http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1671
Now you can't keep even one loach.:lol:
Now you can't keep even one loach.:lol:
That would be incredibly unfair. I believe the person will have to narrate the whole story how on earth he got one fish left. It would make sense not to throw the dead fish to the bin yet as part of his evidence if he knew such law exists so he will not be penalized unfairly because a malfunctioned appliance killed all but one. Even then, I wonder if the authorities will still believe his reasons why his fish died.:?Amphitrite said:Okay, here's a question: what if you have a group of ten loaches, and all but one was to die as a result of, for instance, heater failure. Does that mean that technically you are now breaking the law?
iamntbatman said:Not to turn this into too political of a debate, but I believe "fish control" and "gun control" are two very different things, though they share similarities.
They are not any different when it comes to an order that wishes to control you life. Especially, those rights that insure your right to defend onesself or to insure right to happiness. These are basically trivial subjects but to succumb to such depraved thinking is the beginning of giving up all of you freedoms.
Even the most lax of gun laws would still prohibit the abuse of guns, such as using them to rob people or kill innocents.
The echoes of a true lobbyist That should be a given, and no true intellectual would think otherwise.
Fish, however, are living creatures and thus I think this law is only doing what it can to keep people from being irresponsible fish owners.
While I am of the philosophical camp that believes that human beings are rational agents while (almost all) animals are not, thus affording us more rights than animals, I do believe it is wrong to be unnessecarily cruel to animals.
Is that why you posed this, kidding or not. http://www.fishforum.com/viewtopic.php?t=17299
I think the law seems to cross a few lines, though. You should be required to have at least a minimum level of care that assures that the animals' basic needs are met, but requiring aquarium owners to keep more than one of a social fish species just seems like an absurd requirement. Sure, it's definitely beneficial to keep social fish in groups, but keeping a solitary loach doesn't seem to offend on the same level as keeping a fish in a cramped, unfiltered tank that hasn't had a water change in years.
Why should they have any control? Would need the forum if everyone were experts.
Hey, people are social animals too, so should parents be required to force their kids off of their Playstations and go make friends?
How would the authorities discover someone's single loach? Are they going to be patrolling people's homes and looking into their aquariums? It's a silly legislation - some things cannot be controlled by government. This is one of those things. How are they really going to regulate the things in this legislation?That would be incredibly unfair. I believe the person will have to narrate the whole story how on earth he got one fish left. It would make sense not to throw the dead fish to the bin yet as part of his evidence if he knew such law exists so he will not be penalized unfairly because a malfunctioned appliance killed all but one. Even then, I wonder if the authorities will still believe his reasons why his fish died.
Lupin said:I think in the 1930's they called themselves Gestapo. In the case we are discussing, I would guess they would be the Fish Gestapo.Amphitrite said:There is a commentary in that link that says Swiss are law-abiding people. I have never gone there but I was surprised to be honest that it also adds if your neighbors find out you broke the law by keeping fish in a manner not following what the law states, they will hand you over to the authorities.:shock:[/color]
The Swiss aren't that law abiding, they failed to return millions stolen from the Jews during the days of Hitler. Only in the past few years have those treasures been traced to Swiss banks. I think that the Swiss people are basically a good lot. It only takes a few bad apples to ruin the lot or give the others a bad name.
I mentioned previously that if you look at the commentaries, someone pointed out that citizens in Switzerland are law abiding people so if your neighbors find out you broke the law, they may or may not hand you over to the authorities for breaking the laws. I know the legislation seemed absurd but there is always a bright side and a downside on every single thing. It's a start at least to minimize abuse inflicted on fish and while it is good to see some changes, there are a few things in the legislation that are going overboard such as the one you and Amphitrite pointed out. In my opinion, the legislation will need further reviewing before it is enforced in September 2008.It'sJames said:How would the authorities discover someone's single loach? Are they going to be patrolling people's homes and looking into their aquariums? It's a silly legislation - some things cannot be controlled by government. This is one of those things. How are they really going to regulate the things in this legislation?
I don't really think it'd be like that...more like the animal cruelty laws here in the U.S. People could report abuse when they see it, such as at pet stores or even neighbors. It seems pretty generally accepted on this forum that people don't really care for the big chain stores' generally poor conditions in which they keep their fish, so reporting negligent stores seems to be no real problem. When it comes to private citizens...well, I'd definitely report a neighbor if he was clearly abusing his dog by leaving it chained up in the backyard malnourished. How is reporting a neighbor's mistreatment of his fish any different?It'sJames said:How would the authorities discover someone's single loach? Are they going to be patrolling people's homes and looking into their aquariums? It's a silly legislation - some things cannot be controlled by government. This is one of those things. How are they really going to regulate the things in this legislation?
In the case of fish, unless you had them over for coffee or something I kind of wonder if you couldn't get them arrested for peeping or report them for suspicious behavior because in most people's cases they'd have to have their noses pressed to the window to see the tanks. I myself live in a 3rd floor apartment so if someone decided to report me for abuse the first question I'd be asking is "Why were you on my balcony?".iamntbatman said:How is reporting a neighbor's mistreatment of his fish any different?
Read up some more. Some are territorial. The one that springs right to mind is the Batik Loach, Mesonoemacheilus triangularis, which is pretty feisty and can be kept in groups in an aquarium with a large enough footprint, but also does as well alone. Treat it like a RTBS allowing for it being less than half as big fully grown. There are other loaches with that kind of temperament as well, mostly stream dwelling IIRC.iamntbatman said:Every loach (to my knowledge) is social to a degree and benefits from the presence of other loaches. The law bans keeping social fish as solitary specimens.