Another bill against marine fish: H.R. 6447

[MnFish1]

That was my thought too. They have to swing for the fences and pretend to compromise later.

The 'problem' is that often they not only ban wild imports, they can also ban possession of any coral - otherwise how does the law get enforced - how do you prove your coral A was from your friends frag as compared to another source.

 

[areefer01]

The 'problem' is that often they not only ban wild imports, they can also ban possession of any coral - otherwise how does the law get enforced - how do you prove your coral A was from your friends frag as compared to another source.

In todays time this shouldn't be that big of a problem to solve. Just a matter if the juice is worth the squeeze. Blanket enforcement is easier so that is more than likely what we end up with. On the other hand licenses, inspections, business licenses, enforcement, fines, and other things will get the ball rolling.

Progress is never made by doing nothing. I am not suggesting you said that by any means but rather pointing out the obvious that when these things happen one can do things in iterations. See what worked, didn't, and revise.

Then again who am I kidding. We are lazy and always take the path of least resistance.

 

[MnFish1]

In todays time this shouldn't be that big of a problem to solve. Just a matter if the juice is worth the squeeze. Blanket enforcement is easier so that is more than likely what we end up with. On the other hand licenses, inspections, business licenses, enforcement, fines, and other things will get the ball rolling.

Progress is never made by doing nothing. I am not suggesting you said that by any means but rather pointing out the obvious that when these things happen one can do things in iterations. See what worked, didn't, and revise.

Then again who am I kidding. We are lazy and always take the path of least resistance.

Go pick up an eagle feather from the ground.....

 

[Mysoftynanoreef]

What if we draft something like this and ask everyone to write their congress person...
The Positive Environmental Impact of Reef Hobbyists

I am writing to you as a constituent and an avid supporter of environmental conservation, particularly in the realm of marine ecosystems. It has come to my attention that the contributions of reef hobbyists to environmental protection are often overlooked. I would like to take this opportunity to highlight how this community positively influences marine conservation and public awareness.

Reef hobbyists are not just enthusiasts who appreciate marine life from a distance; they are active participants in the conservation of marine ecosystems. Through the maintenance of home aquariums, these hobbyists develop a deep understanding of and appreciation for the delicate balance required for reef ecosystems to thrive. This hands-on experience is invaluable in fostering a conservation mindset.

Moreover, reef hobbyists often become ambassadors for marine conservation in their communities. By sharing their passion and knowledge about marine life with friends, family, and the public, they raise awareness about the importance of protecting these vital ecosystems. This grassroots level of education is crucial in building a broader public understanding and support for marine conservation efforts.

Importantly, many hobbyists actively participate in and support coral propagation initiatives. These efforts are not just about sustaining their aquariums; they have real-world implications for reef restoration projects. By cultivating corals, hobbyists help to mitigate the impacts of coral bleaching and other environmental stressors on natural reefs.

Furthermore, the reef hobbyist community often collaborates with scientists and conservation organizations. This collaboration includes sharing valuable data on coral health and growth patterns, contributing to a larger body of research that can inform policy and conservation strategies.

Therefore, I respectfully urge you to recognize and support the positive contributions of reef hobbyists in environmental conservation efforts. By fostering a supportive legislative environment for these enthusiasts, we can further enhance their ability to contribute to the preservation and restoration of our precious marine ecosystems.

Thank you for considering this perspective. I am confident that with your support and leadership, we can make significant strides in marine conservation that benefit not only our environment but also future generations.

I like this..very well spoken..

 

[cherith]

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.E
Jay

I think NEMO is an an acronym and not a name, so it probably doesn’t violate the copyright law. Can’t help it if the initials of the act accidentally spell Nemo! Below is the list of species on Appendix II which are “threatened” species as opposed to “endangered” ones. As a 77-year-old person who has personally witness the near-extinction, if not extinction, of many creatures, I don’t mind such regulations at all. Human’s are so self-centered and irreverent, rules are required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_species_protected_by_CITES_Appendix_II

 

[Captain-Barnacle]

The Bill does not seem to be what is claimed on Reef Builders, "unreachable standards...effectively ending the marine aquarium trade and hobby in the United States. "

Text of proposed Bill

Covered Species (Appendix II)

In fact, certified domestic Mariculture to high ethical standards would thrive. The reefer hobby may even broaden given reasonable assurances of moral and sustainable practices. If the Government wants to get you, they won't bother using homegrown frags as a pretext. Nor can they stop a determined Black Market or the fearless.

