• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

rgbmatt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
PeterIMA":1u09b3q0 said:
I had a long conversation with a Research Scientist with NOAA/NMFS that left me sweating over HR669. The scientist in question has been an aquarium hobbyist for a long time, but seems to have gone over to the dark side. He listed dozens of reasons that the trade In pets (almost everything) should be shut down.

Unfortunately, this is something that is to be expected. Usually there is nothing wrong with the principle behind this sort of legislation. However, the fine print ends up wiping out all sorts of perfectly legitimate activities that are not harmful at all.

He said he had attended meetings between government officials and PIJAC. He felt that PIJAC's unwillingness to compromize on supporting banning problem (dirty) species, led to the decision by some legislators to support more restrictive legislation involving the acceptable (clean) list approach.

This approach (clean list) seems to be fashionable nowadays. We saw this recently in Hawaii with HB191 - it's a convenient way for anti-aquarium activists to wipe out a whole slew of species that may not be significant enough to qualify for the "clean list". In essence, it implies that the aquarium trade should be tolerated rather than encouraged if done responsibly, which is a dangerous path to follow.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Raskal311":10afrbh3 said:
What does he plan to do if this does pass? Sell dog food? He is probably supporting this because he needs a reason to close his shop without damaging is pride.
Aren't dogs considered non native?
 

JennM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I believe they are already exempted from the bill, along with cats and some domestic cattle and horses.

Jenn
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Posted on http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2 ... _speak.php

This morning, I was contacted by Scott Dowd, a biologist who specializes in studying fishes in the Amazon with the New England Aquarium. Scott sent this letter, written yesterday by Bud Ris, the President and CEO of the New England Aquarium, regarding their official position on HR 669. Scott gave permission for me to share the text of the letter here, which appears below the fold, and I also have permission to share the PDF of the letter with interested others.


April 17, 2009
Dear Subcommittee Members,

We have reviewed HR 669, The Nonative [sic] Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act. While we applaud the intention of the resolution, we are concerned that there will be substantial unintended consequences from the bill, as written, that would be devastating to the $278 million/year aquarium fish trade and to aquatic life, both cultured and wild harvested. These negative consequences include both adverse effects on rural poor and on ecosystems of critical biological importance.

For more than 20 years, the New England Aquarium has been involved in research on the global trade of aquarium fishes. We have noted numerous situations where the fishery harvest has a negligible impact on the long term stability of commercialized species, but is very important to the local economy. Many of these fisheries play a critical role in rural communities and are a sustainable resource that provides much needed livelihoods. Because of their reliance on these fisheries, and the dependence of the fishes on healthy habitat, the people of these regions play an important role in managing their environment in a responsible manner. Many local communities know that in order to maintain their economies and way of life, they must protect the ecosystems within which targeted species thrive.

These ecosystems include reef ecosystems, riverine ecosystems, and vast tracts of flooded Amazon rainforest. The latter are of critical ecological importance not only locally and nationally, but globally in terms of their biological diversity and their role as carbon sinks. Protecting sustainably harvested fisheries can, therefore, provide significant environmental benefits.

In general, the ornamental fish trade is one that provides substantial jobs and income, not just to rural communities in Latin America that have few other options, but also to many people in the US and Europe. Globally, the ornamental fish trade is a multi billion dollar industry. HR 669 as it is currently drafted could result in the loss of substantial revenue for small businesses throughout the country during the already serious economic downturn.

Many of the community-based fisheries already face a variety of threats and challenges. At the New England Aquarium, we have been developing a strategy that will help these fisheries move toward full sustainability, reduce or eliminate ecosystem threats, and take advantage of opportunities to maximize benefits. Central to this strategy is the development of internationally recognized certification system of Best Handling Practices, with routine disease screening, and biosecurity measures. Species that represent a threat of dangerous introduction to the US will not be included.

We urge the subcommittee to amend HR 669 to protect critical ornamental fisheries and prevent adverse effects on the regions and the people that depend on them.

