I’ve said it in past posts, but again, I think if we as an industry stop selling and buying anything that we can sustain within our industry, it shows that we are trying to be part of the solution rather than the problem and maybe that in itself will stave off overly restrictive legislation. I said in a previous post that I don’t understand why we are still buying/selling all this beautiful wild coral that I just absolutely KNOW has been propagated through fragging. I see these giant heads of wild coral that is just stunning on some of these coral etailers sites and it is sad to think that coral or chunk of coral is no longer in the wild. If we can just be patient and grow our frags out and then frag again, there is no need for wild coral collection and I believe that in itself would make a difference (not sure how big or small). Again, I understand that we cannot captive raise all our marine creatures, so collection is still neccessary, but why not minimize what we can? We as consumers can do this on our own just by making sure whatever we buy does not have a captive counterpart offered somewhere and if so, go with that one instead. It will encourage (force) the industry to change AND we can be part of a positive change. I’ll say it again, we need to unite as marine/reef aquarists to support conservation. Okay, off my soapbox for today…sorry.

Here here! Perhaps what COULD be considered the restrictive regulations of fish imports could also provide the economic climate needed to expand research and funding for the legendary captive bred Tang!

You just can’t breed any challenging fish as long as the parasite infested wild caught ones are readily available for $20 at the LFS.

I agree with the comments above. The aquarium industry should be moderated by the principle ‘First, do no harm.’

But it’s clearly moderated by, ‘Right, what can I catch and sell?’ or as consumers, ‘What can I buy?’

While in nearly all cases (aside from certain specific species) we’re hardly a major problem compared to the real culprits (food fishing, waste run-off, global warming etc)we will have only ourselves to blame if the hobby is taken out as a morally dubious contributor.

Harsh but true.

save the whales! save the whales! yeaaa save the whales but shoot dem seals -cheech and chong

DDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOO NNNOOTTT PPPAASSEEE THe BILL EVERYBODY GO TO YOU TUBE AND TYPE SNAKE BYTES TV AND TYPE PETS IN PERIL (POLITICANS GONE WILD)HR669 TO SEE HOW IT CAN AFFECT YOU A BETA A HAMSTER A REPTILE A COCKATU A ANGLE FISH A PARACETE THIS BILL PLEASE THEN GO TO THEN GO TO http://WWW.NOHR669.COM AND SEND A LETTER TO CONGRESS FOR FREE PLEASE DO NOT GO WITH THIS AND SPREAD THE WORD

Some people seem afraid that if this bill passes they will have their corals or fish taken by the government… lol… Actually in a bill is a very specific provision stating that even if you own a species which is deemed unnapproved, you still have the right to keep it!

Very, very refreshing to see some concurring opinions on this subject. I’m pretty vocal with my feelings about this both when I meet another aquarist in person as well as any forums I visit, and I’m always shocked and disheartened to either get no response at all or a negative one. On one forum, I started mentioning global warming and was attacked by other aquarists who thought I was stupid for even considering global warming as a reality (they felt it was just natural global progression…maybe so, but not in the course of a century or less!). I was really affected by that and began to question/wonder if a majority of my fellow aquarists were also conservation/environmentally minded as I try to be. I thought that was a given because of what our passion is, but sadly I think I was wrong. Thank you to those who have made me feel like at least a good portion of us at least WANT to take this role. I, like many of you just don’t know how or in what capacity to make this happen. I’d love to be very active, but don’t really know how. A couple of times I’ve been directed to some other conservative minded reefers and felt very dwarfed both educationally, experience wise and with general scientific knowledge. I need to find a grassroots way to make a positive change, but am stuck at the “how” stage. Thanks again guy (you too, of course, Eric).

The thing they don’t mention is if those fish you are keeping that turn up on the unapproved list, which most will since the money and time needed to do the studies will not be available, accidentally breed and have babies the Government has the right to take your fish and terminate them. Oops I guess people don’t look at that! Also since you are not allowed to breed these unapproved animals in captivity, once the ones you have die, that is it! You can not go out and buy more. Your children will not have the ability to enjoy these animals as you have. Also if you notice transport of these exotic species across state lines is prohibited, that means if you move to another state you can’t take your fish with you for one, you can not sell them since that is prohibited, and you can not transfer ownership to someone else. So you will be left with no choice other than breaking the law or terminating your pets life.

Tell your reps to “Vote No on HR-669″! Go to http://WWW.NOHR669.COM and take the actions recommended.

@David,

While I appreciate your passion for this issue, those types of hysterics are not going to help “our” cause. You’re making very large assumptions for this proposal.

