I hope HR 669 Passes

[Allan01230]

cguarino30 every one has a right to his opinion and beleive the way he wants. You agree with HR 669 fine. This is a forum for tropical fish mainly monster fish. Why would you waste so much time answering all these members if you really could care less if you had tropicals or native as you stated? I would say 95% of the members on here are oppossed to this bill. If we were on a PETA forum it would be the other way around. Right?

 

[MN_Rebel]

The problem is that most government isnt excatly "fish" smart and they sure dont want give endangered goodeid species to us aquarists.

 

[cguarino30]

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.

Disagreeing with everyone that doesn't agree with me is a little hard to avoid. I've already listed everything I consider to be overly dramatic, but I will do it again here:

I am like people who allowed the Nazis to come to power
I want to see the hobby destroyed
This bill will cause the Pet Industry to collapse
This bill is a violation of basic human rights
etc

If I skip points, I apologize, it is not intentional, it is due to the fact that I am having trouble keeping up with a very large number of people that disagree with me, and a very few that support me.

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.

That sounds a lot like everyone here, to be honest. I already stated at length that I think the true cause of this problem is hobbyists who don't do enough to fix the situation that is causing the general public to ask the government to regulate these things for us. If we stopped trying to save every last dollar we could, and instead made a little more effort to do the right thing, we wouldn't be in this mess to begin with.

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.

This is perfectly true, and I don't disagree in any way, but I would like to reiterate my last point, that if the hobbyists made more of an effort to prevent these situations, get information out there, properly inform hobbyists, and most importantly, to pressure the big pet businesses into doing the same.

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.

I agree wholeheartedly, I personally believe that this kind of regulation is best done on a state-by-state basis, but still prefer national regulation to no regulation at all, since few states have the resources to properly enforce importation laws.

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.

Again I am seeing phrases like "can turn." If we don't support the laws further down the line, we will be able to oppose them. I don't see why people think they need to oppose the first law, just because they think the ninth would be unfair. Draw the line where you want to draw the line, but you can't argue against any one law just because you don't approve the one that "can turn" into another one, 5 laws down the line.

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!

In that case, I would argue that if the people do not approve this bill, then it will not pass, so people who are of your position should be confident that whatever happens, it is the result of the people's will.

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.

I agree, but again, I feel that all of this is irrelevant to the argument at hand (I understand why you don't and am not telling you to change your mind, I am only asking you to see why I might believe that laws should be looked at individually, not generalized with all the other laws we disagree with)

 

[cguarino30]

The problem is that most government isnt excatly "fish" smart and they sure dont want give endangered goodeid species to us aquarists.

If they're not fish smart, they shouldn't be too hard to trick. "No officer, that's not a xenotaca eiseni, that's an orange-tailed molly" (not that I think they could possibly enforce this law, anyway) I realize some of us don't want to do this, but I am more than willing to bend the law to save a species, and since this thread is about why I am not concerned about HR 669, I think it's a valid point.

 

[cguarino30]

cguarino30 every one has a right to his opinion and beleive the way he wants. You agree with HR 669 fine. This is a forum for tropical fish mainly monster fish. Why would you waste so much time answering all these members if you really could care less if you had tropicals or native as you stated? I would say 95% of the members on here are oppossed to this bill. If we were on a PETA forum it would be the other way around. Right?

I answered these questions earlier, but I will answer it again for the sake of not ignoring this post

1) I don't like holding my tongue, and I have been doing so for quite some time due to threat of massive backlash

2) Very few peopel were considering the good points of the bill, and I thought we owed it to ourselves to take a good reflective look regarding these. I feel that too often, people decide that they don't like something, and then resolve themselves to ignoring any of the good points it might have

3) and most importantly, I was tired of feeling like the only rational person in the debate, and wanted to see if there was at least one other person I could relate to

Also, I recently lost my job and am really bored now, so I turned to one of my favorite pasttimes: arguing with everyone in sight about something that only I think is true. I think it would be hard to say what PETA's position on this bill is, and I don't really want to speculate.

 

[AU_Arowana-RG]

Right, like constantly reiterating your point makes you more rational than everyone else...

 

[cguarino30]

Right, like constantly reiterating your point makes you more rational than everyone else...

First of all, I only reiterate my point because new people show up and make the same claims again, and if I don't, I'm accused of ignoring good points, and to be honest, constantly reiterating my point DOES kinda make me more rational. I have the patience and rationality to see the logic necessary to defend my position, repeatedly, and against massive opposition. I don't give in to frustration and resort to yelling at everyone else on this site, insinuating that people like them caused the holocaust, or questioning their dedication to the hobby. I patiently and calmly make my point again. What is your defintion or rational?

This thread is about why I don't feel HR 669 is as bad as everyone else seems to. It is not about what anyone else should believe or should not believe. If someone makes an argument to me that I disagree with, I will rationally state why I disagree, regardless of how many times someone else tells me why they think I'm wrong. Not acquiescing to the opinions of others (no matter how loud or how many) doesn't make me irrational. It makes me stubborn.

