[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Dealing with the real fish? problem


	No, I think you overlooked the point of the prior post because part of
it didn't fit what you had to say about how ridiculous throwing away the
laws would be, as though this were in fact what had been said to begin
with, which of course was NOT the case at all. Thus the need for you to
take the statements out of context to reply to them. NOT an unusual
method, cheap, but so what?  I used to do it myself when I needed to get
my point across anyway I could. A point of anality we share in common, I
assume. Though my fixation with quoting my anality index for the day has
diminished over the years. ":)
	As far as I know no one has advocated removing ALL the laws. What my
point is, again, is that the people of the state that have to pay for
the implications and enforcement of laws may want to pursue alternate
methods of achieving the same goals.
	Education in the classroom is one of these methods, but education at
home is where a lot of kids get started with various interests in life.
To allocate further the teaching function to the school systems is also
more burdensome to the taxpayer without a good deal of help from
"sponsor" organizations willing to spend the time and resources to bring
the teaching materials to the point of exchange between teacher and
student. The same is true wherever this exchange is initiated, be the
student at home or in the public school system.
	So, educational materials in written form may be provided, video media,
posters, as well as programs designed to bring living specimens to the
learning environment of the student.
	Also, there can be more cooperation from and with state agencies where
THEY themselves see the need for more help of various types. Course it
will not hurt for us to ask them where we might be helpful to them.

	Now, don't miss this point: Of course we intend to follow the law.
Period. Implications to the contrary are ridiculous, as this is not the
intention of any member of NFC that I know of. We fully intend to follow
the laws of ALL the states we have dealings in, where they apply to the
situation. Obviously it would not work to try to apply the laws of
Arizona to all other states "just because its there."
	The fact that you see the need for restrictive laws is noted, and in
the case with your state, perhaps this works and is what the taxpayer
enjoys spending money on, each to their own. However, to imply that I
advocate removal of the laws as a matter of fact is not true. That sort
of statement is a simplification of the issue, which is not a simple

	Review and changes in the laws and resulting enforcement structure of
the agencies is an ongoing process in every state that I have any
knowledge of. Got setup processes to deal with it actually. Usually this
process involves at least some input from various "expert" sources. The
more the "experts" see restrictive, controlling, and "stick method" of
handling the problem as the most effective, like it or not, the people
of the state will get that sort of treatment, with its associated costs
that THEY have to pay for. Why? Because often the folks at the
legislatures and executive branches with oversight are afraid if they
don't listen to the "expert" it will create havoc and doomsday will
indeed be upon them as predicted by the experts, and this will of course
cost votes somewhere eventually. Lack of accurate information is the
root of this situation. As long as the expert can keep the people out of
the picture, their domain is secure, and the oversight folks don't have
the time to truly engage the research needed for full review. Why ask
the expert otherwise?
	Hopefully engagement of these experts in dialogue will lead to a review
of their position, if not by themselves, perhaps by the people that have
been depending on them as a source of information. This is also
education, as those that have a need to know will find out where the
"expert" really stands, and perhaps why.

	As to fish kills and such, who cares if the guy that could have stopped
it participated in building dams, stocking ponds, or shooting Hoffa for
that matter? What matters is whether or not he received effective
education in the form of information, or personal involvement in
community efforts, or from taking his kids to the water hole to have a
good time, or had some fish in an aquarium at home and started to care
about what happens to the places the fish have to live in. Point is, all
it takes is one person that cares enough to want to DO something at the
right time and the right way to make a significant change in what
	But that person caring has to start somewhere, and that's the real
issue. We need to help that person get there, not say to them, "what
happens to the fish is none of your business, cause you don't know
enough to know what REALLY is going on anyway." They may not know the
full details of it all, but so what? They can learn enough to do some
good if they care to.

	Thanks for your support for these educational goals, and I appreciate
the opportunity to present these issues in this forum provided by your

Take care, and keep in touch,


Follow-Ups: References: