Last week Rep. Ed Case of Hawaii (brother of Suzanne Case, the Director of Hawaii BLNR when the Hawaii aquarium fishery was shut down) reintroduced the Saving NEMO Act, H.R. 2176 (https://www.congress.gov/bill/119th-congress/house-bill/2176) at the behest of anti-aquarium activists. The bill has the same language as the bill introduced in the last Congress which we reported on here. Pushed under the guise of ensuring sustainability, the true purpose of the bill is to implement regulations that are so complex that they would be impossible to comply with, amounting to a de facto ban on marine aquarium species sourced both from the wild and from aquaculture.
While to some the bill may look benign or even positive on its face, the intricacies of administrative law camouflage the true impact it would have. However, the activists intimately understand the true potential of the bill. Upon the introduction of the Saving NEMO Act in the last session, anti-aquarium activists made posts on social media celebrating that it would end all aquarium fisheries around the world.
The passage of H.R. 2176 would be a disaster for retailers, wholesalers, importers, product manufacturers, and aquarium service professionals in the United States. The job loss in nations that export aquarium species and products would likely be even more significant. On a global scale, tens of thousands of jobs would be eliminated. The far-reaching benefits of the aquarium trade and hobby will be lost, from the research and development for much of the technology used in coral restoration to the fisheries that allow coastal communities to practice sustainable livelihoods where few, if any, alternatives exist.
While the Saving NEMO Act gives lip service to allowing imports from managed fisheries and qualified mariculture operations, the requirements in the bill outline a regulatory scheme that will be far too onerous to comply with. The bill ensures a similar scenario to the current situation in Hawaii will be applied to all fisheries and mariculture programs around the world. This should be no surprise considering the same activists who shut down the Hawaii fishery are behind this bill. In West Hawaii, fishers have completed all environmental review requirements, and the ban on aquarium fishing has officially been lifted, but no fishing is occurring because complications in the administration of the law have allowed the Land Board to drag their feet indefinitely on issuing the permits required for the fishers to get back in the water. Aquarium fishing is 100% legal in Hawaii but requires a permit which is unobtainable. The Saving NEMO Act sets the stage for this for all aquarium fisheries and mariculture operations in the world.
Under the Saving NEMO Act, Aquaculture, even in the United States, will fare no better. The bill outlines regulations with standards so that even the most sophisticated aquaculture operations will have difficulty achieving the “qualified” facility designation required to continue operating. Fragging and home breeding will cease to exist as the cost of meeting the regulations will be exorbitant for commercial operations, let alone hobbyists.
It is not an accident that the week this bill was reintroduced, Martin Sheen launched a PR campaign to promote an anti-aquarium film starring Snorkel Bob, and PETA published social media posts stating that fish don’t belong in homes, but “in nature, with their families.” The bill is part of a larger, coordinated push by activist organizations to end aquarium keeping, both by setting public perception against aquarists and by using the law to mandate their agenda and ideology.
You can use the Find Your Representative tool (https://www.house.gov/representatives/find-your-representative) on the U.S. House of Representatives website to contact your Congressperson and. respectfully ask him or her to OPPOSE H.R. 2176 to protect the environmental, social, and economic benefits of the aquarium trade and hobby. Including personal anecdotes in communications to your representative on why aquarium keeping is important to you and/or your livelihood is particularly helpful.
The reintroduction of the Saving NEMO Act, H.R. 2176, is a concerning development that demands careful scrutiny. On the surface, the act may seem to have noble intentions of ensuring sustainability, but in reality, it could have far – reaching negative consequences.
The claim that the bill’s regulations are too complex to comply with, effectively acting as a de facto ban on marine aquarium species from both wild and aquaculture sources, is a valid concern. If passed, it would not only deal a heavy blow to the aquarium – related industries in the United States, such as retailers, wholesalers, and manufacturers, but also have a significant impact on jobs globally. Tens of thousands of people, including those in exporting nations, would lose their livelihoods. This is a steep price to pay, especially when considering the various benefits the aquarium trade and hobby bring. For instance, the research and development in coral restoration technology, which is partly driven by the aquarium industry, would be hindered.
The situation in Hawaii serves as a cautionary tale. Despite the ban on aquarium fishing being lifted, fishers are still unable to resume their activities due to administrative complications in obtaining permits. If the Saving NEMO Act becomes law, a similar scenario could play out worldwide, paralyzing aquarium fisheries and mariculture operations.
Moreover, the act’s impact on aquaculture, even within the United States, is likely to be severe. The stringent regulations would make it difficult for even the most advanced aquaculture facilities to obtain the “qualified” designation. This would not only halt commercial operations but also spell the end of practices like fragging and home breeding, which are important for the hobby and the industry.
It’s also disconcerting that the reintroduction of this bill coincides with a PR campaign by Martin Sheen and social media posts by PETA. This indicates a coordinated effort by activist organizations to end aquarium keeping, using both public perception and legislation to push their agenda.
In conclusion, it’s crucial for Congress to oppose H.R. 2176. Instead of imposing overly burdensome regulations, efforts should be focused on finding a balance between conservation and the continued growth of the aquarium trade and hobby. By engaging in constructive dialogue and implementing practical, enforceable regulations, we can ensure the long – term sustainability of marine resources while also protecting the economic and social benefits associated with the aquarium industry.
This article gave no specific regulations and restrictions stated in the bill. Just emotional implications with no connection to how the bill will actually create theses consequences. I have been a serious reefer my entire life and am deeply invested in this hobby, but this article needs to give specific examples from the bill that will create such “so-called” consequences.