Kids Right's, Fish Rights...

[dwarfgourami]

And you need not worry about the goldfish since I put the water levels too high and he jumped out last night.

Is this meant to defend your credentials as a responsible fishkeeper?

Getting back to the topic on hand, I am very impressed by the responsible attitude of SOME young fishkeepers on this forum, such as Oohfeeshy, though I think you would be hard put to it to argue that none of the silly or irresponsible contributions on here emanate from young people.

However, those of you who really believe that you are bearing the main costs of your fishkeeping from your Saturday jobs are just...well, kidding yourselves. As long as your parents are providing a roof over your heads and paying the heating and electricity bill, their degree of authority should be on a different level from yours. If you want an adult's level of influence, then you would have to make an adult's level of contribution to the running of the household. Not just the money itself but also the planning, the budgeting, the constant worrying about utterly boring things that have none of the charm of fishkeeping, but are an essential requisite for any fishkeeping to take place.

 

[annka5]

I think it's a sensible law. Ultimately, most under-16's in developed countries have parent /gaurdian /the state being responsible for them, housing them, and supporting them financially.
Why should kids have the right to effectively force their parents to accept any living creature in their home? At least out of courtesy, the parents/guardian permission should be necessary.
I make it sound harsher than I mean in saying the above, and obviously (from the comment above!) I don't have children myself: however, under-16's have the right to expect their parents/guardian to take care of them, and the flip-side of that is the under-16's are prevented from doing some things.
Until you have the legal right to live on your own, you should expect to have what you can do in the place you live to be limited.
I don't think it should be taken as a reflection of under-16's ability to be responsible or knowledgeable, or make decisions.

 

[pinkdolphin_113]

In england, dunno about other places, we have these people called CHAVS (or scallies (scally wags) as i like to call them) who would gladly buy an animal just to toture it. This is absaloutly sick but unfortunatly it does happen. They just ruin it for the rest of us!! My sister, 21 years old, bought a cute gorgeous little kitten the other month and, being involved with CHAVs and having chavvy friends, it was killed within a week. Not by herself but by her friends. These are the sort of people who shouldnt be allowed pets or any responsibilities! Its just sick.
Another factor could be that a person under 16 doesn't know much about fish keeping. All the pet shop people know is that they are buying a fish. They don't know whether they've cycled a tank for a week or 2 or that they've had fish in the past.
Its a real puzzler is this question!

x

 

[Jules H-T]

My sister, 21 years old, bought a cute gorgeous little kitten the other month and, being involved with CHAVs and having chavvy friends, it was killed within a week. Not by herself but by her friends.

The people responsible should be reported to the Police, by your sister.

 

[furryrabbit]

And you need not worry about the goldfish since I put the water levels too high and he jumped out last night.

In other words you got sick of getting stick about it and A) smashed him up , B ) worse - you flushed him .
I can't see a goldfish building up enough speed to jump out of a 1 gallon bowl .

I thought Mods were meant to be impartial , eh CFC ?

 

[starrynightxxi]

now i admit i haven't been around that long, but I don't think I've ever seen CFC be impartial, and i have a notion that he might explode if he were to try, which would leave a rather sticky mess. The carpet would be ruined...


i dunno, though, i could see a common getting enough speed to jump out of a bowl if it was of a certain size. doesn't take much. and death certainly doesn't release the owner of their responsibility to the animal while it was alive.

 

[Tolak]

My sister, 21 years old, bought a cute gorgeous little kitten the other month and, being involved with CHAVs and having chavvy friends, it was killed within a week. Not by herself but by her friends.

The people responsible should be reported to the Police, by your sister.

If a 16+ law was in effect now, it wouldn't have saved the poor kitten. Your sister is aware of the dirtbags she associates with, why would she want to throw a kitten into the mix? For that matter, why are your parents letting your sister associate with scum?

