The End of Reef Keeping in the US?

[Ben Pedersen]

Y’all scaring me ( attempted to read the bill but it isn’t playing nice with mobile ) so let me know if my understanding is correct.

this bill will effectively ban wildlife imports except for animals on a white list. However animals can get on the white list of there are a certain amount of them being imported?

or do I just need to hop over to the lfs right now, buy all of their stock and that’s all I will ever get?

When I first read the email from Salgado Aquatics, thats exactly how I felt. I'm gearing up for a big build and I was like... dang it... I finally collected the gear and now I wont be able to stock it.

Salgados sells fish.. and is having a 15% off sale right now. Maybe that is why they sent the email.. To make me buy fish.

All joking aside. It's good to be informed about potental laws that could impact things you like. I like reefing and am glad to have the opertunity to read the bill and email my representative.

The link Salgado sent out enables you to see the points in the bill that are concerning to the industry. You don't have to provide any personal information for that. And you dont have to use that link to contact your state representative.

 

[monkeyCmonkeyDo]

Pets is a multi billion dollar revenue for America and we here in America cash is king so we will see. I am doubtful it will have any effect on my sw fish tank hobby.
D

 

[scrapz]

The ocean needs healing. Reefs are declining at a rapid rate. There is a domino effect to everything that happens on this earth. Reefs are the building blocks of the ocean. Fish need corals for safety. Corals need fish for maintenance of the reef. Stopping the collection of reef fish that help maintain and sustain the ecological order isn't something I oppose. Who knows how many % of fish die before even making it to sale and how many die once they make it to our tanks.

Ive been in this hobby for 14 year. Most my fishes have been with me just as long. In the end it's a hobby for us. If collecting needs to be stopped for a few years to let the reef heal, Im all for it. Any true lover of hobby should probably feel the same. Don't let your selfishness be the reason why we don't have anymore reefs within 20 years.

 

[A;exr54]

So much fear being spread.
T5’s are becoming extinct.
Now keeping fish tanks with fish in them will be illegal. (In US)

I’m sure there are many more. But these are the ones I saw in the past week.

I think I read about just allowing cats/dogs.
How about turtles? Rabbits? Gerbils? Snakes? Etc… This a huge list.

I won’t believe it until it happens. Doubt it will ever happen. Not in my lifetime.

 

[CanuckReefer]

The ocean needs healing. Reefs are declining at a rapid rate. There is a domino effect to everything that happens on this earth. Reefs are the building blocks of the ocean. Fish need corals for safety. Corals need fish for maintenance of the reef. Stopping the collection of reef fish that help maintain and sustain the ecological order isn't something I oppose. Who knows how many % of fish die before even making it to sale and how many die once they make it to our tanks.

Ive been in this hobby for 14 year. Most my fishes have been with me just as long. In the end it's a hobby for us. If collecting needs to be stopped for a few years to let the reef heal, Im all for it. Any true lover of hobby should probably feel the same. Don't let your selfishness be the reason why we don't have anymore reefs within 20 years.

I don't disagree on the whole, however this is why so many laws are made toothless....this one no exception. We humans will destroy the reef eventually, and without question ourselves.....

 

[KrisReef]

My Letter to the congress person who wants to take away my access to Nemo & Dori.

Dear Congress Person,
I am writing you today because I heard that you thought it was a good idea to ban the imports of coral and fish into the United States. If you succeed with this plan I will just go buy a puppy, so please don't make me buy a puppy. My wife hates dogs and either me or the dog will end up homeless. Maybe both of us. It will turn out badly.
Thank You for your valuable time. Please don't run for reelection.
Sincerely,
Kris Reef

 

[tvan]

Vote out the incubents. Send the old folks home. Write your congressperson. Funny how all these high power people rely on us not showing up to vote. And yes I am an old fart. The internet is big push back....

 

[monkeyCmonkeyDo]

Delete this.lol
D

 

[Brucealmighty]

Imo you would all be better asking people like Red sea, Apex, Waterbox, Kessil, Nero etc etc and all of the other business owners who are going to be losing money or put out of business once said law comes into force, ask them to write or lobby or make their voices heard as I'm sure they will have something to say about it all and have more money, I mean louder voices, than us?

