Kids Right's, Fish Rights...

[Lynden]

And to think an obnoxious outburst of mine was what started this immense thread...
Maybe I should do more of those after all...


I started fishkeeping when I was ten years old. I have done some terrible things in the past. But the only reason I did those things (fish cycling, plec in ten gallon, ect) is because that is what I was told to do and I didn't know any better. And now, 4 years later, I am still recovering, in a sense, from the things I did since I was ten to twelve years old (plec in 37 gallon, 2 plecs in 77 gallon, grossly overstocked 37 gallon, ect.). If I had not had the tremendous amount of interest I had in fishkeeping, those fish would be long gone by now. But if there would have been a law or at the very least, a knowledgeable fish store manager those fish probably wouldn't be in this situation. Only now am I on the verge of correcting mistakes that were made 3-4 years ago in a span of 3-4 weeks. Therefore, ignorance can be corrected with learning, but the mistakes made through ignorance often cannot.

My life's goal is basically, to gather knowledge and spread that to everyone else. Many people say I have already done an exeptional job of this, greatly surpassing the average levels of intellect and knowledge for people my age. However, even if I knew literally everything there is to know, alas, as Synirr mentioned, my inferior teenage brain is still developing, and is still prone to temporary lapses of judgment (as demonstrated by the "saltwater betta"). My point is, that no amount of knowledge can save a teenage brain from making foolish mistakes (Koran Angel in a 55 gallon, buying predacious Morays).

I think it is a good idea to wait until one settles down to buy lots of fishtanks. However, I cannot wait, and I have a 240 gallon tank probably on the way. This is another foolish mistake (though for me, an unavoidable one ) related to wanting pure instant gratification without thinking of the consequences. I am going to university in a few years, and what will become of my wonderful tank then? Although my Mom and Dad love my fish, do they have antwhere near the spare time I do?

I think the law is useless, but does have alot of sense behind it. What we do need, as mentioned in the above posts, is good parents who can help there children through fishkeeping. The law would be utterly superflous if this always happened, but unfortunately, it doesn't. So maybe the law is a good idea after all?

-Lynden

 

[KathyM]

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.

 

[Synirr]

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.

A good example of why it shouldn't be up to stores... not that the embarrassment of being seen with your parents is going to stop anyone who really wants a pet and is responsible enough to get permission to get one first. I got my navel pierced at 14, and yeah it was a little embarrassing to walk into a tattoo shop with my mother at that age, but I'll be damned if that was going to stop me from getting something I wanted badly enough.

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

Eh-heh... kinda like how the elderly can drive but children under 16 can't. Teens still have the largest number of traffic accidents, despite the "75 year olds who can barely see." Let's face it, our age group (I'll include myself, being 20) just doesn't have a whole lot of sense, in general, and our major folly is thinking that we know everything and can do anything when it quite simply isn't true. Children are not adults, and should not be treated as such. I kinda resent not being able to buy alcohol at 18, but looking around at some of my peers, I'm sure glad that law is in place, even if it doesn't always do a whole lot of good in preventing alcohol from falling into underage hands. You gotta consider the idiots, here

The point is, that as a child you have no power at all. You cannot control anything at all about your circumstances, whether you think you can or not. Any control you think you have is an illusion, you control what your parents allow you to control.

Very, very true, and anyone who disagrees just hasn't thought it over. Any freedom you have is there because your parents allow it; for most people, they own the house you live in, they raised you, and they support you with their income. Even though they may never consider doing it, they do have the power to pull that out from under you at any time, and there's not a single thing you could do about it. You are a dependent, in every sense of the word. Even if you can get away with some things they disapprove of, there is always the fear of consequence. Suicide, as mentioned, is one of the rare exceptions, and that's only if you manage it before your parents decide to have you institutionalized.

To be honest making the legal age for buying animals to 16+ wouldn't make much different. Out of about 6 LFS that I visit, only one of them serves under 16's livestock. It's just general store policy around this area, not sure whether it's the same elsewhere, but I would have thought so..

Exactly.... so what's the big deal, guys?

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

Pet ownership should not be a right, it should be a privilege, one you are only given if your parents approve or if you are completely independent and supporting yourself as well as your pets solely with your own income.

 

[falcodarkzz]

Kids should be able to buy fish, definatley.

