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.biggin;3328490; said: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;3328327; said: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??
I couldn't have said it better myself!!!ewurm;3329366; said: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.
+1Quote:
Originally Posted by ewurm
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!!!