Another bill against marine fish: H.R. 6447

[Jay Hemdal]

Reading through it, the bill is targeting the import, export, and collection of all Marine fish species used in the "Marine Aquarium Trade" but there is a statement at the end clarifying that it does not apply to fish harvested for human consumption. Wouldn't we just submit as evidence all the photos of the Pacific Island fish markets showing that almost all the fish we import they consume?

Their constant use of the term “coral reef species” implies that fish not found on actual reefs would be exempt. Copperband butterflies are often found in mangrove areas (grin).

 

[The_Paradox]

Their constant use of the term “coral reef species” implies that fish not found on actual reefs would be exempt. Copperband butterflies are often found in mangrove areas (grin).

What they considered “coral reef species” is TBD by Appendix 2.

 

[piranhaman00]

I fully support this. We should move to only aquaculture.

 

[blecki]

Another thing that I’ve seen with USDA regulations is the reliance on the “appropriate secretary” to approve activities. The various agencies have no resources for this oversight and no funding is tied to the bill. The result is that the law then simply STOPS the activity as there is nobody to approve it.

This 100%. Guarantee the sponsor is counting on this fact and intends the bill to be a defacto ban on all imports of any kind. Do you think customs agents are going to know what constitutes a 'coral reef species'? No, the intent is that they will simply seize everything, and then it won't matter - because by time they sort it out the animal will be dead.

Getting real sick of these attacks. We are a drop in the bucket compared to the damage caused to our oceans by overfishing and pollution - and we're the best insurance policy against coral extinction out there. But the hobby gets scapegoated and attacked again and again because the fisheries have lobbyists.

The name is absurd. I can't even find wild caught clownfish anymore. And the aquarium industry is why we have captive bred tangs.

 

[flashsmith]

While I enjoy my reef tanks I'm also a realist and see both sides of the issue. The losses of livestock are huge before anything ever gets to your lfs. Invasive species are a huge problem. I've seen first hand from the reptile and aquatic hobbies the damage they can do when released. Imagine waking up to a 15ft. Python eyeing your dog. Lionfish taking over reefs and wrecks by the thousands because they have no natural predators. So many invasive species have been introduced through various hobbies where I'm at. The older I get the more I realize it's not all about me and it's time for humans to really take a look at the world around them and what we take from it and leave behind. Not enough hobbyists support aquaculture livestock and that needs to change because it's becoming clear as time goes on that if you want to have a reef tank that's the route you'll be taking. It is what it is I guess.

 

[Slocke]

I used to work in animal conservation. There was a definite part of me that hated the exotic pet trade. (I did work mostly with big cats so it is a bit different as they are a far worse pet.)

However anyone who’s had any success with animal conservation knows that it’s money and human interest that saves animals and ecosystems. This hobby provides a ton of both. As a community we can’t deny that we are the direct cause of the loss of millions of fish and corals but compared to pollution, climate change, disease, habitat destruction, and fishing/collection for human consumption the hobby does comparatively little. However what this hobby does die is it adds the highest monetary value for these organisms and requires them to be as healthy as possible. More than any practice we require healthy coral reefs and are willing to pay a ton for it. If the hobby is suddenly banned will the collectors across the world give up and take up accounting or the theatrical arts. No they will continue to do what they know how to do and if they have to switch from carefully collecting live fish for a lot of money per fish to netting tons of fish to sell for food they will do that.

Now we could of course do better. Should we continue to accept fish from places that allow cyanide collection for example? Should we be better at encouraging captive breeding programs, aquaculture, and mariculture? In the end though this is a hobby that is not a particularly moral hobby but a hobby that does bring in a ton of money and interest that goes to saving reefs. Even if we are not actively trying to save them accidental funding is better than nothing. Banning the hobby does nothing.

 

[Largeangels]

These types of bills are dangerous as if the scale tips next election cycle it has a better chance to pass.

This is a typical radical activist funded type of bill that has nothing to do with the big picture of protecting wildlife or the oceans. It is only something they don't agree with.

