Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis Hultman
My understanding is the state is worried about invasive species but here is my thought.
Tilapia needs warmer waters, right? The counties that do permit them are in Southern California where it is WARMER. No counties in Northern California allow them. Makes a lot of sense to me. Oh, wait a minute this is California. It makes perfect sense.
|
So pondering this for awhile I can't help but come to a conclusion. While California uses the term invasive species, my opinion is it's merely a act.
They allow the breeding in the climate that would be most suitable for the fish if they were released. Why? Because large scale fish farming takes place in that area. They have a need and the fish is productive in those areas. They regulate and collect the fees. Makes it harder for a small backyard operation to juggle the paperwork and regulations in those areas to compete.
The areas that it would be harder for this fish to establish in the wild the state allows no possession. Why would that be? Large fish farms wouldn't be interested in keeping the species in those area due to the climate and costs, so they aren't interested. Small backyard operations aren't allowed so no fish will be produced in those ares and no competition in the state.
If the state states that it is worried of the invasive potential of the species and denies access to most of the state with one hand but then allows the species in the five counties most likely to have warm enough waters to support the invasive species then it simply is a business decision to allow the farms in that area to have a advantage, regulate and for the state to collect the fees while denying competition in the whole state and making it uneconomical for others to compete with large scale operations next to them in the same counties. Monopoly.
That's just my uneducated first thoughts. Maybe I'm wrong.
Linear Mode
