America COMPETES Act (HR4521), Lacey act changes that may affect us, other pets we keep

[RedWingBlackBird]

I'm hearing talk, that a page has been added to this bill, that will affect all of us.  Apparently every fish, bird, many other types of animals is going to be scrutinized heavily, and will most likely be illegal.  Does anyone else know about this? what do you know?

here is a link to the bill.   https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hr4521/BILLS-117hr4521rh.pdf

 

[RedWingBlackBird]

I've been doing some digging around, I don't think HR4521 is the bill we should be watching, as far as this goes.  But S626 seems to pertain more to the topic.  Its a bill that was introduced, but then referred to a committee.   https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/senate-bill/626/text?r=1&s=3

[OnlyGenusCaps]

Apparently, the house has already voted on this, and any changes/or not are now dependent on the Senate.

If you are curious, you can see the voting record of your representative on this topic here:

https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202231

[gardenman]

Politicians seem more interested in controlling us than representing us. That's kind of how I pick who to vote for these days. Listen to them talk, read their policies, and ask yourself, "Are they trying to control me (or others) or are they trying to represent me." If they're trying to control me or others, they don't get my vote. Often, they're trying to control us. Their job is to represent us. We need to remind them of that from time to time by voting out the control seeking so and so's. And if you think, "Well they're just trying to control the people I don't agree with." Uh, no. They're also going to try and control you. It's what they do. Represent me, don't try and control me. 

[Biotope Biologist]

Well their hearts in the right place, but seeing as the homeless crisis in many areas of the United States has brought back cases of the bubonic plague- a disease we have had no issues with since Black Death, I’d say we have bigger fish to fry.

 

I don’t think this will effect us here in the fish trade but it will likely effect those in the exotic mammals trade. We already don’t get to see alot of native North American fish species due to extremely tight regulations. Whether that’s good or bad is a different matter entirely. But having more restrictions on native coral and coral inhabitants hopefully will extend past us in the trading of such animals and into protection against developers of coastal habitat who pose the greatest threat especially in the gulf coast where a combined force of water quality degradation and expansion has caused mass casualties to our delicate marine ecosystems.

 

I will leave it at that, I have many gripes with “modern” politics that I’d rather not get into on this forum. That and it likely breaks guidelines.

[Dwayne Brown]

It seems that most of this bill is just related to "economic productivity" and increasing domestic production. The only topics that could effect us  are mostly concerned with stopping trafficking, preventing future pandemics and illegal wildlife trade. It seems that  trafficking and illegal trade  shouldn't do anything to prevent fish from being imported. Although it may cause the number to drop due to more enforcement and perhaps illegal practices being prevented. Future pandemics is mostly related to animal testing and livestock control, so it may or may not effect us. 

[OnlyGenusCaps]

On 2/6/2022 at 10:11 AM, Biotope Biologist said:

bubonic plague- a disease we have had no issues with since Black Death

Off topic - but not political; I actually grew up with cases in my county in CA every year.  The Spanish land grant for the area was called "Las Pulgas", or "the fleas" in English.  I still remember constant flea bites around my ankles in the summer from playing outside all day, and flea eggs and pupa all over the outdoor tables and chairs.  It was HUGE when Frontline was introduced!  Changed the summers entirely.  Makes me wonder how Silicon Valley would be now if they never introduced that product.  Would all the software engineers be willing to swim in a sea of fleas all summer? 

On 2/6/2022 at 10:23 AM, Dwayne Brown said:

The only topics that could effect us  are mostly concerned with stopping trafficking, preventing future pandemics and illegal wildlife trade. It seems that  trafficking and illegal trade  shouldn't do anything to prevent fish from being imported.

To be clear, I am not trying to get into politics here.  I'm neither arguing for or against this.  I'm simply hoping that by pointing out the sections of S.626 that potentially relate to our hobby, forum members can form their own more informed decisions.  Disclaimer done.

In terms of S.626, the sections that seem most relevant to us as hobbyists are as follows with relevant sections in bold and a bit of a translation from me in blue:

SEC. 2. Amendments - "d) Presumptive prohibition on importation.—" 

This is a declaration of intent to create a whitelist of acceptable species.

 

SEC. 2. Amendments - “(1) IN GENERAL.—Importation into the United States of any species of wild mammals, wild birds, fish (including mollusks and crustacea), amphibians, or reptiles, or the offspring or eggs of any such species, that is not native to the United States and, as of the date of enactment of the Lacey Act Amendments of 2021, is not prohibited under subsection (a)(1), is prohibited, unless—  

I have bolded the relevant passages within this section.  This establishes this amendment as a whitelist of approved species rather than the current blacklist of banned species. That is a fundamental shift from the current approach.

 

SEC. 2. Amendments - “(1) IN GENERAL.— “(A) during the 1-year period preceding the date of enactment of the Lacey Act Amendments of 2021, the species was, in more than minimal quantities—

&

SEC. 2. Amendments - (1) REGULATIONS.—Not later than 1 year after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior shall promulgate regulations to define the term “minimal quantities” for purposes of subsection (d)(1)(A) of section 42 of title 18, United States Code, as added by subsection (a)(2). 

