New House Bill threatens trade.

New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby spawner » Sun Feb 15, 2009 6:08 pm

The bill below, will likely pass in some form. It will radically change the trade.


http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c ... Az6CF:e388:

To prevent the introduction and establishment of nonnative wildlife species that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species' or human health, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act'.

SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

The purpose of this Act is to establish a risk assessment process to prevent the introduction into, and establishment in, the United States of nonnative wildlife species that will cause or are likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species' health or human health.

SEC. 3. RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS FOR IMPORTATION OF NONNATIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES.

(a) In General- The Secretary of the Interior, acting through the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, shall promulgate regulations that establish a process for assessing the risk of all nonnative wildlife species proposed for importation into the United States, other than nonnative wildlife species that are included in the list of approved species issued under section 4.

(b) Factors To Be Considered- The regulations promulgated under subsection (a) shall include consideration of--

(1) the identity of the organism to the species level, including to the extent possible specific information on its subspecies and genetic identity;

(2) the native range of the species;

(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems that are similar to those in the United States;

(4) the likelihood that environmental conditions suitable for the establishment or spread of the species exist in the United States;

(5) the likelihood of establishment of the species in the United States;

(6) the likelihood of spread of the species in the United States;

(7) the likelihood that the species would harm wildlife resources in the United States;

(Cool the likelihood that the species would harm native species that are rare or native species that have been listed as threatened species or endangered species in the United States under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.);

(9) the likelihood that the species would harm habitats or ecosystems in the United States;

(10) the likelihood that pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation; and

(11) other factors important to assessing the risks associated with the species, consistent with the purpose under section 2.

(c) Notice- In promulgating the regulations under subsection (a), the Secretary shall provide notice to States, Indian tribes, other stakeholders concerned with environmental, humane, public health, economic, trade, and other relevant issues, the Aquatic Nuisance Species Task Force, the National Invasive Species Council, the Department of Agriculture, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

(d) Transparency- The Secretary shall ensure that the risk assessment process established by the regulations under subsection (a) is based on sound science and is consistent with sections 4 and 5.

(e) Deadlines- The Secretary shall--

(1) publish in the Federal Register proposed regulations under subsection (a) and a proposed preliminary list of approved species under section 4(b), by not later than 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act;

(2) publish in the Federal Register final regulations under subsection (a), a final preliminary list of approved species under section 4(b), and a notice of the prohibitions under this Act, by not later than 30 days before the date on which the Secretary begins assessing risk under the regulations; and

(3) begin assessing risk with respect to nonnative wildlife species under the final regulations promulgated under subsection (a), and publish notice thereof, by not later than 37 months after the date of the enactment of this Act.

(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.

SEC. 4. LIST OF APPROVED SPECIES.

(a) Requirement To Issue List of Approved Species-

(1) IN GENERAL- Not later than 36 months after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall publish in the Federal Register a list of nonnative wildlife species approved for importation into the United States.

(2) EXCLUSION OF CERTAIN SPECIES- The Secretary shall not include in the list--

(A) any species included in the list of prohibited species under section 5; or

(B) any species, the importation of which is prohibited by any other Federal law or regulation of the United States due to the likelihood of causing harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health.

(3) REVISION- The Secretary may revise the list issued under this section based on available scientific and commercial information.
User avatar
spawner
 
Posts: 1610
Joined: Mon Mar 05, 2007 8:28 am

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby driftin » Tue Apr 07, 2009 5:25 pm

I've been seeing this pop up on a few message boards lately. I guess a similar bill didn't make it past committee last year. A big difference (from my perspective anyway) is that this new version has language criminalizing the breeding of the non-approved, non-native species. Right now the only listed legal non-native fish is a goldfish (Carassius auratus auratus).

The bill in pdf format is here - 23 pages. LINK

Here's a link to the PIJAC warning, with a list of representatives to contact. 3 page LINK

As a recognized non-profit organization dedicated to the responsible breeding of these fish, is this something MOFIB can get involved with?
-Jim
driftin
 
Posts: 57
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 11:14 am
Location: Chicago
State/Region: Chicago
Country: Ill

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby fishtal » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:04 pm

The criminalization of breeding bothered me as well. Since one of the sponsors is from my state, I've already sent him an email about this bill. If I don't hear back from him within the week I will start trying to contact him by phone and snail mail.
Save a Reef... Frag Your Own!
Save a Fish... Breed Your Own!
www.fishtalpropagations.com
User avatar
fishtal
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: Waterford, MI

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby BaboonScience » Tue Apr 07, 2009 7:49 pm

