View Full Version : BE SHORT WITH ANSWER PLEASE
mr.reef24
05-22-2009, 1:27 AM
Okay here is my question is this bill or whatever done? is it turned down or what is going on with it? please keep a short and sweet answer cause I hate reading long stuff about bill's and law's my brain shut's down :drool: . My family is lawyer's and I hear about law's all day I just want to know where H.R. 669 is going or not going. Thanks
mr.reef24
Oddball
05-22-2009, 2:39 AM
It was voted down. However, portions of the bill are going under review for modification and review.
mr.reef24
05-22-2009, 3:24 AM
It was voted down. However, portions of the bill are going under review for modification and review.
modifications? such as?
mr.reef24
Oddball
05-22-2009, 1:39 PM
No word yet on the modifications.
they will probably refine it to better fit what is best for their political agendas. this is in slumber, but could be awakened
mr.reef24
05-22-2009, 5:09 PM
well I want to put it to rest not in slumber lol.
dogofwar
05-22-2009, 5:19 PM
The issue of invasive species hasn't gone away.
The pet industry has agreed to work to craft a more practical piece of legislation to address it.
mr.reef24
05-23-2009, 2:02 AM
There are some coral's that will never survive in a fish tank as well as some invert's and fish that are offered in the LFS so that is what should be banned.
mr.reef24
Knowdafish
05-23-2009, 9:17 PM
It pays to be EVER vigilant!
dogofwar
05-23-2009, 10:30 PM
I think what folks fail to realize is that this bill was targeted at the real problem of invasive species.... and was not targeted to stop people people from keeping pets or pet fish.
There WILL be future legislation to address invasive species. Hopefully - with the cooperation of those in the pet industry - it will be better written...
AU_Arowana-RG
05-24-2009, 2:59 AM
I think what folks fail to realize is that this bill was targeted at the real problem of invasive species.... and was not targeted to stop people people from keeping pets or pet fish.
There WILL be future legislation to address invasive species. Hopefully - with the cooperation of those in the pet industry - it will be better written...
Let's hope it goes that way.
MustangMan
06-05-2009, 5:18 PM
yeah a democrat would write a bill like that... how much more control do they need? I'm pretty sure the fish and game commission's already got stuff for invasive species, so I'm confused about what the real intent of this bill was.
Fish and game agency rules on invasive species are reactionary, meaning a species isn't banned until it has already become established somewhere. The point of HR 669 was to ban everything unless it's shown to be safe rather than allowing everything until it's shown to be a problem. Sort of a pre-emptive strategy.
Wiggles92
06-05-2009, 11:45 PM
I'm against a blanket preemptive strike without proper research (maybe see what has damaged the ecology of other countries with similar climates?).
Maybe this ban should be made regional, following a map similar to the plant hardiness map used for deciding what plants can survive where year round (but with a more simplified map maybe?).
http://climateknowledge.org/figures/WuGblog_figures/RBRWuG0064_USDA_Hardiness_1990.jpg
If a species has the potential to survive, breed, and damage the ecosystem in a region, then it should be banned for the average consumer but permits should be issued to consumers willing to properly care for the animal and not release it.
The only problem is that this would screw over states such as Florida, Texas, and Hawaii since pretty much any animal has a fair chance of surviving there unless it loves the cold.