Can you not read? Gobies have been being imported in large quantities already. That automatically puts them on the whitelist.
This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521
- Thread starter ThRoewer
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Right, because some new goby taking time to appear, or never appearing on the whitelist is DEFINITELY the end of reefing.
redfishbluefish
Stay Positive, Stay Productive
Staff member
Super Moderator
Reef Squad
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Article Contributor
NJRC Member
Hospitality Award
Had to remove a couple posts. Good debate and discussion occurring, but please, no specific mention of names of politicians. That's a Terms of Service no-no. Thanks.
We did another video on saturday with more information and our take on all of this.
Last edited:
LegalReefer
Active Member
Hey y'all. Can't say I'm a definitive source on any of this at all, but I 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. I don't know what recommendation I would ultimately offer, but my two cents would be to leave the matter of regulation of fish and wildlife to individual states. The climate of Florida vs. that of Montana or Alaska is different enough that something destructive to one may be harmless to the other. After all, I don't think lionfish will ever be posing much of a problem somewhere out in Nevada, no matter how many are illegally dumped in the local waterways
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. I don't know what recommendation I would ultimately offer, but my two cents would be to leave the matter of regulation of fish and wildlife to individual states. The climate of Florida vs. that of Montana or Alaska is different enough that something destructive to one may be harmless to the other. After all, I don't think lionfish will ever be posing much of a problem somewhere out in Nevada, no matter how many are illegally dumped in the local waterways
I think this is a strong argument, and would make a lot of folks think twice:
”…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.”
I’m not in law so can’t speak to these things from that perspective, I come at it from a communications and PR perspective.
Last edited:
The climate doesn't care about arbitrarily drawn state borders. It's not like the water temp is gonna go, "oops, I'm in Georgia now, time to deactivate the breeding invasive species since their laws are in place and Florida's arent." Of course one of the coldest states has a different climate than one of the warmest...the concern lies in states that share a similar climate i.e. Arizona, Nevada, Utah for example all have hot desert environments or Florida/Louisiana, both on the Gulf next to the Atlantic Ocean and currents.
Also: the government keeps being spoken of as if it's some monolithic, immutable entity with one property. It's comprised of every state government as well and people of all walks of life and viewpoints, and hundreds of thousands of employees with diverse approaches.
Also also, remember when Gibson lied about knowingly using and purchasing illegally smuggled Madagascar lumber in its guitars and then admitted they did later on? Thanks Lacey Act for catching that! Turns out just because it's the government, it's not always automatically bad. Who knew.
That being said. I completely understand why people are concerned, but let's not keep moving the goalposts to some imaginary scenario that does not exist yet, and instead discuss the amendment in its current implementation. It's very easy to conjure up whatever scenario one wishes. There's no point in discussing this if the negatives come out to "eventually, air will be outlawed". That's not what we are talking about here.
Last edited:
The amendment has not been implemented yet — the bill would need to pass the senate before that could happen. The concern is with the way it is written and the way these animals are defined, and it is a valid concern. I don’t think the quoted post was sensationalist or moving goalposts, just trying to interpret the amendment and make arguments for an article being written in a law school paper, as was stated in the first graf. Slippery slope is typically a fallacy but not if there is good evidence that the consequences of the initial action are likely to occur.
It doesn’t make logical sense to me to argue that since the Lacey act at one point caught Gibson being a bad environmental actor, those who are opposed should not fight the specific amendment in question here. But I agree with you that government is not some inherently big, bad single entity. Those who work in government are ultimately there to represent us and serve our best interests, but sometimes some of them forget that, and if in any situation they're not serving a majority of the ppl well, it’s entirely appropriate to make some noise.
For sure. Like I said, I understand why people have reservations...just important to avoid going to the extreme opposite end. Nor would I say that the instance with Gibson invalidates any criticism of the Lacey Act. Thanks for your thoughts.
MinnieMouse2
Active Member
Can I say outlaw animals make drugs legal. Has that not been the push to make all drugs legal? What a freaking clown world. This is their top issue not all the run down cities or homeless camps. Fent is killing thousands of people every few months. Nearly 92,000 people in the U.S. died from drug-involved overdose in 2020, including illicit drugs and prescription opioids. This your brain on drugs a nation of people turned on tuned out and now living in a deep dish third world nation.
biecacka
Valuable Member
It is an amendment IN a bill. That is how bills start. they get add ons and amendments to them. then they go to the house to vote on ( in this case it passed) then on to the senate (hasnt voted yet but will most likely fail in the senate). Then they negotiate and thing get added and removed until all parties come some sort of agreement. that is government 101 folks. there are WAY TOO many of these threads on here stirring up fear or attempting to. If you are concerned ( I am not), but I advise you to reach out to your local senator via phone call or letter and express yourself. That is what they do (or are supposed to) they work for their constituents. Voice your opinion and maybe ask them where they stand. My senators are not for the proposed amendment in the overall bill and have informed my that they know other senators who also plan to vote it down and then take it to the table to discuss it.