 

[Jules H-T]

The problem Tolak, is that not every parent is as responsible as you are. When you're seeing stories about 7 yr old kids in hospital from drug overdoses, or being taken into care for neglect, you realise that the world isn't as ideal as one might like.

It is the role of Government to set minimum socially acceptable standards by which people should live, and I don't really see how you can argue with that without subscribing to total anarchy.

Society has anti cruelty laws for animals, for good reason.

Some people choose to ignore these laws, because they have judged for themselves that it IS acceptable to set fire to a puppy or to neglect fish.

The fact that being told by the government that you have boundaries is uncomfortable to you does not give you the right to remove society's mechanism for punishing those individuals who choose to live outside commonly acceptable conduct.

For example, guns. Because wide sections of the American population hold the view that their right to bear arms is a fundamental freedom, the USA has the highest muder rates and rates of gun related crime in the western world. What a price to pay. The NRA say "guns don't kill people, people do" or something along those lines, but that it totally sidestepping the point that if guns were not permitted, thousands of innocent Americans each year (people's mothers, fathers, sons and daughters) would not be murdered.

This is irrefutable, and illustrates my point very well, that whilst individuals can largely be trusted to live according to the moral codes of the society they live in, some cannot.

Legislation and rules are desirable, and moreover, they are (contrary to what you say), effective. For example, guns are available in the UK on the black market. However, compare the rates of ownership in our respective countries. What does that tell you? You cannot argue that legislation and banning is ineffective, because the evidence is right here for all to see that it is effective.

Some parent's solution to an unwanted fish will be to put it down the toilet. Some will allow their child to neglect their purchase. These are facts. How can this be avoided? By stopping fish being sold to children who do not have the positive proactive backing of their parents. Who do we look to to ensure this backing is in place? The fish seller. How do we ensure they do this (even though most do anyway)? By punishing (or even just potentially punishing) them if they don't.

This cicumvents the need for licenses, permits, test, all this stuff that costs money. It won't cost a penny beyond the legal bill of getting it through parliament. It doesn't even need resources proactively enforcing it, it just needs fish sellers appreciating that if they sell fish to kids that their livelihood is in danger.

This is a cheap, effective mechanism for protecting animals, and I'm glad fish are included rather than excluded, as could have been the case.

Anyone who is against this law is against protecting fish, this is a fact as far as I can see it. Even those who are apathetic towards the effectiveness of the legislation should appreciate that it doesn't do any harm, and should support it in case it is effective!

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

Maybe it's because I'm American, but anytime someone proposes a law I immediately feel the need to turn it over in my head and decide whether it's worthwhile to enact and enforce it. I just don't see how this 16 and over law is worthwhile. The accusation has been made by Jules H-T that I am somehow against protecting fish and this is absurd, it is so easy for someone to make broad attacks such as "If you aren't with us you're against us" etc, because this marginalizes the opposing viewpoint and casts them in a sinister light. I don't subscribe to that sort of discourse for this reason. Basically I can't see how this law will help anything, it will only cost money to enforce enact and then keep on the books. The notion that it "Won't cost a penny more than the cost of getting it past parliament" is a joke, doesn't anyone realize the cost of prosecuting a person? and then getting that person to pay a fine or appear in court, often the government stands to lose money on this sort of thing. That's presicely why I think regulations and the like should be reserved for the things that are real issues. Before you flame me with an accusation of thinking this isn't a real issue, just know that I think that our law enforcement has better things to do than keep a watch on the fishdealers. There are drug dealers, pornographers, child molesters, terrorists, serial killers etc out there; taking law enforcement away from monitoring them so they can keep my younger brother away from buying a fish seems ludicrous to me. Sorry if that disgusts anyone.

Again I say, hold the parents responsible for their children, they already are legally responsible for them in this country till they reach 18. If you want to punish someone for abusing an animal, (which should be done) then go after the kid AND then fine his parents. Lets face it, the parents who don't know that their child has been dragging a dog around the streets for a week are probably not the fittest of parents, if you look close enough, there are probably other things going on in this sort of household that need attention.

Oh and guns do kill people, as do knives, bats, ropes, rat poison, cars, and any number of other things. We can't go about banning all those items just because a few people lose controll while in possesion of those items can we? Why should guns be any different?

