Oppose Hr 669

[fatheadminnow]

Agree^^ with Mikaila31

-FHM

 

[bronzecat]

Thats a very very excessive bill to try and get through I would say that if by some miracle it gets railroaded through, the repercussions would be world wide. I would believe that the USA is one of. if not the biggest importer of fish from the Asian market and this would all but destroy their businesses. And it would have a serious impact on the UK too, as i believe that prices would not go down for us, but actually rise. There is also the issue of globalisation to bear in mind for the UK, basically what starts in the USA eventually moves here too. So this is something that all fish keepers need to fight, where ever you are in the world

 

[OldMan47]

Rabbut, I think you are missing the point. How many of the big fish farms will stay in business without the US market to help support them? They will start going bankrupt pretty fast and then your prices will go up too because the surviving fish farms will have less competition. This bill is not a fish bill. It outlaws any animal at all that is not on the very short list that is part of the bill. As an example budgies would become illegal to keep too. I know they are not on the short list. Dogs and cats are covered but who wants that and farm animals to be the only thing we ever encounter.

 

[caf]

Every American citizen of legal voting age needs to contact their representative and tell them they will not be voting for them next election if the representative does not try to kill the bill prior to it making it to the floor. If it makes it to the floor then make sure, they say "Nay" when the time to count votes is called. Right now, it is in the hearing stages and we need to kill it there. If it makes it to the floor it will be that much harder to fight because then the political horse trading will begin tacking things on to the bill to make it more palatable to the other representatives. Email them, Fax, call, go down to their offices in person, but make sure, that we kill it now!

I am all for proper responsible pet care. We have laws in place now that cover this. If an animal, plant, or insect is found to be invasive for a particular place, the state involved has the right to regulate and ban it. If it is found to be a nationwide pest, petition for its inclusion on the Lacey Act. This is not the proper way to do it and will hurt our hobby, the trade, and thereby the nation and the world. If anyone here does not know who your representative is, find out now. The hearing will be held on April 23. I have contacted all members of committee personally and told them of my opinion and the facts as to what this would cause. I have also contacted my representative directly and informed him not to support this bill should it make it to the floor. Everyone, please do the same.

Chris Fells
Vice President
Colorado Aquarium Society
[URL="http/www.coloradoaquarium.org/"]http/www.coloradoaquarium.org/[/URL]

 

[LauraFrog]

bump - this needs to be seen.

 

[Penycat]

delete my other *blush* double about this, but here's a website that was passed around on my local fish club's board that makes it very easy to write a letter to your state rep, even has a letter written up for you. There's also a video that explains this bill in human terms instead of government jargon...

http/www.nohr669.com/

 

[blix]

This is verbatim what I wrote to my congresswoman regarding this complete travesty of a house bill:

Hello,

This is in reference to House Bill HR669.

This legislation that is currently under consideration is completely ridiculous. I am a responsible pet owner and if this bill passes then it will hurt a huge amount of people and completely destroy the hobby that I have loved my entire life----tropical fish keeping.

We all want to limit invasive species from upsetting the natural balance of native species. That is admirable. But this bill will basically make all of the tropical fish that I have kept over the years and currently keep illegal overnight.

This will completely destroy the fishkeeping industry and cost millions of people their jobs--their livelihoods--in a time when we can least afford more job losses. Even beyond that---it is another case of government overstepping its bounds into the private lives and private interests of americans nationwide. Government these days just apparently loves to decide what is good for americans regardless of what the majority of americans want.

Supporting this bill is a complete mistake. There is no reason that the government should mandate that all tropical fish that this nation's citizens have kept for decades as companion animals are "dangerous to the environment" and can be banned. This is a complete travesty of justice and a total infringement on the rights of responsible fish owners in this country. I am most upset over this.

If you do not act to kill this bill prior to it making it to the floor then I will vote against you in the next election. I refuse to be represented by someone who does not act swiftly to defeat such ridiculous legislation.

I am most serious about this issue. KILL THIS BILL IMMEDIATELY. It will ruin an entire hobby, cost millions of americans their jobs, and shut down local fish stores nationwide. Kill this bill now or you will never have my vote for any elected public office whatsoever.

 

[bordercollie05]

Yeah, this is not good. I really would be surprised if it passed though. There's emails going around every animal club I'm involved in and talk of it amongst my fellow animal science students as well. I hope enough people take action to avoid this bill! Anyone know when it's going to be voted on?

Laura

 

[Tolak]

It was blocked, for now;

http/nohr669.com/blog/?p=221

Here's a page with some links to testimony & such;

http/www.pijac.org/governmentaffairs/hr6...rum.asp#Updates

 

[kribensis12]

I actually think the Billm, to my understanding, is a good thing. From what I have heard, If the aimal( such as fish) if released can become invasive, then you arent allowed to keep it. Well, I live in Illinois and any tropical fish must be some smart fish to avoid our winter temps, that this year hit a record of -22 degree's F. So, any Tropical fish would be allowed. Then, if you keep birds, I highly doubt your crested cockatoo is going ot survive the winter temps. Same with Lizards. But, If the bill stops us from keeping fish at all, the im definatley opposing it.

