[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [APD] HR669
I don't think the identity or affiliation of people supporting any particular cause is a reliable indicator of the value or merit of the cause. I'm sure PETA supports freedom of speech, and somehow that principle remains untainted by such support. Why would you even try to argue against a cause by using guilt by association to discredit your opponents? It reflects badly on our position opposing the bill.
It also seems to me that it doesn't ban the ownership of any particular plant or fish, but rather prohibits transporting them across state lines or importing them into the country. Since I have no plans to take my aquarium along on my trip to Colorado, this bill doesn't pose any threat to my fish or plants.
Sent from my mobile phone
From: Robert Hudson <aquabotanic at comcast_net>
Sent: Saturday, April 18, 2009 10:34 AM
To: aquatic-plants at actwin_com
Subject: Re: [APD] HR669
Its being pushed by several radical Animal rights groups including
PETA whose goal is to elimanate the pet trade.
The only pets on the approved list in the bill are dogs, cats, goldfish and
selected farm animals. Even breeding animals not on the list would be
illegall. Thats it. Period.
Aquatic-Plants mailing list
Aquatic-Plants at actwin_com