This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521
- Thread starter ThRoewer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
We feel Corals and inverts are 100% a part of this bill. I know you dont agree. That is ok. However, zero experts we have talked with say coral is not part of the bill. Either way it will be impacted. So will the whole hobby.
We should all be on the same team here. We all have different opinions and we all have different thoughts on this. That is a great thing.
BOTTOM LINE. If you don't agree with this bill please contact your senators. We have already had many meetings with both of our senators teams here in our state. We will provide any updates we get here.
Last edited:
Where in the bill does it include a classification of invertebrates? Tell me do you think corals fall under any of the following (what is actually part of the amendment): mammals, birds, fish, mollusks, crustacea, amphibians, or reptiles?
I think we are on the same team we just are taking different approaches. Again to make it clear I dont support this bill as written I think it has a big glaring issue that would allow it to be abused by the special interest, but also dont support a lot of misrepresentation going on about the bill. However I completely support legislation to limit future invasive species and personally think much of what is in the amendment would be good for the longterm viability of our hobby(in some cases livelihoods).
Who and by what means would someone identify a future invasive species?
Crystal ball maybe
Cnidariaphile
New Member
We need to be clear who is behind this. It is not Snorkel Bob or PETA, etc, although I’m sure they are very supportive. It was put forth from the Federal Government, FWS. Having worked for multiple government agencies involved with nature (being intentionally vague here) I can tell you that these people are rabid ideologues. If you are under the impression that they are neutral, as they should be being federal, you are quite mistaken. They absolutely want to shut down all animal trades. There are occasionally some fair minded people, but they don’t call the shots and don’t get promoted to positions where they can. Only the ideologues do. If you only knew of the dirty tactics that go on behind the scenes it would disturb you. They don’t care whose lives they ruin because they operate through a religious fervor. Government (ie control) and the “Environment” are their gods.
Those of you that think “well I’m sure they have the best intentions” are incredibly naive. Those that say “move along, nothing to see here folks” are either what Karl Marx called “useful idiots” or they might be Feds on here and other forums to keep people calm as part of a Psy Ops effort. They want to keep enough people lulled to sleep so they don’t generate sufficient resistance. Probably half of you think that is me being paranoid. The other half knows that that is exactly a tactic they would use. And they DO. Just like the tactic of slipping it in at the eleventh hour in a bill that has nothing to do with the issue. If you are struggling to interpret the wording of the amendment, guess what? That is a tactic as well. Apparently the vagueness has worked on some of you. Keep whistling past the graveyard. The vagueness should be a huge red flag to anyone not on Xanax or a frequent consumer of network television.
The ability to label anything they want as “injurious” is the most disturbing. The “let’s give our benevolent overloads the benefit of the doubt” crowd may be shocked to learn that they have labeled Newts and Salamanders as “injurious”. Why? Because some sals have been found to carry a fungal disease in the wild in other countries. No sals or newts will EVER come into this country legally again, ever, period, because they might, MIGHT, carry a disease. Of course you can test incoming shipments for the disease to determine if they are safe, but that is not the point. I’ll let you guess what the actual point is. They used salamanders as a test to see if they could get away with it. And they did because the salamander hobby here is so small that hardly anyone noticed or cared. Now with the PRECEDENT set, they can go after bigger fish. Literally. Can you think of any other animals that MIGHT carry a disease? Yep. All of them.
Those of you that think “well I’m sure they have the best intentions” are incredibly naive. Those that say “move along, nothing to see here folks” are either what Karl Marx called “useful idiots” or they might be Feds on here and other forums to keep people calm as part of a Psy Ops effort. They want to keep enough people lulled to sleep so they don’t generate sufficient resistance. Probably half of you think that is me being paranoid. The other half knows that that is exactly a tactic they would use. And they DO. Just like the tactic of slipping it in at the eleventh hour in a bill that has nothing to do with the issue. If you are struggling to interpret the wording of the amendment, guess what? That is a tactic as well. Apparently the vagueness has worked on some of you. Keep whistling past the graveyard. The vagueness should be a huge red flag to anyone not on Xanax or a frequent consumer of network television.
The ability to label anything they want as “injurious” is the most disturbing. The “let’s give our benevolent overloads the benefit of the doubt” crowd may be shocked to learn that they have labeled Newts and Salamanders as “injurious”. Why? Because some sals have been found to carry a fungal disease in the wild in other countries. No sals or newts will EVER come into this country legally again, ever, period, because they might, MIGHT, carry a disease. Of course you can test incoming shipments for the disease to determine if they are safe, but that is not the point. I’ll let you guess what the actual point is. They used salamanders as a test to see if they could get away with it. And they did because the salamander hobby here is so small that hardly anyone noticed or cared. Now with the PRECEDENT set, they can go after bigger fish. Literally. Can you think of any other animals that MIGHT carry a disease? Yep. All of them.
Last edited by a moderator:
Well maybe we could just make sure before a species that is not already currently here is allowed here that a review process must take place to evaluate the risks? Maybe just like this amendment would do.
Yes it would make adding new entries troublesome and likely difficult. Personally I am ok with that part if a bill is created that allows us to continue importing and trading what is already here in the various hobbies.
If you talked to all of the people I have talked with who are truly experts at this exact thing, I am confident you would agree with me.
Again, I hope coral is not part of it. I hope I am wrong and that the countless experts and industry bodies I am met with are wrong. However, fish and other things listed will impact coral and the hobby just as much either way. It does not matter if I am right or if you are right. None of that is the main point. I am glad you have your own opinion.