Interesting that this bill was reintroduced. Someone's pet project, perhaps?
There have been many invasive species that have taken hold over the years. Carp, Goldfish are among these. Some have been intentionally introduced. The English sparrow, Raven, Blackbird etc were introduced by a man whose intent was to introduce every bird mentioned in the plays of Shakespeare. Some species are obvious problems. The Zebra mussel and Asiatic Clam grow so prolifically that they can clog factory cooling water inputs and plate the walls of water pipes to a thickness that the systems are essentially non functional.
I think that this Bill is intended to prevent these invasions. Problem is that many of the invasive species are accidental releases. It is believed that both the Zebra Mussel and Asiatic Clam were introduced in bilge water from some oceanic transport ships. Poorly worded, over generalized legislation can be too costly to implement. It can also be so confusing that it negatively affects other industries.
In the case of such legislation, the infrastructure to accomplish the proposed tasks already exists in Federal and State Agencies. I do not think that this legislation would serve any real positive function but to create another piece of red tape.
John
"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth" Jean De La Bruyère (1645-1696)
User avatar
BaboonScience
 
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: High Shoals

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby fishtal » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:33 pm

Yes, I see the problem with invasive species for sure. We have Zebra mussels in my lake from the Great Lakes. I'm sure the main intent of the bill is to deal with invasive species but, as John pointed out, the bill is too broadly written to have that effect.

As I'm trying to point out to my Rep., education is a more effective tool than prohibition in most cases.
Save a Reef... Frag Your Own!
Save a Fish... Breed Your Own!
www.fishtalpropagations.com
User avatar
fishtal
 
Posts: 250
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2008 7:24 pm
Location: Waterford, MI

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby BaboonScience » Tue Apr 07, 2009 8:39 pm

Tal
Good point.
Ironically, the Zebra mussel and the Asiatic clam were both probably spread by fishermen using them as bait. The Asiatic clam broods their young in their gill tissue. In spite of the problems, the Zebra mussel seems to have effectively cleared Lake Erie, perhaps too much! :roll:

Another point is that the issues addressed in this bill are already addressed by several branches of the federal government, including the EPA, F&W and NOAA. In this case, more restrictions and broader government mandates will not solve the core problems.

As you say, education is a better solution.
Informed opinions to your representatives will help.
John
"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth" Jean De La Bruyère (1645-1696)
User avatar
BaboonScience
 
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: High Shoals

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby lance » Wed Apr 08, 2009 12:55 am

it stinks but people ruin it by realase wild creature's like the whole snakehead incident but it also punish those who didnt do anything wrong :(


lance
http://www.youtube.com/user/CoralMan24

http://s704.photobucket.com/albums/ww49/lancelesko/

Always quarantine new arrival's before adding to breeding tank's or display
lance
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby lance » Mon Apr 13, 2009 12:56 am

I think that if everyone of us take time to write our state representative on this bill and explain our hobby and our research that we can ask them to deny this bill to keep our work and progress alive on aqua-culturing and breeding.

lance

Please reply to this and give me your feeling's on it please
http://www.youtube.com/user/CoralMan24

http://s704.photobucket.com/albums/ww49/lancelesko/

Always quarantine new arrival's before adding to breeding tank's or display
lance
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby lance » Thu Apr 16, 2009 12:30 am

http://www.youtube.com/user/CoralMan24

http://s704.photobucket.com/albums/ww49/lancelesko/

Always quarantine new arrival's before adding to breeding tank's or display
lance
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby brandonberry » Thu Apr 16, 2009 2:18 pm

I contacted my representatives through the link above and forwarded it to everyone I knew who might be willing to do the same. I would encourage everyone to not only send the e-mail, but pay the extra $9 or whatever to have the hand delivered note sent. I am a member of my professional organization's political action committee and I know for a fact that representatives tend to take mailed letters seriously and really look into the issues when they receive about 25 or more of them. E-mail is great, but paper and phone calls are even better.
brandonberry
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2007 11:59 pm

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby lance » Fri Apr 17, 2009 1:07 am

brandonberry wrote:I contacted my representatives through the link above and forwarded it to everyone I knew who might be willing to do the same. I would encourage everyone to not only send the e-mail, but pay the extra $9 or whatever to have the hand delivered note sent. I am a member of my professional organization's political action committee and I know for a fact that representatives tend to take mailed letters seriously and really look into the issues when they receive about 25 or more of them. E-mail is great, but paper and phone calls are even better.



EVERYONE please do as brandonberry say's let's make things happen and our voice's be heard we shouldn't be punished from a couple of knuckle-head's who released a non native species in the wild.
http://www.youtube.com/user/CoralMan24

http://s704.photobucket.com/albums/ww49/lancelesko/

Always quarantine new arrival's before adding to breeding tank's or display
lance
 
Posts: 431
Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2008 6:11 pm

Re: New House Bill threatens trade.

Postby BaboonScience » Tue May 05, 2009 2:34 am

Any updates on this issue. I was just wondering when it was up for discussion in the house. I really think that they have bigger fish to fry......so to speak.
Just thought that I would bring this important issue back to the top.
John
"The exact contrary of what is generally believed is often the truth" Jean De La Bruyère (1645-1696)
User avatar
BaboonScience
 
Posts: 3629
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 8:47 pm
Location: High Shoals


Return to Nature & Conservation



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron