This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521

[mdb_talon]

Since you seem so smart - and read up on this subject - what do you think the purpose of the new bill/re-written bill is designed to do? I mean - whats the purpose? According to my reading (perhaps I'm misunderstanding ) - its already all taken care of?

I will ignore what seems like a jab and give an answer anyway

To me it is pretty clearly designed to give the federal government an easier way to control invasive species. They tried to control some snakes through the lacey act and lost in court because as currently written the lacey act does not give authority to prevent transportation between states(other than hawaii). In some scenarios they have this power via other laws(like when the species is on endangered list). This bill gives them that power.

The other obvious thing the bill does is anything not added to the initial whitelist(and we could debate all day what will be on the list whitelist initially) would default to blacklist. I am in the minority, but this is an entirely sensible thing to do in my opinion. I mean we can blacklist pythons and lionfish all day it does no good if they are already here with a foothold. The current process of whitelisting by default and then blacklisting once the damage is done is just ignorant.

Finally this obviously shifts control on blacklisting invasive species from the states to the federal government. Again i am in the minority(within the hobby) but i find this completely sensible. Same example i have used multiple times....invasive animals dont know borders. States should not suffer ecological destruction because a bordering state does not make sensible bans on truly destructive invasive wildlife.

So to sum it up i think the bill does a lot and gives a lot of power to control invasive species. And yes of course PETA supports it because their entire ideology is based on restricting anyone from owning/eating/ animals etc and this bill will add some resteictions. That in itself does not make it a bad bill in my opinion.

 

[WVNed]

LOL
I could make a cutting comment on other invasive species, substances and persons our government has spent billions on and failed to control at all.

But why bother.

I am sure more rules for serfs that magically don't apply to certain people will be wonderful and make our lives better.

 

[MnFish1]

I will ignore what seems like a jab and give an answer anyway

To me it is pretty clearly designed to give the federal government an easier way to control invasive species. They tried to control some snakes through the lacey act and lost in court because as currently written the lacey act does not give authority to prevent transportation between states(other than hawaii). In some scenarios they have this power via other laws(like when the species is on endangered list). This bill gives them that power.

The other obvious thing the bill does is anything not added to the initial whitelist(and we could debate all day what will be on the list whitelist initially) would default to blacklist. I am in the minority, but this is an entirely sensible thing to do in my opinion. I mean we can blacklist pythons and lionfish all day it does no good if they are already here with a foothold. The current process of whitelisting by default and then blacklisting once the damage is done is just ignorant.

Finally this obviously shifts control on blacklisting invasive species from the states to the federal government. Again i am in the minority(within the hobby) but i find this completely sensible. Same example i have used multiple times....invasive animals dont know borders. States should not suffer ecological destruction because a bordering state does not make sensible bans on truly destructive invasive wildlife.

So to sum it up i think the bill does a lot and gives a lot of power to control invasive species. And yes of course PETA supports it because their entire ideology is based on restricting anyone from owning/eating/ animals etc and this bill will add some resteictions. That in itself does not make it a bad bill in my opinion.

You took my comments in the wrong way - I agree completely with you. and you do seem smart.

 

[Timfish]

. . . Anything will be invasive somewhere, ergo, everything will be banned everywhere! . . .

Bump, and just to repeat for emphasis.

 

[Aquius]

I will ignore what seems like a jab and give an answer anyway

To me it is pretty clearly designed to give the federal government an easier way to control invasive species. They tried to control some snakes through the lacey act and lost in court because as currently written the lacey act does not give authority to prevent transportation between states(other than hawaii). In some scenarios they have this power via other laws(like when the species is on endangered list). This bill gives them that power.

The other obvious thing the bill does is anything not added to the initial whitelist(and we could debate all day what will be on the list whitelist initially) would default to blacklist. I am in the minority, but this is an entirely sensible thing to do in my opinion. I mean we can blacklist pythons and lionfish all day it does no good if they are already here with a foothold. The current process of whitelisting by default and then blacklisting once the damage is done is just ignorant.

Finally this obviously shifts control on blacklisting invasive species from the states to the federal government. Again i am in the minority(within the hobby) but i find this completely sensible. Same example i have used multiple times....invasive animals dont know borders. States should not suffer ecological destruction because a bordering state does not make sensible bans on truly destructive invasive wildlife.

So to sum it up i think the bill does a lot and gives a lot of power to control invasive species. And yes of course PETA supports it because their entire ideology is based on restricting anyone from owning/eating/ animals etc and this bill will add some resteictions. That in itself does not make it a bad bill in my opinion.

The faith you have in our benevolent rulers is truly impressive.

 

[MnFish1]

I just re-read the 'act' - IMHO - this has to be the stupidest piece of legislation ever written. Perhaps not the intent - but the way its written.

