|
|||||||||
 | |||||||||
|
|
 |
|||||||
 |
|||||||||
| |||||||||
| |||
|
|||
|
| Marshall Meyers, PIJAC CEO and general counsel, provides us with an absorbing, thought-provoking insight into the pet sector | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
One of the issues that surfaced during the hearing was a complete lack of airline standards for handling the acceptance and handling of live animal shipments while in the care of an airline. Next thing I knew, I was in the middle of a major Civil Aeronautics Board hearing that resulted in our establishing humane shipping standards, many of which remain in place to this day. In fact, many of those standards have been incorporated in laws around the world. Little did I know that these two cases would lead to a lifetime career – commitment – to the pet industry. When Hartz retained me in 1970, I figured it would be a short engagement – as of that time, the longest air freight rate case had spanned four days of hearings and a couple of months to file briefs and have an oral argument. But this initial set of hearings lasted more than 30 days; the airlines appealed their loss; and I was spent some four years representing the industry on just those two cases. In the middle of airline battles, the US Fish and Wildlife Service launched its attack on the pet industry when it tried to classify all non-native species as invasive until proven innocent! Next thing I knew, I was drafted into that battle by shippers I worked with on the airline cases. Never in my wildest dreams did I anticipate that I would still be here representing our industry. Was it an attraction or fate? I choose the latter!
When did you first become professionally associated with PIJAC...and when did you become its counsel? It seems like a lifetime! Initially, Hartz Mountain retained me to represent the industry prior to PIJAC becoming involved with regulatory issues. Hartz continued to retain me through the mid-1970s to handle matters for a variety of organisations, including the fledgling PIJAC. However, while I have represented the pet industry in one form or another since 1970, I did not formally become PIJAC’s counsel until late 1970s when PIJAC’s offices were moved from New York to Washington, DC and PIJAC was in the position to stand on its own. By the mid-1980s, PIJAC’s offices were moved into my law firm and I assumed the position of executive vice president and general counsel, a position I held until this year when I became the chief executive officer and general counsel. I will be stepping down next year, though, but it is anticipated that I may continue to be associated with PIJAC in some fashion, possibly as a part-time consultant. PIJAC’s initial Counsel was Eugene Walman, an attorney in New York who was also the general counsel for the then American Pet Products Association (formerly APPMA). Prior to 1973, PIJAC was not really involved with federal or state regulation. When the US Fish and Wildlife Service proposed to regulate all non-native wildlife in 1973, Gene Walman asked me to work with him and we successfully defeated the proposal.
When was PIJAC established? In the late 1960s, PIJAC was a loose coalition of a number of concerned industry members who met to discuss issues involving the importation of ornamental fish. Key industry leaders instrumental in establishing PIJAC were Alan Levey (Wardley), Herb Axelrod (TFH), Robert Rofen (Kordon), Ross Socoloff and others. PIJAC was officially incorporated on 7 December, 1971 and was headquartered in New York City in the APPA offices. One of PIJAC’s first formal activities funded research by Dr. Jack Gratzek at the University of Georgia. Jack pioneered the research that showed that imported fish did not pose a disease threat to native US species. PIJAC expanded its activities in the mid-1970s when the industry faced increased regulation by the US Fish and Wildlife and the US Department of Agriculture when the Animal Welfare Act was amended to regulate warm-blooded animals in the pet industry.
What are PIJAC’s aims and mission? PIJAC’s Mission statement says it all: Promote responsible pet ownership and animal welfare; foster environmental stewardship; and ensure the availability of pets. PIJAC, as an industry trade association, represents every segment of the pet industry on live animal issues. PIJAC monitors proposed federal and state laws and regulations that involve the wild harvest, import, export, captive breeding, sale or possession of companion animals and aquatic organisms. In addition, PIJAC monitors two international treaties (CITES and the Convention on Biological Diversity), the OIE, and the European Union. PIJAC is not involved with product issues; that is the responsibility of American Pet Products Association (formerly APPMA). In addition to its advocacy role, PIJAC is an information resource for the industry, the general public and the media. An important aspect of PIJAC’s mission involves education and standards setting. It became abundantly clear to me that we could not attain credibility by simply being an industry advocate. We needed to encapsulate the industry’s expertise in animal care and handling in an educational component available to segments dealing with live animals. At the urging of a California Senator (who got tired of holding hearings on pet store regulation), PIJAC published a series of animal care resource manuals (canine, feline, avian, freshwater fish, marine fish, reptile/amphibian, and small animals) that led to an employee certification programme.
How many members does PIJAC have? PIJAC’s membership is slightly less than 2,000 businesses, hobbyists, trade associations, and a variety of organisations representing the aquatic, avian, ferret and dog owners. Within the retail segment, our membership approximates 20% of the US pet stores, mainly due to fact that a significant number are multistore members. And, due to fact that major manufacturers are members, we estimate that our manufacturer member base represents between 75 and 80% of product sales. To increase PIJAC’s grass roots support and to ensure that we have a stronger voice, PIJAC is launching a campaign to increase hobby and pet owner membership significantly. During the past two years, we have witnessed a broad-based attack on pet ownership as activist groups seek incredible restrictions on pet owners, such as no more than three animals per household! That, coupled with a major legislative battle involving non-native species, resulted in PIJAC’s campaign “Don’t Mess With My Pet! Support Responsible Owners!” Hopefully, this will increase our ranks by tens of thousands.
What are your main responsibilities within PIJAC with relation to the US ornamental aquatic sector and, on a wider basis, the international scene? My primary responsibility is to review every legislative or regulatory proposal that affects the industry. Additionally, I monitor issues as they arise in CITES, the Convention on Biological Diversity, the EU and the OIE. These include invasive species, disease and public health issues, endangered species, etc. Depending on the severity, I oversee the preparation and dissemination of PetAlerts to ensure that the industry is aware of pending issues. PIJAC PetAlerts are designed to provide information about a specific proposal and recommends a course of action. Once we determine that a specific proposal warrants PIJAC’s intervention, we contact the person or agency proposing the law or regulation to ascertain the basis for the proposal. We prepare briefing papers as requested and submit written testimony or comments as warranted. Often, we also attend public hearings to present oral testimony. Additionally, we liaise with appropriate officials to present the industry’s position. To give you an idea of the magnitude of PIJAC’s government affairs initiative, PIJAC’s staff has monitored some 23,000 US federal, state and local proposals (all pet, not just aquatic, issues) over the last two-year period, to determine that approximately 2,800 required close scrutiny and, in many instances, some form of PIJAC response. Issues involving aquatics approximated 1,200. For the first eight months of the 2009-2010 legislative cycle, we have already monitored some 11,000 proposals! In many instances, they involve new laws or regulations calling for screening or risk assessments of non-native organisms. Finally, and not to be overlooked, is ensuring collaboration with ornamental aquatic organisations around the world, such as OFI and OATA. Over the years, the guidance I have received from Keith Davenport, Alex Ploeg, Svein Fosså, David Alderton and AQM/PT chief editor, John Dawes, have been most helpful in my carrying out my responsibilities for both the US and the international sectors. Thus, my main responsibility is to oversee and manage the issues, supervise and train PIJAC’s staff and - as I jokingly comment - “I am the chief cook and bottle washer!” Currently, we have nine people between PIJAC and my law firm tasked with handling PIJAC matters. Pamela Stegeman, PIJAC’s new President, is assuming my role.
Why is it necessary for the industry to have an association such as PIJAC? Pets are an integral part of our society and that is clearly reflected by the fact that 63% of US households own one or more pets. In the US, there are more pets than people! With pet ownership comes regulation, whether it be dog licensing or restrictions on how one keeps koi in an outdoor water garden. A national trade association provides a vehicle for the industry to have an advocate to support or oppose proposed laws and regulations; it can be the unified voice of the industry; it helps formulate industry positions, develops and implements education and outreach initiatives. In the US, it would be virtually impossible for any individual company to become expert in, let alone deal with, the vast number of issues that pop up all around the country. Equally important, an organisation such as PIJAC provides a single authority to address both controversial and non-controversial issues. And, trade associations provide an ideal forum for industry members to collaborate in establishing industry standards that can benefit members, both large and small. For many businesses, PIJAC is a buffer so they do not have to deal with myriad issues, or become embroiled in highly emotional, controversial animal rights or environmental issues and debates. Nor should it be overlooked that a trade association benefits from input from its diverse membership.
Give us some recent examples of where PIJAC’s intervention has produced positive outcomes for the ornamental aquatic sector. PIJAC’s persistence in opposing poorly crafted laws, coupled with our demand for science-based justifications for restricting aquatic organisms has, quite honestly, kept the aquatic sector alive and well. Attempts earlier this year to pass a national law declaring all non-native aquatics as invasive until proven innocent, is more than history repeating itself. The Congress and the antitrade forces received a loud and clear message: pet and ornamental fish keepers are not going to be buried through flawed science and emotional cries that a species should be banned if the species ‘might’ be harmful somewhere, sometime, somehow in an ecosystem anywhere in the United States or its territories. Had that bill - HR 669 - been passed adopted, the vast majority of species in the aquatic sector (animal and plant) would be banned. Apart from the fact that the industry could not afford the price tag of thousands of risk assessments, the baseline science does not exist to make justifiable determinations. For more information on PIJAC's positions on aquatic issues, visit our website at pijac.org for copies of our PetAlerts and testimony on key issues facing our industry.
