Kids Right's, Fish Rights...

[OohFeeshy]

Dogs and cats are different, you can't walk into any petshop and buy one there, you generally have to find someone who has puppies/kittens and go round their house. Plus, dogs tend to cost into hundreds of ounds to buy, and kittens seem now to be at £50+.

 

[andywg]

I don't see where I said anarchy!

You said that anyone should be able to do what they want. That is anarchy. IT does not have to be smashing up Maccy Dees

Why would anyone want to spend valuable resources on enforcing a law designed to protect parents from being stuck with the responsibility of raising an abandoned fish (or other animal for that matter)

And therein is where you lost your way in the debate.

The law is nothing to do with stopping parents looking after animals. It is to prevent animals being neglected/mistreated by those who are tooy oung to really recognise what they are doing.

To confirm this check through the Hansard debates (not easy reading) where you can see the MPs and Lords debating about how it should be worded and what should be included to ensure the law is interpreted by the courts in the best way. The entire emphasis is on the protection of the animal (just like the earlier 1914 act).

It is not just about nasty kids who love destroying animals, it is also about those that are too young to fully empathise with the animal and its suffering. That is why the age limit is put in place.

Otherwise, I assume youa re against a minimum driving age, minimum age for people to enter front line duty of the army and many other things we do to protect children from the world, and vice versa.

 

[Synirr]

Dogs and cats are different, you can't walk into any petshop and buy one there, you generally have to find someone who has puppies/kittens and go round their house. Plus, dogs tend to cost into hundreds of ounds to buy, and kittens seem now to be at £50+.

In the US you can find either for free in the parking lot of Walmart on weekends. Just saying.
Obviously they aren't pedigree animals, but they are there, and any idiot child could take one home. This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, just an observation.

 

[Lynden]

Dogs and cats are different, you can't walk into any petshop and buy one there, you generally have to find someone who has puppies/kittens and go round their house. Plus, dogs tend to cost into hundreds of ounds to buy, and kittens seem now to be at £50+.

In the US you can find either for free in the parking lot of Walmart on weekends. Just saying.
Obviously they aren't pedigree animals, but they are there, and any idiot child could take one home. This has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, just an observation.

But who could resist taking home a cute little puppy/kitten?

Oh yeah, kittens and puppies turn into cats and dogs. And then the children will forget about them and leave them in a carboard box in a tennis court in 40 below weather (the ordeal my dog went through before we got her). Around the same thing that would probably happen to a cute little 2'' Channa orientalis bought by a child, only to get older and realize the formidable predator it really is.

Plain and simple, although many kids take wonderful care of animals, you can never be sure. I think that the animal's health and happiness should come before a child's sudden want. If that means making a prejudice law, then so be it. I am perfectly willing to bring my parents to buy a new fish.

-Lynden

 

[Tolak]

Completely disagree with Tolak. For some reason Tolak you're talking about this as if it's only fish - this law covers all animals sold in petshops. Of course it matters if a kid has already bought one. What about the puppy they buy that they drag round the streets unvaccinated before their parents find out? Returned to the petshop, but habouring parvovirus, distemper etc? What about the kitten bought by a gang of teenagers when skiving after lunchbreak and left on the school bus at the end of the day when they realise they can't take it home? Two situations I've personally seen happen - that kitten went on to live with my sister. The puppy didn't get immediate treatment (being a pet shop animal it's rare they get it at all), and died.

Another thing you have to remember is the unsavoury people aren't on the street dealing fish to children like marijuana (PMSL - classic), they're generally running crappy pet shops. Sadly there is no such thing as a good pet shop that sells domestic animals (not including fish, I'm talking cats, dogs, hamsters etc). The majority are not responsible about who they sell to and what happens to that animal once it leaves their care.

The majority of small animals sold in pet shops are already pregnant if female, badly socialised and poorly cared for.

A huge portion of the pet shop trade in domestic pets is reliant on quick sales on the spur of the moment - with a lot of that being to children (with or without their parents).

And at the minute in this country, we're allowing young children to go out and buy one of these and either take on the responsibility of a poorly bred, badly socialised and potentially poorly animal, or to buy one and have it returned to the petshop ater the stress of being bought/dragged around/taken home/returned. All of this with no parental involvement (which I agree needs to be given with or without laws, but needs laws to back it up).

