40 replies to this topic

[NicholasP]

 

 

I wish people would stop conflating "keeping" with "transporting [across state lines]".

The person who started this threat specifically referred to non-native ants. Getting those by whatever legal or illegal method usually requires transporting them across state lines or even country borders (because if it didn't they'd be native by definition).

 

Sure, you can draw the line between native and non-native at city borders or county lines (which works for some species) but usually that's clearly not what people mean when they talk about non-native animals.

 

 

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Nobody is suggesting the ants were or were not illegally transported into the State they are in. Just because someone has them, does not mean they did anything illegal. Has it ever occurred to you that someone else may have illegally transported them into the State, and then sold them to someone else? This is why people need to stop conflating those two words.

 

One thing I wish is that he'd speak up and say which is which. If he got them from someone in state or he did it himself because now he's really quiet about this.

[NicholasP]

 

What are everyone's thoughts about underage minors obtaining permits through their parents names? 

After a bit of research, NicholasP is correct, minors are allowed to gain permits under their parents names. Quite fascinating the government allows this, but APHIS is really the best.

 

Well in my opinion it's fine but it needs to be improved. Minors if they're getting it through their parents should receive a test from the government on containment and containment procedures if they escape. And also, the care for the ants. But the sad thing is that the USDA nor APHIS has enough funding or resources to do that.

[MrPurpleB]

Question: If one were to order ants from out of state from a seller, who would be in illegal trouble, the seller, the buyer, or both?

[NicholasP]

Question: If one were to order ants from out of state from a seller, who would be in illegal trouble, the seller, the buyer, or both?

Both would be in trouble. But if someone were to buy from an out of state person and let's say... you ended up buying those ants in theory you should be clear from illegality and only the original buyer and seller would be in trouble.

[MrPurpleB]

Question: If one were to order ants from out of state from a seller, who would be in illegal trouble, the seller, the buyer, or both?

Both would be in trouble. But if someone were to buy from an out of state person and let's say... you ended up buying those ants in theory you should be clear from illegality and only the original buyer and seller would be in trouble.

Thanks!

[AnonymousAntKeeper]

This is a bit off topic but still related. For those of you that disapprove of keeping illegal/exotic ants, what do you think of ant-keepers who don’t mind that people keep illegal ants and let those people do their own thing? Is this ok? Or is it wrong to let strangers break the law even if it might not effect you?

[NicholasP]

This is a bit off topic but still related. For those of you that disapprove of keeping illegal/exotic ants, what do you think of ant-keepers who don’t mind that people keep illegal ants and let those people do their own thing? Is this ok? Or is it wrong to let strangers break the law even if it might not effect you?

What I do is I tell them if they don't know that it's illegal. If they do know I will try to get them to reconsider doing it. But after a few times I'll just stop and let them do their thing since they know the consequences well at that point.

[Vick09usmc]

Most houses burn from within. Just live and let live. Nothing can be worse than the argentine infestation we already have, so just carry on and be smart about the things you post on public forums for others to see. Don't kiss and tell, if you know what I mean.

Good anting!

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

[NicholasP]

Most houses burn from within. Just live and let live. Nothing can be worse than the argentine infestation we already have, so just carry on and be smart about the things you post on public forums for others to see. Don't kiss and tell, if you know what I mean.

Good anting!

Sent from my SM-N975U1 using Tapatalk

Oh trust me I can think of worse. Solenopsis invicta in Texas. I see a few records now where people have found them in farmland. So it's getting pretty bad there now since they're no longer sticking to cities.

[bmb1bee]

Wait, something like Tetramorium Immigrans is non-native to California right? But I can still feasible catch one without having to transport state lines?

 

I don't follow the scientific lingo, so maybe non-native specifically refers to like something, or in a formal context invasive/introduced species are usually referred outside of non-native, technically being non-native? My monkey head is scratching.

Catching and keeping non-natives/invasives in your state is fine (as long as they're not S. invicta...), but the issue here is transporting them across state lines. Transporting any ants across state lines without a permit is considered illegal, whether they are native or invasive.

[MrPurpleB]

Wait, something like Tetramorium Immigrans is non-native to California right? But I can still feasible catch one without having to transport state lines?

I don't follow the scientific lingo, so maybe non-native specifically refers to like something, or in a formal context invasive/introduced species are usually referred outside of non-native, technically being non-native? My monkey head is scratching.

Catching and keeping non-natives/invasives in your state is fine (as long as they're not S. invicta...), but the issue here is transporting them across state lines. Transporting any ants across state lines without a permit is considered illegal, whether they are native or invasive.

Thanks, I understand that, my question was more in question on the semantics of "non-native." That someone used prior in my comment.

"referred to non-native ants. Getting those by whatever legal or illegal method usually requires transporting them across state lines or even country borders (because if it didn't they'd be native by definition)."

I was thinking you don't need to get non native ants through transportation of state lines, you could catch an introduced or invasive species. However, reading it back now it looks like I missed the important adverb "usually," which suggests exceptions.

Not sure why I was confused at first. Now I'm scratching my head to what was the point the point of my own comment.

Edited by MrPurpleB, September 30 2022 - 6:39 PM.

[NicholasP]

 

Wait, something like Tetramorium Immigrans is non-native to California right? But I can still feasible catch one without having to transport state lines?

 

I don't follow the scientific lingo, so maybe non-native specifically refers to like something, or in a formal context invasive/introduced species are usually referred outside of non-native, technically being non-native? My monkey head is scratching.

