# US Bill 669



## Mr.Firemouth

Hello Everyone

action is needed immediately by everyone who want to keep cichlids and other pet fish.

please read the attached bill in the House of Representatives - it will limit the import, the transport and ownership of fish along with many other pets

we need a grassroots effort by everyone to write, call email their representative and especially those listed at the end to NOT support this bill. do not delay - add your voice NOW

Here is a link....
http://acaforum.com/index.php?act=attac ... ost&id=902

This is not a Political discussion but a request to tell the Lawmakers in an email that we do not support this Bill.
Please send the an email expressing your feelings to the email addys at the end of the link. Send 1 email to each of the representatives listed as they are sponsors of the Bill. This is your chance to affect our future hobby


----------



## morningsky

I tried to look at the bill, the link went to a member login.


----------



## Pilgrim

morningsky said:


> I tried to look at the bill, the link went to a member login.


same same.


----------



## Number6

http://www.pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=504

It is going to make the US Australia-like since it's not a banned list but an approved list. The bill certainly needs much work and one could even ask if it doesn't step way too into topics that should be regulated at a state level, but all in all... I see this as a good idea.

I realize that some current freedoms will go poof under this, but I see the total good easily outweighing the tiny discomfort felt that I can't go buy whatever I want...

I just hope the approved list once a law of this kind is in place is properly formed, it's region specific, and that the response time to get new cichlids added is quick.


----------



## nauTik

I registered, it's a long read, way too long for me to even try to read. I did skim through it though and it's basically a Bill that would prevent species not native to the US from being transported in.

Sounded like an april fools to me, since this would prevent guinea pigs, parrots, and all sorts of other pets from being transported.

I dunno I'd have to read it more


----------



## elroach

Government get the heck out of business.

Got to love that they treat us like babies. If people can't take responsibility to keep these fish out of our native water then lets just not let them have fish. This type of government stipulation is outrageous to me.


----------



## Guest

Here is the thread over at simply on the same issue. People seemed more concerned over there than here. 

http://forum.simplydiscus.com/showthread.php?t=70111


----------



## prov356

If implemented properly, I see it as a good idea too. I'm not opposed to this type of bill. Rather than 
asking legislators to flat out oppose it, ask them to take their time and implement it properly.


----------



## Guest

prov356 said:


> If implemented properly, I see it as a good idea too. I'm not opposed to this type of bill. Rather than
> asking legislators to flat out oppose it, ask them to take their time and implement it properly.


You are giving our legislators too much credit. Look where we are with the economy today. Go check out the simply thread. None of us may be abe able to keep WC and even tank raised fish.


----------



## jfly

garbage.. call me libertarian, call me constitutionalist, but we DO NOT need governement wiping our behinds from cradle to grave. Land of the free?!?!?! As long as im not hurting my neighbor, or infringing on their rights i should be allowed to do whatever with my own body that i choose to do so. why is it americans in particular, are so unaware , so uneducated about, and so carelessly let themselves be stripped of human rights. its not about imported animals, its about big government always having the say so.. regardless a bill such as this, should be implemented on the state level. that is why we have state law.... so that big brother bully america cant decide for all. if you are in a more liberal state.. more liberal life. more conservative state.. more conservative life. if you dont like the state...... find another.

equality
human rights
viva ron paul

www.infowars.com


----------



## prov356

> You are giving our legislators too much credit.. Look where we are with the economy today. Go check out the simply thread. None of us may be abe able to keep WC and even tank raised fish.


I read it, but I'm just not a believer in resolving things by running around and jumping up and down 
and waving my arms in the air. If the legislators can't get it together to work out the more important 
problems that we face right now, then it won't matter what fish are available to you. We better hope the 
people we all elected have something on the ball, or HR 669 just won't matter.

When people won't govern themselves, then the government steps in. There's a reason they're doing 
this. Knowing the nature of people, this type of bill is necessary. Just writing and saying you don't want 
the bill doesn't resolve the issue of protecting our natural resources. it'll just make you sound like 
another lobbyist group attempting to protect it's own interests. A compromise approach is often a 
good approach. And it's a better long term approach. Defeat this now, and you'll only have to deal with 
it again another day.


----------



## Number6

jfly said:


> As long as im not hurting my neighbor, or infringing on their rights i should be allowed to do whatever with my own body that i choose to do so.


 fish... fish... 
and if you are still talking about fish, then "oh my".

Invasive species do "hurt your neighbor" and do "infringe on their rights" and NO, you do not have a right to own any species you want to and that is a current (and enforced) law.

There are many elements of this law that are not desirable to me... but that is far from making them unwarranted.

E.g. mailing fish... there are a great many people who oppose this, yet I view it as an important method for obtaining cichlids... I should never let my "want" be my dominant argument when the other side is trying to make valid points about proper and safe treatment of living things as they are transported around the country. I need to talk to the points being rasied and not let emotion dominate the words I use.

My two cents on this discussion.


----------



## jfly

....


----------



## Number6

*jfly*, and others of course...

please, let's stick to Aquaria related discussion only. 
Links to sites with nothing to do with fish will be removed regardless of merit.


----------



## elroach

This is totally aquaria related!!!


----------



## jfly

i feel that the right to pick and choose your own fish IS aquaria related. .. the link maybe not .. but the message IS relevant wouldnt you say?!?!


----------



## Darkside

jfly said:


> i feel that the right to pick and choose your own fish IS aquaria related. .. the link maybe not .. but the message IS relevant wouldnt you say?!?!


If this thread were irrelevant it would be locked. :thumb:


----------



## Joels fish

Absolutely, we need to stop this right now . There are plenty of laws on the books at the present time that protect our water ways from invasive species . Enforce those laws first! More bad legislation is not the answer, enforcement of existing good law is! Allowing people(politicians ) to recklessly legislate away our hobby for no good reason is completely ubsurd!

All tropoical fish must be transported, to stop that effectively stops the hobby cold. All of us should be raising our fists and sending some very strong messages to our represenatives that should they vote this bill into law ,they will not be re-elected.


----------



## jfly

:thumb: agreed joels..


----------



## Number6

jfly said:


> i feel that the right to pick and choose your own fish IS aquaria related. .. the link maybe not .. but the message IS relevant wouldnt you say?!?!


Correct on all counts. The current topic is aquaria related, the link was not and would sidetrack the aquaria related topic, and the message about freedom to chose your fish  is aquaria related.


----------



## LJ

jfly said:


> so.. regardless a bill such as this, should be implemented on the state level. that is why we have state law.... so that big brother bully america cant decide for all. if you are in a more liberal state.. more liberal life. more conservative state.. more conservative life. if you dont like the state...... find another.


The theory of efficient sorting is really not applicable to this type of problem. Say you have two states, A and B, which are adjacent and share a river that runs cross-border. If State A allows keeping of certain fish, and I do not like the probable degradation of natural resources that comes from that, it does not help me to move to State B which disallows the keeping of that fish, when the externalities in question will most definitely swim or be carried across the border.

Furthermore, the odds of State A and B coming to some negotiation is unlikely without assigning the rights to the entire river to one of the two states. Now say you add more States, so that 3 or 4 states are linked by a common resource, now the likelihood of reaching a negotiation becomes even less probable.

In these circumstances, the only viable option for a socially efficient outcome is for the overarching federal government to implement some sort of regualtion. In general, I am in favor of the spirit of 669. The problem is that these plans are often not designed or implemented in an optimal fashion. For example, disallowing the mailing of fish is most likely too extreme.

The federal governemnt seems to have a tendency to favor standards and corner solutions, where legislation specifies that the level of some activity be taken to zero, as opposed to finding and implementing the correct level. Likewise, stopping 669 outright is most likely not the best solution either. As others have mentioned, a better approach as fishkeepers would be to place pressure on the government to see that 669 is structured and implemented thoughtfully.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

Read the Bill.
It stops transportation of a species not on the list.
That means you can't send your fish fry to someone legally.
It also says you can not *Keep* fish not on the approved list. 
Enforcement of these rules aside, who wants this. 
Go to this link and post a vote....

http://www.govit.com/vote/congress.aspx ... 009-hr-669


----------



## JWerner2

I really think people are taking it to far and not reading or understanding things properly.

I also doubt, like the many bills created daily, it will pass or even be looked over twice!

I wonder how many other times within the last 5 years this was attempted.


----------



## nauTik

Mr.Firemouth said:


> It also says you can not *Keep* fish not on the approved list.


I'd be interested to see how they would manage to enforce that lol



> importation or transportation between states of nonnative species that are not included in the list of approved species;


Does anyone have the list of approved species? Or would that be something created only if this bill is passed?


----------



## jfly

agrees with firemouth


----------



## dogofwar

From the bill...

"(f) Animals Owned Lawfully Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun pursuant to subsection (e)(3), even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act."


----------



## JWerner2

And it makes no sense. How can they tell if you or the millions of other people out there have had this animal prior to the bill?

This bill is bogus and will not be looked at in any serious manner unless someone with some brains gets behind it.


----------



## LJ

Yeah the list of approved species seems like it would be important to know before hand.


----------



## nauTik

dogofwar said:


> From the bill...
> 
> "(f) Animals Owned Lawfully Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun pursuant to subsection (e)(3), even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act."


thanks for this, suppose I missed it just skimming through


----------



## bz79

It's very disheartening the number of people that seem to be shrugging this whole thing off. 
I don't think they really understand the potentially crippling effect on the entire pet trade, let alone the fish trade, this bill would have if passed. 
Who is to say this bill won't end up listing cichlids as a potential invasive species? Plus it isn't just about invasive species, it's about stopping importation to "protect" the fish in their native habitats of South America and Africa. Do you really think the people that pass these laws keep up on our hobby or even care if all cichlids are banned or not?

You may be able to keep the ones you already had as part of a grandfather clause, but you will NOT be able to breed, sell, trade or do anything else with them. Your entire hobby will be flushed down the drain as your fish die of old age.

Not only is your hobby at risk but many people's jobs and livelihoods are also at stake. Plus many other pet communities will be impacted, not just fish. Reptiles, amphibians, small animals, birds, etc. are all on the list.

Billions of dollars are pumped into our economy each year by the pet trade, it would effect many more people than you might think.

Take a little amount of time and write a letter. Don't for one minute underestimate this bill and think it will never get passed or be very limited on what gets banned or not. The people and organizations that support this bill are very vocal and have very deep pockets.


----------



## JWerner2

> Not only is your hobby at risk but many people's jobs and livelihoods are also at stake. Plus many other pet communities will be impacted, not just fish. Reptiles, amphibians, small animals, birds, etc. are all on the list.


