This will end the hobby: AMENDMENTS TO LACEY ACT IN HOUSE COMPETES ACT HR4521

[EyeCatchingCoral]

As one of the largest coral importers and coral aquaculture operations in the world, we view this as a very serious and real threat to our business and the reef keeping hobby as a whole.

We worry for our industry suppliers, our own business and staff, the stores, the public aquariums, the research facilities, and all of the great reef aquarium keepers who allow us to do what we love everyday.

It is still very unclear what the outcome of this will all be if passed as is AND it is unclear if this language will even be part of the final bill (If it passes). However, it is a very real concern for us and this wonderful hobby.

If passed, as currently written, it is our opinion this would devastate our business and this hobby. It would affect both wild coral/fish and aquacultured coral/fish. It is true we do not know for a fact what would happen if this passed. There are whitelists and a lot of legal things to unpack and try to understand. We are not legal experts on this stuff. However, we do not want to take any chances and this is a BIG chance. We can not just sit and wait to see what happens. The future of this hobby is in all of our hands.

What can we all do:
Contact your representatives and senators! Let them know how you feel about this and stand up for your rights to responsibly keep aquariums and pets!

Respectfully,
Jim Gintner
Eye Catching Coral, CEO & Founder

 

[mdb_talon]

As one of the largest coral importers and coral aquaculture operations in the world, we view this as a very serious and real threat to our business and the reef keeping hobby as a whole.

We worry for our industry suppliers, our own business and staff, the stores, the public aquariums, the research facilities, and all of the great reef aquarium keepers who allow us to do what we love everyday.

It is still very unclear what the outcome of this will all be if passed as is AND it is unclear if this language will even be part of the final bill (If it passes). However, it is a very real concern for us and this wonderful hobby.

If passed, as currently written, it is our opinion this would devastate our business and this hobby. It would affect both wild coral/fish and aquacultured coral/fish. It is true we do not know for a fact what would happen if this passed. There are whitelists and a lot of legal things to unpack and try to understand. We are not legal experts on this stuff. However, we do not want to take any chances and this is a BIG chance. We can not just sit and wait to see what happens. The future of this hobby is in all of our hands.

What can we all do:
Contact your representatives and senators! Let them know how you feel about this and stand up for your rights to responsibly keep aquariums and pets!

Respectfully,
Jim Gintner
Eye Catching Coral, CEO & Founder

I am curious why you would claim it would impact coral when coral is not even part of the amendment? I am curious if you have consulted legal advice on what this would actually do as you say you dont understand it yourself? I see a lot of pushback against this bill and wonder if it is just a case of the industry being against any possible regulation because they dont understand it?

For the record i am against the bill because they dont define "more than minimal quantities", but otherwise seems a very sensible bill to me.

 

[EyeCatchingCoral]

I am curious why you would claim it would impact coral when coral is not even part of the amendment? I am curious if you have consulted legal advice on what this would actually do as you say you dont understand it yourself? I see a lot of pushback against this bill and wonder if it is just a case of the industry being against any possible regulation because they dont understand it?

For the record i am against the bill because they dont define "more than minimal quantities", but otherwise seems a very sensible bill to me.

Fish are also a large part of our industry as well and we depend on them for our systems here and they are a big part of the hobby itself. The industry can not survive without fish. Our tanks would proably not survive without the fish and inverts as well.

I am also concerned they will find a way to include coral. Only time will tell.

I do wish it was more clear and easily understood. Once these things get into law then we would learn quickly what was impacted. It is very hard to say right now.

 

[Porpoise Hork]

Someone started an online petition. Who knows if this will make any difference but it's worth a shot.

https:// www.change. org / p/ u-s-senate-stop-the-ban-on-fishkeeping-in-the-united-states

 

[pulpfiction]

I've been watching this and have written both my Senators. I keep fish and reptiles and I'm really worried about this. I don't want to see these restrictions. Especially the 'cannot cross state lines'. That's so blanketing and restricting. It's injurious to animals they ban and the people who own them. That's so much power given to one entity. It's such a gross overreach of power.

 

[MnFish1]

As one of the largest coral importers and coral aquaculture operations in the world, we view this as a very serious and real threat to our business and the reef keeping hobby as a whole.

We worry for our industry suppliers, our own business and staff, the stores, the public aquariums, the research facilities, and all of the great reef aquarium keepers who allow us to do what we love everyday.

It is still very unclear what the outcome of this will all be if passed as is AND it is unclear if this language will even be part of the final bill (If it passes). However, it is a very real concern for us and this wonderful hobby.

If passed, as currently written, it is our opinion this would devastate our business and this hobby. It would affect both wild coral/fish and aquacultured coral/fish. It is true we do not know for a fact what would happen if this passed. There are whitelists and a lot of legal things to unpack and try to understand. We are not legal experts on this stuff. However, we do not want to take any chances and this is a BIG chance. We can not just sit and wait to see what happens. The future of this hobby is in all of our hands.

