Thought I read a post on here stating that it got shot down by a small margin.
Help Stop legal actions against future importations relating to the Lacey Act
- Thread starter wednesday13
- Start date
I'm under the impression that it passed by a small margin and it is now up the senate.
If they ban the foreign species because they are 'invasive'. Then they ban the keeping of native species because they are 'endangered'. What are you left with? Nothing - every thing becomes illegal.
They have native endangered lists now. I think our hobby is going down the toilet... I hope I am wrong.
They have native endangered lists now. I think our hobby is going down the toilet... I hope I am wrong.
From this thread, some folks need to revisit basic civics (Canadian folks excepted) 
The COMPETES Act is a large bill that aims to help the US compete favorably against China in the 21st century. It includes lots of things that should be bi-partisan. Here's an article in "Nature": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00349-3
The version of the COMPETES Act with the provision in question passed the House. The bill in the Senate is wildly different and does not include it. So to become a law, both the House and Senate need to pass the same version of it, which means that they need to reconcile the two, get a majority to pass the House and probably 60 votes in the Senate. And then the President needs to sign it.
The small provision in question - to me at least - addresses a real issue in a confusing way that *could* if implemented badly lead to lots of unintended consequences - for a lot of people. THAT is the message that we all need to send to our elected representatives.
No way, no how is this small provision something that anyone would risk not passing the COMPETES Act over. Even with the doomsday "we're between you and the end of the aquarium hobby... no pet trade altogether" hyperbole that the Pet Industry Lobby is using to *raise money*, there is a lot of road between where we are today and the speculative "we're all doomed" nonsense on here.
The COMPETES Act is a large bill that aims to help the US compete favorably against China in the 21st century. It includes lots of things that should be bi-partisan. Here's an article in "Nature": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00349-3
The version of the COMPETES Act with the provision in question passed the House. The bill in the Senate is wildly different and does not include it. So to become a law, both the House and Senate need to pass the same version of it, which means that they need to reconcile the two, get a majority to pass the House and probably 60 votes in the Senate. And then the President needs to sign it.
The small provision in question - to me at least - addresses a real issue in a confusing way that *could* if implemented badly lead to lots of unintended consequences - for a lot of people. THAT is the message that we all need to send to our elected representatives.
No way, no how is this small provision something that anyone would risk not passing the COMPETES Act over. Even with the doomsday "we're between you and the end of the aquarium hobby... no pet trade altogether" hyperbole that the Pet Industry Lobby is using to *raise money*, there is a lot of road between where we are today and the speculative "we're all doomed" nonsense on here.
From this thread, some folks need to revisit basic civics (Canadian folks excepted)
The COMPETES Act is a large bill that aims to help the US compete favorably against China in the 21st century. It includes lots of things that should be bi-partisan. Here's an article in "Nature": https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-00349-3
The version of the COMPETES Act with the provision in question passed the House. The bill in the Senate is wildly different and does not include it. So to become a law, both the House and Senate need to pass the same version of it, which means that they need to reconcile the two, get a majority to pass the House and probably 60 votes in the Senate. And then the President needs to sign it.
The small provision in question - to me at least - addresses a real issue in a confusing way that *could* if implemented badly lead to lots of unintended consequences - for a lot of people. THAT is the message that we all need to send to our elected representatives.
No way, no how is this small provision something that anyone would risk not passing the COMPETES Act over. Even with the doomsday "we're between you and the end of the aquarium hobby... no pet trade altogether" hyperbole that the Pet Industry Lobby is using to *raise money*, there is a lot of road between where we are today and the speculative "we're all doomed" nonsense on here.
Not talking about this act - talking about our hobby in general. Been doing this for decades and every year the number of species I can buy is becoming more and more restrictive. Now it is true that new species are appearing in shops (its not all bad) - but thats because they keep banning the older ones.
I think my biggest question is how long will it take the usfws to populate the whitelist if this passes the senate?
Keep reaching out to your elected officials. Be polite, but explain why this is bad. While it might be unlikely to pass on this bill this language keeps popping up in different places so someone is pushing for it. As to the
I
Isis_Nebthet
question of how long it will take to populate a white list. I would assume that whatever the big boxes want will get on there quickly. There will be no incentive to rush anything else. "Monster Fish" have very little chance of passing. The challenge with a white list is an agency has to stick their neck out and say it is safe. These agencies tend to be very risk averse and are going to err on the side of caution. Below are two comments from someone else that I think are significant for those who don't think this is a big deal.
If you think FWS won't make big swings trying ban things look no further than the salamander ban that started the USARK lawsuit. They listed 201 species of salamander as injurious instead of the fungus they were trying to control.
Federal Ban on Import and Interstate Transport of Salamanders Due to Risk of Salamander Chytrid Fungus | Virginia DWR
If you think FWS won't make big swings trying ban things look no further than the salamander ban that started the USARK lawsuit. They listed 201 species of salamander as injurious instead of the fungus they were trying to control.
Federal Ban on Import and Interstate Transport of Salamanders Due to Risk of Salamander Chytrid Fungus | Virginia DWR
- Providing the FWS with new emergency listing authority of species in trade as well as species not yet in trade – a process that denies basic due process involving advance notice, opportunity to comment, public hearings, etc. While potentially appropriate for a species “not in trade,” this approach leaves US aquaculture at-risk for emergency listing for thousands of native and non-native aquatic species produced and sold to stock farms for grow-out, as farmed seafood, bait, recreational fish, biological control of nuisance aquatic plants or for aquarium and water gardening.
- Interstate movement of animals could be severely impacted if an animal does not make it onto the “White List.” The proposed amendment and the current Lacey Act 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 South Florida).
What does this even mean? Of course you can't keep ESA-listed species? That's been the case sense 1973.
