I hope HR 669 Passes

[neoprodigy]

Yes, to a certain degree, you can't ban people from buying what they want, but price does influence purchase. My point is that there will be much fewer impulse buys, or uninformed aquarists, if the pricetag goes up. Remember that youtube kid with the 13 inch Midas in a 15 gallon tank? If the prices were raised, do you think he would have paid $45 for it, or do you think he would have bought something smaller, cheaper, and more common?

yes he will... he will pay that $45 buck for that midas... do you know the buying power of "kids"

I do agree with this concept in general, it's a good point, however, I am noticing a much greater disparity with the asian based farms. Maybe it's due to cultural differences, but they seem to have much less interest in maintaining genetic strength and pure species lines than a lot of the domestic mass producers, even if the domestic ones are bad as well.

its all about the $. here or there... except over there the operation is much much bigger. i visit to quite of farms here in FL. you think they care for genetic strength if they cant make the next pay roll in time?

Any points I make toward domestic captive breeding programs and consumer discretion can also be applied to any bird, reptile, amphibian, mammal, or anything else. I'm constantly seeing people with no expertise and have done no research who buy rare or sensitive animals that they are not prepared to provide proper care for "because they got a good deal" and I think people would be a lot more likely to do research and provide proper care if the animal came with a bigger pricetag.

bigger price tag will not help... people will buy it because its the "market price" who remember paying 25cent stamps? 50cent for can of soda? you think people going to stop mailing or buying soda?

hr669 is not going to help people do more research before buying the next pets. it will only tighten the selection of pets...

again, a personal attack. My position is not based on the fact that I don't anticipate any personal disruptions, as I will be suffering from all the same price hikes and limited availabilities as the rest of you. I am just using my own situation as a demonstration as to how the hobby will continue regardless of this bill, whether it passes or not. I am also subtly inviting anyone else to explain to me why their situation would make things too difficult to continue in the hobby, as I personally do not see it.

its not a personal attack... seem like you like use that term alot on this thread....

 

[cguarino30]

so instead of banning them start a permit process.

I like this idea a lot, and honestly, if they did ban them, there would still have to be SOME permit process, for public aquariums, scientiffic labs, etc. And there's no reason to believe that one couldn't be introduced for dedicated hobbyists such as ourselves.

 

[cguarino30]

yes he will... he will pay that $45 buck for that midas... do you know the buying power of "kids"




its all about the $. here or there... except over there the operation is much much bigger. i visit to quite of farms here in FL. you think they care for genetic strength if they cant make the next pay roll in time?



bigger price tag will not help... people will buy it because its the "market price" who remember paying 25cent stamps? 50cent for can of soda? you think people going to stop mailing or buying soda?

hr669 is not going to help people do more research before buying the next pets. it will only tighten the selection of pets...



its not a personal attack... seem like you like use that term alot on this thread....

I take the insinuation that I don't care about anyone else as a personal attack. I apologize if I misunderstood. I see your position, but I still disagree with you. I think at the very least, people would be less likely to buy more expensive fish, if not altogether opposed to it, unless they were trully dedicated. As for FL fish farms, I agree. They are also lower quality than necessary, but I still prefer them to SE Asian farms.

As for the pricetag issue, if you could buy 25 cent stamps OR 50 cent stamps, you'd need a pretty good reason to buy the more expensive ones over the cheaper ones. I maintain that if rare/sensitive fish cost more, fewer uneducated aquarists would buy and subsequently kill them, and would prefer to buy cheaper, well established fish like swordtails and guppies

 

[jcardona1]

Just because the bill isn't based on moral issues doesn't mean I can't support it for them. (also, I consider environmental preservation a moral issue)

okay, so lets say inexperienced hobbyists wont be able to buy XXX fish anymore because its been restricted. wont they still be able to be just as uncaring and unethical with a legal fish? what are you accomplishing? youre still back at the drawing board.

kinda like with the gun example you used earlier, where a hunter would support a handgun ban. you can ban all handguns if you like, but cant a murder still be committed with a rifle????? same scenario

 

[chefjamesscott]

Wow. Did you seriously just liken HR 669 to the beginning of the holocaust? I also disagree with your use of the term "no choice" telling me that I have to choose from these 500 species of fish instead of choosing from these 1000 species of fish is not the same thing as "no choice" and it's certainly not ANYTHING like the mass slaughter of several races of people deemed inferior by a political machine that was powered by economic strife and cultural upheaval.

Then my friend you really are blind to the many many many controls that are being foisted on your country under the guise of legislation to protect your country. Goodness me perhaps you need to study a bit more on what these kinds of legislations are really about, for such legislations are not really about anything more than systems of control and this pet bill is by far not the only area of control they are tryin to slip by unnoticed.