 

[Jay Hemdal]

I think NEMO is an an acronym and not a name, so it probably doesn’t violate the copyright law. Can’t help it if the initials of the act accidentally spell Nemo! Below is the list of species on Appendix II which are “threatened” species as opposed to “endangered” ones. As a 77-year-old person who has personally witness the near-extinction, if not extinction, of many creatures, I don’t mind such regulations at all. Human’s are so self-centered and irreverent, rules are required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_species_protected_by_CITES_Appendix_II

The NEMO quip I made was bit tongue in cheek, but Disney protects their material with much vigor.

I’m familiar with CITES, virtually all appendix II aquarium animals in the trade are captive raised or maricultured now. There are a few wild seahorses still entering the trade through Taiwan, but that’s it.

As I read this, it also attempts to regulate all other reef organisms if there is "poor survivorship" due to being in captivity. "Poor" is not defined, but with many fish having > 50% mortality through the supply chain and into home aquariums in the first 40 days, I'd say a lot of them would be included. Green chromis is probably the most prominent example.


Jay

 

[King Reef]

Follow the money. Who benefits if things for the hobby become harder to get? Every government official only works because someone is paying them… lobbying etc

 

[dandi]

This thread is getting some visibility which is excellent. Many thanks to Jay for keeping us apprised.
I wish there was a way to re-title this thread.
"Urgent Alert for Reef Enthusiasts: How H.R. 6447 Could Transform the Future of Marine Aquaria"
If we can engender support from R2R members we could at least bring our viewpoint to the government.

 

[TWYOUNG]

it is interesting that of all the problems we face, the marine aquarium trade is on the list of things our government spends time on

Yeah, I say no worries as they'll never be able to work together and pass ANY kind of legislation.

 

[Sealion]

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

It never listed the corals in question

 

[Richsoar]

Sent my Congressman a letter asking him to review the Bill.

 

[BeanAnimal]

The bill includes requirements for qualified facilities. Feel free to read it.

It really doesn’t matter what it says. The people voting did not write and will not read it. A special interest or activist group with voting or money connections did. So activists write the bill, and money or favor votes for the bill. The people who interpret and enforce such language and bills, more often than not miss the intent and spirit of the legislation, in favor of heavy handed control of something that they really know nothing about. Our your government gets it wrong more often than they get it right, partly because people such as yourself put trust in them doing the right thing, even if they have no idea what they are really doing.

 

[BeanAnimal]

. If the Government wants to get you, they won't bother using homegrown frags as a pretext. Nor can they stop a determined Black Market or the fearless.

Their goal is “not to get you” - it is their ineptness that swallows you in their ham fisted inability to use common sense or logic. The result is the same, intentional or not.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

I think NEMO is an an acronym and not a name, so it probably doesn’t violate the copyright law. Can’t help it if the initials of the act accidentally spell Nemo! Below is the list of species on Appendix II which are “threatened” species as opposed to “endangered” ones. As a 77-year-old person who has personally witness the near-extinction, if not extinction, of many creatures, I don’t mind such regulations at all. Human’s are so self-centered and irreverent, rules are required.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_species_protected_by_CITES_Appendix_II

This bill while written as a "regulation" will be enforced as much worse. J

Just ask me how many times I have seen Florida Fish and Wildlife officers drive over corals with their trucks because they can't the difference between a Florida Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) and an aquacultured A. Tenuis or A. Millepora that we sell and trade in the hobby. Because they can't tell they just kill it and issue a fine, even if you have all the proper documentation about the lineage of the coral.

While the concept of regulation is good and I agree, trying to play to the arrogance of man here I feel is a little of foot because we know what the true intent of this bill is - we have Hawaii as proof.

 

[Rallic]

it is interesting that of all the problems we face, the marine aquarium trade is on the list of things our government spends time on

we the people that are no longer free..........you wait until they start hanging massive photos of them selfs on buildings

 

[Kiboshed]

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

The truth is (as with most things) right down the middle.

As an active environmentalist and conservationist I appreciate people making and active effort to preserve and restore marine species.

Having said that, this isn't the bill to do this.

From my interpretation it's grossly ham fisted and poorly written. We can do Sooo much better.