 

[packer43064]

I will not keep darters and the like of what you said. I will not be satisfied by these fish. I think 95% of the MFK'ers here and other fish keepers will not be satisfied by these fish.

This is MFK, MONSTER fish keepers, we want big exotic fish. Why does our government have to stick us with mollies, guppies and goldfish. Some people like these fish, perfectly fine with me if they do. But what about the other 5 million people who get screwed. Is it fair for them?

Like any other fish keeper I don't want people to be throwing their fish out in the wild and etc. but just because snakeheads and some species can mess with our native fish doesn't mean we need to end all fish keeping.

Also for the person who said we were being dramatic and that they were from Australia. Saying that we would get used to it like Australia did. Do you know what country this is. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, we will not stand for this. Americans have bled and put everything into this country. We value our beliefs and our families, for all of the things our forefathers have done for this country do you really think we will stand for this monstrocity of a bill. Ask any American about this bill(that actually has read or knows what it entails) and 98% of them would do anything to stop this bill. America will not stand for this to happen. We have last time I checked 50k members or so and literally 9.999/10 would do anything to stop this bill. Heck I would march on Washington D.C. with signs and everything.

I just don't see how you can think that this bill is good for the U.S. Sure it will stop some invasive species, but now almsot every MFK is partaking in an illegal act. I want a Silver aro(I really do) and no law is going to stop me. It's a dang silver aro for gosh sakes. Like I said , this is America were not push-overs. Just because some politician is scared of a snakehead(LOL) doesn't mean they should ban all fish besides some mollies and goldfish.

There I feel good now. Just let it out people, you will feel good after.

 

[Cholly]

cguarino30, you were not accused of Nazi thinking, you were accused of thinking in the manner that allowed the Nazis to take power. Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. See if this rings any bells:

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]In Germany they first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant.

Then they came for me —
and by that time no one was left to speak up.[/SIZE][/FONT][/FONT]​

[FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]Pastor Martin Niemöller[/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]

This is a poorly crafted bill. It was aimed well, the special interests behind it found a perfect sponsor, a Delegate from a US possession that had been devastated by an invasive species, the brown tree snake. The thing is, this is aimed at the pet industry but many of the examples they use, zebra mussels, brown tree snakes(both tagalongs) and the fearsome northern snakehead(imported as a food fish) were NOT imported by the pet industry, yet it and the hobbyists it serves are the ones who will bear the brunt of it, financially and emotionally.
[/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]
[/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]Read the bill. In it's entirety, because it is blatantly obvious you have only scanned it and taken what you wanted to understand of it rather than read and attempt to understand what is really there in legal language.

Goldfish are the ONLY non-native fish NOT banned until further study. You may not PURCHASE, SELL, TRADE, GIVE, TRANSPORT ACROSS STATE LINES(if you move), BREED OR ALLOW TO BREED any of the animals not on the approved list. Even if a fish you wish to breed gets onto the "approved" list, they will STILL be unmailable. Some of these species are already extinct in the wild, by the time they can get approved, any breeding stock left that is LEGALLY kept under "grandfathering" provided for under the bill might be too old to actually breed. So either we have to depend on people breaking the law or risk losing species.
This is a bad bill. The brush stroke is way too wide. Banning needs to be state by state, what is invasive in one state may or may not be invasive in another. Snakeheads are a perfect example, 22 species, 2 of which are capable of surviving in most of the US. The invasive species weren't even brought as pets, they were brought as food fish, "poor man's lobster", yet all 22 species were banned by the federal government. Where is the logic in that?!? Keep the federal government out of it, they haven't a clue.
You do not see it as an infringement of a "basic right". I see it as an infringement of rights, period. I am a veteran, I am a second generation fishkeeper and I take this bill personally.
[/FONT][FONT=Callisto MT,Georgia,Book Antiqua,Palatino,Times New Roman,Serif]

[/FONT]

Totally ignored this post because it isn't one of the weaker posts. Actual facts are used. No swearing or name calling. Yes, the bolded part could be construed as a personal attack. It is not. It is a challenge. Read the bill, the whole bill and nothing but the bill. You make assumptions about the bill. I have read and studied the entire thing and it scares the whey out of me.
I agree that something needs to be done but HR669 is overly simplistic. Anything overly simplistic at the federal level has disaster written all over it. You say you have no problems "bending the law" to save protected species. My point is, that if this poorly crafted hunk of garbage does pass, we will have to depend on lawbreaking to save species. Absolutely, utterly, and totally unacceptable. We can guarantee that we will lose species because it will have to be done on an individual basis, no one individual has the resources to save all the species and coordination of efforts would be near to, if not actually, impossible to carry out due to the illegality of the effort. Wake up! Ever hear of something called the RICO Act*? It could actually be used against such an effort. After Ashcroft, do you really doubt that it would not be?

*Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act

 

[Thalan]

Step 6: Jack booted soldiers bust down doors based on info gleaned from sites such as this to confiscate and destroy illegal contraband and fine or detain you for breaking federal law.

Not quite. I'm pretty sure the bill mentions that individuals can keep what they already have, they just cant buy sell move blah blah blah