Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

Expand Messages
  • Gerald Griffin
    That is the point. I had a hamster bite give me lockjaw, therefore they can be banned.  Its not that hard to find damage an organism can cause given the right
    Message 1 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009
      That is the point.

      I had a hamster bite give me lockjaw, therefore they can be banned.  Its not that hard to find damage an organism can cause given the right environment.  This is the primary danger of this bill.

      --- On Sun, 4/5/09, joesbirds@... <joesbirds@...> wrote:
      From: joesbirds@... <joesbirds@...>
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:53 AM

      "Under factors to be considered it says that the regulations under subsection a shall include...(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the enviroment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems or ecosystems that are similar to those in the unided states. "
       
       
      That to me scares me. If has a established or spread or caused harm to the economy. So if it doesn't cause harm to the economy but can spread or has a similar ecosystem  than that occurs in the united states it can be banned or have reason to be banned no matter what species. We have deserts, swamps and tropical and temperate areas all over the united states. If the animal comes from the mediteranean we wouldnt' be able to keep it as Orange County is considered a mediteranean type climate and landscape. This bill is supported by Wayne Parcell and his H.S.U.S cronies who look like saints to the public and raise big money to protect animals but they are against all animal ownership and the way this bill is written could include domestic dogs and cats (feral cats anybody).
       
      Joey
       
      In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:42:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, BizEcology@gmail. com writes:

      I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
       
      If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
       
      Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
       
      The President signs the law.
       
      The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
      This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
       
      So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
       


       
      On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      Larry,
      Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
      Mark



      --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

      From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
      To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
      Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

      It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


       
      On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
      Hey Gang,
      Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
      Mark



      ------------ --------- --------- ------

      Yahoo! Groups Links

      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
         http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

      <*> Your email settings:
         Individual Email | Traditional

      <*> To change settings online go to:
         http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

         (Yahoo! ID required)

      <*> To change settings via email:
         mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

         mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
         anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
         http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




      --
      Keep the books,
      Burn the censors







      --
      Keep the books,
      Burn the censors



      Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.

    • Larry Vires
      Asupler, I totally agree with this stance.  However, it s the animal rights activists that have the money in this case.  Anyone who has worked at large
      Message 2 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009
        Asupler,
         
        I totally agree with this stance.  However, it's the animal rights activists that have the money in this case.  Anyone who has worked at large scale, or even local pet suppliers can vouch for that.  However, it's much easier to accept donations which can be placed as seen fit.  Industry organizations can be persuasive, but not usually in the case of such a low profit industry.  This would be a different story during the recession if tax dollars came from the industry, notice that there are no bans being placed on tobacco or oil.  They just increase the tax in order to afford to look the other way while the environment is slowly eaten away at and healthcare costs skyrocket.
         
        Larry


        From: "Asupler@..." <Asupler@...>
        To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:21:03 AM
        Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

        As I have not yet read the proposed bill, I'll not comment on it, but as long as we have the best Congress money can buy, the pet industry will prevail, especially in the current economy.
         
        JMO, for what it's worth- or not.
         
        In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:08:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com writes:

        Larry,
        If this bill is passed, the groups that worked to get it passed will have the upper hand when the lists are put together.  Yes, there will be an approved species list but it will require positive action to include a species on that list.  A better approach would be to add species to a banned list with any species not specifically banned to remain legal.  That is the approach under current law.  Name one species in the hobby that does not have the potential to become established somewhere in the US.  All the tropical species can live in Florida, Hawaii, and most of the southern states.  Coldwater species can become established in northern states.  If a species can be commercially raised in Florida, it can live in Florida and quite a few of them are established in Florida.  So, there you go, they're all banned based on the way this law is written.  If 100 species make the approved list, I'll be very surprised.  And any newly discovered species will have to be evaluated and added either to the approved or banned list before it could be brought into the country.  That process will likely take several years at least for each species, so effectively no new species will become available.  Eliminating the keeping of pets has long been the goal of animal rights groups.  Presidents of the Humane Society have publicly stated that they believe all pet ownership should be illegal.  This bill is a strong salvo in their battle against pets and if we don't take it seriously enough it will be the beginning of the end.
        Mark



        --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

        From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
        Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
        To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:02 AM

        I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
         
        If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
         
        Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
         
        The President signs the law.
         
