"Empty" wrote in message
...
"Le Trôle" wrote in
:

What right? I may have missed the Right to Keep Exotic Pets in the
Constitution.

That's because rights exist whether or not they're found
in some Big List of Rights.

Yes, the right to keep exotic pets is a basic human right. In fact,
I think there was something about that in the Geneva Convention. Someone
alert the UN- Florida Fish and Game is oppressing LtWolfe!


You must be unclear on the concept of rights not being granted,
because you found yet another Big List of Rights to wave about.

The answer is the same.


The bottom line is that you have no "right" to make decisions
regarding the Florida ecosystem, nor do you have any "right"
to own any kind of aquarium fish or plant.

LtWolfe does indeed have the right to own any kind
of aquarium fish or plant, even though there may be
some reason that he should not exercise that right.

I suppose, then, that I have the right to dump 100 gallons of used motor
oil in the drainage tunnel outside my house?


Nope. You don't own the drainage tunnel.

The use of a drainage tunnel is a privilege based upon
your status as a resident of a given water district, and
certain conditions are required of you to use that facility.

You still have the right to own 100 gallons of used motor oil.
You just don't have the right to use it in a way that harms others.


Your rights end when someone else's begin,


Yes Gump, I know that.


and the well-being of the ecosystem that WE ALL depend on to
LIVE outweighs your theoritical right to keep something you find
interesting.


PETA goes one step beyond the well-being of the ecosystem,
and contends that well-being of all animals precludes their being
kept as pets. They also base their heart-felt pleas on the notion
that Man has no right to keep any kind of animal as a pet.

Sound familiar?


It appears that PETA has found yet another unwitting stooge.

What is this babble? I don't much like PETA, and this has NOTHING to do
with PETA. Call me the EPA's stooge if you have to fit me somewhere into
your tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories.


How are you able to dismiss my remarks as 'tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories'
whilst acknowledging the motives of PETA (and purposely distancing yourself)
in the same paragraph? Dishonest and selective reasoning?

Anyone who goes into 'nature presevation' rant whilst denying the
Right to Keep Fish is indeed an unwitting stooge of PETA.


I am, however, an aquarist with some knowledge of the delicate balance of
ecosystems and morals enough to know there are things more important than
my whims or desires.


It is your "whims and desires" that are responsible for having those
little fish that swim in glass box, so perhaps you need to be just a bit
less strident in condemning "whims and desires" as the root of evil.