|
|
|
|
HR 669 - "The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act"
Last Post 04-11-2009 11:17 AM by MASNA Administrator. 5 Replies.
|
Sort:
|
|
 Prev Next |
You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Steven Allen
Role: Individual Sponsor
Flower Mound, TX
Posts: 1495
Private Message 
 |
| 04-07-2009 10:31 AM |
|
The Nonnative Wildlife Invasion Prevention Act (H.R. 669), introduced by Del. Madeleine Bordallo (D-Guam) Chair of the Subcommittee on Insular Affairs, Oceans and Wildlife of the House Natural Resources Committee would totally revamp how nonnative species are regulated under the Lacey Act.
Currently, the Fish and Wildlife Service is required to demonstrate that a species is injurious [harmful] to health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S.
HR 669 substantially complicates that process by compelling the Service to produce two lists after conducting a risk assessment for each nonnative wildlife species to determine if it is likely to “cause economic or environmental harm or harm to other animal species’ health or human health.” In order to be placed on the “Approved List” it must be established that the species has not, or is not likely, to cause “harm” anywhere in the US. Species that are considered potentially harmful would be placed on an “Unapproved List.” Furthermore, HR 669 would essentially ban all species that do not appear on the Approved List, regardless of whether or not they
have ever been petitioned for listing or are sufficiently well studied to enable a listing determination.
Species not appearing on the “Approved List” could not be imported into the United States; therefore, all unapproved nonnative species could not be moved interstate. In addition, trade in all such unlisted species would come to a halt – possession would be limited and all breeding would cease. Unless those species are included on the approved list import, export, transport, and breeding would be prohibited. Exceptions are limited and would not be available to pet owners across the nation.
THE IMPACT
Nonnative species in the pet trade encompass virtually every bird, reptile, fish and a number of mammals (e.g., hamsters, gerbils, guinea pigs, ferrets) commonly kept as pets. It is immaterial under HR 669 that the
- Vast majority of these nonnative species in the pet trade have been in the United States in large numbers for decades, some for hundreds of years, and have not proven to be an environmental problem.
- Numerous species are raised in the United States for many purposes, pets, recreational fishing and hunting, food, etc.
- Only a small number of species kept as pets have caused environmental problems, and this has generally been on a very localized basis (i.e. southern Florida, Hawaii).
- Most states have exercised their authority to regulate problem species within their own borders through a mixture of management regimes ranging from permit systems to bans. HR669 - March 31, 2009
- The HR 669 listing criteria mandates proving a negative – that no harm has or is likely to occur within whole of the entire United States.
- The “risk assessment” process is too limited in scope and application and should instead be a a broader “risk analysis” that also takes into consideration socio-economic factors and mitigation (management) measures that might be utilized by the federal and state agencies.
HR 669 would employ a 2-step process of a Preliminary and a Final Approved List along with the Services having to promulgate regulations not only to deal with creation of the lists but also regulating all aspects of this rather complex bill. The Service would have to complete major portions of the list and regulation process within 24 months of passage. Imagine how the Service will be able to conduct the required risk assessment outlined in HR 669 within these timeframes when it takes on average 4 years for the Service to find a species harmful under the current Lacey Act. The bill sets up the under-resourced Service for failure and numerous lawsuits by activist groups.
Listing Process - To list or not to list?
The listing process is somewhat complex. To place a species on the Preliminary Approved List (at some point in time converts to a Final Approved List) the Service must make a determination that those listed species, based on scientific and commercial information, are
- Not harmful to the United State’s economy, environment or other animals’ or human health
- May be harmful “but already are so widespread in the United States that it is clear to the Secretary that any import prohibitions or restrictions would have no practical utility for the United States.”
While proponents would argue that this test would not be as rigorous as the ultimate test set forth in HR 669, PIJAC is at a loss how one proves no harm under the alleged simplified test for inclusion on the “Preliminary Approved List.”
To get on the ultimate “Approved List ” (accomplished within 37 months), the Service would have to complete risk assessments, not risk analysis, using the following criteria. The assessors would have to make a determination based on:
- Species identified to species level, and if possible information to subspecies level;
- Native range of the species (which may or not be fully known);
- Whether species has established, spread, or caused harm to the economy, the environment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems in or ecosystems similar to those in the US;
- Environmental conditions exist in the US that suitable for establishment of the species;
- Likelihood of establishment in the US;
- Likelihood of speared in the US;
- Likelihood species would harm wildlife resources of the US;
- Likelihood the species would harm native species that are “rare” (not defined) or listed under Endangered Species Act;
- Likelihood species would harm habitats or ecosystems of the US;
- Likelihood “pathogenic species or parasitic species may accompany the species proposed for importation;” and
- Other factors “important to assessing the risk associated with the species”.