        The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
        This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
         
        So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
         


         
        On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        Larry,
        Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
        Mark



        --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

        From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
        Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
        To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
        Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

        It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


         
        On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
        Hey Gang,
        Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
        Mark



        ------------ --------- --------- ------

        Yahoo! Groups Links

        <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
           http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

        <*> Your email settings:
           Individual Email | Traditional

        <*> To change settings online go to:
           http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

           (Yahoo! ID required)

        <*> To change settings via email:
           mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

           mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

        <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
           anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

        <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
           http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




        --
        Keep the books,
        Burn the censors







        --
        Keep the books,
        Burn the censors




        A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

      • Larry Vires
        Gerald, Hamsters would have to be banned anyway.  We had one escape when I was a kid, and found the fuzziest mice you can imagine for about 6 months
        Message 3 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009
          Gerald,
           
          Hamsters would have to be banned anyway.  We had one escape when I was a kid, and found the fuzziest mice you can imagine for about 6 months afterward.  This was just a random hybrid that took place with no outside influence.  Therefore, they pose a risk to the natural rodent populations genetic pool.  Amazing how anyone can attempt to shine a positive light on this bill.  We can also talk about dogs in the same respect as there are several wolf hybrids out there.  All of this is environmental damage when properly translated.
           
          Sorry for the rambling but I tend to get a bit high-strung
           
          Larry


          From: Gerald Griffin <herpchat@...>
          To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
          Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 9:00:12 AM
          Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

          That is the point.

          I had a hamster bite give me lockjaw, therefore they can be banned.  Its not that hard to find damage an organism can cause given the right environment.  This is the primary danger of this bill.

          --- On Sun, 4/5/09, joesbirds@aol. com <joesbirds@aol. com> wrote:
          From: joesbirds@aol. com <joesbirds@aol. com>
          Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
          To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
          Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:53 AM

          "Under factors to be considered it says that the regulations under subsection a shall include...(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the enviroment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems or ecosystems that are similar to those in the unided states. "
           
           
          That to me scares me. If has a established or spread or caused harm to the economy. So if it doesn't cause harm to the economy but can spread or has a similar ecosystem  than that occurs in the united states it can be banned or have reason to be banned no matter what species. We have deserts, swamps and tropical and temperate areas all over the united states. If the animal comes from the mediteranean we wouldnt' be able to keep it as Orange County is considered a mediteranean type climate and landscape. This bill is supported by Wayne Parcell and his H.S.U.S cronies who look like saints to the public and raise big money to protect animals but they are against all animal ownership and the way this bill is written could include domestic dogs and cats (feral cats anybody).
           
          Joey
           
          In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:42:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, BizEcology@gmail. com writes:

          I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
           
          If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
           
          Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
           
          The President signs the law.
           
          The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
          This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
           
          So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
           


           
          On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
          Larry,
          Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
          Mark



          --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

          From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
          Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
          To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
          Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

          It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


           
          On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
          Hey Gang,
          Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
          Mark



          ------------ --------- --------- ------

          Yahoo! Groups Links

          <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
             http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

          <*> Your email settings:
             Individual Email | Traditional

          <*> To change settings online go to:
             http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

             (Yahoo! ID required)

          <*> To change settings via email:
             mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

             mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

          <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
             anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

          <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
             http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




          --
          Keep the books,
          Burn the censors







          --
          Keep the books,
          Burn the censors



          Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.


        • Gerald Griffin
          That was the point I was going for. Under this everything can be banned.  Just what PETA wants. ... From: Larry Vires Subject: Re:
          Message 4 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009
            That was the point I was going for.

            Under this everything can be banned.  Just what PETA wants.

            --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@...> wrote:
            From: Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@...>
            Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
            To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
            Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 12:07 PM

            Gerald,
             
            Hamsters would have to be banned anyway.  We had one escape when I was a kid, and found the fuzziest mice you can imagine for about 6 months afterward.  This was just a random hybrid that took place with no outside influence.  Therefore, they pose a risk to the natural rodent populations genetic pool.  Amazing how anyone can attempt to shine a positive light on this bill.  We can also talk about dogs in the same respect as there are several wolf hybrids out there.  All of this is environmental damage when properly translated.
             
            Sorry for the rambling but I tend to get a bit high-strung
             
            Larry


            From: Gerald Griffin <herpchat@yahoo. com>
            To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
            Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 9:00:12 AM
            Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

            That is the point.

            I had a hamster bite give me lockjaw, therefore they can be banned.  Its not that hard to find damage an organism can cause given the right environment.  This is the primary danger of this bill.

