Thread: scary
View Single Post
  #27  
Old 04-17-2009, 05:29 PM
GreenSpottedPuffer's Avatar
GreenSpottedPuffer GreenSpottedPuffer is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Vancouver
Posts: 2,337
GreenSpottedPuffer is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I didn't read this thread so i am not sure if its been brought up but the knee jerk reaction is that its a bad idea. Not really true. Personally I like it to force the aquaculture industry to pick up and start the breeding of angels, tangs, ect.

But most importantly people need to actually read and understand the bill, not just get caught up in the hype of RC posters.

It DOES NOT ban all non-native species and would not kill the industry at all.

Only would ban species that are (a) non-native AND (b) on the unapproved list.

INCLUDED SPECIES- The list under this subsection shall include--
(A) those species listed as injurious wildlife under section 42 of title 18, United States Code, or under regulations under that section, as of the date of enactment of this Act; and
(B) any other species the Secretary determines under section 4(c)(2)(B) is not approved for importation.


So only species that pose a threat to local wildlife as they are invasive and can do some real harm. As we are seeing in Florida and the Caribbean right now.

Based on how the 'unapproved list' is proposed, its unlikely to effect the pet trade much at all. Some common species like Lionfish may be tough to get but even then, before any species go to the 'unapproved list' there is a chance for the public to speak up:

(3) PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT- Before issuing the final preliminary list of approved species under this subsection, the Secretary shall--
(A) publish in the Federal Register and make available on a publicly available Federal Internet site, the proposed preliminary list; and
(B) provide for, a period of not less than 60 days, an opportunity to submit public comments on the proposed preliminary list.

And:

(f) Animals Owned Lawfully Prior to Prohibition of Importation- This Act and regulations issued under this Act shall not interfere with the ability of any person to possess an individual animal of any species if such individual animal was legally owned by the person before the risk assessment is begun pursuant to subsection (e)(3), even if such species is later prohibited from being imported under the regulations issued under this Act.


In the end, reefers should be supporting bills and proposals like this to protect local wildlife and reefs. I think people just need to do a bit more reading before commenting. It seems everyone took this as a ban on the hobby when it really is nothing close. Will it effect the hobby? For sure but not likely to effect it much...not to mention the likely hood of it being passed is slim.
Reply With Quote