This is how all bills and proposals get started people....no more fear mongering and such, the media does that enough
corey
This is how all bills and proposals get started people....no more fear mongering and such, the media does that enough
corey
Cnidariaphile
New Member
“Also also, remember when Gibson lied about knowingly using and purchasing illegally smuggled Madagascar lumber in its guitars and then admitted they did later on? Thanks Lacey Act for catching that! Turns out just because it's the government, it's not always automatically bad. Who knew.”
while it’s great they were able to catch illegally harvested wood, did they have to go about it the way they did? They chose a SWAT style raid, dressed in paramilitary gear. (Do you think they have adequate funding?). What message do you think they were trying to convey as stormtroopers kicking in doors? Do the optics of that lead you to believe they are reasonable people just trying to do their job? Yes, let’s give these maniacs more power. I’m sure they will use it judiciously.
while it’s great they were able to catch illegally harvested wood, did they have to go about it the way they did? They chose a SWAT style raid, dressed in paramilitary gear. (Do you think they have adequate funding?). What message do you think they were trying to convey as stormtroopers kicking in doors? Do the optics of that lead you to believe they are reasonable people just trying to do their job? Yes, let’s give these maniacs more power. I’m sure they will use it judiciously.
Yeah, totally. I called out the tinfoil stuff on Sunday. I was just trying to say that I personally didn't read the post you quoted as off the deep end, and I'm not sure that of all the weird conspiratorial and fear-mongering stuff being said, that was the one to pick on.
Idk, what are the optics of ignoring a federal law designed to protect endangered species, lying about it, and getting mad when there are consequences?
I think focusing on the budget and style is missing forest for the trees. The Lacey act is one of the most effective pieces of legislation the federal government has in protecting against the illegal trade of endangered animals. Others would argue it's maniacal to exploit the ecosystem in a manner detrimental to the environment for pure profit reasons, with complete disregard for the consequences.
Besides, there are several more examples:
United States v. Celebucki, No. 94-CR-177 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 24, 1995) (pythons smuggled into the U.S. from Papua, New Guinea, by a pet dealer for resale to collectors and other dealers);
United States v. Furzer, No. CR-93-620 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 1994) ("laundered" grey parrots intended for the pet trade imported from Africa by commercial bird dealer using false CITES documents which concealed the fact that the birds originated in a country closed to their export);
United States v. Bonilla, No. CR-94-907 (C.D. Cal. May 3, 1995) (more than 3,700 sea turtle eggs smuggled in one trip by an El Salvadoran citizen into Los Angeles, who concealed the eggs in baggage);
United States v. An, No. 94-885 (C.D. Cal. May 22, 1995) (entire tiger skeleton and medicinal preparations made from rhinoceros horn and bear bile worth more than $800,000 smuggled by a Chinese citizen into the U.S.);
United States v. Dawson, No. A93-116-01 (D. Alaska Dec. 10, 1993) (eggs of protected Alaskan sea ducks illegally removed from nests for sale to collectors);
United States v. Miller, 981 F.2d 439 (9th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S. Ct. 2945 (1993) (saguaro cactus illegally removed from Sonoran desert for transport and sale in California).
I agree wholeheartedly that the language needs to be clarified around "minimum quantity " but to claim enforcement of the act is the equivalent of Call of Duty raid is a bit disingenuous. And I want our hobby to continue, but the most conducive way to promote that is using clear, logical language and facts.
Last edited:
livinlifeinBKK
5000 Club Member
Please end this repetitive thread. I know it's been almost 2 minutes so people need to be reminded but let's try to go a little longer....
You might be on to something...I'm sure some have stuff to add, but the chips are on the table for the most part and there are several threads already discussing it.
It's been more than 3 minutes someone left a comment on this. Is everyone OK?
Peace River
Thrive Master
Staff member
Super Moderator
Reef Squad
Reef Squad Leader
Partner Member 2024
Excellence Award
Article Contributor
Hospitality Award
Article Administrator
Reef Pumpkin Carver
R2R was founded on the simple premise to develop a warm, friendly, suitable place to gather and discuss this hobby for people of all ages, backgrounds, and experience levels. The “Be Nice” policy is something we take very seriously.
We highly encourage healthy debate here and understand not everyone will agree on all issues. In fact, we value healthy and even lively discussion of hobby issues and questions...this actually leads to advancements in our hobby, so we ALL win through these debates. What we will not tolerate is the negativity, name calling, belittling attitude towards other members or the topics being discussed. We are not asking you to cease debating your positions. What we are asking is that you do so in a healthy, respectful manner.
We highly encourage healthy debate here and understand not everyone will agree on all issues. In fact, we value healthy and even lively discussion of hobby issues and questions...this actually leads to advancements in our hobby, so we ALL win through these debates. What we will not tolerate is the negativity, name calling, belittling attitude towards other members or the topics being discussed. We are not asking you to cease debating your positions. What we are asking is that you do so in a healthy, respectful manner.
“Drama” is free energy, a lil ain’t bad, too much drama runs thin skinned folks off, too little and it’s Misters Rogers neighborhood with fish ….
Similar threads
