I hope HR 669 Passes

[cguarino30]

I don't think there's a chance it will pass, but I hope it does. There I said it.

1) importation restrictions would deter people without the necessary time, expertise, seriousness, and money from keeping rare, wild fish that need extra attention

2) the temporary spike in fish prices would encourage more domestic breeding/farming programs, diminishing what I see as a massive influx of east asian farm stock of inferior quality and questionable origins

3) Virtually none of the fish I keep are wild imports, and if I had to I could certainly have gotten them from a domestic breeder, or gotten other fish that I would enjoy just as much

*braces self for hatemail*

[jcardona1]

lol! this bill wont pass. these extreme bills never do pass. they just cause hysteria for no reason

[Austin]

i guess you don't understand. It would ban captive breeding also chief so you'd still be SOL with you're "non-imported" captive bred stock....

[Austin]

lol! this bill wont pass. these extreme bills never do pass. they just cause hysteria for no reason

agreed

[cguarino30]

i guess you don't understand. It would ban captive breeding also chief so you'd still be SOL with you're "non-imported" captive bred stock....


First of all, calm down. Second, it would only ban breeding of fishes that were deemed by the secretary of the interior to be a potential hazard. That doesn't include any fish I'm particularly worried about.

[cguarino30]

lol! this bill wont pass. these extreme bills never do pass. they just cause hysteria for no reason

That's probably true as well. I'm mostly just stating my case because I haven't seen anyone argue the positives. Definitely agree that it's a pointless hysteria

[Gr8KarmaSF]

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:

[jcardona1]

That's probably true as well. I'm mostly just stating my case because I haven't seen anyone argue the positives. Definitely agree that it's a pointless hysteria
yeah, but even then, this bill would be no good for any fish keeper, even if you dont keep the "restricted" species. you could see your favorite local shop/vendor/breeder whatever go out of business. its nice to be all captain-america about it and wanna save the environment, but if love the hobby you would not support a bill like this, unless youre just looking to get some attention.

thatd be like me saying i support all these stupid gun bans when im pro-gun :screwy:

[cguarino30]

yeah, but even then, this bill would be no good for any fish keeper, even if you dont keep the "restricted" species. you could see your favorite local shop/vendor/breeder whatever go out of business. its nice to be all captain-america about it and wanna save the environment, but if love the hobby you would not support a bill like this, unless youre just looking to get some attention.

thatd be like me saying i support all these stupid gun bans when im pro-gun :screwy:

First of all, I've heard plenty of people say that this will cause the end of lfs business, but nobody has ever told me how. I refuse to believe that a strong business would not be able to survive something as miniscule as (and I'm exaggerating for effect) a complete lack of live fish to sell. Furthermore, we don't need stores to keep the hobby going. I prefer to get my stock from other hobbyists and aquarium societies anyway. Also, you'll notice that none of my reasons for supporting the bill involved the environment.

I would liken it more to someone who owns hunting rifles saying they are for a ban on handguns. For me to be as hypocritical as you are insinuating, I would need to be a fish importer who wants the bill to pass, or something more similar. Not simply a hobbyist. I also don't appreciate being told what I need to believe if I REALLY love something. I'll decide what I love and what I believe, thank you.

[jcardona1]

First of all, I've heard plenty of people say that this will cause the end of lfs business, but nobody has ever told me how. I refuse to believe that a strong business would not be able to survive something as miniscule as (and I'm exaggerating for effect) a complete lack of live fish to sell. Furthermore, we don't need stores to keep the hobby going. I prefer to get my stock from other hobbyists and aquarium societies anyway. Also, you'll notice that none of my reasons for supporting the bill involved the environment.

that right there shows you have NO knowledge of the real-world aspect of this bill. you make it seem like mom-n-pop fish stores are making huge bucks. talk to any owner, they hardly make a profit. take away what in most cases is their biggest income producing product line (live fish) and what have you left? fish food? come on now. if you fail to see how this could affect a small business then you need to get a clue.

and you say youd prefer to get your fish from other hobbyists and aquarium societies. if importers cant bring them in, and people cant breed them and shops cant sell them, where will you get the fish from?

I would liken it more to someone who owns hunting rifles saying they are for a ban on handguns. For me to be as hypocritical as you are insinuating, I would need to be a fish importer who wants the bill to pass, or something more similar. Not simply a hobbyist. I also don't appreciate being told what I need to believe if I REALLY love something. I'll decide what I love and what I believe, thank you.

im not telling you what to belive, i could care less what you belive. im telling you what i think. isnt that why you started this thread, to get opinions? or are you one of those guys that thinks that all those who disagree with your supreme logic is wrong?


ok, no more feeding the troll!

[cguarino30]

And this is what I consider the problem with this issue. Everyone around immediately freaks out as soon as anyone has any questions or disagreements.

that right there shows you have NO knowledge of the real-world aspect of this bill. you make it seem like mom-n-pop fish stores are making huge bucks. talk to any owner, they hardly make a profit. take away what in most cases is their biggest income producing product line (live fish) and what have you left? fish food? come on now. if you fail to see how this could affect a small business then you need to get a clue.

You immediately turn to personal insults because I disagree. I know plenty of small business owners, and most of them only keep fish in their stores as a way to sell more supplies. When you consider the price of obtaining the fish, added to the extra power costs of filters, lights, and heaters, the fish barely make them a profit as it is. Every pet store owner I know (admittedly, only 3) makes the vast majority of their money selling dry goods (food, filters, tanks, etc). It doesn't cost anything to keep them on the shelves, and they sell them at 3 times the cost, as opposed to fish, who need constant attention, labor, and sometimes, in an lfs environment, die anyway.



and you say youd prefer to get your fish from other hobbyists and aquarium societies. if importers cant bring them in, and people cant breed them and shops cant sell them, where will you get the fish from?


They already have the fish. Nobody's hitting the reset button. I'd like to reitterate that only the breeding of fishes deemed "invasive" will be prohibited. The first thing I'm going to do if this bill passes is take steps to ensure a long-term availability of the fish that I keep, and I'm certain that a great many hobbyists would do the same. I would also like to suggest that even if importing fish becomes completely illegal, people will still find a way to do it (be it getting expensive permits, or smuggling them in illegally) but the increased cost of these wild caught fish will help to ensure that the people who eventually end up with them are the people who are serious enough about keeping them to ensure responsible keeping and breeding practices.




im not telling you what to belive, i could care less what you belive.

I was referring to your comment about how "if you loved the hobby, you would not support this bill"

im telling you what i think. isnt that why you started this thread, to get opinions? or are you one of those guys that thinks that all those who disagree with your supreme logic is wrong? ok, no more feeding the troll!

I never said my logic was supreme, but no one has argued against a single one of my points yet, which makes it hard for me to change my mind when people insist on shouting doomsday predictions at me, rather than having a logical discussion. And for the record, whether people believe it or not, this was not a troll thread. I really do think HR 669 would be good for the hobby.

[neoprodigy]

1) importation restrictions would deter people without the necessary time, expertise, seriousness, and money from keeping rare, wild fish that need extra attention


dont think importation restriction will help any of that... people will alway buy what they like..


2) the temporary spike in fish prices would encourage more domestic breeding/farming programs, diminishing what I see as a massive influx of east asian farm stock of inferior quality and questionable origins

mass produce here or there... will always have these "inferior quality" when competition kicks in.


3) Virtually none of the fish I keep are wild imports, and if I had to I could certainly have gotten them from a domestic breeder, or gotten other fish that I would enjoy just as much


hr669 is not just about fish... it includes other exotic pets... sound like you are a "who cares.. just as long it dont bother me" type of person...

[big_tank_boy]

The thing is u say they have fish supplies and fish food to sell 2....... if theres not as many fish that eat large quanitys of food like most cichlids that would heavely decress........ the other thing is the smuggeling of fish would greatly incress....... more fish wild fish would die when getting smuggeled in beacuse not haveing the right packageing all all that.......... yea u do seem kinda selfish with the statement it wont affect me cuz i own captive bred fish that would probly be banned to.......... have u ever read anything on the hr669???????

[nubz]

im stayin out of this one ........................( i just said that to be " in" this one)

[Cholly]

hr669 is not just about fish... it includes other exotic pets... sound like you are a "who cares.. just as long it dont bother me" type of person...Bingo. The exact type of thinking that allowed the Nazis to take power. I am the polar opposite. I am a veteran, I know freedom is not free, we have to keep fighting for it.
I find cguarino30's attitude highly offensive. cguarino30, you probably didn't mean to be offensive, just stir up a little controversy, but you punched a hot button, and I am very offended.

[chefjamesscott]

edit:I DID NOT READ THE ABOVE POST WHEN I WROTE MINE
take note of the reference to the nazis, I too come from a line of military men and freedoms do not come cheap and should not be surrendered carelessly


First of all, I've heard plenty of people say that this will cause the end of lfs business, but nobody has ever told me how. I refuse to believe that a strong business would not be able to survive something as miniscule as (and I'm exaggerating for effect) a complete lack of live fish to sell. Furthermore, we don't need stores to keep the hobby going. I prefer to get my stock from other hobbyists and aquarium societies anyway. Also, you'll notice that none of my reasons for supporting the bill involved the environment.

I would liken it more to someone who owns hunting rifles saying they are for a ban on handguns. For me to be as hypocritical as you are insinuating, I would need to be a fish importer who wants the bill to pass, or something more similar. Not simply a hobbyist. I also don't appreciate being told what I need to believe if I REALLY love something. I'll decide what I love and what I believe, thank you.

No hate here

but dude you really have no idea as to the reality of this bill, it would be very similar to telling me as a chef that I can no long sell any type of lettuce but iceberg lettuce. Imagine if you can every item on a menu that uses lettuce being only that one kind.

Truly it will drive many petstores out of business forever.

And your solution of getting fish from other hobbiests is rather :screwy:, because now under the rule of this bill you are going to stoop for the group when they tell you to pick up the soap because your now a criminal and will be prosecuted for your illegal black marketering of fish you wish to keep.

Well the part I bolded from your quote shows very clearly that you have no real understanding that should this thing pass you would indeed have no choice as a hobbiest. Very much the way people in nazi germany welcomed the regime with open arms only to real in sheer horror at the monstrosity they had empowered by their embrace

[cguarino30]

dont think importation restriction will help any of that... people will alway buy what they like..

Yes, to a certain degree, you can't ban people from buying what they want, but price does influence purchase. My point is that there will be much fewer impulse buys, or uninformed aquarists, if the pricetag goes up. Remember that youtube kid with the 13 inch Midas in a 15 gallon tank? If the prices were raised, do you think he would have paid $45 for it, or do you think he would have bought something smaller, cheaper, and more common?


mass produce here or there... will always have these "inferior quality" when competition kicks in.
I do agree with this concept in general, it's a good point, however, I am noticing a much greater disparity with the asian based farms. Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but they seem to have much less interest in maintaining genetic strength and pure species lines than a lot of the domestic mass producers, even if the domestic ones are bad as well.


hr669 is not just about fish... it includes other exotic pets...

Any points I make toward domestic captive breeding programs and consumer discretion can also be applied to any bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal, or anything else. I'm constantly seeing people with no expertise and have done no research who buy rare or sensitive animals that they are not prepared to provide proper care for "because they got a good deal" and I think people would be a lot more likely to do research and provide proper care if the animal came with a bigger pricetag.

sound like you are a "who cares.. just as long it dont bother me" type of person...

again, a personal attack. My position is not based on the fact that I don't anticipate any personal disruptions, as I will be suffering from all the same price hikes and limited availabilities as the rest of you. I am just using my own situation as a demonstration as to how the hobby will continue regardless of this bill, whether it passes or not. I am also subtly inviting anyone else to explain to me why their situation would make things too difficult to continue in the hobby, as I personally do not see it.

The impression that I'm getting from everybody against this is that they either
a) Think catastrophic things will happen that I don't believe are likely, or
b) Don't want to deal with the added inconvenience of higher prices and more limited availability, which I feel to be a significantly more selfish viewpoint than my own.

I pose this question, there are likely hundreds of species of fish out there, that if they were present at your lfs, you could buy, and would love to keep, but you don't miss them, because they are not available to you, and in all likelihood you will never even see them. In addition, there are probably hundreds more that are very rare, or hard to come by, or impossible to import, and for that reason are extremely expensive, so only people who are trully dedicated to the species (and thus willing to pay the higher price for them) ever end up owning them, thus significantly diminishing the occurrences of these fish ending up in inappropriate conditions with people who are not fully dedicated to them.