What can we all do:
Contact your representatives and senators! Let them know how you feel about this and stand up for your rights to responsibly keep aquariums and pets!

Respectfully,
Jim Gintner
Eye Catching Coral, CEO & Founder

So there it is.

 

[MnFish1]

Fish are also a large part of our industry as well and we depend on them for our systems here and they are a big part of the hobby itself. The industry can not survive without fish. Our tanks would proably not survive without the fish and inverts as well.

I am also concerned they will find a way to include coral. Only time will tell.

I do wish it was more clear and easily understood. Once these things get into law then we would learn quickly what was impacted. It is very hard to say right now.

Exactly - as usual - the problem is the wording - which is ambiguous - who the heck knows what is planned. But - I will say - PETA - says any aquarium is immoral. basically - so - I think its clear the plan.

 

[MnFish1]

@MnFish1

See the section below. It basically says any importation or transport between the states is prohibited UNLESS in the prior year the species was imported in "more than minimal quantities" (or already being transported between states). In other words the stuff we already are importing and trading between the states would not apply to the presumptive prohibition. Basically we start out with a whitelist that has the vast majority of legally traded wildlife already, but to import anything new it would have to be approved by the Secretary of the Interior and add it to the whitelist. I know I am in the minority, but I actually think that is sound policy. Maybe if we had this in place years ago our coastal waters would not be full of lionfish. The only reason I dont support the bill is because of the "more than minimal quantities" clause and the fact that the amendment does not define what "minimal quantities" are. Will also point out in below that any of section A(i), A(ii), or B being true would add the species to the whitelist. It does not require all three to be true. Also will add that you can clearly see this amendment does not include Coral. Whether an oversight or intentional this would have no impact on coral importation/trade unless another amendment is made to also include coral.

“(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 Lacey Act Amendments of 2021, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1) , is prohibited, unless—
“(A) during the 1-year period preceding the date of enactment of the Lacey Act Amendments 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.

BTW - Its my opinion that it is so vague - that it could be applied to anything - maybe read it with a different perspective?

 

[MnFish1]

Some here - have to realize - and I dont mean to preach - but some - want all ZOOS abolished - as cruel. That would also go for public aquaria. Ditto for Private aquaria. This is the climate - I said it a year and a half ago - and was mocked - but - in fact it is the climate IMHO

 

[mdb_talon]

BTW - Its my opinion that it is so vague - that it could be applied to anything - maybe read it with a different perspective?

What parts do you find vague(other than the "more than minimal quantities" part)?

To me it seems pretty specific otherwise.

 

[mdb_talon]

So there it is.

Well pretty much every vendor has been sending out emails to get people hyped up. Still does not mean it does what they claim. I mean ECC came out saying it would be disastrous for fish/coral hobby and then said they dont really understand it. When questioned about the fact that coral is not even part of the amendment the counter is that maybe it will be. Of course maybe another amendment could be made or the language in this one changed prior to vote. Maybe a bill will be introduced that actually does ban all wildlife trade(its been tried recently). However those maybes are not at all what is in this amendment. If as a hobby we reject any and all regulation "just because" then i think that is a disservice to the hobby.

In the long run it is my opinion we should all want to prevent new damaging invasive species from being imported(which is what this bill is about). A couple more situations like pythons or lionfish are just going to garner even more support for a true wildlife ban. Instead we as a hobby just outright lie about ehat the amendment does, make up what-if scenarios that arent part of the legislation, and fight to prevent anything from changing.

 

[Grumblez]

Exactly - as usual - the problem is the wording - which is ambiguous - who the heck knows what is planned. But - I will say - PETA - says any aquarium is immoral. basically - so - I think its clear the plan.

Tye only part of this bill that's remotely related to animal welfare is a ban on selling shark fins. It's a bill about preventing invasive species.

I think almost everyone on here would agree that 99% of the time the notion that wild coral/fish collection is having measurable impact on wild populations is wrong. Bangai Cardinals (and if we didn't figure out how to breed them so early in the hobby most likely clownfish) are the only exceptions I can think off. However, the exotic pet trade has certainly led to very problematic invasive species. Florida has 3 I can think of off the top of my head.

 

[EyeCatchingCoral]

Well pretty much every vendor has been sending out emails to get people hyped up. Still does not mean it does what they claim. I mean ECC came out saying it would be disastrous for fish/coral hobby and then said they dont really understand it. When questioned about the fact that coral is not even part of the amendment the counter is that maybe it will be. Of course maybe another amendment could be made or the language in this one changed prior to vote. Maybe a bill will be introduced that actually does ban all wildlife trade(its been tried recently). However those maybes are not at all what is in this amendment. If as a hobby we reject any and all regulation "just because" then i think that is a disservice to the hobby.