 

[MaxTremors]

I agree. This sort of reminds me of what Cory from aquarium Co-Op(big name FW retailer with a large social media presence) said regarding the reasoning on why he doesn't always just get certain captive-bred species like Neon tetras, which basically was that other industries will take over areas where fish collection take place and destroy the habitats, in particular, forestry which is a big deal in the Amazon.

Neon Tetras (and really most Amazonian species) are mostly collected by local villages/indigenous people, it is nowhere near as lucrative as the hardwood and palm oil plantations that are the main causes of deforestation, and as hostile as Bolsonaro has been to indigenous people, conservation, and protecting the Amazon, it seems naive to think that the livelihood of these people will stop the the Brazilian govt (and the big business that stands to profit) from steamrolling over the top of them if they decide a certain tract of land would be more profitable as a plantation/mine/logging operation.

 

[Ben Pedersen]

Neon Tetras (and really most Amazonian species) are mostly collected by local villages/indigenous people, it is nowhere near as lucrative as the hardwood and palm oil plantations that are the main causes of deforestation, and as hostile as Bolsonaro has been to indigenous people, conservation, and protecting the Amazon, it seems naive to think that the livelihood of these people will stop the the Brazilian govt (and the big business that stands to profit) from steamrolling over the top of them if they decide a certain tract of land would be more profitable as a plantation/mine/logging operation.

Sad and true.

 

[MinnieMouse2]

Sample letter (also lots of Talking Points below)
I implore you to stop the Lacey Act amendments found in the America COMPETES Act (Section 71102) as your constituent, dedicated advocate for ecological conservation, and pet owner. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
Not only would these amendments be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes (which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act), but millions of pet owners would be harmed. As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S. While a concern for only one state, all other states feel the unjust implications and restrictions. For example, even after Florida had addressed injurious threats from certain snakes, the federal government still listed them as injurious and harmed thousands of owners and businesses across the U.S. where the snakes could not possibly have an impact. And now, while Florida has completely banned these species, herpetoculturists in all other states would suffer from the overreaching government action should these amendments pass into law. Even though peer-reviewed science found that these species risks to the continental U.S. were isolated to southern Florida and possibly a small spot in Texas (both states that had already regulated these species), the federal government felt compelled to take tyrannical action.
If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets. This restriction would include prohibitions of interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency. This upholds that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them. States continue to take measures regarding such species and since the climate varies so greatly across the U.S., the states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone. I cannot elaborate enough on the need to regulate injurious species at the state and local levels, not nationwide by a federal agency.
The interstate transport ban under the Lacey Act is not my only concern. The bill’s section titled Presumptive Prohibition on Importation is especially alarming. This section would allow for every non-native species to be treated as injurious, even if not listed as such. This language creates a white list (accepted) that produces a black list (banned) by default. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness is disturbing!
Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously. I also believe that the role of the States should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Have a good day.
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points

1. These amendments will be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes, which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act.
2. Millions of pet owners will be harmed by this misuse of the Lacey Act.
3. As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S.
4. If one state has a threat, that state can address it. All other states should not suffer the unjust implications and restrictions.
5. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
6. Peer-reviewed science has been previously ignored in favor of garbage pseudo-science to artificially validate biased injurious species listings.
7. If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets.
8. This restriction would include prohibitions on interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family.
9. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
10. The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency.
11. The Court ruling upheld that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species.
12. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
13. Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states.
14. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them.
15. The states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone.
16. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness from this power grab is disturbing.
17. Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously.
18. The role of the state wildlife agencies should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements.
19. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
20. These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American.
21. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust.
22. The aquaculture industry alone anticipates losses of nearly half a billion dollars.