I'm as guilty as anyone else for buying fish that I was prepared to take care of, largely because I could afford them. I remember when I was younger and less experienced, I purchased 4 Zebra plecos, because I got a really good deal on them (about 20 dollars a piece, if I remember correctly) and ended up killing them all within a few months, do to my inexperience and lack of proper research. Have you looked at the price of zebra plecos lately? They cost at least a hundred dollars each. Do you think there are many people impulse buying them now? I imagine that in a few years, all those dedicated aquarists who were willing to pony up that kind of dough for a breeding colony will be producing more and more domestic-raised offspring, and the price will come back down, after a strong genetic pool has been established in the hobbyist community. This is the archetype that I would expect to follow if HR669 passed

Let's, for the sake of argument, predict the fate of Fish X. Fish X is a medium sized, fairly difficult to breed fish from south america. There are large numbers of this fish coming out of fish farms in asia, and wild caught imports from south america. These large numbers of easily harvested and imported fish causes the price of Fish X to be only $5. HR 669 Passes. First, the lack of imports would drive up the prices of fish, and thus the demand for domestic-raised fish. Fish X is now worth $50. The higher prices would encourage the breeding of Fish X in domestic farms and hobbyist tanks alike, with all the people who have the means and the money trying to make something off of this situation. All these people who are willing to make the initial investment buy up what stock of Fish X they can, to establish viable breeding programs. After a few years, breeding techniques are fine tuned, Fish X is in good supply, and the price drops down to about $10, since it still costs more to raise fish in this country than it ever will in southeast Asia. The fish is still available, but the price is now higher, preventing inexperienced or unprepared aquarists from purchasing the fish, and instead opting to buy a fish like the guppy, who in all likelihood, do to the already heavily established domestic breeding populations as well as easy of propogation, will not change in any way. It's only a prediction, but I think it's fairly well founded.

[chefjamesscott]

WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT NO FISH MEANS NO FILTERS, NO DRY GOODS, NOTHING TO MAKE PROFIT ON WITH NO FISH TO KEEP

and what part of it being made criminal to breed and distribute the banned animals dont you understand, you wont be able to get them privately

[cguarino30]

edit:I DID NOT READ THE ABOVE POST WHEN I WROTE MINE
take note of the reference to the nazis, I too come from a line of military men and freedoms do not come cheap and should not be surrendered carelessly




No hate here

but dude you really have no idea as to the reality of this bill, it would be very similar to telling me as a chef that I can no long sell any type of lettuce but iceberg lettuce. Imagine if you can every item on a menu that uses lettuce being only that one kind.

Truly it will drive many petstores out of business forever.

And your solution of getting fish from other hobbiests is rather :screwy:, because now under the rule of this bill you are going to stoop for the group when they tell you to pick up the soap because your now a criminal and will be prosecuted for your illegal black marketering of fish you wish to keep.

Well the part I bolded from your quote shows very clearly that you have no real understanding that should this thing pass you would indeed have no choice as a hobbiest. Very much the way people in nazi germany welcomed the regime with open arms only to real in sheer horror at the monstrosity they had empowered by their embrace

Wow. Did you seriously just liken HR 669 to the beginning of the holocaust? I also disagree with your use of the term "no choice" telling me that I have to choose from these 500 species of fish instead of choosing from these 1000 species of fish is not the same thing as "no choice" and it's certainly not ANYTHING like the mass slaughter of several races of people deemed inferior by a political machine that was powered by economic strife and cultural upheaval.

[cguarino30]

WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT NO FISH MEANS NO FILTERS, NO DRY GOODS, NOTHING TO MAKE PROFIT ON WITH NO FISH TO KEEP

and what part of it being made criminal to breed and distribute the banned animals dont you understand, you wont be able to get them privately

Has anyone here actually read the bill? They're not going to take ALL the fish. Only the ones they deem an environmental or health concern. And even then, they're not going to take any of them, just prohibit the import, transport, or breeding of the "invasive" ones. Piranhas are banned here in NC, and much as I think it's ignorant, and personally love piranhas, we still have a thriving hobby and pet store industry, and I still manage to be a part of it.

Do you people really think that they even COULD take everyone's fish if they wanted to (which I reiterate, nobody wants to do)?

[Sever0n]

Has anybody contemplated the effect this is going to have on our already suffering economy? Hardly any LFS, No delivery drivers, no Distributors eventually that chain heads over seas and effects those third world countries where alot of these fish come from. working for a LFS We no longer make a profit of supplies due to Foster and smith and some of these other online retailers we depend on what income from fish we get. this Bill will effectively close us down very quickly.

[cguarino30]

Has anybody contemplated the effect this is going to have on our already suffering economy? Hardly any LFS, No delivery drivers, no Distributors eventually that chain heads over seas and effects those third world countries where alot of these fish come from. working for a LFS We no longer make a profit of supplies due to Foster and smith and some of these other online retailers we depend on what income from fish we get. this Bill will effectively close us down very quickly.

I can empathize with your position (I recently lost my job), and truly hope things get better for you, but as for the economy as a whole, I don't think the entire pet industry itself constitutes a significant part of it to cause any widespread damage. There will still be things to ship, even fish to ship (the non-invasive ones) and things to sell, etc.

In response to another post about fish smuggling:

I think that the assumption that black marketeers would be any less proficient at packing fish and keeping them alive in transport shows a lack of knowledge of smugglers. I'm not pro-smuggling, but if the fish were worth enough for some people to break the law to sell them, those people are probably going to take the time to make sure they don't lose their investment. In my experience (I lived in East Africa for a while) Black Marketeers are usually the most expert, most talented, and most capable people in a given industry. I used to buy LEGITIMATE<--(please notice that word) goods from them just because I knew they'd be better quality, or the black marketeers wouldn't even bother with them.

If you really want to stop fish from dieing in transport, you should stop buying them from mass farms in Florida and SE Asia, or from stores that buy them in such bulk that they generally assume a 10-20% loss just from packaging.

[Sever0n]

no it doesn't but it's that much more unemployment ...every little bit counts against us.

[jcardona1]

I can empathize with your position (I recently lost my job), and truly hope things get better for you, but as for the economy as a whole, I don't think the entire pet industry itself constitutes a significant part of it to cause any widespread damage. There will still be things to ship, even fish to ship (the non-invasive ones) and things to sell, etc.

In response to another post about fish smuggling:

I think that the assumption that black marketeers would be any less proficient at packing fish and keeping them alive in transport shows a lack of knowledge of smugglers. I'm not pro-smuggling, but if the fish were worth enough for some people to break the law to sell them, those people are probably going to take the time to make sure they don't lose their investment. In my experience (I lived in East Africa for a while) Black Marketeers are usually the most expert, most talented, and most capable people in a given industry. I used to buy LEGITIMATE<--(please notice that word) goods from them just because I knew they'd be better quality, or the black marketeers wouldn't even bother with them.

If you really want to stop fish from dieing in transport, you should stop buying them from mass markets in Florida and SE Asia, or from stores that buy them in such bulk that they generally assume a 10-20% loss just from packaging.
no, but the overall economy depends on smaller industries like this. its the foundation of the world as it is today. i still think you should take a step back and re-look at things. the way you speak, it really does make it seem that you dont care because it wont affect YOU personally

[Cecropia]

I can empathize with your position (I recently lost my job), and truly hope things get better for you, but as for the economy as a whole, I don't think the entire pet industry itself constitutes a significant part of it.

The ripple effect of a pet industry collapse will be hard to predict and the effect will always be greater than predicted.
ALL LFS in this area depend on the income from freshwater/saltwater fish and reptiles. The supplies don't sell much due to chain pricing being lower. The stores that do survive will be destroyed there after as other chains begin carrying more brand name pet supplies (walmart has already started carrying more brand name pet supplies for example).

Last online statistics put the US as having over 26 million fish and reptiles. Just imagining what the ripples from this bill will effect is scary.

[cguarino30]

no, but the overall economy depends on smaller industries like this. its the foundation of the world as it is today. i still think you should take a step back and re-look at things. the way you speak, it really does make it seem that you dont care because it wont affect YOU personally

Again, I say, it WILL affect me personally, I just don't think that the mild inconvenience is worth the continually immoral treatment of animals that we have a responsibility for. I realize that the vast majority of people on this forum are dedicated, knowledgeable people, but we need to remember that it's the rest of the hobby, the inexperienced, impulsive, uncaring people that keep fish in unsuitable conditions, and also the ones who irresponsibly let them go in the wild, and I think it is the duty of us responsible ones to take the mildly inconvenient hit to ensure responsible care and treatment of the animals that I (and I know many others here) care so deeply about.

[Sever0n]

so instead of banning them start a permit process.

[jcardona1]

Again, I say, it WILL affect me personally, I just don't think that the mild inconvenience is worth the continually immoral treatment of animals that we have a responsibility for. I realize that the vast majority of people on this forum are dedicated, knowledgeable people, but we need to remember that it's the rest of the hobby, the inexperienced, impulsive, uncaring people that keep fish in unsuitable conditions, and also the ones who irresponsibly let them go in the wild, and I think it is the duty of us responsible ones to take the mildly inconvenient hit to ensure responsible care and treatment of the animals that I (and I know many others here) care so deeply about.
but unless im mistaken, this bill isnt being proposed to address ethical and moral issues, so why try to make it as such? :confused:

[cguarino30]

The ripple effect of a pet industry collapse will be hard to predict and the effect will always be greater than predicted.
ALL LFS in this area depend on the income from freshwater/saltwater fish and reptiles. The supplies don't sell much due to chain pricing being lower. The stores that do survive will be destroyed there after as other chains begin carrying more brand name pet supplies (walmart has already started carrying more brand name pet supplies for example).

Last online statistics put the US as having over 26 million fish and reptiles. Just imagining what the ripples from this bill will effect is scary.

I agree that it's hard to predict, but I would suggest that it's just as likely that this bill would help and LFS (Pickering Valley Farm and Feed, in PA). My LFS regularly sells locally bred fish (all fish that would not be considered invasive due to temperature needs) and if this bill passed, the vast majority of their competition (online stores and major chains) would not be able to sell live fish, or at least would have to pay more to do it, since they would have to transport the fish across state lines. If that happened, my LFS would essentially corner the market as they would have one of the only supplies of live fish, and could then benefit from the raised prices. All the LFSs would have to do is find a local source for fish. Maybe diversity would go down a little, but honestly, most of the people that support the LFS only want what they see anyway.

[cguarino30]

but unless im mistaken, this bill isnt being proposed to address ethical and moral issues, so why try to make it as such? :confused:

Just because the bill isn't based on moral issues doesn't mean I can't support it for them. (also, I consider environmental preservation a moral issue)

[neoprodigy]

Yes, to a certain degree, you can't ban people from buying what they want, but price does influence purchase. My point is that there will be much fewer impulse buys, or uninformed aquarists, if the pricetag goes up. Remember that youtube kid with the 13 inch Midas in a 15 gallon tank? If the prices were raised, do you think he would have paid $45 for it, or do you think he would have bought something smaller, cheaper, and more common?

yes he will... he will pay that $45 buck for that midas... do you know the buying power of "kids"



I do agree with this concept in general, it's a good point, however, I am noticing a much greater disparity with the asian based farms. Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but they seem to have much less interest in maintaining genetic strength and pure species lines than a lot of the domestic mass producers, even if the domestic ones are bad as well.


its all about the $. here or there... except over there the operation is much much bigger. i visit to quite of farms here in FL. you think they care for genetic strength if they cant make the next pay roll in time?


Any points I make toward domestic captive breeding programs and consumer discretion can also be applied to any bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal, or anything else. I'm constantly seeing people with no expertise and have done no research who buy rare or sensitive animals that they are not prepared to provide proper care for "because they got a good deal" and I think people would be a lot more likely to do research and provide proper care if the animal came with a bigger pricetag.


bigger price tag will not help... people will buy it because its the "market price" who remember paying 25cent stamps? 50cent for can of soda? you think people going to stop mailing or buying soda?

hr669 is not going to help people do more research before buying the next pets. it will only tighten the selection of pets...


again, a personal attack. My position is not based on the fact that I don't anticipate any personal disruptions, as I will be suffering from all the same price hikes and limited availabilities as the rest of you. I am just using my own situation as a demonstration as to how the hobby will continue regardless of this bill, whether it passes or not. I am also subtly inviting anyone else to explain to me why their situation would make things too difficult to continue in the hobby, as I personally do not see it.

its not a personal attack... seem like you like use that term alot on this thread....

[cguarino30]

so instead of banning them start a permit process.

I like this idea a lot, and honestly, if they did ban them, there would still have to be SOME permit process, for public aquariums, scientiffic labs, etc. And there's no reason to believe that one couldn't be introduced for dedicated hobbyists such as ourselves.