Perhaps there is much more I could share with you but it seems that really are a person who chooses to ignore what informed people are telling you. (By taking pot shots back at them for what they say rather than intelligently considering what they put forth.)

Yet that would entail me getting into a political discussion which I think is frowned upon here. Suffice it to say whereas nazism is concerned, you would do well to watch arnie boy and the state of california.

Go ahead and welcome with open arms things that control you basic freedoms all under the guise of protecting you, yes by all means go ahead be a good sheeple and welcome the agents of change in all the various ways that they are encroaching on your civil liberties just don't regret it when the system of controls that are cleverly being foisted on your country make life in your country very interesting to say the least.

 

[big_tank_boy]

What u keep saying is they are gona ban the harmful fish...... they will probly ban all cichlids, bichirs, lung fish, most catfish, stingrays, and most preditory fish. we will probly be left with some tetras and some barbs....... im not saying thats bad im just sayin that u think there only gona take away not to many fish but in reallity 90% of the fish we keep could start to be able to adapt and chage so they can live in the colder climate....... the thing is if the hr669 is passed there not gona go be like this ones not to bad so we wont ban it....... if theres any way it could affect any part of the US they will ban it............

 

[cguarino30]

okay, so lets say inexperienced hobbyists wont be able to buy XXX fish anymore because its been restricted. wont they still be able to be just as uncaring and unethical with a legal fish? what are you accomplishing? youre still back at the drawing board.

kinda like with the gun example you used earlier, where a hunter would support a handgun ban. you can ban all handguns if you like, but cant a murder still be committed with a rifle????? same scenario

The difference is that while it is still possible, it would be more likely. There are many kinds of abuse. Many people buy fish that will get too large for them, not realizing it, or buy fish that have specific needs that they can't meet, like food and water quality. In a post-669 market, these fish would be much harder to raise, and thus, much more expensive. The cheaper fish would be easier to care for and raise (and most likely smaller as well) and thus less likely to end up in the inappropriate tank of a well-meaning, but ignorant aquarist. And if someone is going to INTENTIONALLY abuse a fish, I'd rather it be a cheap fish and not a rare fish that we don't need in the hobby for genetic variability in establishing captive breeding programs.

I'm not saying this bill will magically fix any problems, I'm saying it would encourage people, on some level, to have more appropriate practices.

 

[chefjamesscott]

okay, so lets say inexperienced hobbyists wont be able to buy XXX fish anymore because its been restricted. wont they still be able to be just as uncaring and unethical with a legal fish? what are you accomplishing? youre still back at the drawing board.

kinda like with the gun example you used earlier, where a hunter would support a handgun ban. you can ban all handguns if you like, but cant a murder still be committed with a rifle????? same scenario

brother give me a file a hacksaw and 1 hour and I have a handgun

 

[cguarino30]

What u keep saying is they are gona ban the harmful fish...... they will probly ban all cichlids, bichirs, lung fish, most catfish, stingrays, and most preditory fish. we will probly be left with some tetras and some barbs....... im not saying thats bad im just sayin that u think there only gona take away not to many fish but in reallity 90% of the fish we keep could start to be able to adapt and chage so they can live in the colder climate....... the thing is if the hr669 is passed there not gona go be like this ones not to bad so we wont ban it....... if theres any way it could affect any part of the US they will ban it............

Why would they ban a fish for being predatory? Unless it eats people, it's not a threat to anything except other fish. They're trying to ban fish that would be able to establish themselves in the US environment. Most of the fish you listed wouldn't survive over the winter in most of the country, or at least wouldn't be able to create viable populations.

 

[jcardona1]

The difference is that while it is still possible, it would be more likely. There are many kinds of abuse. Many people buy fish that will get too large for them, not realizing it, or buy fish that have specific needs that they can't meet, like food and water quality. In a post-669 market, these fish would be much harder to raise, and thus, much more expensive. The cheaper fish would be easier to care for and raise (and most likely smaller as well) and thus less likely to end up in the inappropriate tank of a well-meaning, but ignorant aquarist. And if someone is going to INTENTIONALLY abuse a fish, I'd rather it be a cheap fish and not a rare fish that we don't need in the hobby for genetic variability in establishing captive breeding programs.

I'm not saying this bill will magically fix any problems, I'm saying it would encourage people, on some level, to have more appropriate practices.

so now we get to pick and choose which fish should get abused? reminds me a little of the folks that scream bloody murder when they read about slaughter houses while they eating some KFC!!!