            --- On Sun, 4/5/09, joesbirds@aol. com <joesbirds@aol. com> wrote:
            From: joesbirds@aol. com <joesbirds@aol. com>
            Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
            To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
            Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:53 AM

            "Under factors to be considered it says that the regulations under subsection a shall include...(3) whether the species has established or spread, or caused harm to the economy, the enviroment, or other animal species or human health in ecosystems or ecosystems that are similar to those in the unided states. "
             
             
            That to me scares me. If has a established or spread or caused harm to the economy. So if it doesn't cause harm to the economy but can spread or has a similar ecosystem  than that occurs in the united states it can be banned or have reason to be banned no matter what species. We have deserts, swamps and tropical and temperate areas all over the united states. If the animal comes from the mediteranean we wouldnt' be able to keep it as Orange County is considered a mediteranean type climate and landscape. This bill is supported by Wayne Parcell and his H.S.U.S cronies who look like saints to the public and raise big money to protect animals but they are against all animal ownership and the way this bill is written could include domestic dogs and cats (feral cats anybody).
             
            Joey
             
            In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:42:21 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, BizEcology@gmail. com writes:

            I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
             
            If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
             
            Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
             
            The President signs the law.
             
            The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
            This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
             
            So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
             


             
            On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
            Larry,
            Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
            Mark



            --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

            From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
            Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
            To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
            Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

            It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


             
            On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
            Hey Gang,
            Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
            Mark



            ------------ --------- --------- ------

            Yahoo! Groups Links

            <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
               http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

            <*> Your email settings:
               Individual Email | Traditional

            <*> To change settings online go to:
               http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

               (Yahoo! ID required)

            <*> To change settings via email:
               mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

               mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

            <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
               anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

            <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
               http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




            --
            Keep the books,
            Burn the censors







            --
            Keep the books,
            Burn the censors



            Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.



          • michael@meyer.net
            You comment makes me wonder how long before we get a pet tax. If pets are causing problems as described maybe that would be a way to fund the solution.
            Message 5 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009
              You comment makes me wonder how long before we get a pet tax.  If pets are causing problems as described maybe that would be a way to fund the solution.  Surprised it hasn't been approached.  Interesting to wonder too this thought.  Folks that are upset know are folks that really have a passion for this hobby.  But if you put an extra 10 cents of tax for each fish dollar you spend, I wonder how many average families would get upset to the idea of paying more tax?
               
              -----Original Message-----
              From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Larry Vires
              Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:58 AM
              To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
              Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

              Asupler,
               
              I totally agree with this stance.  However, it's the animal rights activists that have the money in this case.  Anyone who has worked at large scale, or even local pet suppliers can vouch for that.  However, it's much easier to accept donations which can be placed as seen fit.  Industry organizations can be persuasive, but not usually in the case of such a low profit industry.  This would be a different story during the recession if tax dollars came from the industry, notice that there are no bans being placed on tobacco or oil.  They just increase the tax in order to afford to look the other way while the environment is slowly eaten away at and healthcare costs skyrocket.
               
              Larry


              From: "Asupler@..." <Asupler@...>
              To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
              Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:21:03 AM
              Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

              As I have not yet read the proposed bill, I'll not comment on it, but as long as we have the best Congress money can buy, the pet industry will prevail, especially in the current economy.
               
              JMO, for what it's worth- or not.
               
              In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:08:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com writes:

              Larry,
              If this bill is passed, the groups that worked to get it passed will have the upper hand when the lists are put together.  Yes, there will be an approved species list but it will require positive action to include a species on that list.  A better approach would be to add species to a banned list with any species not specifically banned to remain legal.  That is the approach under current law.  Name one species in the hobby that does not have the potential to become established somewhere in the US.  All the tropical species can live in Florida, Hawaii, and most of the southern states.  Coldwater species can become established in northern states.  If a species can be commercially raised in Florida, it can live in Florida and quite a few of them are established in Florida.  So, there you go, they're all banned based on the way this law is written.  If 100 species make the approved list, I'll be very surprised.  And any newly discovered species will have to be evaluated and added either to the approved or banned list before it could be brought into the country.  That process will likely take several years at least for each species, so effectively no new species will become available.  Eliminating the keeping of pets has long been the goal of animal rights groups.  Presidents of the Humane Society have publicly stated that they believe all pet ownership should be illegal.  This bill is a strong salvo in their battle against pets and if we don't take it seriously enough it will be the beginning of the end.
              Mark



              --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

              From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
              Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
              To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
              Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:02 AM

              I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
               
              If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
               
              Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
               
              The President signs the law.
               