[cguarino30]

yes he will... he will pay that $45 buck for that midas... do you know the buying power of "kids"




its all about the $. here or there... except over there the operation is much much bigger. i visit to quite of farms here in FL. you think they care for genetic strength if they cant make the next pay roll in time?



bigger price tag will not help... people will buy it because its the "market price" who remember paying 25cent stamps? 50cent for can of soda? you think people going to stop mailing or buying soda?

hr669 is not going to help people do more research before buying the next pets. it will only tighten the selection of pets...



its not a personal attack... seem like you like use that term alot on this thread....

I take the insinuation that I don't care about anyone else as a personal attack. I apologize if I misunderstood. I see your position, but I still disagree with you. I think at the very least, people would be less likely to buy more expensive fish, if not altogether opposed to it, unless they were trully dedicated. As for FL fish farms, I agree. They are also lower quality than necessary, but I still prefer them to SE Asian farms.

As for the pricetag issue, if you could buy 25 cent stamps OR 50 cent stamps, you'd need a pretty good reason to buy the more expensive ones over the cheaper ones. I maintain that if rare/sensitive fish cost more, fewer uneducated aquarists would buy and subsequently kill them, and would prefer to buy cheaper, well established fish like swordtails and guppies

[jcardona1]

Just because the bill isn't based on moral issues doesn't mean I can't support it for them. (also, I consider environmental preservation a moral issue)
okay, so lets say inexperienced hobbyists wont be able to buy XXX fish anymore because its been restricted. wont they still be able to be just as uncaring and unethical with a legal fish? what are you accomplishing? youre still back at the drawing board.

kinda like with the gun example you used earlier, where a hunter would support a handgun ban. you can ban all handguns if you like, but cant a murder still be committed with a rifle????? same scenario

[chefjamesscott]

Wow. Did you seriously just liken HR 669 to the beginning of the holocaust? I also disagree with your use of the term "no choice" telling me that I have to choose from these 500 species of fish instead of choosing from these 1000 species of fish is not the same thing as "no choice" and it's certainly not ANYTHING like the mass slaughter of several races of people deemed inferior by a political machine that was powered by economic strife and cultural upheaval.

Then my friend you really are blind to the many many many controls that are being foisted on your country under the guise of legislation to protect your country. Goodness me perhaps you need to study a bit more on what these kinds of legislations are really about, for such legislations are not really about anything more than systems of control and this pet bill is by far not the only area of control they are tryin to slip by unnoticed.

Perhaps there is much more I could share with you but it seems that really are a person who chooses to ignore what informed people are telling you. (By taking pot shots back at them for what they say rather than intelligently considering what they put forth.)

Yet that would entail me getting into a political discussion which I think is frowned upon here. Suffice it to say whereas nazism is concerned, you would do well to watch arnie boy and the state of california.

Go ahead and welcome with open arms things that control you basic freedoms all under the guise of protecting you, yes by all means go ahead be a good sheeple and welcome the agents of change in all the various ways that they are encroaching on your civil liberties just don't regret it when the system of controls that are cleverly being foisted on your country make life in your country very interesting to say the least.

[big_tank_boy]

What u keep saying is they are gona ban the harmful fish...... they will probly ban all cichlids, bichirs, lung fish, most catfish, stingrays, and most preditory fish. we will probly be left with some tetras and some barbs....... im not saying thats bad im just sayin that u think there only gona take away not to many fish but in reallity 90% of the fish we keep could start to be able to adapt and chage so they can live in the colder climate....... the thing is if the hr669 is passed there not gona go be like this ones not to bad so we wont ban it....... if theres any way it could affect any part of the US they will ban it............

[cguarino30]

okay, so lets say inexperienced hobbyists wont be able to buy XXX fish anymore because its been restricted. wont they still be able to be just as uncaring and unethical with a legal fish? what are you accomplishing? youre still back at the drawing board.

kinda like with the gun example you used earlier, where a hunter would support a handgun ban. you can ban all handguns if you like, but cant a murder still be committed with a rifle????? same scenario

The difference is that while it is still possible, it would be more likely. There are many kinds of abuse. Many people buy fish that will get too large for them, not realizing it, or buy fish that have specific needs that they can't meet, like food and water quality. In a post-669 market, these fish would be much harder to raise, and thus, much more expensive. The cheaper fish would be easier to care for and raise (and most likely smaller as well) and thus less likely to end up in the inappropriate tank of a well-meaning, but ignorant aquarist. And if someone is going to INTENTIONALLY abuse a fish, I'd rather it be a cheap fish and not a rare fish that we don't need in the hobby for genetic variability in establishing captive breeding programs.

I'm not saying this bill will magically fix any problems, I'm saying it would encourage people, on some level, to have more appropriate practices.

[chefjamesscott]

okay, so lets say inexperienced hobbyists wont be able to buy XXX fish anymore because its been restricted. wont they still be able to be just as uncaring and unethical with a legal fish? what are you accomplishing? youre still back at the drawing board.

kinda like with the gun example you used earlier, where a hunter would support a handgun ban. you can ban all handguns if you like, but cant a murder still be committed with a rifle????? same scenario

brother give me a file a hacksaw and 1 hour and I have a handgun :naughty:

[cguarino30]

What u keep saying is they are gona ban the harmful fish...... they will probly ban all cichlids, bichirs, lung fish, most catfish, stingrays, and most preditory fish. we will probly be left with some tetras and some barbs....... im not saying thats bad im just sayin that u think there only gona take away not to many fish but in reallity 90% of the fish we keep could start to be able to adapt and chage so they can live in the colder climate....... the thing is if the hr669 is passed there not gona go be like this ones not to bad so we wont ban it....... if theres any way it could affect any part of the US they will ban it............

Why would they ban a fish for being predatory? Unless it eats people, it's not a threat to anything except other fish. They're trying to ban fish that would be able to establish themselves in the US environment. Most of the fish you listed wouldn't survive over the winter in most of the country, or at least wouldn't be able to create viable populations.

[jcardona1]

The difference is that while it is still possible, it would be more likely. There are many kinds of abuse. Many people buy fish that will get too large for them, not realizing it, or buy fish that have specific needs that they can't meet, like food and water quality. In a post-669 market, these fish would be much harder to raise, and thus, much more expensive. The cheaper fish would be easier to care for and raise (and most likely smaller as well) and thus less likely to end up in the inappropriate tank of a well-meaning, but ignorant aquarist. And if someone is going to INTENTIONALLY abuse a fish, I'd rather it be a cheap fish and not a rare fish that we don't need in the hobby for genetic variability in establishing captive breeding programs.

I'm not saying this bill will magically fix any problems, I'm saying it would encourage people, on some level, to have more appropriate practices.
:ROFL: so now we get to pick and choose which fish should get abused? reminds me a little of the folks that scream bloody murder when they read about slaughter houses while they eating some KFC!!!

[benzjamin13]

With the ban on "invasive speices"...look at what happened to Snakeheads. C. Argus was the main problem and they ended up banning all Channa and Parachanna species even though most probably wouldn't be able to survive the winter. They're not going to go species by species, they're going to ban the whole family. Some states already have certain bans on fish that are legal in other parts of the states. Could you imagine the impact on those states such as California or Florida? There really wouldn't be any fish, reptile, or bird that would be allowed in those states.

While many lfs may make their main profit off of supplies and accessories, they get their business from carrying live stock. They probably sell more live stock if anything too. Even though they may not make the most profit off their live stock, I'm sure if you compare their sales, it would probably account for at least 15%-20% of their profit. And any business would know, that's a pretty big profit margin to lose. And with our current economy, we can't afford to lose anything that helps generate taxes and jobs.

[cguarino30]

Then my friend you really are blind to the many many many controls that are being foisted on your country under the guise of legislation to protect your country. Goodness me perhaps you need to study a bit more on what these kinds of legislations are really about, for such legislations are not really about anything more than systems of control and this pet bill is by far not the only area of control they are tryin to slip by unnoticed.

Perhaps there is much more I could share with you but it seems that really are a person who chooses to ignore what informed people are telling you. (By taking pot shots back at them for what they say rather than intelligently considering what they put forth.)

Yet that would entail me getting into a political discussion which I think is frowned upon here. Suffice it to say whereas nazism is concerned, you would do well to watch arnie boy and the state of california.

Go ahead and welcome with open arms things that control you basic freedoms all under the guise of protecting you, yes by all means go ahead be a good sheeple and welcome the agents of change in all the various ways that they are encroaching on your civil liberties just don't regret it when the system of controls that are cleverly being foisted on your country make life in your country very interesting to say the least.

I have been objectively considering every point put forth here for hours, and have yet to make a single potshot. I see what you are saying, and I am generally the first person to raise a red flag at something like this. To be honest, I don't think it's the best solution to the problem, I'm just tired of everyone acting like there is no problem, and that this bill is based on nothing. Bottom line, I think we as hobbyists need to take steps to ensure more responsible practices in our hobby. We need to stop supporting stores that sell fish we don't approve of (like dyed or deformed fish) or who sell them without properly ensuring they are going to good homes, or who refuse to give out accurate information about eventual size, and in the event the fish makes it, refuse to take it back when it gets too big, forcing uninformed people to dump them in lakes. I realize that my title overstated this, but I was trying to get people's attention. My point is not that HR 669 is the best thing possible, it's that it's not a blight that based on nothing. It's a flawed idea to address a serious problem, and likening it to the holocaust and saying that there's no reason for it is as much an enabling of the problem as it is a defense of our freedoms.

Also, while I deeply love my hobby, and would do anything to defend my right to keep it, I would never describe it as a "basic freedom"

Yes, we have the right to keep these fish, but we also have the responsibility to keep them correctly, and if you look around, there are plenty of people around who are not doing that, and the rest of us are doing little, if anything, to stop them.

[cguarino30]

With the ban on "invasive speices"...look at what happened to Snakeheads. C. Argus was the main problem and they ended up banning all Channa and Parachanna species even though most probably wouldn't be able to survive the winter. They're not going to go species by species, they're going to ban the whole family. Some states already have certain bans on fish that are legal in other parts of the states. Could you imagine the impact on those states such as California or Florida? There really wouldn't be any fish, reptile, or bird that would be allowed in those states.

While many lfs may make their main profit off of supplies and accessories, they get their business from carrying live stock. They probably sell more live stock if anything too. Even though they may not make the most profit off their live stock, I'm sure if you compare their sales, it would probably account for at least 15%-20% of their profit. And any business would know, that's a pretty big profit margin to lose. And with our current economy, we can't afford to lose anything that helps generate taxes and jobs.

And look at what happened in Florida. Now there's a viable, wild population of Burmese Pythons loose, due to irresponsible keepers.

[jcardona1]

I have been objectively considering every point put forth here for hours, and have yet to make a single potshot. I see what you are saying, and I am generally the first person to raise a red flag at something like this. To be honest, I don't think it's the best solution to the problem, I'm just tired of everyone acting like there is no problem, and that this bill is based on nothing. Bottom line, I think we as hobbyists need to take steps to ensure more responsible practices in our hobby. We need to stop supporting stores that sell fish we don't approve of (like dyed or deformed fish) or who sell them without properly ensuring they are going to good homes, or who refuse to give out accurate information about eventual size, and in the event the fish makes it, refuse to take it back when it gets too big, forcing uninformed people to dump them in lakes. I realize that my title overstated this, but I was trying to get people's attention. My point is not that HR 669 is the best thing possible, it's that it's not a blight that based on nothing. It's a flawed idea to address a serious problem, and likening it to the holocaust and saying that there's no reason for it is as much an enabling of the problem as it is a defense of our freedoms.

Yes, we have the right to keep these fish, but we also have the responsibility to keep them correctly, and if you look around, there are plenty of people around who are not doing that, and the rest of us are doing little, if anything, to stop them.

haaaaaaaaaaa! i was right, i said since the beginning ;)

[cguarino30]

haaaaaaaaaaa! i was right, i said since the beginning ;)

You were not. You implied that I was pretending to believe something I did not really believe because I wanted attention. What I did was overstate my point in the title in order to bring attention to my actual position.

[benzjamin13]

As responsible hobbyist, we try to pass the word around on proper fish keeping. However, you tell someone that they need that $120 75g tank at Petsmart compared to the $50 30g tank for a single Oscar which their sign says, "30g+", they'll think you're crazy. And who will they listen to...a random guy or a store worker? I know we know more than most store workers, but think...how the public would look at it.