In the long run it is my opinion we should all want to prevent new damaging invasive species from being imported(which is what this bill is about). A couple more situations like boas or lionfish are just going to garner even more support for a true wildlife ban. Instead we as a hobby just outright lie about ehat the amendment does, make up what-if scenarios that arent part of the legislation, and fight to prevent anything from changing.

We are 100% for black lists and we are 100% for doing all we can to prevent any invasive species.

MAKE NO MISTAKE. This is not to protect against invasive species. It's a 3 year proposed legislation change. That is not going to stop invasive species threats. Those wont go away in 3 years. It is designed to weaken these hobbies and industries.

Fish are 100% in this bill. It is a threat to our ability to keep them in aquariums. Without fish we have no industry. This includes aquacultured fish as well!

We are not for the broad language of this bill that gives much more power and decision making to the government. It is so broad in fact, that all of the legal experts we spoke with are confident it could include coral as well.

We know for sure that this will change things to a white list. Past situations have proved that getting animals added to a white list is very tough and/or impossible. Instead of the government having to prove that it is bad we would have to prove that 100% it could not be bad in any part of the country since this is federal and not handled state to state. States have always had the power to regulate this in the past. This would change things in a big way.

It is not just imports. It regulations state to state commerce and travel of animals. If they arent on the white list you can NOT ship or take a zoanthids across state lines. Could zoanthids be injurius to humans? I think so. Many animals can if not given the proper respect and care they should be. It could be a slippery slope into us having no hobby and no rights to own aquarium life.

For example if it is determined (by the government) that a coral or fish could be injurious to the eco system in FL or Hawaii we would not even be allowed to ship it from Ohio to another state (Even if that state is not FL or Hawaii). Your local fish store or online store likely wont be able to acquire any aquarium livestock to sell.

This bill is an overreach of government power at the federal level. They have tried this before and the reptile industry had to overturn it because it was not legal and fought them and won. Those things took a lot of time and money. Many people were out of business in the mean time and the hobby and industry suffered.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I wanted to take the time to provide mine to you all who might care. I have spent a ton of time on this subject as my life's work literally depends on it. You can do with it what you wish.

We firmly believe in responsible pet ownership and we are firmly opposed to amendmets to the Lacey act.

 

[mdb_talon]

That is not going to stop invasive species threats.

Why wouldnt it stop new threats? If on one hand you says this stops all trade and it impossible to add anything to the whitelist then certainly that goes a long way to stop bee invasive species from getting a foothold?

For example if it is determined (by the government) that a coral could be injurious in FL or Hawaii we would not even be allowed to ship it Ohio to another state (Even if that state is not FL or Hawaii).

Again this is one of my biggest issues with the hobby outrage at the amendment. The language of this bill is clear....it does not apply to coral. Yes it applies to fish that are not already being imported/traded. Yes it will make it much harder to whitelist anything that is not already commonly available in the hobby. That is not nearly the same as the armageddon scenarios people keep bringing up.

States have always had the power to regulate this in the past. This would change things in a big way.

That is one of the problems they are trying to solve. If a new "Lionfish 2.0" is found in a new collection region what good does it do for South Carolina to blacklist if it Florida doesnt? The fish does not know where the border is. Relying on individual states to determine what constitutes an invasive species has failed miserably. Even more to the point relying on the default being the whitelist has failed miserably.

Entire ecostystems are being destroyed due to animals we have brought into the country, but as a hobby we are too concerned with no new regulation that the end result likely will eventually be a full ban.

 

[mdb_talon]

This is not to protect against invasive species. It's a 3 year proposed legislation change. That is not going to stop invasive species threats. Those wont go away in 3 years.

Forgot to add that this is not a a 3-year legislation change. The three year clause is only relevant if the secretary of interior blacklists a fish/reptile/etc that is currently allowed(whitelisted) and it lasts for up to three years while further analysis and research can be done.

The blacklisting by default for NEW species being introduced does not have a three year limit. If "lionfish 2.0" is found it will be blacklisted permanently unless/until it is specifically whitelisted. That most certainly can limit the chance of new invasive species getting a foothold anywhere.

 

[EyeCatchingCoral]

Why wouldnt it stop new threats? If on one hand you says this stops all trade and it impossible to add anything to the whitelist then certainly that goes a long way to stop bee invasive species from getting a foothold?



Again this is one of my biggest issues with the hobby outrage at the amendment. The language of this bill is clear....it does not apply to coral. Yes it applies to fish that are not already being imported/traded. Yes it will make it much harder to whitelist anything that is not already commonly available in the hobby. That is not nearly the same as the armageddon scenarios people keep bringing up.