Exactly. It is a huge industry and it is one that is keep Americans working. Do you honestly think any smart congressmen will let something like this pass?

There are so many variables as to why this is a stupid idea. Enough that everyone should be able to agree that it will not fly!

Local/state gov. has a good handle on these things in most ares of the US and there is no reason for a bill like this to interrupt. No one will let this bill pass.


----------



## Guest

JWerner2 said:


> Not only is your hobby at risk but many people's jobs and livelihoods are also at stake. Plus many other pet communities will be impacted, not just fish. Reptiles, amphibians, small animals, birds, etc. are all on the list.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. It is a huge industry and it is one that is keep Americans working. Do you honestly think any smart congressmen will let something like this pass?
> 
> There are so many variables as to why this is a stupid idea. Enough that everyone should be able to agree that it will not fly!
> 
> Local/state gov. has a good handle on these things in most ares of the US and there is no reason for a bill like this to interrupt. No one will let this bill pass.
Click to expand...

It will with the attitude like yours and if we don't do anything about it.


----------



## JWerner2

:lol:

No, its cynics like you that actually come up with these stupid bills. :wink:

Do you honestly think this has not been attempted over and over again?

This is way to extreme. This is not like saying people cant have very exotic pets like big cats and such. This is common ever day average pets. Its not going to happen! Its almost unconstitutional.


----------



## Number6

ALL common pets in the pet trade are exempted... it's towards the end of the bill.

You cannot ship/tranport/own/mail every fish species to all states right now... look it up if you don't believe me. All this bill does is close the loop hole of a new species of snakehead being discovered and shipped into California or equiv.

What a permitted list also does is stop the rapid destruction that fad fish can bring to a local area in SA or elsewhere. Some new little rasbora gets "discovered" and the whole lake it was in is trampled and wrecked.

So seriously... how will our present day hobby be affected if all currently discovered and named cichlids are on the permitted list? and if they are on the banned list, they are there for a reason just as they are now.

Really don't get the fuss here...


----------



## Joels fish

> Exactly. It is a huge industry and it is one that is keep Americans working. Do you honestly think any smart congressmen will let something like this pass?


Something like this can pass with no trouble what so ever. Ridiculous legislation is par for the course, doublely so with the current congress.



> So seriously... how will our present day hobby be affected if all currently discovered and named cichlids are on the permitted list? and if they are on the banned list, they are there for a reason just as they are now.


And just who gets the priviledge of comming up with the list, a bunch of liberal tree huggers ? Iwouldn't trust politicians to was my truck much less come up with some doofus list to regulate this hobby . Like I mentioned before , there are already plenty of laws to regulate what species are imported and which ones aren't not to mention various state laws that further regulate animal imports. More law equals more muck. It's simply one more intrusion by government into something that simply doesn't need it.


----------



## Fogelhund

Here is a link to the actual bill.

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin ... ih.txt.pdf

Some interesting points -

* It will be against the law to breed any fish not on the approved list, even if they are grandfathered due to you owning it before the act.

* The list will not be published for up to 37 months AFTER the Act has been passed.



> or any other species or variety of species that is determined by the Secretary to be common and clearly domesticated.


What is a "common and clearly domesticated species? I'll bet out of the 40 odd species I have here, maybe 2-4 make that list... maybe. Certainly no new discoveries will be allowed... unless we get clever and call everything by the same scientific name.

I'm sorry, but this does appear to have some potentially serious ramifications. If they were updating a banned list to include a few new species, no issues... but specifically it is ALL non-listed that are banned... pretty sweeping. You know full well, that many of the fish we keep would be outlawed by this Act.

Common fish are the ones you might find at Walmart... think about that. These aren't common fish to the ACA, or this forum... common in a big box store...


----------



## Joels fish

The bill is still just as bogus as it was the last time a link to it was posted. We here in the* United States* as mentioned have plenty of state and federal laws pertaining to the matter. Further regulation simply muddies the waters for those who make their living in the fish business. This bill serves no real purpose except to put governments nose where it does not belong once again.[/b]


----------



## iceblue

While I can see the need for such a bill I believe it is far to vague to implement in it's present configuration.

I would like to see concrete monetary costs for importers and a limit to what can added to that cost. To many times a simple fee turns into a cash cow for special interest groups looking to pay for something that can be remotely tied to Federal law in the furtherance of their agenda.

A one size fits all approach is ludicrous. What can survive in the Florida Everglades will not survive in Lake Mead. If the Federal Government needs to exert its control then let them do it on a State by State basis. They already have Constitutional control over interstate commerce and should work with the States to allow those species that don't pose a threat to a particular region to be enjoyed by the hobbyist.

Snakeheads should be at the top of the banned list. 

Given the spate and number of Congressional bills passed lately with little or no discussion as to their far reaching consequences I think SR669 should be looked at with a skeptical eye and put on the back-burner so the voice and intelligence of the people directly effected by it can be heard and have input into it's final configuration.

By the way, how are they going to deal with hybrids? opcorn:


----------



## Number6

iceblue said:


> By the way, how are they going to deal with hybrids? opcorn:


Excellent point! LOL

What will they do for man made breeds? 
opcorn:

Anyone from Australia know how man made breeds of fish fit into Australia's lists? [/img]


----------



## JWerner2

Number6 said:


> ALL common pets in the pet trade are exempted... it's towards the end of the bill.
> 
> You cannot ship/tranport/own/mail every fish species to all states right now... look it up if you don't believe me. All this bill does is close the loop hole of a new species of snakehead being discovered and shipped into California or equiv.
> 
> What a permitted list also does is stop the rapid destruction that fad fish can bring to a local area in SA or elsewhere. Some new little rasbora gets "discovered" and the whole lake it was in is trampled and wrecked.
> 
> So seriously... how will our present day hobby be affected if all currently discovered and named cichlids are on the permitted list? and if they are on the banned list, they are there for a reason just as they are now.
> 
> Really don't get the fuss here...


 :thumb:

As I said. People are not reading the full detail of what is going on and do not understand. :roll:


----------



## JWerner2

Joels fish said:


> Exactly. It is a huge industry and it is one that is keep Americans working. Do you honestly think any smart congressmen will let something like this pass?
> 
> 
> 
> Something like this can pass with no trouble what so ever. Ridiculous legislation is par for the course, doublely so with the current congress.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So seriously... how will our present day hobby be affected if all currently discovered and named cichlids are on the permitted list? and if they are on the banned list, they are there for a reason just as they are now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *And just who gets the priviledge of comming up with the list, a bunch of liberal tree huggers ? *Iwouldn't trust politicians to was my truck much less come up with some doofus list to regulate this hobby . Like I mentioned before , there are already plenty of laws to regulate what species are imported and which ones aren't not to mention various state laws that further regulate animal imports. More law equals more muck. It's simply one more intrusion by government into something that simply doesn't need it.
Click to expand...

More like right wing Republicans. The libs usually want what they are entitled to and by far not every liberal is a tree huger. BTW Im registered independent, not Lib  .



> Something like this can pass with no trouble what so ever. Ridiculous legislation is par for the course, doublely so with the current congress.


You do understand this is someones job? To come up with new bills to try to get passed. It will not fly I can not begin to explain how many bogus nut job like bills get thought up every day and dont pass cause of how stupid they sound just like this one.

Aside from the jobs lost they know its more of a matter for local Gov. to handle and will refuse it cause they do honestly have more important duties to full fill.


----------



## Fogelhund

Number6 said:


> What will they do for man made breeds?
> opcorn:


Are they on the list?


----------



## iceblue

JWerner2 said:


> More like right wing Republicans. The libs usually want what they are entitled to and by far not every liberal is a tree huger. BTW Im registered independent, not Lib  .


Not to make this political but all ten of the Representatives sponsoring SR669 are Democrat. I'm also a registered independent.


----------



## JWerner2

Really? Can you provide that info?


----------



## iceblue

Easy to find. Just click on the first letter of their last name.
http://www.congress.org/congressorg/dir ... congdir.tt


----------



## JWerner2

:x Those jerks!



Ok so I was wrong but I still dont like either sides :lol:


----------



## Fogelhund

JWerner2 said:


> Number6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL common pets in the pet trade are exempted... it's towards the end of the bill.
> 
> You cannot ship/tranport/own/mail every fish species to all states right now... look it up if you don't believe me. All this bill does is close the loop hole of a new species of snakehead being discovered and shipped into California or equiv.
> 
> What a permitted list also does is stop the rapid destruction that fad fish can bring to a local area in SA or elsewhere. Some new little rasbora gets "discovered" and the whole lake it was in is trampled and wrecked.
> 
> So seriously... how will our present day hobby be affected if all currently discovered and named cichlids are on the permitted list? and if they are on the banned list, they are there for a reason just as they are now.
> 
> Really don't get the fuss here...
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:
> 
> As I said. People are not reading the full detail of what is going on and do not understand. :roll:
Click to expand...

Actually, I read the actual bill.

All COMMON pets are exempted. Not much of what we keep are common pets.

This does not close loopholes on a few species. If it were to close loopholes, it would specifically name those species, which it does not. If the species is on the list, and is common, it is fine. If it is not, it is illegal.

Some new "rasbora" is irrelevant to this Act, as is habitat destruction in Bora Bora.

No, all discovered and named fish will not be on the list, as the wording states now. Just the "common" ones. Besides, the act gets passed, and up to 37 months later we get to find out the specifics. Willing to make that bet?


----------



## iceblue

Fogelhund said:


> Number6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> What will they do for man made breeds?
> opcorn:
> 
> 
> 
> Are they on the list?
Click to expand...

I read the bill and saw nothing pertaining to man made hybrids unless they can come under the big umbrella of a non-indiginous "species".


----------



## JWerner2

Fogelhund said:


> JWerner2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Number6 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ALL common pets in the pet trade are exempted... it's towards the end of the bill.
> 
> You cannot ship/tranport/own/mail every fish species to all states right now... look it up if you don't believe me. All this bill does is close the loop hole of a new species of snakehead being discovered and shipped into California or equiv.
> 
> What a permitted list also does is stop the rapid destruction that fad fish can bring to a local area in SA or elsewhere. Some new little rasbora gets "discovered" and the whole lake it was in is trampled and wrecked.
> 
> So seriously... how will our present day hobby be affected if all currently discovered and named cichlids are on the permitted list? and if they are on the banned list, they are there for a reason just as they are now.
> 
> Really don't get the fuss here...
> 
> 
> 
> :thumb:
> 
> As I said. People are not reading the full detail of what is going on and do not understand. :roll:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, I read the actual bill.
> 
> All COMMON pets are exempted. Not much of what we keep are common pets.
> 
> This does not close loopholes on a few species. If it were to close loopholes, it would specifically name those species, which it does not. If the species is on the list, and is common, it is fine. If it is not, it is illegal.
> 
> Some new "rasbora" is irrelevant to this Act, as is habitat destruction in Bora Bora.
> 
> No, all discovered and named fish will not be on the list, as the wording states now. Just the "common" ones. Besides, the act gets passed, and up to 37 months later we get to find out the specifics. Willing to make that bet?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about not much of what we keep are common? The general category is probably the most common! I know way more people that keep fish than those that keep Coatimundis and other exotics :lol: !

