YBeNormal April 10, 2009 Share April 10, 2009 Sorry guys and gals, I had to hide the original post and responses regarding pending legislation that may or may not affect us and the pet industry. Guidelines for our nonprofit status specifically forbids lobbying for or against any political candidate, legislation, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grav April 10, 2009 Share April 10, 2009 (edited) Bob, I find that sad. This is stuff that could literally kill this industry / hobby. As in, if this happens the way it is written now, NONE of us have an aquarium 3 or 4 years from now. All the LFSs are gone, my business is dead, no more sponsor vendors, no frag trading... none of it. Granted, I think the odds are VERY VERY long that this will go through. But, I think telling people what is being proposed, education and helping / advancing the industry / hobby is exactly what WAMAS is about. My 2 cents. Edited April 10, 2009 by Grav Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zygote2k April 10, 2009 Share April 10, 2009 Don't worry, a bill like this will never pass. It will cause the loss of billions in revenues resulting from the pet trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ctenophore April 10, 2009 Share April 10, 2009 Didn't Anthony Calfo talk about this sort of thing at a recent meeting? It happened to the exotic reptile and bird industry. It's why we need to support domestic aquaculture efforts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfoxfox April 10, 2009 Share April 10, 2009 Ask the Aussies if they thought the govt would come to their houses and take their guns :-) Anything can happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveS April 10, 2009 Share April 10, 2009 (edited) I'm not a tax attorney but I have run other 501( c ) 3 organizations in the past. Bob is correct in that WAMAS can not be a vehicle to lobby for/against pending legislation. However, it CAN educate the public regarding pending legislation. See here: http://www.irs.gov/charities/article/0,,id=163392,00.html Basically, we can (and in my opinion should) have a thread which discusses this legislation. However it should clearly state up front that no posts regarding how someone should vote will be tolerated. In other words, people can't post "Call your congressman and tell them to kill HRXXX". Edited April 10, 2009 by DaveS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
treesprite April 11, 2009 Share April 11, 2009 Didn't Anthony Calfo talk about this sort of thing at a recent meeting? It happened to the exotic reptile and bird industry. It's why we need to support domestic aquaculture efforts. Yes, he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motti April 11, 2009 Share April 11, 2009 could someone tell me a bit about this new legislation? i only saw the post after bob edited it..... from your replies it sounds pretty bad..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grav April 11, 2009 Share April 11, 2009 Do a search for the: The Nonnative wildlife invasion prevention act (H.R. 669) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grav April 11, 2009 Share April 11, 2009 Didn't Anthony Calfo talk about this sort of thing at a recent meeting? It happened to the exotic reptile and bird industry. It's why we need to support domestic aquaculture efforts. My understanding is, that as it is currently written, there is no distinction between domestic captive raise non-native and wild caught non-native. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanman April 12, 2009 Share April 12, 2009 My understanding is, that as it is currently written, there is no distinction between domestic captive raise non-native and wild caught non-native. In fact... it appears to make it illegal to 'breed' nonnative species. i.e. - I could be fined every time one of my corals made a new polyp, and the new polyps could be confiscated. I'm not too worried, though - there are only about 1,000 species of coral. How long could it possibly take, and how much could it cost to run a full check on each of them to ensure they aren't harmful if released into Lake Michigan? I figure only about $5,000 and 6 months for each. So for $5 million, in 50 years, we'd be good to go again. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
motti April 12, 2009 Share April 12, 2009 I think they are more worried about those species going out to the wild, ie african bees, lionfish in sc? (not sure lol) but if you release those fish in the wild here except in fl, they will most likely die..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lanman April 12, 2009 Share April 12, 2009 I think they are more worried about those species going out to the wild, ie african bees, lionfish in sc? (not sure lol) but if you release those fish in the wild here except in fl, they will most likely die..... This is the problem with such legislation - it is designed to keep out species which may live in the wild. But the approach is to ban everything, until proven safe. There are already laws to ban animals which are known to be unsafe. And they are trying to cover a HUGE area. Releasing my Indian Ocean corals into the waters of Hawaii is completely different from releasing them into the waters off Maine. Will I have to prove that it would be safe in every single state and territory? That's rather prohibitive, cost-wise. bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grav April 13, 2009 Share April 13, 2009 I just saw a YouTube clip that has an interesting take on this issue. Search for: "Pets in Peril (politicians gone wild) HR669" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now