Lacey Act needs to be stopped now!

[SynDen]

In case you haven't seen all the hub bub lately over the Lacey act. It basically an part of a bill that has already passed the Senate and is coming up for a vote in the house. If passed it could very well spell the end of our hobby as we know it, or at least it would be a very long time for it to make any sort of come back. It affect more then marine aquarists but also includes most of the Pet trade, including small pets, reptiles, lizards and tropical fish. This would very quickly put most if not all pet shops out of business, small and large would all be affected. 100s is not close to a thousand businesses just in CO would be forced to shutter as a result. This must be stopped immediately

What can we do?
- Start by reading up on some of the info around this ACT
- Write or call your elected Congressman or women
- Support PIJAC
- Sign the petition
- Get involved any way you can

Reading
- https://www.reef2rainforest.com/202...57y4F1ixqIiNSvbRAMu-solzbL9riGaiWwwTOlHwsR_uk

- https://www.reef2rainforest.com/202..._MBrvckDEcglQZT5KZuyjNXwlBmEsJpZSWcAF8Hciu_xM

Contacts for Senators and Congress
- https://coloradononprofits.org/contact-colorados-members-congress

PIJAC
- https://pijac.org/aquatic

Sign the petition
https://www.change.org/p/u-s-senate...SigVGn3Xe2EbHyKQLOgn8NC-JxkC-g8PxU9bCCsorisvY

 

[Angelo]

Here's BRS's take on it in case you'd like to hear their opinion.

Sent from my SM-G975U using MASC - Marine Aquarium Society of Colorado mobile app

 

[SynDen]

Here's BRS's take on it in case you'd like to hear their opinion.

Sent from my SM-G975U using MASC - Marine Aquarium Society of Colorado mobile app

Defiantly agree with them that even if this doesn't make it through, it wont be the last attempt to do so. We need to stay vigilant and active if we are to prevent anything of the sort now or in the future.

 

[spstimie]

I can tell you right now, neither of our senators give a rats @$$ if you disagree with them.

 

[jda123]

This is probably the 20-30th iteration of such a thing since I started this hobby in high school. Lacey Act has been around for a long time. I am conflicted on some of this. It will not end the hobby as we know it, but it could limit some things. At what point would it be OK to limit this hobby if pythons, lion fish, invasive algae. etc. are not destroying ecosystems and local inhabitants in Florida? ...or carp in nearly the whole US? When I was in college, somebody caught a red-tail catfish in a local lake.

I see all of this like a Home Owners Association. If you get smart people in charge, then the right things get done and people get left alone otherwise and everybody moves forward mostly together for the better. If you get some power-hungry idiots that have never been in charge of anything before and don't know what they are doing, then you can piss off everybody for absolutely no gain and it all gets worse. Unfortunately, we have no idea what we are going to get.

This is easy for us in Colorado where nearly anything tropical will die in winter (did you all see that somebody let a few alligators free near Walden?). Bacteria can be different and this is largely unstudied. The warmer climates can suffer because of us, so I am Ok with some restrictions to help them if the people in charge are smart enough to do it right. A good start would be by offering federal funding and assistance to local municipalities that have declared some things invasive - no need to worry about phtyons in Colorado long term, for example. Hawaii has banned the keeping of all true coral (hard) to keep invasive species away from there... even things that we like such as SPS, torches, hammers, etc.

Like anything else, if you want a real, permanent solution, there cannot be a 0 or 100 team sports type of mentality. Killing this bill will bring another and what comes next might be worse. Doing a good job to find a strong and sustainable middle ground will start down a path. This is true with all things (firearms, health care, environment, etc), though and unfortunately it usually takes something gone SOOOO wrong that an extreme act is needed down the road rather than focus on a moderate and sustainable beginning that has the ability to be changed when needed without more legislation.

This is off topic, but I always thought that I could do a better job of raising A. Palmatta than the ocean does (in most places) or the people trying to save it, so I wanted them to send me some and I will send back hunks as it grows. I need a bill/act for this.

