Ripped Tide;798602 wrote: The average ignorant hobbyist isn't going to pay +$200 for a coral that they know nothing about.
The only people who are buying rhizos know exactly what they are doing, and they don't care.
Something tells me that the gov't doesn't care what you "plead". Either you are guilty or not. If you have an illegal coral, you are guilty
Ripped Tide;798667 wrote: Yeah, I wanted a rhizo. Too pricey and too much trouble to find IMO. If I got caught, I didn't want to pay the fines,
Ripped Tide;798674 wrote: I don't know the penalties, hadn't really looked em up. Jeremy might know.
I assume there is just a fine. I don't know about the whole "jail time" part.
My comment earlier was "if the government catches you, they don't care what you tell them, they'll probably crack down, no matter the reason." I don't agree with the logic behind a lot of the govt bs, but there's not much I can change about how the lawman see's things
Rhyerob;798581 wrote: I would imagine the average "hobbyist" could plead ignorance. But someone who procures alot might need to think twice.
Ripped Tide;798684 wrote: If a rhizo is here, it was illegally permitted. This violates the Lacey act. Selling them makes it illegal.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslaceyact.htm">http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslaceyact.htm</a>
Edit: $10000 fine, and up to one year in prison.[/QUOTE]
I am not sure if the web-link provided above appropriately addresses "if a rhizo is here, then it was illegally permitted." I think it would depend on when rhizos were placed on the ban list of imports/exports. Stated differently, if someone owned it legally before the ban, then one has to believe in some type of "grandfathering" clause/provision.
More over, I perused the link provided and cut/pasted the following....
"The felony provision of this part of the act was amended such that one could be convicted if he or she either knew of the import or export of the species or where he or she was involved in the sale or purchase of wildlife, fish, or plants with a [B]market value greater than $350[/B]." So does this mean, anything under the stated amount is permissible?
Rhyerob;798581 wrote: I would imagine the average "hobbyist" could plead ignorance. But someone who procures alot might need to think twice.
Ripped Tide;798657 wrote: I, personally, don't mind who owns what. If someone wants a white tiger, and have means to get and house one, go for it! That's all up to them. I doubt the govt will come knocking on the door of rhizo owners. But, if someone did get caught, I doubt the law man would accept the plea of ignorance. We should advocate, whether you practice it or not, safe/legal reef keeping. I certainly don't agree with all the things that collectors and hobbyist do.
Thanh386;798664 wrote: This statement is like a fail attempt to mediate the early statement where it seems that you lump owners of rhizos with weed heads and crack heads. I still don't see where it's illegal to own. And didn't you want one a while back, and don't claim ignorance.
Ripped Tide;798684 wrote: If a rhizo is here, it was illegally permitted. This violates the Lacey act. Selling them makes it illegal.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslaceyact.htm">http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslaceyact.htm</a>
Edit: $10000 fine, and up to one year in prison.[/QUOTE]
1000000000% correct. A federal crime.
Ripped Tide;798684 wrote: If a rhizo is here, it was illegally permitted. This violates the Lacey act. Selling them makes it illegal.
http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslaceyact.htm">http://www.animallaw.info/articles/ovuslaceyact.htm</a>
Edit: $10000 fine, and up to one year in prison.[/QUOTE]
Even if this holds true, answer the other quesion
Edit: I refuse to address morality in this issue. question still lies in the grey. Collection of pre ban or outside of japan
Thanh386;798698 wrote: Even if this holds true, answer the other quesion
Edit: I refuse to address morality in this issue. question still lies in the grey. Collection of pre ban or outside of japan