Hobby Ethics

[Joseph]

I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).

I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
regards to both plants and animals.

Any thoughts?

[Victor Martinez]

Joseph wrote:
> Any thoughts?

There's usually a *very* good reason for certain plants and animals to
be illegal: if they escape into the environment, they reproduce
uncontrollably and cause the death of native species. This is not good.
Please don't take the risk.

--
Victor Martinez
Send your spam here:
Email me here:

[Eric Schreiber]

Joseph > wrote:

>I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
>Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
>animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
>killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).

What state, Maine? I wouldn't have thought they'd consider these
things to be a danger, since most aquarium species are warm water.

>I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
>line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
>regards to both plants and animals.

Do you have a link to the formal state rules about this? Sometimes
these laws only prohibit commercial sales or are oddly written to
allow exceptions.

As for ethics vs the law, well, the two rarely intercept :)


--
www.ericschreiber.com

[NetMax]

"Eric Schreiber" > wrote in message
...
> Joseph > wrote:
>
> >I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
> >Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
> >animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
> >killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).
>
> What state, Maine? I wouldn't have thought they'd consider these
> things to be a danger, since most aquarium species are warm water.
>
> >I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
> >line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
> >regards to both plants and animals.
>
> Do you have a link to the formal state rules about this? Sometimes
> these laws only prohibit commercial sales or are oddly written to
> allow exceptions.
>
> As for ethics vs the law, well, the two rarely intercept :)
>
>
> --
> www.ericschreiber.com

This is a very sticky question. You could observe the legal requirements
by purchasing similar looking (but legal) plants, shrimp and snails, and
then address the ethical concerns by handling them responsibly, ensuring
they never get out into your environment (regardless if they would or
wouldn't survive). However, legislation on Killies might be too broad to
find a similar but legal substitute, so you might have to go to a
different (legal) fish. How about exploring the legality of keeping home
grown darters and minnows?

I'm curious as to how this will evolve in the future. If your
environment could be adversely affected by something like Killies, could
White Cloud minnows be potentially banned as well? Will Guppies be next?
Canada, Russia and northern Europe may become the last bastions of legal
hobbyists in the future ;~)

NetMax, living up in Canada eh? ;~)

[LtWolfe]

No state or government has the right to interfere in a person's private business, unless it DIRECTLY
harms another INDIVIDUAL. God, what is this country coming to? FIGHT THE OPRESSION!

[Dunter Powries]

Joseph > wrote in message
...
> I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
> Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
> animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
> killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).
>
> I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
> line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
> regards to both plants and animals.
>
> Any thoughts?

Ghosties aren't worth it. They're one of the least interesting things you
could ever get fined for.

[Toni]

"LtWolfe" > wrote in message
. ..
> No state or government has the right to interfere in a person's private
business, unless it DIRECTLY
> harms another INDIVIDUAL. God, what is this country coming to? FIGHT THE
OPRESSION!
>


I live in a land infested with Muscovy Ducks, toxic Bufo Toads, and
Melaleuca trees are soaking up my Everglades.... all non natives, all
introduced by folks who thought they knew better.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/discus.htm

[LtWolfe]

I am well aware of the exotic problems in my current state of residence. Why do you seem so quick to
take away MY right? Because of what someone ELSE did? Why should I be punished for the acts of
others? Does that seem right? Besides, there are very few exotics doing well, compared to the
number in the hobby, and natives in FL. A lot of exotics are from fish farm releases (I'm sure YOU
don't buy from fish farms, right?). Bottom line, I am responsible for MY actions. YOU are responsible
for YOUR actions. Let's keep it like that okay? (or rather, get it back like that).

LtWolfe

"Toni" > wrote in
link.net:

>
> "LtWolfe" > wrote in message
> . ..
>> No state or government has the right to interfere in a person's
>> private
> business, unless it DIRECTLY
>> harms another INDIVIDUAL. God, what is this country coming to? FIGHT
>> THE
> OPRESSION!
>>
>
>
> I live in a land infested with Muscovy Ducks, toxic Bufo Toads, and
> Melaleuca trees are soaking up my Everglades.... all non natives, all
> introduced by folks who thought they knew better.
>
>

[Tedd Jacobs]

and at this point i think this should be cross-posted to alt.politics and
eliminated from the rec.aquaria* groups.


"LtWolfe" wrote...
> "Toni" wrote:
> > "LtWolfe" wrote...
> >> No state or government has the right to interfere in a person's
> >> private business, unless it DIRECTLY
> >> harms another INDIVIDUAL. God, what is this country coming to? FIGHT
> >> THE OPRESSION!

[Eric Schreiber]

"NetMax" > wrote:

>This is a very sticky question. You could observe the legal requirements
>by purchasing similar looking (but legal) plants, shrimp and snails, and
>then address the ethical concerns by handling them responsibly, ensuring
>they never get out into your environment (regardless if they would or
>wouldn't survive).

The ethics are fairly universal. Know the requirements of your fish
before you buy them, provide them with the best environment you can,
and never, ever release them into the wild.

The legal aspects are much trickier, and I suspect that even the
enforcing agencies don't really understand them. Sometimes it's
illegal to import or sell a species, but if you can find someone
locally who already has it you can get offspring (or cuttings) from
them.

>NetMax, living up in Canada eh? ;~)

Apart from the weather, Canada has started to look more and more
attractive in recent years. And you guys know the proper way to treat
French Fries.

--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

"Dunter Powries" > wrote:

>Ghosties aren't worth it. They're one of the least interesting things you
>could ever get fined for.

Hey! I like my ghost shrimp! And they like me, I'm certain of it.



--
www.ericschreiber.com

[nuchumYussel]

Hey Joeseph, what state do you live in? I live in Virginia and have
not found ANY stores in my area, Virginia Beach, that carry Killifish.
And have found ghost shirmp ONCE.

Evan

[Empty]

LtWolfe > wrote in
:

> I am well aware of the exotic problems in my current state of
> residence.

Apparently not. Walking catfish alone have decimated your natural ecology,
and from some of the studies I have seen nearly 40% of Florida's fauna is
introduced species.

> Why do you seem so quick to take away MY right?

What right? I may have missed the Right to Keep Exotic Pets in the
Constitution.

> Because of
> what someone ELSE did? Why should I be punished for the acts of
> others? Does that seem right?

