" species. It will be an implementation nightmare. :(

Imagine if controlled substances were regulated in the same manner. Law enforcement agencies would have to memorize an exhaustive list of every "approved" substance, rather than memoraizing a much shorter list of prohibited substances.

[bornasghost]

umm...yeah, for the people who say this is good...then why arent they starting from the bottom, and finding listing these "harmful" species first. so far, theyve banned everyhting....except farm animals for obvious reasons and cats and dogs. for one thing....i bet cats send more people to the doctor for infections and **** than any of these other things have done to people. and what about pigs...those things will eat any and everything....god damn...we're ****ed.

[AU_Arowana-RG]

Great. First Rocky and now THIS!?

There IS a reason why I call people like them ****HEADS!!!

That said, this sucks. This bill will hopefully NOT PASS because if it did, we'd have a lot of crap. I mean come on, we've got more issues coming out of our domestics rather than our exotics, why ban the exotics? This is senseless #%@%$#%$@%$#%@^$ and is so UTTERLY ****HEADED that some elements of the American Government are losing my respect, FAST.

[Aquamojo]

For the most part I agree with you BUT you might want to look up Guams role in our history books. It was very strategic in winning several wars. Puhlease....


Not to be off topic, but being a History major I am fully aware of Guam's role in the major wars. Russia was also an integral partner in us winning WWII. As were quite a few other countries. Our recapturing of the Island from Japan was integral, giving us an ideal location(because of it's ability to base our battleships) for taking back the Philippines, Taiwan and the Ryukyu Islands.

I was stationed there while in the Army. Beautiful Island...nice people...but it ain't New York City.

My comment was tongue in cheek. Lighten up.

[Aquamojo]

A post or so ago I mentioned cats and dogs and their impact on the environment. I just went to one site and copied this regarding cats. In my opinion, items like this have as much, if not more of an impact on our communities than do keeping a tank full of fish:

How many cats are there in the United States?

The estimated numbers of pet cats in urban and rural regions of the United States have grown from 30 million in 1970 [2] to 60 million in 1990 [3]. These estimates are based on U.S. Census data and include only those cats that people claim to "own" as pets, not cats that are semi-wild or free-ranging. Nationwide, approximately 30% of households have cats. In rural areas where free-ranging cats are usually not regarded as pets, approximately 60% of households have cats. In the state of Wisconsin alone, with approximately 550,000 rural households, the number of rural free-ranging cats (not house pets) may be as high as 2 million [4]. The combined total of pets and free-ranging cats in the U.S. is probably more than 100 million. Because of their close association with humans, most of these cats are concentrated in areas where people live rather than in remote undeveloped areas.

The legal status of domestic cats

The laws that relate to domestic cats vary by local government. In most areas, the person who provides care for a cat is legally responsible for its welfare and control. As with other domestic animals, if ownership can be established by collars or other means of identification, a cat is considered personal property [5]. It is usually the responsibility of the owner to control the cat's movements. In most areas, cats can be live trapped and either returned to the owner or turned over to authorities if they wander onto other peoples' property. Many municipalities have leash laws and require vaccination and neutering of pet cats. Because laws vary, one should check local ordinances for the appropriate way to deal with stray cats.

What effects do domestic cats have on wildlife?

http://www.thepetcenter.com/imtop/2birds.jpgAlthough rural free-ranging cats have greater access to wild animals and undoubtedly take the greatest toll, even urban house pets take live prey when allowed outside. Extensive studies of the feeding habits of free-ranging domestic cats over 50 years and four continents [6] indicate that small mammals make up approximately 70% of these cats' prey while birds make up about 20%. The remaining 10% is a variety of other animals. The diets of free-ranging cat populations, however, reflect the food locally available.

Observation of free-ranging domestic cats shows that some individuals can kill over 1000 wild animals per year [7], although smaller numbers are more typical. Some of the data on kills suggest that free-ranging cats living in small towns kill an average of 14 wild animals each per year. Rural cats kill many more wild animals than do urban, or suburban cats [8]. Several studies found that up to 90% of free-ranging rural cats' diet was wild animals, and less than 10% of rural cats killed no wild animals [9]. Recent research [10] suggests that rural free-ranging domestic cats in Wisconsin may be killing between 8 and 217 million birds each year. The most reasonable estimates indicate that 39 million birds are killed in the state each year. Nationwide, rural cats probably kill over a billion small mammals and hundreds of millions of birds each year. Urban and suburban cats add to this toll. Some of these kills are house mice, rats and other species considered pests, but many are native songbirds and mammals
whose populations are already stressed by other factors, such as habitat destruction and pesticide pollution.

Despite the difficulties in showing the effect most predators have on their prey, cats are known to have serious impacts on small mammals and birds. Worldwide, cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause, except habitat destruction. Cats are contributing to the endangerment of populations of birds such as Least Terns, Piping Plovers and Loggerhead Shrikes. In Florida, marsh rabbits in Key West have been threatened by predation from domestic cats [11]. Cats introduced by people living on the barrier islands of Florida's coast have depleted several unique species of mice and woodrats to near extinction [12, 13].

Not only do cats prey on many small mammals and birds, but they can outnumber and compete with native predators. Domestic cats eat many of the same animals that native predators do. When present in large numbers, cats can reduce the availability of prey for native predators, such as hawks [14] and weasels [15].

Free-ranging domestic cats may also transmit new diseases to wild animals. Domestic cats have spread feline leukemia virus to mountain lions [16] and may have recently infected the endangered Florida Panther with feline panleukopenia (feline distemper) and an immune deficiency disease [17]. These diseases may pose a serious threat to this rare species. Some free-ranging domestic cats also carry several diseases that are easily transmitted to humans, including rabies and toxoplasmosis [18].

Domestic cats vs. native predators

Although cats make affectionate pets, many domestic cats hunt as effectively as wild predators. However, they differ from wild predators in three important ways: First, people protect cats from disease, predation and competition, factors that can control numbers of wild predators, such as bobcats, foxes, or coyotes. Second, they often have a dependable supply of supplemental food provided by humans and are, therefore, not influenced by changes in populations of prey. Whereas populations of native predators will decline when prey becomes scarce, cats receiving food subsidies from people remain abundant and continue to hunt even rare species. Third, unlike many native predators, cat densities are either poorly limited or not limited by territoriality [19]. These three factors allow domestic cats to exist at much higher densities than native predators. In some parts of rural Wisconsin, densities of free-ranging cats reach 114 cats per square mile. In these areas, cats are several times more abundant than all mid-sized native predators (such as foxes, raccoons, skunks) combined. With abundant food, densities can reach over 9 per acre, and cats often form large feeding and breeding "colonies" (81 cats were recorded in one colony, and colonies of over 20 are not uncommon) [20, 21]. Unlike some predators, a cat's desire to hunt is not suppressed by adequate supplemental food. Even when fed regularly by people, a cat's motivation to hunt remains strong, so it continues hunting [22].

[vladfloroff]

"Despite the difficulties in showing the effect most predators have on their prey, cats are known to have serious impacts on small mammals and birds. Worldwide, cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause, except habitat destruction."

This is the Autobahn society horse crap. Yes cat eat birds but that would not be even a slight problem without habitat destruction. If we continue the habitat destruction the birds are dead any way, the rancor these feral homo sapiens direct at cats is a meaningless gesture.

The most invasive species is humans start limiting feral human breeding and all these problems go away.

[cichlid2006]

so if this goes through how many of you are planning on moving abroad where we get to keep asian aros, snakeheads etc???

[Robbwilder]

You need to email these people. You need to call there offices. We need to start
OPERATION MELT THE PHONES!!

