ads for livestock, etc, etc

[Doug Yanega]

I'll tie several responses together to trim proliferation -

Pierre Le Roux wrote:

>Why should it be perfectly legal to keep silkworms, buy a packet of
>flower seeds at the local corner shop, plant a bed of Petunias, farm
>with corn,rice,wheat, rapeseed, Citrus,  or soybeans  or
>whatever, but not to indulge in (like rearing Saturnids)other hobbies? Is
>it just because time has not proven it to be a safe pass-time,

This is easy enough to answer - in some of these cases, they *shouldn't* be
allowed. Just because something is common practice doesn't mean it's wise.
I have repeatedly acknowledged that double standards exist - but the old
"two wrongs do not make a right" adage still holds true. In other cases, we
have enough evidence, from the history of the plants/animals in question,
to know that (for example) petunias, while exotic, are not going to become
pests. We know next to NOTHING about, what, 99.999% of the remaining exotic
plants and animals that no one has yet attempted to introduce?

>advise and inform
>newbies as to the responsible approach - rather than just saying " it
>is up to individuals to establish what local rules are in effect"

Are these not complementary approaches? Inform people AND establish
reasonable rules??

>Lets get realistic: It is irksome to be judged by individuals that
>regard themeselves as well-informed by considering alternatives
>without actually trying some: If we really are a scientific news
>group, lets investigate and publish, rather than consider and
>condemn.

Then let me ask - do you, as a commercial breeder, feel confident that you
know enough about every species you might sell as livestock to be able to
guarantee that escaped fertile individuals cannot survive and become
established in any given location you might be shipping them? That's the
kind of essential information you should have in order to do this
responsibly, after all, no? I presume you do not disagree that without
enough information, we should play things very cautiously? I really don't
see that objections to taking unknown risks are ill-considered.

Anthony Cynor wrote:

>>         This is not about tree-hugging, warm fuzzies, animal rights,
>> greenies, or any other such - [snip]
>
>No one is suggesting such, why so sensitive?

Because Semjase explicitly DID suggest this (I quote):

"However birdkeeping, fishkeeping and other hobbies are also under attack by the
same forces & animal rights activists and greenies."

>Government officials bringing in stuff, why of course they always know
>what they are
>doing don't they?

I specifically stated that "I recognize that some of these pests were
brought in by government officials who should have known better" - why are
you attacking me about things I have already addressed? The government
often does NOT know what they're doing, but that doesn't justify other
people acting out of ignorance, as well. Part of developing good
regulations is making it so the government has even tougher standards to
satisfy.

>If one were to try to guarantee that any action one takes will not
>potentially have
>a negative effect it would result in no one doing anything.  Life is
>always a risk.

We're not talking about "any old" negative effect, we're talking about
risks like wiping out entire species. How many species have been driven to
extinction by *introduced pests* rather than by habitat destruction? Dozens
known, if not hundreds when you take into account the inevitable
undocumented ones. That degree of risk is not acceptable. To use your
analogy, if there was a loaded gun that had even a very small chance to
shoot you if you got out of bed, you might start thinking about sleeping on
the floor.

>To do so would involve setting up a totalitarian state and it would still
>not solve
>the problem.

Where on earth does this "totalitarian" stuff come from? Is a speed limit a
tool of oppression, too? Some things have to be regulated in order to
prevent abuse, it's that simple. That is not totalitarianism, so please
save the inflammatory jargon.

>Where do you keep getting this complete freedom thing, the problem is no
>freedom.

Are we on the same planet? The simple existence of ads on this list, and
the ongoing trading, makes it pretty obvious that there is still plenty of
freedom and to spare.

>Then why did you say all of the above?  The statement below would be adequate.

Because sometimes giving one's chain of logic, and supporting arguments and
examples, helps clarify the basis for one's position. Sometimes even that
doesn't seem to help, but I try.

Finally, Semjase commented:

>All those saying government regulation is so great should read and research
>this!

I haven't seen ONE posting from ONE person on this list in the last five
years (at least) that ever said government regulation was great, LEAST of
all my own postings. In case you haven't been reading my postings over the
years, I happen to think most of the government regs in place about this
sort of thing are stupid, too. If you want to attack me, attack me for
stances I *do* have, not what you imagine them to be, is that too much to
ask? I think the government regs need desperately to be changed, is that
such a terrible opinion to have? However, there HAVE been people here who
have explicitly and repeatedly stated that they think ALL regulation should
be dropped entirely. THAT is a stance I cannot support. Got it now?

Sincerely,

Doug Yanega    Depto. de Biologia Geral, Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas,
Univ. Fed. de Minas Gerais, Cx.P. 486, 30.161-970 Belo Horizonte, MG   BRAZIL
phone: 31-499-2579, fax: 31-499-2567  (from U.S., prefix 011-55)
                  http://www.icb.ufmg.br/~dyanega/
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82