Hi there, welcome to the real world. Does it seem "right" to you that a
natural ecology should be entirely usurped because you want to keep
plant/animal X? Are your rights more important than entire sections of the
ecosystem your region depends on?

> Besides, there are very few exotics
> doing well, compared to the number in the hobby, and natives in FL.

You are very obviously not aware of the problem with exotics in your state
if you think this is the case.

http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/waterman/apm/apm.htm , to start with.
http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/WalkingCatfish/WalkingCatfis
h.html is another.

> Bottom line, I am responsible for MY
> actions. YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. Let's keep it like that
> okay? (or rather, get it back like that).

Yes, let's. So be responsible, and follow the law, which is backed by the
Fish and Game Dept who obviously know much more about the natural ecology
of the area.

You may not think you are releasing these animals or plants in the wild,
and yet you may be doing so inadvertently. You may be flushing invertebrate
or fish eggs with your water changes. You may also be releasing spores from
spore-breeding plants (example: duckweed).

The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions regarding the
Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right" to own any kind of aquarium
fish or plant.

~Empty
--
'You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other
till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains,
children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'
Spike

[Le Trôle]

"Empty" > wrote in message
...
> LtWolfe > wrote in
> :

> > Why do you seem so quick to take away MY right?
>
> What right? I may have missed the Right to Keep Exotic Pets in the
> Constitution.


That's because rights exist whether or not they're found
in some Big List of Rights.


> The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions
> regarding the Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right"
> to own any kind of aquarium fish or plant.


LtWolfe does indeed have the right to own any kind
of aquarium fish or plant, even though there may be
some reason that he should not exercise that right.

It appears that PETA has found yet another unwitting stooge.

[Jim]

On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:28:48 -0000, "Le Trôle" >
wrote:

>"Empty" > wrote in message
...
>> LtWolfe > wrote in
>> :
>
>> > Why do you seem so quick to take away MY right?
>>
>> What right? I may have missed the Right to Keep Exotic Pets in the
>> Constitution.
>
>
>That's because rights exist whether or not they're found
>in some Big List of Rights.
>
>
>> The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions
>> regarding the Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right"
>> to own any kind of aquarium fish or plant.
>
>
>LtWolfe does indeed have the right to own any kind
>of aquarium fish or plant, even though there may be
>some reason that he should not exercise that right.
>
>It appears that PETA has found yet another unwitting stooge.
>
The US Constitution tells the Federal Government what it
may not do. The rest fall to the states. And the states do have
the right and responsibility to keep dangerous non-native animals
out of our lakes and streams.

Jim

[LtWolfe]

Thank you Letrol. You took the words right out of my mouth.

[Dunter Powries]

LtWolfe > wrote in message
. ..
> Thank you Letrol. You took the words right out of my mouth.

I, personally, have no problem with the concept of personal responsibility.
We should all accept and be expected to accept responsibility for the
consequences of our own decisions, actions, and failures to act.

If you dick-up an entire ecosystem, a $500 suspended fine from a district
court is NOT going to satisfy me.

[Empty]

"Le Trôle" > wrote in
:

>> What right? I may have missed the Right to Keep Exotic Pets in the
>> Constitution.
>
> That's because rights exist whether or not they're found
> in some Big List of Rights.

Yes, the right to keep exotic pets is a basic human right. In fact,
I think there was something about that in the Geneva Convention. Someone
alert the UN- Florida Fish and Game is oppressing LtWolfe!

>> The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions
>> regarding the Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right"
>> to own any kind of aquarium fish or plant.
>
> LtWolfe does indeed have the right to own any kind
> of aquarium fish or plant, even though there may be
> some reason that he should not exercise that right.

I suppose, then, that I have the right to dump 100 gallons of used motor
oil in the drainage tunnel outside my house?

Your rights end when someone else's begin, and the well-being of the
ecosystem that WE ALL depend on to LIVE outweighs your theoritical right to
keep something you find interesting.

> It appears that PETA has found yet another unwitting stooge.

What is this babble? I don't much like PETA, and this has NOTHING to do
with PETA. Call me the EPA's stooge if you have to fit me somewhere into
your tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.

I am, however, an aquarist with some knowledge of the delicate balance of
ecosystems and morals enough to know there are things more important than
my whims or desires.

~Empty
--
'You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other
till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains,
children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'
Spike

[Empty]

"Dunter Powries" > wrote in
:

> I, personally, have no problem with the concept of personal
> responsibility. We should all accept and be expected to accept
> responsibility for the consequences of our own decisions, actions, and
> failures to act.

Agreed!

> If you dick-up an entire ecosystem, a $500 suspended fine from a
> district court is NOT going to satisfy me.

Doubly agreed!

I actually think that a crime of that nature warrants jail time.

~Empty
--
'You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other
till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains,
children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'
Spike

[Dunter Powries]

Empty > wrote in message
...
> "Dunter Powries" > wrote in
> :
>
> > I, personally, have no problem with the concept of personal
> > responsibility. We should all accept and be expected to accept
> > responsibility for the consequences of our own decisions, actions, and
> > failures to act.
>
> Agreed!
>
> > If you dick-up an entire ecosystem, a $500 suspended fine from a
> > district court is NOT going to satisfy me.
>
> Doubly agreed!
>
> I actually think that a crime of that nature warrants jail time.

How will incarceration restore a disrupted ecosystem? A genuinely
RESPONSIBLE person would not have engaged in an activity which could
conceivably have resulted in damage beyond their ability to repair or
restore. Therefore, in the event that damage DID occur, I would expect that
a genuinely RESPONSIBLE person would be able to restore that ecosystem to
it's previous state. No other outcome is acceptable.

[Eric Schreiber]

LtWolfe > wrote:

>Thank you Letrol. You took the words right out of my mouth.

I'm not sure I'd be so quick to jump on le troll's band wagon.

--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Eric Schreiber]

"Dunter Powries" > wrote:

>How will incarceration restore a disrupted ecosystem?

Incarceration isn't intended as a means of reparation, and never was.
It is a means of punishment.

>A genuinely RESPONSIBLE person would not have engaged in
>an activity which could conceivably have resulted in damage
>beyond their ability to repair or restore. Therefore, in
>the event that damage DID occur, I would expect that a
>genuinely RESPONSIBLE person would be able to restore that
>ecosystem to it's previous state. No other outcome is
>acceptable.