I will not encourage my reps to vote no for HR-669, unless there are significant detriments to marine and economic sustainability. I do believe aquarists can make a significant impact towards sustainability through the knowledge we have gained while keeping these beautiful animals. I will however, encourage my reps to be skeptical and discerning of HR669, by making them aware of the potential impacts and detriments.

If you guys actualy read the bill they don’t care about you’re basic petstore purchased animals. Their basically trying to stop animals like the Northern Snakehead from invading our native waters, and destroying native fish populations. Or people who are bringing Russian Boars into the U.S. and threatening native boar populations. Actually read the bill don’t jump to conclusions you really think the feds are going to pass a bill saying you can’t own you’re English Bulldog, or you’re Parokeet.

Considering that all non native-americans ( american indians, first nations)who ever sailed across the sea to get here are invasive and destructive, I find the measure a bit hypocritical.

I actually agree with the intentions behind HR 669, but if you read the whole bill, we as pet/fish owners DO need to worry. Yes, if you already have these pets you can keep them, but by banning the breeding, sale, or trade of virtually every type of fish (except fan-tail goldfish) and just about all types of pets (cats and dogs are the only domestic pets listed as “approved” at the moment, besides farm animals), this bill will effectively put the pet industry out of business overnight. So just where are you going to get all the supplies that you need to keep your critters healthy? Heck, right now even mice and rats aren’t on the list, so how are you going to feed your snakes if this passes? And in order to get a species ADDED to the very short list, whoever wants it added will have to pay a yet-undetermined fee to help defray the costs of “evaluating” it to be sure that there is no possibility that it will cause any problems in ANY state. I think if they are going to have a list, they should only have a list of critters that have proven to be harmful, and everything else is ok. Whatever happened to “innocent until proven guilty”? In this case, it’s “guilty until proven innocent”! Anyway, if you are interested in helping to oppose this, there is a website http://www.nohr669.com that has more info, and you can sign a petition against it at http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/save-our-pets-stop-hr-669 . Sorry for the long post, but I am really afraid of what will happen if this passes.

@ Shari – Unfortunately, those websites you posted are spreading viral Internet hysteria that is completely unfounded. This bill does NOT prohobit all non-native species.

Let me break it down.

1. All non-native species are classified, NOT banned. It has yet to be determined how species are classified, so no one knows yet. Anyone who pretends to know is misinformed.

2. They will be classified as approved, non-approved, or not enough information to determine. This is based on a long list of factors to determine if the species poses a risk of becoming invasive.

3. The Act only effects those species that are (A) non-native AND (B) on the non-approved list. Thus, each individual species must be put onto the list. This truth is the opposite of what is being spread on the Internet. People seem to be assuming all non-native species are on the list by default, unless approved. This simply isn’t the case.

Here are the sections that are relevant.

This is where it establishes the 3 classifications:

(2) DETERMINATION- Based on scientific and commercial information provided in a proposal under paragraph (1) or otherwise available to the Secretary, the Secretary shall make one of the following determinations regarding such a proposal in a reasonable period of time and in accordance with the regulations issued under section 3:

(A) The nonnative wildlife species is approved for importation, and is added to the list of approved species under this section.

(B) The nonnative wildlife species is not approved for importation, unless permitted under section 7.

(C) The Secretary has insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination under subparagraph (A) or (B).
[/quote]

This is where it sets forth that only those non-native species that are put on the unapproved list are effected:

[quote](a) Requirement To Issue List of Unapproved Species-

(1) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species that are prohibited from importation into the United States except as provided in section 7.

(2) INCLUDED SPECIES- The list under this subsection shall include–

(A) those species listed as injurious wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States Code, or under regulations under that section, as of the date of enactment of this Act; and

(B) any other species the Secretary determines under section 4(c)(2)(B) is not approved for importation.

If an animal is classified as invasive to one state it ends up on the non-approved list. This means if a fish is classified Invasive to the waters in Guam, Hawaii, or one of the island territories owned by the US it goes on the banned list for the whole US. Meaning you can not sell, breed, buy, or transport across state lines that species of fish even though you live in Maine where the fish has no chance at all of surviving if accidental release was to occur.

@ David – Thats correct and unfortunately that is the only feasible way for regulation like this to work, for a couple reasons. First, the Federal Gov’t can’t make regulations directed to individual states only. That is the realm of the state gov’t, but unfortunately, the state gov’ts doesn’t have the ability to implement and enforce a statute like this. In an ideal world, the restrictions would be on a state by state basis, but in reality, it just isn’t feasible to regulate in this manner.

Who are you kidding? This bill will PREVENT/STOP the sales of aquarium fish. This is very BAD interference by our government.

*sigh*

[...] or the sale of unsuitable aquarium species? No, but the effort has to start somewhere. In light of HR 669 it’s good to see the aquarium hobby taking ownership of some preventable situations. More [...]