messiner;591603; said:slim to none, you could do it sure. so FW comes a nockin on your door. "i have a complaint here that says your keeping illegal fish, may i come in?". "no, i dont have any illegal fish and would not like you to enter my home" *shuts door*
2nd senario- hes in your home he points to the fish and says "thats a snakehead!"
"no, i bought it at petco as a pike cichlid" OR "hey! thats a piranah!". "no, i bought from petco as a pacu" its too easy
and how many officials know how to tell the difference from a pacu and piranah, seriously
milkman407;591604; said:
This is a really good debate!!! It deserves its own thread but Milkman is on his way to having the longest thread on MFK so what ever helps out
I would like to add that Mapp vs. Ohio was not extended to the fish and game commission. Game wardens can enter your house for no apparent reason. All they need is an "annonomous tip" that a wildlife violation had occurred. Law enforcement agencies use this loophole to get warrantless entries when gathering compelling evidence for a warrant is near impossible (or time constraints is an issue). Here is the important part You will NEVER see this happen on your doorstep unless you are doing something very illegal. This tactic is reserved for the most serious of crimes. Law enforcement agencies are not about to lose this tool by letting it go through the upper court system. If they use it too often, they will eventually lose it. They are not going to risk it on something petty like a fish that you can bring home from an afternoon fishing trip. Now if you go blabbing about your illegal fish on the internet and posting pictures of it or them, that is a different story. If you are catching them locally and selling them across state borders, that is also a different story. If the average cop has the right to be in your house and sees your fish, he has to reasonably believe what you have is illegal. In other words he has to know what species are illegal. That is outside the scope of normal police work. Chances are he is not going to care about a tank of fish. Piranhas are way too obvious. If you have Pacus, they are close enough to warrant a trip down town. You will not be convicted thanks to DNA testing, but your fish will not survive the ordeal either. The evidence locker does not maintain a fish tank but they do have a freezer.
ok, so this turned out to be way too long...
lol i'll start this thread in the lounge when i get home from school.
and I am writing the court system to make sure you can't adopt either 
in that order 