House Bill HR 4928

[Kalkbreath]

I think MAC might want to fight this bill. Lets say it passes......Of all the places in the world that this industry collects fish , PI seems to be the most difficult to certify. {Being that there are so many reefs in PI which are truly depleted By blast food fishing } If every incomming pet fish must be certified, PI might end up with the least fish for sale. Islands like Fiji, Shri lanka and such would now become the power houses of fish collection.These Islands are easy to certify being they have plentiful fish supplies and healthy reefs. All the years of work MAC did in PI would be pointless. So the way I look at it , This bill would return all 4000 PI fishermen back to blast fishing and cyanide food fishing. Then it would place a ten fold increase on fishing pressures in places like Solomons , Fiji and Tonga? Is not the current setup a better one? Keep PI fishermen collecting tiny reef fish with both nets and a little juice {remember in 1997 only ten percent of the PI fish tested for Cyanide} Instead of PI fishermen blasting and throwing handfuls of cyanide pellets to collect dead fish for food.Which is what they will be doing if our industry leaves ................ And to let islands like Fiji and Tonga continue to be minor players in the pet fish market , thus keeping fish pressures in the vast majority of unspoiled island nice and low. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

I think MAC might want to fight this bill. Lets say it passes......Of all the places in the world that this industry collects fish , PI seems to be the most difficult to certify. {Being that there are so many reefs in PI which are truly depleted By blast food fishing } If every incomming pet fish must be certified, PI might end up with the least fish for sale. Islands like Fiji, Shri lanka and such would now become the power houses of fish collection.These Islands are easy to certify being they have plentiful fish supplies and healthy reefs. All the years of work MAC did in PI would be pointless. So the way I look at it , This bill would return all 4000 PI fishermen back to blast fishing and cyanide food fishing. Then it would place a ten fold increase on fishing pressures in places like Solomons , Fiji and Tonga? Is not the current setup a better one? Keep PI fishermen collecting tiny reef fish with both nets and a little juice {remember in 1997 only ten percent of the PI fish tested for Cyanide} Instead of PI fishermen blasting and throwing handfuls of cyanide pellets to collect dead fish for food.Which is what they will be doing if our industry leaves ................ And to let islands like Fiji and Tonga continue to be minor players in the pet fish market , thus keeping fish pressures in the vast majority of unspoiled island nice and low. :wink:

you don't get it

mac doesn't need a product at all, nor do they need an 'industry'

they will have secured their funding for 'feasability studies', camp studies, to keep them in good income for years to come, partly funded by the industry for which they need no product, that they claim to support


makes my blood boil

 

[naesco]

I didn't realize you were an industry person, Wayne. Were you at the last Industry BBQ?

I was referring to Sally and corrected the sentence structure

 

[CiXeL]

<---- doesnt care.

it seems these days theyre making everything illegal. new technologies for trading/using audio/video (peer to peer) to stem cell research, cloning, genetic engineering. medicinal marijuana.

let them ban this too, ill do it illegally anyways. eventually theyre going to ban anything anyway. itll be just like vietnam, make it impossible to not break laws and they can come for you at any time.

what else you gonna do?

 

[Anonymous]

new technologies for trading/using audio/video (peer to peer)

You know, this is true. With all the hubbub about the MPAA and the RIAA since the early Napster days, people still download music for free and movies for free and pirated software, etc, etc, etc...

People will always find a way to circumvent the law.

Reminds me of every time the police would come out with new technology for radar guns/speed traps, and then a month later new radar detectors would come out to foil the new technology the police had...

None of this matters, people...none of it. As long as we all are alive, we'll be able to get great corals and fish, no matter how they are collected or what damage happens to any reef anywhere in the world.

That's the facts.

Peace,

Chip

 

[MaryHM]

Technology such as file sharing and radar guns are a far cry from the importation and sale of live animals. It's a lot easier to get on the internet and download a file than it is to ship a fish via the airlines from some far away country, have it land in LA, get it through customs, house it somewhere, then ship it out again. Plus everything is time sensitive. And with the new airline regulations since 9/11, more random inspections of cargo occur. An interesting study would be to see how much of the 7 banned species of hard corals are making their way into Europe. My guess? Hardly any. And on top of all of that, would enough stuff be able to make it into the country to warrant the dry goods manufacturers to stay in business? Doubtful. This issue, along with most of the others in this industry, is not as simple as some would like it to be.

 

[CiXeL]

Youd see a TON more captive raised. it could turn captive raised fish and corals into big bucks. and new corals could enter the trade via small smuggled in frags. the biggest barrier to a giant flourishing industry of captive raised stuff is that its just so damn inexpensive to import.

 

[Anonymous]

Technology such as file sharing and radar guns are a far cry from the importation and sale of live animals.

...and yet wild-caught chameleons still enter into this country illegally. I just think that when there's money to be made, people will find a way to circumvent the law and policies.

That's all. Not saying that the goal is not noble or not necessary, just saying that nothing can be done as long as people are involved.