Once a determination is made, the Service will place a species on one of 3 lists
- Approved List
- Unapproved List
- The “Non-list” (section 4(2)(C)) for species for which “the Secretary has insufficient scientific and commercial information to make a determination “ whether to approve or disapprove.
User Fees
HR 669 also calls for the establishment of a user fee system for funding assessments following the adoption of the “Preliminary Approved List.” This has been a long term desire of animal activist and environmental protectionist organizations since they know that user fees can become cost prohibitive and virtually eliminate small interest groups or business from participating in the process. It can easily paralyze access except for the wealthy or those living off of tax exempt dollars who use the system to drive their agendas. Furthermore, fees are not made available to the Service until 36 months into the process. It is not clear how the Service would implement the first three years of work under HR 669.
RECOMMENDATIONS – TIME IS NOW!
According to the Defenders of Wildlife "For far too long the pet, aquarium and other industries have imported live animals to the United States without regard to their harm…" Defenders, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) are part of a coalition pushing hard for passage of this bill without amendments.
A HEARING has been scheduled for April 23 and the pet industry needs to be heard loud and clear prior to the hearing! The anti-trade elements are hard at work to stop activities involving non-native species.
A copy of HR 669 can be found on PIJAC’s website in the “Breaking News” and the “HR669 Forum” sections of the www.pijac.org. Read the bill carefully since it could shut down major segments of the pet industry virtually overnight.
A few talking points:
The approach taken in HR 669 will adversely impact trade and other activities involving nonnative species without utilizing a scientifically valid approach – even in the limited instances in which sufficient data are available on the biology and range of species, it will be virtually impossible to prove that they could not establish and spread in some portion of the US. Thus, it will be nearly impossible to get species on the “Approved List” unless they are so widespread in the country already.
The degree of uncertainty that will result by applying the “as if” criteria will result in virtually every species ending up on the list for which there is insufficient information to make a decision DESPITE THE FACT that most of these species have been in trade, recreational use, farming, etc. for decades with only a small percentage of species being problematic and then in localized situations
A one size assessment process fits all species is not plausible – what may be harmful in Hawaiian waters would not be harmful in Kansas or the deserts of Arizona or Texas.
HR 669 overly simplifies the complexity of the issue; bans all species unless they can get on an approved list; the criteria for the Approved List are not realistic; the lists are biased towards those entities that can afford to engage in the process – undoubtedly the USFWS will be paralyzed by activist animal rights and protectionist environmental organizations petitioning for species to be unapproved;
The USFWS does not have the capacity to implement the provisions given limited staff, money, and unrealistic timeliness; and the unintended consequences of a sloppy bill could actually be to facilitate the mass release of animals, and/or their mass euthanasia.
HR 669 does not take into consideration the socio-economic complexity of the issue. Stakeholders dependent upon access to non-native species include diverse interests: pet industry, sports fishing, federal/state hatcheries, agriculture, biomedical research, entertainment, hunting, food aquaculture. Currently, thousands of non-natives species are both imported and exported, as well as captive raised (in some instances farmed on ranched) within the United States. While most of these species are never intended for release into natural environments, some of these species (e.g. oysters, trout, bass, deer, game birds) are managed by government and private entities throughout the US.
HR 669 calls for a risk assessment when, in fact, a risk analysis process is warranted. A risk assessment only considers biological indices related to potential invasiveness, while a risk analysis considers both these, as well as socio-economic factors, including potential management options. A risk analysis can enable strategic decisions to be made, such as enabling certain species to continue in trade/transport if the risks of invasion could be sufficiently management (e.g. d HR 669 treats the entire United States as if it is a single ecosystem and ignores the historic definition of invasive species that applies to a specific ecosystem, not the political boundaries of the United States as an ecosystem.
Setting criteria in statute removes flexibility that could be achieved through rulemaking since a “one-sizefits-all” process is not appropriate for all taxa, regions of the country, proposed usage of the species, etc.
Deadlines are unrealistic. While we recognize the rationale for placing timeframes on USFWS, deadlines cause lawsuits; deadlines mandate action for unfunded mandates; two (2) years is unrealistic to conduct an assessment (even a rough screen) of literally thousands of species (1) imported, (2) raised in US for local markets as well as exports, and (3) imported as well as raised in US.
Animals owned prior to prohibition of importation (Section 2(f)) is major departure from current prohibitions under Lacey Act. HR 669 would allow possession of “an animal” if prove legally owned pre-launch of assessment. There is no indication as to what it takes to prove legality? Nor would one know when an assessment of a particular species was launched.
