The petition to save Rocky!

The "funny" thing about this is that if anything, it's going to backfire. They're making such a huge stink about this contained fish, that anybody else who may have one, whether legally obtained or not, may just dump their fish to avoid all of the hassles of what this person is going through. Pretty stupid to make such a big stink over a legally obtained fish that isn't a hazard as an individual.
 
Bettacreek said:
The "funny" thing about this is that if anything, it's going to backfire. They're making such a huge stink about this contained fish, that anybody else who may have one, whether legally obtained or not, may just dump their fish to avoid all of the hassles of what this person is going through. Pretty stupid to make such a big stink over a legally obtained fish that isn't a hazard as an individual.
Click to expand...

You know... you have a really really good point.
 
Bettacreek said:
The "funny" thing about this is that if anything, it's going to backfire. They're making such a huge stink about this contained fish, that anybody else who may have one, whether legally obtained or not, may just dump their fish to avoid all of the hassles of what this person is going through. Pretty stupid to make such a big stink over a legally obtained fish that isn't a hazard as an individual.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I was thinking. If other people that have them don't want to kill their fish, but are afraid of the government coming after them and fining them, then there is a very good possibility that they will turn their fish loose in local waters and they may not be the species that cannot survive the cold. If the law is so strict that it doesn't allow for common sense then it was very poorly written to begin with.
 
i agree ... so many laws do not make sense and have so many loop holes .. bump this thread for more sigs.... keep them coming..
 
This animal was purchased legally, and the government is attempting to enforce a law enacted after the purchase. According to the US Constitution, they can't punish this man for owning this animal. Killing this animal is punishment to the owner who has under the laws at the time of purchase had committed no crime.

Quoted from http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html "Ex post facto ex post facto adj. Formulated, enacted, or operating retroactively. [Med Lat., from what is done afterwards] Source: AHD In U.S. Constitutional Law, the definition of what is ex post facto is more limited. The first definition of what exactly constitutes an ex post facto law is found in Calder v Bull (3 US 386 [1798]), in the opinion of Justice Chase: 1st. Every law that makes an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal; and punishes such action. 2d. Every law that aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was, when committed. 3d. Every law that changes the punishment, and inflicts a greater punishment, than the law annexed to the crime, when committed. 4th. Every law that alters the legal rules of evidence, and receives less, or different, testimony, than the law required at the time of the commission of the offense, in order to convict the offender."
 
On MFK, we've been arguing that if the DEC refuses to distinguish between the 29 different species of snakehead, then how can the public trust them to distinguish between native sunfish, pike, salmon/trout, and catfish?

It's a huge cop-out. They'd rather terminate the fish than do their job properly.
 
Reefscape said:
LOLOL...i would move to outside of the UK....NOTHING...i say NOTHING will keep me away from my lovely guppies....mwahhahahhahahaa a a a :devil:
Click to expand...

Ya know he snacks on deep fried guppies, dontcha?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
AquariaCentral.com
Top Bottom