When I was too young to drink legally, me & my buddies would hang around the local store, & wait for one of the local boozer to get us a run. Give them an extra buck or two, and they are more than happy to help out. I'll bet your chavs or whatever wannabe tough guys will be more than willing to do a fish run for someone underage who wants to do something harmful to fish. Decent, moral, law abiding kids will talk to mom or dad. That makes it a pretty ineffective law, and as with any ineffective law, the people who stand to gain the most are those that operate outside the law. Look into the Prohibition era in the USA.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between a kid buying a fish & a kid catching a fish. Either way they have a live fish in their possesion.

 

[Namelessthedogboy]

I think it's a good idea and I know my LFS refuses to sell livestock/livefood to under 16's unless he has an arrangement with their guardians

I consider this one of the factors in being a reputable trader

 

[OohFeeshy]

That makes it a pretty ineffective law, and as with any ineffective law, the people who stand to gain the most are those that operate outside the law. Look into the Prohibition era in the USA.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between a kid buying a fish & a kid catching a fish. Either way they have a live fish in their possesion.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[Jules H-T]

When I was too young to drink legally, me & my buddies would hang around the local store, & wait for one of the local boozer to get us a run. Give them an extra buck or two, and they are more than happy to help out. I'll bet your chavs or whatever wannabe tough guys will be more than willing to do a fish run for someone underage who wants to do something harmful to fish. Decent, moral, law abiding kids will talk to mom or dad. That makes it a pretty ineffective law, and as with any ineffective law, the people who stand to gain the most are those that operate outside the law. Look into the Prohibition era in the USA.

I think you're being a bit melodramatic comparing it to prohibition. Can you imagine a load of underground child "swimeasy" venues springing up, and kids breeding their own fish in complex glass arrangements lol?

There isn't the market for an illicit underage fish trade, no-one outside the law will be benefitting. The only benefits here are for the volumes of fish that will now not get sold to kids.

The law is common sense anyway, which is why it is the policy of responsible fish sellers anyway. All it is doing is forcing the irresponsible ones to buck their ideas up.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between a kid buying a fish & a kid catching a fish. Either way they have a live fish in their possesion.

The difference is an adult other than the one responsible for the child knowingly releasing a fish into the child's posession.

You seem very anti rules generally Tolak, is that fair to say?

I'm not having a go, or lining up to have a go, but where is your line of what is a good restriction? Alcohol to children? Drugs to adults? Drugs to children?

I responsibly use recreational drugs (pills and coke, class As in the UK), and by responsibly I mean a few times a year in not stupid quanitites. Even so, I'm not sure I'd like to see them being legally sold.

Rules and restrictions make up the fabric of our society, and whether you actually abide by them or not, you've got to agree they are a good thing or we'd all be going round robbing shops and killing people who pissed us off.

 

[dgwebster]

To me the law is not there to protect the animal, but to protect the parents.

Everyone on this topic, how many of you have an under 16 for a child?

And in october, they tell you what they want for christmas?

then change their mind two weeks later.
and again two weeks later
and again two weeks later and again two weeks later and so on and so forth.

How many parents have heard their child say "I want a hamster/rat/dog/cat" etc and the parent ends up looking after the animal as the child looses interest. As it is most likely the adult will end up paying the up keep, vet bills, ilness treatments and cleaning up/out etc is it not fair that that adult gets a say in whether the child is permitted to own such said animal?

Granted this is not in all cases, but it is a strong risk and the adult should be given the opportunity to say whether they want the animal or not in the event they have to look after it 2 months down the line.

My girlfriend has to re-home animals constantly as a result of this (she offers a rescue to rehome rather than "put them in the bin") and for this reason alone, I think it is a good law to have.

 

[tetraman]

The goldfish was a small, strong, streamlines wild variety. I guess I owe an apology to anyone I offended on that issue. After I get off TFF today I am going to put the buenos aires tetra in a breeding net I got recently (not the one with the fry!).

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

[/quote]
I'll bet your chavs or whatever wannabe tough guys will be more than willing to do a fish run for someone underage who wants to do something harmful to fish. Decent, moral, law abiding kids will talk to mom or dad. That makes it a pretty ineffective law, and as with any ineffective law, the people who stand to gain the most are those that operate outside the law. Look into the Prohibition era in the USA.