Now if only the world were populated by responsible people, we'd be
well on our way to utopia.

--
www.ericschreiber.com

[Marksfish]

> Any thoughts?

Isn't it the county next door to Kent????

[Joseph]

I live in Vacation Land (maine).

You can find both fish from live aquaria (online).

Joseph

On 30 Dec 2003 18:35:24 -0800, (nuchumYussel) wrote:

>Hey Joeseph, what state do you live in? I live in Virginia and have
>not found ANY stores in my area, Virginia Beach, that carry Killifish.
>And have found ghost shirmp ONCE.
>
>Evan

[Le Trôle]

"Empty" > wrote in message
...
> "Le Trôle" > wrote in
> :
>
> >> What right? I may have missed the Right to Keep Exotic Pets in the
> >> Constitution.
> >
> > That's because rights exist whether or not they're found
> > in some Big List of Rights.
>
> Yes, the right to keep exotic pets is a basic human right. In fact,
> I think there was something about that in the Geneva Convention. Someone
> alert the UN- Florida Fish and Game is oppressing LtWolfe!


You must be unclear on the concept of rights not being granted,
because you found yet another Big List of Rights to wave about.

The answer is the same.


> >> The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions
> >> regarding the Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right"
> >> to own any kind of aquarium fish or plant.
> >
> > LtWolfe does indeed have the right to own any kind
> > of aquarium fish or plant, even though there may be
> > some reason that he should not exercise that right.
>
> I suppose, then, that I have the right to dump 100 gallons of used motor
> oil in the drainage tunnel outside my house?


Nope. You don't own the drainage tunnel.

The use of a drainage tunnel is a privilege based upon
your status as a resident of a given water district, and
certain conditions are required of you to use that facility.

You still have the right to own 100 gallons of used motor oil.
You just don't have the right to use it in a way that harms others.


> Your rights end when someone else's begin,


Yes Gump, I know that.


> and the well-being of the ecosystem that WE ALL depend on to
> LIVE outweighs your theoritical right to keep something you find
> interesting.


PETA goes one step beyond the well-being of the ecosystem,
and contends that well-being of all animals precludes their being
kept as pets. They also base their heart-felt pleas on the notion
that Man has no right to keep any kind of animal as a pet.

Sound familiar?


> > It appears that PETA has found yet another unwitting stooge.
>
> What is this babble? I don't much like PETA, and this has NOTHING to do
> with PETA. Call me the EPA's stooge if you have to fit me somewhere into
> your tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.


How are you able to dismiss my remarks as 'tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories'
whilst acknowledging the motives of PETA (and purposely distancing yourself)
in the same paragraph? Dishonest and selective reasoning?

Anyone who goes into 'nature presevation' rant whilst denying the
Right to Keep Fish is indeed an unwitting stooge of PETA.


> I am, however, an aquarist with some knowledge of the delicate balance of
> ecosystems and morals enough to know there are things more important than
> my whims or desires.


It is your "whims and desires" that are responsible for having those
little fish that swim in glass box, so perhaps you need to be just a bit
less strident in condemning "whims and desires" as the root of evil.

[Moontanman]

>
>I live in a land infested with Muscovy Ducks, toxic Bufo Toads, and
>Melaleuca trees are soaking up my Everglades.... all non natives, all
>introduced by folks who thought they knew better.
>

Good point Toni, keeping any fish would be ok if the owners took complete
responsibility for their pets from birth to death but too many people seem to
think that fish can be released when they are done with them. BTW don't give
hobbiests too hard a time most of the worst releases are made by the state to
enhance sport fishing. Not many aquarium fish can become established outside of
the deep south but even if the fish you relese will be killed by the winter
they may be carrying fish deseases that can infect the native fish and have a
very bad impact at some future date. that's why we have to have laws, because
people will not take resposibility for their freedoms.
remove nospam from e-mail to send to me, I grow trees in aquariums like bonsai.
I breed dwarf crayfish, great for planted community tanks. If you can get me a
shovelnose sturgeon fingerling (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) no wild caught
please, contact me

[Moontanman]

>don't buy from fish farms, right?). Bottom line, I am responsible for MY
>actions. YOU are responsible
>for YOUR actions. Let's keep it like that okay? (or rather, get it back like
>that).
>

Unfortunatly release of an exotic plant or animal has far reaching consequenses
beyond the individual. Punishing someone for releasing, say, snakeheads into
the environment will not remove them once established. I am willing to take
resposibility for my actions but why should I and the environment suffer
because someone else didn't? BTW most of the fish farm releases are still quite
localized even to this day but they do raise havoc in the areas where they are
established. One of the few exotic releases I find difficult to see how they
could hurt is a lake in florida that contain a population of neon tetras. teh
small lake is not part of the general water system since it has no inlets or
outlets but it is an odd example. And no i don't know the location or name of
the lake.
remove nospam from e-mail to send to me, I grow trees in aquariums like bonsai.
I breed dwarf crayfish, great for planted community tanks. If you can get me a
shovelnose sturgeon fingerling (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) no wild caught
please, contact me

[Moontanman]

>Apparently not. Walking catfish alone have decimated your natural ecology,
>and from some of the studies I have seen nearly 40% of Florida's fauna is
>introduced species.
>
An exaggeration if you are referring to fish that are released from the
aquarium hobby. the state has doen some releasing of their own for sport
fishing that makes up a large portion of that.
>
>What right? I may have missed the Right to Keep Exotic Pets in the
>Constitution.

Exactly!

>> Because of
>> what someone ELSE did? Why should I be punished for the acts of
>> others? Does that seem right?

Not right just nesesarry, I handle some illegle exotics from time to time but
they never leave my fish room alive and keep in touch with my state government
about it so they know what i am doing and why
..
>Hi there, welcome to the real world. Does it seem "right" to you that a
>natural ecology should be entirely usurped because you want to keep
>plant/animal X? Are your rights more important than entire sections of the
>ecosystem your region depends on?

Good answer! If everyone was resposible there would not need to be any
restrictive laws on anything.

>> Besides, there are very few exotics
>> doing well, compared to the number in the hobby, and natives in FL.

This is actually true to some extent but any exotic is one too many!

