Hello; I still cannot see the text of the bill. When i open the link I get a summary and a from to fill out. I am not ready to fill out a petition or protest without seing the text of the bill or a more detailed report of what's involved.
Help Stop legal actions against future importations relating to the Lacey Act
- Thread starter wednesday13
- Start date
+1. I don’t know what is happening…is it really bad? I need the actual thing they are passing.
?
They are trying to revise the Lacey act (the thing that banned snakeheads and some other stuff) to where it bans interstate sale of/international import of every possible animal that isn't US native or domesticated
It passed the house. The senate is the last hope. Here is the information the National Aquaculture Association is putting out.
Read the relevant amendment text by clicking here.
What To Do
Through Feb. 2, contact the House Rules Committee and your federal Representative. Remember to be civil and professional at all times. Please personalize/edit your letters, if possible.
Find your U.S. Representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
Subject line:
NO to Lacey Act Amendments in America COMPETES Act
Sample letter
I oppose provision the America COMPETES Act establishing authority for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to regulate the movement of Injurious Wildlife within interstate trade of the continental United States. This provision does not provide any flexibility to the FWS to allow trade of species in portions of the country where they pose little to no risk (e.g., a tropical species in Alaska does not pose a similar risk as a tropical species in Florida) or for farms to ship fertile eggs, fry or fingerlings to states that allow culture.
Very few nonnative species pose continent wide risk. States have, and are, better positioned to regulate those species that pose a risk within their borders to locales that may be conducive for species colonization and potential damage. The Lacey Act supports federal, state and tribal wildlife management laws and will continue to provide this invaluable enforcement tool. Each state fish and wildlife agency and department of agriculture has the authority to prohibit or restrict native or nonnative species. Because of state prohibitions and restrictions, the Lacey Act already achieves the goal of regulating interstate trade while also supporting the flexibility by the states or tribes to discern where nonnative species pose ecological or economic risks.
I oppose provisions in the America COMPETES Act creating the authority for the Secretary of Interior to create an approved list of species for importation and interstate movement. Commonly termed “white lists,” the implementation of white lists is unusual amongst nations with Australia being an exception. White lists are also unusual for the federal government as a regulatory body and signatory or participant to international agreements and organizations predicated on prohibiting or restricting species trade for at-risk animals (i.e., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), noxious plants (i.e., International Plant Protection Convention), pathogens that may infect US agricultural animals (World Organization for Animal Health) and imported animals and animal products capable of causing human disease (Center for Disease Control and Prevention).
A white list is simply not feasible, given the millions of live organisms representing ~13,000 species imported to the United States annually and the potential for ~2,500 native US aquatic fish species to move in-and-out of the country or across state borders. The National Aquaculture Association estimates that there are 1,000 to 1,100 aquatic animal species farmed in the United States. The United Nations-Food and Agriculture Organization estimated 466 individual aquatic species, 7 interspecific hybrids of finfish, 92 species groups at genus level, 32 species groups at family level, and 25 species groups (fish, shellfish, reptiles, and crustaceans) that were farmed globally for food, stocking to enhance at-risk fisheries, and commercial and recreational fishing.
A white list would forestall the opportunity for: 1) US farms to produce these species for food or ornamental uses or to produce eggs, fry, fingerlings or seed to stock domestic or foreign farms and 2) US farmers to innovate. A national white list approach for the United States is not feasible for these reasons:
For these reasons, I believe the provisions creates punitive, unjustified prohibitions and criminal risk that may be opposed by the public for the lack of basis in science and risk which may erode a bedrock concept to US regulation: Consent of the governed.
Sincerely,
[your name]
The entire America COMPETES Act can be read at https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR4521RH-RCP117-31.pdf.
Read the relevant amendment text by clicking here.
What To Do
Through Feb. 2, contact the House Rules Committee and your federal Representative. Remember to be civil and professional at all times. Please personalize/edit your letters, if possible.