We can all go back and forth on this but the fact remains,.. its not gunna pass.

I cant believe so many people refuse to look at the facts about the way these things work. Why does no one understand that stuff like this is thought up every day and proposed to a council every month but most of it never passes? I wouldn't doubt this bill is a revision of one presented two years ago and denied!

Why does no one understand that there are similar acts already running that are more leniant to what is kept in the general hobby and actually benefit environmental concerns as well as hobbyists?

For Christ sakes, NJ has a permit law for just about any non native pet to NJ. You need a permit for keep a dwarf Hamster! Does that stop anything or harm anyone? No not at all!?

PA's laws are different, you can keep lots of non native animals with out permits as long as they are NOT on a native protected species list! Almost the opposite of its neighboring NJ!!!!

There are so many state to state laws that would need to be rewritten its unbelievable! One thing these people wont want to deal with. It would also be time consuming at that!

So far there is nothing at all in this bill that can honestly do any of us or the industry harm at all!

And not to sound belligerently rude, but you guys do know those e-mails are going directly into the trash bin right?


----------



## Number6

iceblue said:


> I read the bill and saw nothing pertaining to man made hybrids unless they can come under the big umbrella of a non-indiginous "species".


Which they really can't. Man made breeds are closer to "domesticated animals" than species, so I wonder if this bill won't actually ease they path for man made breeds over their wild counterparts... now that could have sad repurcussions to this hobby.

Fogel, I've read the bill, and I agree fully with you that it is most probable that not all the species that we like to keep will be on the permitted list, ergo, banned.

So I understand that the likely consequence of this bill is that cichlid "x" that I may want to keep would not be permitted.

It is also probable that many species that I'd like to keep, will be on the approved list and I could order them as I do today or find them at a local breeder.

I see two groups of people who will be directly affected by this bill...

One, those who like to buy new or rare species of wild cichlid.

Two, those who would like to own a species of cichlid that are expected to cause damage but not known to cause damage to a local environment.

I think we would all agree that Group two can be ignored since the harm outweighs the good.

Group one seems to be the group of hobbyists most at risk here. I know that this includes you, and is also how many many of us obtain interesting new species along with a great set of knowledge on how to keep and breed this newer discovery.

Is this a loss to the hobby? Of course... we all have our wants and it isn't much fun when the Government bans one of our wants. But it is just a want. Can a want ever outweigh a need?

There are animals and people in need of protection from invasive species. They are very paranoid about invasives here in Florida because of how much damage we can all see around our yards and homes due to invasives. My house was overrun with an invasive species of ant.
Invasive cichlid species are in the waterways around my home and wipe out local species. Farmers are paranoid about the latest tropical species wiping out their field...

You must agree that the need for protection is there, right? It really just comes down to implementation and coverage of this bill does it not?

This is why I hope the bill gets repaired as it goes along, but overall, I would support this sort of concept, just properly implemented.

Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.


----------



## Joels fish

This bill will never be properly implemented because it is too broad . Banned species list have the problem that they do not take into account that most of the climate in the US is not cichlid friendly, and not exactly friendly to a lot of tropical fish . This would potentially ban species from being kept in areas that they could cause no damage in the first place. Let's not forget that this bill is in excess of the governments powers under the Constution. These types of laws are the responsibility and priviledge of the states *NOT* the federal government . Also this bill will be in place on top of existing state regulations , making the legalities of keeping breeding and transporting even the grandfathered species very iffy at best.


----------



## Fogelhund

Number6 said:


> Is this a loss to the hobby? Of course... we all have our wants and it isn't much fun when the Government bans one of our wants. But it is just a want. Can a want ever outweigh a need?
> 
> There are animals and people in need of protection from invasive species. They are very paranoid about invasives here in Florida because of how much damage we can all see around our yards and homes due to invasives. My house was overrun with an invasive species of ant.
> Invasive cichlid species are in the waterways around my home and wipe out local species. Farmers are paranoid about the latest tropical species wiping out their field...
> 
> You must agree that the need for protection is there, right? It really just comes down to implementation and coverage of this bill does it not?
> 
> This is why I hope the bill gets repaired as it goes along, but overall, I would support this sort of concept, just properly implemented.
> 
> Hope that clarifies where I'm coming from.


A fair point of view. Why does this Act need to be implemented in Michigan, or Alaska, or..... for species that pose a risk for temperate climate states? Any and just about all cichlids would pose a risk for native species in Florida.......................

This Act doesn't directly affect me, given I live in Canada, but wouldn't it seem a bit ridiculous to ban mbuna, as they might affect natural populations around here?


----------



## Joels fish

> More like right wing Republicans. The libs usually want what they are entitled to and by far not every liberal is a tree huger. BTW Im registered independent, not Lib


So am I but to me this sounds just like the kind of stupidity that is to be expected of the left, no matter of party affiliation.



> You do understand this is someones job? To come up with new bills to try to get passed. It will not fly I can not begin to explain how many bogus nut job like bills get thought up every day and dont pass cause of how stupid they sound just like this one.


 That person / persons need to fired with extreme prejudice. the scenario should have gone " you want me to write a bill banning tropical fish? sobody call security, we have a crazy person in the building!"


----------



## Number6

Fogelhund said:


> A fair point of view. Why does this Act need to be implemented in Michigan, or Alaska, or..... for species that pose a risk for temperate climate states? Any and just about all cichlids would pose a risk for native species in Florida.......................


Precisely why I believe it requires amending to be region specific. I also believe that there should be permits that allow for species not on the allowable list just as there is here in Florida today. In Florida, those who wish to keep certain animals from the restricted list have to file paperwork every year listing what they imported, bred, sold, where it went, etc. Although nobody wishes to have to pay for licences to keep cichlids not on the allowed list, I'll just add that licence to my pile of licences I already have to purchase... marriage, car, drivers, dog, fishing, hunting, yada yada.


----------



## iceblue

Number6 said:


> Fogelhund said:
> 
> 
> 
> A fair point of view. Why does this Act need to be implemented in Michigan, or Alaska, or..... for species that pose a risk for temperate climate states? Any and just about all cichlids would pose a risk for native species in Florida.......................
> 
> 
> 
> Precisely why I believe it requires amending to be region specific. I also believe that there should be permits that allow for species not on the allowable list just as there is here in Florida today. In Florida, those who wish to keep certain animals from the restricted list have to file paperwork every year listing what they imported, bred, sold, where it went, etc. Although nobody wishes to have to pay for licences to keep cichlids not on the allowed list, I'll just add that licence to my pile of licences I already have to purchase... marriage, car, drivers, dog, fishing, hunting, yada yada.
Click to expand...

Which is exactly why I don't want to see this bill as written passed. Perhaps I'll have to read it again but I see no stipulation in it that would allow States the right to give permits to individuals for fish banned by the Federal Government. They say it won't super-cede restrictions already in place in local Governments but seems vague as to whether Federally restricted species would even be allowed.


----------



## Joels fish

Does anyone else see that this bill is completely out of the federal governments relm of power? The fact that anyone here thinks this bill is a good idea means that very few of you understand where the line is here.

Call your representatives and tell them to kill this bill. If anyone here wants to see specific species banned call your state represenatives and have them write and vote on it there. That's where this sort of thing belongs in the first place.


----------



## iceblue

Joels fish said:


> Does anyone else see that this bill is completely out of the federal governments relm of power? The fact that anyone here thinks this bill is a good idea means that very few of you understand where the line is here.


2 years ago I would have agreed with you. Since then I've watched the Federal Government take over Banks, Insurance companies, Lending companies, and Auto Manufacturers. Their is no counter-balance to what is going on right now and I fear SR669 will pass without so much as a whimper from the floor of Congress. :x


----------



## Number6

Joels fish said:


> Does anyone else see that this bill is completely out of the federal governments relm of power?


 I mentioned that on page 1... so since I'm one of the few who've said that they support it in a repaired state (I don't recall if anyone supports this as is from this thread, I'd have to re-read) I figured I should point out that I tried to bring that up prior to all of you doomsday criers!!! :lol:


----------



## Joels fish

It's not "doomsday" but just the fact that the federal government would even considerthat they have say in this, and that people think they should. 


> Their is no counter-balance to what is going on right now and I fear SR669 will pass without so much as a whimper from the floor of Congress.


 That's why we need to stand up and make sure that we are heard . Emails, direct calls to our represenatives ,ect are important. Right now the Democrats are drunk with power having an all but unstopable majority. We have to tell them what we expect of them or they will do as they please, and we can say nothing about it if we do nothing to try and stop them from doing something we don't want them to. Plain and simple.

My fear for this bill is that as most things go in washington, by the time everyone has their way with it, it will be so far from the original document that you wont be able to own a guppy without a 1000 dollar permit. That may sound extreme , but with the way things are going these days and a president that thinks an ipod is a suitable gift for royalty (jeez that guys an idiot) this bill could pass in an even more restrictive form. I don't think that's doomsday, I think it's business as usual for DC


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

I have a separate question for those of you who see NO Worries...

What will you guys do when keeping the majority of fish, and in my case corals, we keep become illegal? Will you guys give up the hobby or protest or just go underground?

You are speculating there is no way that the Bill will pass. I hope you are right, but what if you are wrong and imports stop and fish farms close? I just want to know what your speculative thoughts are then?

Thanks


----------



## Number6

Mr.Firemouth said:


> What will you guys do when keeping the majority of fish, and in my case corals, we keep become illegal?


What in that bill possibly suggests that there will be a majority of animals NOT on the list?

I own a reef tank... I own corals... I would be upset to learn that I should not be keeping a species of coral because it could cause harm to Florida coastline... If you lived here, wouldn't you be?


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

Why would I be concerned?
I would never release anything back to the wild.

Fish farms that get flooded should not be built on flood plains.

People should not release fish into coastal waters or local lakes/streams.

I should not be regulated because some one else was an idiot!

