Does this fish deserve to die?

As far as I'm concerned it's time for a fish fry. The fish should not only be taken away but the guy should be fined. These fish destroy habitats in this country and no one should be allowed to have them.

 

Since he had this fish before it became against the law, I think he should be allowed to keep it under circumstances. As long as it's in a tank, what harm can it do? If the owner decided he didn't want it anymore, then he should have to release it to the DEC.

 

Accidents happen and it's not worth the risk. Kill the thing!

 

people have accidents too and can be dangerous. We are also foreign to this continent. Should we "fry" us all?

Certainly I signed the petition. This species is not dangerous, could not survive freedom and is being cared for.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Oh, the poor poor fish. Can anyone say, "fish fry?"

 

Accident? So the guy is changing out the water in the fish tank, and he stumbles all the way to the nearest river and the fish slips in? I'm sorry but the image in my mind after reading accident struck me as funny. :laugh:

As far as the fish, it is a tough call. On one hand he has had the fish without incident for a long time, much longer than the law he is violating. On the other hand if you make an exception it opens the door for others to slip through. So while he might be perfectly responsible others may not be.

 

So, we should prosecute every person who broke a law ten years ago, even though it was only enacted yesterday?

That sounds like sensible legislation!

Cheers,

Jim

 

You wouldn't prosecute someone because they broke a law ten years ago, but rather someone who refuses to adhere to what is now a current law.

 

But this chap already had the fish under the existing law. The law changed, not him. This is not a life threatening situation and is under control.

Col Saunders, of the chicken fame, kept an alligator in a swimming pool in Cooksville, Ontario...This was a danger to the public and it was ordered moved to a zoo. Different situation, but a law change which rightly affected an animal. That is just good common sense.

Cheers,

Jim

 

I realize that, and made that point myself. However unlike property restrictions most laws don't have grandfather clauses. There are many laws, in fact with most laws once enacted people are expected to adhere to them. This is not some way out crazy new concept.

 

It's a stupid fish for crying out loud. It's a sick puppy who has an emotional attachment to a fish. Animal rights activists have way too much influence in our society today. When there's more concern over a fish compared to the much deeper problems in our society, somethings wrong.

 

Bolded mine

And what might just one of these problems be?????? HMMMMMMMM??

Just start at the beginning of the alphabet, and go till you think of "that problem"! :thumbs:

(Hard for me to think of any problem more grave than a predatory fish in captivity - just feel the guy's emotional attachment!):sleep:

 

While I don't understand the kinds of "pets" some people choose, I think everyone should have the right to own any pet they want as long as it's not a danger to others. However, the only way I care about fish is if they're good to eat. Otherwise, they're no good for anything. You can't hold them or pet them, and a Snakehead would probably rather eat your hand than eat FROM it.

 

Whether or not this "fish story" is some 'sensible" idea is a debatable issue.

However, the facts clearly show that this is both a "Bill of Attainder" and "ex post facto law" [Since when do we get that two wrongs now somehow make one right?? (Or is this one of those "Buy One; Get One Free!" deals??)], hence clearly UNconstitutional (It's not like that little annoying and trivial detail seems to be stopping anyone, these days! :tear, IMO.

Ed