Again, I have bolded the passages of relevance within these sections.  They combine to state that animals traded in sufficient quantities will be exempt from this prohibition, but we don't get to know what "minimal quantities" will qualify as sufficient for a year.  Because the agency will decide that later, there will likely be a "public commentary period" which is standard practice.  But, barring overwhelming public commentary, agencies have pretty free hands in making those sorts of decisions.

[laritheloud]

I see this as an attempt to protect endangered/threatened species and keep exotic animals from being poached and/or traded, then released into inappropriate habitats. Maybe the wording isn't the best, but I wonder how that angle will affect implementation of the bill as written... if it passes into law.

I said this in another thread, but like @Biotope Biologist, I suspect this will affect the fish trade far less than it sounds. 

Edited February 6, 2022 by laritheloud
I don't think it was political but I like to be safe

[Blaha]

Trying to read bills can be confusing at best if you aren't a lawyer or something of the like, which I am not. The "minimal quantities" part is likely there because it may vary based on said animal/species(ie, America probably imports way more tetras than parrots). I would imagine (hopefully) that this would mean many of the hobbyist fish would be not-prohibited because they are traded a lot. It could mean though that anything wild caught could be massively hurt even if popular in the hobby, and it could likely mean the rare finds and hard to get fish will be done for. Like the rarer plecos, knife fish, some varieties of like cichlids, loaches, etc could be in a rough spot unless they are farmed within the country. It seems from what I've seen in the past is that there isn't that many farms in america, or at least not many to the scales of some in other countries. 

[mountaintoppufferkeeper]

AI have read the sections in the house bill ( pages 1661-1665) and the introduced senate bill on ammending the lacey act to a presumptive ban on importing, possessing, or crossing state lines with any species not approved by the secretary of the interior. 

The Lacey act defines wild as any creatures that, whether or not raised in captivity, normally are found in a wild state. The Which makes all aquarium inhabitants "wild" for the purposes of the law. This includes eggs and successive generations of captive born fish. For me it was concerning enough to voice my views to my Senators. 

The Sec of the Interior, if the ammendment is passed as written in the house bill, is who will define what minimum quantities imported means for eaxh species approved.

You can already theoretically purchase a permit for many otherwise prohibited species under the lacey act through the US Fish and Wildlife Service but im sure thats a process and a half to do and not free. 

I imagine the presumptive ban on importation of transportation probably wont be as good or as bad as we think it could be. I also tend to view it as a way to be able to  quickly change the status of a species under lacey when deemed necessary. 

It seems like a well intentioned paved road to make keeping species less enjoyable and more expensiveand risky  to participate in moving forward. Im also not a lawyer and will not enjoy having to stay well versed in the lacey act if these ammendments become law

[isaly]

On 2/7/2022 at 12:23 AM, mountaintoppufferkeeper said:

The Lacey act defines wild as any creatures that, whether or not raised in captivity, normally are found in a wild state. The Which makes all aquarium inhabitants "wild" for the purposes of the law. This includes eggs and successive generations of captive born fish. For me it was concerning enough to voice my views to my Senators.

My take is that, given legislative favor to chambers of commerce, the law would respect business earning money from already approved species.

I don't know who would bring up a bill to impede trade in barbs or tetras or cichlids...or whatever non invasive species, if established businesses are already realizing economic activity doing so. I see it more aimed to prevent invasive species from gaining a foothold from people releasing them into the wild which, it seems, they do all the time despite knowledgable people telling them they shouldn't.

People may not know a given species is invasive. There may be a brisk trade in an invasive species before it becomes general knowledge that they are, in fact, invasive.

Snakeheads??

I can understand why some people might want to keep them. They're illegal here in PA. I'm betting that only a small percentage of keepers will keep them in adequate conditions and some who don't will end up releasing them into the wild.

I don't see that as wanting to control people.

Edited February 7, 2022 by isaly

[mountaintoppufferkeeper]

Agreed on the danger of improper disposal of species being a problem. That blows my mind everytime its reported. 

I remember baby snakeheads being in local fishstores in the 90s all the time. Colorful and fun looking .... then it grows up to a giant. The 57 species of snakehead, Channidae, were banned under a final rule under the lacey act in 2002. That dollowed a proposed rule, a period of public comment and peer review, before the FWS considered comments and adjusted the  final rule on snakeheads.

It was interesting to read the government addressing the respondent concerns to the proposed rule and how that process improved that final rule and the ability to enforce it clearly. 

I did not realize the FWS posted that it was a tremendous credit to the fish hobby that only a very few snakeheads were found in the wild despite their prevalence in the hobby at that time. It read like more of a hot topic due to the use of live snakeheads as a food fish in some grocery stores and markets at the time. 

The last fish species to be added to the list were done in 2016. I imagine that is both a function of the process to get something added to the list with a proposed rule, the process to consider and address concerns and adjustments in the final rule, and the economics of adding something to the list with that process. 

Only 189 non-salmon fish species on the federal list pre-presumptive bans and most of those are walking catfish, carp, or snakeheads.

I know most US states ban quite a few species, crayfish, gambusia sp. livebearers etc, within their borders that other states may allow. 

https://www.fws.gov/injuriouswildlife/list-of-injurious-wildlife.html