 

[yanetterer]

Another thing that I’ve seen with USDA regulations is the reliance on the “appropriate secretary” to approve activities. The various agencies have no resources for this oversight and no funding is tied to the bill. The result is that the law then simply STOPS the activity as there is nobody to approve it.

Jay

Do you have experience with NOAA Fisheries and US Fish & Wildlife? I'm assuming those are the agencies that would be responsible for enforcement since the bill would give authority to the Secretaries of Commerce and Interior.

I'm curious about funding for it too. I'm not very familiar with something like CITES, if the permit process would be enough to fund the efforts, similar to many state's hunting and fishing licenses funding their DNR.

 

[areefer01]

I fully support this. We should move to only aquaculture.

I'm not sure if you are being snarky or serious. Having said that, I do believe we has hobbyist and vendors need to sit down and have this very conversation. What does 'only aquaculture, captive bred, or raised, mean and what does it look like.

Furthermore we could examine the current laws and/or bans in place today and see how we have been impacted. At 50,000 feet a few animals are no longer available, few are by captive breeding or raised programs, and price concerns.

Honestly these discussions are difficult because often they turn hostile, political, and therefore closed. We need to look at our fellow reptile and avian hobbyist and get our house in order before someone does it for us.

Apologies to all as I didn't mean to derail the thread. I did, however, hope to give pause and have us ask what this would really mean to us. The situation in Hawaii was doom and gloom to start but we are still functioning today. Hope everyone has a great weekend.

 

[dandi]

Some great replies to this thread.
Comparing the impact of fishing trawlers dragging nets to the collection of corals and fish for the aquarium trade is an interesting exercise, as both activities interact with marine ecosystems, but in different ways and with varying degrees of impact.

Scale and Intensity:

• Trawling: Often conducted on a large industrial scale, trawling can affect extensive areas of the ocean floor, including vast stretches of coral reefs.
• Aquarium Trade: The collection for the aquarium trade is typically more targeted and occurs on a smaller scale. However, if not regulated, it can lead to overharvesting of specific species or areas.

Type of Damage:

• Trawling: Causes physical destruction of coral structures and the seabed, leading to habitat loss for many marine species. This impact is immediate and often severe.
• Aquarium Trade: The primary concern is the over-collection of certain popular species, which can lead to local population declines. Coral collection, if done unsustainably, can damage coral reefs but usually in a less physically destructive manner than trawling.

Biodiversity Impact:

• Trawling: Reduces overall biodiversity due to habitat destruction and has a significant bycatch problem, affecting a wide range of non-target species.
• Aquarium Trade: Potentially impacts the biodiversity of specific species targeted for collection. Sustainable practices, such as captive breeding and coral propagation, can mitigate these impacts.
  
• Ecosystem Functioning:
• Trawling: The extensive damage to the sea floor and coral structures can have far-reaching effects on the entire marine ecosystem, altering food webs and nutrient cycles.
• Aquarium Trade: Primarily affects the populations of specific species and their immediate surroundings. With responsible collection practices, these effects can be localized and minimized.Socio-economic Implications:
• Trawling: Often driven by commercial interests, trawling can provide significant economic benefits but also has the potential to adversely affect local fishing communities and tourism.
• Aquarium Trade: Provides economic opportunities for local collectors and exporters. In regions where sustainable practices are employed, it can be a source of income without significant ecological harm.
• Recovery and Management:
• Trawling: Areas impacted by trawling can take decades to recover, if recovery is possible at all. Strong management and regulation are required to prevent irreversible damage.
• Aquarium Trade: With proper regulation and sustainable collection practices, including the use of mariculture and captive breeding, ecosystems can maintain their resilience, and species populations can be managed sustainably.
• Global Impact:
• Trawling: The effects are global, impacting numerous marine ecosystems around the world.
• Aquarium Trade: The impact is more localized, affecting specific regions where collection occurs. The global impact is more linked to transportation and trade practices.