- Call your Representatives’ offices (link below) and the Rules Committee at (202)-225-9091;
- Email Representatives (link below);
- Fax letters to (202)-226-9191 and your Representatives;
- SHARE this and encourage others to complete the Alert!!!
Find your U.S. Representative: https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative
- Simply go to the link above and enter your zip code. Your Representative will appear. Just click on his/her name to send them emails through their websites. You will simply complete the contact form and copy your version of the sample letter below.
- The America COMPETES Act was referred to the House Rules Committee on Ways and Means. You can find those members at https://rules.house.gov/about/rules-committee-members. If your Representative is on this Committee, be sure to contact her or him and tell them you are a negatively affected constituent.
Subject line:
NO to Lacey Act Amendments in America COMPETES Act
Sample letter
I oppose provision the America COMPETES Act establishing authority for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to regulate the movement of Injurious Wildlife within interstate trade of the continental United States. This provision does not provide any flexibility to the FWS to allow trade of species in portions of the country where they pose little to no risk (e.g., a tropical species in Alaska does not pose a similar risk as a tropical species in Florida) or for farms to ship fertile eggs, fry or fingerlings to states that allow culture.
Very few nonnative species pose continent wide risk. States have, and are, better positioned to regulate those species that pose a risk within their borders to locales that may be conducive for species colonization and potential damage. The Lacey Act supports federal, state and tribal wildlife management laws and will continue to provide this invaluable enforcement tool. Each state fish and wildlife agency and department of agriculture has the authority to prohibit or restrict native or nonnative species. Because of state prohibitions and restrictions, the Lacey Act already achieves the goal of regulating interstate trade while also supporting the flexibility by the states or tribes to discern where nonnative species pose ecological or economic risks.
I oppose provisions in the America COMPETES Act creating the authority for the Secretary of Interior to create an approved list of species for importation and interstate movement. Commonly termed “white lists,” the implementation of white lists is unusual amongst nations with Australia being an exception. White lists are also unusual for the federal government as a regulatory body and signatory or participant to international agreements and organizations predicated on prohibiting or restricting species trade for at-risk animals (i.e., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), noxious plants (i.e., International Plant Protection Convention), pathogens that may infect US agricultural animals (World Organization for Animal Health) and imported animals and animal products capable of causing human disease (Center for Disease Control and Prevention).
A white list is simply not feasible, given the millions of live organisms representing ~13,000 species imported to the United States annually and the potential for ~2,500 native US aquatic fish species to move in-and-out of the country or across state borders. The National Aquaculture Association estimates that there are 1,000 to 1,100 aquatic animal species farmed in the United States. The United Nations-Food and Agriculture Organization estimated 466 individual aquatic species, 7 interspecific hybrids of finfish, 92 species groups at genus level, 32 species groups at family level, and 25 species groups (fish, shellfish, reptiles, and crustaceans) that were farmed globally for food, stocking to enhance at-risk fisheries, and commercial and recreational fishing.
A white list would forestall the opportunity for: 1) US farms to produce these species for food or ornamental uses or to produce eggs, fry, fingerlings or seed to stock domestic or foreign farms and 2) US farmers to innovate. A national white list approach for the United States is not feasible for these reasons:
- Does not allow species possession in parts of the country where they would not pose a risk to the natural or human environments.
- May be opposed as a non-trade barrier by other countries.
- Animal identification challenges posed by species taxonomy which is always changing and common names are problematical for the many names that may be applied to any one species.
- Animal identification challenges posed by species morphology (color, shape, or size) can be influenced by the farm environment during grow-out or through animal breeding and selection to attract buyer interest.
- Processing incoming shipments and providing the animal care required during the species identification process may not be physically possible at the FWS designated ports of entry (Anchorage, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Newark, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle) or special ports (Agana, Fairbanks, Juneau, and San Juan).