[cguarino30]

As responsible hobbyist, we try to pass the word around on proper fish keeping. However, you tell someone that they need that $120 75g tank at Petsmart compared to the $50 30g tank for a single Oscar which their sign says, "30g+", they'll think you're crazy. And who will they listen to...a random guy or a store worker? I know we know more than most store workers, but think...how the public would look at it.

That's exactly my point. If that oscar cost more money, wouldn't somebody be more willing to spend a little more to keep from having to buy a second one? Also, when I said "little, if anything", telling people they should "do this and that" is what I was referring to as "little." We don't stop buying from the store that lies to its customers about the fish's needs, do we? Most of us don't even bother to complain to the manager, or to the corporate headquarters. We just shrug our shoulders and move on to the discount flake aisle. My general point in this thread is that if we were all willing to give up a little bit in one way or the other, we may be able to make this hobby better than it's ever been, and yes, passing a restrictive law may not be the best way to do it, but maybe if we put a little more effort into shaping the hobby into something better, instead of saving our $10 and selfishly turning a blind eye, people wouldn't be trying to impose this legislation on us.

[chefjamesscott]

ah here I can whole heartedly agree with you it should be our mission to encourage responsible fishkeeping.

This is an activity that I am totally committed to and do my very best as a hobbiest to not only give my fish the best care, but also to make sure when I encounter another person who keeps pets to do my best to help them know how to do well by their pet and see if I can learn from them as well.

But legislations such as the one in concern are very very very very bad.

Have you ever seen the plan that the united nations has to establish a nature preserve right down the middle of north america?

There is a very great reason why those in the know are such proponents of opposing such legislation. It is the underlying things the people behind the scenes wish to accomplish with this, all they have to do is get people relaxed enough to accept it as a harmless law and be ignorant to the real agenda. After all it is the little holes that sink the big ships because of the force of water and the erosion it causes.

I will find a vid to show what I mean bbl next post

[big_tank_boy]

Why would they ban a fish for being predatory? Unless it eats people, it's not a threat to anything except other fish. They're trying to ban fish that would be able to establish themselves in the US environment. Most of the fish you listed wouldn't survive over the winter in most of the country, or at least wouldn't be able to create viable populations.

the thing is they are trying to protect the native sp of fish which the fish will eat the thing is if it can live in florida there gona ban it for the whole US........ The part that make me think u didnt read the bill is if they dont eat people then they arnt gona ban it....... that is completely fualty thinking they want to preserve the native sps and if the fish threaten that they will ban them......

[chefjamesscott]

Ok so here is what I am trying to get across. Picture if you can that laws like this are the mineshaft being drilled, take a look at the damage done by one small hole in the sanctity of the mine, said mine representing personal freedoms and choice.

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

the wave of damage that will be done if this type of legislation passes is very much the same as this accident small damage but huge hurt in the end

[jcardona1]

That's exactly my point. If that oscar cost more money, wouldn't somebody be more willing to spend a little more to keep from having to buy a second one? Also, when I said "little, if anything", telling people they should "do this and that" is what I was referring to as "little." We don't stop buying from the store that lies to its customers about the fish's needs, do we? Most of us don't even bother to complain to the manager, or to the corporate headquarters. We just shrug our shoulders and move on to the discount flake aisle. My general point in this thread is that if we were all willing to give up a little bit in one way or the other, we may be able to make this hobby better than it's ever been, and yes, passing a restrictive law may not be the best way to do it, but maybe if we put a little more effort into shaping the hobby into something better, instead of saving our $10 and selfishly turning a blind eye, people wouldn't be trying to impose this legislation on us.
yes, i agree about the responsible pet keeping, but this bill would not do that. all it would do is segregate those who can afford the fish and those who cant. so, instead of having poor idiots buying fish they cant take care of, youll have rich idiots buying fish they cant take care of.

and again, youve solved nothing.

[cguarino30]

ah here I can whole heartedly agree with you it should be our mission to encourage responsible fishkeeping.

This is an activity that I am totally committed to and do my very best as a hobbiest to not only give my fish the best care, but also to make sure when I encounter another person who keeps pets to do my best to help them know how to do well by their pet and see if I can learn from them as well.

But legislations such as the one in concern are very very very very bad.

Have you ever seen the plan that the united nations has to establish a nature preserve right down the middle of north america?

There is a very great reason why those in the know are such proponents of opposing such legislation. It is the underlying things the people behind the scenes wish to accomplish with this, all they have to do is get people relaxed enough to accept it as a harmless law and be ignorant to the real agenda. After all it is the little holes that sink the big ships because of the force of water and the erosion it causes.

I will find a vid to show what I mean bbl next post


All good points. I don't want to be forced into doing the right thing anyway, but I think that if we want to avoid a situation like this, step one is preventing a situation where the government has a reason (by which I mean excuse) to impose them on us. If we put more effort into preventing irresponsible fishkeeping (not supporting irresponsible dealers, giving more options to people with large fish, etc) they wouldn't have a reason to submit a bill like this. I think HR 669 should be a wakeup call to all of us. If we don't want things like this to happen, we need to prevent the issue, not piss and moan when the issue comes up. For years we have been buying cheaper and more mass-produced fish from all over the world, and some of us have been carelessly letting them live in inappropriate conditions, or tossing them in the local creek, and this is what happens. We focus too much, as a hobby, on how much things cost, and not nearly enough on what is best. Pay the extra couple of bucks and buy the right fish. Pay the extra couple of bucks and boycott stores until they give out accurate information about their fish. We need to stop acting like we didn't bring this on ourselves.

[bigspizz]

They should ban dancing....Like in flash dance...I'll start doing the running man again.

[cguarino30]

yes, i agree about the responsible pet keeping, but this bill would not do that. all it would do is segregate those who can afford the fish and those who cant. so, instead of having poor idiots buying fish they cant take care of, youll have rich idiots buying fish they cant take care of.

and again, youve solved nothing.

haha. It's a good, if a little over-simplified, point. There will always be rich idiots, but I think most people who don't care if they keep their fish right would rather buy the cheap ones, though I again admit no problems will be solved, only abated a little.

[cguarino30]

They should ban dancing....Like in flash dance...I'll start doing the running man again.

I could be wrong, but I thought that was Footloose? haha

[bigspizz]

I could be wrong, but I thought that was Footloose? haha






:ROFL::ROFL: +1 I was like 4 had to be one of them. Kevin Bacon who has the coolest last name ever, is all I remember.

[cguarino30]

:ROFL::ROFL: +1 I was like 4 had to be one of them. Kevin Bacon who has the coolest last name ever, is all I remember.

haha, no worries, I was half sure you were gonna come back an call me an idiot for correcting you.

[bigspizz]

haha, no worries, I was half sure you were gonna come back an call me an idiot for correcting you.





Nope, I spammed your thread, you owned me, we are even bro...hahaha



But serious, I hope this does not pass. Not that it will.

[---XR---]

Has anyone here actually read the bill? They're not going to take ALL the fish. Only the ones they deem an environmental or health concern. And even then, they're not going to take any of them, just prohibit the import, transport, or breeding of the "invasive" ones. Piranhas are banned here in NC, and much as I think it's ignorant, and personally love piranhas, we still have a thriving hobby and pet store industry, and I still manage to be a part of it.

Do you people really think that they even COULD take everyone's fish if they wanted to (which I reiterate, nobody wants to do)?

i would like to make the point that there has been no in depth studies on the fish released into the amercian waters. Such as channa, piranha, cichlids, and so on. No one has prooved that the release of these fish into warm water area's where they can thrive has made any detrimental environmental impact.

[cguarino30]

Nope, I spammed your thread, you owned me, we are even bro...hahaha



But serious, I hope this does not pass. Not that it will.

Honestly, I don't think it will either. And I'd greatly prefer us hobbyists making the necessary changes to make this bill unnecessary, but if I had to choose between people continuing the way they are or the government passing this (arguably unenforcable) bill, I still choose the bill. Hopefully people will get the wakeup call and make it so no bill like this ever has reason to be put into play.

[cguarino30]

i would like to make the point that there has been no in depth studies on the fish released into the amercian waters. Such as channa, piranha, cichlids, and so on. No one has prooved that the release of these fish into warm water area's where they can thrive has made any detrimental environmental impact.

That's very true. If this bill passes, we should make an effort to ensure that the department of interior only bans fish that have a legitimate reason to be banned. I have always been vocally against the prohibition of piranhas here in NC. It's ridiculous, and based largely on the general public's ill-founded fears.

[ewurm]

I don't think there's a chance it will pass, but I hope it does. There I said it.

1) importation restrictions would deter people without the necessary time, expertise, seriousness, and money from keeping rare, wild fish that need extra attention

2) the temporary spike in fish prices would encourage more domestic breeding/farming programs, diminishing what I see as a massive influx of east asian farm stock of inferior quality and questionable origins

3) Virtually none of the fish I keep are wild imports, and if I had to I could certainly have gotten them from a domestic breeder, or gotten other fish that I would enjoy just as much

*braces self for hatemail*


That's a pretty selfish outlook, and I think you are missing the point. There would be less aquaculture in the United States because fish that are being bred here may be banned. The last line makes me wonder if this was posted for the attention.

[cguarino30]

That's a pretty selfish outlook, and I think you are missing the point. There would be less aquaculture in the United States because fish that are being bred here may be banned. The last line makes me wonder if this was posted for the attention.

Did you actually read the rest of this thread? I think I've already explained all the points you bring up.

[---XR---]

That's very true. If this bill passes, we should make an effort to ensure that the department of interior only bans fish that have a legitimate reason to be banned. I have always been vocally against the prohibition of piranhas here in NC. It's ridiculous, and based largely on the general public's ill-founded fears.

There will be no way to convince politicians what is detrimental and what is not. There are Thousands of fish species that will be banned. no one will be able to go through them all and study eaches effect in the environment. I believe the channa ban was wrong. Aswell as piranhas in certain states. the fish that provoke fear in amercians are the ones with teeth and have abnormal capabilitys like going from water onto land and back to water. There is no politican who can make an informed opinion on this to say what should and shouldn't be banned, in fact - NO ONE POSSIBLY CAN.

[cguarino30]

There will be no way to convince politicians what is detrimental and what is not. There are Thousands of fish species that will be banned. no one will be able to go through them all and study eaches effect in the environment. I believe the channa ban was wrong. Aswell as piranhas in certain states. the fish that provoke fear in amercians are the ones with teeth and have abnormal capabilitys like going from water onto land and back to water. There is no politican who can make an informed opinion on this to say what should and shouldn't be banned, in fact - NO ONE POSSIBLY CAN.

All the more reason that we, the hobbyists, should take responsibility for these fish, so as to keep the general public from asking the government to do it for us.

[ewurm]

Did you actually read the rest of this thread? I think I've already explained all the points you bring up.


Yes I did, and I didn't really see anything that fixes the problem. The problem is not the number of species that are potentially invasive within the entire country, the problem is a a few dozen species which are potentially invasive in a handful of states, and the majority of those states already ban them. The one thing that no one seems to be focusing on that is the largest problem is education. How many pet stores have materials promoting responsibility regarding the release of pets into the wild? Not many. How many advertisements have you seen from fish and game or other organizations about the release of non-native species? Probably not many again. Education wouldn't fix the problem, but it could definitely help.

If you are a member on this site, and this bill passes, the fact that you would just buy fish that are legal doesn't make any sense. Most of the fish that would likely remain legal would be commonplace specimens and definitely not your rare, exotic or predatory fish.

[smpage]

If you are a member on this site, and this bill passes, the fact that you would just buy fish that are legal doesn't make any sense. Most of the fish that would likely remain legal would be commonplace specimens and definitely not your rare, exotic or predatory fish.

Yay Goldfish!! lol

[Texs]

Well I am a proud gun owner(It's required in Texas lol) and new to fish keeping. I feel that the government should not interfere in things of this matter and I certainly don't think it will pass.

[Ak-Kronic]

cguarino30, You are a WHACK JOB! There i said it!!

why would you even bother to join a fish keeping community then start a thread like this.......you should be ousted from the community, i know i don't want someone like you claiming to be a loyal tropical/rare fish enthusiast. you give the rest of us a bad name, you would like to see the downfall of the hobby i bet........i don't get ppl like you. pack you bags and leave, you disappoint me

[BigJ]

Reading this just pisses me off!!

Hope the bill fail's.

That's all i'll say.

[Neophyte]

One of the things that I think was missed here unless they changed it is that all non-native species are banned with the few exceptions (horses, farm animals, goldfish, etc...) and anything that will be re-allowed will have to go through a white list process.

