Eu Ban On Fish Keeping! #handsoffmyhobby

star4

Fish Connoisseur
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
6,367
Reaction score
1
Location
GB
That maybe the case, but nobody thought that Mrs Thatcher would close down the coal mines either because of the job losses etc, but it still happened.
 
15 MEP's have already signed the manifesto according to the OATA site. Who knows how many more since it went online?
 

star4

Fish Connoisseur
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
6,367
Reaction score
1
Location
GB
If you read the Eurogroup for Animals webiste you will see...
 
Quote: Taken from their website:
 
"Eurogroup is also working through its 40 member organisations and their 10 million supporters to get candidates to adopt the Manifesto nationally as well."
 
The member organisations also include the RSPCA
 
This idea has already reached the manifesto stage and is gaining support from MEP's.
 
Look at the figures above, 40 member organisations and their 10 million supporters against how many of us are discussing this and taking it seriously!
 

malfunction

Fish Crazy
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
343
Reaction score
14
Location
GB
I'm not sure the Thatcher example is entirely relevant. This would be the equivalent of Thatcher closing the mines, power stations, and every entity in the power/energy sector not only in the UK, but in all of Europe.

But getting back to the matter in hand, just because an obscure lobby group manages to construct a manifesto doesn't mean it will be enacted. Let's not forget that the EU is that same organisation that spent 30 years trying to decide on how to define chocolate! And yes, 15 out of our 78 MEPs are purported to have signed up. But our dear friends in the political classes aren't always known for adhering to their promises.

I think at this stage it's too early for hobbyist to formulate an effective response. We have no idea how the EU commission will interpret this because the movement is still in its early stages. They may take one look in the manifesto and chuck it in the bin. Alternatively, they may take it seriously and decide to begin a formal consultation. In any case, I don't think we'll know which scenario is more likely for a long time. Just my penny's worth.
 

star4

Fish Connoisseur
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
6,367
Reaction score
1
Location
GB
I used the closing of the coal mine pits as an example of what happens when its too late, striking and complaining about pits being closed when it started had no affect what so ever
 
 
 
malfunction said:
But getting back to the matter in hand, just because an obscure lobby group manages to construct a manifesto doesn't mean it will be enacted. Let's not forget that the EU is that same organisation that spent 30 years trying to decide on how to define chocolate! And yes, 15 out of our 78 MEPs are purported to have signed up. But our dear friends in the political classes aren't always known for adhering to their promises.

I think at this stage it's too early for hobbyist to formulate an effective response. We have no idea how the EU commission will interpret this because the movement is still in its early stages. They may take one look in the manifesto and chuck it in the bin. Alternatively, they may take it seriously and decide to begin a formal consultation. In any case, I don't think we'll know which scenario is more likely for a long time. Just my penny's worth.
 
I agree totally with what you say there :) and I totally agree that the whole idea of a ban on exotic animal import and breeding is so silly that no way it "should" become law. I also hope that it will be "chucked in the bin". However if they take it seriously and once the wheel starts turning and changes are made little by little it will then become too late to fight back.
 
Take the anti smoking lobbiests. To ban cigarettes completely in one go would of had such implications on the tobacco industry there would of been more "power" against it. However, banning smoking in certain areas pubs, public buildings and now cars is not an outright ban, just chipping away at it until the balance is right to ban smoking completely. Again probably a totally wrong example, because its smoking, but I am just trying to re-iterate the point of this exotic animal ban being done bit by bit species by species etc :)
 
 
Now if the same happens with this Europgroup vote for animals and bit by bit certain species are first banned (which is already happening, apple snails, cannel catfish etc). There is a petition at the moment calling for the ban on keeping rats as pets due to a little boy dying from rat bite fever in the US. Health risks with keeping exotic animals will be the stick to beat the politicians with, isolated cases of medical problems connected to keeping exotic pets will be brought to the forefront. Environmental issues are already top of the list, hence the ease of banning the sale of golden apple snails.
 