This was done to try to oppose the Stimulus Act.

Get on every pet site. Explain what this is.

START OPERATION MELT THE PHONES!!

Not only will we have our hobby taking away BUT we will be paying more in tax dollars to make sure it is banned.

START MELTING THE PHONES!

Work the Republicans more on the business aspects of this. This will be a HUGE Hit to the ECONOMY! This will be crippling to states like Florida. Contact there representatives too.

MELT THE PHONES!!!

[Aquamojo]

This is the Autobahn society horse crap. Yes cat eat birds but that would not be even a slight problem without habitat destruction. If we continue the habitat destruction the birds are dead any way, the rancor these feral homo sapiens direct at cats is a meaningless gesture.



Actually the "Autobahn" is a big highway in Europe. The "Audubun" is a society that's focus is to conserve and restore natural ecosystems, focusing on birds and other wildlife. The information I posted came from the Pet Center.Com...a group of veterinarians.

Your suggestion of reducing "feral" humans was...kind of addressed...by a guy named Hitler. It ended up not being a plan that worked...or very popular. That's about the only thing the topic at hand and his vision have in common.

But on to the discussion at hand.

[krichardson]

"Despite the difficulties in showing the effect most predators have on their prey, cats are known to have serious impacts on small mammals and birds. Worldwide, cats may have been involved in the extinction of more bird species than any other cause, except habitat destruction."

This is the Autobahn society horse crap. Yes cat eat birds but that would not be even a slight problem without habitat destruction. If we continue the habitat destruction the birds are dead any way, the rancor these feral homo sapiens direct at cats is a meaningless gesture.

The most invasive species is humans start limiting feral human breeding and all these problems go away.

You seem to be missing the point of why AquaMojo brought this up in the first place.

[CichlidsRool]

You're misreading the proposed statute. Those species would be statutorily exempt from regulation. The USFWS would be required to promulgate regulations listing "approved species." The determination of what species would ultimately be listed in the "approved species" list to would depend on public input and the factors set forth in the proposed statute.

IMO, this a completely asinine way to regulate. It reminds me of Australia, which has a similar regulatory scheme. Given that potentially harmful non-native species comprise a small percentage of total non-native species, it makes vastly more sense to regulate by listing the few prohibited species, i.e., the current Lacey Act regulatory scheme, than to list each and every conceivable harmless approved species. Australia has a similar regulatory scheme to what is proposed w/ HR 669 and it's a complete clusterf**k. Datnoids are illegal in Australia, not because they are potentially harmful to the local biota, but because someone neglected to put them on the approved species list. If HR 669 is passed, USFWS will have its hands full compiling a list of the hundreds of thousands of harmless "approved" species. It will be an implementation nightmare. :(

Imagine if controlled substances were regulated in the same manner. Law enforcement agencies would have to memorize an exhaustive list of every "approved" substance, rather than memoraizing a much shorter list of prohibited substances.

Sorry my be i should have been more clear, research i have done so far says This means that if you own or plan on owning a hamster, gerbil, ferret, non native bird (ie- African Grey, amazon parrot, macaw, parakeet, cockatiel...), snake, fish (only goldfish allowed), reptiles (iguana, beared dragon, leopard gecko.....) and countless other animals including exotics such as chinchillas, degus, sugar gliders....these would be banned and you would have to show that you owned these prior to the bill going in effect to keep or they would end up where all the other ones waiting for homes would go --- killed!!!!

This also means that if you own any of the above you would not be allowed to breed these (even by accident - ie, hamsters). Any offspring would have to be destroyed.

This will also affect those animals awaiting adoption and other non-native wildlife currently held in captivity such as tigers, elephants, and monkeys that are being held in sanctuary's as well as marine life in aquariums. I am sure some Liberal jack started this bull they have nothing to do but to bush United States of America to Socialism.....

[vladfloroff]

You seem to be missing the point of why AquaMojo brought this up in the first place.

Fair point, the feral humans comment was a matter of looking at the bigger problems like deforestation/habitat lose as opposed to cats or fish kept for pet purposes. I read an article a while back about how in South east Asia local fish were being intentionally wiped out with mustard cakes to make room for food fish, I think in TFH. If we make it more profitable to sell aquarists ornamental fish they will stop, or at least maintain protected non-food native stocks. If you educate humans they stop being feral.

If companies are making more money shipping rays to the US that growing agrocultural products on cut down rain foretsts then they will continue to do so, and keep the rain forest safe out of self interest. Greed has saved more environmental lands than any good intentioned stupidity.

[ewurm]

I've contacted the scheduler for the distinguished congressman from my district. I encourage you to call, write or email your congressman. A petition is beneficial, but I have been informed by the pet industry lobby that a petition is usually viewed as one voice of opposition. Contact your Representative and voice your opinion.

[mike dunagan]

When your young and your not liberal... you have no heart... when your old and not conservative you have no brain... my .02

Do not steal from Churchill. lol

The issue is that the states already are governing themselves. Minnesota and Florida do not need the same laws pertaining to non-native species, because most of them can't survive here anyway. The same goes for any other state. If California, Florida, and Guam would like to toughen their laws, it's fine by me. They probably need it. As far as a sweeping ban on importing non-native animals and an approved "list", this list will be drafted by people who are not hobbyists and don't understand the industry. The hobby will virtually die in this country. The bill is poorly written and too broad to be of any value. It will cost millions to enforce while USFW is strained for resources. It's not a good bill even if you are a stringent conservationist.

I've contacted the scheduler for the distinguished congressman from my district. I encourage you to call, write or email your congressman. A petition is beneficial, but I have been informed by the pet industry lobby that a petition is usually viewed as one voice of opposition. Contact your Representative and voice your opinion.


This is straight Anti-Federalist movement. These are rights that should be reserved to the states.

[ewurm]

This is straight Anti-Federalist movement. These are rights that should be reserved to the states.


This is true. The Representative of Guam (do they pay U.S. taxes?) has overstepped her boundaries in proposing this broad and sweeping legislation. She has failed to foresee the economic impact on many Americans and also has failed to research the actual impact of invasive species as it pertains to individual states. This is irresponsible legislation, and even if it does not make it out of the house it has cost the tax payers millions of dollars of wasted productivity. Either Guam needs to start paying taxes, or they need to stop being represented. Representation without taxation is as Unamerican as taxation without representation.

[mike dunagan]

I have contacted my local House Rep. Please do the same

[loganh83]

I have contacted my local House Rep. Please do the same


Absolutely, positively right. All need to do this.

[pressure_cooker]

what will happen to the non native fish you currently keep if the bill passes?

[mike dunagan]

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ great way to find your rep...

Gives you numbers for reps in your state. Perhaps someone can write up a letter, and we can copy paste it and fax it to all the reps.

[cichlaguapote]

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/ great way to find your rep...

Gives you numbers for reps in your state. Perhaps someone can write up a letter, and we can copy paste it and fax it to all the reps.


Wrote all 3 of my state reps off that list on their contact forms. :thumbsup:

[Musha]

ok check this out.ON April 23rd 2009 The Natural Resources Committee of the U.S. Congress will hold a hearing on H.R. 669, a resolution that will in effect ban importation, interstate transport and the private ownership of most birds, mammals, reptiles, and fish as pets. Should HR669 be adopted as written only the following nonnative animals
would be allowed:

any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or *** (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)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Should this resolution be adopted into law as written it will have a devastating impact on every pet owner and business in the United States. Action is needed TODAY to protect your rights to keep your pets!

FH imports would be banned.

Another thing, that this bill would surely lead to if passed is increased poverty in the fish exporting countries around the world.

