I hope HR 669 Passes

[cguarino30]

And this is what I consider the problem with this issue. Everyone around immediately freaks out as soon as anyone has any questions or disagreements.

that right there shows you have NO knowledge of the real-world aspect of this bill. you make it seem like mom-n-pop fish stores are making huge bucks. talk to any owner, they hardly make a profit. take away what in most cases is their biggest income producing product line (live fish) and what have you left? fish food? come on now. if you fail to see how this could affect a small business then you need to get a clue.

You immediately turn to personal insults because I disagree. I know plenty of small business owners, and most of them only keep fish in their stores as a way to sell more supplies. When you consider the price of obtaining the fish, added to the extra power costs of filters, lights, and heaters, the fish barely make them a profit as it is. Every pet store owner I know (admittedly, only 3) makes the vast majority of their money selling dry goods (food, filters, tanks, etc). It doesn't cost anything to keep them on the shelves, and they sell them at 3 times the cost, as opposed to fish, who need constant attention, labor, and sometimes, in an lfs environment, die anyway.

and you say youd prefer to get your fish from other hobbyists and aquarium societies. if importers cant bring them in, and people cant breed them and shops cant sell them, where will you get the fish from?

They already have the fish. Nobody's hitting the reset button. I'd like to reitterate that only the breeding of fishes deemed "invasive" will be prohibited. The first thing I'm going to do if this bill passes is take steps to ensure a long-term availability of the fish that I keep, and I'm certain that a great many hobbyists would do the same. I would also like to suggest that even if importing fish becomes completely illegal, people will still find a way to do it (be it getting expensive permits, or smuggling them in illegally) but the increased cost of these wild caught fish will help to ensure that the people who eventually end up with them are the people who are serious enough about keeping them to ensure responsible keeping and breeding practices.

im not telling you what to belive, i could care less what you belive.

I was referring to your comment about how "if you loved the hobby, you would not support this bill"

im telling you what i think. isnt that why you started this thread, to get opinions? or are you one of those guys that thinks that all those who disagree with your supreme logic is wrong? ok, no more feeding the troll!

I never said my logic was supreme, but no one has argued against a single one of my points yet, which makes it hard for me to change my mind when people insist on shouting doomsday predictions at me, rather than having a logical discussion. And for the record, whether people believe it or not, this was not a troll thread. I really do think HR 669 would be good for the hobby.

 

[neoprodigy]

1) importation restrictions would deter people without the necessary time, expertise, seriousness, and money from keeping rare, wild fish that need extra attention

dont think importation restriction will help any of that... people will alway buy what they like..

2) the temporary spike in fish prices would encourage more domestic breeding/farming programs, diminishing what I see as a massive influx of east asian farm stock of inferior quality and questionable origins

mass produce here or there... will always have these "inferior quality" when competition kicks in.

3) Virtually none of the fish I keep are wild imports, and if I had to I could certainly have gotten them from a domestic breeder, or gotten other fish that I would enjoy just as much

hr669 is not just about fish... it includes other exotic pets... sound like you are a "who cares.. just as long it dont bother me" type of person...

 

[big_tank_boy]

The thing is u say they have fish supplies and fish food to sell 2....... if theres not as many fish that eat large quanitys of food like most cichlids that would heavely decress........ the other thing is the smuggeling of fish would greatly incress....... more fish wild fish would die when getting smuggeled in beacuse not haveing the right packageing all all that.......... yea u do seem kinda selfish with the statement it wont affect me cuz i own captive bred fish that would probly be banned to.......... have u ever read anything on the hr669???????

 

[nubz]

im stayin out of this one ........................( i just said that to be " in" this one)

 

[Cholly]

hr669 is not just about fish... it includes other exotic pets... sound like you are a "who cares.. just as long it dont bother me" type of person...

Bingo. The exact type of thinking that allowed the Nazis to take power. I am the polar opposite. I am a veteran, I know freedom is not free, we have to keep fighting for it.
I find cguarino30's attitude highly offensive. cguarino30, you probably didn't mean to be offensive, just stir up a little controversy, but you punched a hot button, and I am very offended.