Assuming that more than a handful of non-native species end up on an approved list, enforcement of a list of species that have been in trade for decades will be more difficult than a dirty list. It is well established that only a small percentage of the species in trade have been shown to be “invasive.” The ornamental aquarium industry, for example, deals with more than 2,500 species of freshwater and marine fish. A handful of species have been found to be a problem in Southern Florida, but not elsewhere in the US; some found to be a problem in Hawaii are not a problem in Kansas.
Promulgation of regulations implementing the HR 669 process will be complex and doubtful if can be achieved within prescribed timeframe, especially if USFWS is to simultaneously conduct thousands of assessments on species already in trade.
You can find your senators and representatives by going to these two websites www.house.gov and www.senate.gov
Type your zip code plus the 4 digit number after your zip code if you are not sure who represents you in your area. |
|
Steve Allen
MASNA exOfficio
|
| Tags: Industry, HR 669 |
|
|
Eric Borneman
Role:
Posts: 251
Private Message
|
| 04-09-2009 10:31 AM |
|
PIJAC and others sent this knee-jerk "warning" out quite awhile ago and it is now viral in the aquarium community. The problem is that I just got a MASNA email and see this post as a cut and paste of that information which is solely geared towards paranoia and the misrepresentation of the bill and the facts.
The bill:
"Establishes prohibitions on: (1) importation or transportation between states of nonnative species that are not included in the list of approved species; (2) permit violations; and (3) possession, purchase, sale, barter, release, or breeding of such species."
Please read the whole bill, including sec 42, title 18 of US code, and also section 553, title 5. It is regarding pest species, dangerous species, invasive species, and doesn't override existing laws except as noted, non of which involves the trade, in general. Some marine ornamental species can (and should) be included.
Non-native species introductions are a nightmare and have occurred all over the country and the world and never to the benefit of the natural environment - think fire ants, as one example of thousands that have occurred since man started sailing to distant lands that have eliminated or changed the entire native flora and fauna. Some aquarium species are invasives and non-natives and should be of concern. Caulerpa is the most well known, but what happens when some well meaning aquarist dumps his tank water off Broward County and red bugs invade and host on the large remaining stand of A. cervicornis? How good is it that there are now 32-40 confirmed sightings of Indo-Pacific fish in and around Florida - all of them common aquarium fish (not some odd fish or food fish, but all common aquarium fish?).
So, my advice is to READ the bill, face the mirror, and recognize that there are issues for marine ornamentals that involve everyone, including hobbyists. This is something everyone should be concerned with for our terrestrial and marine habitats. Quarantine and non-purchase is a good way to prevent invasives, and NEVER releasing tank inhabitants or pouring untreated tankwater into any natural habitat is important. Never go to the ocean and "Free Willy." Your purchase was your commitment and that includes euthanasia and proper disposal or placement should you no longer be able to meet that commitment. Simple as that.
Offer your input to the bill, don't just freak out and oppose it, by writing or calling your representatives. Every bill also has a period of public comment after listing in the Federal Register. Use that opportunity. And finally, this is not a bill that is shutting down the aquarium trade. I know this since I am working with others on some of these very issues. That said, the trade does need to get its act together fast, and it may not be the US that does the shutting down but the resource nations seeing their reefs declining and seeing unregulated ornamental collection. Or both. And, if it happens, it won't be entirely undeserved for we have done little to nothing to appeal to the world any of the many accomplishments or reasons for the trade to exist, outside the economic benefits it provides.
And I tell you this as sure as I am sitting here typing...think about this.
I just got back from an event where I saw colonies of Acanthastraea selling for $1200 (wild collected), single zoanthid polyps selling for $40, rare species without non-detriment findings available for purchase (Rhizotrochus), and fragments the size of one day's growth in my tank sold as limited editions for $100 for a 1/2 inch piece. People in other countries have Internet, you know. How do you think a collector in Indonesia feels when the coral he collected for $0.35 and landed in the US for $20 is feeling when seeing the same coral chopped up and sold for $100 a fragment? I'd be pretty mad, and I would want more money or I would stop collecting or sell elsewhere. Then, he see that the results of his work to find the nicest colors just gets taken into the US, and then propagated, leaving him out in the cold as frags just get swapped and sold. What incentive does he have to provide this stock? Now, if some hobbyist had put effort into it, maybe it's deserved, but when its a broken up wild colony and marketed the way it is?
I won't go into the other myriad indiscretions, illegalities, and survivorship issues involved in every step of the trade from collection to purchase, including non-enforcement of existing standards of care by trade and transport persons, or the scum in the trade who view reef animals as product and could care less about the health or welfare of the animals but only their profit. But, if the trade does eventually get shut down, it will be because of these actions. Because the hobbyists supported these actions and people. Because we looked the other way to have our pretty tanks and never thought any farther than what would look nice in the tank. And for that alone, we would deserve it. But, that hasn't happened yet, so everyone clean up their own backyard and encourage others to do the same - stores, fellow hobbyists, etc. We want a sustainable trade and that is the direction things are trying to move towards. If it doesn't happen, the next time maybe bold wording and fear might be in order.