So, why shouldn't you keep corals from the Pacific rim which are definitely a threat to Florida coastal waters? If they were released they would outcompete local corals for space and introduce pathonegens not native to your area like Redbugs, etc. But do you plan to release Acropora next to Florida Stags?

This Bill should not be given a chance, and pass or fail don't you think you should be supporting the rest of us to show our disapproval?

Off Florida and up the East Coast aquarium hobbyists were blamed for the invasion of lionfish. Now the scientist say that is not the case and that the bilge water of ship Ballasts are releasing lionfish, fry, and planktonic larvae. They believe ships to be the number one cause because of how wide spread it is and do no longer believe that a hobbyist introducing unwanted lions could of caused this much widespread(over hundreds of miles) damage.

So do we stop ships from entering ports?
There are laws that require ships to purge the bilges before entering a port to avoid pumping exotics into local shallows.

The point is we need to at least show we care, and by doing nothing or showing apathy is only allowing proponents of the Bill to have the upperhand!


----------



## Number6

Mr.Firemouth said:


> Why would I be concerned?
> I would never release anything back to the wild.


Nobody plans an accident...

http://www.projectpacific.org/caulerpa_taxifolia.html

It's actually suspected that it escaped from our aquariums (yes, that's right... the killer strain was an aquarium strain) via a museam while Jacques Cousteau was in charge...

Ship ballasts are ALSO a big problem... I am not the type to be persuaded that one topic need not be addressed because there is a larger problem as well. All topics need to be addressed to cure the problem.


----------



## JWerner2

Actually that is probably the biggest problem. Ships dumping off water when they come into port. That causes the most damage and pollution at that.



> This Bill should not be given a chance, and pass or fail don't you think you should be supporting the rest of us to show our disapproval?


Speaking for myself, I can show support for the disapproval. I how ever know by now that things like this honestly do not oppose any threat. That is my point. It is scary and it would suck if we cant have fun in our hobby but by now with the many acts similar to this that have been thought up over the last 10-15 years Im not concerned cause I know they get denied.


----------



## JWerner2

Joels fish said:


> This bill will never be properly implemented because it is too broad . Banned species list have the problem that they do not take into account that most of the climate in the US is not cichlid friendly, and not exactly friendly to a lot of tropical fish . T*his would potentially ban species from being kept in areas that they could cause no damage in the first place. Let's not forget that this bill is in excess of the governments powers under the Constution. These types of laws are the responsibility and priviledge of the states NOT the federal government . *Also this bill will be in place on top of existing state regulations , making the legalities of keeping breeding and transporting even the grandfathered species very iffy at best.


Bravo! One reason why I believe it was thought up by no brain morons. The people that do make the final decisions know how difficult it would be to have the states gaming and wild life commissions readjust. This would mean that for the decades states fish and game commissions handled these things they will no longer be in charge. The people making the final decision know what kind of political turmoil this could cause and will veto!


----------



## iceblue

JWerner2 said:


> Bravo! One reason why I believe it was thought up by no brain morons. The people that do make the final decisions know how difficult it would be to have the states gaming and wild life commissions readjust. This would mean that for the decades states fish and game commissions handled these things they will no longer be in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be difficult at all to implement this Bill when you have an unchecked Congress who will spend money that doesn't even exist. Local Gaming and Wildlife Commissions will gladly line up for Federal largess and except the guidelines that go with it to increase their own power-base. This Bill and many others are purposely left vague so that the details can be written in by bureaucrats somewhere down the line after they become law.
> 
> By far the greatest of the invasive species (especially in Florida) are shrubs, trees, vines, herbs and insects but, when it comes to invasive species, the ornamental fish trade is the low hanging fruit that can easily be picked off. Very few of the fish we keep are an actual danger to the environment and most of the invasive fish that are already established were introduced for sport fishing, food production and pest control. Yes, there are some species who's introduction came directly from home aquarium release, but it is a very small fraction.
> 
> By far the biggest problem in aquarium keeping are the aquatic plants. Just a single leaf from some of these plants can have devastating effects on our waterways. No offence to those of you who keep plants and I'm sure your well aware of how to properly dispose of unwanted growth, but ornamental fish will be lumped in with the restrictions on the aquarium trade as a whole.
> 
> I'm not trying to start a war between plant keepers and fish keepers but a well thought out plan for environmental protection on a State by State level is a far better solution then what SR669 would produce as currently written. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in defeating this Bill and better, well thought out dialog can begin crafting a bill that will have a positive impact as a whole to help maintain a healthy and prosperous pet trade and protect our waterways. However the growing pessimist in me thinks a power grabbing administration will give little thought to the average hobbyist. Their not going to look to us for solutions. Their going to look at us as the problem.
Click to expand...


----------



## dogofwar

The purpose of the bill seems reasonable...the way that it proposes to accomplish this purpose has some issues, though, in my opinion.

"SEC. 2. PURPOSE.
The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' health or human health.

There seem to be some who believe that takinf steps to prevent harm to the economy, environment and human health are outside of the realm of the federal government. I disagree.

(From http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:h669


----------



## DJRansome

I wrote to my congressman and asked him to find another way to protect the environment without regulating imports. Let him figure it out, LOL.

I'd go along with the regional regs, but what about our buddies in Florida, etc.?

They aren't trying to regulate *us,* but the idiots who release into the wild. We are just getting caught in the vise. How many posts have we all responded to from people scoffing about the harm of releasing unwanted fish, struggling to communicate the severity of the harm this can cause...even if the only harm is unwanted regulation imposing limits on imports.


----------



## Fogelhund

dogofwar said:


> There seem to be some who believe that takinf steps to prevent harm to the economy, environment and human health are outside of the realm of the federal government. I disagree.


I agree.. but this is too generalized. In what way are Cichlids a potential harm to the economy, environment and human health in all but perhaps Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Florida, Texas, California and perhaps a couple of other states?

If you want something truly useful, be very specific.


----------



## Number6

DJRansome said:


> How many posts have we all responded to from people scoffing about the harm of releasing unwanted fish, struggling to communicate the severity of the harm this can cause...


 :thumb: I didn't even make that connection... but I've been so frustrated at the dolts who use the old "drop in the bucket" arguement at me that it really should have popped to mind.


----------



## Joels fish

> I agree.. but this is too generalized. In what way are Cichlids a potential harm to the economy, environment and human health in all but perhaps Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Florida, Texas, California and perhaps a couple of other states?


 That's why states have laws that regulate Fish and Wildlife. Having spent most of my life in Texas I have been legally prohibited from owning freshwater rays untill I moved to South Carolina where they are legal to own. Now I just cant afford them. I do undrstand why they are banned in Texas along with pirahna and a few other nasties. They can survive in the wild in certain parts of the state. While a bummer for me as a hobbiest , I'd rather wish I could have one than step on one fishing. This is the business of the state to determine, not the Feds. The thing that needs to happen is for the Feds to offer up some money to the states to enforce what regulations are there, not impose a broad sweeping law . This would go a lot farther towards the intent of the bill than trying to ban species from import or transport. A game warden busting some idiot for letting his fish loose in the local waterway is better than us getting the bad end of the stick for it. And If they are caught doing that then atleast there is a chance to isolate a creek or stream to prevent the spead of the invader.


----------



## iceblue

Not to belabor the point but a short synopsis of the Bill for Congress is painting with a very broad brush. Pay particular attention starting with number 4.

http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bi ... n=retrieve


----------



## Joels fish

Linky no worky


----------



## Joels fish

I suppose it's worth mentioning that some of the more problematic introduced and invasive species in the US were in fact released by the government. Kudzoo, asian carp, mosquito fish, and Festae have all been intentionally released by Fed and state agencies . Now those yahoos want to tell us what we cant have in our aquariums! The more I research this the more it aggravates me.


----------



## iceblue

Joels fish said:


> Linky no worky


It was a synopsis giving the summary of what the intent of the Bill is all about. If you pull up the entire Bill the summary reads exactly word for word like Page 2 lines 1-26 and Page 3 lines 1-24.

Imo it reads a little scarier then the rest of the language in the Bill.


----------



## SupeDM

This is absolutely insane. To believe that anyone in our government has the brain power to actually read the bill would be incredibly naieve. Most of these people are only there because they were put there by special interest groups. Their vote will only go to the highest bidder unless it will cause them to gain votes in the next election. Case in point " The Somali Lottery was pushed through by a Democratic Congress Because they believed that the somali's that were imported would vote democratic. " Even though they knew how much damage 750,000 undereducated people could do to the economy. This is not a insult to Somali's just a simple fact. Congress doesnt give a rip about america or americans. Unless it fattens their pockets. They will pass this bill unread because the people who own the pattens on designer fish such as the Glo-Fish and other commercially produced man made varietys will pay to have it done. Their belief is that if we can only have their fish then we will be forced to keep their fish to stay in the hobby. They will also push for part of the bill to inclde that comercially farmed fish be sterilized so they cannot reproduce if they escape or they are released. Again forcing hobbiests to buy commercially farmed fish. This is one that we as hobbiests need to be sure gets shot down early and with authority. And we better believe that the commercial breeders are not with us on this one. We can almost be sure that they will be putting cash in the pockets of congressmen to try and pass it.

Again I am not trying to offend anyone just stating a point that our Government is ignorant to the needs of our country.

" Gun controll only keeps guns out of the hands of people who would legally obtain them in the first place" Thomas Jefferson.


----------



## I3lazd

if it goes into affect then we will start an underground fish running scheme lol :lol: :lol:


----------



## BillD

As an outsider, i find it interesting that there is such a cry to stop the bill, from people who should be more interested in getting a bill that works for them. The present situation where states create their own laws obviously doesn't work. Fish shows and conventions draw people from all over the country, and there are not border barriers between states to prevent a banned fish from travelling to a state where it is illegal. Plants are the same. the4 old argument that most species can't take the cold don't always hold water. We have cambomba established in a lake north of here where it is "too cold" for it to survive. Not all cichlids come from tropical sources. Those from Uruguay (such as Gymnos) can tolerate water into the 40s, which allows for a large part of the US to be habitable by them. There are a few voices of reason in this thread, but most of the comments, indicate that situation needs to be addressed.


----------



## Joels fish

The state laws are always better that a broad sweeping federal law because they have local intrests in mind . Back home one could buy a freshwater ray out of state and bring it in .However if the gamewardens caught wind of it you'd not only loose the fish ,you'd get slapped with a seriously large fine or even jail. No system is perfect , but the current system is far better than anything the Feds can ever dream up. If you doubt that take a look at what the feds have been doing lately. To even consider giving regulation over this hobby and its' industry shows a lack of understanding of how federal regulation hurts not only business but those that depend on it. Government intrusion is never the answer .