If it's suddenly illegal to import fish to the US, many fish farms in Asia and elsewhere, are going to go out of business....and what then, are these people going to do??...I can imagine a number of things.....


Thanks peoples...

[danz]

I used these links
Find your congressman here: https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

You will need the last 4 of the zip XXXXX-XXXX which is available at the USPS site here http://zip4.usps.com/zip4/welcome.jsp

[bornasghost]

ha! ok, so....maybe just a coincidence...maybe, but um....isnt it strange that the people most effected by this law, ei. the lfs owners...seems to tend to also be foreign?
haha, umm, yeah...this sucks, and people are gonna get screwed. what happens to all the livestock they have in store?

[Acestro]

Not sure why I got censored before, but I oppose this bill and at the same time have concerns for our hobby:

http://forums.****************/index.php?showtopic=132305&st=10&gopid=1187810&

[Acestro]

oh brother... BOTH sites censor each other? seriously....

[Newt]

I emailed Bob Fenner of Wet Web Media.com about this bill. He had not heard of it! Seems like he is very concerned about it.

Since he is a "big gun" in this hobby maybe he can get the word out to the other big names and get something done about this!

[Acestro]

what I posted at WW:

My point there was that this problem is largely because we haven't been able to keep our irresponsible fish keepers in line. I think other sites are terrible at not lambasting members for illegal pet ownership. There's plenty of wink-wink or turn-the-other-way things going on.

I have to give Jesse and many others here credit for things like the extension of the posts covering laws in different states. Also, posts of illegal transactions or ideas dont last long here as well.


While it's important to stand up against this bill now... it's also important to:

1. discuss all sides (DONT censor folks that think we 'deserved it' or 'should care more about natives', etc.)

2. be vigilant about keeping bad hobbyists from ruining things

3. point out how little of the invasives are actually from hobbyists, and try to lobby against improperly run fish farms or government agencies (*COUGH*FLORIDA*COUGH*) that do things like introduce invasives intentionally (cough*p-bass*cough). We're a minority as far as impacting things, but these Rio Grande cichlids and apple snails in Louisiana are very likely from hobbyists. Also, even though we're a minority, we will be the ones that suffer if something like this passes

4. educate ourselves and others. Know about ecosystems, know about invasives, know about avenues of prevention and education


I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. It's fine to fight this bill, but we need to be a little more pro-active from now on to keep this a healthy and moral hobby.

[Silver City Dave]

Hello All,

We have worked very hard to try and simplify the fight against HR 669, which is the Legislation to Ban Virtually ALL Non-Native Pets.

This means all non-native mammals, birds, reptiles, and tropical fish currently being kept as pets.

Time is of the essence, there is a Congressional Hearing concerning this Legislation on April 23, 2009 which is almost here already!

Please open the link below. Copy it, change it, link it to your own web-site, do whatever it takes…then forward it to as many people as you can.

Remember to contact the appropriate elected officials with your thoughts…do NOT expect everyone else to do this for you.

http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm (http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm)

Thank You All Very Much

[Joshmac8]

HR669 is complete BS! This makes me extremley upset.

[ewurm]

what I posted at WW:

My point there was that this problem is largely because we haven't been able to keep our irresponsible fish keepers in line. I think other sites are terrible at not lambasting members for illegal pet ownership. There's plenty of wink-wink or turn-the-other-way things going on.

I have to give Jesse and many others here credit for things like the extension of the posts covering laws in different states. Also, posts of illegal transactions or ideas dont last long here as well.


While it's important to stand up against this bill now... it's also important to:

1. discuss all sides (DONT censor folks that think we 'deserved it' or 'should care more about natives', etc.)

2. be vigilant about keeping bad hobbyists from ruining things

3. point out how little of the invasives are actually from hobbyists, and try to lobby against improperly run fish farms or government agencies (*COUGH*FLORIDA*COUGH*) that do things like introduce invasives intentionally (cough*p-bass*cough). We're a minority as far as impacting things, but these Rio Grande cichlids and apple snails in Louisiana are very likely from hobbyists. Also, even though we're a minority, we will be the ones that suffer if something like this passes

4. educate ourselves and others. Know about ecosystems, know about invasives, know about avenues of prevention and education


I could go on and on, but I think you get the idea. It's fine to fight this bill, but we need to be a little more pro-active from now on to keep this a healthy and moral hobby.

Your post was deleted because you quoted a post by a member who has it in for this site. I agree that hobbyists are to blame for the current situation, but this site has always discouraged the release of any aquarium fish, whether native or non-native into local waterways. We also do not allow the sale or transfer of illegal fish on this site. If a member wishes to post a picture of their illegal fish, they are responsible for the consequences. This bill affects all fishkeepers, responsible and otherwise.

[dandaninc]

I joined the FaceBook group and yes I will fax my opinions!!! I just got a 55 gallon tank in December and I have 12 African Cichlids that by the sounds of the bill would be really hard to get if it passes!!!

FRIKKEN GOVERNMENT!

Thank you for sending me the private message!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Acestro]

Your post was deleted because you quoted a post by a member who has it in for this site. I agree that hobbyists are to blame for the current situation, but this site has always discouraged the release of any aquarium fish, whether native or non-native into local waterways. We also do not allow the sale or transfer of illegal fish on this site. If a member wishes to post a picture of their illegal fish, they are responsible for the consequences. This bill affects all fishkeepers, responsible and otherwise.

Cool, thank you for the explanation. :)

[Acestro]

This is a 'straw dog', by the way... it wont pass. Even without the petitions.

The point of this should be a 'wakeup call' for more active rather than passive self-regulation.

[Aquamojo]

Your post was deleted because you quoted a post by a member who has it in for this site.


I know the never ending battle at hand between the various mega sites.....but one guy having it "in for this site"? That's grounds for deleting something he said?

The discussion aside for a second....that's totally ridiculous.

I know....you hold the "big hammer" and can moderate as you see fit.

Whatever. Have a great day.

[Aquamojo]

This is a 'straw dog', by the way... it wont pass. Even without the petitions.

The point of this should be a 'wakeup call' for more active rather than passive self-regulation.


Good point that we keep referring back to the things that are close to our hearts..fish. The bill that they are proposing covers a lot more than fish. I agree that an active roll in self regulating will help...but as long as there is a dollar to be made, the issue remains that we will continue to see Pacu, Red Tail Catfish and a whole host of other fish that have no place in the average aquarium. Note....average.

A lot of people on these various sites have large tanks and can house some of the big guys. But my VERY VERY unmeasured guess would be that the percentage of those folks is minuscule compared to the general aquaria hobbyist.

As i stated in my previous post, I agree that it probably won't go through with all the bells and whistles. But I would almost write it in arterial blood...that things WILL change because of it.

Fish, fowl, fur or scales....it is the hobbyist that drives the commercial market. I'm sure that the professional politicians will have a better handle on how to fix our problem. It worked for prohibition, right?

Oh...wait...

[scotty61]

:mad::mad::mad: its not fair. my license and permits wouldnt be worth sh.. fish dealer license and tropical fish importation permit. double hard for us that work hard to hold and keep them

[Acestro]

I know the never ending battle at hand between the various mega sites.....but one guy having it "in for this site"? That's grounds for deleting something he said?

The discussion aside for a second....that's totally ridiculous.

I know....you hold the "big hammer" and can moderate as you see fit.

Whatever. Have a great day.

Sometimes I just go back and hide at my 250 member site. No silliness there.


Prohibition doesn't work and neither would a ban on an enormous list. Sadly, the snakehead ban doesn't even work (or it was too late). They've spread plenty since the ban.