              The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
              This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
               
              So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
               


               
              On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
              Larry,
              Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
              Mark



              --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

              From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
              Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
              To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
              Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

              It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


               
              On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
              Hey Gang,
              Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
              Mark



              ------------ --------- --------- ------

              Yahoo! Groups Links

              <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                 http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

              <*> Your email settings:
                 Individual Email | Traditional

              <*> To change settings online go to:
                 http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

                 (Yahoo! ID required)

              <*> To change settings via email:
                 mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

                 mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

              <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                 anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

              <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                 http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




              --
              Keep the books,
              Burn the censors







              --
              Keep the books,
              Burn the censors




              A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!

            • joesbirds@aol.com
              There are attempts to get a pet tax most notably in California SB 250 . These bills are also supported by PETA and HSUS. Joey In a message dated 4/5/2009
              Message 6 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009
                There are attempts to get a pet tax most notably in California SB 250 . These bills are also supported by PETA and HSUS.
                 
                 
                Joey
                In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:45:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, michael@... writes:

                You comment makes me wonder how long before we get a pet tax.  If pets are causing problems as described maybe that would be a way to fund the solution.  Surprised it hasn't been approached.  Interesting to wonder too this thought.  Folks that are upset know are folks that really have a passion for this hobby.  But if you put an extra 10 cents of tax for each fish dollar you spend, I wonder how many average families would get upset to the idea of paying more tax?
                 
                -----Original Message-----
                From: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:anubiasdesi gn@yahoogroups. com]On Behalf Of Larry Vires
                Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:58 AM
                To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                Asupler,
                 
                I totally agree with this stance.  However, it's the animal rights activists that have the money in this case.  Anyone who has worked at large scale, or even local pet suppliers can vouch for that.  However, it's much easier to accept donations which can be placed as seen fit.  Industry organizations can be persuasive, but not usually in the case of such a low profit industry.  This would be a different story during the recession if tax dollars came from the industry, notice that there are no bans being placed on tobacco or oil.  They just increase the tax in order to afford to look the other way while the environment is slowly eaten away at and healthcare costs skyrocket.
                 
                Larry


                From: "Asupler@aol. com" <Asupler@aol. com>
                To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:21:03 AM
                Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                As I have not yet read the proposed bill, I'll not comment on it, but as long as we have the best Congress money can buy, the pet industry will prevail, especially in the current economy.
                 
                JMO, for what it's worth- or not.
                 
                In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:08:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com writes:

                Larry,
                If this bill is passed, the groups that worked to get it passed will have the upper hand when the lists are put together.  Yes, there will be an approved species list but it will require positive action to include a species on that list.  A better approach would be to add species to a banned list with any species not specifically banned to remain legal.  That is the approach under current law.  Name one species in the hobby that does not have the potential to become established somewhere in the US.  All the tropical species can live in Florida, Hawaii, and most of the southern states.  Coldwater species can become established in northern states.  If a species can be commercially raised in Florida, it can live in Florida and quite a few of them are established in Florida.  So, there you go, they're all banned based on the way this law is written.  If 100 species make the approved list, I'll be very surprised.  And any newly discovered species will have to be evaluated and added either to the approved or banned list before it could be brought into the country.  That process will likely take several years at least for each species, so effectively no new species will become available.  Eliminating the keeping of pets has long been the goal of animal rights groups.  Presidents of the Humane Society have publicly stated that they believe all pet ownership should be illegal.  This bill is a strong salvo in their battle against pets and if we don't take it seriously enough it will be the beginning of the end.
                Mark



                --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

                From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
                Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
                To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:02 AM

                I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
                 
                If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
                 
                Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
                 
                The President signs the law.
                 