What do you see as the major challenges facing the US ornamental aquatic industry? In my opinion, the major challenge facing the US aquatic industry will be increased focus on invasive species, both animals and plants. With ever-increasing environmental scrutiny of US ecosystems, coupled with increased reliance on risk assessments to determine whether or not a particular species may cause harm if released into the wild, we will see many more states initiating reviews of their regulatory mechanisms to increase the list of prohibited or restricted species. Wisconsin recently revamped its regulations to prohibit species that could survive in Wisconsin waters, unless they were maintained in a controlled environment. This approach clearly impacts outdoor water gardens and ponds. New York State is currently reviewing (conducting risk assessments) every non-native species to determine which species will be allowed to be in trade. Thus, our challenge may involve each of the 50 states conducting thousands of risk assessments. On top of this, we will face proposed federal legislation calling for a national, ‘one-size-fits-all’ regulation that could result in a species that is invasive in Florida being prohibited in Alaska! And it cannot be overlooked that aquatic animal health is a major new component in the invasive species debate. So, we must recognise that the invasive species challenge is all-encompassing; it cannot be ignored or discounted – it is here and it is real. We can expect to encounter increased control and, with that, comes increased cost of doing business.
What about the global ornamental aquatic industry? I know I sound like a broken record – but the major challenge is not how to grow the market or how to combat computer games. Invasive species, invasive species and invasive species is clearly a global issue and, possibly, the only major challenge! Invasive species (harmful non-native organisms) are one of the major threats to native wildlife and habitats. The pet/aquaria trade has been identified as a substantial source of potentially invasive species; escaped or released pets and aquaria species can predate upon, compete with, or spread diseases and parasites to native wildlife. Aquaria dumping and water gardening can also be sources of invasive plants. The greatest risks of deliberate release of unwanted pets and aquaria species are likely associated with:
The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) has included invasive alien species as one of the crosscutting issues impacting biological diversity. In order to minimise the invasion risk of the ‘pet/aquaria trade pathway’, member countries of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) recently adopted a decision (May 2008) to collate case studies of best management practices that industries, governments and others are taking to prevent the release, escape and establishment of former pets and aquaria species. The CBD explicitly recognised PIJAC and the Global Invasive Species Programme (GISP) as leaders in this process. PIJAC is currently developing a toolkit of regulatory and nonregulatory measures to minimise the introduction of animals, plants, pathogens, and parasites via the ‘pet/aquaria trade pathway’. Our industry has been challenged – the environmental community has thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the industry to develop and promote best management practices, to educate both industry and consumers alike on how to be responsible environmental stewards and to be part of the solution. By responding in a positive way through sound and practical public outreach and education initiatives, the ornamental aquatic industry can be a model for many industries. The global challenge is there and the question is: Will our industry stand up to the challenge? This also provides a great opportunity for hobbyists and industry to collaborate in promoting fish keeping and responsible stewardship at the same time. If we do not take advantage of this opportunity, we are likely to face more and more restrictive regulation. With regulation we may witness increased limits of the variety of species we can enjoy as well as experience increased costs associated with health testing, new containment requirements, and more government inspection and oversight.
What are your thoughts on/hopes for the future of our industry? Despite the current economy, I am very optimistic of our industry’s future. But we will have to roll up our sleeves and address a variety of challenges, challenges that may be more troublesome than increased government regulation. For years I have heard all of the reasons why the industry has been sluggish, why people turn to electronic gadgets in lieu of maintaining aquaria, and why manufacturers do not understand that nothing happens until a fish is sold! Innovative new products will continue to move the industry forward – just see what it has done for the marine hobby! But that alone will not be enough. We need to address how better to introduce fish keeping to future generations; how to encourage young people to become lifetime members of the hobby; how to collaborate with public aquaria to promote home aquaria keeping so people better understand and appreciate the environment. I was alarmed earlier this year when I was asked by a leading trade magazine how I could argue that “there is no need for pet products if there are no pets!” One of my parting hopes is that the ornamental aquatic industry will bring together industry leaders and hobbyists in a thought-provoking forum to discuss the many challenges confronting our industry and our hobby, to explore how they can address these issues, and how they can secure a healthy and prosperous future for the hobby... a healthy hobby is a healthy industry.
|
|
 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