The point I am trying to get across to as many people as possible is, even though this whole blanket ban is an almost impossible idea to do all at once, there maybe smaller bans/restrictions introduced slowly. Without speaking up now against the start of it, when it does start it will be too late :(  It may take years and years, but I would like my children and their children to have the choice if they would like to keep fish, rats, degu, bearded dragons etc in the future.
 
There are 10 million supporters of this ban right now, 10 million supporters with the belief they can make this happen, 10 million supporters working to make this happen. 10 million supporters of this action, 10 million voters to the right politician who will start the ball rolling.
 
 
Now I am not wishing to sound disrespectful to anyone, that is not my intention but to put this into words is going to sound like I am. The posts made on this subject, not just by me, but other people worried about it, here and in other places, are met up with many many more "its not going to happen, we do not need to worry, your being stupid, etc" than "Oh dear we should do something about this". This is worrying that it is not being taken seriously when it already has 10 million supporters.
 
So if you do not want to see a ban in importing exotic animals, even if you believe it wont happen, do something by contacting your MEP saying so :)
 

PrincessKiara

Fish Crazy
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
200
Reaction score
2
Location
MX
I don't know much about this, but I've read enough that it sickens me. I'm literally in shock right now. How can they try to deprive their own people of such a beautiful, wonderful, harmless and educational hobby?
How about all getting together a massive Internet campaign and creating a huge message board and Web site specifically to discuss this issue?
 

noobgamers

Fish Crazy
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
Location
GB
Wills said:
Thats a really good point Star! I hadnt even considered dogs and cats. Dogs could get through though since they are technically all the same species but just different breeds... but then there are things like chow chows, tibetian mastifs and chinese crested that are so distintly non european that you have to wonder how the law could hold up...
 
It actually gives me a bit of hope in that sense as at that level of animal it starts to get huge corporations involved. If there are less breeds of dog in Europe then there are less dogs in Europe which is going to upset huge companies that have a lot of political swing.
 
Im trying to get some facts together but plan to get a letter off to my MEP this weekend - her constituancy is all of yorkshire and the humber so there are going to be a lot of businesses affected which I will enjoy listing out
smile.png

 
Wills
maybe if they are trying to slowly eliminate the whole thing they might remove soem non eu dog breeds if this goes through
 

noobgamers

Fish Crazy
Joined
Dec 27, 2013
Messages
259
Reaction score
0
Location
GB
star4 said:
If you read the Eurogroup for Animals webiste you will see...
 
Quote: Taken from their website:
 
"Eurogroup is also working through its 40 member organisations and their 10 million supporters to get candidates to adopt the Manifesto nationally as well."
 
The member organisations also include the RSPCA
 
This idea has already reached the manifesto stage and is gaining support from MEP's.
 
Look at the figures above, 40 member organisations and their 10 million supporters against how many of us are discussing this and taking it seriously!
just saying fishkeeping alone across the eu probably equates to 50 million with hundreds of organisations weve got them at minimun 5 to 1
 

PrincessKiara

Fish Crazy
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
200
Reaction score
2
Location
MX
But why are they doing this? What's the point in banning having pets (which most seem to think is their eventual goal)? Where's the benefit to those people? :mad:
 

malfunction

Fish Crazy
Joined
Dec 28, 2013
Messages
343
Reaction score
14
Location
GB
star4 said:
I used the closing of the coal mine pits as an example of what happens when its too late, striking and complaining about pits being closed when it started had no affect what so ever
 
 
 

But getting back to the matter in hand, just because an obscure lobby group manages to construct a manifesto doesn't mean it will be enacted. Let's not forget that the EU is that same organisation that spent 30 years trying to decide on how to define chocolate! And yes, 15 out of our 78 MEPs are purported to have signed up. But our dear friends in the political classes aren't always known for adhering to their promises.
I think at this stage it's too early for hobbyist to formulate an effective response. We have no idea how the EU commission will interpret this because the movement is still in its early stages. They may take one look in the manifesto and chuck it in the bin. Alternatively, they may take it seriously and decide to begin a formal consultation. In any case, I don't think we'll know which scenario is more likely for a long time. Just my penny's worth.
 