So... were they too late or does the ban not work? or both? Probably both.

There will be some regulation and there probably should be, because the average hobbyist that buys a pacu can NOT handle the pacu.


My solution is selfish. I think they need to hire a select group of ichthyologists that not only have Ph.D.s but also are hardcore hobbyists (a taskforce if you will). These folks could make educated calls on how to regulate REAL problem animals like burmese pythons and pacu. They could come up with ideas about what regulations are reasonable and which are not. They also could have an extended task force that monitors international shipments and even sneaks around these mega webpages to see what's being traded. The current USFWS and state FWS usually can't tell an Asian Aro from a silver, or a northern snakehead from any small (harmless) tropicals.

Seems like more work? ...um... NO! Saves the industry millions as opposed to bans. It also could mean we could see our tropical snakeheads, because they are not the threat they're larger congeners are. Having this freed up means more money for the industry too. There could even be licensing for the megafish that are not apparent threats. For example, pacu are REALLY BAD FOR THE HOBBY... not because they are invasives, but because they are dumped and FOUND in the wild so often. Apparently they aren't great at surviving or reproducing, but the more they're found, the more likely these fish bans are going to take hold. And, yes, bans/prohibition only adds a new problem and may not solve the invasive species problem.


Just a pipe dream of a Ph.D/hobbyist :D

[Silver City Dave]

Hi All,

I'm a mere newbie here, however I feel compelled to share an experience I had on another tropical fish forum.

I had signed on in order to let their members know that HR 669 was not a pretty piece of legislation for pet owners.

HR 669 pretty much says, Guilty or Innocent, it doesn't matter, any Non-Native Pet that is not on the Approved List will be banned.

This means, if a Captive Born AND Bred Discuss can survive anywhere in the US it will be banned! The government doesn't care of the animals lineage, they are attacking Non-Native Pets. It's the animals scientific name that they are attacking!

Well anyway, I signed on to this other forum to try and be like "Paul Revere" and spread the news. I even spent 12 hours making a "mini-web-site" so people would know everyone involved in HR 669, even it's elected Co-Sponsors (supporters).

Well, I have to tell you...I wasn't on there an hour before the moderators circled and attacked me! They were full of nothing but misinformation on HR 669 only thinking it would affect problimatic imports.

As soon as I corrected them I was pretty much verbally raped, told by a member they'd rather give up their hobby...an booted!

It makes me wonder?

Sorry...I had to get that off of my chest...you guys are great...Thank You!

[ewurm]

I know the never ending battle at hand between the various mega sites.....but one guy having it "in for this site"? That's grounds for deleting something he said?

The discussion aside for a second....that's totally ridiculous.

I know....you hold the "big hammer" and can moderate as you see fit.

Whatever. Have a great day.


The comments were totally inappropriate to the discussion at hand and were basically meant as an attack to stir things up. It's a frequent occurrence and it has been dealt with. Also, the comments were posted on the petition thread instead of the discussion thread. Criticize away.

[Aquamojo]

The comments were totally inappropriate to the discussion at hand and were basically meant as an attack to stir things up. It's a frequent occurrence and it has been dealt with. Also, the comments were posted on the petition thread instead of the discussion thread. Criticize away.


Not a criticism...just an observation.

You're the guy with the hammer. Nail away.

[ewurm]

Not a criticism...just an observation.

You're the guy with the hammer. Nail away.


Not quite understanding your point. Perhaps you want to elaborate.

[Gator]

:mad::mad::mad: its not fair. my license and permits wouldnt be worth sh.. fish dealer license and tropical fish importation permit. double hard for us that work hard to hold and keep them

Yes that would suck but 2 kinds of people are going to ruin things for the legit fish keepers and dealers. The Fish keepers that get tired of their fish and dump them in local waters or own illegal fish and buy them from dealers that keep selling fish to retailers and individuals where the fish are not legal. Case in point look at all the Threads where people in California own gars and happily post the fact here on MFK that they are in possession of the fish. The laws are there for a reason but a lot of stupid people chose to ignore the laws because they either don't agree with them or think they are above the law. So its jerkoffs like that that will ruin it for the rest of us.

[stevenrox]

if they do ban what do we do with our fishes?

[ewurm]

Sometimes I just go back and hide at my 250 member site. No silliness there.


Prohibition doesn't work and neither would a ban on an enormous list. Sadly, the snakehead ban doesn't even work (or it was too late). They've spread plenty since the ban.

So... were they too late or does the ban not work? or both? Probably both.

There will be some regulation and there probably should be, because the average hobbyist that buys a pacu can NOT handle the pacu.


My solution is selfish. I think they need to hire a select group of ichthyologists that not only have Ph.D.s but also are hardcore hobbyists (a taskforce if you will). These folks could make educated calls on how to regulate REAL problem animals like burmese pythons and pacu. They could come up with ideas about what regulations are reasonable and which are not. They also could have an extended task force that monitors international shipments and even sneaks around these mega webpages to see what's being traded. The current USFWS and state FWS usually can't tell an Asian Aro from a silver, or a northern snakehead from any small (harmless) tropicals.

Seems like more work? ...um... NO! Saves the industry millions as opposed to bans. It also could mean we could see our tropical snakeheads, because they are not the threat they're larger congeners are. Having this freed up means more money for the industry too. There could even be licensing for the megafish that are not apparent threats. For example, pacu are REALLY BAD FOR THE HOBBY... not because they are invasives, but because they are dumped and FOUND in the wild so often. Apparently they aren't great at surviving or reproducing, but the more they're found, the more likely these fish bans are going to take hold. And, yes, bans/prohibition only adds a new problem and may not solve the invasive species problem.


Just a pipe dream of a Ph.D/hobbyist :D


I see your point, but I don't think a federal law is appropriate. The states are already dealing with the invasive species issue. There is no need for the federal government to step in and pass a law that applies to all states. Very few states have a problem with invasive tropical species. The threat in Florida is not the same in Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, or any other state. Minnesota just does not have this problem, so why should I or anyone in a state where a species can't possibly live be included in this type of regulation? Let the states deal with their problems on an individual basis.

[Aquamojo]

I see your point, but I don't think a federal law is appropriate. The states are already dealing with the invasive species issue. There is no need for the federal government to step in and pass a law that applies to all states. Very few states have a problem with invasive tropical species. The threat in Florida is not the same in Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, or any other state. Minnesota just does not have this problem, so why should I or anyone in a state where a species can't possibly live be included in this type of regulation? Let the states deal with their problems on an individual basis.


Actually, the individuals states may be doing a fair job...but overall the system is being circumvented. The example I pointed out previously was that Piranha are illegal in Kentucky, but folks can drive across the border to a neighboring state and get the fish.

There's only one way to CYA in a situation like that...and unfortunately it means a federal law. Something is gonna shake out from this. The best we can hope for is that they give us a kiss before they, well...you know.

My good friend Marc Weiss sent me this to http://www.aquamojo.com/misc/669_ShortAlert_Comm.pdf distribute this for anyone who would like to post or distribute.

[Tigerdat]

you know, if people just kept fish in their tanks, and were responsible fishkeepers, there would be no need for things like this.

don't get mad at your politicians for wanting to preserve the natural beauty that is the waterways of the US... blame your idiot neighbor that flushed that gar down the toilet... or perhaps your stupid friend that turned the pacu loose in the local river because it got too big.

we brought this on ourselves. you wanna do something about it? show the rest of the country that we can be responsible with our pets. crying about it on the internet won't do any good.

