[extropy-chat] glo-fish

[Adrian Tymes]

--- Mike Lorrey <mlorrey at yahoo.com> wrote:
> --- Spike <spike66 at comcast.net> wrote
> > Schuchat commented:
> > 
> > "For me it's a question of values, it's not a
> question of 
> > science," said commissioner Sam Schuchat. "I think
> selling 
> > genetically modified fish as pets is wrong."
> 
> AHAHAAAAAAA! This means that selling them to *stock*
> wilderness areas
> must be okay!!! Go for it , Spike!!! You just can't
> keep them as
> pets.... ;) Thing is that they will wind up in the
> wild pretty soon
> anyways when people flush them down the toilet.

Pity that's not what the directive says...is it?  Are
there any streams that flow into California - say,
could someone release a bunch in the melting snow of
the Sierras, then wait for them to wash up downstream
(dead or alive, preferably alive) then cite that to
show they are an "established" species?  (It might be
illegal to import 'em, but if they're already here,
they can be caught in the wild...)  Especially if
they're tagged with some internal label, easily
recoverable upon autopsy, saying something like,
"Deliberately introduced into the wilderness to make
the laws moot.  Fuck you, Schuchat.  -Citizens Against
Religious Ecoluddism"

Of course, these days, one would just have to make up
a press release saying that someone had found 'em like
that.  (The fish bodies themselves were, of course,
incinerated after the investigation, and the
investigators doubt the fish would sucecssfully
colonize the rivers - neatly explaining why no one
else will be finding any.)