Peace,

Chip

 

[MaryHM]

Youd see a TON more captive raised.

There is not some huge arsenal of captive bred fish just waiting in the wings. The biggest barrier to captive raised is figuring out how to breed the fish in a closed enviroment and figuring out how to get the fish through the larval stages. Yes, it is generally cheaper to import fish, but if that was the biggest barrier you wouldn't see companies like ORA selling massive amounts of percula clowns. Those are cheaply imported, but ORA doesn't seem to have a problem selling the captive bred variety. The truth is that captive bred organisms cannot provide the variety this industry needs to sustain itself. The drygoods manufacturers are not going to stay in business and continue improving technologies for a practically non-existant hobby. The price of this hobby would SKYROCKET overnight if a ban was implemented. Out of the reach of most of the current hobbyists, and the high price tags sure wouldn't attract a lot of new ones.

...and yet wild-caught chameleons still enter into this country illegally.

Again, chameleons are no where near as time sensitive and as difficult to handle as fish in bags of water. Would some come through? Sure. Of course. But what I'm saying is that no where near enough would come through to sustain this hobby. To sustain the dry goods manufacturers. Say there are 10,000 boxes of animals coming in per year now. Decrease that to 100 boxes that may get through. That is not going to keep the hobby going.

 

[Anonymous]

That is not going to keep the hobby going.

Well, regardless, it's a moot point. Nothing will ever happen to this hobby while we're alive...it'll be business as usual for a looong time...

Peace,

Chip

 

[CiXeL]

"There is not some huge arsenal of captive bred fish just waiting in the wings. The biggest barrier to captive raised is figuring out how to breed the fish in a closed enviroment and figuring out how to get the fish through the larval stages. "

I'm not so concerned about sustaining the hobby in the shortterm as much as i am concerned with sustaining the hobby in the long term and forcing us to grow everything in captivity while it may be perceived as a step backwards in the shortterm will go a long way towards preserving wild reefs. I do understand your concern though, you have a business to run and yes it would hurt your business. I can understand the position you are coming from but i could see how it would be beneficial in the long run as well. Of course i didnt have a choice either when my job was outsourced to india so I'm not buying many fish/coral these days either. Nothing will stop though, alot of fish stores may close but eventually places will come back as they figure out how to mass produce everything.

"Yes, it is generally cheaper to import fish, but if that was the biggest barrier you wouldn't see companies like ORA selling massive amounts of percula clowns. Those are cheaply imported, but ORA doesn't seem to have a problem selling the captive bred variety."

Not like there hasn't been an insatiable demand for clowns due to the nemo phenomenon. They're going to get as many clownfish as they can from whatever source they can.

"The truth is that captive bred organisms cannot provide the variety this industry needs to sustain itself."

Not at the moment but eventually, yes.

"The drygoods manufacturers are not going to stay in business and continue improving technologies for a practically non-existant hobby. The price of this hobby would SKYROCKET overnight if a ban was implemented. Out of the reach of most of the current hobbyists, and the high price tags sure wouldn't attract a lot of new ones."

You'd get a hell of alot more product coming from china then. Honestly I dont even buy livestock from fish stores anymore. I have my fish already but i get all my corals from hobbyists because few fish stores in my area will sell sps in anything other than huge colonies. besides there is the fun in watching a frag grow into a head of coral and it prevents hobbyists who cant keep anything alive from doing too much damage. A few bucks at a frag swap and i have more corals.

 

[MaryHM]

I do understand your concern though, you have a business to run and yes it would hurt your business

Within the next 2 months I'll have my greenhouse up and running. As far as I know, it will be the only large scale greenhouse on the west coast utilizing natural seawater and sunlight for coral propagation. If what you say is true, then I shouldn't be concerned, I should be rejoicing!! But I know this industry. I've been in it for almost 16 years now. I can argue with you all day, but it's not going to change your mind. So let's just agree to disagree.

 

[John_Brandt]

It's possible that the roots of HR 4928 can be found in the Report of The United States Commission on Ocean Policy (USCOP).

This report was released on April 20, 2004 for public comment. On July 22, the USCOP presented the final draft which will be sent to the President and Congress. Very few changes were made to the report, and I don't believe any changes occured in sections refering to the marine ornamental trade. On that same day (July 22), Congressman Ed Case releases HR 4928.


From the USCOP Preliminary Report, (chapter 21, page 6):

Creating More Sustainable Harvesting Practices

As the world’s largest importer of ornamental coral reef resources, the United States has a particular responsibility to help eliminate destructive harvesting practices and ensure the sustainable use of these resources. Many of these resources are harvested by methods that destroy reefs and overexploit ornamental species. A balance is needed between sustaining the legitimate trade in ornamental resources and sustaining the health and survival of the world’s coral reef resources.

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 offers a potential model for the role of the United States in curbing destructive harvesting practices. The Act authorizes the President to reduce debt owed to the United States if a developing country establishes a tropical forest management program and uses funds freed from the debt reduction agreement to support tropical forest conservation. Applying this type of program to the management of international coral reef resources could greatly enhance the ability of the United States to promote stewardship and conservation of coral reef ecosystems around the world.

