Explaination for Piranha Laws.

[itrebebag99]

I was just wondering why piranhas are illegal is states like Texas and California. In a warmer and more hospitable environment like south Florida, there are no breeding populations of piranhas. The closest thing they have in south Florida to piranhas is pacus, and even those aren't very widespread, just isolated pockets, most of them being released pets. But do you know what tropical aquarium fish they do have in Florida that is causing a real problem on the ecosystem? Freaking cichlids EVERYWHERE. And yet are cichlids (which are more likely to survive in TX and CA) Illegal to own? Nope. I just want to have an explanation for this. I don't know very much about how these laws are produced, but surely they run these laws past ecologists and ichthyologists, right? It's as if whoever made these laws just saw that MonsterQuest episode on piranhas before.

Also, how piranhas are illegal in Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado,
Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, Virginia or Washington is beyond me. How could piranhas conceivably be considered a danger of becoming an invasive in these states?

 

[Drstrangelove]

It doesn't matter why. We have lots of states and their views on lots and lots of things vary all over the place. What's conceivable to you or me isn't always what's conceivable to someone else and vice versa.

But to answer you, the explanation is that we have a representative constitutional democracy composed of several hundred million people living in numerous separate polities (states) which are authorized to decide their own standards (laws) for acceptable and unacceptable acts (beyond those covered by the constitution) and well-meaning and enlightened people can and do disagree all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

That's our country. Most laws are made at the state level and people in each state reach their own decisions as they please on how they do this.

One might as well ask why some people like classical versus country versus jazz, or why we allow public swimming or why GoT is popular.

 

[duanes]

There are a few species of piranha endemic to Uruguay, where in winter, waters get quite cold, even ice over.
Most may not be Texas cold tolerant, but if only 2 individuals of a spawn have a cold tolerant gene, the possibility of a feral Texas population is a distinct possibility, if they were released.
"Could" even most piranha experts differentiate which species are cold tolerant, let alone some government guy concerned with all the other things like terrorism etc etc.
As long as there are people ignorant enough to let fish go, restrictions are likely.
Man Charged With Abandoning Three Pet Stingrays
You might give the argument, that they will die in winter, but if they live even temporarily in summer
damage is a possibility.
Ever stepped on a sting ray, I have, and it aint pretty.

 

[Lepisosteus]

There are a few species of piranha endemic to Uruguay, where in winter, waters get quite cold, even ice over.
Most may not be Texas cold tolerant, but if only 2 individuals of a spawn have a cold tolerant gene, the possibility of a feral Texas population is a distinct possibility, if they were released.
"Could" even most piranha experts differentiate which species are cold tolerant, let alone some government guy concerned with all the other things like terrorism etc etc.
As long as there are people ignorant enough to let fish go, restrictions are likely.
Man Charged With Abandoning Three Pet Stingrays
You might give the argument, that they will die in winter, but if they live even temporarily in summer
damage is a possibility.
Ever stepped on a sting ray, I have, and it aint pretty.
View attachment 1275582

Crikey, look at this one.

 

[itrebebag99]

It doesn't matter why. We have lots of states and their views on lots and lots of things vary all over the place. What's conceivable to you or me isn't always what's conceivable to someone else and vice versa.

But to answer you, the explanation is that we have a representative constitutional democracy composed of several hundred million people living in numerous separate polities (states) which are authorized to decide their own standards (laws) for acceptable and unacceptable acts (beyond those covered by the constitution) and well-meaning and enlightened people can and do disagree all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy

That's our country. Most laws are made at the state level and people in each state reach their own decisions as they please on how they do this.

One might as well ask why some people like classical versus country versus jazz, or why we allow public swimming or why GoT is popular.

Huh? But the views that vary are OPINIONS. It is a fact the piranhas are not in danger of becoming an invasive in Alaska, and anyone who says otherwise is (to put it very lightly) a moronic imbecile. Therefore, if piranhas are not in danger of becoming an invasive, why should they be banned?

 

[itrebebag99]

There are a few species of piranha endemic to Uruguay, where in winter, waters get quite cold, even ice over.
Most may not be Texas cold tolerant, but if only 2 individuals of a spawn have a cold tolerant gene, the possibility of a feral Texas population is a distinct possibility, if they were released.
"Could" even most piranha experts differentiate which species are cold tolerant, let alone some government guy concerned with all the other things like terrorism etc etc.
As long as there are people ignorant enough to let fish go, restrictions are likely.
Man Charged With Abandoning Three Pet Stingrays
You might give the argument, that they will die in winter, but if they live even temporarily in summer
damage is a possibility.
Ever stepped on a sting ray, I have, and it aint pretty.
View attachment 1275582

It's much more likely that cichlids could potentially become an invasive, so why aren't they illegal? Also, I'm pretty sure the people who come up with ENVIRONMENTAL laws on a STATE level do not focus on terrorism.

 

[Drstrangelove]

Huh? But the views that vary are OPINIONS. It is a fact the piranhas are not in danger of becoming an invasive in Alaska, and anyone who says otherwise is (to put it very lightly) a moronic imbecile. Therefore, if piranhas are not in danger of becoming an invasive, why should they be banned?

First off, views and opinions, in this context, are synonyms. When I said views, its the same as if I said opinions.

Secondly, did you read the rest of my post? Because I'm confused since I never used the word scientist, fact, or genius in my post. I said "several hundred million people" decided under jurisdiction of the US constitution.

It doesn't matter those laws are based upon opinions especially since every law is an opinion. And it doesn't matter what you happen to think are the facts, until the constitution says if itrebebag99 disagrees then the law is void.


So from your OP:

"I was just wondering why piranhas are illegal is states like Texas and California. I just want to have an explanation for this."

You now should know the answer. People elected other people who decided to write laws that made owning piranhas illegal. End of story.

 

[itrebebag99]

I'm not sure what part of my post was confusing to you. It doesn't matter that they are opinions especially since every law is an opinion. And it doesn't matter what you happen to think are the facts.

The constitution doesn't say if itrebebag99 disagrees then the law is void. So, my take is you didn't read my post.

When you say I DISAGREE with the law, it's as if your suggesting its just my OPINION that piranhas aren't at risk of becoming an invasive species. No, it is not my OPINION that piranhas aren't at danger of becoming an invasive, it is just a fact. And I am really not trying to change the law, I am just wondering what the purpose of this law is. Also I did read your post, and it boils down to "everyone has their own opinion, and the legislators don't need to have an explanation".

 

[Drstrangelove]

When you say I DISAGREE with the law, it's as if your suggesting its just my OPINION that piranhas aren't at risk of becoming an invasive species. No, it is not my OPINION that piranhas aren't at danger of becoming an invasive, it is just a fact. And I am really not trying to change the law, I am just wondering what the purpose of this law is.

Nope. What I'm saying is it doesn't matter what you think, what you know, or how strongly you feel about it. It doesn't matter if you think it's a fact or made up you mind with a ouija board. Our laws derived from the constitution aren't required to be anything more than people's choices as determined by elected officials, regardless of any information or lack of information in making those choices.

Your opinion about the facts is not relevant. The only thing relevant are people's opinions about the law.

The laws are decided by everyone equally. We are all entitled to think what we want, but once everyone decides, the law is the law. Case closed.

 

[itrebebag99]

When you say I DISAGREE with the law, it's as if your suggesting its just my OPINION that piranhas aren't at risk of becoming an invasive species. No, it is not my OPINION that piranhas aren't at danger of becoming an invasive, it is just a fact. And I am really not trying to change the law, I am just wondering what the purpose of this law is.

But why do elected officials think that piranhas are in danger of becoming an invasive in Alaska?