All of us have been teenagers. I was a particularly responsible one yet rebellious to my parents. Luckily I didn't want a pet enough to put them through that, but I could have. Unluckily I wanted a boyfriend with a motorbike and I managed to get that. Wasn't all it was cracked up to be sadly. Bit like a pet to a teenager. Exciting at first, can't wait to dump the responsibility after a while (disclaimer - I'm not like this with either animals or men now ).

There are things in life you have to wait for. The responsibility of pet ownership should be one of them.

I haven't seen any pet shop around here sell puppies for under $300 in many years. I want to meet the kid that has that kind of money to blow, I could probably learn something. A couple of years back one local reputable shop had kittens for $79, one week special. I want to meet the kid who can toss away that amount. After talking to my 17 year old son, given the hypothetical situation of him & 9 buddies putting in 8 bucks each to slap around a kitten for a day, he told me they couldn't decide what to do with $80 bucks to pi$$ away between them, much less a few hundred. Trying to get 4 teenagers to decide what to do is an ordeal i used to like to sit back & watch, more than that is a 3 ring circus. Throw some money into the mix, and it's nearly impossible for them to come to any conclusion. None the less, if you have teens knifing cats in your area I wouldn't worry about the cat, I'd worry about my own ribs getting shanked. Those kids need help.

I thought I made it clear that I don't see anything near fish speakeasies happening. (PMSL, reading comprehension) If I could get some local rummy to buy me beer, I'm sure kids could get some local rummy to buy them fish. If you understand the way business' run, when they sell an inferior product, they don't stay in business long. This includes smaller animals other than fish. Most every one of them around here are responsible about who they sell to, and what happens to the pet after it is sold. I really can't think of one like that here, though I do know of one that has a lifetime guarantee on any animal they sell.

My 17 year old son has been into keeping rats for a few years, every shop in the area he checks out has the females separated from the males, they are all in good condition if they are for sale. They won't sell to some kid wandering in off the street, nor adult for that matter, if the care of the animal is in question.

Actually, from what I'm seeing in this multi-page topic, is that pet shops in the UK probably do need that sort of law if they are that shoddily run, and sell that inferior of a product. They would be out of business in 6 months here. Actually, they should probably shut them all down, sounds like they are doing more harm then good. I think that is the reason you are seeing a wide range of differences in opinion on this topic. Honestly it's a hard call to make whether a shop like that would go out of business or be shut down by the board of health first.

 

[overboard]

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!

Yes! This makes sense.

 

[Tolak]

Boy, my club would have one he11 of a time having bowl shows without bowls.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Quote Andy wg: The law is nothing to do with stopping parents looking after animals. It is to prevent animals being neglected/mistreated by those who are tooy oung to really recognise what they are doing.

I have seen both sides argued here, that it is for the animals and that it is for the parents. If we are debating that the law looks after the care of the animals then all the youngster's arguments hold a lot of water, they would do much better to care for an animal than most "of age" adults. If this is the law's intent then it is even more off base than if it were there to protect parents because it would be making broad assumptions about a demographic that just can't be made. Again, it might seem ignorant but THE ONLY WAY TO ACCOMPLISH THIS END is to ban the trade of animals for everyone young and old. If not then at least there should be a competence exam and a host of financial documents showing the fiscal ability of the adult wishing his fish to cair for them properly. It all seems to me like people just want to take away the rights and abilities fo someone who they see unfit for a task. Here in the U.S. one must obtain special permits to care for certain animals which are either endangered or dangerous, for the protection of the animals and the owners. Maybe we should extend this requirement to any animal with a spine, including children. How would you like a law enacted to limit your reprodictive rights to only be when the government sees fit to allow you to reproduce? I know that wouldn't sit well with anyone would it. Well you're taking on the responsibility of another life when you reproduce, one which may be blasphemous to say here but is infinately more important than any fish you can ever buy, yet it is generally accepted to allow a person to decide when the time for this has come!

Basically I just think it's stupid from any angle to try and restrict legally something that parents should have controll over themselves. Suck it up and accept some responsibility for your actions and stop expecting or supporting anyone else in telling you what you can and cannot do.