Most fish keepers don't release fish into the wild. Almost every problem from an invasive species has been caused by some company or by government research. The one exception has been the snakehead release in Maryland and surrounding area. But these fish were not in the pet trade they were purchased live from Chinese markets to be eaten and for religious reasons were turned loose. Recently fish and Game poisoned Davis lake in California to get rid of the Northern Pike. The pike were not there because of a fish keeper but because some sport fisherman wanted to fish for pike so he released some....and they spawned like crazy. There are problems in Florida but even there most of there problems were not created by fish keepers. Oscars are in Florida waters because fish and Game thought it was a good idea and it would make a good game fish they were released in the 60's. There are lots of fish farms and fish importers in Florida, there are also hurricanes. I can remember in the early 90's there was a hurricane that flooded 3 importers and 2 fish farms and several places that imported reptiles were destroyed. It has been these natural disasters that have released tens of thousands of animals into Florida not a fish keeper releasing a individual fish that has caused a problem. There is also a problem with a salt water macro algie that showed up in California. This was probabily reliesed by a fish keeper cleaning his/her tank, but the real problem from this algie started in Italy by Museum that probabily accidently released a unique strain, they also shipped samples all over the world. This algie is now a standard in the industry. Ironically Jacues Couseau was in charge of the museum when the algie was shipped all over the world and released into the Mediterranean. I'll shut up now.

[ewurm]

Actually, the individuals states may be doing a fair job...but overall the system is being circumvented. The example I pointed out previously was that Piranha are illegal in Kentucky, but folks can drive across the border to a neighboring state and get the fish.



Which is a law and a crime that should be enforced and penalized by Kentucky.

[ewurm]

Update: I'm reading this bill word for word and drafting a position. According to section 8, anyone wishing to add a species to the "approved" list would be imposed a fee for the submission. I'd appreciate thoughts on this section as well.

[ewurm]

Also, Section 9 declares that even approved species would be unconsidered as "unmailable" matter. Discussion on this as well please.

[cichlaguapote]

Also, Section 9 declares that even approved species would be unconsidered as "unmailable" matter. Discussion on this as well please.

Wonder if this counts only for USPS or for all package carriers(fedex/ups/etc)?

Update: I'm reading tis bill word for word and drafting a position. According to section 8, anyone wishing to add a species to the "approved" list would be imposed a fee for the submission. I'd appreciate thoughts on this section as well.

Sounds like someone wants to get pockets lined?

Actually, the individuals states may be doing a fair job...but overall the system is being circumvented. The example I pointed out previously was that Piranha are illegal in Kentucky, but folks can drive across the border to a neighboring state and get the fish.



There's lots of ways to circumvent "the system". Doesn't mean we ban every vice in every state that someone goes around the law to get. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm laws are circumvented in every state probably multiple times a week but we don't outright federally ban any of them.

Sunday I went across state lines to buy beer because 12 packs aren't available in stores on sundays. I didn't hurt anyone. None of the rest of the U.S. did either. Does that mean alocohol should be federally banned because I circumvented and state goverment couldn't stop me?

If states aren't doing their job at controlling it's residents then they should rethink the system and think about ways to make sure those residents obey it's laws. Not just say "We can't control our residents so we need the feds to step in and control our state through penalizing the whole country".

[Silver City Dave]

A friend of mine just emailed me this. I guess PIJAC is trying to get people to understand this legislature by explaining it in English (rather than legal mumbo jumbo).

STOP CONGRESS FROM TAKING
YOUR PETS
Join PIJAC in opposing HR 669
WHY SHOULD YOU CARE?
Anyone with pet fish, birds, reptiles, or small mammals will be affected by this bill. Any company selling product or services for pet fish, birds, reptiles or small mammals will be affected by this bill. Would you be impacted by "The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act"?
• Virtually all fish in an aquarium are not native to the United States
• Most pet birds are species not native to the US
• Most reptiles kept as pets are not native to the US
• Hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs and ferrets are not native to the US
This bill would ban nonnative species not specifically approved by US Fish & Wildlife Service. AND, it does NOT only ban their importation, it also bans sales, transportation and breeding of these animals
• If you own a bird or reptile, and your specialized veterinarian is located across the state line from your home, you would be prohibited from taking your pet to its veterinarian
• If you own two fish and they have babies, you would be in violation of this law and your pets could be confiscated and destroyed
• Don’t plan on moving to another state with your pet. Crossing state lines with your hamster, fish, bird, snake or other nonnative animal will be illegal
ANY animal except dogs, cats and goldfish will need to go through a costly, extensive study to prove they will not cause harm AND be approved by the US Fish and Wildlife Service before they can be pets. The proposed congressional ban on "nonnative species" will affect hundreds of millions of animals currently kept as pets.
PIJAC supports managing invasive species, but this bill is not the answer . Simply enhancing and improving existing laws and regulations would meet the goal of preventing/minimizing the introduction of potentially invasive species.
Under HR669, ANY animal not native to the U.S. would have to be placed on an "Approved" list created by the Fish and Wildlife Service, which does not have the manpower or financial resources to do it . Nonnative species includes virtually every bird, reptile, fish, and small mammal commonly kept as pets. Until an animal is placed on the "Approved" list, you would be banned from adopting, purchasing, selling, transporting across state lines, or breeding these animals.
WHAT CAN YOU DO?
Pet owners and the pet industry needs to be heard NOW
• Contact members of the subcommittee – both in Washington, DC AND in their district offices. Let them know you don’t want them to ban your pets
• Attend your representatives Town Hall meeting during the Congressional Spring Break (April 6-17) and ask them WHY THEY WANT TO TAKE AWAY YOUR PETS
• Alert everyone you know and ask them to stand up and be counted.
• Become a member of PIJAC and help us defeat this bill (www.pijac.org)

[Aquamojo]

Which is a law and a crime that should be enforced and penalized by Kentucky.

It is...but it isn't. Short off some idiot telling the wrong person about their new purchase...how would that happen. What would you suggest? Roadblocks and shakedowns at the toll booth? In a perfect world everyone would obey the rules.



There's lots of ways to circumvent "the system". Doesn't mean we ban every vice in every state that someone goes around the law to get. Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearm laws are circumvented in every state probably multiple times a week but we don't outright federally ban any of them.

Sunday I went across state lines to buy beer because 12 packs aren't available in stores on sundays. I didn't hurt anyone. None of the rest of the U.S. did either. Does that mean alocohol should be federally banned because I circumvented and state goverment couldn't stop me?

If states aren't doing their job at controlling it's residents then they should rethink the system and think about ways to make sure those residents obey it's laws. Not just say "We can't control our residents so we need the feds to step in and control our state through penalizing the whole country".

I'm sure the folks paying ten bucks for a pack of smoke in NY are in a similar situation. Should improve gas sales and toll fees as they travel interstate to quell the nicotine demon.

Understand that I am in NO way condoning either breaking the law by driving across a state line to buy either beer, cigarettes or fish. I'm just pointing out that sometimes the government chooses to "remove a colony of termites" by blowing up the house rather than trying to control with proper treatment.

I completely agree with you. But I do believe in the trickle down theory. Were now in a U.S. where "more control" is going to be the new mantra. Get ready for checkpoints and shakedowns on the interstate. LOL

The whole bill is bull$hit. But our politicians generally submit something with a lot of teeth expecting to get some of them knocked out and still be able to chew. This will affect something.

A friend of mine just emailed me this. I guess PIJAC is trying to get people to understand this legislature by explaining it in English (rather than legal mumbo jumbo).




Dave, the link I posted above has all of this info that can easily be printed out. Good stuff. I've already dropped it off at all of our local pet stores. Surprising how many of them weren't even aware.