Catching and keeping non-natives/invasives in your state is fine (as long as they're not S. invicta...), but the issue here is transporting them across state lines. Transporting any ants across state lines without a permit is considered illegal, whether they are native or invasive.

 

Huh? S. invicta are legal to keep from what I know.

[ZTYguy]

Can a mod lock this. This is getting too out of hand for such a pointless topic. 

[MrPurpleB]

 

 

Wait, something like Tetramorium Immigrans is non-native to California right? But I can still feasible catch one without having to transport state lines?

 

I don't follow the scientific lingo, so maybe non-native specifically refers to like something, or in a formal context invasive/introduced species are usually referred outside of non-native, technically being non-native? My monkey head is scratching.

Catching and keeping non-natives/invasives in your state is fine (as long as they're not S. invicta...), but the issue here is transporting them across state lines. Transporting any ants across state lines without a permit is considered illegal, whether they are native or invasive.

 

Huh? S. invicta are legal to keep from what I know.

 

I don't know much about legality about S.invicta and the USDA, but maybe there comment was more to their potential to be destructive? So more of a ethical thing, instead of a legal thing, maybe?

 

Just trying to interpret their words

 

I don't know about locking the thread, imo it feels civil enough? I don't know, maybe I am reading the tones of the messages differently.

[ANTdrew]

Can a mod lock this. This is getting too out of hand for such a pointless topic.

Done!

[dspdrew]

I see absolutely no reason for this thread to be locked because one person thinks it's "pointless". I don't understand the obsession that some have with locking threads. It was a perfectly civil discussion about the original topic.

 

 

Huh? S. invicta are legal to keep from what I know.

 

Here in CA, there are counties where it is illegal to transport them anywhere, therefor effectively making it illegal to keep them.

[Serafine]

Huh? S. invicta are legal to keep from what I know.

The legality of keeping invicta pretty much works on the county level. The RIFA containment zone runs straight through several states (Texas for example) so even the "shipping within state borders" rule often doesn't apply to invicta.

 

 

Oh trust me I can think of worse. Solenopsis invicta in Texas. I see a few records now where people have found them in farmland. So it's getting pretty bad there now since they're no longer sticking to cities.

They're also developing into a classic "tramp ant" by becoming polygynous and losing their larger workers which makes them inch ever closer towards pharao ant lifestyle.

And they appear to adapt to slightly colder conditions as well, slowly creeping up the hills to be found at sites that were incivta-free just a few years ago.

 

 

Most houses burn from within. Just live and let live. Nothing can be worse than the argentine infestation we already have, so just carry on and be smart about the things you post on public forums for others to see. Don't kiss and tell, if you know what I mean.

There are still ants that are way worse than Argentines. Both Wasmannia auropunctata (electric ants/little fire ants) and Anoplolepis gracilis (as well as Solenopsis invicta) can exert a much greater impact on an ecosystem than Argentines. Also Argentines are fairly dependent on water and generally do bad in dry areas. This does not apply to Solenopsis invicta.

And then there's stuff like, well, imagine Oecephylla weaver ants taking a foothold in Florida...

Edited by Serafine, October 1 2022 - 9:48 AM.

[NicholasP]

I see absolutely no reason for this thread to be locked because one person thinks it's "pointless". I don't understand the obsession that some have with locking threads. It was a perfectly civil discussion about the original topic.

 

 

Huh? S. invicta are legal to keep from what I know.

 

Here in CA, there are counties where it is illegal to transport them anywhere, therefor effectively making it illegal to keep them.

Oh ok! Thanks for explaining that dspdrew.

[NicholasP]

 

Huh? S. invicta are legal to keep from what I know.

The legality of keeping invicta pretty much works on the county level. The RIFA containment zone runs straight through several states (Texas for example) so even the "shipping within state borders" rule often doesn't apply to invicta.

 

 

Oh trust me I can think of worse. Solenopsis invicta in Texas. I see a few records now where people have found them in farmland. So it's getting pretty bad there now since they're no longer sticking to cities.

They're also developing into a classic "tramp ant" by becoming polygynous and losing their larger workers which makes them inch ever closer towards pharao ant lifestyle.

And they appear to adapt to slightly colder conditions as well, slowly creeping up the hills to be found at sites that were incivta-free just a few years ago.

 

 

Most houses burn from within. Just live and let live. Nothing can be worse than the argentine infestation we already have, so just carry on and be smart about the things you post on public forums for others to see. Don't kiss and tell, if you know what I mean.

There are still ants that are way worse than Argentines. Both Wasmannia auropunctata (electric ants/little fire ants) and Anoplolepis gracilis (as well as Solenopsis invicta) can exert a much greater impact on an ecosystem than Argentines. Also Argentines are fairly dependent on water and generally do bad in dry areas. This does not apply to Solenopsis invicta.

And then there's stuff like, well, imagine Oecephylla weaver ants taking a foothold in Florida...

 

Oh wow. I never knew they were developing into a much worse ant species. What I suggest now is that people start pouring boiling water on any colonies of S. invicta you guys see. Even if it's a satellite nest if you can hinder them even a little, you're helping the ecosystem. Or even have fun (And I don't mean this in a murderous way but it kind of is) by pouring aluminum so you get something nice looking out of it and you help the environment.

[ANTdrew]

Let’s get this thread to three pages.