Some Fish Best Left Alone
- Thread starter ghinksmon
- Start date
no doubt no doubt
my 65 merc has a unmolested 390 big block and she has some gusto
i had a blast with a 455 rocket once
my 65 merc has a unmolested 390 big block and she has some gusto
i had a blast with a 455 rocket once
Bingo. Spewn, you hit the button there. Retailers should not "be responsible" for what people buy from them, but I do believe they have a moral responsibility for what they sell and stock. The are taking living things and selling them to ignorant people, does not mean the buyer is stupid, but I would guess 50% of consumers do not understand what is involved in pet keeping. Consumers have gone beyond complaisant, they assume everyone else is going to take responsibility. And because of this fact, lawsuits are becoming more incomprehensible, like the lady successfully suing McDonald's for selling her hot coffee.
Bans, licensing or regulations? By the government? I hope never. Just what we do not need.
Hopefully from websites like AC, responsible pet store owners, the general pet keeping public, we can keep the lines of communication open. Articles, and other media will hopefully keep the general public in the know as well.
This is a great thread, I hope everyone reads it!
As far as the blog goes, I agree that the average consumer should not purchase any of those fish for the reasons stated in that blog. But I think that regulations should come from the hobby side, not government. I personally would have issues witht the government getting involved. There are simply too many issues that arise from starting legislation controlling what non-dangerous/invasive fish people can/cannot keep. First off, who exactly decides the criteria for the fish to be on the list? The government? Fish farmers selling similar fish that won't be on the list(or lobbying to keep a fish off it?)?
How do you prove that you have the knowledge/space to keep a monster fish? Will the government check up on it? How much will this cost (in tax dollars)? Why can I buy a burmese python but not a pacu? How do you enact the laws, state by state or find some way to do it under fed law?
To me, this is like the steroids in baseball controversies in Congress of late. Don't we like have wars to fight, economies to save, etc. instead of worrying about steroids or pet fish? Perhaps there is a time and place for that, but that time is not now
How do you prove that you have the knowledge/space to keep a monster fish? Will the government check up on it? How much will this cost (in tax dollars)? Why can I buy a burmese python but not a pacu? How do you enact the laws, state by state or find some way to do it under fed law?
To me, this is like the steroids in baseball controversies in Congress of late. Don't we like have wars to fight, economies to save, etc. instead of worrying about steroids or pet fish? Perhaps there is a time and place for that, but that time is not now
Three problems with that--one, Congress can multitask. Two, Congress has granted Major League Baseball an anti-trust exemption, so they need to take stock of the product that MLB is putting out there. Three, I think there is a public health risk with steroids...and if they're illegal, then an entire industry turning a blind eye to them and tacitly encouraging their usage (especially one that's been granted antitrust exemptions) needs to be reigned in.
If I could edit my previous post I would, but let me say this: I did not add the part about congress/baseball to begin any arguments about what Congress can/should be doing re: baseball. Though I find the topic fascinating (I'm a polisci major), this thread is about fish and what should be done to curb irresponsible fishkeeping. Again, if I could edit my original post I would remove the comment about baseball, since that leads off-topic.
I will state my position regarding the OP's post thus: Something should be done, but it should start with hobby/aquaculture organizations. Even if any decisions prove ineffectual without legistlation, hopefully those who know the fish business can provide a scientific, concrete base to any future legistlation. Knee-jerk reactions, though well-intended, will simply serve to stifle the hobby.
I will state my position regarding the OP's post thus: Something should be done, but it should start with hobby/aquaculture organizations. Even if any decisions prove ineffectual without legistlation, hopefully those who know the fish business can provide a scientific, concrete base to any future legistlation. Knee-jerk reactions, though well-intended, will simply serve to stifle the hobby.
Fair enough, and I don't disagree with you about leaving it out of Congress' hands. There's no possible way that getting that clown car to the fishkeeping party wold be anything but deleterious to the hobby as a whole. Look at how they handled snakeheads. Instead of banning just the temperate species, they nailed the whole family. Now people in northern states can't keep interesting species that wouldn't last more than a minute in the wild in the winter. They'd probably go after piranhas because AFATC, a piranha and a pacu look pretty much the same. I can see entire families of catfish being removed from the hobby because of the size of one or two members (Loricariids, Bagrids and Pseudopimelodids would be prime targets, as would be Ictalurids). Keep them the hell out of it and ask your store to post accurate information and encourage budding hobbyists to learn before they purchase, and we can make this less of a problem.
I think we're moving towards a consensus. Point of information about the McDonalds coffee though - it's not as spurious as often painted:
1. The woman concerned received third degree burns over a significant part of her legs and needed considerable hospital treatment.
2. McDonalds at the time were serving coffee considerably hotter than is normal
3. They had been warned that it had the potential to cause significant injuries but had not acted on that advice.
It was not simply "daft women spills coffee and is surprised when it scalds".
Details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
1. The woman concerned received third degree burns over a significant part of her legs and needed considerable hospital treatment.
2. McDonalds at the time were serving coffee considerably hotter than is normal
3. They had been warned that it had the potential to cause significant injuries but had not acted on that advice.
It was not simply "daft women spills coffee and is surprised when it scalds".
Details here: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm
i concur one restaurant i used to work at kept their coffee much hotter than need be so as to slow down peoples drinking of it i suppose and when a waitress had a glass pot explode and it covered the front of her shirt it was not a small burn
Spewn. Fair enough, but of course by acknowledging there are some things (cars, handguns, gelignite) which kill people and by virtue of that do put some onus of responsibility on the retailer (e.g. not to sell submachine guns to six year olds), you've set up an exception to the responsibility being all on the buyer. What we're really arguing about, therefore, is where to draw the line between where there is some responsibility on the seller and where there isn't. Some would wish to do this where there is the possibility of suffering on the part of the fish; some would not.
I don't think anyone wants to say that a person is not at fault at all (or that the person should be allowed to say that) when they buy an irridescent shark for a BiOrb mini, but what's being questioned here is whether the retailer should have said "Do you know how big these things get?".
I don't think anyone wants to say that a person is not at fault at all (or that the person should be allowed to say that) when they buy an irridescent shark for a BiOrb mini, but what's being questioned here is whether the retailer should have said "Do you know how big these things get?".