 

[Ben Pedersen]

Sample letter (also lots of Talking Points below)
I implore you to stop the Lacey Act amendments found in the America COMPETES Act (Section 71102) as your constituent, dedicated advocate for ecological conservation, and pet owner. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
Not only would these amendments be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes (which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act), but millions of pet owners would be harmed. As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S. While a concern for only one state, all other states feel the unjust implications and restrictions. For example, even after Florida had addressed injurious threats from certain snakes, the federal government still listed them as injurious and harmed thousands of owners and businesses across the U.S. where the snakes could not possibly have an impact. And now, while Florida has completely banned these species, herpetoculturists in all other states would suffer from the overreaching government action should these amendments pass into law. Even though peer-reviewed science found that these species risks to the continental U.S. were isolated to southern Florida and possibly a small spot in Texas (both states that had already regulated these species), the federal government felt compelled to take tyrannical action.
If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets. This restriction would include prohibitions of interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency. This upholds that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them. States continue to take measures regarding such species and since the climate varies so greatly across the U.S., the states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone. I cannot elaborate enough on the need to regulate injurious species at the state and local levels, not nationwide by a federal agency.
The interstate transport ban under the Lacey Act is not my only concern. The bill’s section titled Presumptive Prohibition on Importation is especially alarming. This section would allow for every non-native species to be treated as injurious, even if not listed as such. This language creates a white list (accepted) that produces a black list (banned) by default. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness is disturbing!
Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously. I also believe that the role of the States should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust. Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Have a good day.
Sincerely,
[YOUR NAME]
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Talking Points

1. These amendments will be devastating to thousands of businesses of all sizes, which is absolutely contrary to the purpose of the COMPETES Act.
2. Millions of pet owners will be harmed by this misuse of the Lacey Act.
3. As seen previously when listing species as injurious under the Lacey Act, a heavy-handed brush is used to paint species as injurious that may only be an issue for one or two states, and hardly any large percentage of the U.S.
4. If one state has a threat, that state can address it. All other states should not suffer the unjust implications and restrictions.
5. The lack of forethought involved makes these amendments rife with unintended consequences and government overreach.
6. Peer-reviewed science has been previously ignored in favor of garbage pseudo-science to artificially validate biased injurious species listings.
7. If these amendments pass, the Lacey Act will leave pet owners everywhere unable to move across state lines with their family pets.
8. This restriction would include prohibitions on interstate travel for veterinary care, for educational programs, and for relocation of family.
9. The impact will be disproportionately felt by military service members, who are often relocated multiple times during a pet’s lifetime.
10. The federal and appellate courts have already decided that a ban on interstate transportation with injurious species is not based on the original intent of Congress, but a gradual overreach by the federal agency.
11. The Court ruling upheld that banning interstate transportation is overreaching and that only the localities, or states, with legitimate range matches should consider regulations regarding these species.
12. Incorporating interstate movements into the Lacey Act will turn law-abiding pet owners into potential criminals.
13. Regulation of wildlife has traditionally been a matter reserved to the states.
14. State borders are already secure from injurious and invasive species as those states have the authority to regulate them.
15. The states should decide which species need to be addressed, not the federal government which must consider the entirety of the U.S. as only one climate zone.
16. The opportunity for injustice and oppressiveness from this power grab is disturbing.
17. Rather than this new knee-jerk and supreme authority provided to the federal agency, any expansion of the Lacey Act to create interstate movement bans and a ‘white list/black list’ scenario should include reforms to the injurious listing process, including proof of widespread impact based on sound, peer-reviewed science, and definitely not the biased, pseudo-science witnessed previously.
18. The role of the state wildlife agencies should be preserved in matters related to the regulation of wildlife within their borders or through regional agreements.
19. Individual states are best positioned to assess local threats and balance the relative costs and benefits of prohibiting species.
20. These Lacey Act amendments are far-reaching and, frankly, un-American.
21. Please realize that the Lacey Act amendments found within the America COMPETES Act are illogical and unjust.
22. The aquaculture industry alone anticipates losses of nearly half a billion dollars.

I personally would not ask my state representative to completely throw out the Lacey Act. There are important items that I support in the bill. My complaint is with the wording of specific clauses that relate to this hobby that I don't agree with. The majority of the bill has nothing to do with this hobby nor pets.

 

[Bato367]

I searched the text of HR 4521 for the word's "fish", "coral", "reef", "pet", "trade" etc.

