I’ll shoot their eye out.
🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟
Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁
Proposed USA regulations ending fish keeping
- Thread starter Byron
- Start date
The603
Fishaholic
Signed
Oblio
Fish Herder
Those who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
I don't know if I understand how this is relevant to the fish industry and lack of moral back bone it has. We all know that the wholesalers and importers and mass breeders exploit the fish for financial gain.
Oblio
Fish Herder
It's relevant to the political class that seeks to destroy liberty, and those they wish to enslave, and this proposed bill is but an example.
The legislators care not a whit for the people who elected them, and every day they seek more and more control, as our betters, to ensure that we are moral and just.
Do we (and industry) have problems?, sure! But those problems pale in comparison to that which will greet us if we let them take our freedoms.
The legislators care not a whit for the people who elected them, and every day they seek more and more control, as our betters, to ensure that we are moral and just.
Do we (and industry) have problems?, sure! But those problems pale in comparison to that which will greet us if we let them take our freedoms.
I disagree. If people do the right thing, then there needs to be no regulation. This has been brought about because of individuals who abuse the freedoms they have, and exploit the animals they are meant to be caring for.
Oblio
Fish Herder
Perhaps you missed my point; this is not about fish, or invasive species, or exploitation. It is about a political class that is using this as an excuse to control people. This is one of countless controls that are being brought upon us, each one is 'for the children', 'for the animals', ' common sense measures', but in the end it is all about control of the free.
If the free people don't want to be regulated, then maybe the free people should behave responsibly. They should stop exploiting what they have.
OldTimeFisher
Fish Fanatic
Petition signed!
Oblio
Fish Herder
Said the Brits
Right fully
Like Natalie Imbruglia,I'm torn. 
Because in all the decades,I've kept them all. I might agree that some fish just are not good in aquariums.Monster fish almost never are given a true large aquarium since it would have to be the size of a home to not be a near prison. I also would agree that some specialty fish like the Mormyrids and Knifefish are not happy in aquariums,and never spawn. Plus,most keep one to an aquarium while in the wild they are gregarious.
One the other hand some fish that thrive in aquariums are near extinct in the wild and I wonder if they would become illegal? Fish like Clown Loaches and Red Tail Sharks..Redline Barbs..there is a list of fish long term kept in the hobby and farms produce them,but in the wild are almost none.
I imagine if this passes? It could be years before fish we have are "cleared" to be let back in the hobby.
Because in all the decades,I've kept them all. I might agree that some fish just are not good in aquariums.Monster fish almost never are given a true large aquarium since it would have to be the size of a home to not be a near prison. I also would agree that some specialty fish like the Mormyrids and Knifefish are not happy in aquariums,and never spawn. Plus,most keep one to an aquarium while in the wild they are gregarious.One the other hand some fish that thrive in aquariums are near extinct in the wild and I wonder if they would become illegal? Fish like Clown Loaches and Red Tail Sharks..Redline Barbs..there is a list of fish long term kept in the hobby and farms produce them,but in the wild are almost none.
I imagine if this passes? It could be years before fish we have are "cleared" to be let back in the hobby.
maadi
New Member
Hi, folks. Don't worry, this law does not add prohibitions on keeping, breeding, or selling fish. What it does is prohibit the importation of new wildlife species that have not been imported or traded between states/territories of the United States, at more than "minimal levels", in the year preceding implementation of the act; as well as allow 3 year emergency bans on species deemed to be imminently harmful. Importation of species that are already imported at commercial levels will still be allowed, as well selling, keeping, and breeding of any species that are currently (lawfully) kept in the U.S.
You can find the full text here: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR4521RH-RCP117-31.pdf.
This is what the relevant amendment says:
"SEC. 71102. LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 42 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subsection (a)(1)— (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘shipment between the continental United States’’ and inserting ‘‘transport between the States’’; (B) in the first sentence, strike ‘‘Hawaii,’’; (C) by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation an emergency designation prohibiting the importation of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, as injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States, for not more than 3 years, under this subsection, if the Secretary of the Interior determines that such regulation is necessary to address an imminent threat to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. An emergency designation prescribed under this subsection shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, unless the Secretary of the Interior prescribes an effective date that is not later than 60 days after the date of publication. During the period during which an emergency designation prescribed under this subsection for a species is in effect, the Secretary of the Interior shall evaluate whether the species should be designated as an injurious wildlife species under the first sentence of this paragraph.’’; and (D) in subsection (b), inserting ‘‘knowingly’’ before ‘‘violates’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(d) PRESUMPTIVE PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Importation into the United States of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless— ‘‘(A) during the 1-year period preceding the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, the species was, in more than minimal quantities— ‘‘(i) imported into the United States; or ‘‘(ii) transported between the States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States; or ‘‘(B) the Secretary of the Interior determines, after an opportunity for public comment, that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to the United States and publishes a notice in the Federal Register of the determination. ‘‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(1).’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 42(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and subsection (d)’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’; (2) in paragraph (3)— (A) by striking ‘‘the foregoing’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1) or subsection (d)’’; and (B) by striking ‘‘this Act’’ each place the term appears and inserting ‘‘this section’’; (3) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘or subsection (d)’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’; and (4) in paragraph (5)— (A) by inserting ‘‘and subsection (d)’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’; and (B) by striking ‘‘hereunder’’ and inserting ‘‘under such provisions’’. (c) REGULATIONS; EFFECTIVE DATE.— (1) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to define the term ‘‘minimal quantities’’ for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(A) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(2). (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (d) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(2), shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act."
