Proposed USA regulations ending fish keeping

I have to admit I am torn on this. Obviously I love the hobby and keeping fish but the industry is a bit of a wild west in terms of regulations, responsibility, education and knowledge. The mortality rate of fresh and salt water aquarium fish must be the highest of any trade reliant on animals not intended for slaughter, the 'monster' fish issue hasnt changed in the last 20 years and a lot of other animal welfare issues are all but obvious in both the captive bred and wild caught supply chains.

Hobbyists that put the time in to learn and do their best by the fish they keep are in the minority by far. Even if people go by the advice of people who own the shops fish welfare is going to be an issue.

I think the other thing to acknowledge is that the industry probably isnt big enough to offset the financial issues caused by this kind of collapse, even when you add in the tank and equipment manufacturers. I agree with other comments that just cutting off the wild supply would massively help but I think realistically the trade we rely on for our hobby needs to look radically different.

Wills
 
I was at a local zoo a few days ago. I noticed that the animals that looked actually happy being there? Were the herbivores..Camels played,ate right in front of me. The ones I felt sorry for? The big cats..sleeping there life away. Bears,that stayed in away from the crowd even though it was a warm mid winter day. Predators that had brain power. Also,the small monkeys looked active in their big enclosures. Chimps? ah man,it's like San Quentin for them. Sit and stare.
We don't need to kill all the world's large freshwater species to enjoy a home aquarium.
 
What concerns me is that the industry is not large enough, and does not have enough hobbyists, to counter 'well meaning' legislation that has devastating consequences for those in the hobby that have knowledge/skills (or are willing to obtain), and ethics.
The better solution (not necessarily obtainable) would be for the industry, and consumers, to self regulate. If it is left to legislation, the result, as usual, will be worse than if nothing was done.
 
PETA hates the fish hobby period. They've released studies that have said that fish become neurotic from the noise of pumps. They also complained that so many aquariums are just too small for the fish in them- and then crowded by keepers to add to the misery. One study about plant aquariums that use Co2 say that the high level of that gas cause damage to the fish brains. Thats real physical damage. Global warming gas.
Basically to PETA almost nothing other than a Dog should be kept as a pet. Cats? They kill wildlife and unlike dogs their feces have parasites that get into local waters eventually. So PETA would say- keep small dogs if you have an apartment.
At least we could do better. I see lots of room for improvement. The big pet chains could do more to improve the lives of fish. If anybody could setup and afford a planted natural tank display its Petco and Petsmart and neither has anything like that.
 
What concerns me is that the industry is not large enough, and does not have enough hobbyists, to counter 'well meaning' legislation that has devastating consequences for those in the hobby that have knowledge/skills (or are willing to obtain), and ethics.
The better solution (not necessarily obtainable) would be for the industry, and consumers, to self regulate. If it is left to legislation, the result, as usual, will be worse than if nothing was done.

It's so hard to predict what would happen, who would they go to for advice? Presumably the national bodies but what if they start going to industry who start pushing their 'instant cycling' products. Are captive bred fish fare differently to wild, do fish like Parrot Cichlids, Fancy Goldfish, Flowerhorns and Fancy Bettas become a league of their own because they don't have a wild counterpart, what about Glofish. Wowee that feels near impossible to resolve...

I mentioned something on here last year about only allowing specialist aquarist shops to sell fish unsuited to the local water. Which would mean in my case Maidenheads +2 selling all sorts of fish while PAH only selling hard water suitable fish.
It’d be a start.

100% water hardness wouldnt feature in this need to think broader strokes. EG how animals are transported around the world, husbandry quality in wholesalers, husbandry in stores, credibility of species required for the sake of a hobby - I'd hope something about adult size, predatory species, migratory species even things like looking at species and thinking can more than a certain percentage of people meet their needs (I'd personally set it quite high). Even thinking about if you could legislate water quality like 0 ammonia, 0 nitrite, 20 nitrate? So much of the UK has 40-50ppm nitrate from the tap, so its legal to drink but not keep fish?