                The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
                This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
                 
                So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
                 


                 
                On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                Larry,
                Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
                Mark



                --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

                From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
                Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
                To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

                It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


                 
                On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                Hey Gang,
                Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
                Mark



                ------------ --------- --------- ------

                Yahoo! Groups Links

                <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                   http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

                <*> Your email settings:
                   Individual Email | Traditional

                <*> To change settings online go to:
                   http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

                   (Yahoo! ID required)

                <*> To change settings via email:
                   mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

                   mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

                <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                   anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                   http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




                --
                Keep the books,
                Burn the censors







                --
                Keep the books,
                Burn the censors




                A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



                Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.
              • Larry Vires
                I only recently quit smoking after 20+ years.  Most things we do as a luxury are taxed and it s only when it becomes excessive that it s a real problem.  In
                Message 7 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009
                  I only recently quit smoking after 20+ years.  Most things we do as a luxury are taxed and it's only when it becomes excessive that it's a real problem.  In the case of tobacco, the increases were initially touted as a way to pay for increasing healthcare costs.  That didn't hold up as tobacco taxes are now diverted to everything imaginable.  If a pet tax was actually used to take care of potential damages and excessive jobs weren't created to do so, I doubt that most hobbyists would mind a small tax.  I know of several small groups that frequently net/catch introduced species in Florida to re-sell to the pet industry or at auction to support hobby activity.  In the process killing two birds with one stone.  I'm not stating that this is a cure to the problem, but that there are means to fund assisting projects with such a tax.  There are introduced species within Everglades national park that are HIGHLY sought after by keepers of larger fish, but no projects to collect them because of the national parks service.  The place is over-run with all forms of oscar, festae, cichla, and even a couple large Loricariidae species.  Point being, if tax dollars were properly used to solve a problem and outside funds looked for via additional methods, it wouldn't be a bad idea.  However, anything in excess would cause even more damage to the hobby and ecosystem than ignoring the problem completely.  Once people stop caring, there's no problem to find a cure for.
                   
                  Larry


                  From: "joesbirds@..." <joesbirds@...>
                  To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
                  Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 11:14:37 AM
                  Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                  There are attempts to get a pet tax most notably in California SB 250 . These bills are also supported by PETA and HSUS.
                   
                   
                  Joey
                  In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:45:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, michael@meyer. net writes:

                  You comment makes me wonder how long before we get a pet tax.  If pets are causing problems as described maybe that would be a way to fund the solution.  Surprised it hasn't been approached.  Interesting to wonder too this thought.  Folks that are upset know are folks that really have a passion for this hobby.  But if you put an extra 10 cents of tax for each fish dollar you spend, I wonder how many average families would get upset to the idea of paying more tax?
                   
                  -----Original Message-----
                  From: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:anubiasdesi gn@yahoogroups. com]On Behalf Of Larry Vires
                  Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:58 AM
                  To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                  Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                  Asupler,
                   
                  I totally agree with this stance.  However, it's the animal rights activists that have the money in this case.  Anyone who has worked at large scale, or even local pet suppliers can vouch for that.  However, it's much easier to accept donations which can be placed as seen fit.  Industry organizations can be persuasive, but not usually in the case of such a low profit industry.  This would be a different story during the recession if tax dollars came from the industry, notice that there are no bans being placed on tobacco or oil.  They just increase the tax in order to afford to look the other way while the environment is slowly eaten away at and healthcare costs skyrocket.
                   
                  Larry


                  From: "Asupler@aol. com" <Asupler@aol. com>
                  To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                  Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:21:03 AM
                  Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                  As I have not yet read the proposed bill, I'll not comment on it, but as long as we have the best Congress money can buy, the pet industry will prevail, especially in the current economy.
                   
                  JMO, for what it's worth- or not.
                   
                  In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:08:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com writes:

                  Larry,
                  If this bill is passed, the groups that worked to get it passed will have the upper hand when the lists are put together.  Yes, there will be an approved species list but it will require positive action to include a species on that list.  A better approach would be to add species to a banned list with any species not specifically banned to remain legal.  That is the approach under current law.  Name one species in the hobby that does not have the potential to become established somewhere in the US.  All the tropical species can live in Florida, Hawaii, and most of the southern states.  Coldwater species can become established in northern states.  If a species can be commercially raised in Florida, it can live in Florida and quite a few of them are established in Florida.  So, there you go, they're all banned based on the way this law is written.  If 100 species make the approved list, I'll be very surprised.  And any newly discovered species will have to be evaluated and added either to the approved or banned list before it could be brought into the country.  That process will likely take several years at least for each species, so effectively no new species will become available.  Eliminating the keeping of pets has long been the goal of animal rights groups.  Presidents of the Humane Society have publicly stated that they believe all pet ownership should be illegal.  This bill is a strong salvo in their battle against pets and if we don't take it seriously enough it will be the beginning of the end.
                  Mark



                  --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

                  From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
                  Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
                  To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                  Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:02 AM

                  I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
                   
                  If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
                   
                  Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
                   
                  The President signs the law.
                   
