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

[Cohazard]

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

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

 

[ewurm]

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

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

 

[Cohazard]

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

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

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

Props to you for that.

 

[Acestro]

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

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

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

 

[Acestro]

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

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

 

[Acestro]

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

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

 

[ewurm]

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

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

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

 

[xdragonxb0i]

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

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

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

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

 

[ewurm]

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

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

Props to you for that.

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

 

[ewurm]

bump