Rule amendment

The new list has been in draft for many years... and until it is actually put into law, we have to enforce the current BL. Which is why this thread (was) so useful at the time. The moderators (admittedly) were taking an overly heavy stance on any mention of BL species... not realizing that we were in actual fact causing more damage to the entire BL dilemma than good. So what you are saying is that this entire thread, and the whole blacklist saga is completely useless because there is a new one coming out? What if it takes another 10 years before it comes out... we can't plead this case to the authorities should they ever decide to do something on the forum about it.

Let me put it to you this way... there were rumours in the ACE education system a few years ago of them accepting the following as common and accepted English: (The head of the ACE department SA is a family friend of my parents, and she was my principal when I was in junior high)
U = you
4 = for
4got = forgot
4ward = forward (etc)
2 = to or too (depending on context)

Let's say this is put into writing, and awaiting acceptance from the ACE education board. Can I now say that I will accept this type of spelling and sms style language on the forum because it's in draft format with an education system as possibly being accepted.

Surely this would be atrocious? But why...? It's in writing with an education board to be accepted? Why can't we just enforce the acceptance now on our forum? The same would apply with the BL. The CURRENT BL needs to be enforced, NOT what could be. (To be honest, I seriously doubt this new BL law will come into being for at least another 5-10 years... but that's just my opinion.)

 

Hi Ashley,

The dilemna that is already happening is that the blacklist is not being enforced, whether it is law or not. Why I say this is because I see shrimp offered for sale in shops and they are on the current black list. So what is happening is that although the new list is not law yet, it is already being applied for all intents and purposes. What this means is that the old black list is actually defunct. This is very weird, but it is the state of affairs. So for this forum to not debate it is actually also pointless.

This is the approach that has been taken on the APSA forum, just for the record. I think WBS's early post confirms this.

Kind regards,

Dirk

 

We on tasa are also considering allowing the discussion of bl species, which is what the thread is all about. We just waiting for @Rory to make the final decision and open up a sub forum. We will however not allow the open trading of bl species on the forum even if lps do. I believe this is even a ruling on apsa as well.

Sent from my Tablet using Tapatalk

 

Hi Ashley,

I am in full agreement on the trading of bl species, that should not be permitted, but a discussion is what we need. As a matter of fact, I think that I would like to see a few more fishes listed on the new list, I actually think it is too lenient and I have definite opinions about some non-blacklisted fishes. I would be quite happy to discuss this sort of thing as well.

Kind regards,

Dirk

 

+1 again...

 

Just checked back on this thread, fortunately had no internet this weekend (fortunate as that means I was in the Magaliesburg getting some fresh air). @Dirk Bellstedt, the spelling error was an oversight on my behalf. I noticed it the following day but as the thread replies were on topic and the points had been delivered there was no need to make a correction (To be honest I was not even sure if titles could be edited). Really glad this thread has stayed on topic and such rich debate has been had. Think the moderators have done a great job on this one. Now if only someone could just give government a nudge and have the new laws implemented.

 

The decision was made long ago... The new forum is set up and ready to go etc,just need to finalise (see: come up with) the rules...