ads for livestock, etc, etc

Semjase semjase at
Fri Sep 18 21:24:04 EDT 1998

>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
>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
>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
>>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
>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
>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
>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?
>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)
>  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
>        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82

There is little to say here except that Doug is getting increasingly hostile. 
Doug take a cold shower, go to bed, and for the next week stay away from the
damnable computer.  You disgrace yourself


More information about the Leps-l mailing list