>You are very obviously not aware of the problem with exotics in your state
>if you think this is the case.
>
>http://www.swfwmd.state.fl.us/waterman/apm/apm.htm , to start with.
>http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/Gallery/Descript/WalkingCatfish/WalkingCatfis
>h.html is another.
>
>> Bottom line, I am responsible for MY
>> actions. YOU are responsible for YOUR actions. Let's keep it like that
>> okay? (or rather, get it back like that).
>
>Yes, let's. So be responsible, and follow the law, which is backed by the
>Fish and Game Dept who obviously know much more about the natural ecology
>of the area.

As much as I respect the fish and game people they have a nasty habit of
introducing exotics on a much larger scale than any hobbiest with no better
results. Again i say any exotic is one too many.

>You may not think you are releasing these animals or plants in the wild,
>and yet you may be doing so inadvertently. You may be flushing invertebrate
>or fish eggs with your water changes. You may also be releasing spores from
>spore-breeding plants (example: duckweed).

I hope that when I flush it doesn't go directly into the natural waters but you
do have a good point. Since i have the resposibility i have to show i have
taken the proper precautions to insure these thing don't happen. the average
hobbiest either dosen't or can't. But then i am a liscensed aquaculture
facility.

>The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions regarding the
>Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right" to own any kind of aquarium
>fish or plant.

I have to agree again with this, totally reasonable. But restriction should be
based on reality not emotion.



remove nospam from e-mail to send to me, I grow trees in aquariums like bonsai.
I breed dwarf crayfish, great for planted community tanks. If you can get me a
shovelnose sturgeon fingerling (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) no wild caught
please, contact me

[Moontanman]

>Ghosties aren't worth it. They're one of the least interesting things you
>could ever get fined for.
>

Where in North America are ghost shrimp exotic? The waters in my area almost
burst whith native populations of ghost shrimp. the local fish love them!
remove nospam from e-mail to send to me, I grow trees in aquariums like bonsai.
I breed dwarf crayfish, great for planted community tanks. If you can get me a
shovelnose sturgeon fingerling (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) no wild caught
please, contact me

[Moontanman]

>
>Hey Joeseph, what state do you live in? I live in Virginia and have
>not found ANY stores in my area, Virginia Beach, that carry Killifish.
>And have found ghost shirmp ONCE.
>

If you live in Virginia you should be able to find as many native ghost shrimp
as you want unless you live in the mountians. maybe even there.
remove nospam from e-mail to send to me, I grow trees in aquariums like bonsai.
I breed dwarf crayfish, great for planted community tanks. If you can get me a
shovelnose sturgeon fingerling (Scaphirhynchus platorynchus) no wild caught
please, contact me

[Le Trôle]

"Cannibul" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:48:18 GMT, LtWolfe > wrote:
>
> Right. And I should be allowed to own my very own thermonuclear bomb
> because I will be responsible with it.

As soon as you have the resources and abilities to build one,
this point becomes relevant.

[Le Trôle]

"Jim" > wrote in message
news.com...
> On Thu, 1 Jan 2004 00:28:48 -0000, "Le Trôle" >

> >LtWolfe does indeed have the right to own any kind
> >of aquarium fish or plant, even though there may be
> >some reason that he should not exercise that right.
> >
> >It appears that PETA has found yet another unwitting stooge.
> >
> The US Constitution tells the Federal Government what it
> may not do. The rest fall to the states. And the states do have
> the right and responsibility to keep dangerous non-native animals
> out of our lakes and streams.

There's no question that introducing exotic species
can harm the local environment, or that the guvmint
has a genuine need to enforce laws that prevent this.

But rights are not created by pieces of paper, and they
are not gifts of the state.

Individual human beings have rights.
States and Guvmints don't have rights, only powers.

As soon as you allow yourself to accept the idea that
'you have no right to do X' simply because exercising
that right has dangerous consequences, you lose it all.

PETA says you have no right to keep pets, and you
just agreed with them.

[nuchumYussel]

Isn't what county next to Kent?

Evan

[Sandy]

Marksfish wrote:
>> Isn't what county next to Kent?
>>
> Ethics!!! (Got to inject some humour to this thread somewhere. Take a
> look on a map of the UK and you will see what I mean).

That would go along with Thuthics and Wethics then :)

--
Don`t Worry, Be Happy

Sandy
--

E-Mail:-
Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk
IRC:- Sandyb in #rabble uk3.arcnet.vapor.com Port:6667
#Rabble Channel Website:- http://www.ftscotland.co.uk/rabbled
ICQ : 41266150

[Marksfish]

> That would go along with Thuthics and Wethics then :)
>
> --
> Don`t Worry, Be Happy
>
> Sandy


They're the ones :-)

Mark

[Empty]

"Le Trôle" > wrote in
:

> There's no question that introducing exotic species
> can harm the local environment, or that the guvmint
> has a genuine need to enforce laws that prevent this.
>
> But rights are not created by pieces of paper, and they
> are not gifts of the state.
>
> Individual human beings have rights.
> States and Guvmints don't have rights, only powers.
>
> As soon as you allow yourself to accept the idea that
> 'you have no right to do X' simply because exercising
> that right has dangerous consequences, you lose it all.

I see. So, your whole quibble here is a semantic/philosophical quibble over
the word "right".

I wish you'd just said so in the beginning- I could have dismissed this as
the mental masturbation it is.

> PETA says you have no right to keep pets, and you
> just agreed with them.

I must have missed that part. *I* thought I was saying that you have no
right to knowingly endanger the ecosystem. Could you please explain my
point of view to me more fully?

~Empty


--
'You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other
till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains,
children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'
Spike

[Le Trôle]

"Empty" > wrote in message
...
> "Le Trôle" > wrote in
> :
>
> > There's no question that introducing exotic species
> > can harm the local environment, or that the guvmint
> > has a genuine need to enforce laws that prevent this.
> >
> > But rights are not created by pieces of paper, and they
> > are not gifts of the state.
> >
> > Individual human beings have rights.
> > States and Guvmints don't have rights, only powers.
> >
> > As soon as you allow yourself to accept the idea that
> > 'you have no right to do X' simply because exercising
> > that right has dangerous consequences, you lose it all.
>
> I see. So, your whole quibble here is a semantic/philosophical quibble
over
> the word "right".

Nope. It's more a matter of teamwork. You make sweeping
asinine statements, and I provide the necessary clarifications.

> I wish you'd just said so in the beginning- I could have dismissed this as
> the mental masturbation it is.

As you normally do with things that you
neither respect, nor even understand.

