Bill HR669

big54bob

big54bob

Superstar Fish
#1
Dec 20, 2006
1,486
6
38
30
On my office chair playing Runescape
#1
PCFishGuy

PCFishGuy

Medium Fish
#4
Dec 25, 2008
53
0
0
Port Charlotte Fla
#4
absolutely correct Brian, everyone should read this bill
and correct the intent of the bill is quite Nobel.
and correct it does not nor did bob say it would ban all fish, the term was Pets.
All that said however it ( HR669 ) is poorly written, very poorly written.
so poorly in fact that if certain select groups like PETA, HSUS decided they did not wish you to have any animal as a pet they can cause every living biologic that is non native to the US to be added to the not allowed list.
under section 3(b)10

Then of course there is also the opening line of the bill that has to throw in a " and as we see fit" line.

The Bill as written is useless even with out these glaring flaws, as it allows the inclusion of even documented noxious weeds because they are
"Domesticated"

in real life however it is very unlikely any tropical non native creature or plant would survive much outside the state of Florida , and Florida already has sufficient laws ( need to be better and enforced, but we have them )

OK so Guam has a problem why kill an industry as a result. How about control them a tad better instead.

PETA likes this bill, as does HSUS because it provides them the avenue to place any biologic on the list, then even if it is proven to be safe it would take 3 years to get them removed.

in that length of time the pet industry would collapse, and PETA would have killed over 6000 defenseless animals all in the name of animal rights ( don't seem to right to me for the dead ones especially when it is nothing more than an issue of their money for advertising ).

This of course is only my opinion. Everyone should real this bill HR669 from start to finish, read who is behind it etc, then make their own decision.
 

brian1973

brian1973

Superstar Fish
#5
Jan 20, 2008
2,001
3
38
Corpus Christi, Texas
#5
PCfish.. without getting much into detail I agree with you almost 100% except here in Texas plecos are doing sufficient damage to water ways, but Texas also allows goldfish to be used as bait. Anyway while it is a good theory as you pointed out there are many problems with it. This same bill was around about 8 to 10 yrs ago but applied strictly to the reptile market. I always take a whats next attitude, on the basis of "protecting" native wildlife eventually I can see domesticated animals being added on as an amendment later on. Basically if the law passes they have a blank slate with 2 yrs to determine what should be banned, with 30 days of public comment. If the concern is dangerous fish why not add to the bills already in place making snakeheads illegal. I also think these laws should be soley controlled by each state, but we all know you can walk into some LFS and find fish that are on the states banned list, so the states need to enforce their laws. There is also a clause to allow someone to purchase permits for banned animals this to me says it's all about money and little to do with protecting native habitats. Anyway you can find my opinion here: Any thoughts here on HR 669? - NANFA Forum

I am staying away from the topic of who's supporting this bill and looking at it from a standpoint of whats best for our native wildlife, but we do more damage to an eco system with farming, oil drilling, power production plants, construction, etc.. than most non native fish will ever do.
 

Last edited:
brian1973

brian1973

Superstar Fish
#7
Jan 20, 2008
2,001
3
38
Corpus Christi, Texas
#7
well I watched the hearing it can be viewed here No Title

here are my comments that I posted on NANFA..

So I watched the hearing, not sure what arm waving was going on by the pet industry, seemed their response was very well thought out and even the co sponsor seemed impressed with the unified stance on this. I am not sure why the assumption is we (those opposed) havent read this because I read it twice before I ever made a statement on it. Even the simple question of how to allow people to take pets across state lines has to be a "complex system" that will include proving prior ownership and require a permit, which is exactely what many of those previous posters mentioned that those here that seem to support the bill basically blew off as no big deal. Also did you catch the part where "domesticated" has no legal meaning so your domesticated cat/dog may not be safe years down the road.. and exactley why arent goldfish going to be considered? Whats really odd IMO is that while I cant have a FW ray here in texas I can buy and use live goldfish as fishing bait and many fisherman 10 20 yrs ago tended to dump unused bait fish into a lake. The presumption and point of the bill as mentioned by the cosponsor is to have a single system controlled by the feds... then as long a FW rays make it onto the allowed fed list I would be able to have one..since fed trumps state and a single regulatory system would make state laws invalid, that was the point he made why have 55 permits when only 1 is needed.. So those of you support this also take note that the head Of the USFWS stated he doubt more than 10% in any of the current imported species would become part of the banned list, so again if the bill takes effect in a "federally" controlled form then it will void out all current state regulations because again only 1 permit is needed not 55 seperate permit and requlation system. Also those of you that "blame" the pet trade, give me a break, thats like blaming every home owner for destroying woodlands, grasslands, etc or those of us living in an area where our hydro electric power destroyed the water ways that were prime habitat 100 yrs ago, we all know the consequences of damming yet how many here recieve power form a hydro electric dam?.. it is the owners responsibility to properly dispose of unwanted pets and it is the owners responsibilty to know what they are buying. Maybe in the mid 1990's maybe I can agree a little bit but with all the information since the internet made it big in the mid 90's there is no reason for someone to not know the requirments of buying a pet.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.