In summary, while both activities have the potential to negatively impact marine ecosystems, the scale, intensity, and nature of the damage caused by trawling are generally much greater and more destructive than those associated with responsibly managed aquarium trade. The key to reducing the environmental impact of both activities lies in sustainable practices, effective regulation, and ongoing scientific research to guide policy decisions.
We need to convince congress to understand the benefits the hobby brings to the environment. I truly believe it is a net positive impact.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

My only true problem with the bill is 2(b)(3) "Prohibition.—It is unlawful for any person to—possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce an individual of any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraph (1) or (2);"

So anyone already in possession of any of these species would now be violating the law, which again seems to be deliberately unclear in how it is defining these creatures.

If you go to the CITES Appendix II and then scroll all the way down to fish there are only three marine fish:
Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus)
Clarion Angels (Holacanthus clarionensis)
Seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) - so all seahorses are included

Now the vague wording of "marine reef fishes" they keep using allows them to add whatever fish the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Commerce decide they want to. (I have added bolds and underlines for emphasis)

"ii) after the effective date of this section, unless the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, finds, not later than 90 days after the effective date of the inclusion of such species in Appendix II, that the take, import, and export of such species do not represent a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species and the coral reef ecosystem of such species; and
(B) any marine reef species the take, import, or export of which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce jointly determine, after notice and opportunity for public comment—
(i) presents a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species or the coral reef ecosystem of such species; or
(ii) results in high mortality rates for individuals of such species due to poor survivorship in transport or captivity."

They do later define "Marine Reef Fishes" as:
"The term “marine reef species”—
(A) means a marine species that—
(i) as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, lives primarily within a coral reef, including species of coral; and
(ii) is collected commercially for the aquarium and curio trade; and
(B) does not include a marine species described in subparagraph (A) that is ordinarily taken for human consumption."

Which brought up my earlier point that a lot of the fishes we import are regularly consumed in most foreign countries. One of my friends recently traveled overseas and was amazed by the number of fish that we would pay hundreds of dollars to have in our aquariums sitting out on ice at the markets for consumption.

 

[Kathy Floyd]

The same thing happened with Parrots. No one is going to come in to your homes and seize your birds, or fish. I agree with trying to put some type of regulation in place. There is so much that the human species has done to actually create such bills. I see a lot on the back side of these things. There is going to be some good along with some not so good.

 

[JayM]

My only true problem with the bill is 2(b)(3) "Prohibition.—It is unlawful for any person to—possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce an individual of any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraph (1) or (2);"

So anyone already in possession of any of these species would now be violating the law, which again seems to be deliberately unclear in how it is defining these creatures.

If you go to the CITES Appendix II and then scroll all the way down to fish there are only three marine fish:
Humphead Wrasse (Cheilinus undulatus)
Clarion Angels (Holacanthus clarionensis)
Seahorses (Hippocampus spp.) - so all seahorses are included

Now the vague wording of "marine reef fishes" they keep using allows them to add whatever fish the Secretary of the Interior and Secretary of Commerce decide they want to. (I have added bolds and underlines for emphasis)

"ii) after the effective date of this section, unless the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with the Secretary of Commerce, finds, not later than 90 days after the effective date of the inclusion of such species in Appendix II, that the take, import, and export of such species do not represent a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species and the coral reef ecosystem of such species; and
(B) any marine reef species the take, import, or export of which the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce jointly determine, after notice and opportunity for public comment—
(i) presents a substantial risk of harm to the sustainability of such species or the coral reef ecosystem of such species; or
(ii) results in high mortality rates for individuals of such species due to poor survivorship in transport or captivity."

They do later define "Marine Reef Fishes" as:
"The term “marine reef species”—
(A) means a marine species that—
(i) as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, lives primarily within a coral reef, including species of coral; and
(ii) is collected commercially for the aquarium and curio trade; and
(B) does not include a marine species described in subparagraph (A) that is ordinarily taken for human consumption."