> > PETA says you have no right to keep pets, and you
> > just agreed with them.
>
> I must have missed that part. *I* thought I was saying that you have no
> right to knowingly endanger the ecosystem.

Nope. Below is an insertion of your previous comments, and
you make a clear distinction between some sort of dangerous
activity and owning any pets at all. If you can dance out of
your own words below, you'll be ready for Broadway.

###############################################
# BEGIN FORGETFUL ZONE
###############################################
# The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions
# regarding the Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right"
# to own any kind of aquarium fish or plant.
###############################################

> Could you please explain my point of view to me more fully?

You are an extremely (un?)witting stooge of PETA.

[Empty]

"Le Trôle" > wrote in
:

> "Empty" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Le Trôle" > wrote in
>> :

>> I wish you'd just said so in the beginning- I could have dismissed
>> this as the mental masturbation it is.
>
> As you normally do with things that you
> neither respect, nor even understand.

No, I dismiss issues utterly beyond the scope of context and the
discussion at hand, which it is apparent yours is.

*We* were discussing the legality of exotic fish and plants. *You* were
discussing nebulous philosophical semantics.

>> I must have missed that part. *I* thought I was saying that you have
>> no right to knowingly endanger the ecosystem.
>
> Nope. Below is an insertion of your previous comments, and
> you make a clear distinction between some sort of dangerous
> activity and owning any pets at all. If you can dance out of
> your own words below, you'll be ready for Broadway.

Yes, I make that clear distinction. Yes, I say you have no "right" to own
any form of pet.

The only reason you see any form of hypocrisy here is your willful
interpretation of the word "right" in a philosophical sense rather than the
legalistic one the context dictates.

In other words, mental masturbation.

>> Could you please explain my point of view to me more fully?
>
> You are an extremely (un?)witting stooge of PETA.

Sure, whatever.

~Empty

--
'You're not friends. You'll never be friends. You'll be in love till it
kills you both. You'll fight, and you'll shag, and you'll hate each other
till it makes you quiver, but you'll never be friends. Love isn't brains,
children, it's blood... blood screaming inside you to work its will. I may
be love's bitch, but at least I'm man enough to admit it.'
Spike

[Le Trôle]

"Empty" > wrote in message
...
> "Le Trôle" > wrote in
> :
> > "Empty" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> "Le Trôle" > wrote in
> >> :
>
> >> I wish you'd just said so in the beginning- I could have dismissed
> >> this as the mental masturbation it is.
> >
> > As you normally do with things that you
> > neither respect, nor even understand.
>
> No, I dismiss issues utterly beyond the scope of context and the
> discussion at hand, which it is apparent yours is.

The context of this discussion was defined and confirmed
when you replied to my post. I didn't set the agenda, I merely
answered your reply to the original poster. I now know
you have a very selective memory, or else you'd recall the way
you jumped into this thread by foolishly pulling out various
Big Lists of Rights to demonstrate the absence of a Right to Keep Fish.

I merely pointed out the misconception of a Right being something
that's granted, as opposed to something that exists apart from any
declaration or other piece of paper.

> *We* were discussing the legality of exotic fish and plants. *You* were
> discussing nebulous philosophical semantics.

You answered LtWolfe by saying he had no Right to Keep Fish.
You made an asinine statement concerning the Constitution
that merely illustrated your own unwitting support for those
who would prevent you from even keeping a tadpole in a fruit jar.

> >> I must have missed that part. *I* thought I was saying that you have
> >> no right to knowingly endanger the ecosystem.
> >
> > Nope. Below is an insertion of your previous comments, and
> > you make a clear distinction between some sort of dangerous
> > activity and owning any pets at all. If you can dance out of
> > your own words below, you'll be ready for Broadway.
>
> Yes, I make that clear distinction. Yes, I say you have no "right" to own
> any form of pet.

Based upon what? Your feelings? And by the way, you are now
making your (un?)witting support for PETA as solid as you can get
without actually buying a kd lang album.

Remember, you made the orignal assertion of no Right to Keep Fish,
and you're repeating it again without those silly notions of "context",
so unless you're in the habit of making heart-felt but baseless noise,
you do indeed need to provide at least a smidgen of explanation.

> The only reason you see any form of hypocrisy here is your willful
> interpretation of the word "right" in a philosophical sense rather than
> the legalistic one the context dictates.

So where have I called you a hypocrite? Is this what you usually do
when your own opinions are held up to scrutiny? Just make up stuff?
On the contrary, I haven't called you a hypocrite, I merely pointed out
both your demonstrated lack of reasoning and your unwillingness
to provide some sort of basis for the proclamation that you made.

> In other words, mental masturbation.

Is it your morals or your impotence that holds you back?

> >> Could you please explain my point of view to me more fully?
> >
> > You are an extremely (un?)witting stooge of PETA.
>
> Sure, whatever.

[insert wav file of hearty snicker]

[Nwwise01]

Take this crap somewhere else.

[RedForeman ©®]

http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/misc15.jpg

if that isn't clear enough....