I agree totally with what you say there :) and I totally agree that the whole idea of a ban on exotic animal import and breeding is so silly that no way it "should" become law. I also hope that it will be "chucked in the bin". However if they take it seriously and once the wheel starts turning and changes are made little by little it will then become too late to fight back.
 
Take the anti smoking lobbiests. To ban cigarettes completely in one go would of had such implications on the tobacco industry there would of been more "power" against it. However, banning smoking in certain areas pubs, public buildings and now cars is not an outright ban, just chipping away at it until the balance is right to ban smoking completely. Again probably a totally wrong example, because its smoking, but I am just trying to re-iterate the point of this exotic animal ban being done bit by bit species by species etc :)
 
 
Now if the same happens with this Europgroup vote for animals and bit by bit certain species are first banned (which is already happening, apple snails, cannel catfish etc). There is a petition at the moment calling for the ban on keeping rats as pets due to a little boy dying from rat bite fever in the US. Health risks with keeping exotic animals will be the stick to beat the politicians with, isolated cases of medical problems connected to keeping exotic pets will be brought to the forefront. Environmental issues are already top of the list, hence the ease of banning the sale of golden apple snails.
 
The point I am trying to get across to as many people as possible is, even though this whole blanket ban is an almost impossible idea to do all at once, there maybe smaller bans/restrictions introduced slowly. Without speaking up now against the start of it, when it does start it will be too late :(  It may take years and years, but I would like my children and their children to have the choice if they would like to keep fish, rats, degu, bearded dragons etc in the future.
 
There are 10 million supporters of this ban right now, 10 million supporters with the belief they can make this happen, 10 million supporters working to make this happen. 10 million supporters of this action, 10 million voters to the right politician who will start the ball rolling.
 
 
Now I am not wishing to sound disrespectful to anyone, that is not my intention but to put this into words is going to sound like I am. The posts made on this subject, not just by me, but other people worried about it, here and in other places, are met up with many many more "its not going to happen, we do not need to worry, your being stupid, etc" than "Oh dear we should do something about this". This is worrying that it is not being taken seriously when it already has 10 million supporters.
 
So if you do not want to see a ban in importing exotic animals, even if you believe it wont happen, do something by contacting your MEP saying so :)
That's a very impassioned post there!

Where are you getting the 10 million figure from? I had a quick look at their website earlier this afternoon and it says 1,600 have signed up. That's quite a few people, however, I think we can both agree it's very far from 10 million. Here's where I found the figure :

http://www.voteforanimals.eu

Can you post a link for the 10 mil? I must've missed it somehow.

Just going back to the miner's strike briefly; a lot of people argue the opposite to the point you were trying to make - that the miners' predisposition to strike is what lead to their downfall. I only mention this because I think if we're too quick to act and have no coherent argument, then there is the possibility that we could do more harm than good to our cause.

Also, although I thoroughly enjoy keeping fish, I don't think everything they're trying to achieve is necessarily bad. As has been highlighted by a previous post, there are issues with animal welfare in the pet industry. Amongst other things, the Eurogroup for animals are campaigning for better conditions for animals during transit. I can't see how any responsible fish owner could disagree with that. Yes, some of their other objectives are ridiculous/obnoxious/ignorant (delete as applicable), but they do have some good suggestions.
PrincessKiara said:
But why are they doing this? What's the point in banning having pets (which most seem to think is their eventual goal)? Where's the benefit to those people? :mad:
They think they're doing the right thing. Essentially, they think many animals are mistreated and much can be done to improve how we behave towards animals as pets and livestock. I can sympathise with them up to that point.

They're not trying to get all pets banned - just the fun ones... Only joking, but seriously, they don't want to ban all pets. It seems like they're more interested in restricting the species available to the pet industry in order to minimise the impact on natural ecosystems and on the animals' health. From their perspective, they have the moral high ground.
 

