Kids Right's, Fish Rights...

[Ethos]

More stupid laws. Eventually they will make enough of them so that you will have inadvertently broken some obscure screwball law sometime in your life.

You worry about fish now, wait until your kid has to be 16 to purchase candy or fast food. Those things are not good for kids, those laws could be passed to protect them. There is an epidemic of fat children in developed countries now. You could go on to eternity basing one law on the previous one, trying to please one special interest group after another, all in the name of protecting animals, children or whatever, until oops, you broke a law.

I totally agree. As an American I was certian promised rights by my grandparents grandparents(and so on). I don't want to give a flowery speech on how I have nice rights and such, and how they were promised to me. But Tolak is totally right. If we keep over-annalizing everything and making silly laws so that kids and teenagers can't make mistakes, when will we ever learn? I was just hearing today about how the difference between man and machine is that when a man makes a mistake, will, whether its today or 50 years from today, we will learn from it(of course, acting upon what we've learned is a different story).
And you guys, bottom line is, fish aren't people. If a fish dies, your not a killer, murderer, or whatever. We have to consider, what if Alexander Grahm Bell hadn't been allowed to go to the market, meet a deaf person, and then eventually, never creating in 1876 the "electrical speech machine."(Which was later modified to be the modernday microphone, then the telephone.) If some kids' experience with a pet goldfish that died, then eventually going to a pet store (to replace it) and seeing some amazing fish sparking his interest more-so, could help millions of fish in the Great Barrier Reef or something.
(Sorry if the last paragraph doesn't make any sense - its 2:40am and I should be asleep!)

And I dunno. Obviously we're not going to solve this on this forum for the whole world, and since we all have our own oppinions, we'll never agree on really anything! I am certianly not a certified professional, and I haven't attended all the meetings and such to have a real opinion.

Night yall!

 

[SPLiSH]

And you guys, bottom line is, fish aren't people. If a fish dies, your not a killer, murderer, or whatever. We have to consider, what if Alexander Grahm Bell hadn't been allowed to go to the market, meet a deaf person, and then eventually, never creating in 1876 the "electrical speech machine."(Which was later modified to be the modernday microphone, then the telephone.) If some kids' experience with a pet goldfish that died, then eventually going to a pet store (to replace it) and seeing some amazing fish sparking his interest more-so, could help millions of fish in the Great Barrier Reef or something.
(Sorry if the last paragraph doesn't make any sense - its 2:40am and I should be asleep!)

And I dunno. Obviously we're not going to solve this on this forum for the whole world, and since we all have our own oppinions, we'll never agree on really anything! I am certianly not a certified professional, and I haven't attended all the meetings and such to have a real opinion.

Night yall!

Yes, fish aren't people, but if you kill one, you are still killing it - just because it's a fish, not a human, doesn't mean you aren't a killer. It sounds sinister, but technically you are still killing a living being, just not a human. If a kid really has their eye set on keeping fish, they won't mind having to ask their parents to come to the LFS with them! And if the parents won't, then the kid has to accept that.

 

[Ethos]

If a kid really has their eye set on keeping fish, they won't mind having to ask their parents to come to the LFS with them! And if the parents won't, then the kid has to accept that.

Most of us agree that its not a big deal to be accompanied by an adult to the store. But If there are laws in place taking away every tiny bit of independance a kid has, whats going to happen when he turns 16 or 18 and is hit by a mountain of independance? I think that could screw someone's life up way more than simply being able to buy a fish.

A big problem with 21 year olds in the US is the relatively new threat of "achohol poisoning." Obviously its been around since drinking has, but its never been a really big deal. While teenagers in Germany learn how to drink casually and in acceptable amounts, kids in the US do "Power hours," "21 shots," "beer pong," and other random silly ways to abuse achohol and get drunk!

 

[CFC]

In England adults still do that despite our younger legal drinking age and more relaxed views on alcohol.

 

[catxx]

i once gatecrashed a LA university college party. horrific state of affairs. you US kids just don't know how to drink. and keg beer tastes of water.
brits know how to drink, they just prefer to binge it as quickly as possible and then pass out in the street, or get arrested, or get in a fight.
europeans tend to be more civilised (or at least thats what we're lead to believe)

ANYWAY, back on topic. i still think this law is a good idea.

 

[Jules H-T]

The issue here is not one of competence, nor is it one of deliberate cruelty. The issue is one of accountability, responsibility, and resources.

Children are not in a position to take full responsibility for a pet. They cannot guarantee access to the money for food, medication, a house to keep the fish in (I mean a roof over their head, not an aquarium). Knowing you get £xx of pocket money is not guaranteeing it.

If a child is not able to provide the pet with everything it needs to survive, how can they take the decision to purchase it?

@ Tolak, what price, for your freedom and civil liberties?

 

[LisaLQ]

I haven't read all 7 pages, sorry - mum of 5 and waiting for a new bed to be delivered.

But wanted to say from a parent's perspective - I think the no under 16s law should stay. Not because all under 16s are crap with animals - but because they should have to get consent from their parents. It's all very well knowing how to look after one, but if their parents say no when they take it home - it's the fish who goes back in the bag and back to the fish shop. Eg. parents may have said yes to a small tank, child could tell the LFS that he wants an oscar and will get his m+d to buy a bigger tank when he outgrows it - then he could take it home and parents would (quite rightly) go mental.