 

[chefjamesscott]

edit:I DID NOT READ THE ABOVE POST WHEN I WROTE MINE
take note of the reference to the nazis, I too come from a line of military men and freedoms do not come cheap and should not be surrendered carelessly

First of all, I've heard plenty of people say that this will cause the end of lfs business, but nobody has ever told me how. I refuse to believe that a strong business would not be able to survive something as miniscule as (and I'm exaggerating for effect) a complete lack of live fish to sell. Furthermore, we don't need stores to keep the hobby going. I prefer to get my stock from other hobbyists and aquarium societies anyway. Also, you'll notice that none of my reasons for supporting the bill involved the environment.

I would liken it more to someone who owns hunting rifles saying they are for a ban on handguns. For me to be as hypocritical as you are insinuating, I would need to be a fish importer who wants the bill to pass, or something more similar. Not simply a hobbyist. I also don't appreciate being told what I need to believe if I REALLY love something. I'll decide what I love and what I believe, thank you.

No hate here

but dude you really have no idea as to the reality of this bill, it would be very similar to telling me as a chef that I can no long sell any type of lettuce but iceberg lettuce. Imagine if you can every item on a menu that uses lettuce being only that one kind.

Truly it will drive many petstores out of business forever.

And your solution of getting fish from other hobbiests is rather , because now under the rule of this bill you are going to stoop for the group when they tell you to pick up the soap because your now a criminal and will be prosecuted for your illegal black marketering of fish you wish to keep.

Well the part I bolded from your quote shows very clearly that you have no real understanding that should this thing pass you would indeed have no choice as a hobbiest. Very much the way people in nazi germany welcomed the regime with open arms only to real in sheer horror at the monstrosity they had empowered by their embrace

 

[cguarino30]

dont think importation restriction will help any of that... people will alway buy what they like..

Yes, to a certain degree, you can't ban people from buying what they want, but price does influence purchase. My point is that there will be much fewer impulse buys, or uninformed aquarists, if the pricetag goes up. Remember that youtube kid with the 13 inch Midas in a 15 gallon tank? If the prices were raised, do you think he would have paid $45 for it, or do you think he would have bought something smaller, cheaper, and more common?

mass produce here or there... will always have these "inferior quality" when competition kicks in.

I do agree with this concept in general, it's a good point, however, I am noticing a much greater disparity with the asian based farms. Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but they seem to have much less interest in maintaining genetic strength and pure species lines than a lot of the domestic mass producers, even if the domestic ones are bad as well.

hr669 is not just about fish... it includes other exotic pets...

Any points I make toward domestic captive breeding programs and consumer discretion can also be applied to any bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal, or anything else. I'm constantly seeing people with no expertise and have done no research who buy rare or sensitive animals that they are not prepared to provide proper care for "because they got a good deal" and I think people would be a lot more likely to do research and provide proper care if the animal came with a bigger pricetag.

sound like you are a "who cares.. just as long it dont bother me" type of person...

again, a personal attack. My position is not based on the fact that I don't anticipate any personal disruptions, as I will be suffering from all the same price hikes and limited availabilities as the rest of you. I am just using my own situation as a demonstration as to how the hobby will continue regardless of this bill, whether it passes or not. I am also subtly inviting anyone else to explain to me why their situation would make things too difficult to continue in the hobby, as I personally do not see it.

The impression that I'm getting from everybody against this is that they either
a) Think catastrophic things will happen that I don't believe are likely, or
b) Don't want to deal with the added inconvenience of higher prices and more limited availability, which I feel to be a significantly more selfish viewpoint than my own.

I pose this question, there are likely hundreds of species of fish out there, that if they were present at your lfs, you could buy, and would love to keep, but you don't miss them, because they are not available to you, and in all likelihood you will never even see them. In addition, there are probably hundreds more that are very rare, or hard to come by, or impossible to import, and for that reason are extremely expensive, so only people who are trully dedicated to the species (and thus willing to pay the higher price for them) ever end up owning them, thus significantly diminishing the occurrences of these fish ending up in inappropriate conditions with people who are not fully dedicated to them.

