The Reef Tank banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
167 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This is of EXTREME importance to the pet industry that this proposed bill does NOT pass. I did not see a post about this here, and I know that right away this bill was thought to be only a threat to the reptile industry, but as the details have come out this is not the case. HR669 proposes a BAN on ALL non-native US wildlife, this INCLUDES fish. This means it would be ILLEGAL to own, reproduce, or travel across state lines with non-native wildlife including fish. We need to act now!!

Here are some links from PIJAC about the bill and what we can do to stop it in its tracks.

Here is the full text of the proposed bill:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:h669ih.txt.pdf

Information on how you can help:
http://www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf
http://www.pijac.org/files/public/669_Short_W_Comm.pdf

Contact your representatives, this can be easily completed through this website:
http://nohr669.com/

I just thought that I should make this known to this online community. We need to send letters, emails, and phone calls before April 23rd when the house sub-committee is meeting.

Don't let them ban our hobbies and pets. Do your part!

Jason Knudson
 

· Thaumoctopus mimicus
Joined
·
390 Posts
(2) the native range of the species;
(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States;
(4) the likelihood that environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread of the species exist in the United States;
(5) the likelihood of establishment of the species in the United States;
(6) the likelihood of spread of the species in the United States;
(7) the likelihood that the species would harm wildlife resources in the United States;
(8) the likelihood that the species would harm native species that are rare or native species that have been listed as threatened species or endangered species in the United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);
(9) the likelihood that the species would harm habitats or ecosystems in the United States;
At first glance, I don't really think they are going to be banning clownfish or tetras from this bill. It appears targeted at things likely to introduce viable breeding populations such as: Burmese pythons, lionfish in the Atlantic, snakeheads in the east coast rivers, etc.

The main danger to our industry is probably to the trade of caulerpa and lionfish, as both have shown themselves to be invasive when introduced to Carribean/Atlantic waters. Tropical fish are unlikely to be banned in general, except in tropical climates where they can thrive in local waterways. However, this has long been the case in Hawaii and Florida. They banned a lot of tropical saltwater imports after several fairly serious pest species were introduced via the trade in saltwater exotics. The Pacific coast is pretty much all temperate, so any reef fish introduced are unlikely to survive well enough to become an ecological threat.

In a rotten economy, I like to think that all three or four sane congresscritters would raise a stink at obliterating yet another industry. (Though I'm sure PETA would cheer the end of another way for people to have any sort of relationship with animals.)
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top