Fish that should be banned?

[RandomWiktor]

That'd be had to do, no, considering that most times animals have hurt the environment, its been because of idiots letting them loose to wreak havok? Basically all of the introduced species - feral domestics or otherwise - landed where they were because of people, after all. Seems hardly fair to ban them when they weren't the ones in the wrong.

As for animals that hurt people, do you mean individually or by breed? It'd be hard to do by breed, but I'd like to see big cats, primates, wolves, etc. barred from private ownership as "pets" since they have a pretty ridiculously high frequency of bites and attacks (and kills, for that matter) in proportion to their captive population.

 

[Synirr]

how about getting rid of all pets that have hurt people and the environment.

We humans aren't pets, but we've certainly done more to hurt ourselves and the environment than any other species on the planet... I say we ban humans!!

 

[Dorkhedeos]

well, i meant like in the area. ive seen on the news that african dwarf frogs were destroying everything because a few people let them out. they still sell them in petsmart. there was also a breed of dog that killed, i think it was 3 people, in california, and bit lots of people. i didnt mean ban them as in banning them from the area, i meant banning them as pets unless you have like a permit or something.

 

[LifeBear]

Licenses for large fish are a great idea. But why stop there? Why not for owning any pet?

And for getting pregnant too...There are some people who should not be allowed to be parents.

 

[Torrean]

I hate what people do to some fish/animals. But I think that it should be capitalism that stops this behaviour. If you don't like the way an animal has been bred don't buy it and tell as many people as you can about these practises. Basically what I'm trying to say is if you don't buy it they won't make it. Just a theory. Laws against cruel practises like those performed on painted glass fish are a diff story though. If the breeding results in a diminished quality of life for the fish it should be considered cruel. I also think that it should be considered cruelty to animals for a lfs to sell you more fish than can fit in a tank. Or for instance selling a person three rainbow sharks and not telling them that they will just kill each other unless the person buys three more, just so the person ends up buying a bigger tank in the future to support the extra fish. I know I am kind of rambling but I hope you get my point.

edit: I think I contradicted myself there. hmm I guess a law against cruel practises is the way to go. But, if the practise isn't cruel to the individual fish like breeding aggressive cichlids then it's up to the individual consumer. I think that straightens out the contradiction.

 

[NinjaSmurf]

Well, eventually everything will work out in the world. If it happens to be because we all blow ourselves up or mother earth just says 'Enough!' and wipes out a few million of us... um, you know, the planet will evolve somehow and balance itself out....







See what happens when you don't sleep enough?

 

[Mr Miagi]

And for getting pregnant too...There are some people who should not be allowed to be parents.

Realy? I really wouldnt think having a licence for giving birth would work.

Whilst some ppl may not be "good" parents, i dont think we can deny someone the oportunity to father or mother a child because ppl view them as "bad" parents in the eyes of a law. Just my two cents.

And as for the original statement, Glofish should be band i reckon.

 

[OohFeeshy]

A 'license' for getting preggers isn't a bad idea. It'd stop those people with no job and loads of kids getting all the benefits..... Although the PC brigade won't like it