http://ebaumsworld.com/forumfun/sucks1.jpg

--

RedForeman ©®





"Le Trôle" > wrote in message
...
> "Empty" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Le Trôle" > wrote in
> > :
> > > "Empty" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > >> "Le Trôle" > wrote in
> > >> :
> >
> > >> I wish you'd just said so in the beginning- I could have dismissed
> > >> this as the mental masturbation it is.
> > >
> > > As you normally do with things that you
> > > neither respect, nor even understand.
> >
> > No, I dismiss issues utterly beyond the scope of context and the
> > discussion at hand, which it is apparent yours is.
>
> The context of this discussion was defined and confirmed
> when you replied to my post. I didn't set the agenda, I merely
> answered your reply to the original poster. I now know
> you have a very selective memory, or else you'd recall the way
> you jumped into this thread by foolishly pulling out various
> Big Lists of Rights to demonstrate the absence of a Right to Keep Fish.
>
> I merely pointed out the misconception of a Right being something
> that's granted, as opposed to something that exists apart from any
> declaration or other piece of paper.
>
> > *We* were discussing the legality of exotic fish and plants. *You* were
> > discussing nebulous philosophical semantics.
>
> You answered LtWolfe by saying he had no Right to Keep Fish.
> You made an asinine statement concerning the Constitution
> that merely illustrated your own unwitting support for those
> who would prevent you from even keeping a tadpole in a fruit jar.
>
> > >> I must have missed that part. *I* thought I was saying that you have
> > >> no right to knowingly endanger the ecosystem.
> > >
> > > Nope. Below is an insertion of your previous comments, and
> > > you make a clear distinction between some sort of dangerous
> > > activity and owning any pets at all. If you can dance out of
> > > your own words below, you'll be ready for Broadway.
> >
> > Yes, I make that clear distinction. Yes, I say you have no "right" to
own
> > any form of pet.
>
> Based upon what? Your feelings? And by the way, you are now
> making your (un?)witting support for PETA as solid as you can get
> without actually buying a kd lang album.
>
> Remember, you made the orignal assertion of no Right to Keep Fish,
> and you're repeating it again without those silly notions of "context",
> so unless you're in the habit of making heart-felt but baseless noise,
> you do indeed need to provide at least a smidgen of explanation.
>
> > The only reason you see any form of hypocrisy here is your willful
> > interpretation of the word "right" in a philosophical sense rather than
> > the legalistic one the context dictates.
>
> So where have I called you a hypocrite? Is this what you usually do
> when your own opinions are held up to scrutiny? Just make up stuff?
> On the contrary, I haven't called you a hypocrite, I merely pointed out
> both your demonstrated lack of reasoning and your unwillingness
> to provide some sort of basis for the proclamation that you made.
>
> > In other words, mental masturbation.
>
> Is it your morals or your impotence that holds you back?
>[i]
> > >> Could you please explain my point of view to me more fully?
> > >
> > > You are an extremely (un?)witting stooge of PETA.
> >
> > Sure, whatever.
>
>
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

So does PETA or any "animal rights" feel it's okay to own plants? Eat
baby plants? Yes, baby plant plants, so cute, so green, so helpless as
they look up at you as if to say "Get out of the way! You are blocking
my light source!"

Baby plants= seeds! Plant killers! All of you!

I'm just having a problem with saying animal life is more important
than another. This is am morality issue based upon something that
looks like us more and something we can identify, RATHER than the
respect and consideration of life.

We all have to eat something organic, so every human is guilty to some
degree.

I'm going to see if the Plantagon will get involved, we must do
something to save the baby plants. Free the plants now! Herbivores
suck! Owning cows is murder!

Come on, have a little fun:)

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Jim Morcombe]

I'm from Perth Australia,

We have a very fragile Freshwater system here.

There are only seven species of freshwater fish native to the Perth
waterways.

First Carp were introduced into the lakes so people would have something to
catch.

This upset the eco system and caused plagues of mesqitos.

So they (the government) introduced Gambusia (Mesquito fish) only to find
they prefer fish eggs to mesquito larvae.

I don't believe there is even a record of what we had in most of our lakes.

Then they introduced Trout and other fish into the rivers.

Now we have very tight controls over what fish we can import - but its a bit
late.

On my last trip to the Moore River I caught about 50 of the introduced
mesquito fish and two tadpoles.

All of these fish were introduced by government experts or approved by gov't
experts.

I think we folks in the Hobby do occassionally make mistakes - however our
mistakes are usually small and easily corrected. It really takes gov'ts or
gov't backing to truly destroy an environment.

However, I fully import the restrictions in place because I see the effects
every day.

I have heard lots of people complain that the Fisheries deprtment is useless
when it comes to processing requests for exemptions, but I have never been
knocked back and hence haven't found the rules restrictive at all.

Jim


Jim


Joseph > wrote in message
...
> I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
> Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
> animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
> killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).
>
> I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
> line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
> regards to both plants and animals.
>
> Any thoughts?

[[email protected]]

I believe in a hands off approach.
Leave nature alone long enough and things work out. Conserve what you
have now feircely and try to protect it.

Humans always try to control nature and this often back fires.
Some restoratiion and creation work in conservation is worthy, some is
not. Adding mosquito fish is a bad idea IMO. Few fish bioloigist would
argue otherwise.

Regards,
Tom Barr

[Dick]

Simple, while you are concerned about your "rights" the government has
to consider the welfare of the all the people. You may detest drunk
driving laws, but those injured or killed or whose property gets
damaged would ask you to consider their "rights" to security for
property and life.

You are not the center of the world!

On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:48:18 GMT, LtWolfe > wrote:

>I am well aware of the exotic problems in my current state of residence. Why do you seem so quick to
>take away MY right? Because of what someone ELSE did? Why should I be punished for the acts of
>others? Does that seem right? Besides, there are very few exotics doing well, compared to the
>number in the hobby, and natives in FL. A lot of exotics are from fish farm releases (I'm sure YOU
>don't buy from fish farms, right?). Bottom line, I am responsible for MY actions. YOU are responsible
>for YOUR actions. Let's keep it like that okay? (or rather, get it back like that).
>
>LtWolfe
>
>"Toni" > wrote in
link.net:
>
>>
>> "LtWolfe" > wrote in message
>> . ..
>>> No state or government has the right to interfere in a person's
>>> private
>> business, unless it DIRECTLY
>>> harms another INDIVIDUAL. God, what is this country coming to? FIGHT
>>> THE
>> OPRESSION!
>>>
>>
>>
>> I live in a land infested with Muscovy Ducks, toxic Bufo Toads, and
>> Melaleuca trees are soaking up my Everglades.... all non natives, all
>> introduced by folks who thought they knew better.
>>
>>

[Dick]

Government mistakes are just people mistakes. I have made quite a few
in my life time. I do seem to remember many years ago an alligator
problem in the sewers of NYC I believe brought on my dumping pet
alligators down the toilet.


