BE SHORT WITH ANSWER PLEASE
- Thread starter mr.reef24
- Start date
yeah a democrat would write a bill like that... how much more control do they need? I'm pretty sure the fish and game commission's already got stuff for invasive species, so I'm confused about what the real intent of this bill was.
Fish and game agency rules on invasive species are reactionary, meaning a species isn't banned until it has already become established somewhere. The point of HR 669 was to ban everything unless it's shown to be safe rather than allowing everything until it's shown to be a problem. Sort of a pre-emptive strategy.
I'm against a blanket preemptive strike without proper research (maybe see what has damaged the ecology of other countries with similar climates?).
Maybe this ban should be made regional, following a map similar to the plant hardiness map used for deciding what plants can survive where year round (but with a more simplified map maybe?).
If a species has the potential to survive, breed, and damage the ecosystem in a region, then it should be banned for the average consumer but permits should be issued to consumers willing to properly care for the animal and not release it.
The only problem is that this would screw over states such as Florida, Texas, and Hawaii since pretty much any animal has a fair chance of surviving there unless it loves the cold.
Maybe this ban should be made regional, following a map similar to the plant hardiness map used for deciding what plants can survive where year round (but with a more simplified map maybe?).
If a species has the potential to survive, breed, and damage the ecosystem in a region, then it should be banned for the average consumer but permits should be issued to consumers willing to properly care for the animal and not release it.
The only problem is that this would screw over states such as Florida, Texas, and Hawaii since pretty much any animal has a fair chance of surviving there unless it loves the cold.
