Help me understand, please...

[Ficious]

So the point of THIS forum is to rally around the HR669 bill and shut it down? You all as fishkeepers want these animals and fish to not be banned...correct?

[green_fox]

i believe so yes

[Fish Lover95]

If you don't want them gone then post a quick reply And tell me if you do or. Of ok?

[Ficious]

Ok...So my opinion on the matter is a bit on the other side of the fence. I live in the midwest and vacation north a lot. There are several invasive species that are breaking down a lot of our natural habitat and the native species that live there.

My last trip to the BWCAW there were two new species added to the list that i havent seen before. Gobys and snakeheads are amoung the list of non native species that are destroying populations and reproduction of native species. I dont think common tropical fish are going to be banned because, well, they cannot survive here. america has banned snakeheads because they are a large threat to our waters here. Also many pararsites and illnesses that come with these fish are just as threatening.

If you want to complain (all due respect) about this go ahead. Im a conservative and yes in a way I believe we need to preserve what we have. Adding yet one more bill to the book isnt my favor but if its needed to stop the threat...whatever.

If this bill gets passed (who knows if it will), most people that arent up to date arent going to know about it. I just imagine this as people wanting to stop this bill so they can have it their way..."for the fish". Hopefuly the will revise it to a thinner margin and key in on the species that are a threat only??

[biggin]

Species like snakeheads are already restricted in the US.....why do they need a new law?

Why are people so eager to get a new law on the books because it "sounds" good? Don't like your government representatives go out do a little research, read the bill(they did not and will not) and find out there is a lot more too it then banning gold fish or banning snakeheads.

But that being said HR669 is effectively done. Next year it will be brought up again or perhaps later this year.

[Ficious]

Species like snakeheads are already restricted in the US.....why do they need a new law?

Why are people so eager to get a new law on the books because it "sounds" good? Don't like your government representatives go out do a little research, read the bill(they did not and will not) and find out there is a lot more too it then banning gold fish or banning snakeheads.

But that being said HR669 is effectively done. Next year it will be brought up again or perhaps later this year.

I didnt say that I didnt like my state rep, what bill am I reading? I read the HR669. I gave many reasons besides banning goldfish and snakeheads. I never even said snakeheads werent already banned, so im not saying a new law needs to be made?? anyway...i dont really dont understand your response because its as if you didnt read my answer.

[ewurm]

Ok...So my opinion on the matter is a bit on the other side of the fence. I live in the midwest and vacation north a lot. There are several invasive species that are breaking down a lot of our natural habitat and the native species that live there.

My last trip to the BWCAW there were two new species added to the list that i havent seen before. Gobys and snakeheads are amoung the list of non native species that are destroying populations and reproduction of native species. I dont think common tropical fish are going to be banned because, well, they cannot survive here. america has banned snakeheads because they are a large threat to our waters here. Also many pararsites and illnesses that come with these fish are just as threatening.

If you want to complain (all due respect) about this go ahead. Im a conservative and yes in a way I believe we need to preserve what we have. Adding yet one more bill to the book isnt my favor but if its needed to stop the threat...whatever.

If this bill gets passed (who knows if it will), most people that arent up to date arent going to know about it. I just imagine this as people wanting to stop this bill so they can have it their way..."for the fish". Hopefuly the will revise it to a thinner margin and key in on the species that are a threat only??


The key argument for me is the blanket effect of the ban. Banning a tropical fish that is invasive in Florida and could not survive in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area or any of the other Northern states is preposterous. Most states already have laws that govern this, and they need to do a better job of policing themselves.

[Allan01230]

The key argument for me is the blanket effect of the ban. Banning a tropical fish that is invasive in Florida and could not survive in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area or any of the other Northern states is preposterous. Most states already have laws that govern this, and they need to do a better job of policing themselves.
I couldn't have said it better myself!!!:headbang2

[Nemesis529]

Also I believe the ranged alot further than just fish. It included birds, reptiles, and even dogs that are not native to the US. This was just my understanding of it, correct me if I'm wrong.

[Plec123]

Quote:
Originally Posted by ewurm http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/ms_icons/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.monsterfishkeepers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=260717#post3329366)
The key argument for me is the blanket effect of the ban. Banning a tropical fish that is invasive in Florida and could not survive in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area or any of the other Northern states is preposterous. Most states already have laws that govern this, and they need to do a better job of policing themselves.

I couldn't have said it better myself!!!:headbang2
+1

[hannah_b888]

:confused:

[Pomatomus]

The key argument for me is the blanket effect of the ban. Banning a tropical fish that is invasive in Florida and could not survive in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area or any of the other Northern states is preposterous. Most states already have laws that govern this, and they need to do a better job of policing themselves.

And how do you propose a state government should do that?

I go to school in Florida and while collecting fish for a project in a nearby state park I killed hundreds of invasive fish at the request of the park biologist. About 300 blue tilapia, 400, plecos, 10 brown hoplos, 100 jewel cichlids, and 15 walking catfish. This was all during the span of a couple of months and about 5 trips. Don't even get me started on my 4 trips to the Everglades; thats a whole different list of invasives.

The thing is, a state park isn't about to check your cooler on your way in. A state trooper isn't going to search your car when you cross state boundaries. However, a cargo vessel will be examined upon its arrival in the U.S.

And even that has failed before.

[ewurm]

And how do you propose a state government should do that?

I go to school in Florida and while collecting fish for a project in a nearby state park I killed hundreds of invasive fish at the request of the park biologist. About 300 blue tilapia, 400, plecos, 10 brown hoplos, 100 jewel cichlids, and 15 walking catfish. This was all during the span of a couple of months and about 5 trips. Don't even get me started on my 4 trips to the Everglades; thats a whole different list of invasives.

The thing is, a state park isn't about to check your cooler on your way in. A state trooper isn't going to search your car when you cross state boundaries. However, a cargo vessel will be examined upon its arrival in the U.S.

And even that has failed before.

For Florida, it is too late. They can ban all of the fish they want, but it won't reverse the damage.

[Pomatomus]

still doesn't answer my question

and I didn't say anything about reversing the damage, it just serves as a model for what can happen.

[XB aro]

i understand that most of us on mfk hate HR669, but seriously if invasive species r destroying crops n outcompeting native species do u guys seriously think the gov is gonna care bout us? its a losing battle rather or not it goes through, it isn't gonna depend on how many petition sigs we get, we have no sayin...

[swede]

Ok...So my opinion on the matter is a bit on the other side of the fence. I live in the midwest and vacation north a lot. There are several invasive species that are breaking down a lot of our natural habitat and the native species that live there.

My last trip to the BWCAW there were two new species added to the list that i havent seen before. Gobys and snakeheads are amoung the list of non native species that are destroying populations and reproduction of native species. I dont think common tropical fish are going to be banned because, well, they cannot survive here. america has banned snakeheads because they are a large threat to our waters here. Also many pararsites and illnesses that come with these fish are just as threatening.

If you want to complain (all due respect) about this go ahead. Im a conservative and yes in a way I believe we need to preserve what we have. Adding yet one more bill to the book isnt my favor but if its needed to stop the threat...whatever.

If this bill gets passed (who knows if it will), most people that arent up to date arent going to know about it. I just imagine this as people wanting to stop this bill so they can have it their way..."for the fish". Hopefuly the will revise it to a thinner margin and key in on the species that are a threat only??
and what motivated you to join MFK?

[Nabbig2]

It would just be like the drug trad ffs, it's never going to be stopped. People will continue to keep and release illegal fish and other pets. Banning them isn't going to do a whole lot, and it's going to make a lot of people upset.

[Pomatomus]

It would just be like the drug trad ffs, it's never going to be stopped. People will continue to keep and release illegal fish and other pets. Banning them isn't going to do a whole lot, and it's going to make a lot of people upset.

Well the target market for drugs is the average joe, whereas the target market for exotic fish is aquarium enthusiasts. Now lets consider who would release these fish: the educated aquarist, or the average joe who doesn't want to buy a bigger tank.

Basically, those who would release them would be less likely to get their hands on them if the fish were harder to come by. The last people who would threaten the environment this way would be the experienced MFK members. :)

And let's be honest, it's making relatively few people upset.