 

[jda123]

This is also off topic, but what would some of you do different if you knew that other than a few imported fish, you had to just make it work with what was in captivity now through fragging and captive breeding? Would some of you get better lighting? Maybe better water parameters? Would any of this be bad for the things that we keep now? You would take it more seriously without a never ending supply, right? Maybe people would listed and let a tank cycle before killing coral and fish... or actually have a method to keep diseases at bay instead of winging it.

I have never thought that higher priced corals was a bad thing. I always thought that it would keep the fools away from them and the people that wanted them would take care of them better. I guess that this same thing can happen with low supply, as well.

The LFS as we know it might cease to exist in the current form since they kinda require the hobbyist who is constantly killing things for a source of business - I don't have a good answer for this part of the equation.

 

[SynDen]

So this particular legislation is MUCH more far reaching with much broader impact to the hobby then any past legislation. Past legislation has been focus on banning specific breeds, by blacklisting them in specific areas or states, and I personally have no problem with species being blacklisted. If people are irresponsible and a pet becomes an invasive species, like lionfish or pythons in Florida, then I am all for banning or blacklisting that species. But this is not just blacklisting a specific species, this is much more serious then that.

This legislation would put ALL animals in the pet trade on the Blacklist, and only animals that get put on the whitelist will be able to be sold in that state. In order to get off the blacklist you will have provide scientific evidence, and lobby the lawmakers to get that species moved to the whitelist, and this could only be done a species at a time. Blacklists as they exist now are just fine, but this whitelist would be much more serious. Until everything is whitelisted, all sales, trade, breeding or otherwise would be illegal. And it could take many years to get even a single species added to the whitelist, which means in the mean time all the retailers, aqua culture farms, and trade manufactures would be out of business until they are.

This legislation also bans ALL interstate commerce of ALL pets. Meaning that even if CO puts most of our fish and coral on the whitelist, we still would be unable get any animals from outside the state. Which means any breeding operations would not be sustainable as they would only be able to sell to this state. Even if you move to another state, it would be illegal for you bring your fish, or coral, with you too as you could not legally cross state lines with them.
Even this social group would essentially become part of the black-market if we continue to sell and trade frags or fish amongst ourselves.

This law would not make it possible for anyone to come and take your pets or tanks away from you persay, but you would not be able buy any more fish, or coral, and eventually you may even find it hard to buy equipment or gear to keep it running too

 

[jda123]

What I read is that it sets up the ability to ban, blacklist or whitelist things... not that it actually does. I know that there is a fine difference. There have been many proposed laws or bills like this in the past that started out the same way... and what we know now is a different iteration. Then, there has to be enforcement - we have plenty of controversial laws in Colorado that do not get enforced, on purpose. My point is that this is a long way from over.

The difference is that many are seeing this one in progress instead of the final product. Does anybody know what CITES started out as? ...a complete ban of any trade of live anything from country to country, or something like that. Then it made it to just endangered and protected things that make sense.

I am not saying that the final product might not suck, only that I have seen this many times before and they have yet to be as bad as they started. The dial-up BBs and Reef Central used to get overwhelmed when this stuff would come about and people thought that posting a message, in the early days, would automatically get to The President or their Congress Rep or something.

 

[rmougey]

Let's be very clear. The current legislations bans the import of all wildlife UNLESS it is specifically on a white list. Fresh, salt, reptile, amphibian up to and including eggs as well as other categories. In order for wildlife to be imported, they must be proven non-injurious (non-invasive is one criteria). This is exactly the opposite of a black list where specific species are called out and not allowed to be imported. In order to get on the white list, the Interior Department must review the animal, comments regarding invasive concerns and then it can be added. There is no guarantee nor requirement that any animal be added to the white list. The law makes no distinction between aquacultured and wild caught specimens. DO NOT make the mistake of believing that this amendment is more of the same. It is not. The section in question and of most concern is here:

"Third, the bill establishes a presumptive prohibition on the importation of any nonnative species of wild mammal, wild bird, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibian, or reptile, or the eggs of any such species. The presumption may be overcome if Interior determines that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to the United States."

There is no requirement in the law that the Interior Department add species to a white list, only that it may. What is the process? Who will pay to have the studies done? What is the appeal process for a detrimental finding? How long will it take per species to be added to a white list? The law allows the Department of Interior to create a white list but they are not required to do so. Then we add that interstate commerce clause. It is bad.