----------



## BillD

Joels fish said:


> To even consider giving regulation over this hobby and its' industry shows a lack of understanding of how federal regulation hurts not only business but those that depend on it. Government intrusion is never the answer .


The state of the banking system is a good example.


----------



## Fogelhund

BillD said:


> Joels fish said:
> 
> 
> 
> To even consider giving regulation over this hobby and its' industry shows a lack of understanding of how federal regulation hurts not only business but those that depend on it. Government intrusion is never the answer .
> 
> 
> 
> The state of the banking system is a good example.
Click to expand...

Actually, you couldn't have picked a poorer example if you tried. :lol:


----------



## JWerner2

BillD said:


> As an outsider, i find it interesting that there is such a cry to stop the bill, from people who should be more interested in getting a bill that works for them. The present situation where states create their own laws obviously doesn't work. Fish shows and conventions draw people from all over the country, and there are not border barriers between states to prevent a banned fish from travelling to a state where it is illegal. Plants are the same. the4 old argument that most species can't take the cold don't always hold water. We have cambomba established in a lake north of here where it is "too cold" for it to survive. Not all cichlids come from tropical sources. Those from Uruguay (such as Gymnos) can tolerate water into the 40s, which allows for a large part of the US to be habitable by them. There are a few voices of reason in this thread, but most of the comments, indicate that situation needs to be addressed.


Coming from a " outsider " I would not expect you to fully understand that the state enforced regulations work out fine.

You will have the same morons doing the same things otherwise so please elaborate a bit further as to why you believe they do not work. Im all game for the states to step up game a bit but this bill is stupid and poorly thought out. Federal Gov. does not have the right to rule over every state in manners as such to begin with!

Some regulations if executive with proper thought may allow you to keep certain species that are easy to breed but almost 100% wild caught causing more domestic breeding, healthier fish in the hobby, and less taking from the wild.



> The state of the banking system is a good example.


That is a terrible example. It has nothing to do with the subject.


----------



## JWerner2

iceblue said:


> JWerner2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bravo! One reason why I believe it was thought up by no brain morons. The people that do make the final decisions know how difficult it would be to have the states gaming and wild life commissions readjust. This would mean that for the decades states fish and game commissions handled these things they will no longer be in charge.
> 
> 
> 
> It won't be difficult at all to implement this Bill when you have an unchecked Congress who will spend money that doesn't even exist. Local Gaming and Wildlife Commissions will gladly line up for Federal largess and except the guidelines that go with it to increase their own power-base. This Bill and many others are purposely left vague so that the details can be written in by bureaucrats somewhere down the line after they become law.
> 
> By far the greatest of the invasive species (especially in Florida) are shrubs, trees, vines, herbs and insects but, when it comes to invasive species, the ornamental fish trade is the low hanging fruit that can easily be picked off. Very few of the fish we keep are an actual danger to the environment and most of the invasive fish that are already established were introduced for sport fishing, food production and pest control. Yes, there are some species who's introduction came directly from home aquarium release, but it is a very small fraction.
> 
> By far the biggest problem in aquarium keeping are the aquatic plants. Just a single leaf from some of these plants can have devastating effects on our waterways. No offence to those of you who keep plants and I'm sure your well aware of how to properly dispose of unwanted growth, but ornamental fish will be lumped in with the restrictions on the aquarium trade as a whole.
> 
> I'm not trying to start a war between plant keepers and fish keepers but a well thought out plan for environmental protection on a State by State level is a far better solution then what SR669 would produce as currently written. Hopefully cooler heads will prevail in defeating this Bill and better, well thought out dialog can begin crafting a bill that will have a positive impact as a whole to help maintain a healthy and prosperous pet trade and protect our waterways. However the growing pessimist in me thinks a power grabbing administration will give little thought to the average hobbyist. Their not going to look to us for solutions. Their going to look at us as the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> First you need to except the fact that where the people that thought up this bill might be idiots not everyone in congress is and not everyone in congress is so eagerly willing to spend cash! It just dont work that way!
> 
> I highly doubt a Commonwealth like PA for example will so gladly open the door for federal run regulations of the gaming and wild life commission. Same goes for lots of other states! Trust me it gets way deeper than what you think.
Click to expand...


----------



## JWerner2

Fishing season just started. What will they have to say about gaming fish raised and released into non native waters? :roll:


----------



## iceblue

JWerner2 said:


> First you need to except the fact that where the people that thought up this bill might be idiots not everyone in congress is and not everyone in congress is so eagerly willing to spend cash! It just dont work that way!
> 
> I highly doubt a Commonwealth like PA for example will so gladly open the door for federal run regulations of the gaming and wild life commission. Same goes for lots of other states! Trust me it gets way deeper than what you think.


I have no doubt these people aren't idiots and will be able to pass this Bill on a strictly partison basis. "You scrartch my back and I'll scratch yours". Once they do, the Commonwealth of PA. and all other states will be rolled over.

So far as them not willing to spend cash have you looked at the National Dept lately. Their spending money like water going over Niagra Falls with no end in sight.


----------



## JWerner2

iceblue said:


> JWerner2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> First you need to except the fact that where the people that thought up this bill might be idiots not everyone in congress is and not everyone in congress is so eagerly willing to spend cash! It just dont work that way!
> 
> I highly doubt a Commonwealth like PA for example will so gladly open the door for federal run regulations of the gaming and wild life commission. Same goes for lots of other states! Trust me it gets way deeper than what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no doubt these people aren't idiots and will be able to pass this Bill on a strictly partison basis. "You scrartch my back and I'll scratch yours". Once they do, the Commonwealth of PA. and all other states will be rolled over.
> 
> So far as them not willing to spend cash have you looked at the National Dept lately. Their spending money like water going over Niagra Falls with no end in sight.
Click to expand...

No they wont be rolled over. Now your saying there will be a pay off? Not at all. This will in the end cause states to loose money!

As far as your comment on US debt is concerned you really think its cause of congressmen passing bills and not do to decade upon decade of war just for starts? =D>


----------



## iceblue

I'll save further comment on the subject till after the Congressional vote on SR669. I have a feeling we're skirting awefully close to having the thread locked by straying too far from the subject. :fish:


----------



## JWerner2

I dont think its going off subject at all. We are clearly debating whether or not we need action. We can all agree that we dont like it in some way I just dont want people to get scared. I do remember last year or so something similar was posted on Cuadata.org about something similar and as I said its been brought up plenty of times in the years past but a federal action does not work.


----------



## Number6

iceblue said:


> I'll save further comment on the subject till after the Congressional vote on SR669. I have a feeling we're skirting awefully close to having the thread locked by straying too far from the subject. :fish:


 psychic! 

Because it is an interesting and fish related topic, it does get some leeway but it is appreciated if we can stick to fish and avoid some of the politics. Sure, some is relevant, but too mcuh strays too far off from Aquaria. Thanks in advance.


----------



## DJRansome

The question the lawmakers ought to be pondering is: what is the source of non-native invasive species and how can I regulate irresponsible citizens without harming responsible hobbyists and businesses?

So do they even KNOW what the true source is? Has it ever been proven that an irresponsible or accidental hobbyist release is the source?


----------



## Joels fish

Number6 said:


> iceblue said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll save further comment on the subject till after the Congressional vote on SR669. I have a feeling we're skirting awefully close to having the thread locked by straying too far from the subject. :fish:
> 
> 
> 
> psychic!
> 
> Because it is an interesting and fish related topic, it does get some leeway but it is appreciated if we can stick to fish and avoid some of the politics. Sure, some is relevant, but too mcuh strays too far off from Aquaria. Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

 The fact of the matter is that anything that has to do with the government is political. I cant see anyway to discuss the matter without politics involved. Nature of the beast .


----------



## Joels fish

> So do they even KNOW what the true source is? Has it ever been proven that an irresponsible or accidental hobbyist release is the source?


Maybe maybe not, but I've seen video of some dummy releasing red tailed catfish into a lake on Youtube. Fortunately I beleive the video was from someone in Chicago so the fish went into one of the great lakes. Very low probability that they survived. If those videos are used as eveidence for the bill, then it might get tougher to argue against it's need in washington.


----------



## JWerner2

I still doubt it would hold up as evidence if the congressmen coming up with the bill would even find the videos. Thats like the local Police getting pissed cause the Feds show up at the petty crime scene. State officials will debate on who is responsible for action against the person committing the crime.

Seriously, a valid argument one would have to this is what is the Federal Gov. going to do for the release of gaming fish that are released into non-native waters by state gaming commissions for recreation? Are they just going to shrug that off and still allow it or will they take control of it and be the ones in charge?


----------



## Joels fish

Well seeing as how they've been doing that for decades I don't think it will be stopped . Even if it were , what can be done about it now that non native game fish are firmly entrenched in the environment? The release of game fish is an accepted practice and I would doubt that it would ever be stopped.



> I still doubt it would hold up as evidence if the congressmen coming up with the bill would even find the videos. Thats like the local Police getting pissed cause the Feds show up at the petty crime scene. State officials will debate on who is responsible for action against the person committing the crime.


 You have to remember who were talking about . Congress is not exactly comprised of the most informed individuals when it comes to these sorts of things. A bunch of videos of idiots releasing their fish could prove very detrimental, especially if there is no context to it.


----------



## dogofwar

It's not even out of committee...probably never will be...so congress isn't likely ever going to actually vote on it...then it goes through the Senate process.



iceblue said:


> I'll save further comment on the subject till after the Congressional vote on SR669. I have a feeling we're skirting awefully close to having the thread locked by straying too far from the subject. :fish:


----------



## JWerner2

Joels fish said:


> Well seeing as how they've been doing that for decades I don't think it will be stopped . Even if it were , what can be done about it now that non native game fish are firmly entrenched in the environment? The release of game fish is an accepted practice and I would doubt that it would ever be stopped.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still doubt it would hold up as evidence if the congressmen coming up with the bill would even find the videos. Thats like the local Police getting pissed cause the Feds show up at the petty crime scene. State officials will debate on who is responsible for action against the person committing the crime.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to remember who were talking about . Congress is not exactly comprised of the most informed individuals when it comes to these sorts of things. A bunch of videos of idiots releasing their fish could prove very detrimental, especially if there is no context to it.
Click to expand...

Dont forget how the courts work. They would prosecute the criminals first. Then during the process the attorney for the defendant will bring up the point that the species will not live nor thrive in the conditions of the lake. That being said charges would be dropped to a extent and only few would stick or punishment would not be as severe. This wouldnt prove anything in the end for the members of congress that you feel would hold this as evidence.