 

[Mikaila31]

If anyone is interested. The link below is a video of the committee meeting that took place regarding Hr669. I got bored like a few minuets into it .

http/resources.edgeboss.net/wmedia/resou..._23_insular.wvx

 

[Tolak]

Made something people can post on other forums:

This bill, the "Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act" is going to make nearly all pets illegal. The bill proposes creating a list of animals that may be kept, imported, moved interstate or breed, and anything not on the list is illegal to do so with.

The criterion for the list is:

• [li]Species identified to species level, and if possible information to subspecies level[/li]
  [li]Native range of the species[/li]
  [li]Whether species has established, spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other
  animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems similar to those in the US[/li]
  [li]Environmental conditions exist in the US that suitable for establishment of the species[/li]
  [li]Likelihood of establishment in the US[/li]
  [li]Likelihood of speared in the US[/li]
  [li]Likelihood species would harm wildlife resources of the US[/li]
  [li]Likelihood the species would harm native species that are “rare” (not defined) or listed under Endangered
  Species Act[/li]
  [li]Likelihood species would harm habitats or ecosystems of the US[/li]
  [li]Likelihood “pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for
  importation;”[/li]
  [li]Other factors “important to assessing the risk associated with the species”[/li]

A few of the major problems with this bill:

• [li]If something can damage the Hawaiian ecosystem, it will be illegal in every state. If something can damage the Alaskan ecosystem, it will be illegal in every state. All states are not created equally. What can damage ecosystems in one will die off in another. This is why there are state laws regarding this, such as the very strict Hawaiian laws.[/li]
  [li]As said above, state laws already deal with this.[/li]
  [li]It will absolutely destroy an entire industry overnight. Breeders will be out of jobs, pet stores will end up shutting down, companies that produce products that cater to pets will lose customers. Not exactly the best thing to do considering the economy.[/li]
  [li]There are private breeders of species that are extinct in the wild or critically endangered. Many african cichlids are endangered, and there are organizations in the US that promote the breeding of these fish in captivity.[/li]
  [li]It is impossible to prove that a species will or has not ever damaged native wildlife or established feral populations.[/li]
  [li]Overly vague terms. What constitutes a 'rare' species?[/li]
  [li]More here. And here.[/li]

Current 'legal' list:
any cat (Felis catus)
cattle or oxen (Bos taurus)
chicken (Gallus gallus domesticus)
dog (Canis lupus familiaris)
donkey or ass (Equus asinus)
domesticated members of the family Anatidae (geese)
duck (domesticated Anas spp.)
goat (Capra aegagrus hircus)
goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus)
horse (Equus caballus)
llama (Lama glama)
mule or hinny (Equus caballus x E. asinus)
pig or hog (Sus scrofa domestica)
domesticated varieties of rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus)
sheep (Ovis aries)

Things that will likely be illegal:
All tropical fish. Guppies, corydoras, plecostomii, marine fish, etc.
Hamsters and other domesticated rodents.
Ferrets.
Frogs, newts, salamanders, turtles and toads.
Insects and arachnids.
Hermit crabs and other crustaceans.
Many birds.

This is the way this act would have worked. Possibly invasive in Hawaii, illegal everywhere. Illegal until proven otherwise. Thankfully this is being reconsidered, and modifications are being worked on.

 

[kribensis12]

Ohhh, that sucks. Then I oppose it in it's current state.

 

[Syphoniera]

(Ooops, by the time I got this on, it was already covered...)

In previous posts on this thread, a major problem was said to be that any non-native which could survive in ANY US state, with Hawai and Florida given in example, was to be made illegal, thereby making all non-native pet fish, birds, etc. illegal.
Once enacted in the States, this would likely spread world-wide, just as other such bad, restrictive and intrusive laws and their various damages so often seem to.
Multiple organisms, ranging from mosquito and other fish to various insects, have recently been introduced to new areas - the bitter and endlessly repeated lessons of the past again ignored - in the name of biological control, with predicably disastrous results; shipping and other means of transport as well have done so.
One major issue with the often 'coals to Newcastle' globalization scheme which immediately sprang out at me, even apart from the phenomenal waste of energy and increase in pollution levels and cost resulting from this, was the constant influx of alien biota (including diseases) from and to everywhere in the world.
The problems with introduced pet species have typically been caused by a very few people; this law will not undo or prevent further 'invasion' and will very likely encourage more even in this area, as newly illegal pets are released in an effort to save their lives, or their owners a fine.
Now, however, we are also inundated with the release of numerous entirely new creations - GM organisms - into the environment, and, as is typical, it appears probable that public attention and censure will be transferred from the powerful industries which benefit to groups and individuals among the public amid a flurry of 'protective' laws and PR campaigns in this interest.
With enough PR, any voiced concern about introduced organisms will likely be automatically assumed to refer to petstock - this is a PR tactic which has proven remarkably successful in the past and one likely to be used in instances wherever multiinational interests benefit.