1. The 'white-list'. How many million different species of animal are in the world (answer 8.7 million). There are about 1300 Genera. So - someone is going to go through either one of these lists depending on how they do it - (which is not spelled out) and choose animals that can be imported - as compared to making a banned list - which would presumably be quite a bit shorter
2. "Permit FWS to not allow importation if a species has not been imported in “minimal quantities” (to be defined) in the year prior to the enactment of this Act." This IMHO is the problem. No one knows what the intent of 'minimal quantities' is (and won't know for a year). How many harlequin tusks are imported in a year vs how many carpet anemones. This sentence implies to me - that whether injurious or not - a species not imported in more than minimal quantities will be banned.
3. By the way - lets pretend that coral x is banned from import - it then can also not be transported throughout the US. I.e. - it applies even to 'home-bred' coral and fish.

There seems to be a lot of people who say - big deal - there is no way the government would destroy the pet industry. Others say this is the end of the world. My point is not so much argue one way or the there - but just make the point - reading this legislation (which is written by a republican and a democrat) - is a symptom of problems in Washington - in general.

"The amendments would reverse the USARK federal lawsuit victory by reinstating the ban on interstate transportation of species listed as injurious under the Lacey Act. The bill would also create a “white list” (see #2 below) that could affect millions of pet owners, as well as pet businesses. Could your pet or species of interest (not just reptiles) potentially survive in southern Florida or any other location in the U.S.? Then it could be listed as injurious for just that reason! If this passes and your species of interest, even your pet, is listed as injurious, then it cannot be transported across state lines. That means you could not even take a pet with you if you moved to another state or needed veterinary care across a state border. This does not just ban sales but prohibits all interstate transportation and importation into the U.S. This will trickle down to hundreds or thousands of common pet species."

 

[Acros]

The ‘minimal quantity’ will be defined 1 year after the bill goes into effect. This is defined considering imports into the country and shipping of the species between states. After all, this might not impact any species already inside the country.

I see good intent with this amendment. Who needs more python-infested swamps anyway? TBH, an effective black list is nearly impossible to make considering the biodiversity on earth.

 

[MnFish1]

The ‘minimal quantity’ will be defined 1 year after the bill goes into effect. This is defined considering imports into the country and shipping of the species between states. After all, this might not impact any species already inside the country.

Yes - its interesting - and one of the reasons I think the bill is so poorly written - there is no way to actually determine what it means. However, I believe that the reason this was kind of snuck into the larger bill as being considered separately - is and was specifically to affect the wild animal trade.

The point being - that least say animal A - which is not injurious or invasive is imported 10 times - It would be banned (depending on the definition of minimal quantities). At least thats the way I read it

 

[Acros]

I wonder if distributors would ramp up imports and shipping within the states if this bill gets through?

I wouldn’t mind cheaper rates on corals. Would definitely help get closer to that ambiguous minimal quantity limit. Haha

 

[MnFish1]

I wonder if distributors would ramp up imports and shipping within the states if this bill gets through?

I wouldn’t mind cheaper rates on corals. Would definitely help get closer to that ambiguous minimal quantity limit. Haha

I wondered this as well. From articles I've read - (one of which I quoted above) - industry is taking it much more seriously than members here

 

[MnFish1]

Here is a nice article explaining the potential issues with the act:

ALERT: America COMPETES Act of 2022 Lacey Act Amendments | USARK - United States Association of Reptile Keepers

usark.org

 

[MaxTremors]

I saw the name snorkel bob and peta, and I knew that this is up to no good.
I think people need to reprioritize their problems, how about we first end world famine and provide children with a better future then start creating organizations and enacting laws to ban the trade of animals and end a hobby that is heading to a much more sustainable future?
why is it not people for the ethical treatment of humans?
Don't get me wrong I do not support any inhumane practices on animals, but there is much more important things that people need to care about.

I would maybe agree with you if it wasn’t humans causing the collapse of so many different ecosystems and the extinction of so many species. I mean, that is a very Abrahamic world-view. Philosophically, is human life inherently more valuable than any other form of life? Do humans have the right to abuse the natural world (and in the process doom ourselves)? The idea that it has to be or should be one or the other (help humans or help animals) is a false dichotomy, it’s not an either/or proposition. Personally, I think humans have an ethical and moral obligation to try to mitigate the harm that our species and way of life had done to the natural world, and mitigating that harm directly relates to improving life for humans.

 

[MnFish1]

I would maybe agree with you if it wasn’t humans causing the collapse of so many different ecosystems and the extinction of so many species.

And humans in many countries are working on fixing those problems.

I mean, that is a very Abrahamic world-view. Philosophically, is human life inherently more valuable than any other form of life?