I'm glad that it is eliciting the dialogue and pushing us toward more protection of vulnerable habitats and species, but overall it's a trash bill that hurts more than it helps.

This bill will ruin countless lives while simultaneously hurting these incredibly vulnerable species by taking away private owners ability to raise and propagate them.

Hearts in the right place, their solution is not.

 

[MartinM]

Do you have any actual data on the "potential to close thousands of businesses"? This isn't that large of a hobby.

Globally speaking, I believe the last numbers I recall seeing placed it at around a 3 billion USD industry. It's not massive, but it's not nothing.

I agree with @Kiboshed - the Florida alligator is an excellent example. It was an endangered species until there became a financial incentive to breed them, and permission was given to do so. Their species rebounded so well they've been off the endangered species list for years (maybe decades at this point) and serve as the best demonstration of how to preserve a species I can think of.

While, for example, it's easy to kneed jerk and think that aquaculture only is the way to go, this is far more destructive than it is helpful. As soon as there's not an economic reason to preserve something (for example, coral reefs all across Indonesia that currently supply fish and coral to the entire world and employ countless people in the process) they will get dynamited or fished to extinction and hotels will be built on top of them instead (the Philippines is a good example of this kind of result and associated destruction). If the US were to ban all imports of marine hobby species, or even a significant amount, the loss of habitat in other parts of the world is likely to be monumental. This bill would then serve the exact opposite purpose of what it's purported to do, which may very well be the intention.

Why would that be the intention, you ask? While the hobby is a multibillion dollar industry, tourism and real estate is much, much larger. If countries suddenly no longer have a reason to preserve their coral reef habitats (and in the process, prohibit or inhibit commercial real estate) then suddenly they'll be welcoming those developers with open arms. And said developers have very, very deep pockets - and the deeper the pockets, the more global the outlook. Introduce a bill here for a development here for a dollar there...the Hawaii bill is a perfect example of this, because nothing makes more money in Hawaii than tourism.

As anyone who's ever worked with government regulation (in our hobby, primarily CITES) the result of the legislation is generally the opposite of what the legislation was intended or purportedly intended to accomplish. The #1 thing blocking the sale of aquacultured corals all over the world is CITES, for example. It's actually far easier to get permission to go to almost any reef, take a piece of coral out, and ship it somewhere else than it is to raise coral inshore and sell that - in fact, the latter can frequently be de facto impossible (the only way would be to demonstrate that it is three generations removed from a wild colony) with some standard exceptions (Indonesia to anywhere, typically). For example, I'm somewhat involved in a very successful coral sexual propagation facility in Japan, but due mainly to CITES (and secondarily, the archaic government system in Japan), that coral can never be sold and never be exported from Japan. They've succeeded in reproducing coral species that have never been sexually reproduced anywhere else, and it will never do anyone or any habitat any good because it can never leave the facility. Meanwhile, several species have been overfished to local extinction in Okinawa, perfectly legally, but cannot be legally reintroduced. The same is true for facilities in Australia who've made breakthroughs, especially the one that sexually propagated Goniopora and torches (I can't recall the name). They're being forced to wait for three generations of coral before they can get CITES permission to export. Meanwhile anyone in Indonesia can go grab them on the reef and export them nearly anywhere.

In my professional experience, I've never seen legislation accomplishing what it was purported to do. But I have seen money talk, and I mean that in a good way. So be very, very careful with legislation and instead think about how purchasing wild collected species is actually providing a very real reason to keep that habitat intact and that species well managed.

 

[blecki]

The NEMO quip I made was bit tongue in cheek, but Disney protects their material with much vigor.

Which is in itself absurd because Pixar got the name Nemo from Jules Verne. It's public domain.

 

[blecki]

Just ask me how many times I have seen Florida Fish and Wildlife officers drive over corals with their trucks because they can't the difference between a Florida Staghorn (Acropora cervicornis) and an aquacultured A. Tenuis or A. Millepora that we sell and trade in the hobby. Because they can't tell they just kill it and issue a fine, even if you have all the proper documentation about the lineage of the coral.

Yes exactly. Everyone is so worried about the exceptions or whatever but it's what the jackboots will do that is the problem. There can be all the licensing and documentation in the world but none of it will matter if they confiscate the animal and kill it before your court date. It's just as dead.

And frankly it's infuriating. If florida staghorn wasn't illegal to possess you know dang well it would be aquacultured by now.