|

|
caulerpa ban in socal. Is it in rest of CA too? ARGH |
|
||||||
|
|
#1 |
|
Council
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SanDiego
Posts: 310
|
caulerpa ban in socal. Is it in rest of CA too? ARGH
Im not sure if everyone in California is having this ban take effect, but my LFS who Im friends with showed me the paperwork from the city of San Diego saying there is a total ban on the genus Caulerpa. 250 misdemeanor fine for the possession/sale of caulerpa which is to be put on hold(just the misdemeanor not the fine) if you dispose of it properly(freezing and tossing away in a sealed container).
Anyone find this ridiculous as I do. Ban taxifolia surely I agree...but everyone of them? Cmon now. UGH!!!!!!!!
__________________
http://members.home.net/jasonco6/fulltank |
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links |
|
|
|
|
#2 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 20,691
|
Jason,
Are we talking about some new city ordinance? The California state legislature was working on banning all Caulerpa spp. because of perceived problems with C. taxifolia but the last time I heard anything they were down to banning only half a dozen species of Caulerpa and not the entire genus. Ask him if it's a new state law or a local law. Ninong ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Council
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SanDiego
Posts: 310
|
thats whyI asked if it was all Ca,
The paper that I read said City of SD..I just was wondering if the cities were filtering out the info... Guess its just us getting the shaft
__________________
http://members.home.net/jasonco6/fulltank |
|
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 20,691
|
Looks like it's just San Diggity-ego:
"In July of 2001, San Diego City Council adopted Ordinance 18967 banning the sale and the possession of Caulerpa. The penalty for possession or sale is a $250 fine that can be suspended if the owner properly disposes of the plant." You can read all about it on the City of San Diego's website: http://www.sannet.gov/press/011226.shtml Ninong ![]() P.S. -- Looks like San Diego banned the entire genus. That's because they can't tell the 36 different species apart. Hope the Bush Administration never gets involved in something like this. In fact, I was thinking about some of the administration's super bowl ads about pot smokers financing terrorists and I realized that even though I don't smoke anything, I am guilty of financing terrorists every time I buy gas for my car because some of the profits get back to Saudi Arabia where they might be contributed to Osama bin Laden. Ergo, the government should ban the sale of gasoline. |
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Council
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: SanDiego
Posts: 310
|
How ignorant of the city. Since one is bad, ban all. I hate that attitude and unfortunately, politicians carry it frequently.
__________________
http://members.home.net/jasonco6/fulltank |
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 20,691
|
Yes, if a Pit Bull attacks the neighbor's 2 year old kid, we should round up all the Toy Poodles in the neighborhood just to be safe. And hey, Toy Poodles and Pit Bulls are actually the same species (Canis familiaris), so it would make a lot more sense than banning 36 separate species of seaweed.
In fact, by their logic, if we have any problems with any of the members of the genus Canis--dogs, wild dogs, coyotes, wolves and jackals--we should ban them all, including Canis familiaris. Ninong ![]() |
|
|
|