I think this whole thread raises an interesting question, though, about whether responsible hobbyists could design and propose good regulations that prevent the harmful exploitation of the creatures we care for, and preempt problematic regulations by uninterested/uninformed/biased parties.
You can find the full text here: https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR4521RH-RCP117-31.pdf.
This is what the relevant amendment says:
"SEC. 71102. LACEY ACT AMENDMENTS. (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 42 of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subsection (a)(1)— (A) in the first sentence, by striking ‘‘shipment between the continental United States’’ and inserting ‘‘transport between the States’’; (B) in the first sentence, strike ‘‘Hawaii,’’; (C) by inserting after the first sentence the following: ‘‘Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary of the Interior may prescribe by regulation an emergency designation prohibiting the importation of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, as injurious to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States, for not more than 3 years, under this subsection, if the Secretary of the Interior determines that such regulation is necessary to address an imminent threat to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife or the wildlife resources of the United States. An emergency designation prescribed under this subsection shall take effect immediately upon publication in the Federal Register, unless the Secretary of the Interior prescribes an effective date that is not later than 60 days after the date of publication. During the period during which an emergency designation prescribed under this subsection for a species is in effect, the Secretary of the Interior shall evaluate whether the species should be designated as an injurious wildlife species under the first sentence of this paragraph.’’; and (D) in subsection (b), inserting ‘‘knowingly’’ before ‘‘violates’’; and (2) by adding at the end the following: ‘‘(d) PRESUMPTIVE PROHIBITION ON IMPORTATION.— ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Importation into the United States of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless— ‘‘(A) during the 1-year period preceding the date of enactment of the America COMPETES Act of 2022, the species was, in more than minimal quantities— ‘‘(i) imported into the United States; or ‘‘(ii) transported between the States, any territory of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any possession of the United States; or ‘‘(B) the Secretary of the Interior determines, after an opportunity for public comment, that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to the United States and publishes a notice in the Federal Register of the determination. ‘‘(2) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in paragraph (1) shall be construed to limit the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under subsection (a)(1).’’. (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—Section 42(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended— (1) in paragraph (2), by inserting ‘‘and subsection (d)’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’; (2) in paragraph (3)— (A) by striking ‘‘the foregoing’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraph (1) or subsection (d)’’; and (B) by striking ‘‘this Act’’ each place the term appears and inserting ‘‘this section’’; (3) in paragraph (4), by inserting ‘‘or subsection (d)’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’; and (4) in paragraph (5)— (A) by inserting ‘‘and subsection (d)’’ after ‘‘this subsection’’; and (B) by striking ‘‘hereunder’’ and inserting ‘‘under such provisions’’. (c) REGULATIONS; EFFECTIVE DATE.— (1) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to define the term ‘‘minimal quantities’’ for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(A) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(2). (2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—Subsection (d) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(2), shall take effect on the date that is 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act."
I think this whole thread raises an interesting question, though, about whether responsible hobbyists could design and propose good regulations that prevent the harmful exploitation of the creatures we care for, and preempt problematic regulations by uninterested/uninformed/biased parties.
What about fish that are in the hobby but still imported in small numbers compared to bred fish to keep the DNA strong like Discus ,Angels. Malawi cichlids..those types?
I really get the feeling that this is mostly no more Tigerfish imported..not so bad. But South American Arowana might qualify to be banned since they are going down in numbers in the Amazon. We might only see public aquariums with them.
I really get the feeling that this is mostly no more Tigerfish imported..not so bad. But South American Arowana might qualify to be banned since they are going down in numbers in the Amazon. We might only see public aquariums with them.
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
276 -
258 -
204 -
175 -
173 -
153 -
144 -
129 -
129 -
110 -
98 -
94 -
89 -
83 -
82