5 ms·
I'm surprised by stories like these that don't allow for the sale/ownership of sustainably farmed fish.
by ChuckMcM 3y ago
I'm surprised by stories like these that don't allow for the sale/ownership of sustainably farmed fish.
- pimlottc 3y agoI would guess because verification/enforcement would be difficult. How can you tell a legally farmed fish from an illegal captured one? You’d have to implement some sort of documentation scheme. Easier just to make them all illegal.
- ChuckMcM 3y agoChip them? I mean it wouldn't be that hard. You could also use genome tracing (registered genome lines with the Fish and Game department) That test would take a bit longer but with spot enforcement you'd probably keep compliance acceptably high.
- wtracy 3y agoMicrochipped arrowana are actually common these days, so you're on the right track. I don't know the full story, but the US has a blanket ban on any CITES-listed species.
- amluto 3y agoI wonder if this is counterproductive. In California, there are plenty of endangered aquatic species, and if people could legally buy and own captive-bred individuals, then perhaps there could be more native species kept as pets and fewer potentially invasive species. Even better: maybe regular people with ponds, etc could (easily) get permission to stock them with species that actually belong where they live. And maybe the species would become less endangered.
- s1artibartfast 3y agoany number of ways? a simple bill of sale from a legal distributor?
- resolutebat 3y agoThe super-expensive ones are bred for outlier traits like being bright red, platinum white, etc. It seems unlikely that ones harvested from the wild could compete.
- lsh123 3y ago[flagged]
- QuercusMax 3y agoYikes, quoting Reagan seriously?
- terminous 3y agoI'll give your non-contribution to this discussion a quote in turn: "Libertarians are like house cats: completely dependent on a system they neither understand nor appreciate, but nevertheless fiercely confident of their own independence."