PrincessKiara

Fish Crazy
Joined
Sep 4, 2013
Messages
200
Reaction score
2
Location
MX
Yeah...of course they do. Except, of course, for the small inconvenience that we're also giving them safe, happy, predator free homes.
Would they breed if they weren't happy? ;)
 

daizeUK

Fish Botherer
Joined
Dec 8, 2012
Messages
2,686
Reaction score
6
Location
GB
blueboy1 said:
Just saying, this won't solidify and happen, that's like saying you can't keep domesticated animals anymore. It would be fatal on the economy. What about parrots and other birds that are exotic. It's just too extreme and drastic for this to ever happen
 
But it does happen in other countries.  Look at New Zealand.  They have strict restrictions on what can be imported into the country and quite rightly too.  New Zealand has its own unique bio-diversity that has been under threat ever since humans arrived there with their pets and pests and farm animals.  There are cases in New Zealand where entire species of bird have been wiped from the face of the planet forever simply because a single person brought their pet cat to a small uninhabited island.  
 
Importation of exotic species can have a profound effect on local ecology and it is absolutely right to consider what the future effects of introducing alien species will be and take steps to limit the impact where necessary, taken in context of the local environs.
 
Obviously I don't support a blanket ban on everything, I'm just saying that there is a precedent for this kind of law being implemented and potentially good reasons for doing so.
 

Baccus

We are not born just so we can die
Moderator
Global Moderator
Joined
Oct 1, 2010
Messages
4,076
Reaction score
182
Location
AU
Australia too has many bans in place on fish species, mammal species, birds and even plants. These bans are across the board (ie the entire country) and each state can place further bans on any species they wish. For example in Western Australia the fish keepers over there are not allowed to keep introduced shrimp like cherry, crystal, tiger etc (no one in Australia is techniqually supposed to have them but that's a different matter), there are quite a few plants and animal species that Western Australia also bans and people in the rest of Australia can not post any of the banned species to Western Australia.
The bans, as annoying as they are and also restrictive genetically with regards to rare birds that used to be allowed in and are now banned, effectively slowly culling that species from Australian keepers are important. Every state in Australia has introduced pest species of mammals, plants, birds and fish some of these have been deliberately released like when the first English came here and wanted some sport animals so rabbits and foxes where released onto the environment. Others where more for asthetic reasons, like wanting all English birds flying about to make this strange new country feel more like home. Fish too have not been immune to being either accidentally or deliberately released into unsuspecting water ways. The up shot is now we have rabbits that have pushed many marsupials to the brink of and over the extinction line, foxes and cats that sped them along in the demise. And pest species of birds that are taking limited and valuable nesting sites off native birds and animals as well as food sources. And fish like the humble goldfish which pollutes any waterways they are in, eating all plant life causing scouring out of the waterways and preventing native fish from breeding because their are no plant beds left in which the natives spawn. Then there are the plants in everyones gardens, climbers escape and smother the surrounding bush, trees that form monoculture forests which are only good for housing introduced birds and animals that evolved along side them, and willows that smother the head waters of important creeks and rivers.
 
So for all those reasons and so many more, as much as I bemoan the fact that I can not keep certain species of plants and animal, just by looking at history I can see how necessary the bans are.
All that being said I can understand the shock, fear and anger at a government that is wanting to ban the ownership of certain species, because of real or perceived threats from that species be it disease related or the potential to wipe out a local industry. I would hope that the powers that be show some common sense and bring about bans on a gradual basis and if possible take the Australian approach where certain areas can allow or disallow certain species for any reason.
 

star4

Fish Connoisseur
Joined
Mar 2, 2009
Messages
6,367
Reaction score
1
Location
GB
malfunction said:
 
I used the closing of the coal mine pits as an example of what happens when its too late, striking and complaining about pits being closed when it started had no affect what so ever
 
 
 