Now that means anything not native to the continental U.S. is not allowed to be sold, breed, or cross state lines until that specific specimen is researched, approved and put on the white list. This process will take absolutely forever to go through every species and then sub-species. I think our brothers down under have had to go through this process maybe they should chime in.

While I agree that better controls need to be put in place for certain species it should be up to the state government and not the federal to decide. After all what will survive and thrive in Florida will surely die in Alaska and each species should be decided as such.

Our government as it is is over stepping it's bounds in many areas; The primary responsibilities of our government is to provide infrastructure, a monetary system and to protect our land from foreign threats and not much else but people keep giving them more power that they shouldn't have. Most of what happens in the borders of the state is supposed to be decided by the state to keep the federal government from gaining too much power over the citizens.

[Thalan]

Ok maube I'm a little late to this but you keep referencing that if a fish you like is banned then you are willing to pay more for it from a domestic breeder? This is just wrong. The ban specifically mentions that breeding, sale, and interstate movement of any species on the list would be just as illegal as importing them. So guess what, the price wouldn't go up, the fish would go away.
(most likely a complete waste of my 300th post)

[dragonfish]

Lets see if I follow this correctly. The passing of thos bill will have little impact other than to ensure the animals are better cared for due to higher prices.

Step 1: Bill passes making majority of fish, reptiles and small animals illegal until proven otherwise.

Step 2: Program in place to delist each species is a long exhaustive process by an underfunded and short staffed government agency. This requires that said species not be invasive and harmful anywhere in the country. Living in Florida I can tell you that most things can survive here just fine. No provision is given for grandfathering in said species until delisted or found detrimental(if there is I missed it, sorry).

Step 3: While the US is only a part of the animal trade world, it would still represent a substantial income deficit to anyone involved in the export business with resultant trickle down effects. What animals are allowed would become prohibitively more expensive over time as fewer people can afford them.

Step 4: Without being able to buy, breed or even legally own these animals, who will be buying all the hard goods and why? Smaller specialty stores will fold first followed by larger companies as they are unable to operate simply on the small markup of dog and cat food.

Step 5: Companies that make supplies for the pet trade(that is now practically non-existent) will either close up or relocate to other countries, causing even more job loss and economic hardship.

Step 6: Jack booted soldiers bust down doors based on info gleaned from sites such as this to confiscate and destroy illegal contraband and fine or detain you for breaking federal law.

So maybe 6 is a little farfetched, but the rest isn't. So explain how the almost total destruction of the US pet trade doesn't hurt anything. And if it passes, while you're standing there patting yourself on the back, take a moment to reflect on how you will accept the next bill, outlawing non native dogs and cats.

[AU_Arowana-RG]

cguarino30, you REALLY aren't understanding the bill. First of all, consider this aspect:

If the bill were to pass, they would not be making an assessment/study of what would be invasive, but what would non-invasive.

Meaning instead of a list of banned species, we'd have a list of allowed species.

A list that would be significantly smaller than what your allowed to keep now.

Moreover, fish not on the list are automatically banned and cannot be bred, sold, imported, or transferred between state.

So really, any "good" is outweighed by the loss.

[xaznkewlguyx]

dang, i read to page four and i couldn't read anymore :(

Sounded like a huge headache

[Cholly]

cguarino30, you were not accused of Nazi thinking, you were accused of thinking in the manner that allowed the Nazis to take power. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. See if this rings any bells:In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.Pastor Martin Niemöller

Read the bill. In it's entirety, because it is blatantly obvious you have only scanned it and taken what you wanted to understand of it rather than read and attempt to understand what is really there in legal language.

Goldfish are the ONLY non-native fish NOT banned until further study. You may not PURCHASE, SELL, TRADE, GIVE, TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES(if you move), BREED OR ALLOW TO BREED any of the animals not on the approved list. Even if a fish you wish to breed gets onto the "approved" list, they will STILL be unmailable. Some of these species are already extinct in the wild, by the time they can get approved, any breeding stock left that is LEGALLY kept under "grandfathering" provided for under the bill might be too old to actually breed. So either we have to depend on people breaking the law or risk losing species.
This is a bad bill. The brush stroke is way too wide. Banning needs to be state by state, what is invasive in one state may or may not be invasive in another. Snakeheads are a perfect example, 22 species, 2 of which are capable of surviving in most of the US. The invasive species weren't even brought as pets, they were brought as food fish, "poor man's lobster", yet all 22 species were banned by the federal government. Where is the logic in that?!? Keep the federal government out of it, they haven't a clue.
You do not see it as an infringement of a "basic right". I see it as an infringement of rights, period. I am a veteran, I am a second generation fishkeeper and I take this bill personally.

[Ians aro]

cguarino30, just curious as to what type of fish you keep?

[masone]

This thread is gold. You guys are so dramatic. Best case scenario is the bill folds. Middle ground is you get a noxious list and a grey list of stuff you can't import but can legally trade, breed, own blah blah, basically what is in the country is what you have to work with, natives are a free for all. Worst case you end up like us in Australia. No exotic reptiles, amphibians or inverts. Very few exotic birds. Common aquarium species imports only, a big noxious list and a massive grey list.
Funnily enough our pet trade still survives (including LFS) because your average folk are happy to buy common fish cos they aren't expensive to replace when they kill them through lack of knowledge. Rarer stuff can be sourced through aquarium societes and fellow hobbyists as well a better LFS. The blackmarket is there for serious hobbyists who desires the "how and where did you get that?!" and noxious fish and has ample cash to spend. Every now and then the government has a hissy fit and shifts some stuff from the grey list to the noxious list, effectively encouraging the importing of fish they don't want in the country by making them worth more to smugglers. When this happens we all grrrr for a bit then get on with it. No-one here really likes it but that's how it is, the government does what it wants with or without the hobbyists approval.
And FYI, comparing this bill to the Nazis taking over Europe is possibly the most retarded thing I have seen on this forum in a good while.

[Neophyte]

@masone

They are not comparing the bill itself to the Nazis coming to power, but with this and other legislation that is coming up lately our government is heading in a not so friendly direction. People often forget or are ignorant to that unless you fight for freedom you lose it and everyone that doesn't understand that will willingly give up each freedom one at a time thinking it's for the greater good. Then the day comes where all the freedoms you have enjoyed are no longer available and the government has absolute say. Granted the Australian government is a different system than the U.S., you should never be happy with a government that decides everything for you and never leaves you a choice.

Another thing that is forgotten is that the U.S. is run by mostly greedy lawyers and what is to stop them from using a bill of this sort for there own personal agendas and that is not conspiracy theory it happens with every other law that has every been made.

[indiana.dutton]

I agee in spirit with what this bill is trying to do. I do however think that this bill takes things too far. This bill is meant to controll the spread of invasive species and prevent new ones from becoming established. Look at what Burmese pythons are doing to the everglades its not cool. And then there is the problemof snakeheads which are giving the politicians a scare because they are in the potomic. Lets just think of a scenario... convicts have evolved to survive ice covered water and near freezing tempatures. They would be unstopable! We would be the US of C (United states of convict). So if this bill passes and all the stuff people are saying happens... then sailfin mollies and Rio Grande Perch are gonna be mighty populare!

[cguarino30]

This thread is gold. You guys are so dramatic. Best case scenario is the bill folds. Middle ground is you get a noxious list and a grey list of stuff you can't import but can legally trade, breed, own blah blah, basically what is in the country is what you have to work with, natives are a free for all. Worst case you end up like us in Australia. No exotic reptiles, amphibians or inverts. Very few exotic birds. Common aquarium species imports only, a big noxious list and a massive grey list.
Funnily enough our pet trade still survives (including LFS) because your average folk are happy to buy common fish cos they aren't expensive to replace when they kill them through lack of knowledge. Rarer stuff can be sourced through aquarium societes and fellow hobbyists as well a better LFS. The blackmarket is there for serious hobbyists who desires the "how and where did you get that?!" and noxious fish and has ample cash to spend. Every now and then the government has a hissy fit and shifts some stuff from the grey list to the noxious list, effectively encouraging the importing of fish they don't want in the country by making them worth more to smugglers. When this happens we all grrrr for a bit then get on with it. No-one here really likes it but that's how it is, the government does what it wants with or without the hobbyists approval.
And FYI, comparing this bill to the Nazis taking over Europe is possibly the most retarded thing I have seen on this forum in a good while.

Oh my God, thank you so much. I was really getting exhausted with all these ****ing people. The fact that there is one other person out there with a stable view of the situation is really refreshing, even if I did have to go to the other side of the world to find them. Thank you. Leave it to an Aussie to save my faith in humanity. haha.

cguarino30, You are a WHACK JOB! There i said it!!

why would you even bother to join a fish keeping community then start a thread like this.......you should be ousted from the community, i know i don't want someone like you claiming to be a loyal tropical/rare fish enthusiast. you give the rest of us a bad name, you would like to see the downfall of the hobby i bet........i don't get ppl like you. pack you bags and leave, you disappoint me

That's right, you caught me. I'm really a supervillain bent on destroying the aquarium hobby. Muahahahahaha. And I would have gotten away with it, too, if it weren't for you meddling drama-queens.

Yes I did, and I didn't really see anything that fixes the problem. The problem is not the number of species that are potentially invasive within the entire country, the problem is a a few dozen species which are potentially invasive in a handful of states, and the majority of those states already ban them. The one thing that no one seems to be focusing on that is the largest problem is education. How many pet stores have materials promoting responsibility regarding the release of pets into the wild? Not many. How many advertisements have you seen from fish and game or other organizations about the release of non-native species? Probably not many again. Education wouldn't fix the problem, but it could definitely help.

If you are a member on this site, and this bill passes, the fact that you would just buy fish that are legal doesn't make any sense. Most of the fish that would likely remain legal would be commonplace specimens and definitely not your rare, exotic or predatory fish.

I like how you responded to my insinuation that you did not read the rest of the thread by bringing up another point that was WELL explored, earlier in the thread. I reiterate my point. Go back and read the thread.

[cguarino30]

I agee in spirit with what this bill is trying to do. I do however think that this bill takes things too far. This bill is meant to controll the spread of invasive species and prevent new ones from becoming established. Look at what Burmese pythons are doing to the everglades its not cool. And then there is the problemof snakeheads which are giving the politicians a scare because they are in the potomic. Lets just think of a scenario... convicts have evolved to survive ice covered water and near freezing tempatures. They would be unstopable! We would be the US of C (United states of convict). So if this bill passes and all the stuff people are saying happens... then sailfin mollies and Rio Grande Perch are gonna be mighty populare!

all excellent points. I ask all of you people who are so very mad at me right now, would your life really be so miserable if you were forced to keep panfish instead of cichlids? Darters instead of loaches? Killies instead of tetras? I personally don't keep any native fishes, but I'd be perfectly fine if I had to, and I doubt anyone here would really be all that harshly impacted if they had to either. Change and Apocalypse are not the same thing.

[benzjamin13]

So if we all miraculously agreed with you would you be satisfied? Would you feel accomplished? Would your life really be that much more better knowing that everyone on this forum converted to your way of thinking?:screwy:

[cguarino30]

So if we all miraculously agreed with you would you be satisfied? Would you feel accomplished? Would your life really be that much more better knowing that everyone on this forum converted to your way of thinking?:screwy:

Why do you assume I was trying to convince any of you? I couldn't care less what you people believe. From the responses I've been getting, I consider most of you to be (at the very least) so dramatically inclined that I couldn't convince you the sky wasn't falling. I posted this thread because I was tired of keeping my opinion to myself for fear of having it get shouted down by you nutcases, because I thought there was a great deal of logic behind the bill, albeit flawed, and nobody was aknowledging that, and in the hopes that there might be anyone else in the hobby that felt the way I did. Those things being accomplished, I'd say I'm already satisfied, but thanks for asking.

[benzjamin13]

I have a life outside this hobby like most. You have to understand that the reason you think it's so dramatic is because it's dedicated to fish. You go to a reptile or bird or another fish forum, you'd get the same response. If you go to any hobby forum and if the government were to restrict their hobby, they be up in arms too. I just don't appreciate your tone by calling us ****ing people or nutcases! It just makes you look like a...I'm a Mod so I'll just end my sentence there.

[tcarswell]

First of all, calm down. Second, it would only ban breeding of fishes that were deemed by the secretary of the interior to be a potential hazard. That doesn't include any fish I'm particularly worried about.
Wow you must be blind. If they pass the law that takes away the fish you dont care about suddenly you don't care. Meanwhile the next bill does affect the fish you care about its called incremental removal of things. Just like gun control.