[ewurm]

It is...but it isn't. Short off some idiot telling the wrong person about their new purchase...how would that happen. What would you suggest? Roadblocks and shakedowns at the toll booth? In a perfect world everyone would obey the rules.



The federal government won't be able to enforce this law either. The budget of the USFWS is already strained, and they will be charged with researching every species and enforcing the lists.

[Camphilophus]

Let them pass this law, I won't enforce it. I'll be more likely to release my non-native species into local ponds after they threaten to destroy them rather than give them up.

[Cohazard]

if they do ban what do we do with our fishes?


Section 3 sub section f, contains a grandfather clause which states that all animals owned pre-ban will be allowed to be kept by the owner, but of course, all other new rules apply such as no breeding, crossing state lines, selling, etc....

[ewurm]

Let them pass this law, I won't enforce it. I'll be more likely to release my non-native species into local ponds after they threaten to destroy them rather than give them up.


You mean you won't "abide" by it? I really don't think threatening to break the law is going to change anyone's mind to the positive.

[Cohazard]

You mean you won't "abide" by it? I really don't think threatening to break the law is going to change anyone's mind to the positive.


I agree. I like your first post in this thread ewurm, where you took a step back and posted that you would read up first, and be certain you understand the bills implications; only then would you establish your position.

There is nothing better we can do as human beings than to be informed and truly understand a conflict from both sides through knowledge.

Props to you for that.

[Acestro]

I see your point, but I don't think a federal law is appropriate. The states are already dealing with the invasive species issue. There is no need for the federal government to step in and pass a law that applies to all states. Very few states have a problem with invasive tropical species. The threat in Florida is not the same in Minnesota, Oregon, Kansas, or any other state. Minnesota just does not have this problem, so why should I or anyone in a state where a species can't possibly live be included in this type of regulation? Let the states deal with their problems on an individual basis.

That's fine, even though my points really weren't related to state or federal aspects...

but the problem with your perspective is the concept of some states with loose regulations and some with tight ones. There needs to be a federal aspect.

[Acestro]

Most fish keepers don't release fish into the wild. Almost every problem from an invasive species has been caused by some company or by government research. The one exception has been the snakehead release in Maryland and surrounding area. But these fish were not in the pet trade they were purchased live from Chinese markets to be eaten and for religious reasons were turned loose.
....
There are problems in Florida but even there most of there problems were not created by fish keepers. Oscars are in Florida waters because fish and Game thought it was a good idea and it would make a good game fish they were released in the 60's.



Most of your points are valid (and in my TFH article on this topic last year). But there are other examples out there such as the Texas cichlids in New Orleans and Apple snails all over the place... Also, pacu seem to be caught just about every year somewhere.

[Acestro]

Let them pass this law, I won't enforce it. I'll be more likely to release my non-native species into local ponds after they threaten to destroy them rather than give them up.

and this is exactly the attitude that is leading us down the wrong path. :(

[ewurm]

That's fine, even though my points really weren't related to state or federal aspects...

but the problem with your perspective is the concept of some states with loose regulations and some with tight ones. There needs to be a federal aspect.


I can understand your thoughts on that, although I don't necessarily agree. But if there is to be a federal law, this one is just not enforceable, practical, or fair to all of the states in the union.

[xdragonxb0i]

Section 3 sub section f, contains a grandfather clause which states that all animals owned pre-ban will be allowed to be kept by the owner, but of course, all other new rules apply such as no breeding, crossing state lines, selling, etc....


I just want to point this out. if this law pass. we cannot mail our pets. or sell them either accross the state. even if they are approved..

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

Nonnative wildlife species included in the list of ap10
proved species issued under section 4 shall be considered
and treated as nonmailable matter under section 3015 of
12 title 39, United States Code.

[ewurm]

I agree. I like your first post in this thread ewurm, where you took a step back and posted that you would read up first, and be certain you understand the bills implications; only then would you establish your position.

There is nothing better we can do as human beings than to be informed and truly understand a conflict from both sides through knowledge.

Props to you for that.

I appreciate that. Since that post I have read the bill thoroughly, and my position on it has been stated. I'm in contact with my district representative, I hope that others who are like-minded are doing the same. I'm also going to contact the lobbyist from PIJAC this weekend to discuss the best way of going about getting this bill eliminated before it gets out of the house if his offer still stands. I hope to discuss the methods we need to use as individuals, as a forum, and as an industry/hobby.

[ewurm]

bump

[chefjamesscott]

HERES A LINK FOR YOU TO HELP FIGHT THIS IN YOUR COUNTRY

http://www.pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=175

[sistinas80]

This is insane!! Have they even considered the economic impact that this bill would have? Thousands of petstores nation-wide would be forced to close their doors and millions would be out of work. This would cause a huge chain reaction from the pet dealers all the way down to those that produce feed for the animals that would be banned. This is the first time I have ever cared about anything political like this. I have never sent a letter to a state representative or member of congress. I did today. I sent out a message to all 110 state representatives for my state encouraging them to vote no on this bill. Let this be a state level issue, not federal!!

[Trimax]

There is nothing better we can do as human beings than to be informed and truly understand a conflict from both sides through knowledge.


Some true wisdom my friend;)

I live in Ireland and I am really concerned for you guys. It will effect the availability of fish here too if it's passed as many fish come from asia through the States to get here. Although the effect won't last long as suppliers will just find new routes.

I sincerely hope your government takes into consideration the wonderful achievements in natural science and breeding of rare and endangered species that would not have been possible without the fish hobby in the USA.

If I could sign the petition I would but i'm not in the US. I don't subscribe to any religion, but doesn't mean I don't have any faith and I will be praying to god for you guys that this doesn't come to pass.

Regards
Jim Kelly

[Silver City Dave]

Hi Guys,

For those of you against HR669 I just posted a form letter on my mini web-site concerning this legislation.

Here it is, your welcome to use it if you don't have the time to draft your own.

Dear Sir or Madam,

I would like to start by stating that my family, friends, and I are NOT in favor of “The Non-Native Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act”, also known as HR669.


At first glance, the name of this piece of legislation sounds quite innocent. The word “Non-Native” leads people to believe it only concerns imported animals. The word “Wildlife” naturally makes people envision animals taken from the wild. Finally, “Invasion Prevention”…well, who would argue with that nomenclature!


Consequently, the name of this legislation is very misleading. Many pet owners and breeders I have spoken to believe that their pets will not be affected. They don’t realize parakeets, guinea pigs, tropical fish, whether captive-bred or wild-caught, are about to be banned if this legislation becomes law. This misinterpretation in itself will also drastically reduce the number of citizens that will speak out in protest of this issue!


Subsequently, many web-sites are misinforming the public about HR669. They encourage people to sign petitions and write the subcommittee members and their elected representatives to support HR669. This is a travesty that so many misinformed citizens are supporting an agenda they know so little about.


I agree that non-native animals, once established, can be problematic to fragile ecosystems. These fragile ecosystems are primarily located in isolated tropical regions where there are no or very limited natural predators (e.g.: Guam, Hawaii, etc…). These areas are often the easiest places for an introduced species to establish itself and thrive.


The continental United States is quite the different. No introduced species, except man, has caused the eradication or extinction of an entire species.

The Federal Government should not interfere in this matter. State Fish and Wildlife Departments are already responsible for protecting wildlife and law enforcement. Each state already has its own governing force enacting laws concerning both native and non-native species.


