RED ALERT!!! Prepare to FIGHT!

[kamikaziechameleon]

I think he should ban dogs, cats, horses, cattle, goats, sheep, poultry, parrots, lamas, alpacas, swine, and fish from being kept in captivity, because they are all dangerous to the environment and people

just my 2 cents

I think the solution for large snakes that get 12ft plus should be that people are required to register them and be inspected annually to be sure they have the proper means, registration would just be a small fee and list of animals in your possession

While I don't think the inspection is even reasonable I think that they could overcome some of this with either soft regulation or hard penalties. Make it a offense to release an animal with some real bite in the penalty and now your talking. You could always chip the animals in question so when they are recovered in the wild the owner gets a hefty fine or something. I don't know but there are a dozen more reasonable solutions than the ones that they provide in this law.

 

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

for those suggesting permits, and think its a good idea and they will leave it alone, look at this page....

http://www.felineconservation.org/fcf/Pennsylvania.htm

the second article is showing out current law, and the difficulties of getting the rediculous permit. then the first article is showing what some want to do with it now. this is what will happen in the entire US if permits are offered. guarantee. it will become more and more difficult to get the permit before they just outright ban them like they are attempting to here.

 

[ScatMan]

While I don't think the inspection is even reasonable I think that they could overcome some of this with either soft regulation or hard penalties. Make it a offense to release an animal with some real bite in the penalty and now your talking. You could always chip the animals in question so when they are recovered in the wild the owner gets a hefty fine or something. I don't know but there are a dozen more reasonable solutions than the ones that they provide in this law.

the permits and chips do nothing to prevent or solve the "problem".

people will still release their pets into the wild if they wish, permit or not, they could just say that their pet was stolen and then they're off the hook. it's the same way that people sell licensed and serialized firearms to people that can't buy them legally. you can't be held liable for something that was "stolen" from you.

permits just add extra cost to the animal (only for people that follow the law and get a permit) and everyone will have to pay more in tax dollars to pay the salaries of the officers and clerks that make the permits up and "enforce" the laws.

chips are useless too for the same reasons above. and what about the babies, they're not born with chips in them. it only adds cost to the people trying to do the right thing, the bad guy is completely unaffected.

 

[ScatMan]

The Burmese python grow extremely slow, have a very low survival rate, and maybe eat 8-9 meals a YEAR in the wild.
Vs.
The multitude of invasive aquarium fish in Florida, from oscars to peacock bass to snakeheads.

I believe there's over 30 invasive fish species in Florida compared to the one, maybe two, invasive snake species in the Florida. Which group really posses a larger threat to the ecosystem? Because I'm sure no one here wants their tropcal fish banned just because they can live in a subtropical climate like Florida but could never survive outside of that.

peacock bass were actually introduced by the state to promote sport fishing.

if you think these people know what they're doing, you're dumber than they are!!!

(that's a rhetorical statement, not aimed at you brewster)

 

[ScatMan]

I think the government is getting a little too involved with these things. Granted the average Joe shouldn't be allowed to make impulse buys with these kind of animals (and a long list of others),

why not, who are you or anyone else to tell "average joe" how to spend his money? if average joe screws up, that's when you go after him, not before.

so I'm not really against needing permits, licensing, etc for certain animals...

you should be because they do nothing! see my above post

but trying to stop the transport and importation outright? C'mon, get real. If someone wants the animal, can buy, house and care for it probably, why the hell should a 3rd party get involved and limit/stop that? The time and energy is better spent elsewhere... how about stopping the pet shop near my house that sells "blind goldfish", a process that takes normal, healthy fish and removes their eyes to make a new sellable item.

that's a great idea, if it bothers you so bad YOU should go down to that pet store and ask (not force) them to stop selling them fish, OR protest outside the store that they are treating animals cruelly. i bet they stop selling them if you do that!

you'll get the job done better than the government ever will and you'll probably win over a few minds on the way!

you see, this is a big deal to you, not everyone. instead of trying to figure out how government should spend everyones money the way you want it spent, you should spend your own time and money, show us how much it bothers you when your money is up for the taking!

i'm sure single mothers with lots of bills would rather keep their tax dollars and spend it on what's important to them. blind goldfish are likely their last priority.