Also stop thinking that all members of congress aside from the ones congering up this bill are out to get everyone and are so crooked. I think thats where the most paranoia comes from. The fact everyone thinks all members of congress is idiots and out to screw us all for no reason.


----------



## Number6

Re-opening topic.

Hopefully we can avoid the reviews of politics and politicians and stick to discussing the bill?

Thanks in advance!


----------



## JWerner2

Number6 said:


> Re-opening topic.
> 
> Hopefully we can avoid the reviews of politics and politicians and stick to discussing the bill?
> 
> Thanks in advance!


How so when they are the ones creating the bill?

In this case it should have been locked with the first post like the others that followed.


----------



## Joels fish

> How so when they are the ones creating the bill?


 Exactly.

The other day I was at the LFS and the people there (owner and employees) are very worried about this bill. They were handing out info on the bill including the preliminary aproved species list (which only lists goldfish as approved) plus the contact info for our congressman. If this bill does make it out of commitee and to the floor for a vote we need to let those that represent us know where we stand. They do work for us so lets tell them what they need to do. If all we do is debate and fail to act , then we get what we deserve. Call your representatives and tell them to vote NO on this bill.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

http://www.nohr669.com/


----------



## apistomaster

I just got off the phone after speaking to an aid of my Congresional Representative, Cathy McMorris Rodgers(R) by calling her WA DC office.

I informed her of HR 669 and the fact that the non-voting Congressional Representative from the Territory of Guam has introduced this ridiculous bill in subcommittee.

I explained to her that the aquarium hobby is second only to sports fishing in total dollars spent in this country and should this bill become law it would create wide spread unemployment of many workers in the pet trade as well as put 10's of thousands of small pet shops out of business.
I explained to her that under this law, keeping and raising even Guppies would become illegal.
I also explained that each state already has laws regulating which species are banned based on their possible viability and what may be best for Hawaii was not applicable to the State of Washington. That there are already plenty of federal laws and CITES treaty agreements we in the United states already honor.

I told her which animals were allowed under the proposed law and that it has been the cattle, sheep, swine and other farm animals that are largely responsible for the introduction and spread of noxious weeds, invasive, non-native pest plants and that such plants are a larger problem and are not even addressed in this bill.
I also pointed out that the most serious invasive and harmful fish that have been introduced to the waters of the united states were not brought in by the pet trade but by governmental agencies. These agencies have introduced European Carp, Asian Grass carp, English sparrows, European starlings just to name a few. Then they went on to introduce eastern brook trout and spiny ray Fish like bass, Sunfish and many species of catfish to the west thus harming native Cutthroat Trout and the endangered Bull Trout. Then in the reverse, Western rainbow trout and the Brown trout were introduced to waters east of the Mississippi which resulted in nearly wiping out their native Brook Trout.

My call was the first her office had heard of this misguided bill, HR 669.
As a result, I think it registered with her. Of course she said she would bring this to my representative's attention, that part is standard boiler plate response to most any call. but I think as our Representatives begin to hear more, and you know that some must keep fish or other pets and if not, they certainly have family members who are fish and pet keepers, I think they will not allow this bill to ever see the light of day.

To be sure, everyone should call or write to their Representatives to ensure that we raise their awareness of this bill and it's personal and financial implications.

I am retired early due to a disability and keeping and breeding tropical fish is one of the few hobbies I am still able to pursue. I will not go down without a fight.


----------



## JWerner2

> My call was the first her office had heard of this misguided bill, HR 669.


Now, aint that something?

Come on guys what does that tell you!?

That tells me its obviously nothing big amongst the members of congress and most likely will not pass!


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

JWerner2 said:


> My call was the first her office had heard of this misguided bill, HR 669.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, aint that something?
> 
> Come on guys what does that tell you!?
> 
> That tells me its obviously nothing big amongst the members of congress and most likely will not pass!
Click to expand...

Really?
What do you think of CA residents not being able to sell or trade live animals at any outdoor market?...
http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/a ... oduced.pdf

Exactly why is this illegal? 20 million immigrants use our resources every day but this is illegal?

I do frag swaps, and have been to club events held outside in tents before. The 1998 ACA convention was held in a parking lot of a hotel with tents also. So, in CA you would not be able to sell fish or snakes, or... at any market style event.


----------



## allen2

Please join Rolf C. Hagen (USA) Corp. and http://www.frontosa.com in opposing the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (HR669) as it is currently written. In its current form this bill has the potential to decimate our industry. We urge you to contact your congressional representatives in the House of Representatives to let your voice be heard. We have included a specific list of representatives who co-sponsored this bill or sit on House Sub Committee; Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife.
Click here for the list of the House Sub Committee.
http://hagen.c.topica.com/maam1n6abPHj0bJY6p0cafpSeg/

I have just contacted my representative for the 21st. district of California. District 21 rep of california did not even know their website was down. Further more confused what I was saying, I am not sure the person on the phone even knew about HR669......

I am in California's 21st district and are represented by The Honorable Devin Nunes .

Contact Information:

The Honorable Devin Nunes
1013 Longworth
Washington, D.C. 20515
(202) 225-2523

The website for my district is down at the moment nunez.house.gov

I also notified them their website was down. I have requested a response from the congressman and I was assured I would get one.

To Find out what district you are in you may look here.
Find out your district here.
https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

To find your district representative you may look here
use the drop down menu found here to locate your district representative.
http://www.house.gov/Welcome.shtml

Please Contact your representative NOW! DEADLINE TO BE HEARD IS APRIL 23rd. 2009

_SILENCE IS ACCEPTANCE_

GET WITH IT PEOPLE. MANY district reps who are going to vote on this do not even know it exists.

































http://hagen.c.topica.com/maam1n6abPHj0bJY6p0cafpSeg/


----------



## JWerner2

Mr.Firemouth said:


> JWerner2 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My call was the first her office had heard of this misguided bill, HR 669.
> 
> 
> 
> Now, aint that something?
> 
> Come on guys what does that tell you!?
> 
> That tells me its obviously nothing big amongst the members of congress and most likely will not pass!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Really?
> What do you think of CA residents not being able to sell or trade live animals at any outdoor market?...
> http://info.sen.ca.gov/pub/09-10/bill/a ... oduced.pdf
> 
> Exactly why is this illegal? 20 million immigrants use our resources every day but this is illegal?
> 
> I do frag swaps, and have been to club events held outside in tents before. The 1998 ACA convention was held in a parking lot of a hotel with tents also. So, in CA you would not be able to sell fish or snakes, or... at any market style event.
Click to expand...

I think that is up to the state of California. I feel there is a good reason. The eco system of California can sustain lots of non natives. African clawed frogs are a great example of one that can do lots of harm. Do you think its wise to sell these animals out in the open so they can escape and be immediately introduced to the environment?

You go CA! RESPONSIBILITY!

Seriously, now its going off topic! What did that have to do with my post that you needed to quote it anyway?



> at any market style event.


Correction! Any _outdoor_ market style event :thumb:


----------



## Number6

JWerner2 said:


> I think that is up to the state of California. I feel there is a good reason. The eco system of California can sustain lots of non natives. African clawed frogs are a great example of one that can do lots of harm. Do you think its wise to sell these animals out in the open so they can escape and be immediately introduced to the environment?
> 
> You go CA! RESPONSIBILITY!
> 
> Seriously, now its going off topic! What did that have to do with my post that you needed to quote it anyway?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> at any market style event.
> 
> 
> 
> Correction! Any _outdoor_ market style event :thumb:
Click to expand...

 I had the exact same thoughts... LOL

different topic completely, at a state level where it ought to be at, and an idea I can easily see the logic of...

Let's stick to HR669 please...


----------



## JWerner2

Schwarzenegger FTW!

We are one day away and it is odd to me that some of the peoplein congress havent even heard of this bill that should have by now.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

I quoted you because you dismiss this as trivial.(which I do not understand?)
You act as if this will not pass or be considered, yet there are Bills already enacted in CA local penal codes and in other states preventing the sale of live animals which includes fish and corals and some live plants.

Why should the Government tell me I can NOT have a certain pet or sell one when I have been responsibly keeping fish for over 25 years and have never released one into the wild. The people I sell fish to are also responsible fish keepers.

For me, the most irresponsible thing to do with this Bill is due nothing and tell others not to worry or to act. People actually get heard when they stand up and say ENOUGH! This thread here, and on all the other fish forums and youtube are designed to get people to speak out against this. Not tell them to relax it will be ok.

I hope this Bill does not get past the committee stages.

I am also not arguing with you, but disagreeing with your opinion.


----------



## JWerner2

Mr.Firemouth said:


> I quoted you because you dismiss this as trivial.(which I do not understand?)
> You act as if this will not pass or be considered, yet there are Bills already enacted in CA local penal codes and in other states preventing the sale of live animals which includes fish and corals and some live plants.
> 
> Why should the Government tell me I can NOT have a certain pet or sell one when I have been responsibly keeping fish for over 25 years and have never released one into the wild. The people I sell fish to are also responsible fish keepers.
> 
> For me, the most irresponsible thing to do with this Bill is due nothing and tell others not to worry or to act. People actually get heard when they stand up and say ENOUGH! This thread here, and on all the other fish forums and youtube are designed to get people to speak out against this. Not tell them to relax it will be ok.
> 
> I hope this Bill does not get past the committee stages.
> 
> I am also not arguing with you, but disagreeing with your opinion.


You are right, I do act as if this bill will not pass or be considered. What is so wrong with that? Am I agreeing with it in anyway? No.

Again you bring up local Gov. Why.? *They have every right and if they dont act that is when and why federal feels they need to step in!* Everything needs order, Im sure you heard that annoying saying plenty of times before. 


> Why should the Government tell me I can NOT have a certain pet or sell one when I have been responsibly keeping fish for over 25 years and have never released one into the wild. The people I sell fish to are also responsible fish keepers.


 Im sure its attitudes like that that provoke bills like this. This is pertaining to Federal not local. So now you say NO ONE FOR ANY REASON should tell you what to do? Libertarians, the anarchist that are afraid of anarchy :roll:

Thats like saying drinking and driving should not be a crime cause for the last 25 years YOU have been responsible.

Dont blame the Government, they arent the ones being irresponsible for those 25 years that you have been. To be realistic and I know this from working in the trade we the responsible ones are the minority if anything!



