wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 How would you undo the ecological damage of having the fish reproduce in waterways? Put a collar on it or something, track the thing. Do not kill it just for the sake of it though. He's apparently broken the law by keeping the fish even if he acquired it prior to the ban. It appears that the public's right to protect the ecology of the waterways may supersede his rights as a pet owner.He hasn't broken the law. He cannot be brought to trial, as one cannot be tried for a crime that was committed while the action was still legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Put a collar on it or something, track the thing. Do not kill it just for the sake of it though. He hasn't broken the law. He cannot be brought to trial, as one cannot be tried for a crime that was committed while the action was still legal. He pled guilty. Apparently he was charged with some violation of the law. Deverso earlier this month pleaded guilty in Clay town court to possessing an illegal fish. syracuse.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 He pled guilty. Apparently he was charged with some violation of the law. And I'm saying it's unconstitutional Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 And I'm saying it's unconstitutional How is it unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 During hurricane Katrina the Aquarium here removed many species of fish for fear they may be released into the Mississippi River if the tanks were damaged. Suppose someone wanted to keep Ebola Virus as a pet as long as they agreed to keep it in a petri dish! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 How is it unconstitutional? Ask and ye shall receive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 How is it unconstitutional? Ask and ye shall receive http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_facto_law#United_States How is this case ex post facto? And even if it is... However, not all laws with ex post facto effects have been found to be unconstitutional. source: wiki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUCK'EYE' DOC Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Or maybe a crazed chimpanzee. LOL I had to do a double-take when skimming this thread and saw this picture. At first glance, I thought that it was Jimmy with a chimp! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 How is this case ex post facto? And even if it is... Because he bought a legal fish and was then tried for having an illegal fish, despite the fact that when he bought it, it was perfectly fine. That is the definition of ex post facto. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Because he bought a legal fish and was then tried for having an illegal fish, despite the fact that when he bought it, it was perfectly fine. That is the definition of ex post facto. Even so, the current law applies to the current situation. Deverso purchased the fish legally in 1999, before a federal and state ban. syracuse.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Even so, the current law applies to the current situation. But you cannot try a current situation if the past, corresponding event was legal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mrs. Plant Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 LOL I had to do a double-take when skimming this thread and saw this picture. At first glance, I thought that it was Jimmy with a chimp! LOL. That would make a MUCH more interesting conversation than this legal rights crap Im bored of reading. Again, tell the dude to get a dog!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 But you cannot try a current situation if the past, corresponding event was legal The federal Lacey Act dates back to the early 1900's. Unless the government issues him a permit, chances are that he must give up possession of the fish. The Lacey Act (pdf) is a law that dates back to the early 1900’s and is one of the oldest wildlife related laws on the books. Under the Lacey Act, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized to regulate the importation and transport of species, including offspring and eggs, determined to be injurious to the health and welfare of humans, the interests of agriculture, horticulture or forestry, and the welfare and survival of wildlife resources of the U.S. Wild mammals, wild birds, fish, mollusks, crustaceans, amphibians, and reptiles are the only organisms that can be added to the injurious wildlife list. Species listed as injurious may not be imported or transported between States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the U.S. by any means without a permit issued by the Service. Permits may be granted for the importation or transportation of live specimens of injurious wildlife and their offspring or eggs for bona fide scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes. Final Rule fws.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The federal Lacey Act dates back to the early 1900's.That does not matter if he bought an legal animal legally. Until 2004, there was absolutely nothing the government could do to say that his pet was illegal. It would be like if he had a dog. Then 2004 rolls around and all of a sudden his pet's been put on a "cannot purchase" list. Well tough shit, he already did, so sorry Big Brother but he gets to legally keep him unless you want to break your own rules...which they did. And that's why I hate government in a nutshell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 That does not matter if he bought an legal animal legally. Until 2004, there was absolutely nothing the government could do to say that his pet was illegal. Even if he purchased the animal earlier when it was legal, it may no longer be legal to keep the animal in his possession currently. And the government was empowered in the early 1900's to say that a pet was illegal if the animal met the criteria for being injurious. It's a simple matter of giving a proper notice, like when you tell a landlord you are vacating a premises. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Even if he purchased the animal earlier when it was legal, it may no longer be legal to keep the animal in his possession currently. Then the law is unconstitutional and should therefore be removed. I'm writing my Senator Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Then the law is unconstitutional and should therefore be removed. I'm writing my Senator What is unconstitutional about protecting the public from an injurious species? [Federal Register: October 4, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 193)] [Rules and Regulations] [Page 62193-62204] From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:fr04oc02-10] [[Page 62193]] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR Fish and Wildlife Service 50 CFR Part 16 RIN 1018-AI36 Injurious Wildlife Species; Snakeheads (family Channidae) AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior. ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service adds all species of snakehead fishes in the Channidae family to the list of injurious fish, mollusks, and crustaceans. By this action, the Service prohibits the importation into or transportation between the continental United States, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or any territory or possession of the United States. The best available information indicates that this action is necessary to protect wildlife and wildlife resources from the purposeful or accidental introduction and subsequent establishment of snakehead populations in ecosystems of the United States. Live snakehead fishes or viable eggs can be imported only by permit for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes, or without a permit by Federal agencies solely for their own use; permits will also be required for the interstate transportation of live snakeheads or viable eggs currently held in the United States, for scientific, medical, educational, or zoological purposes. This final rule becomes effective immediately upon publication. DATES: This rule is effective October 4, 2002. fws.gov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 What is unconstitutional about protecting the public from an injurious species?We've been over this. The fact that you can go to trial and be found guilty of having possession of an animal when in fact you purchased it when having one was legal. Ex Post Facto. Anyways, I could make an argument that pit bulls or german sheperds need to be banned too, because every year, many people are attacked by them. Should the government pass that law, they could essentially do exactly what they're doing here: Murdering an animal because it has the potenetial to hurt. That makes no sense and is a clear violation of the rights of the people to raise an animal to be people-friendly and allow it to live a peaceful life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 We've been over this. The fact that you can go to trial and be found guilty of having possession of an animal when in fact you purchased it when having one was legal. Ex Post Facto. Anyways, I could make an argument that pit bulls or german sheperds need to be banned too, because every year, many people are attacked by them. Should the government pass that law, they could essentially do exactly what they're doing here: Murdering an animal because it has the potenetial to hurt. That makes no sense and is a clear violation of the rights of the people to raise an animal to be people-friendly and allow it to live a peaceful life. The federal government gave an effective notice of the addition of snakehead fish to the ban on injurious species in 2002. Here it is 2009. He has had seven years to comply with the notice. Btw, you can't murder an animal because it is property. It would be considered destruction of property or perhaps inhumane if it were cruel. And snakeheads are not peaceful animals, but rather are voracious feeders. Their natural habitat is in Thailand, not the United States. Nor are snakeheads domesticated animals, as are German Shepherds. And the law allows for destruction of Pit Bulls when they cause harm to humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~Bonnie~ Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The whole problem I have with this, is that this man purchased his pet legally. He went to a pet store and purchased an exotic fish, and he probably payed quite a bit for it because it was an exotic fish. He did nothing to break the law. He's had it for ten years, obviously he's not some kind of environmental terrorist out to wreak havoc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 Not all laws are automatically grandfathered in. For example when I used to commercially shrimp I had several nets that were legal for fishing then they passed laws to install T.E.D.'s and then B.R.D.'s Thus making my previously legal nets illegal. Incase you don't know what those stand for... Turtle excluding device and By-catch reduction device. In other words big fuck'n holes in your nets to let turtles and smaller fish get out of the net. And how big is a shrimp? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eternal light Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The whole problem I have with this, is that this man purchased his pet legally. He went to a pet store and purchased an exotic fish, and he probably payed quite a bit for it because it was an exotic fish. He did nothing to break the law. He's had it for ten years, obviously he's not some kind of environmental terrorist out to wreak havoc. He has had since 2002 to comply with the change in the law. It's an issue whether keeping the fish in his possession is lawful after the federal goverment gave notice under the Lacey Act, a federal law on the books since the early 1900's. Seven years have passed since 2002. That is more than a 30 day notice. And the law is specifically intended to protect against the purposeful or accidental introduction of the species into the United States ecosystems. It's not only designed to apply to bioterrorists. You may be able to dispute whether the law applies to possession in a post de facto case like this, because the wording states that it applies to transport. But that is the federal law. I have no idea what the local law in Syracuse allows. It may prohibit possession, and there may be something in the fine print of the federal law that does as well. Maybe there is a grace period, I don't know. But snakeheads are often destroyed by the government when they are discovered in the waterways. Maybe the owner of the fish has become emotionally attached to the predator. But I would probably ask the government how it recommends for proper disposal of the fish. I doubt that I would keep it in my possession knowing of the change in the law, if I were the owner of the fish. In practical terms, he cannot legally transport the fish. He must dispose of it lawfully. So he could argue that mere temporary possession of the fish is in compliance on that basis, while he is allowed reasonable time to arrange for safe disposal. I don't know why he pled guilty or what law they charged him under in Syracuse. A Thai cook would know what to do with the fish. Snakehead Thai Style Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 It's all about potential folks. Want a law to pissn'moan about, try the eminent domain law now that's a scary law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wanna be drummer Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 The federal government gave an effective notice of the addition of snakehead fish to the ban on injurious species in 2002. Here it is 2009. He has had seven years to comply with the notice.That does not matter as he legally purchased a legal animal at the time. It's his for life. There was no timetable on when he should get rid of it when he bought it, nor should there be now. Btw, you can't murder an animal because it is property. It would be considered destruction of property or perhaps inhumane if it were cruel. And snakeheads are not peaceful animals, but rather are voracious feeders. Their natural habitat is in Thailand, not the United States.One more irrelevant piece... Nor are snakeheads domesticated animals, as are German Shepherds. And the law allows for destruction of Pit Bulls when they cause harm to humans.Doesn't matter, either. It's securely locked away inside a glass tank. It doesn't need to be domesticated. Also, the key phrase in that last bit is "when they cause harm to humans." A fish in a box does not do that. Period. End of story. It's all about potential folks. Want a law to pissn'moan about, try the eminent domain law now that's a scary law It should never be about potential. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dzldoc Posted March 3, 2009 Share Posted March 3, 2009 It should never be about potential. Think about that statement next time you buckle up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.