I mean, doesn't going after animal cruelty seem like a better way to spend money, rather than hindering a hobby and economic income for half-dozen ass backwards reasons?

yes, but who are we to tell people where to spend their money at all. it's replacing a "really bad idea" with a "bad idea". i say pay for your ideas yourself.

remember, gandhi said "be the change you wish to see in the world"

 

[black_sun]

Where....? I don't see it, lol.

Good, let's stay with that then. No, no typo at all. Move along now... lol


("C'mon, get real. If someone wants the animal, can buy, house and care for it probably..."

I wrote "probably" instead of "properly".)

 

[black_sun]

why not, who are you or anyone else to tell "average joe" how to spend his money? if average joe screws up, that's when you go after him, not before.

I think there's a right when the average joe can have the ability to buy an animal(s) that can pose a risk to themselves or other people. Though, truthfully the "risk to themselves" part I personally could care less about, but it'll always be incorporated in whatever legislature is written on the subject. If the average joe can prove that they have the means to properly care for, house and protect themselves, the public and the animal(s) they can buy whatever the hell they want and I don't give a damn. But if they can't, I think there's the right for involvement to limit or stop it outright.

you should be because they do nothing! see my above post

You're right, in those instances they do nothing. They don't stop people from releasing animals, they don't make people face the penalties from those actions, but if the process was something other than "here, sign this piece of paper" and more a matter of proving knowledge, ability, etc as is the case with some species of animals... Then the average joe isn't going to get overwhelmed by an animal that can't be provided for properly and it isn't going to get dumped. I mean, it's stupid that I have to make someone fill out a permit when they buy a damn tree frog from me at work, it's a damn frog. Stuff like that needs to go, but stuff also needs to stay in place or be stricter for other things. Shouldn't be stopped outright, that's asinine, but so is removing it altogether. Everything as it stands is FUBAR and needs to be reevaluated and redone, but not removed altogether.

that's a great idea, if it bothers you so bad YOU should go down to that pet store and ask (not force) them to stop selling them fish, OR protest outside the store that they are treating animals cruelly. i bet they stop selling them if you do that!

you'll get the job done better than the government ever will and you'll probably win over a few minds on the way!

No, not really. They've been a staple item there for several years despite the number of requests, a few protests (not just for the fish) and being listed on the NJSPCA list of questionable operations. There's more of a demand for things like that then there is a resistance. Until that weight shifts, it's actions falling on deaf ears.

you see, this is a big deal to you, not everyone. instead of trying to figure out how government should spend everyones money the way you want it spent, you should spend your own time and money, show us how much it bothers you when your money is up for the taking!

"Everyone's" money is inclusive of my own, therefore I can voice how I want it to be spent or rather how I think it should be spent in the case of a particular instance. My money is up for the taking, it's my tax dollars, it's my income from the business and my spending when I purchase animals/permits/licenses. I have the right to mull over and voice how I think the government should spend the money, change or not change the processes, etc. Doesn't mean it has to be spent that way, I'm just one voice with one opinion and I acknowledge that.

i'm sure single mothers with lots of bills would rather keep their tax dollars and spend it on what's important to them. blind goldfish are likely their last priority.

Comparing apples to oranges doesn't really serve a purpose. The needs of single mothers with "lots of bills", though a pressing issue, has no bearing on a thread that's about adding new species of constrictors the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act and subsequently the discussion of permits, licenses, how the government could spend the money elsewhere within the industry (and related areas) and so forth. It doesn't make for an effective analogy when we're not talking about the money of all taxes, all government funds, all spending... otherwise, blind goldfish, 9 new species of constrictors, etc would be the least of almost all of our concerns.

tyes, but who are we to tell people where to spend their money at all. it's replacing a "really bad idea" with a "bad idea". i say pay for your ideas yourself.