Aha! That's it, Jules H-T you've caused me to find the only solution, we should pass a ban on all animal trading, yep make it illegal to posses live animals of anykind, taking away one more freedom of ours would suck, but hey if we don't allow anyone to have animals, then nobody can hurt one can they?

Just my P.O.V. now go to work on it.

SLC

 

[OohFeeshy]

The problem Tolak, is that not every parent is as responsible as you are. When you're seeing stories about 7 yr old kids in hospital from drug overdoses, or being taken into care for neglect, you realise that the world isn't as ideal as one might like.

Exactly, so why would that be any different for pets? I know of far more adults than ever children who have bought a pet, either for them or for their children (and speaking of which, how many tiny tanks are marketed as 'ideal for your childrens bdrooms'?), and it is the parents who have got bored, decided they don't want a pet or decided it was too much hassle. My auntie got a cat, lovely thing, but she absolutely hates cats (luckilly her husband or their sons don't). My uncle has rehomed various creatures, including one hamster, a budgie and two rats, for unclear reasons. Is it the children or the adults that disown cats, dogs, whatever, for being 'too noisy', 'too messy', 'too much hassle to look after', 'vicious' or any other reasons pets are abandoned or left at rescue centres?

 

[pica_nuttalli]

ok SLC, you were doing pretty good until you dropped into "sarcasm mode". i agree that the sudden institution of this as a federal law would not make sense in the US (for various minor reasons), but what we are discussing is a current law in (at least parts of) the UK. from what i've seen of the various importation/licensing requirements, the UK already has a substantial regulatory body in place with the ability to administrate this level of control without resorting to police enforcement.

i'm not certain that this really is a debate between "fish rights and kid rights". it seems evident to me that this is mostly a legal enforcement of parental authority. the arbitrary definition of 16 as the age minimum corresponds too neatly with the minimum driving age and the minimum age for deciding to leave school (and work), which makes sense if you consider the law as a bolster to parents.

after age 16, you can drive and make money--thus your parents are not going to be physically able to contol your actions to the degree that they can when you're 14. but up until that point, your parents can limit your behavior through isolation from transportation and refusing to pay for things. (of course, this control evaporates outside of the home and other areas directly under the control of the parent.)

a law forbidding the sale of pets to children is in many ways a token reinforcement of the status quo. since a forbidden pet would in general be returned to the store anyways, such a law would not significantly interfere with the flow of commerce in the same way that outlawing the sale of blue jeans or movie tickets would. society generally thinks of pets as "responsibilities" and thus outlawing their sale to children under 16 reinforces the conception of younger teens as primarily irresponsible or fickle. finally, there is a veneer of "animal protection" coating the law which is a concept generally well-recieved by the public.

what i find truely interesting is the thought that this law would be to some degree self-enforcing. since most pets are difficult to conceal, a child who did manage to buy a forbidden pet without supervision would in most cases be quickly discovered. the parent in such an instance would be doubly upset, firstly at the child for disobedience and secondly at the store for breaking the law. a quick complaint to the local business bureau, the police, or a conscientous manager would result in either a fine for the store or the offending clerk being reprimanded/dismissed. there would be no real need for "sting operations" or the like because it would just be easier for stores to obey the law than to break it. face it, puppies or piranhas just aren't beer or cigarettes. there's not that huge of a market benefit to sell them illicitly to minors nor are you going to have a lot of minors offering bribes to get them.

...

...so, i guess that my point is that this isn't about fish, its about parental authority (as alluded to in other posts). i think that Tolak makes several good points, especially towards the danger of basing government regulations on moral standards. but at the same time, CFC gives an excellent personal example of how children are simply unable to live 100% independently (even he needed government stipends to survive). i think that since this law merely institutes a minor control expected of strong parental authority anyways, it is ultimately acceptable. i support parental authority (within reason) and i agree with the social concept of teenagers being overall irresponsible. if the law made it illegal for all children to own or have access to pets, then i would be fundamentally bothered. but since it just means that they need an adult (presumably a gaurdian) escort, then there is no major obstacle to a child acquiring a pet that they have permission to own.

 

[andywg]

One thing being missed here is that of being a major or a minor. In the UK you are generally a minor until 18. You have an entirely different set of legal rules that apply to you because you are a minor.