But getting back to the matter in hand, just because an obscure lobby group manages to construct a manifesto doesn't mean it will be enacted. Let's not forget that the EU is that same organisation that spent 30 years trying to decide on how to define chocolate! And yes, 15 out of our 78 MEPs are purported to have signed up. But our dear friends in the political classes aren't always known for adhering to their promises.
I think at this stage it's too early for hobbyist to formulate an effective response. We have no idea how the EU commission will interpret this because the movement is still in its early stages. They may take one look in the manifesto and chuck it in the bin. Alternatively, they may take it seriously and decide to begin a formal consultation. In any case, I don't think we'll know which scenario is more likely for a long time. Just my penny's worth.
 
I agree totally with what you say there
smile.png
and I totally agree that the whole idea of a ban on exotic animal import and breeding is so silly that no way it "should" become law. I also hope that it will be "chucked in the bin". However if they take it seriously and once the wheel starts turning and changes are made little by little it will then become too late to fight back.
 
Take the anti smoking lobbiests. To ban cigarettes completely in one go would of had such implications on the tobacco industry there would of been more "power" against it. However, banning smoking in certain areas pubs, public buildings and now cars is not an outright ban, just chipping away at it until the balance is right to ban smoking completely. Again probably a totally wrong example, because its smoking, but I am just trying to re-iterate the point of this exotic animal ban being done bit by bit species by species etc
smile.png

 
 
Now if the same happens with this Europgroup vote for animals and bit by bit certain species are first banned (which is already happening, apple snails, cannel catfish etc). There is a petition at the moment calling for the ban on keeping rats as pets due to a little boy dying from rat bite fever in the US. Health risks with keeping exotic animals will be the stick to beat the politicians with, isolated cases of medical problems connected to keeping exotic pets will be brought to the forefront. Environmental issues are already top of the list, hence the ease of banning the sale of golden apple snails.
 
The point I am trying to get across to as many people as possible is, even though this whole blanket ban is an almost impossible idea to do all at once, there maybe smaller bans/restrictions introduced slowly. Without speaking up now against the start of it, when it does start it will be too late
sad.png
 It may take years and years, but I would like my children and their children to have the choice if they would like to keep fish, rats, degu, bearded dragons etc in the future.
 
There are 10 million supporters of this ban right now, 10 million supporters with the belief they can make this happen, 10 million supporters working to make this happen. 10 million supporters of this action, 10 million voters to the right politician who will start the ball rolling.
 
 
Now I am not wishing to sound disrespectful to anyone, that is not my intention but to put this into words is going to sound like I am. The posts made on this subject, not just by me, but other people worried about it, here and in other places, are met up with many many more "its not going to happen, we do not need to worry, your being stupid, etc" than "Oh dear we should do something about this". This is worrying that it is not being taken seriously when it already has 10 million supporters.
 
So if you do not want to see a ban in importing exotic animals, even if you believe it wont happen, do something by contacting your MEP saying so
smile.png
That's a very impassioned post there!

Where are you getting the 10 million figure from? I had a quick look at their website earlier this afternoon and it says 1,600 have signed up. That's quite a few people, however, I think we can both agree it's very far from 10 million. Here's where I found the figure :

http://www.voteforanimals.eu

Can you post a link for the 10 mil? I must've missed it somehow.

Just going back to the miner's strike briefly; a lot of people argue the opposite to the point you were trying to make - that the miners' predisposition to strike is what lead to their downfall. I only mention this because I think if we're too quick to act and have no coherent argument, then there is the possibility that we could do more harm than good to our cause.

Also, although I thoroughly enjoy keeping fish, I don't think everything they're trying to achieve is necessarily bad. As has been highlighted by a previous post, there are issues with animal welfare in the pet industry. Amongst other things, the Eurogroup for animals are campaigning for better conditions for animals during transit. I can't see how any responsible fish owner could disagree with that. Yes, some of their other objectives are ridiculous/obnoxious/ignorant (delete as applicable), but they do have some good suggestions.
PrincessKiara said:
But why are they doing this? What's the point in banning having pets (which most seem to think is their eventual goal)? Where's the benefit to those people? :mad:
They think they're doing the right thing. Essentially, they think many animals are mistreated and much can be done to improve how we behave towards animals as pets and livestock. I can sympathise with them up to that point.