- The responsibility placed upon FWS Law Enforcement to rapidly distinguish, for animal health and welfare reasons, the >1,000 farmed aquatic animals in the United States, >2,500 native freshwater and marine fish species, ~13,000 white list species, 466+ globally farmed species and the current 785 Injurious Wildlife Species is well beyond the ability of experienced taxonomists. Notably, the number of fish species in the world are estimated to be ~34,000 and grows at approximately 250 new species each year.
- May direct agency resources away from interdicting illegal trade to focus on adequately monitoring legal trade in white listed species at designated and special ports of entry.
For these reasons, I believe the provisions creates punitive, unjustified prohibitions and criminal risk that may be opposed by the public for the lack of basis in science and risk which may erode a bedrock concept to US regulation: Consent of the governed.
Sincerely,
[your name]
The entire America COMPETES Act can be read at https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR4521RH-RCP117-31.pdf.
Hello; Did a quick read thru of the provided link. This one is going to be difficult t object to other than the broad language. There has been for a long time serious problems with exotic species all around the world. Not all from pet trade to be sure but some for sure. One of my friends kept fish back in the 1950's & 60's same as I did. He was salutatorian of our graduating class so is plenty smart. Within the last decade he moved back into the area after he retired and took up aquariums again. I gave him some plants and angel fish at one point. He told of some fish he bought that did not work out. Turns out he dumped them in a creek near his new home. Could they have survived? I do not know but the point is too many hobbyist have done the same thing over the years. There are plecos and pythons breeding and living in Florida waters currently.
Other than the too broad language in the proposed bill I can see some value in restriction of trade in animals. Partly because we do not do the correct thing and kill an unwanted fish/amphibian/ reptile or whatever, but often just let them go. Partly because collection in the wild for the hobby trade puts additional pressures on a natural species. Watched a PBS nature program last week about the oceans. One segment was about clown fish and how many are "harvested" for the aquarium trade. Some Clowns are in trouble along with the anemones they associate with. Just two examples. There are other examples for sure.
I do not like "Big Brother" much looking into my day to day business. I mostly want to be able to do what I want. Trouble is too many fish keepers do not do the right thing. I cannot at this point fill out a form objecting to the proposed law. I also cannot support the new law as it is too vague as written. Too much leeway for overreach by some agencies included. I have seen too much power to screw up my life from unelected agencies the last few years to want them to have more authority.
I will have to study this some more. I am open to being convinced either way. I stopped knowingly buying wild caught fish years ago. I try to only keep tank raised fish any more.
Other than the too broad language in the proposed bill I can see some value in restriction of trade in animals. Partly because we do not do the correct thing and kill an unwanted fish/amphibian/ reptile or whatever, but often just let them go. Partly because collection in the wild for the hobby trade puts additional pressures on a natural species. Watched a PBS nature program last week about the oceans. One segment was about clown fish and how many are "harvested" for the aquarium trade. Some Clowns are in trouble along with the anemones they associate with. Just two examples. There are other examples for sure.
I do not like "Big Brother" much looking into my day to day business. I mostly want to be able to do what I want. Trouble is too many fish keepers do not do the right thing. I cannot at this point fill out a form objecting to the proposed law. I also cannot support the new law as it is too vague as written. Too much leeway for overreach by some agencies included. I have seen too much power to screw up my life from unelected agencies the last few years to want them to have more authority.
I will have to study this some more. I am open to being convinced either way. I stopped knowingly buying wild caught fish years ago. I try to only keep tank raised fish any more.
The news of people releasing fish brings light to a very loud minority. Very few people actually release their fish, and when you do you only hear about it because they happened to release a species that does well in our environment. You hear about Florida a lot because Florida is pretty much the only state where nearly all the tropical species we get can survive perennially, thus creating tons of little populations of invasive species. Even then not everything thrives or reproduces, there is a list of species reported from across Florida where it can be seen that at least a third of the invasive species reported never take hold and die off. This is just Southeast asian, west african, and south/central american species by the way. Even giant snakeheads are occasionally reported in florida but no reproduction is ever recorded. Everywhere else in the united states it gets too cold in the winter for most fish to survive. Even the only US native cichlid (herichthys cyanoguttatus) can't really take hold north of texas.