I'm still wondering what the difference is between a kid buying a fish & a kid catching a fish. Either way they have a live fish in their possesion.
[/quote]


It's true, it seems to me like having a law like this is sort of a waste of time and money. If parents don't want their children bringing fish home for fear of being stuck with them, then they should be more involved in the day to day lives of their children. My parents would have never let me get near to a fish store with money in my pockets without their permission. They kept pretty good tabs on what I was doing at any point during the day untill I turned 16, and at that point they would have made me pay for part of the heating and power bill to support the tank if I were to get one.

Parents these days almost seem to not want to be bothered with their children and what they are doing. Could this explain some of the Chavving that has been described in earlier posts on this thread?

Also if the parents aren't comfortable having a fish in the home they can always bag it up and return it immediately. Refund or not, in fact were a youth to lose most of his monies because he/she purchased some fish without permission it might just teach a lesson about consulting with parents before doing such a thing.

Why spend money enacting and enforcing a petty law such as this when there are much more important things going on that deserve the attention of our governmental system? put the responsibility on the parents and not on the legal system and the store owners.

SLC

 

[ciarantropicalfishman]

I think it is sensible to impose some discipline on ALL customers purchasing live animals. However, this must start with the industry imposing some self-discipline. For example, get rid of all the stupid fish bowls!

should have a fish licence of some sort sighned by a parent and picture and proof of age. my mum is sick of having to take me to fish shop of and buying fish

 

[Tolak]

Jules H-T;

I only used prohibition because it is a very well known & easily researchable topic. If you googled it you could more than likely read for a week. It is also one of the few examples of an amendment being made, then an amendment being made to end the amendment. The same holds true for drugs, gambling, firearms, fireworks, prostitution, and I’m sure plenty of others. No, I don’t see fish speakeasies, or anything close to that magnitude of illegal activity. What I do see is a kid dealing with some local scumbag in order to get a fish if such a law is enacted. You may not agree with me, but I would rather see some fish meet an untimely death than a kid start to be influenced by some unsavory locals. I don’t see this as being an epidemic, such as adults buying Dalmatians several years ago only to find they aren’t what they expected, or the nemo craze. I have a hard time understanding the volumes thing right now. Responsible fish dealers will stay in business, just like any other responsible business, the irresponsible businesses fold. The problem solves itself.

I don’t think a law is needed, I think a parent is needed, one that firmly states that no animals are to be brought home without asking permission first. It’s that easy. It doesn’t matter if the animal is caught, given, or bought. If you don’t want your kid bringing home animals, tell them so. That’s how you raise a child to be a responsible adult. It should be a household rule, not a law. I would say most kids are responsible like this from what I see. In the event someone who is into aquatics has an underage kid who is also into the hobby, the kid can’t buy something he sees without an adult. I probably see more of this than most, going to auctions & swaps. 12 year olds buying fish is a common thing, there are plenty of kids under 16 who come out with the Latin names of African cichlids and totally baffle me.

I have no problem with rules; I do have a problem with laws that should be rules. I’m sure the rules in my house are different from my neighbors; whose are different from yours. I don’t expect my personal or household rules to be made into law, as I don’t expect anyone else’s. I certainly don’t need laws to tell me what to or not to allow my kids to do. What’s legal isn’t always moral, and what’s moral isn’t always legal.

I do have more of a Libertarian/Constitutionalist view of life; this should give you an idea where I stand on many things. I don’t consider this you having a go at me whatsoever.

I used to do some wild & crazy things in my younger days, drugs & alcohol included. The Libertarian stand on this applies.

I’ll agree with rules & restrictions making up the fabric of our society, many laws should be kept as such. If robbing shops & killing people were legal, I still wouldn’t get involved in that. I doubt that many would. Once again, what’s legal isn’t always moral, and what’s moral isn’t always legal.

Much of what is being discussed here involves licensing, which involves time and money. Where should the money for this come from, a fish tax, a general tax, percentage of the business’ gross sales, or what? It ends up being a major bureaucracy, which could be easily solved with firm parenting & nothing more.