I hope HR 669 Passes

[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 blah

Yup. 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.