This would be one. Not going to adult jails is another. I said it before, and I say it again: this forum is not a good cross-section of the general fish keeping public. It is a forum of people who all have an interest in keeping fish, one that is strong enough to research and look into things. I am willing to bet that most people don't.

We can all tell of adults/children who can/can't look after animals. But a law has to be made to care for the lowest feasible denominator. No-one believes you can legislate crime away. This law is nothing to do with stopping kids buying fish, it is all about stopping minors buying vertebrates. Vertebrates have been shown to feel "pain" far more successfully than invertebrates (and let's not get too off topic on the "do fish feel pain" part here - suffice is to say the scientific is currently undecided). AS a result, the goverbnment stops minors, who are, in the legal eye, less responsible than adults from buying said vertebrates.

The law would be fairly easy to police, it could be done in exactly the same way that the no selling alcohol to under 18s is done, with Police stings and a gradual use of proof of age at purchase.

The largest problem would be with getting the vendors to enforce it. Look at credit and debit cards. We now have to use chip and pin. Why? Is it more secure? I doubt it.

Anyone can look over my shoulder and find out my pin. Watching me sign is not as easy. They have Chip and Pin because no sales people ever checked signatures. If the signatures don't match, you didn't sign, and the credit card company gets a refund from the store. How will you prove it wasn't you who put the PIN in at the terminal? not easy, eh? This way the stores have less chance of actually paying up, and don't have to check anything as the machine does it for them.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I see your point picca_nutalli, and it is a valuable one. I still cant get past the thought of this sort of thing being a waste, forgive me for not having a more eloquent way of stating my mind but not all of us are gifted that way. I do understand that it is a law that is in enforcement in England, but I simply thought I'd give my perspective on it. Yeah I'm sarcastic, maybe it bores people or somehow disconnects them with what I say but it's the best way I know to show just how ridiculous this all is.

I believe first and foremost that anyone who has the means should be allowed to do anything or purchase anything they wish. Granted, some things obviously should be prohibited such as illicit drugs, and Alcohol to minors but I only feel that way about Alcohol because of recent findings that show Alcohol as having a negative effect on minors that it doesn't seem to have on older adults, these effects are even there when Alcohol is consumed in moderation. I could go on for a while about that but it really isn't the point of this discussion. Outside that, I think if you have the money, then who is some lawmaker to tell you what you can and can't have?

Above and beyond even that, my original point and the one that is really the root of my trouble with this concept is the trend that I see in my studies and career in healthcare, this trend is the trend of parents' increasing level of refusal to be responsible for their children. It goes beyond neglect, which is the most severe manifestation of this attitude, but also shows it's self in the refusal of parents to take responsibility for the sometimes destructive actions of their children. Parents always come in to find their 14 year old son in the Trauma bay, barely clinging to life because he's been playing frogger on the highway or lighting fireworks in the neighbors barn and tell us that they shouldn't have to take responsibility because they weren't there. There are obviously things that are done about this but I'm shocked that they are that out of touch with their children to not even know where they were in the first place. It's hard but it's the duty of a parent

I realize the need to protect animals, I feel strongly about this myself but restriction the rights of someone and not someone else just because they are percieved to be irresponsible is not the way to do it.

I'm rambling, I know. And reading back over this post I feel that the examples don't really help my case a lot but I hope you get the picture of what I see with regard to legislating the responsibilities of our "More responsible" demographic away. It just doesn't strike me as a good idea or as at all necessary. Besides, does anyone here think that parents who know nothing about fish will do a largely better job than a 14 year old who knows nothing?

SLC

 

[andywg]

I believe first and foremost that anyone who has the means should be allowed to do anything or purchase anything they wish...I think if you have the money, then who is some lawmaker to tell you what you can and can't have?

What you are proposing is anarchy: the right of might. So long as you are big enough to do what you want, who the hell is anyone else to stop you. Thankfully we do not live in that sort of a society. You make the distinction on alcohol, but what about theft? Why should I buy something if I am larger/stronger/richer and can just take it from you?

And children ARE NOT as responsible as adults. There is a hell of a lot of maturing in lids between 16 and 25. Kids don't see it until they get past the mid point of the twenties, look back at 16-18 year olds and thinks "was I really like that?"

If you really want to put them in the same maturity bracket as adults then an argument can be made for legalising child pornography, if you are saying that the children can make just as informed decisions as adults.