Yes - philosophically human life is more valuable than many forms of life. Lets start with Bacteria, hair algae, bryopsis? They are all forms of life. Is a human life philosophically more valuable than a chicken - IMHO, yes, etc etc. As the other poster said - I'm also not for any harmful treatment of animals. To a Lion, their life is 'philosophically' more important than a gazelle. I'm not sure its only humans that damage other species.

Do humans have the right to abuse the natural world (and in the process doom ourselves)? The idea that it has to be or should be one or the other (help humans or help animals) is a false dichotomy, it’s not an either/or proposition. Personally, I think humans have an ethical and moral obligation to try to mitigate the harm that our species and way of life had done to the natural world, and mitigating that harm directly relates to improving life for humans.

IMHO - no humans dont have the right to abuse anything or anyone. Do I think keeping a fish (lets say a yellow tang) in a fish tank is abusing it? No. Yellow tangs - and others are EDIT - EATEN by the thousands in pacific communities.

I agree with you the humans have the duty to mitigate harm. But, in reality. Does this act do that? At all? The problem to me is not to the animal - its the frankly stuipid people that release non-native species into the wild. But - if you own an aquarium (I assume you do) - according to this act you're also potentially part of the problem right? (Just like we all are)

 

[A Young Reefer]

I would maybe agree with you if it wasn’t humans causing the collapse of so many different ecosystems and the extinction of so many species. I mean, that is a very Abrahamic world-view. Philosophically, is human life inherently more valuable than any other form of life? Do humans have the right to abuse the natural world (and in the process doom ourselves)? The idea that it has to be or should be one or the other (help humans or help animals) is a false dichotomy, it’s not an either/or proposition. Personally, I think humans have an ethical and moral obligation to try to mitigate the harm that our species and way of life had done to the natural world, and mitigating that harm directly relates to improving life for humans.

I never said humans have the right to abuse an animal or destroy ecosystems. I support organisations that try to fix things that are an obvious harm to humans. For example if we kill reefs we are basically doomed. But people like peta and snorkel bob are aiming for anything but that reason. My whole point is simplified in your last sentence. Organisations that I support are like WWF,CRTF, NCRI etc…
Like seriously when was PETA’s goal to save and protect wildlife?
Here is a link to what their mission is, it mentions nothing about that.

About PETA | PETA

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) is the largest animal rights organization in the world, with more than 3 million members and supporters.

www.peta.org

so basically they are involved in this because we are abusing fish?
And yes I do believe that human life comes above all others.

 

[mdb_talon]

I wonder if distributors would ramp up imports and shipping within the states if this bill gets through?

I wouldn’t mind cheaper rates on corals. Would definitely help get closer to that ambiguous minimal quantity limit. Haha

Again.... corals are NOT part of this bill.

 

[Aquius]

Again.... corals are NOT part of this bill.

Seriously? You honestly think corals won't fall under this?

 

[A Young Reefer]

Again.... corals are NOT part of this bill.

From the link:
Create a white list of approved species that can be imported, where any animal not listed is treated as an injurious species by default and banned from importation into the United States

corals are animals and a species as far as I am concerned.

but since it’s PETA and snorkel bob I doubt their original intention was for corals (only fish).

 

[mdb_talon]

The 'white-list'. How many million different species of animal are in the world (answer 8.7 million). There are about 1300 Genera. So - someone is going to go through either one of these lists depending on how they do it - (which is not spelled out) and choose animals that can be imported - as compared to making a banned list - which would presumably be quite a bit shorter

I would say that is a strawman argument. The vast majority of the 8.7 million species are irrelevant to this bill. In fact of that estimated 8.7 million species less than 20% have even been actually identified as a species. The vast majority of the ones that have been identified are insects..... which again are not part of this bill.

The thought that a whitelist cannot be created because its just too complicated I find amusing. It is already done in many places. Hawaii essentially has a whitelist approach to all species coming onto the islands and while it may be more limiting than some want it is clear it can work. As a side note Hawaii somehow managed to prevent the invasive lionfish from decimating their ecosystem (Hawaii does have different varieties of endemic lionfish)

 

[mdb_talon]

Seriously? You honestly think corals won't fall under this?

Yes. It is a very short amendment and pretty easy to understand if you read it.

To quote: "Importation into the United States of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the Lacey Act Amendments of 2021, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless"

FYI corals are not mammals, birds, fish, mollusks, crustacea, amphibians, or reptiles.

From the link:
Create a white list of approved species that can be imported, where any animal not listed is treated as an injurious species by default and banned from importation into the United States

corals are animals and a species as far as I am concerned.

but since it’s PETA and snorkel bob I doubt their original intention was for corals (only fish).

See above. When it comes to the law intentions are irrelevant. Corals are animals, but not included as part of this amendment. Whether that was oversight or intentional again is not relevant.

 

[Acros]

Again.... corals are NOT part of this bill.

Even tho corals are not included in this bill, an argument could be made that it also transports crustacea eggs/larvae.