Federal legislation as proposed in HR669 is an extreme response and does not take into consideration the economic repercussions should it become law. Almost overnight importers, wholesalers, breeders, pet-shops, pet food manufacturers would be put out of business. Not to mention all of the support businesses such as transportation companies, distributors, publishers, internet companies, and office supply businesses that will be impacted. Millions of families and good working people will be affected. The plight of our struggling economy need not be worsened by enacting this legislation. Furthermore, it punishes law-abiding pet owners and the people who earn a living in the Pet Industry.


Please stand up for the people and vote NO on HR669. It is the right thing to do.


Sincerely,
Name
Address
City-State-Zip Code
Telephone
Email

Here is a link to my mini web-site where you can find your representatives, the sub-comitte members, co-sponsors, this letter, PIJAC's Alerts...all of it.

http://www.scserp.com/SCS_Legislation_Federal_H.R.%20669.htm

If you don't agree, just don't use it...or your welcome to change it to suit your needs.

Thanks,
Dave

[Aquamojo]

The federal government won't be able to enforce this law either. The budget of the USFWS is already strained, and they will be charged with researching every species and enforcing the lists.

Since when did a lack of funds prevent the local government from doing any job? LOL Not like the country is swimming in the black right now. In the end, IF THEY CHOSE to make it an issue...you and I pay for it with taxes. Just like if it passes and they have to do that research...WE PAY with taxes...or more money borrowed from China.

and this is exactly the attitude that is leading us down the wrong path. :(

Have to agree 100% Camphilophus....even saying that $hit out loud is wrong.

[Aquamojo]

Bump

[profanityarts]

that would suck

[scream-aim-fire]

if you guys havent seen this page yet check it out. go to where is says "do something now" and fill it out. http://www.nohr669.com/index.htm

[Yanker]

I sent one...

[amehel0]

Geez in times like theese thaey wanna chop the pet industry up and cut how many jobs. the fact of the matter is every species has the potential to cause huge environmental implications.

Anyhw hope this bill gets scrunched up and used as toilet paper!

[abortedsoul]

More highhanded top-down thinking coming out of our more-often-than-not useless government.

The widlerness is property of its respective owners. If it happens to be "public" land (read: socialism), it either suffers from a trajedy of the commons or is forcefully regulated under some vague notion of some sort of communal ownership (read: communism). Claiming risk to a local ecosystem is not sufficient reason to attempt to limit the liberties of people whom you are supposedly serving.

If my opinion matters at all, the government needs to just shut up, prevent violent crime and build some roads (if it can be said to have a legitimate role at all in a civilized society). My tanks, or what I keep in them, is not of their concern. As long as I do not clearly violate the liberties of another, there is no logical reason to attempt to restrict my freedom. Period.

"There is no such thing as the right to vote away the rights of another." -Unknown

[danz]

I got a reply back finally.




Dear Mr. Zenner:

Thank you for contacting me regarding invasive species. I appreciate hearing from you on this important issue.

As an environmentalist and a former member of the California Coastal Commission, I recognize the danger posed by invasive species. These species, be they plant, animal, aquatic or microbiotic, have the ability to devastate our natural ecosystems by out-competing our native species to a potentially devastating effect. Today, a number of federal agencies are actively combating many of these species, in an effort to protect our natural environment. For more specific information on our government's response you can visit the National Invasive Species Information Center's website at: www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov (http://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/).

On a related note, Representative Madeleine Z. Bordallo (D-Guam) has introduced H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, on January 26, 2009. The purpose of this bill is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative species in the U.S. that may cause economic or environmental harm. H.R. 669 has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources for consideration. If this bill, or any related legislation, comes before the House, please rest assured that I will keep your views in mind.

Again, thank you for contacting me. If you have any further questions, please call me or my office at (202) 225-0508.

Sincerely,


Brian Bilbray
Member of Congress

Please do not reply to this email, as messages sent to this email inbox cannot be answered. If you would like to contact Congressman Bilbray, please visit our website at www.house.gov/bilbray (http://www.house.gov/bilbray).

[Jamieishard]

the world is heading into a "great depression " and there worried about non native fish...

it makes me seriously wonder what the hell those people are doing..sitting around with there thumbs up there butts trying to figure out something to do to kill there time....fish keeping has been around for a awfully long time to just all the sudden "hurting the ecosystem" they should be taking any of the spending citizens are doing as a blessing ....not try to eliminate jobs all around when people are loosing there houses there jobs there retirements and some even becomming homeless. hurricanes are ripping down towns of people and they are left homeless..people get raped & murdered ... and there spending time and money on regulating what goes in someones fish tank.

[ExoticTrading]

This is what i got back from my congressman


Dear Hung:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue.

As you may know, H.R. 669 would prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife that negatively impact the economy, environment, or the health of other animal species or humans. The legislation requires the Department of Interior to create regulations establishing a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the U.S. The bill sets forth factors that must be considered, including the identity of the organism to the species level, the native range of the species and whether the species has caused harm to the economy, environment, or the health of other species. However, the measure contains exemptions for federal and state officials to prevent the introduction or establishment of nonnative wildlife species, and the legislation would not restrict the importation or transportation between states by a federal agency for its own use.

H.R. 669 has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, of which I am not a member. However, if the House has an opportunity to consider this bill for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, I thank you for sharing your views with me. I hope you will continue to give me the benefit of your opinion in the future. In addition, I encourage you to visit my web site at http://davidscott.house.gov, where you can view the latest news and obtain information on issues and legislation that is important to you. You can also sign up for my electronic newsletter, and receive periodic updates on my activities as your representative in Washington. Thank you again for contacting me, and I look forward to continuing to serve you.




Sincerely,
David Scott
Member of Congress

[ewurm]

I got a reply back finally.

This is what i got back from my congressman


Dear Hung:

Thank you for contacting me regarding H.R. 669, the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. I appreciate your thoughts on this important issue.

As you may know, H.R. 669 would prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife that negatively impact the economy, environment, or the health of other animal species or humans. The legislation requires the Department of Interior to create regulations establishing a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the U.S. The bill sets forth factors that must be considered, including the identity of the organism to the species level, the native range of the species and whether the species has caused harm to the economy, environment, or the health of other species. However, the measure contains exemptions for federal and state officials to prevent the introduction or establishment of nonnative wildlife species, and the legislation would not restrict the importation or transportation between states by a federal agency for its own use.

H.R. 669 has been referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources, of which I am not a member. However, if the House has an opportunity to consider this bill for a vote, I will be sure to keep your thoughts in mind.

Again, I thank you for sharing your views with me. I hope you will continue to give me the benefit of your opinion in the future. In addition, I encourage you to visit my web site at http://davidscott.house.gov, where you can view the latest news and obtain information on issues and legislation that is important to you. You can also sign up for my electronic newsletter, and receive periodic updates on my activities as your representative in Washington. Thank you again for contacting me, and I look forward to continuing to serve you.




Sincerely,
David Scott
Member of Congress


Not the start we're looking for

[ExoticTrading]

Not the start we're looking for
I know
He's not one of us.

[MN_Rebel]

Most of your points are valid (and in my TFH article on this topic last year). But there are other examples out there such as the Texas cichlids in New Orleans and Apple snails all over the place... Also, pacu seem to be caught just about every year somewhere.
Yet majority of non native aquatic animals do not come from aquarists. Pacu cannot reproduce in most of United States except in Florida and Hawaii and pose little threat to the native system. Famous invasives: snakehead, tilapia, carp species, swamp eel and walking catfish escaped from fish farms or released by the market people. Ruffe, round gobies and sea lamprey do not come from aquarists, they come from ballast of ships.

[danz]

I was not pleased to see that reply and I hope hoping for and just amazed they are ok with banning everything just because there are irresponsible people. Isn't that the way of Washington its the exceptions that make the rules.

