Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [anubiasdesign] HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

Expand Messages
  • Donna Ransome
    What I know is that the fish I keep cannot survive in the wild in my state, and I would like to be able to continue to keep them. And this would not be
    Message 1 of 84 , Mar 20, 2013
    • 0 Attachment

      What I know is that the fish I keep cannot survive in the wild in my state, and I would like to be able to continue to keep them.  And this would not be possible if the bill passes as it was written last time.

       

      It’s a small enough effort for me to let the lawmakers know my wishes by clicking on a petition and email ing my congressmen.

       

      I agree invasive species are a problem that needs addressing.

       


      From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of Gerald Griffin
      Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 5:33 AM
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

       

       

      I so totally agree with you there and its not just here its all over the world.  Like the original stocking of Nile perch in Lake Victoria .  Here where I live they stock Striped Bass Hybrids in the local waterways.  Carp were introduced for weed control.  Yeah our Government has a wonderful track record there.  As to free Society where do you get that?  Our rights are under assault every day.

       

      We are proud to announce the formation of the American Labyrinth Fish
      Association (ALFA). We are starting out as a Yahoo Group with plans for a website and magazine. Please join us as we endeavor to learn more about these fascinating fish.
      http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericanLabyrinthFishAssociation/


      From: john nixon <jhnnxn@...>
      To: " anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com " < anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com >
      Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 4:15 AM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

       

       

       In a free society, if you're going to pass a law telling people that they can't do something, there had better be a damned good reason for the law. Preventing damage from invasive species is a damned good reason, but because the genie is out, the law cannot and will not have the desired effect of stopping further damage. Therefore there is no good reason for such a bill. The environment in FL has changed, it's time to get used to the new one. It's like the situation with freshwater fish in the rest of the  US . Most people couldn't list the historically native fish to their region, because indiscriminate stocking, often by govt agencies, has resulted in a situation as ridiculous as my hearing a VA fisheries agent make the comment that Snakeheads in the Potomac  will cause massive harm to the native fish such as Rainbow Trout and Largemouth Bass! Neither fish is native to the Potomac , and in the case of Largemouth Bass, their introduction has greatly decimated the population of the native Bass to the watershed, the Potomac Bass. And that fine, well informed individual gets paid to protect out waterways! There are two legal concepts which come to mind when I think of our government pasing such laws. "Standing", and "clean hands". Imo the federal govt has neither in this matter.

      From: Robert DeBonis <rdebon@...>
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 10:43 PM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

       

      

      So as I understand it, because the Genie is out of the Bottle, we should allow careless and disreputable owners of "pet" Pythons to continue to buy them and do with them what they want so we can look forward in the future to Pythons in Georgia in the Okeefenokie Swamps. And while were at it let's introduce Pythons into the Carolinas and better yet how about Pythons in Washington, they would be right at home with the other snakes in Congress.

       

      Regarding regulation, we all know what a great job the States do at regulating anything to do with the environment. Remember Love Canal and while your at it try to find a native sport fish left in the Salton Sea in California and the list goes on. Who's brilliant idea was it to build New Orleans in a BOWL, below sea level and while we are on it has anyone been to Miami lately. They built huge apartment buildings right on the edge of the water facing the full force of Hurricane winds with no Breakwaters to stop the Surges. Yeah the States really know how to regulate. 

       

      Regarding Freedom, you may have the freedom to buy a Death Adder, but you certainly do not have the Freedom to release it out of it's cage where it poses a deadly danger to Humans as well as domestic animals.

       

      It's simple, if the Pet Industry and the Pet owners don't police themselves, then the Government eventually will. One side point, Red Lionfish (Pterois volitans) have been found off the coast of Long Island , they are thriving there because they have no known predator. They are originally from the Caribbean . If anything should turn on the Light Bulbs about Global Climate Change and Warming Seas , this should.

       

      I have printed out HR 996 and I'm going to try to read it. I would like to see what impact it will actually have on the Pet Industry. Mark says it will kill the Pet Industry, I'm not so sure. I worked in the heavily regulated Financial Industry on Wall Street for most of my life and I have heard dire warnings like this before and they rarely came true, usually because if and when the bill finally past it was so watered down by changes and amendments to be almost ineffective.

