Swami’s Tidepool Biotype ideas

[NannaLou]

No, it isn’t- your assumption that he won’t care for the fish/plants whatever is your opinion, not “information“…

 

[Ch4rlie]

Let keep things civil on here please folks and do not take posts too personally.

All these viewpoints have some validity and merit, debate is good but only if so long as it’s civil and acknowledging the others viewpoint without being rude.

Otherwise this thread will be in danger of being locked out if folks can’t stay civilised.

Thank you.

 

[WhistlingBadger]

It's about attitude and the actual purpose of the laws is often overlooked, or considered 'irrelevant' when compared to personal wants. In almost all cases, the welfare of living creatures is the priority and I'd be happy to suggest that those who advocate finding 'work-arounds' place animal welfare lower down their list of priorities than they could be.

I can see what you're getting at, Bruce--laws exist for a reason (even in California). But...Surely you would agree that trying to find a legal way to do something unusual is not necessarily the same as overlooking the law. Quite the contrary. Take my example. There is no permitting process for keeping native fish as aquarium pets in Wyoming, probably because so few people do it. On the other hand, I can kill and eat native game fish all day, or use non-game fish as bait to catch and kill others. So in that sense, it isn't the welfare of living creatures that's the priority, at least not in the individual sense. It's more a concern for the ecosystem as a whole, the spread of introduced diseases, the potential for using a public resource for personal financial gain, and probably the avoidance of cruelty.

When I told a fisheries biologist (one of the people who writes the regulations) what I wanted to do, he was very intrigued by the idea and (dare I say) impressed by my expertise, and he helped me find a way to do it legally. This isn't a loophole, and it isn't overlooking the law. It's working with the proper authorities to find a legal way to do something unusual. If ILRF can find a legit way to do the same, that's fine, legally speaking. States have these laws to keep just anybody from capturing a wild animal, taking it home, getting it infected with a disease, and letting it go, among other things. For a conscientious fish keeper who is willing to do a little digging, there might be a legal way to do it. If not, one has to accept that and find a different outlet for the creative urge.

It's always risky, and usually unfair, to assume another person's motives.

Anyway, I am talking strictly about the legal side of things. I can't comment on Donya's points about the difficulty of keeping these critters, since I'm strictly freshwater myself, and I would defer to superior experience on that. Sometimes the only way to find out about a relatively unknown species is to try it, do the best you can to meet its perceived needs, and see what happens. All of the species in the hobby were new at one time.

 

[Bruce Leyland-Jones]

I can see what you're getting at, Bruce--laws exist for a reason (even in California). But...Surely you would agree that trying to find a legal way to do something unusual is not necessarily the same as overlooking the law. Quite the contrary. Take my example. There is no permitting process for keeping native fish as aquarium pets in Wyoming, probably because so few people do it. On the other hand, I can kill and eat native game fish all day, or use non-game fish as bait to catch and kill others. So in that sense, it isn't the welfare of living creatures that's the priority, at least not in the individual sense. It's more a concern for the ecosystem as a whole, the spread of introduced diseases, the potential for using a public resource for personal financial gain, and probably the avoidance of cruelty.

When I told a fisheries biologist (one of the people who writes the regulations) what I wanted to do, he was very intrigued by the idea and (dare I say) impressed by my expertise, and he helped me find a way to do it legally. This isn't a loophole, and it isn't overlooking the law. It's working with the proper authorities to find a legal way to do something unusual. If ILRF can find a legit way to do the same, that's fine, legally speaking. States have these laws to keep just anybody from capturing a wild animal, taking it home, getting it infected with a disease, and letting it go, among other things. For a conscientious fish keeper who is willing to do a little digging, there might be a legal way to do it. If not, one has to accept that and find a different outlet for the creative urge.

It's always risky, and usually unfair, to assume another person's motives.

Anyway, I am talking strictly about the legal side of things. I can't comment on Donya's points about the difficulty of keeping these critters, since I'm strictly freshwater myself, and I would defer to superior experience on that. Sometimes the only way to find out about a relatively unknown species is to try it, do the best you can to meet its perceived needs, and see what happens. All of the species in the hobby were new at one time.

My ethos is always for the welfare of animals and, to be honest, the legal structure barely addresses this, so it is, at best, a vague skeleton of so-called ideals.
As soon as loop holes and work-arounds are being looked for, then the spirit of the law goes out of the window.
I'll assume that where you are, there's no law against shooting arrows into an elk in an attempt to kill it. That doesn't make it right.
In this tide-pool example, there ARE laws and trying to work around them, to me, isn't right either.

The questions a member asks the forum are usually good indicators of their level of knowledge and skill-set, as well as their level of maturity. Legalities aside, it was this issue that also prompted my initial post on this topic.