I hope HR 669 Passes

[cguarino30]

Wow you must be blind. If they pass the law that takes away the fish you dont care about suddenly you don't care. Meanwhile the next bill does affect the fish you care about its called incremental removal of things. Just like gun control.

You can't be against a law just because you disagree with a much more strict law. If you don't like the next law, you can be against that one. If they try to impose a law making it illegal to own pets, I will be the first to sign whatever petition you give me. You have to view the law as itself, not shout it down because something more would be worse. It's illegal to hit people, but soon they could make a law that makes it illegal to hurt their feelings, and that would be wrong. I'm still not going to try to repeal the laws on battery, just because something further would be wrong. That's why we have specific laws.

 

[big E]

I'm just saying that it's a hobby for everyone to enjoy. Seems that you could care less about other people's enjoyment as long as you have yours...good for you That's fine that you agree with HR669, that's your opinion, but it seems that you're the one getting bent out of shape over the situation while everyone is expressing their opinions. You stated that it's just your opinion and you don't care, yet you seems to be upset with people's opposing opinions.

 

[cguarino30]

I'm just saying that it's a hobby for everyone to enjoy. Seems that you could care less about other people's enjoyment as long as you have yours...good for you That's fine that you agree with HR669, that's your opinion, but it seems that you're the one getting bent out of shape over the situation while everyone is expressing their opinions. You stated that it's just your opinion and you don't care, yet you seems to be upset with people's opposing opinions.

You and your emoticon weren't saying anything. You sat in the back, waited for someone else to make your point for you, then chimed in at the last second so you could feel solidarity. And you clearly have not read the rest of this page, as all of the points you just made were discussed in the first two pages, and I am by far one of the most rational people on this entire thread. You can't just say "no you're the one whose upset, and everyone else is rational" and act like it's true.

 

[smpage]

3) Virtually none of the fish I keep are wild imports, and if I had to I could certainly have gotten them from a domestic breeder, or gotten other fish that I would enjoy just as much

What do you keep? The bill isn't banning importation and exportation, it's banning the non-native species. That means there won't be domestic breeders. Sure there would be a "fish black market" but MFK doesn't support illegal activities and does not condone it's members participating in such.

 

[cguarino30]

What do you keep? The bill isn't banning importation and exportation, it's banning the non-native species. That means there won't be domestic breeders. Sure there would be a "fish black market" but MFK doesn't support illegal activities and does not condone it's members participating in such.

Well then maybe MFK isn't as dedicated as it claims. (Oh my God, I'm kidding, I'm just poking fun, please don't take that seriously and start trying to prove me wrong)

In all seriousness, I think we already discussed this point earlier in the thread at sufficient length.

 

[smpage]

Well then maybe MFK isn't as dedicated as it claims. (Oh my God, I'm kidding, I'm just poking fun, please don't take that seriously and start trying to prove me wrong)

In all seriousness, I think we already discussed this point earlier in the thread at sufficient length.

Yeah, it was first discussed in post #5 and throughout all of the pages you've never mentioned what fish you keep. I did notice that you said you'd be happy with what fish were available and that's awesome. I just think everyone is dying to know what fish you have.

 

[MN_Rebel]

I do not support this bill as it pose serious threat to Goodeid keeping hobby. Most goodeid species are endangered in the wild and some goodeid species are extinct in the wild but has capitive populations of goodeids, thanks to the serious aquarists. I have few goodeid species and if the bill passes, some goodeids will be extinct in few years as we are not allowed breed these unique Mexican goodeids. Thats why most of us do not want see this bill passes.

 

[cguarino30]

Yeah, it was first discussed in post #5 and throughout all of the pages you've never mentioned what fish you keep. I did notice that you said you'd be happy with what fish were available and that's awesome. I just think everyone is dying to know what fish you have.

I apologize, I thought you were referring to the other part of your post. Right now, I'm a little low on species, as I'm preparing to move, but I am currently keeping swordtails, mollies, corydoras similis, red-breasted acaras, bristlenose plecos, and danios (pantheri) none of which could be construed as an invasive species, even if I had to "stop" breeding them for a year or two until they got put on the "approved" list. I suspect that fish like the plecos, swordtails, mollies, cories, and danios would be approved rather quickly, judging by the popularity of their genuses and the government's track record of blanket-rating species based on genus. Even if that were not the case, I am dedicated enough to this hobby (despite the accusations of my peers) that I wouldn't stop keeping fish even if every species I have were outlawed. If I had to start keeping sticklebacks, darters, panfish, and killies, I'd be just as happy with my hobby as I am now.

I keep fish to keep fish. What species I choose are incidental to the hobby itself.

 

[Neophyte]

I don't see how the majority of people responding are being overly dramatic or even dramatic at all. If anything you have been set to completely disagree with anyone that doesn't take your viewpoint. Many responses that are good counter points to your argument you skip over and only the weaker posts do you choose to pick apart.

Your problem with seeing "great deal of logic behind the bill" is that as I have pointed out in my previous post is that we are governed by lawyers that are out to do what is best for them. The best example of such interests is the tilapia farmer that they brought on during the hearing where he didn't care about anything that doesn't impact his business, pretty one-sided as long as he can still making a living he doesn't care what the bill does.

Another thing is that this bill effectively punishes everyone when most of these invasive species that are the primary reasons for the bill were brought in through non-hobby related commercial negligence i.e. zebra mussel (came attached to cargo ships), snakehead (brought in as a food fish) and countless other instances of fish, plants, etc... hitch-hiking in the ballast tanks of ships.

The other problem with this bill is that it is being introduced as law for our entire country from an island that barely appears on a map on the other side of the globe, that most people didn't even know was part of the U.S. till this bill was introduced.

You would do well to brush up on American politics and history to see how something as simple as banning a non-native invasive species can quickly turn to something that you would care alot about. Politcal agendas are never carried out with a single bill they are always multi-tiered and with each new layer being as seemingly harmless and to have the countries safety at heart only to find out that a lawyers interpretation of multiple laws in conjunction can have a complete opposite effect.

And to be clear even if this were about anything other than pets I would feel the same. I am opposed to the out right banning of anything in our country our country is based on freedoms, freedom is not decided by the government freedom is decided by the people!

Just the laws that have been passed since the terrorists running planes into the trade towers are robbing us of many of our freedoms and rights. But as soon as people hear that it will "make us safer against future attacks" they have no problem relinquishing their freedoms and then the next law comes, then the next. I mean really ask someone who is in the 60s-70s and ask them which country they preffer the one we currently live in or the one from 50 years ago.

 

[cguarino30]

I do not support this bill as it pose serious threat to Goodeid keeping hobby. Most goodeid species are endangered in the wild and some goodeid species are extinct in the wild but has capitive populations of goodeids, thanks to the serious aquarists. I have few goodeid species and if the bill passes, some goodeids will be extinct in few years as we are not allowed breed these unique Mexican goodeids. Thats why most of us do not want see this bill passes.

I can totally support your position, but don't you think the government would be willing to issue some sort of permit to those of us who are trying to propogate endangered species? I find it hard to believe that even if the bill passes, the government will force us to simply stop keeping our goodeids.