I would hope that the under 16s who believe the law isn't fair would check with their parents before they purchased any pet - fish, dog, cat - whatever. Because if they didn't, then they would be proving the law is there for a reason - and that under 16s are irresponsible

So....basically - if these under 16s are responsible, know their fish, and want what's best for them - they wont have to hide it from their parents, and would see taking an adult along as a minor thing to get over and done with - and worth it to get the fish they love.

Sorry if someone's already made that point!

Just noticed several people had.

Funnily those opposing it are teenagers *sigh*

[imagines Kevin and Perry - "You're so unFAIR!!" hee hee]

 

[Fishkeeper2004]

I haven't read all 7 pages, sorry - mum of 5 and waiting for a new bed to be delivered.

But wanted to say from a parent's perspective - I think the no under 16s law should stay. Not because all under 16s are crap with animals - but because they should have to get consent from their parents. It's all very well knowing how to look after one, but if their parents say no when they take it home - it's the fish who goes back in the bag and back to the fish shop. Eg. parents may have said yes to a small tank, child could tell the LFS that he wants an oscar and will get his m+d to buy a bigger tank when he outgrows it - then he could take it home and parents would (quite rightly) go mental.

I would hope that the under 16s who believe the law isn't fair would check with their parents before they purchased any pet - fish, dog, cat - whatever. Because if they didn't, then they would be proving the law is there for a reason - and that under 16s are irresponsible

So....basically - if these under 16s are responsible, know their fish, and want what's best for them - they wont have to hide it from their parents, and would see taking an adult along as a minor thing to get over and done with - and worth it to get the fish they love.

Sorry if someone's already made that point!

Just noticed several people had.

Funnily those opposing it are teenagers *sigh*

[imagines Kevin and Perry - "You're so unFAIR!!" hee hee]

Although many store policies in the UK stating they won't sell to under 16's, the law is currently set at any child over the age of 12 may by animal livestock. The appropriate authorities are considering raising this limit to no under 16's, but at present, it's legal for a 12 year old to buy an animal in the UK.

 

[LisaLQ]

Well it shouldn't be *lol*

 

[OohFeeshy]

Just wondering though... how many twelve year old know they can buy a pet by themselves, and how many actually would? I didn't know that was the case until the beginning of this year, and even if I was hell-bent on getting a hamster or whatever, very few places would actually sell something like that to a child without an adult. Fish, differs slightly, as they aren't considered to be as important as, say furry animals, but I would still say that most shop assistants would at least ask about what the kid is planning on doing with said fish.

Anyway... As long the law is as relaxed as most laws in this country, and the shops that aren't idiots who sell rubbish fish don't act like the Gestapo over it, it's fine by me.

 

[afireinside]

I personally think it is up to the stores. They want to make a profit and they'd almost never make a profit if this was a law. Why? They'd loose sales because of teenagers not buying fish, due to not wanting to be seen with their parents. I'm just saying, it's really up to the store in the end.

 

[Tolak]

Edited to add: My son goes up to secondary school this week. Chocolate/sweets and fizzy pop are banned in that school, and that's something I back too.

That's the idea, banned. No law needed, personal responsibility on the part of the school, parents, and taxpayers who fund the school, if it's a public school.

@ Tolak, what price, for your freedom and civil liberties?

Up to, and including death if needed. I kid you not.


An 11 year old kid is what got me into this hobby 14 years ago. My daughter wanted an aquarium, and could have easily walked to the lfs with a few friends & spent her babysitting money on the 10 gallon setup she had been looking at. The lfs, being a responsible shop, won't sell a kid something like that then or now. Being taught responsibility & liability, she talked to my wife & I first. We split the cost with her, picked up a book & a few other goodies as well. I still have that tank, along with some of the deco's.

Here's something I was thinking about as I was tearing up some old carpeting; If there is a law saying that you have to be 16 to purchase fish, what happens to the underage person who is breeding some livebearers & needs to sell them to the lfs, at an auction, or whatever. What if this kid sells a few to his underage buddies? How far reaching a law, and what animals will it apply to? Ever see a kid go fishing? What's the difference between catching a live fish or purchasing one?

 

[JAY323]

that law stupid so an old man thats like 75 yrs old and can barely see can buy some fish and me 15 know much more than he does cant


plus why would kids like me 15 go waste money like $10 and buy fish and kill them?i buy fish to put them in my tank they think that we will kill them or play with them NO cause if we were we would get feeder fish not $5 dollar fish.



well all is said but my PETCO by me says i need an adult but my petsmart doesnt need a adult to buy fish so i like petsmart better

 

[LisaLQ]

But which would your parents prefer? They pay the electric bill for your tank, any vets fees, treatments, tanks etc. I know I know, some of you have pocket money - but it all comes from their wallet.

Although if you're responsible enough to have pets, you're responsible enough to get a job

Kids always think they know best. That's why there's so many drug addicts, teenage pregnancies, underage drivers getting killed on the roads. Suppose those laws should be relaxed too - why not buy a fish, get drunk, knock up your girlfriend, take drugs - then go for a drive?

Or....wait a couple of years til you are an adult - and do it responsibly, without all the hormones and tantrums *lmao*

 

[Fishkeeper2004]

I know I know, some of you have pocket money - but it all comes from their wallet.

Unless they use their initiative and earn money by either getting online and doing some general web development and design (any age can do this with a little research!), or simply by getting a paper round or offering to mow peoples lawns or wash their cars.

You wouldn't get paid much, but it would fund the hobby.