I think I covered that for the most part in the first section.

 

[ScatMan]

I think there's a right when the average joe can have the ability to buy an animal(s) that can pose a risk to themselves or other people. Though, truthfully the "risk to themselves" part I personally could care less about, but it'll always be incorporated in whatever legislature is written on the subject. If the average joe can prove that they have the means to properly care for, house and protect themselves, the public and the animal(s) they can buy whatever the hell they want and I don't give a damn. But if they can't, I think there's the right for involvement to limit or stop it outright.

there are all types of things people can hurt you with. simply because it can hurt someone else doesn't mean you should need a permit to buy it, if this were the case you would need a permit for just about anything and where do you draw the line? dogs, cats, baseballs, hockey sticks, kitchen knives?

a permit won't stop or reduce your risk of getting hurt because people simply wont get permits!

You're right, in those instances they do nothing. They don't stop people from releasing animals, they don't make people face the penalties from those actions, but if the process was something other than "here, sign this piece of paper" and more a matter of proving knowledge, ability, etc as is the case with some species of animals... Then the average joe isn't going to get overwhelmed by an animal that can't be provided for properly and it isn't going to get dumped. I mean, it's stupid that I have to make someone fill out a permit when they buy a damn tree frog from me at work, it's a damn frog. Stuff like that needs to go, but stuff also needs to stay in place or be stricter for other things. Shouldn't be stopped outright, that's asinine, but so is removing it altogether. Everything as it stands is FUBAR and needs to be reevaluated and redone, but not removed altogether.

this isn't complicated, people will not get a permit. if they want something and can't get a permit, they'll buy it anyway! it doesn't matter how perfect the permit is, it's always more than easy to just not get one.

only responsible people will go through the hassle of getting a permit but we don't need to worry about the responsible people. it's a waste.

No, not really. They've been a staple item there for several years despite the number of requests, a few protests (not just for the fish) and being listed on the NJSPCA list of questionable operations. There's more of a demand for things like that then there is a resistance. Until that weight shifts, it's actions falling on deaf ears.

if you don't have the persuasive capacity, ingenuity or resources to convince them to stop it, then it doesn't deserve to be stopped imo. i don't like the practice either but sometimes you don't get what you want.

"Everyone's" money is inclusive of my own, therefore I can voice how I want it to be spent or rather how I think it should be spent in the case of a particular instance. My money is up for the taking, it's my tax dollars, it's my income from the business and my spending when I purchase animals/permits/licenses. I have the right to mull over and voice how I think the government should spend the money, change or not change the processes, etc. Doesn't mean it has to be spent that way, I'm just one voice with one opinion and I acknowledge that.

wouldn't you rather not pay the tax and spend that saved tax money how you want? i'm sure most other people would too. they steal our money (yours and ours) and they squander it on crap like this!!!

if we stopped bickering about how it should be spent and just demanded it back, we wouldn't have these problems to bicker over at all. you could spend it however you wish!

Comparing apples to oranges doesn't really serve a purpose. The needs of single mothers with "lots of bills", though a pressing issue, has no bearing on a thread that's about adding new species of constrictors the Injurious Wildlife list of the Lacey Act and subsequently the discussion of permits, licenses, how the government could spend the money elsewhere within the industry (and related areas) and so forth. It doesn't make for an effective analogy when we're not talking about the money of all taxes, all government funds, all spending... otherwise, blind goldfish, 9 new species of constrictors, etc would be the least of almost all of our concerns.

WHAT, i'm not comparing anything to anything!?!?

i think you missed my point; give the tax money back or don't take it at all. that way you can spend the otherwise "tax money" on what's important to you.

see, no comparisons or fruit.

 

[clubtastic]

Whats next? A Komodo dragon in the everglades?

 

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

WTH are you talking about dude??