Can someone send me the text of where our hobby/aquaculture is directly threatened? Because I am not finding it...

Thanks.

 

[Ben Pedersen]

I searched the text of HR 4521 for the word's "fish", "coral", "reef", "pet", "trade" etc.

Can someone send me the text of where our hobby/aquaculture is directly threatened? Because I am not finding it...

Thanks.

Exactly, as mentioned, the majority of the bill has nothing to do with pets. Section 71102 was mentioned above.

 

[Bato367]

Exactly, as mentioned, the majority of the bill has nothing to do with pets. Section 71102 was mentioned above.

…And I did read that section after I posted above. But in my interpretation, it basically gives the Secretary of the Interior powers to ban imports of animals (yes even corals and fish) if they are deemed a thread to human health, agriculture, forestry etc. I can see an example being Lionfish for sale on or near coasts… they are highly invasive and wreck local ecosystems. Or those invasive Boas down in the protected Everglades. They apparently escaped captivity and are highly invasive in the swamps. And the section also said there would be public comments before the secretary enacts certain bans etc.

I just do not see a direct threat to the entire industry/hobby of having an aquarium being shut down.

Did everyone actually read the bill or are most people up in arms over what someone claimed in a social media post?

Maybe I’m missing something, but what do I know? I’m not a lawyer and am not versed in the reading of legalese.

 

[czoolander]

Be kind... Many Canadians purchase from US companies... Also, some live imports are transported from the US to Canada. I think that maybe the concern.

Yes if he was familiar with Canadian geography we do not have tropical reefs like Florida and Hawaii so yes when we hear a potential ban in USA this impacts us greatly . I would say that every LFS in Canada imports their fish and coral from a USA vendor. I am not 100% on this but I am 98% sure ..... so yes its a big concern

 

[damsels are not mean]

I can see an example being Lionfish for sale on or near coasts… they are highly invasive and wreck local ecosystems. Or those invasive Boas down in the protected Everglades. They apparently escaped captivity and are highly invasive in the swamps.

maybe some of these sorts of things should be illegal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Ben Pedersen]

maybe some of these sorts of things should be illegal ¯\_(ツ)_

I agree.. The concern is the wording of the bill, at least the portion that applies and potentially impact the the hoby.

 

[LegalReefer]

…And I did read that section after I posted above. But in my interpretation, it basically gives the Secretary of the Interior powers to ban imports of animals (yes even corals and fish) if they are deemed a thread to human health, agriculture, forestry etc. I can see an example being Lionfish for sale on or near coasts… they are highly invasive and wreck local ecosystems. Or those invasive Boas down in the protected Everglades. They apparently escaped captivity and are highly invasive in the swamps. And the section also said there would be public comments before the secretary enacts certain bans etc.

I just do not see a direct threat to the entire industry/hobby of having an aquarium being shut down.

Did everyone actually read the bill or are most people up in arms over what someone claimed in a social media post?

Maybe I’m missing something, but what do I know? I’m not a lawyer and am not versed in the reading of legalese.

Okay, actually just did a good bit of research on this whole thing. I'm in the process of writing an article for my law school's paper on this subject. In the Lacey Act (and all legislation more broadly), which this amendment will add to, terms are specifically defined later in the text.

For example, specifically in the Lacey Act, the term "fish or wildlife" means "...any 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." Coelenterates as a group ultimately will capture the entirety of our coral-loving marine hobby. Add in the whole "whether or not bred, hatched, or born in captivity" bit, and we actually very well could see the death of the entirety of the U.S. Marine Aquaculture industry, unless there is either a very well-informed and broad writing of the "whitelist" of permitted organisms. The effect this would have on imports as well cannot be discounted; aquaculture and mariculture operations allow communities which would otherwise be either hunting or mining the reefs for economic gain to instead participate in partnering with the reefs for economic gain. Kill the marine aquarium industry, and we kill many burgeoning economic spots of growth that simultaneously foster partnership with nature.

The amendment is not altogether bad, honestly, but as with all things, the law of unintended consequences will always apply.