# NO FISH FOR YOU!!!!



## lucid_eye (Apr 12, 2009)

San Fransisco is proposing to enact a ban on the sale of Tropical fish.
The quotes in the article are hilarious, I always assumed that guppies that were sold in the store were bred for sale, but apparently we are harvesting them from Reefs. :roll:


----------



## lucid_eye (Apr 12, 2009)

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...ent-their-inhumane-suffering/?test=latestnews


----------



## JoelRHale (Apr 22, 2011)

For people like us that have a general love of fish and an understanding of how to keep them, this is ridiculous. The fish harvested are not endangered and this punishes everyone for the bad apples.

But... How many parents buy their kids fish, never take care of it and then it slowly dies of a mix of water quality and starvation?

I think they have good intentions but they are completely off base with how to achieve their goal.


----------



## RRasco (Aug 31, 2006)

JoelRHale said:


> But... How many parents buy their kids fish, never take care of it and then it slowly dies of a mix of water quality and starvation?


I think that's the kicker, sure lots of people take care of their fish, but lots of others don't. The same can be said for other pets, such as dogs and cats. I take care of my cats, but I know lots of people who treat their pets like dirt. Would it be fair to say I'm not allowed to have a cat because others abuse theirs?

Heck, this same argument could be applied to children if you want to get technical.


----------



## JoelRHale (Apr 22, 2011)

Exactly! That's why I'm saying they have a good idea but they have completely missed the point.

Maybe a pet license could help? You apply and based off of a questionnaire or something you get one.

Or since they are targeting impulse buys, how about a mandatory waiting period. 1 week for fish, 2 for small mammals, 3 for birds, and a month for dogs and cats. The same people that can wait that long for something are the same people with a passion for them and not an impulse want.


----------



## duds (Apr 16, 2010)

RRasco said:


> Heck, this same argument could be applied to children if you want to get technical.


Exactly what I was thinking.

The other side to this situation is that bad fish owners usually invest some money into a tank and equipment, have a bad experience, sell their tank to ppl like me for a low price and never get back into fish. So I say leave things as they are.

"Good" article though, it gave me a chuckle.


----------



## lucid_eye (Apr 12, 2009)

I'll take the licensing one step further and say you need a license to have a kid.


----------



## londonloco (Mar 31, 2011)

lucid_eye said:


> I'll take the licensing one step further and say you need a license to have a kid.


+1


----------



## TheFishGuy (Apr 21, 2005)

That will never pass, simply because it's rediculous.


----------



## Flippercon (Mar 5, 2011)

TheFishGuy said:


> That will never pass, simply because it's rediculous.


I Google searched San Francisco and banning ,and apparently they want people to live with nothing. There is a bunch of ridiculous bans and ideas they come up with. Not saying it will happen but WOW!


----------



## smitty (May 7, 2004)

I keep telling everyone that american government federal, state and local has lost it way. But we as voters need to start taking voting seriously. I vote based on who I think is the better candidate with reasonale goals. I do not care about party, race, color. In Philadelphia this dumb ass mayor want to enact a soda tax. So a $1.00 bottle of soda would cost $2.20. Yes the tax is more than the cost of the soda.


----------



## sirdavidofdiscus (Dec 8, 2006)

The article doesn't mention that, with the exception of salt water species, the vast majority of tropical fish sold in pet stores are captive breed. Just shows how unimformed many of the lawmakers can be


----------



## B&amp;K (Dec 11, 2008)

Welcome to California! This is what we do during "business" hours. We solve world-hunger in our spare time. By the way, San Francisco has yet to regulate the bearing and rearing of children, but they have attempted to dictate what you feed them by "banning" a certain children's meal at the "Golden Arches".


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

TheFishGuy said:


> That will never pass, simply because it's rediculous.


Exactly, and the article even indicates that. It's not worth getting all up in arms about.


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

How about a little context before folks fly off the handle:

San Francisco's Animal Control and Welfare Commission has no legislative or regulatory authority.

As an advisory body, the Commission makes recommendations to the SF Board of Supervisors regarding animal issues. The Board is responsible for all policy decisions and development.

The SF Board of Supervisors hasn't taken up this recommendation...nor will they likely.

Un-knot your panties folks. Stop your "one more example of BIG GOVERNMENT" or SF / Cali craziness. This is media-created pablum at its best (worst)...

Matt


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

This thread had died. You dug it up again, and risk stirring the pot again. And in kind of a crude, disrespectful, and rude way, I might add.


----------



## dogofwar (Apr 5, 2004)

My bad - I've read about this in multiple places... with all of the predictable anti-government and anti-California tripe (found in this thread).

My intention, after doing the 60 seconds of research to find that this is a bunch of media-generated kerfluffle to get people wound up, was to set the record straight...

Matt


----------



## lil_gold_ram (Mar 1, 2011)

prov356 said:


> This thread had died. You dug it up again, and risk stirring the pot again. And in kind of a crude, disrespectful, and rude way, I might add.


Haha I love you *muah*


----------