> For me, the most irresponsible thing to do with this Bill is due nothing and tell others not to worry or to act


What? seriously dude take a break from it for a day or so. I dare you to look into how many bills very much like this have been rejected with out the public's interference over the last say... 25 years. I bet you some laws have been done away with since then! As I said before they dont care what we have to say. They are the ones who get paid to make these decisions. If its gunna happen it will happen and no e-mail or letter will stop it but I know it wont happen.
And once again feel free to do what you feel necessary dont think I am attempting to stop anyone from doing so. All Im saying is dont be scared cause it wont happen regardless.


----------



## dwarfpike

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/breaking/story/679791.html

Anyone else find this horrible timing for this bill?


----------



## Toby_H

Scarey stuff... I live about 5 miles from Lake Wiley and visit the parks surrounding it often...

and no, I didn't do it! lol

As for the Bill... I disagree that they get paid to make decisions for us... we elect them to make decisions on our behalf...

When we see an angle on something they may not consider... or an impact they may not realize... it's our job to communicate maturely with them to widen their perspective... You had better believe there are supporters of the Bill who are conveying their perspectives... us conveying ours offers the opportunity to balance that scale...

I've written a few emails, a letter and made a couple phone calls maturely conveying the negative impact it will have on me, my local hobbyist group and the local businesses... I hope you have too...


----------



## JWerner2

Any news?

It was set to take place today at 10:00 est and I missed the live web cast and no one has it archived at all either. opcorn:


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

JWerner2 said:


> Mr.Firemouth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted you because you dismiss this as trivial.(which I do not understand?)
> You act as if this will not pass or be considered, yet there are Bills already enacted in CA local penal codes and in other states preventing the sale of live animals which includes fish and corals and some live plants.
> 
> Why should the Government tell me I can NOT have a certain pet or sell one when I have been responsibly keeping fish for over 25 years and have never released one into the wild. The people I sell fish to are also responsible fish keepers.
> 
> For me, the most irresponsible thing to do with this Bill is due nothing and tell others not to worry or to act. People actually get heard when they stand up and say ENOUGH! This thread here, and on all the other fish forums and youtube are designed to get people to speak out against this. Not tell them to relax it will be ok.
> 
> I hope this Bill does not get past the committee stages.
> 
> I am also not arguing with you, but disagreeing with your opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> You are right, I do act as if this bill will not pass or be considered. What is so wrong with that? Am I agreeing with it in anyway? No.
> 
> Again you bring up local Gov. Why.? *They have every right and if they dont act that is when and why federal feels they need to step in!* Everything needs order, Im sure you heard that annoying saying plenty of times before.
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the Government tell me I can NOT have a certain pet or sell one when I have been responsibly keeping fish for over 25 years and have never released one into the wild. The people I sell fish to are also responsible fish keepers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Im sure its attitudes like that that provoke bills like this. This is pertaining to Federal not local. So now you say NO ONE FOR ANY REASON should tell you what to do? Libertarians, the anarchist that are afraid of anarchy :roll:
> 
> Thats like saying drinking and driving should not be a crime cause for the last 25 years YOU have been responsible.
> 
> Dont blame the Government, they arent the ones being irresponsible for those 25 years that you have been. To be realistic and I know this from working in the trade we the responsible ones are the minority if anything!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For me, the most irresponsible thing to do with this Bill is due nothing and tell others not to worry or to act
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What? seriously dude take a break from it for a day or so. I dare you to look into how many bills very much like this have been rejected with out the public's interference over the last say... 25 years. I bet you some laws have been done away with since then! As I said before they dont care what we have to say. They are the ones who get paid to make these decisions. If its gunna happen it will happen and no e-mail or letter will stop it but I know it wont happen.
> And once again feel free to do what you feel necessary dont think I am attempting to stop anyone from doing so. All Im saying is dont be scared cause it wont happen regardless.
Click to expand...

This Bill is an extension of the 1972 Lacey Act. The ACA had a direct hand in campaigning against the Lacey Act and having it revised and parts defeated. It made the Pet Industry from PIJAC and it formed watch dog groups to keep an eye out for such Bills.

I also have taken several days break from it and bumped all threads once a week. A phone call or email a week ago is quickly forgotten and with politics a steadily beaten drum gets more attention than a quick flash.

This Bill comes up for consideration every 6 years and gets voted down. The threat in todays political climate is the strong democratic majority and the ability to fast track special interest Bills. The Obama Freight train has never been part of the equation with past Bills.

I am also not blaming Government but more so wanting them to take the break and step back!
Here is one example of releasing fish into the wild that is a failure. Live Bait. How many times have you seen sick and deformed minnows at live bait shops? These fish are kept in metal tubs with aerators. Some have plastic tubs. Many do not have filtration. Yet, these sick fish are released into ecosystems all the time and survive. Furthermore, how many bad transplants of exotics is the Government responsible for? Snakeheads? No, but Asian Carp and Gambusia or other predatory fish? Yep!

I agree, I am ringing the "Alarmist Bell". But a lack of action on our part will mean we did nothing and let this happen without a fight. At least if we fight, and lose we tried and that has to count for something.


----------



## JWerner2

The Obama freight train huh?

Ok I see your point now :roll:



> This Bill comes up for consideration every 6 years and gets voted down.


Exactly, but now that we have president Obama things will change! :zz:

Do you really think that we never had strong Democratic presence in our Government any of those times those previous bills were made up?


----------



## Number6

*shakes head*

argue the facts of the bill and let's leave off discussions of republican this, democrat that. 
This in an international (or at least semi-international) forum about cichlids and cichlid keeping, we really need to respect those points or the topic will be closed. Thank you.


----------



## Joels fish

*Number6*
this is a political discussion of a bill that will impact the ability of *AMERICAN* hobbiests to continue to practice their / our hobby should it pass . There is no practicle way to discuss this bill without matters of politics comming up in the discussion.


----------



## Number6

*Joels fish* Learn how.


----------



## iceblue

As of today the Bill has picked up 15 more co-sponsers. Click on "show cosponsers (25)" next to Del. Madeleine Bordallo [D-GU] name.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669


----------



## Joels fish

I was reading the list of bills that Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) sponsor of this bill) has sponsored or co-sponsored. It appears that we are dealling with quite the environmental crusader. Fortunately only one bill out of 33 has been enacted with 26 never making it past committee. Not a stellar track record. Her contact info is here http://www.house.gov/bordallo/contact.html I think that a little angst directed that way certainly cant hurt. She probably has no idea just to what extent the reprocussions of this bill will be outside of Guam and DC. Several thousand "not very happy" emails may help her reconsider the language of the bill thus helping us.


----------



## DeadFishFloating

:lol:

Hi guys, and welcome to my (and all other Aussies) world. I haven't bothered to read the whole thread becuase there's so much b*llsh!t about big brother, free rights, etc, etc.

Any law that looks to protect my country I'm in favour of. I can tell you, we would love to have the option of having permits to be able to keep certain species.

As it is, these type of laws do absolutely nothing to stop people keeping illegal fish as there is a very large smuggling industry here. If you want to keep an illegal species, you know what the penalty is.

What these laws probably have achieved is keeping a lot of the idiots out of the hobby. You know the type, some one who's going to put a couple of snakeheads in with a school of pirahna. Or the person who buys a relatively inexpensive school of Pacu, and when they get to large for thier tank, set them free in the local water way. Becuase most illegal fish are relatively expensive, only serious hobbyists tend to keep illegal species. And when they don't want thier fish anymore, tend to sell them online as they want to recoup as much $$$ as possible.

Look at it this way, if the law passes and you feel it's f*cked up your free rights, well you can always move to some where to doesn't have these laws, say, Somalia, Uganda, Kosovo, Iran, etc, etc. I'm sure you can keep what ever fish you want in many countries that don't offer the opportunities living in the USofA does.


----------



## Joels fish

So what your saying is if the law passes , we should just break federal law? I think it's a better option to try to fight the bill so that it never comes to that.


----------



## JWerner2

No hes saying quit crying and figure out a way to deal with it cause unlike those countries mentioned by him our country cares about us! :roll:

sniped from:http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669



> This bill is in the first step in the legislative process. Introduced bills and resolutions first go to committees that deliberate, investigate, and revise them before they go to general debate.* The majority of bills and resolutions never make it out of committee.* [Last Updated: Apr 23, 2009 12:19PM]


As you might see its still pending one of the very first steps in becoming anything at all!!!

All it is at this stage is a idea thats all. One that will be laughed at in the end.


----------



## Joels fish

Personally I have done something , Signed several petitions to stop the bill. For whatever good they do but at least it's something. Next I'm going to be emailing my representitive and tell him to vote against it should it come to a vote. Also Mrs. Bordallo will hear from me as well . So what's everybody else doing?

Yes our country does care about us, but we have to make sure that washington doesn't care about us to death , or our hobby. And I hope your right , but do we really just sit around and hope that it turns out for the best? I think it's best to voice our opposition early and loudly to ensure that it never goes any further than commitee.


----------



## DeadFishFloating

No. Pretty sure I said,


> Look at it this way, if the law passes and you feel it's f*cked up your free rights, well you can always move to some where to doesn't have these laws,...


But plenty USofA citizens break federal laws every day, so why not join them.

Untill a List of Approved Species is published, what's the concern. Just so you can get an idea of what you're in for, here's a link to our imports laws & at the bottom is the List of permitted Live Freshwater fish suitable for Import.


----------



## Joels fish

> But plenty USofA citizens break federal laws every day, so why not join them


Just because a law is disliked is no reason to break it . breaking of federal law can have many other ramifications other than getting a fine . Not good for a guy who is soon to be under the dirrect authority of said federal government.


----------



## JWerner2

Joels fish said:


> *So what's everybody else doing?*
> 
> .


Sitting back relaxing taking care of my fry and getting ready for some more and possibly some business with some locals.


----------



## jim clifton

Good news I found this on a other site tonight.

VICTORY over HR669!!!