I'm almost starting to wonder if you would end up with a basic list of species after the legislation that would typically cater to a broad market. I've tried to guess what I'd expect but it is hard to think where it would go and what would be credible? My guess would be 50-100 species, captive bred, simple to keep, not sure what the maximum size would be.

Even then though, looking at the industry side of things what happens when people take them home? How do you prove things at home are ethical? First thing that springs to mind is higher quality standards on equipment (filters, heaters etc) and perhaps outlawing small or nano tanks? Where that line is though I'm not sure?

I supose when you think about the hobby as a big venn diagram there is a cross over somewhere that realistically is probably a big percentage of the hobby/industry and potentially where the most ethical area of ownership exists.

Wills
 
Whats next! 🙄I think that one big problem is that the people who are selling the fish do not educate the buyers properly. If we were to educate the workers of the stores as to what the fish require then maybe things would get better?

But then you have the people who just don't care for the fish 🤷‍♂️
 
History has shown that aquarists CAN exceed scientists knowledge when it comes to home aquariums and fish. It wasn't that long ago public aquariums were killing corals as fast they got them. It wasn't until they scaled up home aquarium methods like metal halide lights and giant skimmers. If an alternative universe was in affect we would not have a marine hobby because science would say "They can't be kept alive in the home aquarium". You know how those things go.
 
Last edited:
Glofish and Goldfish. Well,PETA did get a law banning the sale of Goldfish at county fairs wasn't it? I can't say for sure. Then you have Iceland or the Netherlands that banned the sale of anything aquarium smaller than 10 gallons. No Nano in the Netherlands.
 
Here’s my input:

I think this is a ridiculous law. This would mean many fish stores would not be able to stay afloat…. Aqua-imports, Wetspot, and pond places would no longer be able to cope with the new law. Many fish keepers have tanks large enough for rarer species of fish. Aripaima, large species of Catfish…all these fish are wild caught at a young age, or bred in different parts of the world. Almost all rare fish would be banned…and as you can see by my corny username, I really like rare fish, especially oddballs…and you should too. It would tarnish most fish stores, ban many species of animals, and most of all, crash a whole infrastructure. This law is serious. Seriously bad. I hope you agree with me, and if you don’t, ponder why you like animals. What makes animals special to you? Go ahead and criticize me for being harsh, but this law will destroy a whole infrastructure. We do not need this during these times.
 
It passed the house. The senate is the last hope. Here is the information the National Aquaculture Association is putting out.



Read the relevant amendment text by clicking here.



What To Do

Through Feb. 2, contact the House Rules Committee and your federal Representative. Remember to be civil and professional at all times. Please personalize/edit your letters, if possible.



  1. Call your Representatives’ offices (link below) and the Rules Committee at (202)-225-9091;
  2. Email Representatives (link below);
  3. Fax letters to (202)-226-9191 and your Representatives;
  4. SHARE this and encourage others to complete the Alert!!!


Find your U.S. Representative:https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative

  1. Simply go to the link above and enter your zip code. Your Representative will appear. Just click on his/her name to send them emails through their websites. You will simply complete the contact form and copy your version of the sample letter below.
  2. The America COMPETES Act was referred to the House Rules Committee on Ways and Means. You can find those members at https://rules.house.gov/about/rules-committee-members. If your Representative is on this Committee, be sure to contact her or him and tell them you are a negatively affected constituent.


Subject line:
NO to Lacey Act Amendments in America COMPETES Act



Sample letter

I oppose provision the America COMPETES Act establishing authority for the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to regulate the movement of Injurious Wildlife within interstate trade of the continental United States. This provision does not provide any flexibility to the FWS to allow trade of species in portions of the country where they pose little to no risk (e.g., a tropical species in Alaska does not pose a similar risk as a tropical species in Florida) or for farms to ship fertile eggs, fry or fingerlings to states that allow culture.