They're not trying to get all pets banned - just the fun ones... Only joking, but seriously, they don't want to ban all pets. It seems like they're more interested in restricting the species available to the pet industry in order to minimise the impact on natural ecosystems and on the animals' health. From their perspective, they have the moral high ground.
 


 
 
http://www.voteforanimals.eu/site/news/putting-animal-welfare-at-the-heart-of-the-european-elections
 
As requested, :)
 
 
 
Interesting read....
 
 
http://www.ornamentalfish.org/uncatogorized/eu-parliament-gives-invasive-aliens-regulation-the-go-ahead
 
While I agree that something should be done to control invasive species (grey squirrel eradicating the red squirrel). Some of these introductions are not accidental, escapee's or released on purpose :(. The well catfish is a none native species that has been introduced to fishing lakes just for sport. Exactly as Baccus posted about invasive species being introduced for "sport", its these sorts of stupid ideas that bring the worst destruction to the environment, not some idiot tipping his guppies in a local pond. America with the Asian carp, brought in specifically as a food fish, which escaped. The Pacu introduced in Thailand to keep down the vegitation, now they are turning carnivorous just to survive. The list of fish and animals introduced into countries across the globe, by politicians, environmentalists etc to "do good" has had a far bigger impact that the odd escapee during a flood, or purposely released. The list goes on and on. Now they are trying to lay the blame at the feet of pet keepers and trying to tidy up their mess by introducing bans. :(
 
While it states in the above article that  "While it’s yet to be decided what’s to go on this hit-list, most of the likely species are not related to the ornamental aquatic trade "
it does not necessarily mean there will be no fish on that list. However, what is going to be on that list???
 
The problem with an EU ban, is in some countries some fish/animals could survive naturally, but in others they couldnt, eg the golden apple snail cannot survive uk winters, but wooooosh its gone!!! just because it can survive in Spain etc. This is my major worry about this ball that has started rolling, the uk and other countries in the EU with similar winters could end up with animals banned that just could not survive in the wild, just because they possibly could in another country in the EU.
 
Some bans to just not make any sense at all, the ban on the Channel cat, ok yes it could survive our waters has been banned, but the Wells cat, far bigger, far more destructive is allowed because its on the "sport" list.
 
 
Those people that are of the belief that this will not happen are ignoring the fact that it IS happening already, species are being banned at an alarming rate plants, animals and fish.
 

ShinySideUp

Fish Addict
Joined
Nov 13, 2011
Messages
996
Reaction score
67
Location
GB
PrincessKiara said:
But why are they doing this? What's the point in banning having pets (which most seem to think is their eventual goal)? Where's the benefit to those people? :mad:
 
They are doing it because they have to be seen to be doing something even if it's irrelevant, destructive or repetitive. They brought in a rule that says all commercial lorry drivers have to do 35 hours training every 5 years at a cost of a thousand pounds to gain a Certificate of Professional Competence. This CPC serves no purpose in the industry at all and the course can be about almost anything; it doesn't even have to have anything to do with driving. I have my CPC and one of the days was spent on international paperwork so I'm sure that made me a much safer driver!
 
I love the idea of a European trade group but the way this lot work is expensive, inefficient and needs reworking from top to bottom. This is not going the happen however while the Germans and more especially, the French have a vested interest in keeping things the way they are.
 
The fact is is that if there are enough backhanders to make the legislation worthwhile it will go through and all the Facebook pages in the world are not going to change anything.
 
I'm not a UKIP enthusiast but I will be voting for them in the European elections to show my dissatisfaction with the the EU, perhaps our own governmenr might take notice of that.
 

Most reactions

Top