I just went to a site for very big fish keepers that I used to frequent for the first time in a long time today, and have to say that I'm very proud of how this forum handled this issue. I'm also glad I didn't visit that site when this issue was "hot," or I might have lost my cool and made some webenemies. Once again, it's great how the NANFA board members really dissected the issue instead of just bashing each other over the head about it. Good job, folks.
Any thoughts here on HR 669?
Started by
Guest_Seedy_*
, Apr 03 2009 03:47 PM
110 replies to this topic
#102
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
Guest_Brooklamprey_*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 June 2009 - 05:16 PM
Oh, I'm guessing your talking about the site that banned me for suggesting that their approach was ignorant, sloppy, useless and half assed..
Was based on nothing but kneejerk reaction without information, and that all they where doing was jumping on a band wagon 4 months too late without offering solutions.
(All the above being true)
Yeah... I like people that are willing to accept and debate opinions and information and not just silence all that disagree with them with banning and poop throwing.
Anyhow get ready for HR669's big brother it will be ready for prime time in about another month...This is not going to go away and a solution to this issue has got to be found.
Was based on nothing but kneejerk reaction without information, and that all they where doing was jumping on a band wagon 4 months too late without offering solutions.
(All the above being true)
Yeah... I like people that are willing to accept and debate opinions and information and not just silence all that disagree with them with banning and poop throwing.
Anyhow get ready for HR669's big brother it will be ready for prime time in about another month...This is not going to go away and a solution to this issue has got to be found.
#103
Guest_Irate Mormon_*
Guest_Irate Mormon_*
-
- Guests
Posted 04 June 2009 - 11:52 PM
The whole problem here, IMO, has nothing to do with the Pet Industry or PETA or any other such thing. The problem is showing (using sound science) whether a species is likely (or not) to be invasive.
There is just no way to do this. Never mind the numbers involved (anybody raise exotic insects?), there is no model that will predict such an outcome.
There is just no way to do this. Never mind the numbers involved (anybody raise exotic insects?), there is no model that will predict such an outcome.
#104
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 June 2009 - 07:46 AM
Martin, what you say is right but it could be standing the problem on its head. The onus should be on someone bringing in new plants or animals to show that they won't be invasive in at least some region of the country. Monitor lizards aren't a problem in Minnesota, but they've overrun parts of Florida, and we all know about various carps, catfishes and cichlids.
#105
Guest_rjmtx_*
Guest_rjmtx_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 June 2009 - 08:22 AM
Sure, you can never be sure how an ecosystem will react to an invader, but you can make statements on invasive potential when you take the state of the ecosystem and the life history and habits of an introduced species. Degraded systems are generally more prone to invasions, as well as stable (spring fed, reservoirs, etc.) systems. Unfortunately, we usually learn this after an invasion has already occurred. Luckily, riverene fish invasions can be (relatively) more easily contained (at least by basin) than terrestrial invasions since most fish/mussels require a human to walk over land. I think an army of grad students across the country could tackle the problem of invasive potentials in different ecosystems within a few years.
#106
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 June 2009 - 09:37 AM
All we have to do is to find funding for this army!I think an army of grad students across the country could tackle the problem of invasive potentials in different ecosystems within a few years.
#107
Guest_rjmtx_*
Guest_rjmtx_*
-
- Guests
Posted 05 June 2009 - 08:28 PM
Damn that money issue... There is money out there, I know, it's just a matter of directing it to where it needs to go.
#108
Guest_Irate Mormon_*
Guest_Irate Mormon_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 June 2009 - 12:06 AM
The onus should be on someone bringing in new plants or animals to show that they won't be invasive in at least some region of the country.
Yeah! Well, sure - I can do that! At least as convincingly as anyone else...
#109
Guest_fundulus_*
Guest_fundulus_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 June 2009 - 08:41 AM
Well, it's easy; just let it loose in your yard or a nearby creek, and see what happens. It's already a popular technique.Yeah! Well, sure - I can do that! At least as convincingly as anyone else...
#110
Guest_rjmtx_*
Guest_rjmtx_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 June 2009 - 09:12 AM
I let a tilapia loose in my back yard. It didn't make the night. We should definitely put it on the "OK" list.
Are we going to ban the importation of humans? Will captive bred humans still be OK? What will we do with all the humans that are already in the continental US?
Are we going to ban the importation of humans? Will captive bred humans still be OK? What will we do with all the humans that are already in the continental US?
#111
Guest_schambers_*
Guest_schambers_*
-
- Guests
Posted 06 June 2009 - 11:32 AM
Yeah, humans have got to be the most invasive animal there is. The habitat destruction is just sickening.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
NANFA Youtube Channel 
