I hope HR 669 Passes

[benzjamin13]

With the ban on "invasive speices"...look at what happened to Snakeheads. C. Argus was the main problem and they ended up banning all Channa and Parachanna species even though most probably wouldn't be able to survive the winter. They're not going to go species by species, they're going to ban the whole family. Some states already have certain bans on fish that are legal in other parts of the states. Could you imagine the impact on those states such as California or Florida? There really wouldn't be any fish, reptile, or bird that would be allowed in those states.

While many lfs may make their main profit off of supplies and accessories, they get their business from carrying live stock. They probably sell more live stock if anything too. Even though they may not make the most profit off their live stock, I'm sure if you compare their sales, it would probably account for at least 15%-20% of their profit. And any business would know, that's a pretty big profit margin to lose. And with our current economy, we can't afford to lose anything that helps generate taxes and jobs.

 

[cguarino30]

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.

I have been objectively considering every point put forth here for hours, and have yet to make a single potshot. I see what you are saying, and I am generally the first person to raise a red flag at something like this. To be honest, I don't think it's the best solution to the problem, I'm just tired of everyone acting like there is no problem, and that this bill is based on nothing. Bottom line, I think we as hobbyists need to take steps to ensure more responsible practices in our hobby. We need to stop supporting stores that sell fish we don't approve of (like dyed or deformed fish) or who sell them without properly ensuring they are going to good homes, or who refuse to give out accurate information about eventual size, and in the event the fish makes it, refuse to take it back when it gets too big, forcing uninformed people to dump them in lakes. I realize that my title overstated this, but I was trying to get people's attention. My point is not that HR 669 is the best thing possible, it's that it's not a blight that based on nothing. It's a flawed idea to address a serious problem, and likening it to the holocaust and saying that there's no reason for it is as much an enabling of the problem as it is a defense of our freedoms.

Also, while I deeply love my hobby, and would do anything to defend my right to keep it, I would never describe it as a "basic freedom"

Yes, we have the right to keep these fish, but we also have the responsibility to keep them correctly, and if you look around, there are plenty of people around who are not doing that, and the rest of us are doing little, if anything, to stop them.

 

[cguarino30]

With the ban on "invasive speices"...look at what happened to Snakeheads. C. Argus was the main problem and they ended up banning all Channa and Parachanna species even though most probably wouldn't be able to survive the winter. They're not going to go species by species, they're going to ban the whole family. Some states already have certain bans on fish that are legal in other parts of the states. Could you imagine the impact on those states such as California or Florida? There really wouldn't be any fish, reptile, or bird that would be allowed in those states.

While many lfs may make their main profit off of supplies and accessories, they get their business from carrying live stock. They probably sell more live stock if anything too. Even though they may not make the most profit off their live stock, I'm sure if you compare their sales, it would probably account for at least 15%-20% of their profit. And any business would know, that's a pretty big profit margin to lose. And with our current economy, we can't afford to lose anything that helps generate taxes and jobs.

And look at what happened in Florida. Now there's a viable, wild population of Burmese Pythons loose, due to irresponsible keepers.

 

[jcardona1]

I have been objectively considering every point put forth here for hours, and have yet to make a single potshot. I see what you are saying, and I am generally the first person to raise a red flag at something like this. To be honest, I don't think it's the best solution to the problem, I'm just tired of everyone acting like there is no problem, and that this bill is based on nothing. Bottom line, I think we as hobbyists need to take steps to ensure more responsible practices in our hobby. We need to stop supporting stores that sell fish we don't approve of (like dyed or deformed fish) or who sell them without properly ensuring they are going to good homes, or who refuse to give out accurate information about eventual size, and in the event the fish makes it, refuse to take it back when it gets too big, forcing uninformed people to dump them in lakes. I realize that my title overstated this, but I was trying to get people's attention. My point is not that HR 669 is the best thing possible, it's that it's not a blight that based on nothing. It's a flawed idea to address a serious problem, and likening it to the holocaust and saying that there's no reason for it is as much an enabling of the problem as it is a defense of our freedoms.

Yes, we have the right to keep these fish, but we also have the responsibility to keep them correctly, and if you look around, there are plenty of people around who are not doing that, and the rest of us are doing little, if anything, to stop them.

haaaaaaaaaaa! i was right, i said since the beginning

 

[cguarino30]

haaaaaaaaaaa! i was right, i said since the beginning

You were not. You implied that I was pretending to believe something I did not really believe because I wanted attention. What I did was overstate my point in the title in order to bring attention to my actual position.

 

[benzjamin13]

As responsible hobbyist, we try to pass the word around on proper fish keeping. However, you tell someone that they need that $120 75g tank at Petsmart compared to the $50 30g tank for a single Oscar which their sign says, "30g+", they'll think you're crazy. And who will they listen to...a random guy or a store worker? I know we know more than most store workers, but think...how the public would look at it.

 

[cguarino30]

As responsible hobbyist, we try to pass the word around on proper fish keeping. However, you tell someone that they need that $120 75g tank at Petsmart compared to the $50 30g tank for a single Oscar which their sign says, "30g+", they'll think you're crazy. And who will they listen to...a random guy or a store worker? I know we know more than most store workers, but think...how the public would look at it.

That's exactly my point. If that oscar cost more money, wouldn't somebody be more willing to spend a little more to keep from having to buy a second one? Also, when I said "little, if anything", telling people they should "do this and that" is what I was referring to as "little." We don't stop buying from the store that lies to its customers about the fish's needs, do we? Most of us don't even bother to complain to the manager, or to the corporate headquarters. We just shrug our shoulders and move on to the discount flake aisle. My general point in this thread is that if we were all willing to give up a little bit in one way or the other, we may be able to make this hobby better than it's ever been, and yes, passing a restrictive law may not be the best way to do it, but maybe if we put a little more effort into shaping the hobby into something better, instead of saving our $10 and selfishly turning a blind eye, people wouldn't be trying to impose this legislation on us.

 

[chefjamesscott]

ah here I can whole heartedly agree with you it should be our mission to encourage responsible fishkeeping.

This is an activity that I am totally committed to and do my very best as a hobbiest to not only give my fish the best care, but also to make sure when I encounter another person who keeps pets to do my best to help them know how to do well by their pet and see if I can learn from them as well.

But legislations such as the one in concern are very very very very bad.

Have you ever seen the plan that the united nations has to establish a nature preserve right down the middle of north america?

There is a very great reason why those in the know are such proponents of opposing such legislation. It is the underlying things the people behind the scenes wish to accomplish with this, all they have to do is get people relaxed enough to accept it as a harmless law and be ignorant to the real agenda. After all it is the little holes that sink the big ships because of the force of water and the erosion it causes.

I will find a vid to show what I mean bbl next post

 

[big_tank_boy]

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.

the thing is they are trying to protect the native sp of fish which the fish will eat the thing is if it can live in florida there gona ban it for the whole US........ The part that make me think u didnt read the bill is if they dont eat people then they arnt gona ban it....... that is completely fualty thinking they want to preserve the native sps and if the fish threaten that they will ban them......

 

[chefjamesscott]

Ok so here is what I am trying to get across. Picture if you can that laws like this are the mineshaft being drilled, take a look at the damage done by one small hole in the sanctity of the mine, said mine representing personal freedoms and choice.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_feWtkSucvE

the wave of damage that will be done if this type of legislation passes is very much the same as this accident small damage but huge hurt in the end