I think you should have to have a licence to keep any kind of fish that is not native to your country incase you become bored with your pet and let it loose into a stream or river!
Start an argument thread!
- Thread starter puffcrusader696
- Start date
Then we get the government further involved in our hobby? Frankly the government is in waaaaaaaay too much of my life the way it is. No thanks. What comes next fish taxes to support that branch of the government. Higher taxes on this fish than that fish. No thanks.
If your a genuine fish lover you would not mind paying for a license and protecting the species in the rivers that are native to your country.
Maybe a license could protect this poor pet!
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2009/03/snakeheads_fate.html
Maybe a license could protect this poor pet!
http://blog.syracuse.com/opinion/2009/03/snakeheads_fate.html
Just remember a license can "prevent" a pet too. Once authority has been given you never know where it will lead.
Ullopincrate;2859247; said:
If I had to pay taxes or a decnt amount of money to get a fish tha's not in the U.S. I might as well quit fish keeping. There are alot of people on MFK who don't have much money, we shouldn't get screwed with keeping Convicts until were 25 and can get a good paying job.
Ullopincrate;2859127; said:
srikamaraja;2859178; said:
Think of it in these terms. You start a Job and sign a contractual agreement to work there for a year. The market fails and the company suffers. failure of the company has nothing to do with you. The company then says, well, since the company didn't fare well this year, we are not going to pay you the rest of your money.
keep in mind, yes, most CEOs have their bonuses tied directly to performance. But some of the bonus is given just to entice them into coming to a company. To boil it down, a contract is a contract. They should be paid if there isn't a performance based clause written into the contract.
Sometime, not always, CEOs get a raw deal. Granted, they are paid to be the frontman of a company. But if the people working below him fail to perform their duties, he is still the one that has to pay the price. Not all CEOs are as currupt as the media would like you to believe.
iamkarlo;2859220; said:
that is really mean to take away a guys pet that he has had for 10 yrs... people dont understand that a fish is as much of a pet as a dog or cat...
on the CEO bonus argument... ofcourse they should get bonuses... I once heard the CEO of Corning Inc. (woo!! they put Corning, NY on the map!) say that they give bonuses to keep the big shots they have there... if they didnt give huge bonuses they would lose those people to other companies that pays higher. they give their bonuses so they can keep their best people from the competition. if Corning Inc. stopped giving bonuses a long time ago all their top scientists would have left and another company would have invented catalytic converters and fiber optics... corning would not even be a city and Corning inc. would have failed...
SpJc11;2864354; said:
that would be a load of crap but dont they already have a gov't branch that could handle part so we wouldnt have to pay taxes? and couldnt the EPA do that too? so we wouldnt have to pay taxes?
