I think you do not get the jest of most here on this forum, its not at all implied as a conspiracy theory here but there would have to be another branch of gov. to take care of this, its plain and simple, there will allways be the bad along with the good, that has been and will be the way it is, I myself want to be free and not live in a policed nation on every little thing, which will happen if everyone lets it happen. As far as kicking down your door, it does happen already, if someone accuses me of have illegal meat in my freezer (without a licence, deer, racoon ect.) they can break my door down and look to see whats in the freezer just because of hearsay, how be it that it's not common but it does happen.CLDarnell;4903446; said:
Shark license
- Thread starter blackghostknife
- Start date
I understand...and I think you get me wrong. I am not for more government control obviously. My point is, if it comes to a choice of having to buy a license or not having one (whatever "one" is), I would buy a license. Much like my dogs I mentioned...I want them and I am willing to pay to have them.
My ironic reply made above was because it seemed everyone was getting all worked up over the thought of government involvement. Just like your illegal deer meat...there isn't a seperate, isolated Government organization controlling and maintaining the possession of deer. It's all being handled by the various State Department of Wildlife, Fish and Game, etc. You buy a license to hunt deer and I am pretty sure you're not concerned that anyone is going to break down your door. But, if you poached one, I am pretty sure the thought would enter your mind
Sort of the same thing here. If I wanted to keep a Snakehead, I would buy a license if there was one available. And back to the original topic, I don't think everyone should have the opportunity to simply buy a shark because they want one. Size, breathing style, etc. all are considerations.
Simply put, fish keepers are a pretty small number...sort of a niche hobby (when compared to say the number of dog owners). It's easy for the Government to say "no" when the majority of the population isn't truly effected by the outcome. For example, I am sure my neighbor really doesn't care that I can't keep a Snakehead...but, being an avid fisherman, I am sure he would care to no end knowing that his favorite water hole was being over-run by an invasive, predatory species.
Maybe the option of buying a license to keep "exotics" is a good alternative to the simple no. The livestock themselves get at least a small degree of protection and the perspective owner has, at least, a small amount of legal responsibility.
I really don't see the issue.
My ironic reply made above was because it seemed everyone was getting all worked up over the thought of government involvement. Just like your illegal deer meat...there isn't a seperate, isolated Government organization controlling and maintaining the possession of deer. It's all being handled by the various State Department of Wildlife, Fish and Game, etc. You buy a license to hunt deer and I am pretty sure you're not concerned that anyone is going to break down your door. But, if you poached one, I am pretty sure the thought would enter your mind
Sort of the same thing here. If I wanted to keep a Snakehead, I would buy a license if there was one available. And back to the original topic, I don't think everyone should have the opportunity to simply buy a shark because they want one. Size, breathing style, etc. all are considerations.
Simply put, fish keepers are a pretty small number...sort of a niche hobby (when compared to say the number of dog owners). It's easy for the Government to say "no" when the majority of the population isn't truly effected by the outcome. For example, I am sure my neighbor really doesn't care that I can't keep a Snakehead...but, being an avid fisherman, I am sure he would care to no end knowing that his favorite water hole was being over-run by an invasive, predatory species.
Maybe the option of buying a license to keep "exotics" is a good alternative to the simple no. The livestock themselves get at least a small degree of protection and the perspective owner has, at least, a small amount of legal responsibility.
I really don't see the issue.
I see your point, but not in favor of the government looking over my shoulder for something like this. But to each their own.
If you guys really want to know the truth about how a law like this would affect someone in the real world just give Sharkdealer a pm or a call. I am sure he could give you an ear full. Now in cali were he lives there is a license you need to have a charcharinus shark. Now he is more than qualified to keep one of these sharks but still had a huge issue getting a permit. Trust me its not good for us shark keepers. And you know what my favorite part about the whole cali thing is? I watch the show wild justice on nat geo and two officers take a blacktip reef from a pet shop and through it in a small rectangle cooler with no air stone and about 6" of water. Now thats the way to transport an ORV shark. Just goes to show that govt officials are no better then us.
I think that this 5 minute clip says it all.
http://www.myspace.com/video/national-geographic/seizing-sharks/107203614
http://www.myspace.com/video/national-geographic/seizing-sharks/107203614
Actually most animal restrictions & licenses are done at the state or county levels of government - not the federal level. Which is the way it needs to be.
Still I agree getting the government on any level involved is not a good idea - unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary.
Still I agree getting the government on any level involved is not a good idea - unless it's ABSOLUTELY necessary.
where i live they actually have to do that if you own any exotic animals like monkeys or tigers and stuff like that but unfortunatly not sharks or any aquatic exotic animal
alprazo;4905224; said:
Thanks for putting that up Carmen. If these guys still don't get it then there is no hope for them.
One question I do have for these guys in favor of a shark licenses, is what are your feelings on redtail catfish, bumble bee groupers, alligator gar, African tiger fish, motoro sting rays, arapaima, green morays, and the list goes on. Now all of these are aggressive fish the reach sizes of 4' of larger. Should they need a license too? If so can you guys please go over to the other boards and let them know they should have license to keep their pets. I would bet most of their reactions wouldn't be much different then ours.
turbo253;4904762; said:
Since Greg doesn't post too much, I'll say something for ya Josh.
IT SUCKS TRYING TO GET PERMITS. Even as a public facility, I've been turned down for things that are somewhat 'simple' - and not just where I am now.
Good Point - Matt.
Also another thing which is specific to all exotic animal laws or restrictions. When comes to writing laws or restrictions - law makers often go overboard in their restrictions. For example - in California restricting all carcharhinids, not just the Bull shark. Or look at most laws which restrict the keeping of exotic wild cats - which clearly should be designed to restrict the keeping of large dangerous cats (ie Lions, Tigers & Leopards) - but often such laws include smaller exotic cats like Servals, Caracals, & Ocelots.
Actually certain states already have some restrictions concerning the keeping of sharks by private aquarists. California, Utah, and Neveda are the mildest of these only restricting the keeping of Carcharhinids. Arizona on the other hand restricts the keeping of all sharks except those best suited for home aquaria -like Epaulettes, bamboos, & catsharks. Hawaii requires permits for Epaulettes, Horn Sharks, Nurse Sharks, Leopard Sharks, Blind sharks, Blacktip Reef & Whitetip reef sharks.
Also another thing which is specific to all exotic animal laws or restrictions. When comes to writing laws or restrictions - law makers often go overboard in their restrictions. For example - in California restricting all carcharhinids, not just the Bull shark. Or look at most laws which restrict the keeping of exotic wild cats - which clearly should be designed to restrict the keeping of large dangerous cats (ie Lions, Tigers & Leopards) - but often such laws include smaller exotic cats like Servals, Caracals, & Ocelots.
Actually certain states already have some restrictions concerning the keeping of sharks by private aquarists. California, Utah, and Neveda are the mildest of these only restricting the keeping of Carcharhinids. Arizona on the other hand restricts the keeping of all sharks except those best suited for home aquaria -like Epaulettes, bamboos, & catsharks. Hawaii requires permits for Epaulettes, Horn Sharks, Nurse Sharks, Leopard Sharks, Blind sharks, Blacktip Reef & Whitetip reef sharks.