WE DID IT FOLKS!!!! Victory over HR669! You can thank yourselves and the Reptile Nation, for a hard fought Victory! Our nearly 50,000 grassroots letters and 1,000s of phone calls to the offices of the subcommittee members clearly prevailed at today's Insular Affairs Subcommittee hearing on HR 669. HR 669 in it's current form is finished. For anything to go forward it MUST be re-written from the ground up....and USARK will have a seat at the table along with other stake holders.
Delegate Faleomavega from Samoa said, "The letter and phone campaign hit the subcommittee like a BUZZ SAW". Harry Burroughs, of the subcommittee staff said, "I haven't seen a letter writing campaign like this in 30 years! You should be proud of yourselves." Take heart in the fact that the Reptile Nation stopped HR669 in it's tracks!!
We also need to thank Congressman Henry Brown, SC for helping us to focus our fight on the Subcommittee as opposed to the full House of Representatives. He is the one who instructed us to write real letters to be truly effective. He said emails are fine if that is all you can manage, but they can be filtered and deleted. There is no denying the weight of thousands of paper letters from American citizens. The Reptile Nation was responsible for 49,229 letters delivered to the Subcommittee in less than two weeks. Congressman Brown's staff made sure they all got in the door. 38,000 of those letters will be entered into the permanent record. Thank you my friends!
Credit should also be given to Bill Martin, a witness who testified at the hearing. He is the President of Blue Ridge Aquatics, a large multi-state Tilapia farming operation. They farm Tilapia as a food fish. He had some serious problems with the bill and the ear of much of the committee. His plain talk of how this bill would destroy hundreds of families hit home. What they do and the impact this bill would have on them parallels the plight of the Reptile Nation.
Senior Democrat staff from the House Committee on Natural Resources advised Subcommittee Chair Madeleine Bordallo that if she wants something to go forward she will have to go back to square one and draft a new bill. Then have another subcommittee hearing. When and if she does, USARK will be there to represent the interests of the Reptile Nation!! They probably will try, and that will be our challenge for another day. But Today VICTORY is SWEET!...... Celebrate today and rest, because tomorrow we must get ready to fight again.
Thank you Reptile Nation! Thank you Tom Wolfe. Thank you everyone who did their part.
Stay tuned... This fight has only begun!
USARK
A note from Tom Wolfe:
"The good news is, USARK engineered a significant victory which caught the attention of the entire membership of the Subcommittee and their staffs.
The bad news is this is just the first step in the process. Members of the Reptile Nation should be jubilant with this victory. However, our success should be measured, because the proponents of HR 669 will be back soon with another version of the same legislation. They will not rest, so we must not rest either.
Take satisfaction in a job well done and a victory well deserved, but know we all must rise up again to fight on because the battle has just begun!"

( pic above ) - USARK President, Andrew Wyatt presents Republican Staff Director Harry Burroughs the 38,000 letters that were admitted into the record of the official proceedings of the Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife Subcommittee hearing on Thursday, April 23, 2009.

( pic above ) - Partial view of the 14 boxes and 11 USPS mail bins containing the 38,000 letters delivered to the Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife Subcommittee.

( pic above ) - Insular Affairs, Oceans & Wildlife Subcommittee Ranking Republican Henry Brown, (SC-1) accepts one of the 25 containers comprising of over 38,000 letters from THE REPTILE NATION delivered to the subcommittee hearing on April 23, 2009. Left to right, Andrew Wyatt - President USARK, Congressman Henry Brown and Tom Wolfe - Washington representative for USARK.

usark.org
Unsubscribe
Become a Member
Donate


----------



## JWerner2

Link please.


----------



## DeadFishFloating

Oh, and we're so dated down here. Look how many species have had thier genus names changed, and we haven't caught up.

As it is, both my little cichlids are legal, but my catfish are in limbo.

Each state here in Australia has a Noxious Fish list. Becuase of the different climates in each state, not all fish appear on each list. Here is my state QLD Noxious Fish list. However there is a move towards a National Noxious Fish list, which the state of South Australia has already instituted.

Now here is where things get tricky, we have the Allowable Import list known as the *White list*, state/federal Noxious Species List/s known as the *Black list*, then every other fish falls into what is termed the *Grey list*.

It is illegal to import fish on the Grey list, however once they are in the country it is not illegal to own, breed, or sell fish on the Grey list. Even LFS are allowed to sell fish from the Grey list.

Currently the federal government is trying to move all species on the Grey list to the Black list, but is experiencing organised and concerted opposition from the hobby here in Australia.


----------



## DeadFishFloating

Joels fish said:


> But plenty USofA citizens break federal laws every day, so why not join them
> 
> 
> 
> Just because a law is disliked is no reason to break it . breaking of federal law can have many other ramifications other than getting a fine . Not good for a guy who is soon to be under the dirrect authority of said federal government.
Click to expand...

Joel, mate, that was a wind up... :lol:


----------



## JWerner2

> It is illegal to import fish on the Grey list, however once they are in the country it is not illegal to own, breed, or sell fish on the Grey list. Even LFS are allowed to sell fish from the Grey list.


IMO, thats good! Promotes more captive breeding of hard to find fish and those that dont fair well during importation as well as stopping them from being pulled from the wilds. The problem is getting them in without breaking the law. Permit laws should be made for that requiring those that wish ti import to have to obtain special permits.


----------



## DeadFishFloating

Congratulations guys, you still have the right to buy and keep Channa. And some idiot will get a few of them nasty big Indian Channa and end up dumping them in some cannal in Texas, and that'll be end of all that is good.


----------



## JWerner2

JWerner2 said:


> It is illegal to import fish on the Grey list, however once they are in the country it is not illegal to own, breed, or sell fish on the Grey list. Even LFS are allowed to sell fish from the Grey list.
> 
> 
> 
> IMO, thats good! Promotes more captive breeding of hard to find fish and those that dont fair well during importation as well as stopping them from being pulled from the wilds. The problem is getting them in without breaking the law. Permit laws should be made for that requiring those that wish ti import to have to obtain special permits.
Click to expand...

Leopard Geckos are a good example of this. They cant be imported so all of the ones in the trade are domestically bred and look at what they do for the Reptile hobby.


----------



## Darkside

Channa is banned in Ontario. ALL Channa species, which sort of pisses me off because I would like to keep some of the dwarf species.


----------



## DeadFishFloating

*JWerner2*, we would love some sort of permit laws for keeping of many species down here. As it is, there is a large organised smuggling racket of illegal fish into Australia, mainly SA fancy plecos and asian farmed Arowana.

This is the reason why Australia with one twentieth of the population of the USA, trades more fish on PlecoFanatics by about 9 to 1.


----------



## DeadFishFloating

> Leopard Geckos are a good example of this. They cant be imported so all of the ones in the trade are domestically bred and look at what they do for the Reptile hobby.


Are they an Australian native species? I know many Australian reptiles and birds sell very well over seas. However all native Australian wildlife is protected, and other to Zoological institutions, are illegal to export. But again I know during the 70's and 80's there were wide spread capture and smuggling opperations going on.


----------



## Joels fish

DeadFishFloating said:


> Oh, and we're so dated down here. Look how many species have had thier genus names changed, and we haven't caught up.
> 
> As it is, both my little cichlids are legal, but my catfish are in limbo.
> 
> Each state here in Australia has a Noxious Fish list. Becuase of the different climates in each state, not all fish appear on each list. Here is my state QLD Noxious Fish list. However there is a move towards a National Noxious Fish list, which the state of South Australia has already instituted.
> 
> Now here is where things get tricky, we have the Allowable Import list known as the *White list*, state/federal Noxious Species List/s known as the *Black list*, then every other fish falls into what is termed the *Grey list*.
> 
> It is illegal to import fish on the Grey list, however once they are in the country it is not illegal to own, breed, or sell fish on the Grey list. Even LFS are allowed to sell fish from the Grey list.
> 
> Currently the federal government is trying to move all species on the Grey list to the Black list, but is experiencing organised and concerted opposition from the hobby here in Australia.


Here the states already have lists of banned species, and there are already federal laws which prohibit import of various species deemed dangerous or otherwise harmfull. They're not nearly as restrictive as those in Australia, but they are there. Channa and Asian arrowana for instance are illegal in all states by federal law, and others like Pirahna and freshwater rays are restricted on a state to state basis. We have enough good laws here to keep things in good shape , more bad laws just hurt everyone .


----------



## Toby_H

I'm not opposed to laws restricting specific species that are known to be common problems... snakeheads for instance... personally I think Pacus, Red Tail Cats and a few others should require special permits or something...

But putting blanket restrictions over everything non native is just the lazy politicians way to approach a problem... educating onself, or offering authority to those who are already educated... and working with those educated people to make logical restrictions is the way to go


----------



## JWerner2

DeadFishFloating said:


> Leopard Geckos are a good example of this. They cant be imported so all of the ones in the trade are domestically bred and look at what they do for the Reptile hobby.
> 
> 
> 
> Are they an Australian native species? I know many Australian reptiles and birds sell very well over seas. However all native Australian wildlife is protected, and other to Zoological institutions, are illegal to export. But again I know during the 70's and 80's there were wide spread capture and smuggling opperations going on.
Click to expand...

No, they are primarily native to Afghanistan and can not be shipped out of that country at all.

They are found in the Mt Ranges that branch out of the country and into bordering countries but again are not shipped out of any of those countries. That was just a example of how well it could benefit if people would work around certain laws like your Grey list legally.

Also, I hear lots of rumors that the post on the Victory over Hr 669 is not true. Can someone please provide solid evidence of this so those of us that want to post it in other forums and e-mail to friends have something to back them self up on? All I find are copy and pastes of that same post and thats it.


----------



## Mr.Firemouth

http://usark.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26

I personally called 202-225-0691 of the House Subcommittee of Insular Affairs and talked to Megan who told me, "there is NO action scheduled for this Bill. It would need to be re-written or fully amended to be able to come up for another public hearing. As of right now, there is no talk of the Bill being amended, and as I said there is NO action scheduled for this Bill."

I would say after talking to her, that the Bill has been stopped for now. 
Rich


----------



## lilstephii143

i already wrote to the congress and voted NO on the page for it..


----------



## JWerner2

Mr.Firemouth said:


> http://usark.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=26
> 
> I personally called 202-225-0691 of the House Subcommittee of Insular Affairs and talked to Megan who told me, "there is NO action scheduled for this Bill. It would need to be re-written or fully amended to be able to come up for another public hearing. As of right now, there is no talk of the Bill being amended, and as I said there is NO action scheduled for this Bill."
> 
> I would say after talking to her, that the Bill has been stopped for now.
> Rich


That link is the same exact copy and paste.

Nothing new and official.

I will take your word for it however :wink:


----------



## Joels fish

If anything though , this is a lull in the storm. This bill or one like it will come up for consideration again in the future so while we may be safe for the moment, we need to remain vigilant. Just in case. Hopefully if 669 or something like it appears it will have the needed provisions to safeguard the pet industry. I still firmly believe however that this type of regulation is best left up to the states , as they are best suited to determine what is best for them.


----------



## JWerner2

Joels fish said:


> I still firmly believe however that this type of regulation is best left up to the states , as they are best suited to determine what is best for them.


Given the diversity between the states in the US its only natural to let them judge. :thumb:

Why should people in PA suffer cause some frog can harm California and so on?


----------