If you say Anarchy one more time I'll lose it

 

[Tolak]

Jules H-T;

No, every parent isn’t as responsible as I am, and some are more responsible. I just do the best I can with what I have, and don’t expect out of others what I wouldn’t expect out of myself. I live ½ mile out of the Chicago city limits, my wife works for the county court system, which encompasses all of Chicago and the surrounding suburbs. You don’t want to know about some of the imperfect crap that can occur, it get nasty beyond the imagination.

I have no problem with minimally acceptable standards, I have 3 yardsticks everything, including laws are judged against; The Constitution of the United States of America, The Bill of Rights, and The Ten Commandments. I think these are some pretty hefty minimally acceptable standards.

Cruelty towards animals is a symptom of some serious underlying problem. Animal abuse is a symptom. While I have no problem whatsoever with anti-cruelty laws, I don’t think fines & jail time treat the underlying problem, they just penalize the symptoms.

I have no problem with reasonable boundaries or laws, as mentioned before with the minimally acceptable standards. There is a thing in our legal system called jury nullification. This is where the law is judged as to it’s constitutionality, as well as the accused for the law broken. The legal system tries to hide this one, score one for honesty.

Punishment often doesn’t help a lawbreaker nearly as much as education.

For example, guns. Expect a pm on this way off topic subject this weekend.

I think, once again, we have a situation of demographics, or national frame of mind concerning this subject. It seems the UK members love their laws, if you don’t like something make another law. In the US, it seems more a situation of folks self-policing. As in the previously mentioned bowl show post, you get rid of bowls, the club I am a member of has no more monthly bowl show at the meetings. We now not only seem to have fish needing rights, we have glass bowls being gotten rid of, violating the rights of many experienced breeders who love participating in the monthly bowl shows. This is how a law snowballs into something it was never intended to be, and having an effect that is totally undesirable. It doesn’t take too many situations involving legalities such as this for a hobby breeder to say screw it, I’m taking up something else, then the general public is wondering where all the nice fish went that used to be in the lfs. The club I’m involved with has around 70 members, at least half are breeders. I have 3 regular shops I supply angels to; the club has most every shop covered with most every common fish sold. Many, including myself, will sell out of the home. If someone doesn’t seem to know what they are doing, I don’t sell them fish, no matter what the age. I don’t card people; age does not equal intelligence or experience. If some law is enacted that states people selling fish can only sell to adults, kids over 16, or whatever, the tanks go, and it’s a choice between getting a metal band together again, or getting back into competitive defensive pistol craft. I’m sure most of the other breeders in the club would quit breeding as well.

 

[SamUK]

i think people saying im aged (insert age under 18 here) and keep my fish well need to realise something.

your a minority!

its obvious you care about yourfish/dog or cats becuase your on a forum talking and reading about it.

think about it tho, how many of your friends do the same thing?

im 20 so im not far off and i kno my m8s think im nuts sometimes for talking on here and wouldnt know how to feed a cat a tin of cat food if they were asked to.

any law saying you cant buy whatever animal till your atleast 16 is put in place because the majority of people that age either want it for about a week till it gets boring or cos it looks cool.

it doesnt sound fair i kno but they cant have laws for every individual so they have one to protect the majority.


i dont think it would be a problem moving it to 18 years old either. if your responsible enough to look after a pet then your parents will kno that and help you get one.

now i have to admit i didnt read all 13 pages so im sori if someone already sed all that.

 

[CFC]

On the subject of fish bowls.

Many EU countries already have laws in place that outlaw the keeping of any fish in a tank or bowl smaller than 40 litres (10 gallons).

 

[SPLiSH]

On the subject of fish bowls.

Many EU countries already have laws in place that outlaw the keeping of any fish in a tank or bowl smaller than 40 litres (10 gallons).

That's a very good law, but does it include bettas? (Just wondering...)

 

[CFC]

Any fish, including bettas.

 

[OohFeeshy]

That law sucks for some things, you'd have a hell of a time trying to keep a group of Pandaka Pygmea in a 10g, or some danionellas

 

[CFC]

It doesnt say you cant divide a 40 litre tank into two 20 litre tanks does it? It just stops people keeping fish in a container i'd consider too small to keep beer in.

And really 40 litres really isnt a lot of water, i cant think of any species that would benefit from being kept in less, but thats a whole different can of worms so lets not go there.