Very few nonnative species pose continent wide risk. States have, and are, better positioned to regulate those species that pose a risk within their borders to locales that may be conducive for species colonization and potential damage. The Lacey Act supports federal, state and tribal wildlife management laws and will continue to provide this invaluable enforcement tool. Each state fish and wildlife agency and department of agriculture has the authority to prohibit or restrict native or nonnative species. Because of state prohibitions and restrictions, the Lacey Act already achieves the goal of regulating interstate trade while also supporting the flexibility by the states or tribes to discern where nonnative species pose ecological or economic risks.



I oppose provisions in the America COMPETES Act creating the authority for the Secretary of Interior to create an approved list of species for importation and interstate movement. Commonly termed “white lists,” the implementation of white lists is unusual amongst nations with Australia being an exception. White lists are also unusual for the federal government as a regulatory body and signatory or participant to international agreements and organizations predicated on prohibiting or restricting species trade for at-risk animals (i.e., Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora), noxious plants (i.e., International Plant Protection Convention), pathogens that may infect US agricultural animals (World Organization for Animal Health) and imported animals and animal products capable of causing human disease (Center for Disease Control and Prevention).



A white list is simply not feasible, given the millions of live organisms representing ~13,000 species imported to the United States annually and the potential for ~2,500 native US aquatic fish species to move in-and-out of the country or across state borders. The National Aquaculture Association estimates that there are 1,000 to 1,100 aquatic animal species farmed in the United States. The United Nations-Food and Agriculture Organization estimated 466 individual aquatic species, 7 interspecific hybrids of finfish, 92 species groups at genus level, 32 species groups at family level, and 25 species groups (fish, shellfish, reptiles, and crustaceans) that were farmed globally for food, stocking to enhance at-risk fisheries, and commercial and recreational fishing.



A white list would forestall the opportunity for: 1) US farms to produce these species for food or ornamental uses or to produce eggs, fry, fingerlings or seed to stock domestic or foreign farms and 2) US farmers to innovate. A national white list approach for the United States is not feasible for these reasons:



  • Does not allow species possession in parts of the country where they would not pose a risk to the natural or human environments.
  • May be opposed as a non-trade barrier by other countries.
  • Animal identification challenges posed by species taxonomy which is always changing and common names are problematical for the many names that may be applied to any one species.
  • Animal identification challenges posed by species morphology (color, shape, or size) can be influenced by the farm environment during grow-out or through animal breeding and selection to attract buyer interest.
  • Processing incoming shipments and providing the animal care required during the species identification process may not be physically possible at the FWS designated ports of entry (Anchorage, Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Honolulu, Houston, Los Angeles, Louisville, Memphis, Miami, New Orleans, New York, Newark, Portland, San Francisco and Seattle) or special ports (Agana, Fairbanks, Juneau, and San Juan).
  • The responsibility placed upon FWS Law Enforcement to rapidly distinguish, for animal health and welfare reasons, the >1,000 farmed aquatic animals in the United States, >2,500 native freshwater and marine fish species, ~13,000 white list species, 466+ globally farmed species and the current 785 Injurious Wildlife Species is well beyond the ability of experienced taxonomists. Notably, the number of fish species in the world are estimated to be ~34,000 and grows at approximately 250 new species each year.
  • May direct agency resources away from interdicting illegal trade to focus on adequately monitoring legal trade in white listed species at designated and special ports of entry.


For these reasons, I believe the provisions creates punitive, unjustified prohibitions and criminal risk that may be opposed by the public for the lack of basis in science and risk which may erode a bedrock concept to US regulation: Consent of the governed.



Sincerely,

[your name]





The entire America COMPETES Act can be read at https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/BILLS-117HR4521RH-RCP117-31.pdf.
 
It passed the house. The senate is the last hope. Here is the information the National Aquaculture Association is putting out.
Do you have a link to the vote tally?

If my Rep voted for it, I'll consider his vote during the primary.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top