       

       

      ----- Original Message -----

      From: john nixon

      Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:49 PM

      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

       

       

      What good is restricting the trade in species which are already invasive? No ban on the ownership of pythons will ever get them out of FL. The genie is out of the bottle. And no law is needed to keep them from becoming invasive in the vast majority of the rest of the country.  And as far as fish are concerned, the legally sanctioned introduction of non-native invasive species is conducted every year by every state fisheries dept. That genie is out too, but the reaction to its freedom is quite different. This is not a federal issue but one for each state to decide, as they have done with their waterways.

       

      From: Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@...>
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 7:20 PM
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

       

      Gerald,

      I have to disagree with you on this.  The idea here is a very short accepted list.  To add a species to the accepted list an importer or hobbyist will need to petition for its acceptance and then finance the study required to prove it isn't harmful.  If you want to see the next Betta to be discovered in the US, you'd better hope this doesn't pass because it will automatically be on the 'black' list until someone finances the study to show that it does not present an invasive risk anywhere in the US.  How many of our tropicals can't survive in FL or HI?  That's ultimately going to be the litmus test.  This bill will kill the pet industry and we'll be faced with the end of our hobby unless you only want to keep 'fancy' Betta splendens, livebearers and goldfish.  That's probably about all that will be on the white list. 

      Mark

      We are proud to announce the formation of the American Labyrinth Fish Association (ALFA). We are starting out as a Yahoo Group with plans for a website and magazine. Please join us as we endeavor to learn more about these fascinating fish. http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/AmericanLabyrinthFishAssociation/ Or check us out on Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/#!/groups/404408802964088/ --- On Tue, 3/19/13, Gerald <gbpottern@...> wrote:


      From: Gerald <gbpottern@...>
      Subject: [anubiasdesign] HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Tuesday, March 19, 2013, 7:13 PM

       

      The Herpetoculture Alliance's "guilty until proven innocent" comment has a nice emotion-grabbing effect, which is apparently their intent, but do they really think invasive species SHOULD be treated the same as a suspect arrested for a crime: innocent until proven guilty? The analogy makes no sense if you think beyond bumper-sticker depth. You can arrest a person who has committed a crime and limit further harm. Not so with invasive species; restricting trade only after they've become invasive is like waiting for all your fish to die to indicate when you need to change water. Does the H.A. have a reasonable alternative plan to deal with this very real problem? If so I'll listen and write letters, but if they're just chanting "No Regulation" and have no good alternatives, it's hard to take them seriously. "H.R. 996 seeks to set up an "accepted" (white) list of common domesticated pets and livestock, and an "unaccepted" (black) list; that by default would be everything not included on the "accepted" list. This is a "guilty until proven innocent" approach that would add all "unaccepted" species to the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act"

       

    • harry perry
      Didn t Mark ask for this crap to stop???? Harry ________________________________ From: Shawn To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com Sent:
      Message 84 of 84 , Mar 25, 2013
      • 0 Attachment
        Didn't Mark ask for this crap to stop????

        Harry


        From: Shawn <shawnc2k@...>
        To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, March 24, 2013 11:19 AM
        Subject: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife

         
        Neither of the big box pet store chains have an adoption tank policy although at the managers discretion some local stores do take adoptions. For liability reasons they are not allowed to sell any of the adoption fish but will often let hobbyists who they know take them to give them a home and get them healthy. Often by the time a tank buster is brought to a big box store the animals has some type of ailment, usually due to poor water conditions.

        Two weeks ago I walked into my local store and was given an adoption fish, a breeder size male Koi angel with fins tattered because it had been in a 29 gallon tank with a 10 inch synodontus "eruptus" hybrid and a 8 inch sailfin pleco. The angel is now looking much healthier and will be out of one of my quarantine tanks soon.

        The issue with even a club taking in adoptions is that many of the tank buster species sold in big box stores require large tanks. Think of LFS that sell red tail catfish that while beautiful will grow to be a monster with a mouth big enough to swallow a duck whole. Between tanks size and dealing with getting a fish healthy, it is limited to those who are experienced and have the tank space.