There has already been a large increase in import fees in January of this year. Old news, and immaterial to this bill. That was the major increase. There will be gradual ones over the next few years. I know this from a recent meeting with USFWS. Now, if I told you that at LAX there are 10 inspectors for the entire trade in wildlife (not just aquariums), that the port gets 50% of all imports, that less than 1% of boxes get inspected, and that between 50-80% of the boxes had items that had excess livestock, improperly designated livestock, shorted livestock, dead livestock, and smuggled livestock (lots of it and by very tricky means, too, and very disturbing, and confirmed by wholesalers and retailers, including some that even USFWS didn't know), that maybe USFWS needs some more money for more inspectors so there is better compliance, fewer seizures, and less mortality, along with enforcement of existing regulations (IATA, CITES and others) that already govern the care of live animals (like temperature control, time limits, etc.) but aren't being enforced...that perhaps funding this would be good for the hobby and the livestock and not bad? Again, this bill is not about the aquarium trade and is not seeking to regulate it. Stimulus funds have already been alotted to enforcement, but how it will be spent is not yet known, but I hope its to increase efficiency and compliance.
Wholesalers and retailers...the good ones, agree. They are tired of exporters being the cause of their shipments getting seized (but seizures are handled well, and the animals are placed almost immediately). The bad ones love it because they know they are playing very favorable odds that illegal shipments get through. And who suffers? Everyone but those making the money from compliance shortcomings and those exploiting the trade which in turn acts to the detriment of the hobby making it MORE likely to see actual legislation put forth rather than less. |
|
|
|
|
Tal Sweet
Role:
Posts: 17
Private Message
|
| 04-10-2009 12:08 AM |
|
I agree with most everything that Eric pointed out. I understand the problem with invasive species.
What I have a problem with is the "blanket" legislation that this bill advocates. One of my biggest concerns is the prohibition against breeding. We are at a critical point in the hobby/trade where breeding ornamentals is making major progress. Making captive breeding illegal would be several steps backward.
Since a Representative from my state is one of the bill's sponsors, I have contacted him in hopes of opening a dialogue with him about this issue.
In my humble opinion, I believe that education is a far better tool than prohibition. |
|
|
|
|
Eric Borneman
Role:
Posts: 251
Private Message
|
| 04-11-2009 10:30 AM |
|
Hi Tal:
The provision in a "blanket" assessment, not a blanket prohibition and is only to assess risk to native species. Marine ornamentals will only be assessed and considered if they pose a risk - like what happened with cichlids in the Everglades, thanks to hobbyists. Our own actions helped prompt legislation like this, but it includes so many issues going back to the development of trucking non-native plants to nurseries across the country. Kudzu, bamboo, water hyacinths.
See here for a list of the 100 worst http://www.issg.org/database/specie...&fr=1&sts=
You can find a list for every state. There's a .pdf for Alabama 10 worst invasive weeds alone. Florida and California are awash with non-natives and invasives.
Back to the trade, it does not prohibit breeding, it would prohibit breeding of species that pose a threat "that negatively impact the economy, environment, or other animal species’ or human health, and for other purposes."
Marine ornamentals, for the most part, do not fall into that category (unless more releases occur...see my previous comments). So, you can't breed anything that, if released, would damage the environment, economy or human health (see my previous comments on release."
Furthermore, much more stringent language involving the trade already exists... http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...-000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...-000-.html
And language exists to benefit our hobby but isn't being enforced...
Federal standards for transport: http://fdsys.gpo.gov/fdsys/delivery...-14552.pdf
CITES transport standards: http://www.cites.org/eng/resources/...ndex.shtml
IATA standards: http://www.iata.org/search.htm?q=li...rds&sc=all
Furthermore, Europe, Australia and other countries already have such regulations in place and guess what? They all have marine aquariums. |
|
|
|
|
Eric Borneman
Role:
Posts: 251
Private Message
|
| 04-11-2009 10:54 AM |
|
Would be nice if this forum didn't require hard returns or cut and paste from plain text to get paragraph breaks. I just saved as plain text using Text edit with hard returns and cut and pasted and still got nothing. |
|
|
|
|
MASNA Administrator
Role:
Posts: 303
Private Message
|
| 04-11-2009 11:17 AM |
|
Ask and you shall receive. The editor window was set with limited functionality on purpose.
Please try again.
(This was cut and pasted from text edit) |
|
MASNA Web Administrator |
|
|
| You are not authorized to post a reply. |
|
Active Forums 4.3
|
|
|
|
|
|