[tcarswell]

This is ridiculous no more troll food im out

[big E]

I have a life outside this hobby like most. You have to understand that the reason you think it's so dramatic is because it's dedicated to fish. You go to a reptile or bird or another fish forum, you'd get the same response. If you go to any hobby forum and if the government were to restrict their hobby, they be up in arms too. I just don't appreciate your tone by calling us ****ing people or nutcases! It just makes you look like a...I'm a Mod so I'll just end my sentence there.

:owned:

[cguarino30]

I have a life outside this hobby like most. You have to understand that the reason you think it's so dramatic is because it's dedicated to fish. You go to a reptile or bird or another fish forum, you'd get the same response. If you go to any hobby forum and if the government were to restrict their hobby, they be up in arms too. I just don't appreciate your tone by calling us ****ing people or nutcases! It just makes you look like a...I'm a Mod so I'll just end my sentence there.

Are you really complaining about MY tone? Go back and read some of the things people have been saying about me. Nothing I said was directed at you personally, but look at the group as a whole. They earned the phrases I used. Dedication to fish doesn't excuse the associations people are making here. There is no circumstance under which it's appropriate to liken my opinion to those that appeased Hitler. As a German Catholic, whose family was killed and fled from Europe as a result of the cultural backlash, I take a serious offense to that. People have been throwing terms, accusations, and intentions around here that have long since passed a level that I would call rational. If people don't want to be called nutcases, I would highly recommend they spend a little more time choosing their words and a little less time trying to one-up each other in intensity.

[cguarino30]

:owned:

excellent contribution, thanks for your input. I think everyone here is a little wiser now that you have graced us with your reasoning,

[cguarino30]

Wow you must be blind. If they pass the law that takes away the fish you dont care about suddenly you don't care. Meanwhile the next bill does affect the fish you care about its called incremental removal of things. Just like gun control.

You can't be against a law just because you disagree with a much more strict law. If you don't like the next law, you can be against that one. If they try to impose a law making it illegal to own pets, I will be the first to sign whatever petition you give me. You have to view the law as itself, not shout it down because something more would be worse. It's illegal to hit people, but soon they could make a law that makes it illegal to hurt their feelings, and that would be wrong. I'm still not going to try to repeal the laws on battery, just because something further would be wrong. That's why we have specific laws.

[big E]

I'm just saying that it's a hobby for everyone to enjoy. Seems that you could care less about other people's enjoyment as long as you have yours...good for you:thumbsup: That's fine that you agree with HR669, that's your opinion, but it seems that you're the one getting bent out of shape over the situation while everyone is expressing their opinions. You stated that it's just your opinion and you don't care, yet you seems to be upset with people's opposing opinions.

[cguarino30]

I'm just saying that it's a hobby for everyone to enjoy. Seems that you could care less about other people's enjoyment as long as you have yours...good for you:thumbsup: That's fine that you agree with HR669, that's your opinion, but it seems that you're the one getting bent out of shape over the situation while everyone is expressing their opinions. You stated that it's just your opinion and you don't care, yet you seems to be upset with people's opposing opinions.

You and your emoticon weren't saying anything. You sat in the back, waited for someone else to make your point for you, then chimed in at the last second so you could feel solidarity. And you clearly have not read the rest of this page, as all of the points you just made were discussed in the first two pages, and I am by far one of the most rational people on this entire thread. You can't just say "no you're the one whose upset, and everyone else is rational" and act like it's true.

[smpage]

3) Virtually none of the fish I keep are wild imports, and if I had to I could certainly have gotten them from a domestic breeder, or gotten other fish that I would enjoy just as much

What do you keep? The bill isn't banning importation and exportation, it's banning the non-native species. That means there won't be domestic breeders. Sure there would be a "fish black market" but MFK doesn't support illegal activities and does not condone it's members participating in such.

[cguarino30]

What do you keep? The bill isn't banning importation and exportation, it's banning the non-native species. That means there won't be domestic breeders. Sure there would be a "fish black market" but MFK doesn't support illegal activities and does not condone it's members participating in such.

Well then maybe MFK isn't as dedicated as it claims. (Oh my God, I'm kidding, I'm just poking fun, please don't take that seriously and start trying to prove me wrong)

In all seriousness, I think we already discussed this point earlier in the thread at sufficient length.

[smpage]

Well then maybe MFK isn't as dedicated as it claims. (Oh my God, I'm kidding, I'm just poking fun, please don't take that seriously and start trying to prove me wrong)

In all seriousness, I think we already discussed this point earlier in the thread at sufficient length.

Yeah, it was first discussed in post #5 and throughout all of the pages you've never mentioned what fish you keep. I did notice that you said you'd be happy with what fish were available and that's awesome. I just think everyone is dying to know what fish you have.

[MN_Rebel]

I do not support this bill as it pose serious threat to Goodeid keeping hobby. Most goodeid species are endangered in the wild and some goodeid species are extinct in the wild but has capitive populations of goodeids, thanks to the serious aquarists. I have few goodeid species and if the bill passes, some goodeids will be extinct in few years as we are not allowed breed these unique Mexican goodeids. Thats why most of us do not want see this bill passes.

[cguarino30]

Yeah, it was first discussed in post #5 and throughout all of the pages you've never mentioned what fish you keep. I did notice that you said you'd be happy with what fish were available and that's awesome. I just think everyone is dying to know what fish you have.

I apologize, I thought you were referring to the other part of your post. Right now, I'm a little low on species, as I'm preparing to move, but I am currently keeping swordtails, mollies, corydoras similis, red-breasted acaras, bristlenose plecos, and danios (pantheri) none of which could be construed as an invasive species, even if I had to "stop" breeding them for a year or two until they got put on the "approved" list. I suspect that fish like the plecos, swordtails, mollies, cories, and danios would be approved rather quickly, judging by the popularity of their genuses and the government's track record of blanket-rating species based on genus. Even if that were not the case, I am dedicated enough to this hobby (despite the accusations of my peers) that I wouldn't stop keeping fish even if every species I have were outlawed. If I had to start keeping sticklebacks, darters, panfish, and killies, I'd be just as happy with my hobby as I am now.

I keep fish to keep fish. What species I choose are incidental to the hobby itself.

[Neophyte]

I don't see how the majority of people responding are being overly dramatic or even dramatic at all. If anything you have been set to completely disagree with anyone that doesn't take your viewpoint. Many responses that are good counter points to your argument you skip over and only the weaker posts do you choose to pick apart.

Your problem with seeing "great deal of logic behind the bill" is that as I have pointed out in my previous post is that we are governed by lawyers that are out to do what is best for them. The best example of such interests is the tilapia farmer that they brought on during the hearing where he didn't care about anything that doesn't impact his business, pretty one-sided as long as he can still making a living he doesn't care what the bill does.

Another thing is that this bill effectively punishes everyone when most of these invasive species that are the primary reasons for the bill were brought in through non-hobby related commercial negligence i.e. zebra mussel (came attached to cargo ships), snakehead (brought in as a food fish) and countless other instances of fish, plants, etc... hitch-hiking in the ballast tanks of ships.

The other problem with this bill is that it is being introduced as law for our entire country from an island that barely appears on a map on the other side of the globe, that most people didn't even know was part of the U.S. till this bill was introduced.

You would do well to brush up on American politics and history to see how something as simple as banning a non-native invasive species can quickly turn to something that you would care alot about. Politcal agendas are never carried out with a single bill they are always multi-tiered and with each new layer being as seemingly harmless and to have the countries safety at heart only to find out that a lawyers interpretation of multiple laws in conjunction can have a complete opposite effect.

And to be clear even if this were about anything other than pets I would feel the same. I am opposed to the out right banning of anything in our country our country is based on freedoms, freedom is not decided by the government freedom is decided by the people!

Just the laws that have been passed since the terrorists running planes into the trade towers are robbing us of many of our freedoms and rights. But as soon as people hear that it will "make us safer against future attacks" they have no problem relinquishing their freedoms and then the next law comes, then the next. I mean really ask someone who is in the 60s-70s and ask them which country they preffer the one we currently live in or the one from 50 years ago.

[cguarino30]

I do not support this bill as it pose serious threat to Goodeid keeping hobby. Most goodeid species are endangered in the wild and some goodeid species are extinct in the wild but has capitive populations of goodeids, thanks to the serious aquarists. I have few goodeid species and if the bill passes, some goodeids will be extinct in few years as we are not allowed breed these unique Mexican goodeids. Thats why most of us do not want see this bill passes.

I can totally support your position, but don't you think the government would be willing to issue some sort of permit to those of us who are trying to propogate endangered species? I find it hard to believe that even if the bill passes, the government will force us to simply stop keeping our goodeids.

[Allan01230]

cguarino30 every one has a right to his opinion and beleive the way he wants. You agree with HR 669 fine. This is a forum for tropical fish mainly monster fish. Why would you waste so much time answering all these members if you really could care less if you had tropicals or native as you stated? I would say 95% of the members on here are oppossed to this bill. If we were on a PETA forum it would be the other way around. Right?

[MN_Rebel]

The problem is that most government isnt excatly "fish" smart and they sure dont want give endangered goodeid species to us aquarists.

[cguarino30]

I don't see how the majority of people responding are being overly dramatic or even dramatic at all. If anything you have been set to completely disagree with anyone that doesn't take your viewpoint. Many responses that are good counter points to your argument you skip over and only the weaker posts do you choose to pick apart.

Disagreeing with everyone that doesn't agree with me is a little hard to avoid. I've already listed everything I consider to be overly dramatic, but I will do it again here:

I am like people who allowed the Nazis to come to power
I want to see the hobby destroyed
This bill will cause the Pet Industry to collapse
This bill is a violation of basic human rights
etc

If I skip points, I apologize, it is not intentional, it is due to the fact that I am having trouble keeping up with a very large number of people that disagree with me, and a very few that support me.


Your problem with seeing "great deal of logic behind the bill" is that as I have pointed out in my previous post is that we are governed by lawyers that are out to do what is best for them. The best example of such interests is the tilapia farmer that they brought on during the hearing where he didn't care about anything that doesn't impact his business, pretty one-sided as long as he can still making a living he doesn't care what the bill does.

That sounds a lot like everyone here, to be honest. I already stated at length that I think the true cause of this problem is hobbyists who don't do enough to fix the situation that is causing the general public to ask the government to regulate these things for us. If we stopped trying to save every last dollar we could, and instead made a little more effort to do the right thing, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

Another thing is that this bill effectively punishes everyone when most of these invasive species that are the primary reasons for the bill were brought in through non-hobby related commercial negligence i.e. zebra mussel (came attached to cargo ships), snakehead (brought in as a food fish) and countless other instances of fish, plants, etc... hitch-hiking in the ballast tanks of ships.

This is perfectly true, and I don't disagree in any way, but I would like to reiterate my last point, that if the hobbyists made more of an effort to prevent these situations, get information out there, properly inform hobbyists, and most importantly, to pressure the big pet businesses into doing the same.

The other problem with this bill is that it is being introduced as law for our entire country from an island that barely appears on a map on the other side of the globe, that most people didn't even know was part of the U.S. till this bill was introduced.

I agree wholeheartedly, I personally believe that this kind of regulation is best done on a state-by-state basis, but still prefer national regulation to no regulation at all, since few states have the resources to properly enforce importation laws.

You would do well to brush up on American politics and history to see how something as simple as banning a non-native invasive species can quickly turn to something that you would care alot about. Politcal agendas are never carried out with a single bill they are always multi-tiered and with each new layer being as seemingly harmless and to have the countries safety at heart only to find out that a lawyers interpretation of multiple laws in conjunction can have a complete opposite effect.

Again I am seeing phrases like "can turn." If we don't support the laws further down the line, we will be able to oppose them. I don't see why people think they need to oppose the first law, just because they think the ninth would be unfair. Draw the line where you want to draw the line, but you can't argue against any one law just because you don't approve the one that "can turn" into another one, 5 laws down the line.

And to be clear even if this were about anything other than pets I would feel the same. I am opposed to the out right banning of anything in our country our country is based on freedoms, freedom is not decided by the government freedom is decided by the people!

In that case, I would argue that if the people do not approve this bill, then it will not pass, so people who are of your position should be confident that whatever happens, it is the result of the people's will.

Just the laws that have been passed since the terrorists running planes into the trade towers are robbing us of many of our freedoms and rights. But as soon as people hear that it will "make us safer against future attacks" they have no problem relinquishing their freedoms and then the next law comes, then the next. I mean really ask someone who is in the 60s-70s and ask them which country they preffer the one we currently live in or the one from 50 years ago.
I agree, but again, I feel that all of this is irrelevant to the argument at hand (I understand why you don't and am not telling you to change your mind, I am only asking you to see why I might believe that laws should be looked at individually, not generalized with all the other laws we disagree with)

[cguarino30]

The problem is that most government isnt excatly "fish" smart and they sure dont want give endangered goodeid species to us aquarists.

