# Support needed to Oppose HR 669, A bill to block the importation of nonnative species



## AbsoluteAngels (Feb 6, 2009)

Please be aware that there is a Congressional Hearing happening on April 23, 2009 which pertains largely to our hobby. This hearing is on the Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act, HR 669, a bill which wishes to revamp how species are regulated under the Lacey Act. Species not appearing on the “Approved List” could not be imported into the United States; therefore, all unapproved nonnative species could not be moved interstate. In addition, trade in all such unlisted species would
come to a halt – possession would be limited and all breeding would cease. Unless those species are included on the approved list import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation.

A HEARING has been scheduled for April 23 and the pet industry needs to be heard load and clear prior to the hearing! The anti-trade elements are hard at work to stop activities involving non-native species.

You can contact members of the subcommittee by emailing or faxing your opposition to HR 669 to their offices in Washington DC urging them to amend the bill. You can also contact district offices to voice your opposition or request a meeting with your Representative. It is also important to organize like-minded people in your district so several of you can visit with your representative at the same time.

Spread the word to fellow hobbyists, friends, family, and like-minded individuals and urge them to respond to this unworkable approach which is an issue for all of us. Call, email, and fax your local newspapers or tv stations. We need to get the word out.

More details can be found at the following link on

MFK: http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230852
MFK Petition : http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=230948&page=3


AC: http://www.aquariacentral.com/forums/showthread.php?t=188837
AC Petition : http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86144566696

MFKF: http://www.minnfish.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13523&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0


A group has also been formed on Facebook at the following --> http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=86144566696


Take the time, show your support, make your voice heard to protect our hobby.

Relevant links:

Cast your Vote: http://www.govit.com/vote/congress.aspx?bill=2009-hr-669
The actual Bill: http://pijac.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=504
Last two pages are the House Committee with contact information: http://www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf

Thanks to All!!

~Stacy


----------



## Kurtfr0 (Nov 2, 2008)

As much as I think this is a stupid idea, I doubt anyone has much influence. Plus.. theres so many fish out there... they cant stop us.


----------



## COM (Mar 15, 2008)

Two thoughts:

1- There are enough fish already being held in captivity throughout the United States that we should **should** be able to breed fish for the hobby in captivity. I personally believe that it is wrong to continue taking animals from nature.

2- Rumors of such legislation have been floating around on the internet for awhile now. They usually amount to nothing. That being said, even if this gets a vote, it doesn't necessarily mean that it will pass.


----------



## AbsoluteAngels (Feb 6, 2009)

Do not take this lightly....this will happen if we don't do anything to stop it.

~Stacy


----------



## guppyart (Jan 22, 2005)

considering I remember stuff like this back in 05 tough to really believe something like that will end up getting passed. either way I am lucky as least nothing can escape my tanks and live here in the frozen north 0_o


----------



## justintrask (Jun 29, 2008)

It wont pass. They would lose all of the economy that any sort of plant shop, flower shop, fish store, etc. Then in order to enforce it they would need to hire more and do basically door to door inspections to make sure it doesnt happen. They can't stop people from getting asian arowanas into the US very easily, it's going to be tough to pass this one.


----------



## DorisOpen (Dec 6, 2005)

They are referring to the "importation" and YES it could happen. 

How many of you love the Wild Discus, Cardinal Tetras or fancy plecos from South America? Or Cyprinids and Antibantoids from the Orient? How about the cool Cichlids from Africa? 
Or maybe your in California & want fish from a friend in Ohio..... Forget it, its not on the list. 

If you think one voice can't do anything your wrong.


----------



## emc7 (Jul 23, 2005)

I'd be upset if the flow of new undescribed fish dried up because they are unlisted. I mean, how do you list something that doesn't have a name yet? We have a government by the vocal. You can't count on Washington to read your mind. They will probably protect commercial interests ok, but what about hobbyists trying to establish captive populations of threatened species? No one is going to lobby for us. Someone said we get the government we deserve. If you care about any issue, take the time to send an e-mail to your congressman. At least you'll feel like you tried.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

This got defeated last year in it's previous incarnation, and it will keep coming back again and again until the imbeciles behind it get some satisfaction. I've warned ya'll many times that the jerks at PETA are absolutely NOT on our side, and now they have some new allies who are helping them with this one. I really thought they had us last year, but now that the Democrats have seized power, they just might manage to really stick it to us this time. Dems aren't very bright, and they're always looking to do stuff they think is somehow eco-friendly. It won't occur to them that blocking all imports ( _ which is what this bill would actually do, since the selective style of banning won't work and they know it, which is really what they want_) will only result in massive collection of native fish.