Our (UK) entire society is built on laws and restrictions. It is only recently that actual rights specifically became a part of legal statute, before that it was either restrictions, or restrictive procedural stuff. It is not perfect, but it works a lot better than anarchy.

Edit - if no restriction on fish, why any restriction on firearms/fireworks? It all comes down to being responsible with what they have.

 

[tetraman]

Im 12, and I have to beg for a week to go to the fish store just for a small piece of needed equipment.

 

[SLC Flyfishing]

I don't see where I said anarchy! Don't hijack my comments for your agenda. What I am saying is that if I'm 14 (I'm 25 in reality) and I have $20 in my pocket then why should a legislator be allowed to tell me that I can't purchase fish? He neither knows me nor my ability to care properly for them, what if my parents will allow me to have fish but can't be bothered to accompany me to the LFS well that's a real probem isn't it? I guess the point that maybe I'm not being obvious enough about is; Laws cost money to enforce, some are worth enforcing (read wg's child pornography argument) but some aren't. 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) if those parents weren't even responsible enough in the first place to just return the unwanted animal immediately, or better, show enough maturity and controll over the affairs of the household to know where their children are at all times in the first place. Instead you want to take away the necessity of a parent to actually be a parent. That's all this is, a rule designed to protect parents from having to take the initiative of doing the job they took on themselves when they concieved the child in the first place.

sorry pica nutalli but I'm about to slip into sarcasm mode again, aver your gaze!

Many parents these days don't seem responsible enough to even raise kids! If I were in England, I'd be expecting a law to be proposed with severe penalties for doing that underaged soon as well! Maybe I'm crazy but I think that children deserve much more protecting than any animal.

Kudo's to the teenage parents who have posted in this thread earlier who have obviously taken the higher road and actually feel responsible for the actions of their children, I've no doubts that you'll make great parents and raise responsible youngsters. That's why I must ask, do you really feel like you need a law to keep your children from getting animals without your consent, or are you up to the job yourself?

One law at a time (and they'll convince you it's or your own good) but eventually they'll have you under their complete power and it'll be too late.

SLC

P.S. I have a 2 1/2 year old daughter and I'll tell you right now what'll happen if she ever try's bringing a pet home without my permission. I'll punish her for going to a pet store with out my knowlege/permission. and then I'll return it. And if there's a refund involved I'm keeping all the money so there's no reward for even trying it. I don't need the LFS police to do the job for me!

 

[snowyangel]

I started fish keeping at 17 and i had a 30g and 10 gallon and took care of them with pride but my mom also raised me to treat all living things with respect and great care. It all depends how the kids are raised and learn to treat living things. I've met some very messy, uncaring teens then i've met some really decent, smart ones. It's more about their upbringing imo.

 

[KathyM]

Kudo's to the teenage parents who have posted in this thread earlier who have obviously taken the higher road and actually feel responsible for the actions of their children, I've no doubts that you'll make great parents and raise responsible youngsters. That's why I must ask, do you really feel like you need a law to keep your children from getting animals without your consent, or are you up to the job yourself?

One law at a time (and they'll convince you it's or your own good) but eventually they'll have you under their complete power and it'll be too late.

Cheers for the pat on the back. It was me who posted about having been a teenage parent (although technically an adult when he was born). My children are now 11, 9 and 7, and I am an elderly 29. Sorry if I don't share your enthusiasm for the "kudos" considering you'd quite happily have had a law in place for me not to have had them *lol*.

As my kids are older, and I'm a bloody good mum, they know the restrictions on their "freedom" to buy whatever they like. I don't let them have waterbombs, I don't let them buy snap-thingies (lads'll know what I mean). I don't let them play with sharp knives, and I don't let them buy pets of any kind. Of course, the law helps me there are the moment, but all in all my kids are good kids and know the rules.

However, many kids nowadays aren't raised this way. And in those cases the animals have to have rights too. I can't honestly believe that anyone wouldn't support the raising of an age limit for buying a dog/cat/hamster to 16+. I understand (but dont agree with) the reasoning for being against the law changing for fishkeeping seeing as I'm typing this on a board which is made up of a huge amount of children. I just don't understand how anyone can say it's okay for a 12 year old to buy a dog.