If they're not fish smart, they shouldn't be too hard to trick. "No officer, that's not a xenotaca eiseni, that's an orange-tailed molly" (not that I think they could possibly enforce this law, anyway) I realize some of us don't want to do this, but I am more than willing to bend the law to save a species, and since this thread is about why I am not concerned about HR 669, I think it's a valid point.

[cguarino30]

cguarino30 every one has a right to his opinion and beleive the way he wants. You agree with HR 669 fine. This is a forum for tropical fish mainly monster fish. Why would you waste so much time answering all these members if you really could care less if you had tropicals or native as you stated? I would say 95% of the members on here are oppossed to this bill. If we were on a PETA forum it would be the other way around. Right?

I answered these questions earlier, but I will answer it again for the sake of not ignoring this post

1) I don't like holding my tongue, and I have been doing so for quite some time due to threat of massive backlash

2) Very few peopel were considering the good points of the bill, and I thought we owed it to ourselves to take a good reflective look regarding these. I feel that too often, people decide that they don't like something, and then resolve themselves to ignoring any of the good points it might have

3) and most importantly, I was tired of feeling like the only rational person in the debate, and wanted to see if there was at least one other person I could relate to

Also, I recently lost my job and am really bored now, so I turned to one of my favorite pasttimes: arguing with everyone in sight about something that only I think is true. I think it would be hard to say what PETA's position on this bill is, and I don't really want to speculate.

[AU_Arowana-RG]

Right, like constantly reiterating your point makes you more rational than everyone else...

[cguarino30]

Right, like constantly reiterating your point makes you more rational than everyone else...

First of all, I only reiterate my point because new people show up and make the same claims again, and if I don't, I'm accused of ignoring good points, and to be honest, constantly reiterating my point DOES kinda make me more rational. I have the patience and rationality to see the logic necessary to defend my position, repeatedly, and against massive opposition. I don't give in to frustration and resort to yelling at everyone else on this site, insinuating that people like them caused the holocaust, or questioning their dedication to the hobby. I patiently and calmly make my point again. What is your defintion or rational?

This thread is about why I don't feel HR 669 is as bad as everyone else seems to. It is not about what anyone else should believe or should not believe. If someone makes an argument to me that I disagree with, I will rationally state why I disagree, regardless of how many times someone else tells me why they think I'm wrong. Not acquiescing to the opinions of others (no matter how loud or how many) doesn't make me irrational. It makes me stubborn.

[packer43064]

I will not keep darters and the like of what you said. I will not be satisfied by these fish. I think 95% of the MFK'ers here and other fish keepers will not be satisfied by these fish.

This is MFK, MONSTER fish keepers, we want big exotic fish. Why does our government have to stick us with mollies, guppies and goldfish. Some people like these fish, perfectly fine with me if they do. But what about the other 5 million people who get screwed. Is it fair for them?

Like any other fish keeper I don't want people to be throwing their fish out in the wild and etc. but just because snakeheads and some species can mess with our native fish doesn't mean we need to end all fish keeping.

Also for the person who said we were being dramatic and that they were from Australia. Saying that we would get used to it like Australia did. Do you know what country this is. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we will not stand for this. Americans have bled and put everything into this country. We value our beliefs and our families, for all of the things our forefathers have done for this country do you really think we will stand for this monstrocity of a bill. Ask any American about this bill(that actually has read or knows what it entails) and 98% of them would do anything to stop this bill. America will not stand for this to happen. We have last time I checked 50k members or so and literally 9.999/10 would do anything to stop this bill. Heck I would march on Washington D.C. with signs and everything.

I just don't see how you can think that this bill is good for the U.S. Sure it will stop some invasive species, but now almsot every MFK is partaking in an illegal act. I want a Silver aro(I really do) and no law is going to stop me. It's a dang silver aro for gosh sakes. Like I said , this is America were not push-overs. Just because some politician is scared of a snakehead(LOL) doesn't mean they should ban all fish besides some mollies and goldfish.

There I feel good now. Just let it out people, you will feel good after. :) :) :) :)

[Cholly]

cguarino30, you were not accused of Nazi thinking, you were accused of thinking in the manner that allowed the Nazis to take power. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. See if this rings any bells:In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.Pastor Martin Niemöller

This is a poorly crafted bill. It was aimed well, the special interests behind it found a perfect sponsor, a Delegate from a US possession that had been devastated by an invasive species, the brown tree snake. The thing is, this is aimed at the pet industry but many of the examples they use, zebra mussels, brown tree snakes(both tagalongs) and the fearsome northern snakehead(imported as a food fish) were NOT imported by the pet industry, yet it and the hobbyists it serves are the ones who will bear the brunt of it, financially and emotionally.

Read the bill. In it's entirety, because it is blatantly obvious you have only scanned it and taken what you wanted to understand of it rather than read and attempt to understand what is really there in legal language.

Goldfish are the ONLY non-native fish NOT banned until further study. You may not PURCHASE, SELL, TRADE, GIVE, TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES(if you move), BREED OR ALLOW TO BREED any of the animals not on the approved list. Even if a fish you wish to breed gets onto the "approved" list, they will STILL be unmailable. Some of these species are already extinct in the wild, by the time they can get approved, any breeding stock left that is LEGALLY kept under "grandfathering" provided for under the bill might be too old to actually breed. So either we have to depend on people breaking the law or risk losing species.
This is a bad bill. The brush stroke is way too wide. Banning needs to be state by state, what is invasive in one state may or may not be invasive in another. Snakeheads are a perfect example, 22 species, 2 of which are capable of surviving in most of the US. The invasive species weren't even brought as pets, they were brought as food fish, "poor man's lobster", yet all 22 species were banned by the federal government. Where is the logic in that?!? Keep the federal government out of it, they haven't a clue.
You do not see it as an infringement of a "basic right". I see it as an infringement of rights, period. I am a veteran, I am a second generation fishkeeper and I take this bill personally.


Totally ignored this post because it isn't one of the weaker posts. Actual facts are used. No swearing or name calling. Yes, the bolded part could be construed as a personal attack. It is not. It is a challenge. Read the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill. You make assumptions about the bill. I have read and studied the entire thing and it scares the whey out of me.
I agree that something needs to be done but HR669 is overly simplistic. Anything overly simplistic at the federal level has disaster written all over it. You say you have no problems "bending the law" to save protected species. My point is, that if this poorly crafted hunk of garbage does pass, we will have to depend on lawbreaking to save species. Absolutely, utterly, and totally unacceptable. We can guarantee that we will lose species because it will have to be done on an individual basis, no one individual has the resources to save all the species and coordination of efforts would be near to, if not actually, impossible to carry out due to the illegality of the effort. Wake up! Ever hear of something called the RICO Act*? It could actually be used against such an effort. After Ashcroft, do you really doubt that it would not be?

*Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

[Thalan]

Step 6: Jack booted soldiers bust down doors based on info gleaned from sites such as this to confiscate and destroy illegal contraband and fine or detain you for breaking federal law.

Not quite. I'm pretty sure the bill mentions that individuals can keep what they already have, they just cant buy sell move blah blah blah

[Pharaoh]

I will throw a thought out there. Let me preface this statement by including the fact that I am a buyer and a contractual price negotiator for a large firm and I have also been studying business theory and practice exculsively for nearly a decade. I am no stranger as to how a business runs and how things operate from a financial and profitability perspective.

You seem to think that the pet industry will not suffer from this. Many mom and pop shops make their profit by selling species that the big name pet shops do not sell. They also make money on selling the products related to those species. (Lizards, birds, fish, etc.) Once this ban goes into effect. there will only be a certain number of species available, which both the mom and pop shops and the big name fish store will carry. Once the "stock" has benn made the same, the big names will be able to sell the same species for a lot less because of long-term contracts and pricing agreements. Smaller local shops will not be able to do this because their turnover is too low. They will also not sell the food because they could not afford to stock the fish. Yes, people might buy food to feed their fish, but a lot of money is made from a fish & food purchase at the same time. This will inherently cause them to lose profits and eventually go out of business. This will in fact demolish all small privately owned fish stores. Yes, you will still be able to buy approved fish from Petsmart or Petco. But all of the small shops will not be able to compete with these large businesses.

A comparable argument for this would be the elimination of all of the small family owned hardware store and grocery stores that are being put out of business by larger, organized and highly liquid firms such as Wal-mart and Home Depot. This would just add another monopoly argument to yet another market. It would allow the big name companies to eliminate the small competition with hardly any effort. If you are OK with that, then that is your preference. But please do not state that this will not drastically affect the LFS industry, because that is simply not true. Regardless of what owners tell you, it will have a serious impact and that cannot be argued.

[Cholly]

Not quite. I'm pretty sure the bill mentions that individuals can keep what they already have, they just cant buy sell move blah blah blahYup. Jackbooted thugs will be reserved for guppy breeding 8 year olds.

[MN_Rebel]

I will not keep darters and the like of what you said. I will not be satisfied by these fish. I think 95% of the MFK'ers here and other fish keepers will not be satisfied by these fish.

This is MFK, MONSTER fish keepers, we want big exotic fish. Why does our government have to stick us with mollies, guppies and goldfish. Some people like these fish, perfectly fine with me if they do. But what about the other 5 million people who get screwed. Is it fair for them?

Like any other fish keeper I don't want people to be throwing their fish out in the wild and etc. but just because snakeheads and some species can mess with our native fish doesn't mean we need to end all fish keeping.

Also for the person who said we were being dramatic and that they were from Australia. Saying that we would get used to it like Australia did. Do you know what country this is. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we will not stand for this. Americans have bled and put everything into this country. We value our beliefs and our families, for all of the things our forefathers have done for this country do you really think we will stand for this monstrocity of a bill. Ask any American about this bill(that actually has read or knows what it entails) and 98% of them would do anything to stop this bill. America will not stand for this to happen. We have last time I checked 50k members or so and literally 9.999/10 would do anything to stop this bill. Heck I would march on Washington D.C. with signs and everything.

I just don't see how you can think that this bill is good for the U.S. Sure it will stop some invasive species, but now almsot every MFK is partaking in an illegal act. I want a Silver aro(I really do) and no law is going to stop me. It's a dang silver aro for gosh sakes. Like I said , this is America were not push-overs. Just because some politician is scared of a snakehead(LOL) doesn't mean they should ban all fish besides some mollies and goldfish.

There I feel good now. Just let it out people, you will feel good after. :) :) :) :)
I think more than 10% do keeping darters and other natives but again there are already laws for keeping natives in aquarium.

But I agree with you. There are very few non native fishes can survived Minnesota winters and they are not from aquarium releases.

There are too many flaws in this bill anyways.

[MN_Rebel]

Not quite. I'm pretty sure the bill mentions that individuals can keep what they already have, they just cant buy sell move blah blah blah
Breeding them would be illegal too. Stop guppies, other livebearers and convicts from breeding would be impossible.

[Cholly]

I think more than 10% do keeping darters and other natives but again there are already laws for keeping natives in aquarium.

But I agree with you. There are very few non native fishes can survived Minnesota winters and they are not from aquarium releases.

There are too many flaws in this bill anyways.In Washington, it is illegal to keep native species. We'd be stuck with goldfish. I'm a tropical keeper. Been doing it for forty years and I'd like to do it another forty.

[MN_Rebel]

In Washington, it is illegal to keep native species. We'd be stuck with goldfish. I'm a tropical keeper. Been doing it for forty years and I'd like to do it another forty.
Excatly, we cannot depends on the natives if we want different fish beside goldfish. Native fish keeping hobby doesnt help us very much. because of different state laws.

[MN_Rebel]

I really dont understand why he want to support this bill as none of of his fish are goldfish??

[cguarino30]

Totally ignored this post because it isn't one of the weaker posts. Actual facts are used. No swearing or name calling. Yes, the bolded part could be construed as a personal attack. It is not. It is a challenge. Read the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill. You make assumptions about the bill. I have read and studied the entire thing and it scares the whey out of me.
I agree that something needs to be done but HR669 is overly simplistic. Anything overly simplistic at the federal level has disaster written all over it. You say you have no problems "bending the law" to save protected species. My point is, that if this poorly crafted hunk of garbage does pass, we will have to depend on lawbreaking to save species. Absolutely, utterly, and totally unacceptable. We can guarantee that we will lose species because it will have to be done on an individual basis, no one individual has the resources to save all the species and coordination of efforts would be near to, if not actually, impossible to carry out due to the illegality of the effort. Wake up! Ever hear of something called the RICO Act*? It could actually be used against such an effort. After Ashcroft, do you really doubt that it would not be?

*Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

I ignored that post because I considered it to be ignorant, dismissive, melodramatic, and most importantly, GROSSLY offensive to both myself, and everyone that was affected by the Holocaust. It insinuates that regulation of the fish trade is tantamount to mass extermination of political enemies (the communists), and frankly, as someone whose family was greatly affected by genocide and racism in Europe in the early 20th century, I found the association to be too repugnant to dignify with an answer.

[cguarino30]

I will throw a thought out there. Let me preface this statement by including the fact that I am a buyer and a contractual price negotiator for a large firm and I have also been studying business theory and practice exculsively for nearly a decade. I am no stranger as to how a business runs and how things operate from a financial and profitability perspective.

You seem to think that the pet industry will not suffer from this. Many mom and pop shops make their profit by selling species that the big name pet shops do not sell. They also make money on selling the products related to those species. (Lizards, birds, fish, etc.) Once this ban goes into effect. there will only be a certain number of species available, which both the mom and pop shops and the big name fish store will carry. Once the "stock" has benn made the same, the big names will be able to sell the same species for a lot less because of long-term contracts and pricing agreements. Smaller local shops will not be able to do this because their turnover is too low. They will also not sell the food because they could not afford to stock the fish. Yes, people might buy food to feed their fish, but a lot of money is made from a fish & food purchase at the same time. This will inherently cause them to lose profits and eventually go out of business. This will in fact demolish all small privately owned fish stores. Yes, you will still be able to buy approved fish from Petsmart or Petco. But all of the small shops will not be able to compete with these large businesses.

A comparable argument for this would be the elimination of all of the small family owned hardware store and grocery stores that are being put out of business by larger, organized and highly liquid firms such as Wal-mart and Home Depot. This would just add another monopoly argument to yet another market. It would allow the big name companies to eliminate the small competition with hardly any effort. If you are OK with that, then that is your preference. But please do not state that this will not drastically affect the LFS industry, because that is simply not true. Regardless of what owners tell you, it will have a serious impact and that cannot be argued.

You make good points, but I feel that I've already explained why I do not believe that your predicitions will come true. To quickly reference them for those of you who do not wish to go back to the page:

Eliminating transportation against state lines would effectively defeat the big pet stores from stocking and thus selling live fish, giving the local LFSs a leg up at obtaining locally bred stock

I personally, and many other people that I know, go to the LFSs for more than diversity, we also go for higher quality fish and to support local business, these issues will not change

The raising of costs for the supply of the fish will make it difficult for stores like Petco and Petsmart from stocking at all, since they generally have to keep their prices low enough just to break even, and once the prices go beyond what would be good enough for an impulse buy, most of the usual shoppers at petco and petsmart will stop buying or go elsewhere.

[smpage]

This thread's really helped your post count lol.

[cguarino30]

I really dont understand why he want to support this bill as none of of his fish are goldfish??

1) I've already admitted to overstating my point in the title of this thread, and do not actually want the bill to pass, I was just making some points about what would be positive about tighter restrictions on importation and transport of non-native species

2) I don't believe that a post-hr669 world would actually have no domestic fish besides goldfish, and am extremely confident that the governement would either readily make legal most non-invasive tropicals, or at least would not effectively enforce the laws on the individual home level (much like they currently do with marijuana)

[cguarino30]

Yup. Jackbooted thugs will be reserved for guppy breeding 8 year olds.

If you think the government cares enough about our fush to waste the time and money sending ANYONE to our houses, let alone elite thugs, you're kidding yourself. Your fish are not that important to anyone. They don't even do that for drugs, and drugs have been outlawed for decades. Maybe if someone is breeding a million dollars worth of outlawed snakeheads in their basement, they might bother, but me and my 90 gallon community tank are most likely safe.

[cguarino30]

I think more than 10% do keeping darters and other natives but again there are already laws for keeping natives in aquarium.

But I agree with you. There are very few non native fishes can survived Minnesota winters and they are not from aquarium releases.

There are too many flaws in this bill anyways.

I Agree, the bill is very flawed, I'm more for the increased restriction of importation and inter-state transport, as opposed to the restrictions on actual keeping and breeding in the home.

[cguarino30]

This thread's really helped your post count lol.
haha, I was just thinking the same thing. I went from green terror to Red-bellied Piranha in 2 days. haha.

[dragonfish]

I would appreciate a little clarity on a few of your points.

1. That it would not effect the petstores, that they could survive on a few native species that everyone can go catch. Where does this knowledge come from? Do you have an actual source or are you guessing.

2. You mentioned you keep swords, mollies, cories, etc. Not making fun of what you keep but this is called MonsterFish keepers, not small livebearer keepers. Why are you here if you don't have and apparently don't care or have any intention of owning anything else.

3. The fact that you would come on here and start this screams troll, not that I'm judging.

4. You stated that you kept quiet as long as possible but had to get your viewpoint out. You joined last month, not much for patience are you?

For the people who quoted one, and only one, part of my earlier post. You obviously didn't read the last line where I mentioned that maybe that part was a extreme. But saying it can't happen, look at the Save Rocky thread. First the government banned a species and now wants to destroy a longterm pet. Now tell me again how it will never happen.

[cguarino30]

I will not keep darters and the like of what you said. I will not be satisfied by these fish. I think 95% of the MFK'ers here and other fish keepers will not be satisfied by these fish.

This is MFK, MONSTER fish keepers, we want big exotic fish. Why does our government have to stick us with mollies, guppies and goldfish. Some people like these fish, perfectly fine with me if they do. But what about the other 5 million people who get screwed. Is it fair for them?

Like any other fish keeper I don't want people to be throwing their fish out in the wild and etc. but just because snakeheads and some species can mess with our native fish doesn't mean we need to end all fish keeping.

Also for the person who said we were being dramatic and that they were from Australia. Saying that we would get used to it like Australia did. Do you know what country this is. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we will not stand for this. Americans have bled and put everything into this country. We value our beliefs and our families, for all of the things our forefathers have done for this country do you really think we will stand for this monstrocity of a bill. Ask any American about this bill(that actually has read or knows what it entails) and 98% of them would do anything to stop this bill. America will not stand for this to happen. We have last time I checked 50k members or so and literally 9.999/10 would do anything to stop this bill. Heck I would march on Washington D.C. with signs and everything.

I just don't see how you can think that this bill is good for the U.S. Sure it will stop some invasive species, but now almsot every MFK is partaking in an illegal act. I want a Silver aro(I really do) and no law is going to stop me. It's a dang silver aro for gosh sakes. Like I said , this is America were not push-overs. Just because some politician is scared of a snakehead(LOL) doesn't mean they should ban all fish besides some mollies and goldfish.

There I feel good now. Just let it out people, you will feel good after. :) :) :) :)

There are plenty of native monsters, too, a lot of the people here keep gars and bass and sunfish, and if you think 98% of the people of the US won't allow the bill to happen, what do you care what I think of it? I'd like to reiterate that I'm not actually for the bill, I just think some parts of it are good (restrictions on importation and interstate transport), and think that those parts would help a lot of things.

[smpage]

haha, I was just thinking the same thing. I went from green terror to Red-bellied Piranha in 2 days. haha.

Yeah I was just laughing about it. I think you started this thread at, what, 50 posts? less? lol

[cguarino30]

Yeah I was just laughing about it. I think you started this thread at, what, 50 posts? less? lol

I want to say low 40s. Nothing breeds discussion like the hatred of the masses, eh? haha

[cguarino30]

I would appreciate a little clarity on a few of your points.

1. That it would not effect the petstores, that they could survive on a few native species that everyone can go catch. Where does this knowledge come from? Do you have an actual source or are you guessing.

Of course these are just predictions? What am I, a genie? I'm simply explaining why I don't believe the doomsday theories are accurate. It's no less credible than everyone else claiming that the bill will destroy the pet industry or the hobby.

2. You mentioned you keep swords, mollies, cories, etc. Not making fun of what you keep but this is called MonsterFish keepers, not small livebearer keepers. Why are you here if you don't have and apparently don't care or have any intention of owning anything else.

I don't think the government will ban ALL tropical fish, only the ones that it deems invasive. This topic has been covered at great length earlier in the thread.

3. The fact that you would come on here and start this screams troll, not that I'm judging.

This was also covered earlier

4. You stated that you kept quiet as long as possible but had to get your viewpoint out. You joined last month, not much for patience are you?

I never said it was as long as possible, I said I was tired of it. I don't like keeping my opinions to myself, especially not because they are unpopular. I'm not trying to impress anyone with my patience.

For the people who quoted one, and only one, part of my earlier post. You obviously didn't read the last line where I mentioned that maybe that part was a extreme. But saying it can't happen, look at the Save Rocky thread. First the government banned a species and now wants to destroy a longterm pet. Now tell me again how it will never happen.

People, please, if you're going to argue with me, at least take the time to read what I've already written. I've done a great deal of posting in the last couple of days, and I'm arguing this point largely by myself, and against great opposition, so I'd rather not have to repeat myself, as I'm already quite strained to keep up with everyone who disagrees with me.

[Neophyte]

Again the one thing that you seem to be missing on this is that anything non-native is immediately black-listed until white listed (as they essentially said in the hearing), so effectively every non-native animal with the current exceptions (farm animals, horses, cats, dogs, etc...) will be banned, even harmless popular tropical fish.

Unless they have changed it that is the way that it will work and if you think for a moment just how many animals there are to go through many species that would be perfectly acceptable by this bill's standards will no longer exist by the time they are approved. Then even if it is white-listed you would still have to give up or kill your animals if you decided to move to another state.

[jcardona1]

boy this thing's still going on?

mollies and swordfish :ROFL: :ROFL:

[MN_Rebel]

There are plenty of native monsters, too, a lot of the people here keep gars and bass and sunfish, and if you think 98% of the people of the US won't allow the bill to happen, what do you care what I think of it? I'd like to reiterate that I'm not actually for the bill, I just think some parts of it are good (restrictions on importation and interstate transport), and think that those parts would help a lot of things.
It doesnt help us very much as there are laws about keeping natives. California banned gars, bowfins, esox and few native fishes from this state while some natives become prohibited in other states that they do not native to. Some native fishes have count as your limit of fishing like Minnesota does. Then theres VHS and bass herpes going on in some states which do not let some people collect some natives for aquarium like WI.

We're done with native fish keeping subject because its not related to this bill as it is different matter due to different laws in different states.

[MN_Rebel]

Oh by way Mollies, acra, swordtails and neon tetras are not on approved species list..All tropical fish and koi are NOT on approved species list. GOLDFISH is the ONLY ONE FISH THATS APPROVED SPECIES. You dont know if the livebearers will be on approved list for sure.

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

god this guy is retarded. he wants it to pass and he is a hobbyist? what a freakin retard. Then when we try to tell him why this is wrong he insults us?
TO THE OP
you need to think carefully about what this will do to the hobby. Most of my fish would be legel. Does that mean i would want this law passed just because my fish wouldnt be affected? NO because i realise what is wrong here and am not a f***in retard. This will destroy the hobby.
Now there will be the black market for the serious aquariumist, but you know were alot of these fish come from? poachers who deplete the wild population and help lead the extection of many species. You want to help the poachers? In a way(yeah you wont belive me and will argue with me) by supporting this bill you are supporting them. Im out before I really loose my temper.

[---XR---]

god this guy is retarded. he wants it to pass and he is a hobbyist? what a freakin retard. Then when we try to tell him why this is wrong he insults us?
TO THE OP
you need to think carefully about what this will do to the hobby. Most of my fish would be legel. Does that mean i would want this law passed just because my fish wouldnt be affected? NO because i realise what is wrong here and am not a f***in retard. This will destroy the hobby.
Now there will be the black market for the serious aquariumist, but you know were alot of these fish come from? poachers who deplete the wild population and help lead the extection of many species. You want to help the poachers? In a way(yeah you wont belive me and will argue with me) by supporting this bill you are supporting them. Im out before I really loose my temper.

personal insults don't help anybody.

this will be closed soon if that flares up.

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

yeah i know.... lost my temper. lol my bad. calmer now.....
oh and off topic but were in pa are you??

[MN_Rebel]

This is wasted of time here. HR669 bill dont passed and there are too much hassle with this bill. There is already Federal and State Laws to manage invasives and prohibited species.

[---XR---]

yeah i know.... lost my temper. lol my bad. calmer now.....
oh and off topic but were in pa are you??

philly burbs.

[rallysman]

.