I'm not at all defending OP -- and fully agreed he shouldn't have posted the location -- but imo If the OP really wanted to get somebody in trouble he doesn't need to come to MFK, he can likely do that quite easily with just a phone call or two (and let authorities do the final ID of the fish -- either way he'd still be causing trouble for the owner, if that was his intention). So basically let's not blame MFK or its regular members for any consequences here.
Insofar as the owner himself, SMH: if he's stupid or brazen enough to openly flout the law -- and in the process give the middle finger to hard working law enforcement, and basically do the same to all the law abiding citizens, incl. members of MFK who badly want to own an Asian Arowana but respect the law -- then we shouldn't be crying about it if he gets in trouble, he made his bed not us. Feel free to shed a tear, I frankly would not (though I wouldn't celebrate either).
Many in the US (justifiably) bemoan not being able to own Asian Arowanas and wish the law would change. While nobody's calling for witch hunts, let's be clear, enabling or protecting law breakers isn't going to get any laws changed, if anything these peeps make the process of changing the law even harder.
And sure they're different issues but I still find it funny how the same peeps who go on about illegal immigrants flouting the law in other threads, don't seem to mind at all about people flouting serious wildlife laws, SMH. But oh, we are the sacred brotherhood of monster fishkeepers, so let's look the other way (and then have a go at others who might not believe in this same approach, or who are simply trying to advise others not to break such laws).
And yes of course I feel super sorry for the fish if the owner were to get in trouble -- nobody (with possible exception of OP) here wants that. But let's also face this simple fact: if the owner (presuming of course he really doesn't have a permit, which nobody here seems to know 100% for sure), REALLY cared about this fish (and not in the sense of just good fish keeping practices), he would keep it at home, not show it off in full public view, SMH. To me that's just saying "Screw you USA and your laws."
Thank you for your reading anh understanding when you read... I disagreed with any oder that feel bad for the fish/ feel i want the fish destroyed, or event worst: i say where the fish at ( at I mentioned on the post ealiee: under my constitution right, i have to obligation to say what i dont like to say about the fish )
Let get back to the main purpose of this thread and put in the fews theory that may acceptable in some situations the fish legally can be owned instead of hijacking the topic:
A. What if a father if him pass away, and the fish already listed and included in the property transfer to the son, evenly that fish the father is owned illegally before he passed away, however, the son when to the Judge and listed all the property, gold, money, financial include the fish listed clearly during the transfer process with the Judge back then, the Judge then granted the son legally owned from whatever listed that belong to his father, now, today, is the fish totally fine and safe via that transferred court oder, the law enforcement cant do much because it granted with court oder.
•difference cased may or may not legally: the father and mother who US citizens in the US, bring the son from Singapore to the US in the legal way, the son in Singapore who owned a legal asian arowana which chipped and licensed, he may granted with the current law that prevent: buy/sell/transport the illegal fish when he doing property move to the US for legal immigration who know?
•so so many other similar cased we may discuss on here instead of saying a guy with a gun on the street totally exposed his gun and we, as a anti guns saying the guy breaking the law when he exposed his gun on the public but he totally fine to open carry? Would you interested when a guy open carry when you may never know he totally fine event the state is anti gun? That what i am here for and that what I appreciated “ilandguys” seeing my point, same with any other.
The owner of the fish display the fish there many years already, not few months guys, and i bet some member here know this fish, to those whoever know this fish a questions: how many of you thinking the fish is illegally own? Really for that long? Really he lucky nobody report when the restaurant servicing over 100 different customer everyday?
Any by the way to whoever saying I discussed the location: didnt i? Where is that at? How many cities belong to this location did you ever research before the keyboarding? Dont be too fold on your mind when you thinking other dont know the laws or breaking the law when you may missing the point. That what this thread for and that what i am here for learning if there is something we “””””may”””””” missed a chance.
Thank you all.