Which brought up my earlier point that a lot of the fishes we import are regularly consumed in most foreign countries. One of my friends recently traveled overseas and was amazed by the number of fish that we would pay hundreds of dollars to have in our aquariums sitting out on ice at the markets for consumption.

While I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, the term "individual" is used frequently. In everyday use, individual means one (though it may mean something different in legal mumbo jumbo). It seems to me that this Bill is targeted at people that collect individual specimens to keep and/or sell privately vs. legitimate businesses that collect many specimens for wholesale and/or retail sale.

This part:

2(b)(3) "Prohibition.—It is unlawful for any person to—possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce an individual of any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraph (1) or (2);

only applies if paragraph 1 or 2 come into play. So being in possession before this Bill becomes law (likely won't) isn't going to be an issue for anyone.

If it was intended to target the industry, it likely would have been worded as such:

b) Prohibition.—It is unlawful for any person to—
(1) take an individual of any covered coral reef species within waters under the jurisdiction of the United States;
(2) import into or export from the United States an individual of any covered coral reef species;
(3) possess, sell, purchase, deliver, carry, transport, or receive in interstate or foreign commerce an individual of any covered coral reef species taken or imported in violation of paragraph (1) or (2); or

Again, I'm not a lawyer so I could be completely off base.

 

[Sarcasm Included]

I think the NEMO name is actually copyright infringement! The Georgia Aquarium had to call their mascot Deepo instead of Nemo.

Another thing that I’ve seen with USDA regulations is the reliance on the “appropriate secretary” to approve activities. The various agencies have no resources for this oversight and no funding is tied to the bill. The result is that the law then simply STOPS the activity as there is nobody to approve it.

Jay

Fun fact that I was recently informed of....
The U.S. Government can not be sued for intellectual property rights if it is used for U.S. Government business. She told me the ruling but I didn't record it and don't remember it.

 

[BZOFIQ]

I fully support this. We should move to only aquaculture.

And give few players a monopoly on pricing? Absolutely not.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

The same thing happened with Parrots. No one is going to come in to your homes and seize your birds, or fish. I agree with trying to put some type of regulation in place. There is so much that the human species has done to actually create such bills. I see a lot on the back side of these things. There is going to be some good along with some not so good.

I don't think they are going to be coming for our aquariums/fish/corals that we already have, but that doesn't make the wording any more reassuring. I know the parrot laws got clamped down pretty hard a while back but there was a much more vast network of breeders of parrots and almost any hobbyist with the know-how and dedication could do it (I say that as prior to my birth my parents were parrot enthusiasts who ended up breeding and hand raising macaws).

The marine fishes hobby isn't quite like that, we have spend decades trying to figure out how to raise some of these fish and some of the "experts" still have a hard time and it frequently requires specialized set ups to accomplish.

That being said, I personally do support moving towards more sustainable aquaculture but this bill is not the way. There is a certain four letter acronym organization that thinks all animal owners are evil and that no human should have any pet or livestock of any kind. Usually that organization is behind this sort of legislation - albeit sometimes indirectly.

 

[Kiboshed]

Simple and effective political and business strategy as old as politics itself.

Push for something completely radical and unobtainable and still achieve some of your more minor desired goals and raise awareness.

 

[Nate Chalk]

I haven't reviewed this thoroughly as yet, but here is another Federal bill aimed against the marine aquarium trade:

https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/6447/text?s=1&r=16

At the very least, since stony corals are all CITES appendix II, they would be restricted.


Jay

I'll be at the border smuggling fish and coral across.

 

[blecki]

If it was intended to target the industry, it likely would have been worded as such:

I chuckled. It would be very devestating to the bill if it worked like that. If you take five, you still took an individual; the law is being clear that it still applies to individual collection, it is not trying to not target businesses that take many.

 

[ShakeyGizzard]

If it starts to get traction, the best thing we can do is write our representatives telling them why it is unnecessary and a bad bill.

Only way writing would do any good is if you include a fat check with promise for more