Potential legislative change that will impact fish imports/trade in U.S.?

[813aquatics]

Hey all,

A local hobbyist shared this with us today and on a first quick read through it seems like it may be significant, but I am not a lawyer. Any one more learned than me know about this or understand if it will change the status quo?

https://usark.org/2022lacey/

From the link:

“Briefly, the amendments will:

1. Provide that the Lacey Act bans the interstate transport of species listed as injurious. Specifically, it replaces Lacey’s current language ‘‘shipment between the continental United States’’ with ‘‘transport between the States.”
2.  
3. Create a “white list” of species that can be imported. This means that any animal (reptile, amphibian, fish, bird, mammal, invertebrate) that is not on the white list is by default treated as an injurious species and is banned from importation.
4.  
5. Create a new authority allowing FWS to use an “emergency designation” that becomes effective immediately after being published in the Federal Register unless an extension of no more than 60 days is allowed. That means no due process, public input, hearings, advanced notice, etc. for injurious listings.
6.  
7. Permit FWS to not allow importation if a species has not been imported in “minimal quantities” (to be defined) in the year prior to the enactment of this Act.
8. The effective date would be one year after the enactment of this Act.”

 

[StockEwe49]

Huh, I wonder what species will not be on the white-list. Probably anything that could become invasive? That definitely seems like it could impact the hobby but also the white list could cover everything we keep anyways. I am interested to see if there are any lawyer Nerms here 😃!

[laritheloud]

Interesting that they're taking a 'white list' approach instead of a 'black list.'

I do believe this is actually a good thing for the herp community to restrict the capture and trade of wild caught species from their natural habitats. It's usually better to buy captive-bred over wild-caught when it comes to reptiles and amphibians.

Not so sure about fish. A lot of the species that are commonly wild caught and imported are very likely to be whitelisted. 

I get the feeling this is less restrictive than it sounds at first blush.

[StockEwe49]

@813aquatics I believe Cory talked about this on his latest live stream but I have not watched it yet.

[Irene]

Yup, here's a link to the livestream: 

 

And if you're a member, he goes into more details in this second video.

[813aquatics]

On 2/9/2022 at 1:54 PM, StockEwe49 said:

@813aquatics I believe Cory talked about this on his latest live stream but I have not watched it yet.

Yup, watched the stream and the Member’s video he released last night as well. I am satisified with his take and am not overly concerned at the moment, at least until the language around “minimal quantities” and such is elaborated on. 

I think a lot of the environmental benefits the changes could lead to are lost on many of us due to our love of the hobby. It is important to be reminded of what a privilege it is be able to possess exotic fish from around the globe. But I have seen my own backyard (Florida) drastically altered due to irresponsible pet owners, be it burmese pythons, lionfish, brown anoles, armored catfish / plecos, livebearers, iguanas, you name it. 

Edited February 10, 2022 by 813aquatics

[Emika_B]

I watched most of the stream (there's just something so soothing about Cory's voice that I kept falling asleep).  Living in Hawaii, I'm used to heavy restrictions on what can be brought in.  Pretty much if you don't see it in a fish store you have to have it imported, which means it has to be on the 'okay to be brought in' list put out by the department of agriculture.  We have so many endangered/protected species here, it makes sense to protect our environment.  I'd like to have a tarantula, boa, ferret or oddball fish but not at the expense of the local environment.

Should this be handled at the federal level?  Maybe yes, maybe no.  Yes - if everyone's following the same rules there's less confusion.  No - an escaped (or worse, released) critter might not be able to survive/reproduce in different areas so setting a blanket rule might be overkill.  

What would be better than any kind of legislation?  Education and impressing responsibility on creature keepers. Of course, that means that people have to take responsibility for themselves and we know how how well that works.

[HH Morant]

The law gives power to a federal agency to create a white list. You can only buy what is on the list. If they have not thought about it and approved it - if they don't even consider it - you cannot buy it. If it is new, you cannot buy it until the agency considers it and decides you can.

A blacklist is better for hobbyists. With a blacklist the agency has to address a particular species and do something to take away your right to own it. 

I don't understand why anyone would feel better because we don't know now what the law will ultimately be. That is precisely the problem.

This is part of a long-standing trend in congressional legislation. I would say since the 1930's. The trend is that Congress does not make substantive law. They create an administrative authority (here the Department of the Interior), appoint some experts, and give them the power to make law. We call it administrative law. Whether the law is good or bad depends on what experts are appointed. Are the experts concerned with protecting the rights of hobbyists to keep fish? Or are the experts more concerned with protecting the environment?

I would suggest that it is extremely likely that hobbyists are going to get the short end of that stick. Using a white list rather than a black list is a clue, but you really don't need the clue. Aquarium hobbyists are not an influential interest group. But there are dozens of environmental organizations that have been working for decades to influence legislation. And the appointment of experts.

Is that good or bad? It depends on your point of view I suppose.

 

 

 

[Expectorating_Aubergine]

The thing that's annoying to me is that the approach of banning never works. Almost every instance where that's done, it doesn't work. Example, phasmids are banned in California. All of them. I can buy eggs off ebay right now, and have them delivered to my house PDQ. Same with plants. To ship plants you need paperwork depending on where they are coming from. Many species and varieties are banned or illegal. Getting banned plants shipped to you is easy as pie. They don't have the manpower, time, money, expertise or what have you to properly enforce bans with any real effectiveness. Because anytime you hear them boasting about "look at all of this banned stuff that we confiscated, we are so good!", I guarantee you that 10X that got past them. 

Edited February 15, 2022 by Expectorating_Aubergine