[yotaman]

I hope you guys don't mind me putting this here. Feel free to change up the letter and/or write one from the heart. We all need to stand together even if we are from different hobbies.

13 EVEN BETTER STEPS TO STOPPING HR 669!

I talked to Andrew Wyatt from USARK.org tonight about a better way to get multiply packets of letters shipped out and this is what I came up with and have ran by him to make sure it would work.

If you want to help the cause even more you need to make up packets of 22 letters each.

Let's say you have 10 family members or 25 friends? I know you guys have family, and I know that a least a few of them have to love you. So, if they do YOU NEED THEM TO SIGN 22 LETTERS EACH.

Follow these steps to make this easy on you. I figure the easier I make this the more packets of letters you can have signed. Let's make your goal this.

Repeat after me: I WILL HAVE A LEAST 10 PEOPLE SIGN 22 LETTERS EACH BY THURSDAY.

If you care about this hobby at all you need to put this at the TOP OF YOUR PRIORITY LIST RIGHT NOW!!! I'm not trying to be mean but this is serious people.

What you will for this:



10 friends or family members that will sign 22 pieces of paper!
22 manila envelopes!
220 pieces of paper!
some pens!
a printer
a love of this hobby
you get the idea!!!!!!



- STEP 1!

Print 220 of the following letters. This is if you only want to do the bare minimum of 10 people.

CLICK HERE FOR A PRINTER FRIENDLY COPY OF THE BELOW LETTER. (http://www.allproreptiles.com/hr669print.html) No PDF or WORD needed.

######################################

Subject: No on HR669

Dear Committee Member,

Please oppose HR669. It is a fundamentally flawed Bill written by a radical environmentalist group that seeks to end the ownership and trade of all non-native animals. There is not a shred of scientific evidence to justify the destruction of a Reptile Industry that leads the world in producing and exporting high quality captive bred reptiles. With the stroke of a pen thousands of small American family businesses would be bankrupted overnight. With no quantifiable benefits, what could be the justification to destroy a viable sector of the American economy in a time of hardship?

What will the additional drain on taxpayer dollars be to grow USFWS at unprecedented levels in order to destroy American small business? These are not the "Too big to fail" corporate titans, but small family businesses with their entire net worth wrapped up in their Reptile breeding projects and ancillary supporting businesses. A 3 billion dollar a year industry would be wiped out by HR669. Thousands of American families would suffer losing everything.

- Trade in Reptiles and ancillary businesses are estimated to be a 3 billion dollar a year industry.
- More than 9 million Reptiles are exported from the US annually.
- More than 11 million Reptiles are kept as pets in the US. That means 1 in 25 households have 1 or more Reptiles.
- The US accounts for 82% of the worldwide trade in Reptiles.
- At least 500,000 Americans would be negatively impacted by HR669. Thousands of small family businesses would be destroyed.
- There are approximately 4 million boas & pythons, as well as more than 7 million geckos, lizards turtles & other Reptiles in captivity in the US today.
- The United States Association of Reptile Keepers Opposes HR669.

Please oppose HR669! The costs to American Families would be enormous. The benefits are both questionable and non quantifiable. NO ON HR669.

Sincerely,




############################################

- STEP 2!

Make 10 stacks of 22 letters.

- STEP 3!

Find 10 people!

- STEP 4!

Have each of the 10 people sign one stack of 22 letters and write there FULL NAME and FULL RETURN ADDRESS under there signature on one piece of paper.

When you are done with this step you should have 220 letters that have been signed buy 10 different people and on the first page of each stack it should have there FULL NAME and FULL RETURN ADDRESS.

- STEP 5!

Now go home and write the persons FULL NAME and FULL RETURN ADDRESS on each of the other 21 letters they have signed.

This is the most pain part of the whole thing. You can handle it. I know you can. Let the force be with you reptile lover. Keep telling yourself it's for the good of the hobby I LOVE!

When you are done with the step you should have 10 stacks of paper. In each stack there should be 22 letters that have been signed by your friends of family members and you should have written there FULL NAME and FULL RETURN ADDRESS under it on each piece of paper.

- STEP 6!

Make 22 stacks on your floor.

- STEP 7!

Take one piece of paper out of each stack of your 22 letters and put it in 1 of your 22 stacks.

When you're done with this step you should have 22 stacks of papers on your floor and in each stack there should be 10 pieces of paper and on each piece of paper you should have a different signature with that person FULL NAME AND FULL RETURN ADDRESS under the signature.

- STEP 8!

Take the 22 stacks of 10 papers and put them in the 22 manila envelopes.

When you are done with this step you should have 22 manila envelopes and in each envelope you should have 10 pieces of paper signed by 10 different people.

- STEP 9!

Write one of the following 22 names on EACH manila envelope. Each manila envelope should only have 1 name per envelope. Write the name in the middle of the envelope.

- Madeleine Z. Bordallo (Ch)(NP-Guam)
- Henry Brown (R-SC) Ranking Republican
- Lois Capps (D-CA)
- William Cassidy (R-LA)
- Jason Chaffetz (R-UT)
- Donna M. Christensen (NP-Virgin Islands)
- Diana L. DeGette (D-CO)
- Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (NP ? American Samoa)
- Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
- John Fleming (R-LA)
- Doc Hastings (R-WA)
- Dale E. Kildee (D-MI)
- Ronald James Kind (D-WI)
- Frank M. Kratovil, Jr. (D-MD)
- Douglas L. Lamborn (R-CO)
- Frank J. Pallone, Jr. (D-NJ)
- Pedro R. Pierluisi (NP-Puerto Rico)
- Nick Joe Rahall, II (D-WV)
- Gregorio Sablan (I- Mariana Islands)
- Carol Shea-Porter (D-NH)
- Robert J. Wittman (R-VA)
- Donald E. Young (R-AK)

When you are done with this step you should have 22 manila envelopes with one of the above names written in the middle of each of the envelopes.

- STEP 10!

Write your (not theres) FULL NAME and FULL RETURN ADDRESS in the top left corner of each of the 22 manila envelopes.

- STEP 11!

Put all 22 manila envelopes in a box or shipping envelope.

You can go to USPS, FEDEX KINKOS, THE UPS STORE or any SHIPPING STORE and get something sturdy to put the 22 manila envelopes in.

When you are done with this step you should have all 22 manila envelops in a box or some kind of heavy duty envelope ready to ship.

- STEP 12!

Mail the box or heavy duty envelope with all 22 manila envelopes in it to the following address:

Tom Wolfe
6246 Lee Hwy
Arlington, VA 22205

- STEP 13!

Tell everyone else to make a promise to themselves to do this exact same thing.

###############################################

What you have now done is get 10 more people in on this fight that would not have had there voice heard.

You should now feel proud of yourself.

I just used 10 people as an example. If you have 100 people that will sign 22 letters for you. PLEASE GET THEM TO.

If you ship a box full of these via FedEx or UPS it will not cost you much more than you just sending a manila envelope with 22 letters in it. Plus you're saving money by not having to buy 100's of small white envelopes.

The people in the know feel that sending letters is the way to make the biggest impact. I'm not saying emails aren't good or calling is bad. I'm just saying, sending just emails or just calling will not win this fight. We need to bombard these people with letters. LOTS AND LOTS OF LETTERS PEOPLE!

[skyhigh]

With the economy the way it is now all the pet stores out there that carry fish, small animal, bird, and reptile supplys imagine where they'll be if this gets passed. If your not alowed to have them can you buy supplies for them what about if you already have them do you have to get rid of them? this will never pass