Is it LEGAL To Frag and Sell in Florida? Need your help!
- Thread starter Fanatical
- Start date
What ever the latin is "That which is necessary is legal"
Mandating that reefers not irresponsibly disposing of excess fragged corals is necessary for the preservation of the coral reefs. Ergo....it is/should be - legal.
Of course, that could be interpreted to simply mean one must attempt to give them away before disposing of them....then they would have to prove they tried to give it away with some kind of paper trail, and no money still changed hands to cover the costs of things like transporting and delivery. Okay so...the sale price could have a maximum or something which is meant to cover a break even point for responsible frag sharing.
After that what you are left with is basic language about some kind of minimum compensation necessary to cover the over head of growing the coral, transporting and delivering the coral so that law cant be interpreted in such a way as to require the reefer to spend personal resources to frag..that could maybe be set up to allow a bit of reimbursement.
Bottom line: Any law in which the application of harms the environment should be immediately void, and discouraging captive propagation among hobbiest could easily be argued to be harmful to the environment.
Mandating that reefers not irresponsibly disposing of excess fragged corals is necessary for the preservation of the coral reefs. Ergo....it is/should be - legal.
Of course, that could be interpreted to simply mean one must attempt to give them away before disposing of them....then they would have to prove they tried to give it away with some kind of paper trail, and no money still changed hands to cover the costs of things like transporting and delivery. Okay so...the sale price could have a maximum or something which is meant to cover a break even point for responsible frag sharing.
After that what you are left with is basic language about some kind of minimum compensation necessary to cover the over head of growing the coral, transporting and delivering the coral so that law cant be interpreted in such a way as to require the reefer to spend personal resources to frag..that could maybe be set up to allow a bit of reimbursement.
Bottom line: Any law in which the application of harms the environment should be immediately void, and discouraging captive propagation among hobbiest could easily be argued to be harmful to the environment.
Last edited:
Thanks all for your info and discussion on this. I've been out of town on Army orders for several weeks but now I'm back to get this paper going some more.
CStrickland - You mentioned "Sweet Home" in your reply to my thread about the legality of fragging. Do you have a citation for that? I couldn't find anything regarding it other than a dismissed case from 2003.
I haven't had admin law but my professor used to work for the Florida legislature and is interested in helping me if I can come up with the right questions to ask.
If any of you have any other suggestions that I may include with this paper, please send them my way!
CStrickland - You mentioned "Sweet Home" in your reply to my thread about the legality of fragging. Do you have a citation for that? I couldn't find anything regarding it other than a dismissed case from 2003.
I haven't had admin law but my professor used to work for the Florida legislature and is interested in helping me if I can come up with the right questions to ask.
Allentown - I like your point regarding necessity and have included that in my paper!
If any of you have any other suggestions that I may include with this paper, please send them my way!
CStrickland
New member
Sweet Home was a case about habitat destruction where SCOTUS interpreted "take" in the Endangered Species Act forms of "harm" to include not just a direct application of force like hunting, but also other acts or omissions that affect the listed species like logging. IIRC there was a Chevron analysis where the enforcing Agency's interpretation of "take" was found reasonable and thus given broad discretion, though I'm not sure they actually went through the steps in the decision. Also some regular statutory interpretation, maybe noscitur a sociis? But mostly I think just in order not to frustrate the purpose of the ESA, they needed to allow the DOI to include harms that might not be proximately caused by, or foreseeable results of, a particular action. It's about agency discretion and policy making. See Babbitt v. Sweet Home, 515 U.S. 687 (1995); see also Chevron inc. v. NRDC 467 U.S. 837 (1984).
Similar threads