That is one of the problems they are trying to solve. If a new "Lionfish 2.0" is found in a new collection region what good does it do for South Carolina to blacklist if it Florida doesnt? The fish does not know where the border is. Relying on individual states to determine what constitutes an invasive species has failed miserably. Even more to the point relying on the default being the whitelist has failed miserably.

Entire ecostystems are being destroyed due to animals we have brought into the country, but as a hobby we are too concerned with no new regulation that the end result likely will eventually be a full b

It will not stop new threats for many reasons but here some:

#1 This is only for 3 years. It is not a plan to stop invasive species. It is a plan to weaken animal keeping hobbies.

#2 Many non native species are already here. Owners need to be responsible and we have to have rights.

#3 Invasive species can be smuggled in or get in by other non hobby imported methods. This bill will largely not stop invasive species. They are also not even sure how the lionfish got here. Many experts think it was NOT from the aquarium hobby. There are many possibilities. I agree things like lionfish are a big issue and should be solved. I do not agree this is the way to do it.

Our experts think this bill already does or will include coral. Only time will tell how it is interpreted. It is an amendment to the Lacey act granting even more power and changing long standing policy. The Lacey act covers coral already. Even if somehow it does not include coral changes based on this (And trust me I hope it doesn't. No one would be happier than me.) The way it affects fish will change the coral keeping hobby and probably end it. If each state had their own white list this could work. Again, at the federal level this whitelist will be very hard or impossible to add species to successfully. That is why there is real fear.

It is important to remember this is both aquacultured and wild items being affected. Not just imports. You cant send a clownfish from here to the next state over if they deem it is not able to be on the white list. How that process will go is very unclear. Based on what we have seen in the past it will not go well!

I respect your point of view. I am thankful for your thoughtful replies. However, this will be my last reply on the subject unless I can provide more updates.

 

[bdwarrior52]

Why wouldnt it stop new threats? If on one hand you says this stops all trade and it impossible to add anything to the whitelist then certainly that goes a long way to stop bee invasive species from getting a foothold?



Again this is one of my biggest issues with the hobby outrage at the amendment. The language of this bill is clear....it does not apply to coral. Yes it applies to fish that are not already being imported/traded. Yes it will make it much harder to whitelist anything that is not already commonly available in the hobby. That is not nearly the same as the armageddon scenarios people keep bringing up.



That is one of the problems they are trying to solve. If a new "Lionfish 2.0" is found in a new collection region what good does it do for South Carolina to blacklist if it Florida doesnt? The fish does not know where the border is. Relying on individual states to determine what constitutes an invasive species has failed miserably. Even more to the point relying on the default being the whitelist has failed miserably.

Entire ecostystems are being destroyed due to animals we have brought into the country, but as a hobby we are too concerned with no new regulation that the end result likely will eventually be a full ban.

You’re assuming the “minimal quantities” are met for fish. And if you are correct that they meet the requirement then lionfish will still be available.

Im not sure anyone knows what the out come of the bill would be with due to that one term. We’ll find out.

 

[mdb_talon]

You’re assuming the “minimal quantities” are met for fish. And if you are correct that they meet the requirement then lionfish will still be available.

Im not sure anyone knows what the out come of the bill would be with due to that one term. We’ll find out.

Actually i have never made any such assumption. In fact i have said multiple times in this thread and others i dont support the bill because it does not define what "more than minimal amount" means.

However what I also dont support is dishonestly about what is in this bill.

 

[bdwarrior52]

Again this is one of my biggest issues with the hobby outrage at the amendment. The language of this bill is clear....it does not apply to coral. Yes it applies to fish that are not already being imported/traded. Yes it will make it much harder to whitelist anything that is not already commonly available in the hobby. That is not nearly the same as the armageddon scenarios people keep bringing up.

Idk this sounds to me like you believe it will only apply to species that aren’t available today. When if the species available today are not “minimal quantities” then they will be affected.

I’m not trying to argue with you but it does seem like something that could be a negative for the industry.

 

[mdb_talon]

Idk this sounds to me like you believe it will only apply to species that aren’t available today. When if the species available today are not “minimal quantities” then they will be affected.

I’m not trying to argue with you but it does seem like something that could be a negative for the industry.

Well yes sorry i do assume that the common items in the hobby today will be available, but as i said i dont support it because they dont make clear what minimal quantities means so we dont really know the cutoff.. I also agree it could be bad for the hobby....and again i dont support the bill. Again though i dont think not supporting it should equate to hyperbole and false information about the bill.

However i would like to see the pet industries actually doing their part to push sensible regulations rather than only spread disinformation about bills. This bill for example in my opinion is close to being a good sensible bill. If the industry dies on the sword of "no federal regulation it should be up to the states" for example then i personally think enough support will eventually be there for a full wildlife ban. The general public is smart enough to understand state bans dont work for invasive species since they dont respect borders.