                  The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
                  This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
                   
                  So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
                   


                   
                  On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                  Larry,
                  Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
                  Mark



                  --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

                  From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
                  Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
                  To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                  Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

                  It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


                   
                  On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                  Hey Gang,
                  Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
                  Mark



                  ------------ --------- --------- ------

                  Yahoo! Groups Links

                  <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                     http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

                  <*> Your email settings:
                     Individual Email | Traditional

                  <*> To change settings online go to:
                     http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

                     (Yahoo! ID required)

                  <*> To change settings via email:
                     mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

                     mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

                  <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                     anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                  <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                     http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




                  --
                  Keep the books,
                  Burn the censors







                  --
                  Keep the books,
                  Burn the censors




                  A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



                  Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.

                • Chromedome52@comcast.net
                  Larry, you stated: If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and
                  Message 8 of 23 , Apr 5, 2009

                    Larry, you stated: "If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species). "

                     

                    Would that be the way they took all Snakeheads and banned them because one species was causing problems? From that example, I would expect that all Characiformes would be banned because Piranhas are a hazard, not the other way around. This is the way they have worked in the past, rather than the way your pollyana attitude suggests. And there is not a group of fish that would not have at least a couple of species that might be "dangerous".

                     

                    The only thing you said that is correct is:  "If you have a problem, take action through your representatives." This is what I have done, and what everyone here has been urging others to do, not simply whining about it. I have read this bill - twice, as it is virtually identical to HR 6331, which was killed last year in committee. But if we don't let our dissatisfaction be known, how will they know to kill it again? They found a freshman representative to re-introduce it, and HSUS will not stop trying, so we have to continue to defend our position, as well.

                     

                    "All that is needed for evil to succeed is for good men to stand by and do nothing." So if you want to stand by and do nothing, at least have the decency not to get in the way of those who are doing something.

                     

                    Darrell Ullisch

                     


                    ----- Original Message -----
                    From: "Larry Tagrin" <BizEcology@...>
                    To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
                    Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 10:02:17 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern
                    Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                    I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
                     
                    If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
                     
                    Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
                     
                    The President signs the law.
                     
                    The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
                    This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
                     
                    So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
                     


                     
                    On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@...> wrote:
                    Larry,
                    Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
                    Mark



                    --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@...> wrote:

                    From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@...>
                    Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
                    To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
                    Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

                    It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


                     
                    On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                    Hey Gang,
                    Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
                    Mark



                    ------------ --------- --------- ------

                    Yahoo! Groups Links

                    <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                       http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

                    <*> Your email settings:
                       Individual Email | Traditional

                    <*> To change settings online go to:
                       http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

                       (Yahoo! ID required)

                    <*> To change settings via email:
                       mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

                       mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

                    <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                       anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                    <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                       http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




                    --
                    Keep the books,
                    Burn the censors







                    --
                    Keep the books,
                    Burn the censors

                  • michael@meyer.net
                    Generally, I am not an advocate for any increases in taxes. My Government seems to have a hard time managing money and priorities. But if a tax were imposed,
                    Message 9 of 23 , Apr 6, 2009
                      Generally, I am not an advocate for any increases in taxes.  My Government seems to have a hard time managing money and priorities.  But if a tax were imposed, I do think that when the Government had to explain what it's for would actually be the biggest benefit.  The education of the public would be invaluable.  After all, we all know smoking is bad for us now.  It's still hard to kill that addiction, but at least we know the risks.  Being better informed about exotic pets might be a benefit.  It might go too far and create more PETA folks too:(
                      Mike
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Larry Vires
                      Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 1:42 PM
                      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
                      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                      I only recently quit smoking after 20+ years.  Most things we do as a luxury are taxed and it's only when it becomes excessive that it's a real problem.  In the case of tobacco, the increases were initially touted as a way to pay for increasing healthcare costs.  That didn't hold up as tobacco taxes are now diverted to everything imaginable.  If a pet tax was actually used to take care of potential damages and excessive jobs weren't created to do so, I doubt that most hobbyists would mind a small tax.  I know of several small groups that frequently net/catch introduced species in Florida to re-sell to the pet industry or at auction to support hobby activity.  In the process killing two birds with one stone.  I'm not stating that this is a cure to the problem, but that there are means to fund assisting projects with such a tax.  There are introduced species within Everglades national park that are HIGHLY sought after by keepers of larger fish, but no projects to collect them because of the national parks service.  The place is over-run with all forms of oscar, festae, cichla, and even a couple large Loricariidae species.  Point being, if tax dollars were properly used to solve a problem and outside funds looked for via additional methods, it wouldn't be a bad idea.  However, anything in excess would cause even more damage to the hobby and ecosystem than ignoring the problem completely.  Once people stop caring, there's no problem to find a cure for.
                       