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

Id have to agree TOS... with Dems in control who knows whats going to happen. I'm all for sustainable practices... but new genetic material is ALWAYS needed to keep captive breeding programs healthy.


----------



## redpaulhus (Jan 18, 2005)

While I agree that this is unlikely to pass in its _current _form - in any form it could kill the pet industry.
It's easy to say "it won't pass" - I suspect that distilleries had the same conversations before Prohibition passed.

the big thing is, they're not talking about just stopping importation of species - they want to stop all sales, trade, and breeding of any species not on the list. And the list of what "they" are willing to allow right now is basically "Dogs, Cats, Goldfish, and Livestock".
That means no more parakeets, no more hamsters, no more guinea pigs, no more ferrets, and no more aquarium fish other than goldfish.

The way the bill is written, species can be added to the list of approved species once they are demonstrated to offer _*no threat in any state in the US.
*_So discus could probably get approved eventually.
But Oscars have taken hold in the canals of south Florida - so they would likely be banned. Ditto parakeets, iguana, boas, pythons, etc. Lionfish - gone.
Nemo could live in Hawaii, so he's banned too.

There are special interest groups out there that eventually would probably get some animals added back - ferrets come to mind. Maybe. 
However, I think many of the aquarium fish we know and love would not make it to the list for at least a few years.
I've seen estimates that it currently takes about 4 years to get an animal added to the "banned" list - how long would it take to prove an animal is safe if it takes 4 years to prove one is unsafe ?

Ok, lets say that in 5 years, we get 6 cichlids, 4 livebearers, 8 tetras, bettas, leopard geckos and land tortises added to the safe list.
How many LFS will survive during that time if they cannot sell anything but goldfish ?
In 5 years, the only place to buy pets will be Walmart, Petco, and Petsmart (since the later 2 can survive on dog and cat food/supply sales).

The LFS I work at will be gone, as will the other 2 I shop at, plus online vendors like Jehmco and Kensfish.

Here's some info from the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (and yes, I realize that they have a stake in this, since they represent the industry as a whole):

http://www.pijac.org/files/public/669_Short_W_Comm.pdf

http://www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf

I'm all for the control of problem species, and I firmly support the Responsible Fishkeeping Initiative that David Lass is spearheading (aiming to prevent the release of "monster" fish that have outgrown their tank because people make impulse buys of fish that don't belong in LFS because they grow to big for non-custom aquaria ) - http://www.fishchannel.com/rfi.aspx


----------



## lohachata (Jan 27, 2006)

i believe that "ALL" nonnative animal species be banned and eradicated from this continent...shall we start with dogs and cats and horses and other domesticated nonnative species...then we can move on to the upright 2 legged invasive species...


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

We should maybe start an initiative to make sure that cows & pigs are also banned under this law, since as written they would apply. That should shake things up a bit.


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

Ferel hogs in wisconsin do more damage to wildlife than any other introduced species that reside on land.


----------



## COM (Mar 15, 2008)

FYI HR 669 was introduced by a Delegate from Guam, not even a congressman. According to Govtrack, it is in committee and not scheduled for a vote.


----------



## Againsthecurent (Jan 22, 2009)

Fishfirst said:


> Ferel hogs in wisconsin do more damage to wildlife than any other introduced species that reside on land.


You are absolutely correct FF. We had that same problem in north central ND. I believe they now have it under control, but time will tell.


----------



## xxthrwitdwnxx (Apr 28, 2007)

Heres another link for info nohr669.com


----------



## Betta Dragon (Mar 9, 2007)

There will be a vote on this law on April 23rd. http://www.nohr669.com is a great site that practically sends an email to your representative for you along with providing a great video on the extreme consequences if this law passes as is with no amendments like the extremist groups that back this law demand. This law is flawed on many levels and is way too broad. The major problem with adding animals to the approved list is that there's just too many species that would need to be reviewed and it would take too much time. Do you really think that the government is even going it take a half decent stab at proving that an animal is harmless to our environment and economy? I really doubt it. Laws like this need to be regional not federal like this proposed ban is. An animals that may take over in Florida would probably not fair so well in Maine. This being a federal ban there's probably an argument about this being unconstitutional as well. The real cause for this ban is groups like PETA that want to make sure no one owns pets. This law pretty much is the signature handiwork of many very well organized extremist groups and that is why they want absolutely no amendments to this law. The reason it is so broad is because these extremist groups know what they're doing and they want no one to own pets. This law hides behind the front of being "eco-friendly" which makes it so dangerous. This law would demolish the pet trade which is a couple billion dollar industry. Not good for the failing economy at all. There's some more great info on what you can do to stop the bill on the USARK site. It's a reptile site but it has some great stuff to do to really get the point across that this ban is just a plain bad idea.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

