Here We go again

JanOlson

Administrator
Staff member
HAAS+ Member
Agree to disagree ..... with all due respect. A blacklist accomplishes the same thing. A whitelist theoretically bans imports of new species forever as the government will never spend a minute or a dime in risk assessment studying some obscure catfish. This legislation is written by those in power who don't believe animals should be kept in any form other than their native habitat which unfortunately for the hobby means thousands of species will be allowed to become extinct as their native habitats are being destroyed around the world. They obviously don't give a rip about people crossing the border and setting up camp and breeding with no restrictions as it is happening every day in spite of current legislation to the contrary.
 

subdivide

Member
For sure, but I'm pretty good with the logicals so I have to let you know an important thing.

"They obviously don't give a rip about people crossing the border and setting up camp and breeding with no restrictions as it is happening every day in spite of current legislation to the contrary."

Is what is called a straw man's argument. You are making a bold misrepresentation of the facts and then trying to reverse apply that set of facts to your logic. It doesn't work and will get you kicked out of the Supreme Court.

Saying that is like saying Mohandas "Mahatma" Ghandi himself did not care about peace because the world is not peaceful. It's just not true.

Your other statement was dangerously close to it, as well. Suggesting that you know what legislators believe. Not what they are on the record saying, but believe deep down, whether that's public info or not.

Even when politicians run on certain platforms they often vote on another and it's just too far a stretch to imply that they don't "give a rip" because a particular problem exists, unless you have citations. I mean Cancer still exists, Murder, Car Accidents, Indirect deaths from exposure to Coal Fired Power Plants. That one is an actual number that the U.S. keeps tracks of and is surprisingly high, since people say we should build more of these. Anyway, to say no one gives a rip, is not factually accurate and, in fact, intentionally misleading as an argument.

And for what it's worth, I fully agree that this legislation might be financially injurious to the pet trade in its current form. But I also agree that them's the breaks when the business is importing wild animals from other parts of the world. But guess who has to pay for the safety testing of cars? The car manufacturer does, of course. It costs them money to make money. Safety testing of manufactured chemicals? Same thing.

Someone has to prove that they are safe to be here or we are doomed to repeat history again and again and again. Only a fool does that.

The real argument is who do you want to pay for proving that they are safe to be here part, just like with the aforementioned people?

Jan suggests that she has strong feelings that it should be the federal government that enforces our immigration laws with regard to people.

Fair enough.

So, who is going to enforce the "immigration laws" with other species?

If you fly its TSA, I know for a fact. If it's mailed it's post office. If you take a cruise ship down to the Bahamas, the port authority has customs and checks anything that you bought. You can't even bring fresh fruit back from anywhere, if you bought it there. Don't you realize why? It's not just because they love charging $4 for an apple in airport. They have to know where it came from and where it is going.

The same thing has to exist for importing animal and plant species for the pet trade, in my opinion.

You get exactly 1 time to screw up the environment. 1 time. Not just in our lifetimes.... forever. Be laize fair about regulations just once and you may never see things the same way again. Ever. I chose Kudzu as an example because the South cannot rise again. It doesn't even look the same. It's not natural.

That's why this is a big deal, personally, anyway.
 

TSudduth

Member
Thread really seems to be getting out of hand. If a person cares about the hobby and the privilege of taking care of rare/exotic species reach out to your politicians.

If a person cares more about the chance that a wild caught tropical fish is going to end up in the local environment and destroy everything, reach out to your local politicians.

I understand the need for regulations on certain things. Florida should not be allowed lionfish, but if a kid buys and releases one in Kansas City, it is doomed. America is huge, and there needs to be regional laws because there is no reason for everyone to follow the same laws. That is of course a matter of opinion, and that’s something you should contact your politicians no matter what side you’re on.

Furthermore, an individuals feelings on our immigration policies, especially while referring to people like they’re feral hogs shouldn’t have a place in a local forum dedicated to FISH.

Walter posted something suggesting we reach out. If you don’t agree, reach out and tell them how much you love the Lacey stuff.
 

subdivide

Member
You are right, certainly.

This is a personal issue for everyone and for different ways and different reasons.

This is a political deal in the end and everyone probably pays federal, state and local taxes but just about nobody likes it.

C'est la vie.
 
The Lacey Bill is back in the House for final approval.
This Real. Do you want the government to tell you what fish you can keep. I am ok with a black list if there is a reason for it. Just not a list telling us we can only keep certain fish.
 
Top