- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Listen, just because your dad is a lawyer doesn't mean you are.
But, regardless, you are the one who said this bill is not written poorly, it is legalese. Now, it is political BS? What point are you trying to make?
Bad news for our pockets loom :(
- Thread starter jetchris
- Start date
But, regardless, you are the one who said this bill is not written poorly, it is legalese. Now, it is political BS? What point are you trying to make?
Most of the people on here are not lawyers and they criticze everything. Most things have mistakes. If it passes you take to court for the mistakes and get the bill overturned. JUst to you let you know my dad is not a lawyer. My grandfather, great grandfather, 3 uncles, and 2 cousins are, grandmother was assistant dean of Humanities at KSU.
Including you....
Mistakes? I</em> could write a bill better than that, and I'm not involved in politics. These are mistakes. These are gross oversights. There's a difference between legalese and outright stupidity.
And just to let you konw, I stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night. Listing your relative's accomplishments here won't get you anywhere. I'm happy for them, but it doesn't have anything to do with your own. And "Dean of Humanities"? Where did that come from?!
Oh - and my brother works in graphics design...
I found this interesting in cmjazz's second link:
2 years max? Maybe I should invite him to my house... And my poor yellow tang doesn't even have Hawaiian buddies to hang around with...
I really dont care if your brother is a graphics design and the dean thing was to prove I am not part of a stupid family, just because your a lawyer dosen't maean your not stupid. I have seen some dumb ones. I didn't even list their accomplishments either.
No one here is saying strip the reef. I sell marine animals and go out of my way to only use net caught suppliers. The part of this bill that concerns most of us is the way it is structured. It is way to open ended and typos are found through out the bill. It is a poor attempt at fixing the problems, if they would write it again in more defining terms with proper english then I would support it. Just my thought on the matter.
Thanks,
Tim
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Here is the deal- there is not a wildife law on the books ANYWHERE that has species listed by their common names, as this bill does. For example, how many common names does the hippo/blue/palette tang have? In addition to the few I mentioned? Yet we're going to base a law on it? Get real. That is why scientific names are established and used in every wildlife law and bill, to eliminate confusion. Failure to do so, will absolutely confuse the issue here. And that is just the tip of the iceberg with this joke of a bill. I am quite sure there is enough criticism and comment to this bill that it wont go through, but instead draw attention to the more important matter at hand.
One thing many people dont understand is that Hawaii is the waystation for a huge amount of shipment coming to the US from the South Pacific. Imagine, if there were no Hawaiian collectors, there would be no Hawaiian wholesalers, and then we would never see any fish from Christmas Island, New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Australia, amongst many others. Despite their plentifulness in the ocean. There would be no practical way to get them to the US. ALmost all of this comes through Hawaii to LAX nowadays.
jcr37962, no effense, but you dont know what you are talking about at all. I dont doubt that you are interested in conservation (as am I), and that you have the best intentions. But please dont insist that all bills are written this way. I read, interpret, and understand a lot of wildlife law, and I wouldnt even wipe my a$$ with this bill. If you can prove or show me otherwise, aside from telling me the career field of your relatives, please prove me wrong. If you cannot, please dont argue it. I do not think you or your family is stupid. I think your argument is.
Above all, I would everybody who reads this understands that myself, and many others here, do not oppose conservation, or even limitations or bans on fish species anywhere in the world. We oppose the principle of this bill being written haphazardly, poorly, and unfairly, to anyone and anything, based on the whim of a politicians decision. That is not how laws are created in this country.
One thing many people dont understand is that Hawaii is the waystation for a huge amount of shipment coming to the US from the South Pacific. Imagine, if there were no Hawaiian collectors, there would be no Hawaiian wholesalers, and then we would never see any fish from Christmas Island, New Guinea, Fiji, Solomon Islands, Australia, amongst many others. Despite their plentifulness in the ocean. There would be no practical way to get them to the US. ALmost all of this comes through Hawaii to LAX nowadays.
jcr37962, no effense, but you dont know what you are talking about at all. I dont doubt that you are interested in conservation (as am I), and that you have the best intentions. But please dont insist that all bills are written this way. I read, interpret, and understand a lot of wildlife law, and I wouldnt even wipe my a$$ with this bill. If you can prove or show me otherwise, aside from telling me the career field of your relatives, please prove me wrong. If you cannot, please dont argue it. I do not think you or your family is stupid. I think your argument is.
Above all, I would everybody who reads this understands that myself, and many others here, do not oppose conservation, or even limitations or bans on fish species anywhere in the world. We oppose the principle of this bill being written haphazardly, poorly, and unfairly, to anyone and anything, based on the whim of a politicians decision. That is not how laws are created in this country.
- Messages
- 3,379
- Reaction score
- 4
Cameron, the chain of custody for Hawaii is very strict. So, if a SOuth Pacific shipment lands in Hawaii, it must be recieved by someone who can care for it, and this equates to wholesalers who have facilities in Hawaii. If these people cant or are severely restricted in their collection (which this bill could easily do), they cannot operate as simply a waystation.
I know this from a very knowledgeable friend who has many collector friends in Hawaii (he was actually part of the group that brought in a personatus angel to market for the first time in a LONG time). He says his hawaiian friends are ready to close up shop, because their is no way they can survive without collecting.