Recommendation 21–3. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration should develop national standards—and promote international standards—to ensure that coral reef resources that are collected, imported, or marketed are harvested in a sustainable manner. The U.S. Department of State should implement incentive programs to encourage international compliance with these standards.

http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/chapter21.pdf

Tropical Forest Conservation Act


What is the TFCA?

The Tropical Forest Conservation Act (TFCA) was enacted in 1998 to offer eligible developing countries options to relieve certain official debt owed the U.S. while at the same time generating funds to support local tropical forest conservation activities. TFCA is implemented through bilateral agreements with eligible countries. Six countries currently have TFCA agreements: Bangladesh, Belize, El Salvador, Panama, Peru, and the Philippines. These deals will generate over $60 million for tropical forest conservation in these countries over the life of the agreements. A number of other countries have qualified for or expressed interest in the TFCA.

Eligibility Criteria

TFCA is based on the same principles as the successful Enterprise for the Americas Initiative (EAI) established by former President Bush in 1991 to relieve the debt burden of Latin American countries that moved to open investment regimes. To be eligible for TFCA, developing countries must have a tropical forest of global or regional significance and meet certain political and economic criteria established in the law. Specifically, they must have democratically elected governments, cooperate on international narcotics control measures, and have a suitable economic reform program in place. They must not support international terrorism or violate human rights.

Eligible Activities

A TFCA agreement can be structured as a debt reduction, a debt buyback, or a debt-for-nature swap. Local currency funds generated by a TFCA agreement may be used for a broad variety of in-country forest conservation activities identified in the Act. These include forest restoration, implementation of sound natural resource management systems, establishment and maintenance of parks and protected areas, training in conservation management, protection of animal and plant species, research on medicinal uses of tropical forest plants, and development and support of the livelihoods of people and local communities in or near a tropical forest.

Unique Public-Private Partnership

In addition to forest conservation and debt relief, TFCA is intended to strengthen civil society by creating local foundations to support small grants to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and local communities. The program also offers a unique opportunity for public-private partnerships. Three of the agreements to date have included funds raised by U.S.-based NGOs in addition to appropriated debt reduction funds. The Nature Conservancy (TNC) contributed about $1 million to the Belize agreement, which set aside 23,000 acres of new forest preserves and provides support for local NGOs managing 270,000 acres of national reserves. TNC, the World Wildlife Fund, and Conservation International together contributed about $1.1 million to the Peru agreement, which has already generated $200,000 in grants for training and capacity building to manage two protected areas. TNC contributed about $1.2 million to the June 2003 TFCA agreement with Panama, to help preserve the Chagres River Basin, a high biodiversity tropical forest that is also the major source of water for the Panama Canal.

 

[Anonymous]

They must not support international terrorism or violate human rights.

i would think this possibly disqualifies the Phillipines, and also possibly El Salvador , hehe

 

[Kalkbreath]

Lets see....... I buy fish and inverts from Haiti ......The USA stopped buying Forrest products from Haiti.....But the Haitians still chopped down every last tree. The Philippines stopped selling what few remaining native trees to the USA , but then increased exports of the same forrest products to China five fold .........The USA trying to in-force its
The Tropical Forest Conservation Act of 1998 seems to have had little effect at saving trees in PI,Hati or Brazil {another Pet fish exporter. Why would they want to model the HR 4928 after another Conservation act which illustrates clearly how such fluff doesn't work?

 

[naesco]

The only people who would not support the BILL 4928 are those involved in the industry. The very purpose of the BILL is to protect the reefs from further damage that has already been done by industry.

Philippines is a sovereign nation. They have the right to sell their products to whomever they want. When the BILL becomes law soon, we are not contributing to the destruction.

I believe that the Philippine government will embrace this US led international embargo, because they benefit from healthier reefs and the international assistance to repair them.

 

[Anonymous]

The only people who would not support the BILL 4928 are those involved in the industry. The very purpose of the BILL is to protect the reefs from further damage that has already been done by industry.

Philippines is a sovereign nation. They have the right to sell their products to whomever they want. When the BILL becomes law soon, we are not contributing to the destruction.

I believe that the Philippine government will embrace this US led international embargo, because they benefit from healthier reefs and the international assistance to repair them.

i think i support the GOAL of the bill's rhetoric :wink:

i do not support the bill itself, in it's present form

the two are not mutually exclusive :wink:

there are too many unanswered questions, unadressed issues for this bill to be other than a starting point for another '10 yr plan' anyway, imo :?

what happens 'till then ?

 

[naesco]

You no see the logic in pushing for an immediate and total embargo on fish and coral from both Indonesia and the Philippines where the use of cyanide continues.

 

[Anonymous]

i see no logic in an embargo of net caught fishes from those areas

 

[dizzy]

This bill doesn't even target PI and Indo. It makes everything illegal from everywhere with certain exceptions possible in due time. Due time being years and years. Industry meltdown. :evil:
Mitch