Thanks for that info! I put it to use, and I hope that everyone else does as well. If you do, then please keep it simple and don't get crazy or disrespectful. That would only have an effect opposite of what we need to accomplish.


----------



## COM (Mar 15, 2008)

Listen, I oppose this type of legislation, but it is absolutely *not true* that it is going anywhere.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h111-669
GovTrack is an independent monitor of congressional activity, not an activist group. They have HR 669 very clearly in committee, in sub-committee actually. This is *not* going to vote next week, if ever. Believe it or not, our congress has better things to do than worry about the aquarium hobby, no matter how loud PETA screams.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

Well, the committee seems to like it. They like it a lot. The rumblings indicate ovewhelming passage of this very soon, according to today's reports.

That's it. I'm going into politics. I'll run on the platform of un-doing all the stupid stuff the current idiots are doing. I think I'd have a good chance. Heck, I think a Nazi would have a pretty good chance after a few more months of these idiots.


----------



## redpaulhus (Jan 18, 2005)

Update - who seems to support the bill and who doesn't:

http://nohr669.com/blog/?p=198


----------



## redpaulhus (Jan 18, 2005)

Where the money is coming from:

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/136


----------



## COM (Mar 15, 2008)

Okay, a subcommittee hearing is scheduled for 4/23. Big deal. That doesn't mean a thing. Relax. This has no chance of coming to a house vote.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

I sure hope you're right. The last I checked it was 1/3 for, 1/4 against, and the rest undecided. The undecideds have been getting hammered with phonecalls of protest, but the authors get to make a personal presentation. No doubt they'll say a whole bunch of super scary things out of context in order to sway the vote in their favor.


----------



## redpaulhus (Jan 18, 2005)

Very interesting, live notes of the hearing (essentially a transcript-on-the-fly):
http://www.pethobbyist.com/sitenews...gging-Congressional-hearing-on-H.-R.-669.html


----------



## COM (Mar 15, 2008)

So nothing happened and there is now a ten-day question period. Bordallo also didn't have any useful data, like the actual dollar figures beyond just the, "Pet industry," which is mostly dog and cat food sales.


----------



## Betta Dragon (Mar 9, 2007)

The pet industry is vastly larger than just cat and dog food. Think of all the veterinarians and all the supplies they use and all the companies they use to send tests out to and order drugs from. You also have the people that make all the supplies to take care of your animals that is also a huge part of the industry. Then you have your breeders both private and commercial. The pet industry is much much bigger than just "cat and dog food".


----------



## redpaulhus (Jan 18, 2005)

Its not dead by a long shot.
Yesterday the bill got 4 more sponsors, including a rep from Florida (I'm sure the Florida fish farm association loves that).
Its gonna be a long process. This is really an evolution of last years bill (but more severe).
The big thing we need to keep in mind is that the 40,000+ letters from pet owners that the committee received did make a difference and make the committee realize that the bill needs work. so the effort of all of the folks who've been posting, blogging, and worrying about this has not been in vain :mrgreen:

http://nohr669.com/blog/?p=223


----------



## lohachata (Jan 27, 2006)

i am wondering how it will affect the aquaculture industry..many of the species they farm are not native...


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

Why is this piece of crap GAINING sponsors? Why haven't they figured out that this bill is political poison?
Hmmm..... looks like we'll have to remind them of that. Perhaps a campaign to launch recall elections on all the committee members ought to make an impact. Trying to destroy a $45 billion industry at the behest of a few fringe groups of whackos is pretty incompetent, and incompetence is certainly grounds for recall. The very act of beginning such proceedings should keep anyone from actually voting in favor of this thing should it reach the floor.


----------



## Ice (Sep 25, 2006)

While I have been, well sort of too lazy to read the post regarding this proposal, does this law have an effect on tank raised species?

Personally I really don't think this will pass.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

It would absolutely affect tankraised species.

However, it seems to have been beaten down, at least for now, so we can all breathe a big sigh of relief until the next time.


----------