The main point is if you do not believe in this bill and agree with it as written please contact your senators. I am here to let you know only MY opinion of it and my opinion is we all must and should be taking action right away.
Last edited:
MnFish1
10K Club member
Yes they are
MnFish1
10K Club member
Yes - except - how many people do you think are going to want to just keep 'coral tanks'. and btw - I'm not even sure your interpretation is correct - but lets assume it is. The possibility (key word) - is that the potential to damage the fish trade alone is enormous. Bye bye biota - if they don't meet the 'minimum' criteria (whatever they are). Bye bye moving a tank from Wisconsin to Michigan (of course who is watching).
The bottom line if you take this bill to the worst possible scenario - no one will make equipment for fish tanks - let alone marine tanks. FWIW - there are already numerous corals that cannot be imported lol.
MnFish1
10K Club member
I dont think you're getting my initial point - which is that was - the bill to me seems so vague, and poorly written/planned out - that almost anything could be interpreted. As someone else mentioned to you - there is no exclusion of corals in this bill. They say 'any species imported into the US'. But - again - who is going to just keep a coral aquarium. The whole thing to me seems senseless. I would be interested to hear what you think this bill will do to help 'the environment'. If I buy an alligator in Wisconsin - is that a risk to the environment? If I buy an alligator in San Diego is that a risk to the environment? Rhetorical questions - anyone can see the difference - BUT - the bill does not see the difference. Right?
MnFish1
10K Club member
Correct like spiders (tarantula, etc)
MnFish1
10K Club member
This amendment does not do that. If I were you - I would give up your reef tank - again - using your logic you're contributing to the problem. And again - thats not meant to be a slam - but - lets face it - there are numerous agencies, groups, etc - that think WE (Reefkeepers) are evil. This bill is part of that. IN fact to me at least - its people that release cichlids in canals (BTW - do you not think cichlids are going to be included in this bills effects?). It's not me that releases their goldfish or koi into lakes. But - people have done it - and its a disaster. Does this bill help that?
Invasive Koi Fish - 3,000 Feral Fish Dumped into Colorado lake
Dealing with invasive species is one of the challenges that accompanies globalization and in many areas of the world, it's becoming harder and harder to tackle this issue. In the Colorado lake, 3,000 Koi fish (Japanese carp) are now swarming the water, wiping out native species and dramatically...
www.zmescience.com
Yes as written it could certainly have significant impact to fish and reptile hobby. I dont think that is the intent, but dont support it because it could be used that way (back to no definition of "minimum quantities"). Again though not supporting the bill and making exaggerations/misrepresentations about it I believe should be separate things.
Yes some corals area already banned and generally I would say for good reason. That does not mean this amendment specifically would apply to corals. The Lacey Act overall does apply to corals and if you look at the definition of "wildlife" for the act in general it certainly includes corals........ ("A)ny wild animal, whether alive or dead, including without limitation any wild mammal, bird, reptile, amphibian, fish, mollusk, crustacean, arthropod, coelenterate, or other invertebrate, whether or not bred, hatched, or born in captivity, and includes any part, product, egg or offspring thereof. "
However the language in defining what is covered by this amendment is significantly different, much less broad, and does not include corals.
MnFish1
10K Club member
Sorry to respond so much - but I'm thinking of different things - can you quote to me - the current 'whitelist' that apparently you feel will be grandfathered in? I do not see one - I dont read the bill that way.
And again this is part of the problem as you just completely misrepresented the language of the amendment in your quote. Find for me where it says "any species imported into the US". The fact is it never says that in the amendment. Maybe you have read that in some of the hyperbole or summaries.... that is not what the bill says.
I cant show you a whiltelist that does not exist yet. The bill clearly defines that a whilelist will be created within a year of the bills passage and include species that are currently imported in "more than minimal quantities". Again this is my big problem with the bill as I have said countless times in this thread I dont support it because that part is way too vague and we have no idea what fish/mammals/reptiles would end up being on the whitelist.
MnFish1
10K Club member
You're missing my point again - I said - the bill I poorly written - and leaves a lot of questions unanswered. The bill is so vague that its nearly impossible to parse it out - however - if you want to go ahead and quote the part of the bill that I misrepresented feel free.
again - this Is from an article - but it summarizes USARK's opinion. whether right or wrong IDK - but feel free to post what I misrepresented:
"xThe 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."
MnFish1
10K Club member
Right - well - goldfish are running rampant in northern lakes as are koi - are they going to be banned? IDK? Lionfish - we all know the story. Cichlids in Florida canals? Will Cichlids be banned - Discus? IDK. The point - you're taking a sanguine approach - that the government is going to do the right thing - based on science. I would suggest that the Hawaiian ban alone suggests we may very well be in trouble in this hobby.
While there are truths in there it also includes a lot of hyperbole. I certainly wont get into dissecting what a lobbying group's view of the bill is. That would be analogous to me using a PETA statement to show how this really is not harmful to pet owners. Both are going to misrepresent the actual facts. I will continue focusing on what is actually in the bill. Believe it or not the specific language of a bill is all that matters not whether PETA or USARK support it.
MnFish1
10K Club member
I agree - quote the section you're talking about - thats what I asked. I do not see anything that eliminates coral from the equation. In fact - I dont see anything that eliminates Koi from the equation - or cichlids
Similar threads