On Wed, 7 Jan 2004 17:43:09 +0800, "Jim Morcombe"
> wrote:

>I'm from Perth Australia,
>
>We have a very fragile Freshwater system here.
>
>There are only seven species of freshwater fish native to the Perth
>waterways.
>
>First Carp were introduced into the lakes so people would have something to
>catch.
>
>This upset the eco system and caused plagues of mesqitos.
>
>So they (the government) introduced Gambusia (Mesquito fish) only to find
>they prefer fish eggs to mesquito larvae.
>
>I don't believe there is even a record of what we had in most of our lakes.
>
>Then they introduced Trout and other fish into the rivers.
>
>Now we have very tight controls over what fish we can import - but its a bit
>late.
>
>On my last trip to the Moore River I caught about 50 of the introduced
>mesquito fish and two tadpoles.
>
>All of these fish were introduced by government experts or approved by gov't
>experts.
>
>I think we folks in the Hobby do occassionally make mistakes - however our
>mistakes are usually small and easily corrected. It really takes gov'ts or
>gov't backing to truly destroy an environment.
>
>However, I fully import the restrictions in place because I see the effects
>every day.
>
>I have heard lots of people complain that the Fisheries deprtment is useless
>when it comes to processing requests for exemptions, but I have never been
>knocked back and hence haven't found the rules restrictive at all.
>
>Jim
>
>
>Jim
>
>
>Joseph > wrote in message
...
>> I live in a state where many fresh water plants are illegal, e.g.
>> Anacharis and milfoil. There are also several species of aquatic
>> animals that are illegal, e.g. ghost shrimp, fresh water snails, and
>> killifish (a HUGE fine if your caught with killies).
>>
>> I've been wrestling with the ethics of buying an illegal animal on
>> line (ghost shrimp), and wonder what other people think about this in
>> regards to both plants and animals.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>

[Dick]

We are not discussing "hands off," rather the introduction of alien
fish to a native habitat or at least the potential. I can appreciate
the complaint of too much government intervention, but the other side
is chaos. We do have to drive on the proper side of the divider. We
do not complain of this law. The value is obvious. The question of
personal choice of pets is another mater. A older woman visiting a
woman that kept a lion as a pet, was mauled to death within the last
month. Then there are those pet owners that ador the Pit Bulls.

I have my own "pet" peaves, but do understand those that represent us
must balance the "rights of the individual" against the good of all.
I also accept that those trying to protect us make their own mistakes.

Democracy may not be the best form of government, but it is the best
form we know as of now.

On 7 Jan 2004 08:49:21 -0800,
) wrote:

>I believe in a hands off approach.
>Leave nature alone long enough and things work out. Conserve what you
>have now feircely and try to protect it.
>
>Humans always try to control nature and this often back fires.
>Some restoratiion and creation work in conservation is worthy, some is
>not. Adding mosquito fish is a bad idea IMO. Few fish bioloigist would
>argue otherwise.
>
>Regards,
>Tom Barr

[~misfit~]

Dick wrote:
> Government mistakes are just people mistakes. I have made quite a few
> in my life time. I do seem to remember many years ago an alligator
> problem in the sewers of NYC I believe brought on my dumping pet
> alligators down the toilet.

Urban myth.
--
~misfit~

[Dunter Powries]

~misfit~ > wrote in message
...
> Dick wrote:
> > Government mistakes are just people mistakes. I have made quite a few
> > in my life time. I do seem to remember many years ago an alligator
> > problem in the sewers of NYC I believe brought on my dumping pet
> > alligators down the toilet.
>
> Urban myth.

WHAT!?!? NO 80-FOOT ALBINO ALLIGATORS!?!?

[coelacanth]

No, but there are massive Oscars (nearly as deadly) living in
the inland canals of Florida. But apparently thems good eatin'
http://www.floridafisheries.com/fishes/non-native.html#oscar
>
> WHAT!?!? NO 80-FOOT ALBINO ALLIGATORS!?!?
>
>

[Jim Morcombe]

I think the issues of Lions and Pit Bulls are not really related to the
issues of pet fish.

We are talking about personal and immediate danger in one case and
environmental hazard in the other.

Besides, people who own Pit Bulls are all thugs.

Jim



Dick > wrote in message
...
> We are not discussing "hands off," rather the introduction of alien
> fish to a native habitat or at least the potential. I can appreciate
> the complaint of too much government intervention, but the other side
> is chaos. We do have to drive on the proper side of the divider. We
> do not complain of this law. The value is obvious. The question of
> personal choice of pets is another mater. A older woman visiting a
> woman that kept a lion as a pet, was mauled to death within the last
> month. Then there are those pet owners that ador the Pit Bulls.
>
> I have my own "pet" peaves, but do understand those that represent us
> must balance the "rights of the individual" against the good of all.
> I also accept that those trying to protect us make their own mistakes.
>
> Democracy may not be the best form of government, but it is the best
> form we know as of now.
>
> On 7 Jan 2004 08:49:21 -0800,
> ) wrote:
>
> >I believe in a hands off approach.
> >Leave nature alone long enough and things work out. Conserve what you
> >have now feircely and try to protect it.
> >
> >Humans always try to control nature and this often back fires.
> >Some restoratiion and creation work in conservation is worthy, some is
> >not. Adding mosquito fish is a bad idea IMO. Few fish bioloigist would
> >argue otherwise.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tom Barr
>

[[email protected]]

Dick > wrote in message >...
> We are not discussing "hands off," rather the introduction of alien
> fish to a native habitat or at least the potential.

This was posted to a plant list and I'll take the plant perspective as
I've done a substantial amount of weed science.
Plant folks don't go out and plant weeds to "save" them or moralize
over it the same way fish hobbyist do.

Some growers have planted weeds here in Florida for the Aquarium trade
and then come back and harvest and send them all over the USA.

Hydrillia is a prime example from the 1950's. Kuzu for erosional
damage from strip mining in KY/TN region. There are many examples.

I can appreciate
> the complaint of too much government intervention, but the other side
> is chaos.

I did not suggest that. I'm some kind of anarchist?:) I'm talking
about people/development leaving the environment alone, this includes
introducing weeds to the natural ecosystems. Removal of what's there
as far as weeds is a good idea generally but ideas can and do back
fire.

Hands off also cost less in the long and short run.
Ichetucknee springs was full of trash, burnt tires, cows wandering
through the place 30 years ago. They removed the trash, presearved it
as a state park and it is now one of the so called "prisitine" spring
examples here. The ecosystem restored itself after a few years and a
little work. It really is a surprising success story.

But now spetic tanks and other sources of nitrogen are increasing
greatly and causing algae blooms, this is not from nature but from
development. 15N isotope signatures have shown this.
Even years later we have a tough time keepin gout of the environment,
global changes will be more difficult to remediate.

> We do have to drive on the proper side of the divider. We
> do not complain of this law. The value is obvious. The question of
> personal choice of pets is another mater. A older woman visiting a
> woman that kept a lion as a pet, was mauled to death within the last
> month. Then there are those pet owners that ador the Pit Bulls.