                      Larry


                      From: "joesbirds@..." <joesbirds@...>
                      To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
                      Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 11:14:37 AM
                      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                      There are attempts to get a pet tax most notably in California SB 250 . These bills are also supported by PETA and HSUS.
                       
                       
                      Joey
                      In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:45:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, michael@meyer. net writes:

                      You comment makes me wonder how long before we get a pet tax.  If pets are causing problems as described maybe that would be a way to fund the solution.  Surprised it hasn't been approached.  Interesting to wonder too this thought.  Folks that are upset know are folks that really have a passion for this hobby.  But if you put an extra 10 cents of tax for each fish dollar you spend, I wonder how many average families would get upset to the idea of paying more tax?
                       
                      -----Original Message-----
                      From: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com [mailto:anubiasdesi gn@yahoogroups. com]On Behalf Of Larry Vires
                      Sent: Sunday, April 05, 2009 11:58 AM
                      To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                      Asupler,
                       
                      I totally agree with this stance.  However, it's the animal rights activists that have the money in this case.  Anyone who has worked at large scale, or even local pet suppliers can vouch for that.  However, it's much easier to accept donations which can be placed as seen fit.  Industry organizations can be persuasive, but not usually in the case of such a low profit industry.  This would be a different story during the recession if tax dollars came from the industry, notice that there are no bans being placed on tobacco or oil.  They just increase the tax in order to afford to look the other way while the environment is slowly eaten away at and healthcare costs skyrocket.
                       
                      Larry


                      From: "Asupler@aol. com" <Asupler@aol. com>
                      To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                      Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 8:21:03 AM
                      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!

                      As I have not yet read the proposed bill, I'll not comment on it, but as long as we have the best Congress money can buy, the pet industry will prevail, especially in the current economy.
                       
                      JMO, for what it's worth- or not.
                       
                      In a message dated 4/5/2009 10:08:30 A.M. Central Daylight Time, anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com writes:

                      Larry,
                      If this bill is passed, the groups that worked to get it passed will have the upper hand when the lists are put together.  Yes, there will be an approved species list but it will require positive action to include a species on that list.  A better approach would be to add species to a banned list with any species not specifically banned to remain legal.  That is the approach under current law.  Name one species in the hobby that does not have the potential to become established somewhere in the US.  All the tropical species can live in Florida, Hawaii, and most of the southern states.  Coldwater species can become established in northern states.  If a species can be commercially raised in Florida, it can live in Florida and quite a few of them are established in Florida.  So, there you go, they're all banned based on the way this law is written.  If 100 species make the approved list, I'll be very surprised.  And any newly discovered species will have to be evaluated and added either to the approved or banned list before it could be brought into the country.  That process will likely take several years at least for each species, so effectively no new species will become available.  Eliminating the keeping of pets has long been the goal of animal rights groups.  Presidents of the Humane Society have publicly stated that they believe all pet ownership should be illegal.  This bill is a strong salvo in their battle against pets and if we don't take it seriously enough it will be the beginning of the end.
                      Mark



                      --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

                      From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
                      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
                      To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 10:02 AM

                      I read it.  I do not think it will end the hobby.  I'm not whining, the people who object to any regulation as "government intrusion" are the whiners.  If you have a problem, take action through your representatives.  Don't try to panic everyone with second-hand prognostications.
                       
                      If the bill passes, I am sure there will be a coordinated effort to take entire groups of species which do not pose an invasive threat and carve out a place for them under section 4 (allowed species).  Length of time in the country, the history of non-damaging maintenance, and the presence of a critical population under proper control will all be considered.
                       
                      Don't forget the way the process works:  Congress passes a law.  The exact samw wording must be passed by both the House and Senate.
                       
                      The President signs the law.
                       
                      The executive agencies which will have to enforce the law then have to propose regulations, hold hearings, take comments, revise the regulations, and so on....
                      This process usually takes from six month to two years.  Only after the final regulations are put into place and published in the Federal Register, do they take place.
                       