There are effective means, other than HR 669, to reduce the introduction of exotics. An excellent model, the Responsible Fishkeeping Initiative, exists in the Northeast region. The Initiative is working in partnership with retail pet shops who, on a voluntary basis, are taking a pledge to discontinue the sale of fishes inappropriate for home aquariums. Also, to provide an alternative to releasing problem fish into local waters, participating retailers have agreed to take in unwanted pet fish and either euthanize them or secure new homes for them.

We are willing to assist the subcommittee with technical input in the areas of ornamental fisheries and invasive species to create a resolution that will better protect marine and freshwater ecosystems, support local communities that harvest fish sustainably, encourage responsible fishkeeping in the U.S., and protect the small businesses that depend upon this trade.

Sincerely,

Bud Ris
President & CEO
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let's hope the sponsors actually comprehend it. I just discussed this bill with some family members yesterday and their knee-jerk reaction was, "Good! We need this, people in America are too ______!" Ay, carajo. These people are constituents of some of the sponsors, too.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
seamaiden":1r58i02l said:
Let's hope the sponsors actually comprehend it. I just discussed this bill with some family members yesterday and their knee-jerk reaction was, "Good! We need this, people in America are too ______!" Ay, carajo. These people are constituents of some of the sponsors, too.

I'm not exactly sure how to fill in the blank..........but if I was part of Team Obama I would be afraid this bill would be opposed by an awful lot of American citizens that find great comfort in pet ownership and in having hobbies which help to alleviate the stress and tension of modern day life. This bill is likely to be viewed by a great many pet lovers as a sign that we have a government that is taking away too much.......and much more quickly than anyone would have ever imagined. In other words this administration may feel they have the mandate to change this country, but there may be some practical limits to the extent of change the public is willing to except before public sentiment begins to turn against the administration. Instead of trying to do too much, it might pay for Team Obama to prioritize, and work toward accomplishing the goals they feel are the most important, and not get drug into an unpopular fight that sucks up oxygen. If however people don't write to their congressmen and express outrage and concern, they may well feel that most Americans..... feel like the ones Maria described...... and this bill might pass without amendments. Food for thought anyway.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
dizzy":1ar48ni8 said:
seamaiden":1ar48ni8 said:
Let's hope the sponsors actually comprehend it. I just discussed this bill with some family members yesterday and their knee-jerk reaction was, "Good! We need this, people in America are too ______!" Ay, carajo. These people are constituents of some of the sponsors, too.

I'm not exactly sure how to fill in the blank..........but if I was part of Team Obama I would be afraid this bill would be opposed by an awful lot of American citizens that find great comfort in pet ownership and in having hobbies which help to alleviate the stress and tension of modern day life. This bill is likely to be viewed by a great many pet lovers as a sign that we have a government that is taking away too much.......and much more quickly than anyone would have ever imagined. In other words this administration may feel they have the mandate to change this country, but there may be some practical limits to the extent of change the public is willing to except before public sentiment begins to turn against the administration. Instead of trying to do too much, it might pay for Team Obama to prioritize, and work toward accomplishing the goals they feel are the most important, and not get drug into an unpopular fight that sucks up oxygen. If however people don't write to their congressmen and express outrage and concern, they may well feel that most Americans..... feel like the ones Maria described...... and this bill might pass without amendments. Food for thought anyway.
I actually think that the majority of the population (qualified as the voting population) does not pay one iota of attention to bills in either house, or really much of what the president signs into law or doesn't. I believe that, in general, the majority actually don't care unless it is something that pinches them directly. So, that said, the majority of Americans own dogs and cats, so they have nothing to worry about and, thusly, really don't care.

The blank for that day was along the following lines; Americans are wasteful, selfish, the polluters of the world, the ruiners of the world, abusers of anything and everything. Only Americans, no one else. I had to debate that opinion, because it came from someone who purports themselves to be politically informed. ;)
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
BlueZooRadio.com has a show tonight dealing with HR669.