There are no bad dogs (or Lions), __only__ bad dog owners.

You are accountable. Your dog causes a problem, you go down for it.
Pit bulls are often trained to be mean/tough, but they are _not_ wild
animals like a Croc, lion etc something you would not take to the park
with kids around unless your the Croc hunter and know about safe
handling procedures.
Many folks got upset at him(the Croc hunter, Steve) for the baby issue
but I don't think the baby was all that at risk. It was not _needed_,
but the baby was in the most capable hands I know of, atrained
professional that knows everything Croc, we take our kids all over
unneeded every day in cars and the risk are greater there than in his
hands and croc I would argue.
And we are not "professional" drivers generally.

But the larger issue in policy making is one of __risk__, like
driving, insurance, war, you have to ask the question what are the
risk?

For aquarium owners for aquatic plants: low risk generally.
But there are few folks keeping plants generally but the lobby for
pond owners is rather high and the potential for some of these plants
to escape is higher.

Fish owners are much more likely to release non natives.
Same goes for plant and fish farmers, they are notorius for intro of
plants and fish all over the world, like Lake Victoria and Lates, or
Tilipia here in Florida, mosquito fish over most of the USA, Hydrilia
in Florida for the plant trade. We found a 3ft pacu in a lake in CA
after draining it. It'd been there for awhile. I swim with pleco's in
Florida, come on down, I'll show you them munching away.

Sports, food fishies did not introduce this fish. Hobby only.
Caulerpa gets a lot press in the west coast, but ballast ship water is
a much large seaweed problem, but they have lots of $ so we don't talk
much about that in the public, but folks own reef tanks SW tanks so it
gets into the news more.

The laws here are generally set up to minimize the risk, I was not
saying anything about anarchy, nor had a position either way except it
worked well for the environment for 4 billion years vs the humans way
of rapid mass extinction, those are good laws, but the right or not to
have some pets needs to be weighed with the risk.

Lions on a lease at the park with kids around is asking for it.
A dog trained to fight is asking for it.
Keeping Crypt cordata pink vein is not any threat in the USA.
Keeping Altums is no threat to folks/ecosystem in WI.
But some diseases could be transferred even in that case to the native
fish, but..........there's little risk of that ocurring.

There is risk associated with everything, but laws will not prevent
all risk, you cannot legislate stupidity and blind laws done for
reactionary purposes without good consideration is as bad as no law,
perhaps worse.

I doubt you'll please some folks about animal right but this is not
logical, they eat and kill baby plants, why is the same ethic not
placed on that form of life vs critters?
How dare they own, murder and enslave plants!:)
Lopping off their limbs, how in human is that?:)

Seriously though, we all have to kill something and eat it, it might
grow and be a plant or it might be some mad cow infested Pork, Chicken
or Beef.

I'm mainly a plant eater, but I don't consider it environmentally or
morally better.

> I have my own "pet" peaves, but do understand those that represent us
> must balance the "rights of the individual" against the good of all.
> I also accept that those trying to protect us make their own mistakes.

Well, up to a point. Some make large mistakes and should be held
especially accountable. Like daipers, all politicians should be
changed frequently for the same reason.

But hopefully the balance will be fair and reasoable. If not, they
will not get my vote.

Regards,
Tom Barr

> >I believe in a hands off approach.
> >Leave nature alone long enough and things work out. Conserve what you
> >have now feircely and try to protect it.
> >
> >Humans always try to control nature and this often back fires.
> >Some restoratiion and creation work in conservation is worthy, some is
> >not. Adding mosquito fish is a bad idea IMO. Few fish bioloigist would
> >argue otherwise.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Tom Barr

[Ray]

ok I have to sound off now. I love my fish and my aquatic plants. first of
yes hobbists contribute a small problem to the introduction of new species
but very minor.most intruduction does come from goverment experts (that's an
oxymoron). I also keep some exotic fish and plants but I do love my fish
enuf that if I get tired of 'em and my plants I will dig a hole in the
ground and put them in and that be that. most of the problem around the
coasts are from international shipping boats and barges. I detest laws that
require me to get special liceneses or take special classes but I'de rather
have to do that then to be told that because of some idiots I am
irresponsible to keep what I want. But take afence or to no afence to
this...humans are medlers the common corn you eat used to be a wild plant
but now has come to be completly dependent on humans for propagation.
sometimes we screw up big time and when we do we just need to give a slight
hand of help to mother nature as she will make everything work out for the
best. Our inviroment is in a constant flux and we are but just tool in the
grand scheme of things. but untill our need for money is nullified we may
continue to do more damage then good. I'm a strong beliver in good laws and
in control but not banning something.there are no bad animals or fish or
plants....just bad and stupid humans that would rather throwit away rather
then dispose of properly.that unfortunatly I chalk up to our disposable
society. we never truly think what happens to items we just discard.
"Dick" > wrote in message
...
> Simple, while you are concerned about your "rights" the government has
> to consider the welfare of the all the people. You may detest drunk
> driving laws, but those injured or killed or whose property gets
> damaged would ask you to consider their "rights" to security for
> property and life.
>
> You are not the center of the world!
>
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:48:18 GMT, LtWolfe > wrote:
>
> >I am well aware of the exotic problems in my current state of residence.
Why do you seem so quick to
> >take away MY right? Because of what someone ELSE did? Why should I be
punished for the acts of
> >others? Does that seem right? Besides, there are very few exotics doing
well, compared to the
> >number in the hobby, and natives in FL. A lot of exotics are from fish
farm releases (I'm sure YOU
> >don't buy from fish farms, right?). Bottom line, I am responsible for MY
actions. YOU are responsible
> >for YOUR actions. Let's keep it like that okay? (or rather, get it back
like that).
> >
> >LtWolfe
> >
> >"Toni" > wrote in
> link.net:
> >
> >>
> >> "LtWolfe" > wrote in message
> >> . ..
> >>> No state or government has the right to interfere in a person's
> >>> private
> >> business, unless it DIRECTLY
> >>> harms another INDIVIDUAL. God, what is this country coming to? FIGHT
> >>> THE
> >> OPRESSION!
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >> I live in a land infested with Muscovy Ducks, toxic Bufo Toads, and
> >> Melaleuca trees are soaking up my Everglades.... all non natives, all
> >> introduced by folks who thought they knew better.
> >>
> >>
>