I'm as guilty as anyone else for buying fish that I was prepared to take care of, largely because I could afford them. I remember when I was younger and less experienced, I purchased 4 Zebra plecos, because I got a really good deal on them (about 20 dollars a piece, if I remember correctly) and ended up killing them all within a few months, do to my inexperience and lack of proper research. Have you looked at the price of zebra plecos lately? They cost at least a hundred dollars each. Do you think there are many people impulse buying them now? I imagine that in a few years, all those dedicated aquarists who were willing to pony up that kind of dough for a breeding colony will be producing more and more domestic-raised offspring, and the price will come back down, after a strong genetic pool has been established in the hobbyist community. This is the archetype that I would expect to follow if HR669 passed

Let's, for the sake of argument, predict the fate of Fish X. Fish X is a medium sized, fairly difficult to breed fish from south america. There are large numbers of this fish coming out of fish farms in asia, and wild caught imports from south america. These large numbers of easily harvested and imported fish causes the price of Fish X to be only $5. HR 669 Passes. First, the lack of imports would drive up the prices of fish, and thus the demand for domestic-raised fish. Fish X is now worth $50. The higher prices would encourage the breeding of Fish X in domestic farms and hobbyist tanks alike, with all the people who have the means and the money trying to make something off of this situation. All these people who are willing to make the initial investment buy up what stock of Fish X they can, to establish viable breeding programs. After a few years, breeding techniques are fine tuned, Fish X is in good supply, and the price drops down to about $10, since it still costs more to raise fish in this country than it ever will in southeast Asia. The fish is still available, but the price is now higher, preventing inexperienced or unprepared aquarists from purchasing the fish, and instead opting to buy a fish like the guppy, who in all likelihood, do to the already heavily established domestic breeding populations as well as easy of propogation, will not change in any way. It's only a prediction, but I think it's fairly well founded.

 

[chefjamesscott]

WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT NO FISH MEANS NO FILTERS, NO DRY GOODS, NOTHING TO MAKE PROFIT ON WITH NO FISH TO KEEP

and what part of it being made criminal to breed and distribute the banned animals dont you understand, you wont be able to get them privately

 

[cguarino30]

edit:I DID NOT READ THE ABOVE POST WHEN I WROTE MINE
take note of the reference to the nazis, I too come from a line of military men and freedoms do not come cheap and should not be surrendered carelessly




No hate here

but dude you really have no idea as to the reality of this bill, it would be very similar to telling me as a chef that I can no long sell any type of lettuce but iceberg lettuce. Imagine if you can every item on a menu that uses lettuce being only that one kind.

Truly it will drive many petstores out of business forever.

And your solution of getting fish from other hobbiests is rather , because now under the rule of this bill you are going to stoop for the group when they tell you to pick up the soap because your now a criminal and will be prosecuted for your illegal black marketering of fish you wish to keep.

Well the part I bolded from your quote shows very clearly that you have no real understanding that should this thing pass you would indeed have no choice as a hobbiest. Very much the way people in nazi germany welcomed the regime with open arms only to real in sheer horror at the monstrosity they had empowered by their embrace

Wow. Did you seriously just liken HR 669 to the beginning of the holocaust? I also disagree with your use of the term "no choice" telling me that I have to choose from these 500 species of fish instead of choosing from these 1000 species of fish is not the same thing as "no choice" and it's certainly not ANYTHING like the mass slaughter of several races of people deemed inferior by a political machine that was powered by economic strife and cultural upheaval.

 

[cguarino30]

WHAT DO YOU NOT GET ABOUT NO FISH MEANS NO FILTERS, NO DRY GOODS, NOTHING TO MAKE PROFIT ON WITH NO FISH TO KEEP

and what part of it being made criminal to breed and distribute the banned animals dont you understand, you wont be able to get them privately

Has anyone here actually read the bill? They're not going to take ALL the fish. Only the ones they deem an environmental or health concern. And even then, they're not going to take any of them, just prohibit the import, transport, or breeding of the "invasive" ones. Piranhas are banned here in NC, and much as I think it's ignorant, and personally love piranhas, we still have a thriving hobby and pet store industry, and I still manage to be a part of it.

Do you people really think that they even COULD take everyone's fish if they wanted to (which I reiterate, nobody wants to do)?