Tropical Fish Keeping - Aquarium fish care and resources

Tropical Fish Keeping - Aquarium fish care and resources (http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/)
-   Freshwater and Tropical Fish (http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/freshwater-tropical-fish/)
-   -   Swiss legislation to affect aquarum hobby (http://www.tropicalfishkeeping.com/freshwater-tropical-fish/swiss-legislation-affect-aquarum-hobby-14661/)

Lupin 05-14-2008 08:51 AM

Swiss legislation to affect aquarum hobby
 
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.u....php?news=1671

Now you can't keep even one loach.:lol:

Amphitrite 05-14-2008 10:02 AM

I would be interested to know just how they plan to enforce and monitor such legislation.

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?

It'sJames 05-14-2008 02:39 PM

"Other animals covered under the new legislation are to include dogs, cats, cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, guinea pigs, lizards and rhinoceroses."

What?!

That has to be the funniest article I've read in months. :lol: That's just going a bit too far, in my oppinion. What do you guys think? I'm all for treating animals, including fish, ethically - but a legislation?! Kinda silly, I think.

herefishy 05-14-2008 03:14 PM

Another attempt by the "new world order" to control the lives of the masses. Now keeping an aquarium can be placed can be placed in the same file as owning guns. The bad thing about all of this, "fish control" and "gun control", is that they are serious about it and it isn't funny!!

iamntbatman 05-14-2008 03:41 PM

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.

Even the most lax of gun laws would still prohibit the abuse of guns, such as using them to rob people or kill innocents.

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.

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.

Hey, people are social animals too, so should parents be required to force their kids off of their Playstations and go make friends?

Lupin 05-14-2008 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amphitrite
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?

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.:?

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:

herefishy 05-14-2008 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iamntbatman
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?



That may not be such a bad idea. Parents need to be parents and PlayStations were never meant to be babysitters.

iamntbatman 05-14-2008 08:06 PM

Eh...I'm very anti-paternalist. Just the libertarian streak in me...I don't think it's appropriate for the government to tell you how you should raise your kids unless you're causing them some obvious or immediate harm.

It'sJames 05-14-2008 11:42 PM

Quote:

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.
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?

herefishy 05-15-2008 12:01 AM

[quote="Lupin"]
Quote:

Originally Posted by Amphitrite
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]

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.

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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2