Stay informed by following these organizations:

https://usark.org/2022lacey/

https://pijac.org/blog/facts-about-lacey-act-amendments-competes-act-2022-hr4521

https://www.naiaonline.org/articles...-and-biomedical-research#sthash.QObYT3Yk.dpbs

 

[Angelo]

I see wild as a key word. Are aquaculture and mericulture included in this? Am I miss reading it?

"nonnative species of wild mammal, wild bird, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibian, or reptile, or the eggs of any such species.


Sent from my SM-G975U using MASC - Marine Aquarium Society of Colorado mobile app

 

[rmougey]

There is no mechanism to determine wild from aquacultured. Nor could it be ascertained by USF&W, therefore any non-native animal, wild or aquacultured would be subject to this amendment. If I placed two clownfish in bags, claimed that one was wild and one aquacultured, how could you prove which was which to the inspector?

Lacey Act Amendments of 2021

This bill modifies the injurious wildlife provision of the Lacey Act, which generally prohibits the import and shipment of listed living creatures and their eggs.

First, the bill specifies that the prohibition on shipment applies to interstate shipments within the continental United States.

Second, the bill authorizes the Department of the Interior to issue an emergency designation prohibiting the importation of a species if necessary to address an imminent threat to human beings, to the interests of agriculture, horticulture, forestry, or to wildlife, or to the wildlife resources of the United States.

Third, the bill establishes a presumptive prohibition on the importation of any nonnative species of wild mammal, wild bird, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibian, or reptile, or the eggs of any such species. The presumption may be overcome if Interior determines that the species does not pose a significant risk of invasiveness to the United States.

 

[Angelo]

Thank you for the information. This could have a severe impact on an entire industry. Not only pets but the supplies manufactured for them. There would be a serious domino affect. I can't imagine this going through as it stands but I've also seen a lot of crazyness of late. It's unfortunate that the only way to stop it is to lobby. That's the only thing our politicians care about.

Sent from my SM-G975U using MASC - Marine Aquarium Society of Colorado mobile app

 

[flagg37]

What I don’t understand is why this needs to be a federal bill. The states have the power to do this better themselves. The individual states know best what would be invasive to their states. Lion fish in Hawaii? Sure, ban them there, but here in CO? Why does the federal government feel they can better protect the states? Even the part that bans interstate sales could better be implemented by individual states. Laws should be made at the lowest level possible to reach a desired effect.

 

[jda123]

I still don't think that this incarnation will get passed. Maybe I am just too numb to the others that I have seen since I started in the hobby before I could drive. It will need drilled down into manageable pieces, which is where the rest have failed.

I am in my mid 40s and we will see something like this pass in my lifetime, I am afraid to say. We will be down to captive grown fish and corals, eventually, is my guess. In some ways, we only have ourselves to blame... the death rate in this hobby is atrocious and so it the cut rate at which most organisms are kept by hobbyists. Maybe it has always been prevalent and I have just become more aware of it, but the tanks set up for the hobbyist at the expense of the inhabitants seems more now than ever... ever since Nemo hit theaters. There are too few who think inhabitant first. How many people have read more Dr. Holmes-Farley articles than watched BRS videos... or spent even an hour at WWM learning something instead of just following the internet mob? Then, more and more manufacturers are just outright lying anymore making keeping corals and fish even harder too... they cannot see that they are eating their own for profit.

Birds, herps, freshwater all have their own set of issues that might see limitations one day. Lumping them all in together is why this will likely fail, IMO... or at least why these types of bills have struggled in the past. I totally get that once everything gets bad enough that something horrible will get passed, but I do not feel that this is it.

I still don't think that Congress gives a darn about the environment at all until it impacts a big industry with money... so lionfish in the gulf or pythons in the everglades are no issue to them since it does not impact commerce, but sparrows eating all of the wheat is a problem because crops are big business.

I would not be all that disappointed if somebody needed to apply and demonstrate a level of competency to be able to buy wild fish and corals. ...let the rest play with CB stuff. I proposed this to Florida about a decade ago to be able to raise some A. Palmatta, but they could not see how captive raising of coral could help the species... even though some larger aquiarums in Florida return many fragments a year to be put back into the ocean.