        --- In anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Meyer" <michael@...> wrote:
        >
        > I wonder if this is a universal policy as our local big box stores do have
        > an "adoption tank". It wouldn't house the multitude of Oscars or Pacus that
        > need rescuing. We do see quite a few adoptions coming thru our club
        > website. It's hardly a dent, but it is a little. One of the local mom and
        > pop stores does take in large fish from hobbyists, but most do not. They
        > will not buy from hobbyists, breeders or former customers. The reason is,
        > they often would get sick fish that could contaminate the rest of their
        > inventory. Plus, as sort of mentioned already, the cost of maintaining the
        > fish does not compare to what they would be able to sell the fish for.
        > Selling fish does not make very many people rich and barely makes a living
        > for most people in the industry. I don't think it is reasonable to expect
        > any store to have a way to adopt a fish, but we should really show support
        > for those that do.
        >
        > Mike
        >
        >
        >
        > From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf Of Donna Ransome
        > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 8:14 PM
        > To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: RE: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Petsmart-Petco will not take hobbyist fish.even easily sellable fish and
        > even for free.
        >
        >
        >
        > Public aquariums as well are tired of being the dumping grounds for
        > tankbuster fish that careless hobbyists bought without regard to long-term
        > care. They most often refuse to take the fish. How many giant plecos or
        >
        > Red tailed catfish can you put on display? If you don't have them in a
        > display, how do you get funding for their care?
        >
        >
        >
        > I know a hobbyist that had a large scale operation for the rescue of
        > tankbuster fish. He would rehome as many as possible. He had to stop after
        > many years because of lack of funding, even though he contributed more than
        > he could afford of his own money to the effort.
        >
        >
        >
        > How do you identify the culprit who dumped a fish in order to fine or
        > enforce?
        >
        > _____
        >
        > From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf Of Robert DeBonis
        > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 3:29 PM
        > To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Finally a voice of reason. Someone actually thinking outside the box.
        >
        >
        >
        > I like the idea "Why wouldn't it be possible to have your local big box
        > store (Petsmart-Petco- etc) set up a adoption tank for fish no longer
        > wanted?
        >
        > It makes sense and is absolutely worth a shot. Contacting them through an
        > Aquarium Society will give you more leverage.
        >
        >
        >
        > "Why wouldn't a public aquarium be willing to accept a fish that out grew
        > your tank?" Yes, I'm sure there are public aquariums that would accept fish
        > that out
        >
        > grow hobbyists tanks. They pay a lot of money for large adult fish. It's a
        > matter of contacting them, also preferably through an Aquarium Society, one
        > institution
        >
        > to another.
        >
        > There is one solution to HR996's general ambiguous solution that I can come
        > up with and that is to put together and introduce a bill specifically
        > banning the Dumping of Fish into our waterways and the Dumping of Pets into
        > our environment. This bill MUST HAVE TEETH or else it will be meaningless.
        > The fines for Dumping have to be substantial and must be enforced. In
        > addition, this bill has to be introduced to focus only on Dumping, not the
        > importation
        >
        > and possession of Ornamental Fish and other Pets. It should be solely
        > written to stop Dumping, not possession.
        >
        >
        >
        > I think if this were the case the Bill would have much wider acceptance.
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        >
        > From: plantsrocksandfish <mailto:onsiteinatlanta@...>
        >
        > To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 11:29 AM
        >
        > Subject: [anubiasdesign] Re: HR 996 Invasive Wildlife
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > Very interesting discussion. Normally I don't like reading messages when I
        > receive the Daily Digest because they contain all the earlier posts and
        > often the messages have to be truncated, but this time I opened the complete
        > digest to read all the messages.
        > While I enjoyed the information I will say that I was a little disappointed
        > that no solutions were offered. Sure there was a strong Catholic Guilt, were
        > we are responsible for everything that happens, to the group that is in
        > complete denial. I do believe the truth is somewhere in the middle.
        > I do not have any answers but did think about it. I don't believe the ASPCA
        > has all the answers but they do try to rescue dogs and cats by putting them
        > up for auction. If there are no takers they sometimes have to put the animal
        > down. I certainly am not for that but if you have ever had a feral cat come
        > into your home, as I had, you can understand it.
        > Why wouldn't it be possible to have your local big box store
        > (Petsmart-Petco- etc) set up a adoption tank for fish no longer wanted? Why
        > wouldn't a public aquarium be willing to accept a fish that out grew your
        > tank?
        > I also play with rocks. I can normally donate something to a museum. But
        > once I do I lose all control. If they want to display them... great but they
        > can just as well use them for fill or gravel for a road. I can see any
        > donated fish just being humanly being put down. It would seem to me that
        > might help stop having fish released in the wild.
        > I certainly don't offer this as an answer but it might be a help and
        > everyone here, that works in the field, might be able to bring the ideas to
        > the attention of the correct people.
        > I would welcome any constructive criticism but really am offering this only
        > to get people to think of what they can do other than write to their
        > congressman. George Libby
        >



      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.