Special Guest:

Marshall Meyers - CEO and General Counsel of Pijac discussing the latest industry legislation in front of Congress


Catch the show on http://www.bluezooradio.com <http://www.bluezooradio.com> LIVE at 8pm est, or download 24/7. Blue Zoo is NOW available on ITunes. Simply subscribe to Blue Zoo on Itunes and you will receive every show after its completion instantly to your account.
 

spawner

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I see it leaving the subcommittee after some revisions. Do you really think that they were really that concerned? I heard a lot of lets fix this to address these letters, that group. Not lets look at how this is being structured as a package.

Why they don't use risk assessments I will never understand. It could easily be done, and would be far cheaper to implement. States are better at these things anyway. Why worry about live rock or some other marine species in Ohio, or some other land locked state. Why worry about the 99.99% of harmless species.

The killer will be certifying something as safe. If that has to be done, find a way to make and culture live rock in closed bio secure systems, from scratch by only adding a few key species of encrusting algae. Nothing could be imported or cross state lines that has wild live rock on it. Unless an exemption was made, you could never suggest that you knew what was growing on it. Maybe boat rock fixes this issue as it's not live anymore.

It's not like we didn't bring some of this on ourselves, however I think that as usual its all going to be a huge jumbled mess that only lawyers can figure out. You better keep those letter going to DC and to home districts.
 

dizzy

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
As posted on Kingsnake.com, HR669 defeated.

WE DID IT FOLKS!!!! Victory over HR669! You can thank yourselves and the Reptile Nation, for a hard fought Victory! Our nearly 50,000 grassroots letters and 1,000s of phone calls to the offices of the subcommittee members clearly prevailed at today's Insular Affairs Subcommittee hearing on HR 669. HR 669 in it's current form is finished. For anything to go forward it MUST be re-written from the ground up....and USARK will have a seat at the table along with other stake holders.

Delegate Faleomavega from Samoa said, "The letter and phone campaign hit the subcommittee like a BUZZ SAW". Harry Burroughs, of the subcommittee staff said, "I haven't seen a letter writing campaign like this in 30 years! You should be proud of yourselves." Take heart in the fact that the Reptile Nation stopped HR669 in it's tracks!!

We also need to thank Congressman Henry Brown, SC for helping us to focus our fight on the Subcommittee as opposed to the full House of Representatives. He is the one who instructed us to write real letters to be truly effective. He said emails are fine if that is all you can manage, but they can be filtered and deleted. There is no denying the weight of thousands of paper letters from American citizens. The Reptile Nation was responsible for 49,229 letters delivered to the Subcommittee in less than two weeks. Congressman Brown's staff made sure they all got in the door. 38,000 of those letters will be entered into the permanent record. Thank you my friends!

Credit should also be given to Bill Martin, a witness who testified at the hearing. He is the President of Blue Ridge Aquatics, a large multi-state Tilapia farming operation. They farm Tilapia as a food fish. He had some serious problems with the bill and the ear of much of the committee. His plain talk of how this bill would destroy hundreds of families hit home. What they do and the impact this bill would have on them parallels the plight of the Reptile Nation.

Senior Democrat staff from the House Committee on Natural Resources advised Subcommittee Chair Madeleine Bordallo that if she wants something to go forward she will have to go back to square one and draft a new bill. Then have another subcommittee hearing. When and if she does, USARK will be there to represent the interests of the Reptile Nation!! They probably will try, and that will be our challenge for another day. But Today VICTORY is SWEET!...... Celebrate today and rest, because tomorrow we must get ready to fight again.

Thank you Reptile Nation! Thank you Tom Wolfe. Thank you everyone who did their part.

Stay tuned... This fight has only begun!

USARK
 

JennM

Advanced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
There's conflicting info on nohr669.com. They say it's not over *yet*... they concur that yesterday was a "great day" but cautions that it could still pass, or be amended and pass.

I'm not counting the chickens just yet.

Jenn
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
JennM":37tfwe64 said:
There's conflicting info on nohr669.com. They say it's not over *yet*... they concur that yesterday was a "great day" but cautions that it could still pass, or be amended and pass.

I'm not counting the chickens just yet.

Jenn

They can also take another bill that is before the committee and cut all the existing text out and paste in the text from this bill.
 

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top