I personally have only encountered three released fish over my lifetime, that being a full sized bala shark I saw in the lake I've fished for the last 15 years (saw once, never saw it again), and two cichlids in a neighborhood pond, one being a vieja/amatitlania amphilophus hybrid, the other being a full sized albino oscar. Oscar died in the pond once it got cold, the hybrid my friend wanted so I caught it out but it jumped in my care. Not trying to justify releasing aquarium fish, but just saying it doesn't happen very often, and isn't as detrimental as it's made out to be.
The only other place I know large populations of invasive species exist is in and around Utah, as there are lakes full of Malawi cichlids, though those only exist because they are heated by nearby factories and thus would not be able to expand into natural environments. Warm runoff from factories also produces small streams that support small populations of livebearers scattered around the country, but again these are few and far between and closed ecosystems.
The problem gets a bit more confusing with Chinese species, as the climate of China is perhaps the most similar to that of most of the US. As we've seen with northern snakeheads (the only snakehead that has taken hold north of Florida), silver/bighead carp, and in some places goldfish and dojo loaches, they are able to take hold because they naturally come from a place that has a similar climate to us. However, these potentially detrimental species are already taken into account, and there are legal limitations to owning most of them already. Thus in regards to the fear of releasing exotic species of fish in fear of invasive populations arising, this should not be considered a valid argument.
As for concerns of conservation, freshwater species collected in large numbers for the aquarium trade are collected sustainably, I'll see if I can find the documentary on one of the south american villages that maintains and protects a population of neon tetras for the aquarium trade. It's a good example of the contrast between freshwater and saltwater collection methods. Admittedly saltwater collection is a bit more intrusive, especially when it isn't for specific private collections, though I feel by that logic a ban should not be necessary per say, rather permits or something along those lines for those determined enough to want wild caught fish for their collections. Going back to freshwater however, collection and moving fish into the hobby has a sort of adverse effect, as it maintains a population of hundreds of species that are naturally losing their habitats. Most central american species have at least some sort of threatened conservation status because of habitat loss. Endlers are a good representative of south american species, because in spite of their abundance in the hobby they are thought to possibly be extinct in the wild. This logic applies to a multitude of fish on the other side of the world as well. Banning their importation outright for the purpose of conservation would ironically be more detrimental than their collection. At this point it becomes less of an issue of how many we take out of the environment, and more how many are still in existence, when they no longer have an environment to protect.
That's just fish though. Bird, reptile, and amphibian importation is already heavily regulated, and in regards to them taking hold in the US, again, most can only survive in select states like Florida or Texas year round. As for insects, insects also apply more to the latter. Most insects imported as feeders or pets usually can't even survive in a house once escaped.
Hope this helps clear things up, and adds another perspective to things.
I agree that the vast majority of escapes or releases are not going to develop into self-sustaining populations; I'd bet that in most cases the released animal is dead within days. But the line that will be heard is similar to the old "But if it saves one child's life..."
All it takes is one released snakehead or piranha or fill-in-the-blank that gets caught by a kid who then sticks his finger in its mouth and gets bitten...or one pacu or other exotic to be caught by a wannabe reporter with a vivid imagination...and the floodgates of hysteria will open.
All it takes is one released snakehead or piranha or fill-in-the-blank that gets caught by a kid who then sticks his finger in its mouth and gets bitten...or one pacu or other exotic to be caught by a wannabe reporter with a vivid imagination...and the floodgates of hysteria will open.
Bottom line, everyone's common enemy here is the media, but as for right now we are at the mercy of the senate
Seeing as the bill was proposed and worked on by republicans and democrats equally, the senate being a republican majority does not make me feel any better about our fate here
Seeing as the bill was proposed and worked on by republicans and democrats equally, the senate being a republican majority does not make me feel any better about our fate here
