[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: New Hampshire -- Banned plants
Wright you make some valid points. But a fellow aquarist and plant lover in
the same club as Karen and I has a particularly unique position for a job.
This job allows him contact with our lawmakers and agency employees, some of
whom have become his buddies.
When asked point blank why they did not go after the real problems they
admitted (off the record) that they knew it's the boats. They admitted that
they know the law as written will be a major hassle to enforce. He point
blank asked them why they didn't/coudn't set up a station, hose/clean off the
boats of any debris and charge them a fee not unlike getting a fishing
license. The response was;
1) too hard to setup and enforce (as if the currently written law isn't
<sigh>)
2) the tourists would be disgruntled and the potential of impacting the
state's bottom line was of concern. Sure, people willingly shell out about
$25 for a fishing license, but they wouldn't do the same to ensure "clean"
waterways? I doubt it, it's PC to be "green" today.
We know the facts. The plants that Karen mentioned are a threat, and are
established. The real enemy here is the financial bottom line. They're too
afraid to annoy anything that might influence the state's bottom line (gosh,
is it election year already? LOL). It's easier to attack an unorganized group
that lacks political pull. It makes those very same lawmakers look like they
are defending our natural resources and hence they appear to be PC and
"green" to those uninformed general public who do not keep tropical aquatic
plants.
NH folk don't take kindly to regulation much less poorly written regulation
-- after all our state motto is "Live Free or Die" };-D It will be a tough
road because it does involve the state's finances. But it's not an unwinnable
battle.
Susan