                      So as someone very comfortable with the process and the opportunities to have modifications made, I do not see a critical threat to the hobby.
                       


                       
                      On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:44 AM, Anubias Design <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                      Larry,
                      Read the bill, then tell me if you think it won't end the hobby.  I've read it.  Maybe you should, too.  Quit whining about other people's opinions!
                      Mark



                      --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com> wrote:

                      From: Larry Tagrin <BizEcology@gmail. com>
                      Subject: Re: [anubiasdesign] No Politics!
                      To: anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com
                      Date: Sunday, April 5, 2009, 9:14 AM

                      It just burns me that the anti-regulation whiners post their industry interpretations of legislation without regerencing the bill litself.  People should read the actual bill before making up their mind, not taking orders from the industry PR flaks.


                       
                      On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 11:36 PM, Mark <anubiasdesign@ yahoo.com> wrote:
                      Hey Gang,
                      Let's keep the partisan politics off this list, please.  There are lots of Democrats and lots of Republicans who financially support groups like The Nature Conservancy and The Humane Society.  A bill like HR669 is not something that can be blamed on one party or the other; rather, it's a chance for all pet owners to unite in common cause regardless of our party affiliations.
                      Mark



                      ------------ --------- --------- ------

                      Yahoo! Groups Links

                      <*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
                         http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/

                      <*> Your email settings:
                         Individual Email | Traditional

                      <*> To change settings online go to:
                         http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/anubiasdes ign/join

                         (Yahoo! ID required)

                      <*> To change settings via email:
                         mailto:anubiasdesign- digest@yahoogrou ps.com

                         mailto:anubiasdesign- fullfeatured@ yahoogroups. com

                      <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
                         anubiasdesign- unsubscribe@ yahoogroups. com

                      <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
                         http://docs. yahoo.com/ info/terms/




                      --
                      Keep the books,
                      Burn the censors







                      --
                      Keep the books,
                      Burn the censors




                      A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!



                      Feeling the pinch at the grocery store? Make dinner for $10 or less.

                    • George
                      OK, OK I just called my senators and representive. I couldn t believe how fast my calls were answered. Just don t tell me I also have to write letters.
                      Message 10 of 23 , Apr 6, 2009
                        OK, OK I just called my senators and representive. I couldn't believe how fast my calls were answered. Just don't tell me I also have to write letters. George



                        --- In anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Griffin <herpchat@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > That was the point I was going for.
                        >
                        > Under this everything can be banned.  Just what PETA wants.
                        >
                        > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@...> wrote:
                        > From: Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@...>
                      • George
                        OK, OK I just called my senators and representive. I couldn t believe how fast my calls were answered. Just don t tell me I also have to write letters.
                        Message 11 of 23 , Apr 6, 2009
                          OK, OK I just called my senators and representive. I couldn't believe how fast my calls were answered. Just don't tell me I also have to write letters. George



                          --- In anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com, Gerald Griffin <herpchat@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > That was the point I was going for.
                          >
                          > Under this everything can be banned.  Just what PETA wants.
                          >
                          > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@...> wrote:
                          > From: Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@...>
                        • Edith
                          LOL. People are different. I d rather write a letter than make a phone call any day. I can just seem myself yelling at the cat (who likes to help with
                          Message 12 of 23 , Apr 6, 2009
                            LOL.   People are different.  I'd rather write a letter than make a phone call any day.   I can just seem myself yelling at the cat (who likes to "help" with the fish) and the boy (who thinks that mixing poopy cat litter and cheerios is cooking) while trying to talk to a government office.   
                             
                            Edith
                             
                            -----Original Message-----
                            From: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com [mailto:anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of George
                            Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 10:42 AM
                            To: anubiasdesign@yahoogroups.com
                            Subject: [anubiasdesign] Re: No Politics!

                            OK, OK I just called my senators and representive. I couldn't believe how fast my calls were answered. Just don't tell me I also have to write letters. George

                            --- In anubiasdesign@ yahoogroups. com, Gerald Griffin <herpchat@.. .> wrote:
                            >
                            > That was the point I was going for.
                            >
                            > Under this everything can be banned.  Just what PETA wants.
                            >
                            > --- On Sun, 4/5/09, Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@ ...> wrote:
                            > From: Larry Vires <pleco_breeder@ ...>

                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.