# Swiss legislation to affect aquarum hobby



## Lupin (Aug 2, 2006)

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/pages/item.php?news=1671

Now you can't keep even one loach.:lol:


----------



## Amphitrite (Sep 8, 2006)

I would be interested to know just how they plan to enforce and monitor such legislation. 

Okay, here's a question: what if you have a group of ten loaches, and all but one was to die as a result of, for instance, heater failure. Does that mean that technically you are now breaking the law?


----------



## It'sJames (Nov 15, 2007)

"Other animals covered under the new legislation are to include dogs, cats, cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, guinea pigs, lizards and *rhinoceroses*."

What?!

That has to be the funniest article I've read in months. :lol: That's just going a bit too far, in my oppinion. What do you guys think? I'm all for treating animals, including fish, ethically - but a legislation?! Kinda silly, I think.


----------



## herefishy (Dec 14, 2006)

Another attempt by the "new world order" to control the lives of the masses. Now keeping an aquarium can be placed can be placed in the same file as owning guns. The bad thing about all of this, "fish control" and "gun control", is that they are serious about it and it isn't funny!!


----------



## iamntbatman (Jan 3, 2008)

Not to turn this into too political of a debate, but I believe "fish control" and "gun control" are two very different things, though they share similarities.

Even the most lax of gun laws would still prohibit the abuse of guns, such as using them to rob people or kill innocents. 

Fish, however, are living creatures and thus I think this law is only doing what it can to keep people from being irresponsible fish owners. 

While I am of the philosophical camp that believes that human beings are rational agents while (almost all) animals are not, thus affording us more rights than animals, I do believe it is wrong to be unnessecarily cruel to animals. 

I think the law seems to cross a few lines, though. You should be required to have at least a minimum level of care that assures that the animals' basic needs are met, but requiring aquarium owners to keep more than one of a social fish species just seems like an absurd requirement. Sure, it's definitely beneficial to keep social fish in groups, but keeping a solitary loach doesn't seem to offend on the same level as keeping a fish in a cramped, unfiltered tank that hasn't had a water change in years.

Hey, people are social animals too, so should parents be required to force their kids off of their Playstations and go make friends?


----------



## Lupin (Aug 2, 2006)

Amphitrite said:


> Okay, here's a question: what if you have a group of ten loaches, and all but one was to die as a result of, for instance, heater failure. Does that mean that technically you are now breaking the law?


That would be incredibly unfair. I believe the person will have to narrate the whole story how on earth he got one fish left. It would make sense not to throw the dead fish to the bin yet as part of his evidence if he knew such law exists so he will not be penalized unfairly because a malfunctioned appliance killed all but one. Even then, I wonder if the authorities will still believe his reasons why his fish died.:? 

There is a commentary in that link that says Swiss are law-abiding people. I have never gone there but I was surprised to be honest that it also adds if your neighbors find out you broke the law by keeping fish in a manner not following what the law states, they will hand you over to the authorities.:shock:


----------



## herefishy (Dec 14, 2006)

iamntbatman said:


> Not to turn this into too political of a debate, but I believe "fish control" and "gun control" are two very different things, though they share similarities.
> 
> They are not any different when it comes to an order that wishes to control you life. Especially, those rights that insure your right to defend onesself or to insure right to happiness. These are basically trivial subjects but to succumb to such depraved thinking is the beginning of giving up all of you freedoms.
> 
> ...


*

That may not be such a bad idea. Parents need to be parents and PlayStations were never meant to be babysitters. *


----------



## iamntbatman (Jan 3, 2008)

Eh...I'm very anti-paternalist. Just the libertarian streak in me...I don't think it's appropriate for the government to tell you how you should raise your kids unless you're causing them some obvious or immediate harm.


----------



## It'sJames (Nov 15, 2007)

> That would be incredibly unfair. I believe the person will have to narrate the whole story how on earth he got one fish left. It would make sense not to throw the dead fish to the bin yet as part of his evidence if he knew such law exists so he will not be penalized unfairly because a malfunctioned appliance killed all but one. Even then, I wonder if the authorities will still believe his reasons why his fish died.


How would the authorities discover someone's single loach? Are they going to be patrolling people's homes and looking into their aquariums? It's a silly legislation - some things cannot be controlled by government. This is one of those things. How are they really going to regulate the things in this legislation?


----------



## herefishy (Dec 14, 2006)

Lupin said:


> Amphitrite said:
> 
> 
> > There is a commentary in that link that says Swiss are law-abiding people. I have never gone there but I was surprised to be honest that it also adds if your neighbors find out you broke the law by keeping fish in a manner not following what the law states, they will hand you over to the authorities.:shock:[/color]
> ...


----------



## Lupin (Aug 2, 2006)

It'sJames said:


> How would the authorities discover someone's single loach? Are they going to be patrolling people's homes and looking into their aquariums? It's a silly legislation - some things cannot be controlled by government. This is one of those things. How are they really going to regulate the things in this legislation?


I mentioned previously that if you look at the commentaries, someone pointed out that citizens in Switzerland are law abiding people so if your neighbors find out you broke the law, they may or may not hand you over to the authorities for breaking the laws. I know the legislation seemed absurd but there is always a bright side and a downside on every single thing. It's a start at least to minimize abuse inflicted on fish and while it is good to see some changes, there are a few things in the legislation that are going overboard such as the one you and Amphitrite pointed out. In my opinion, the legislation will need further reviewing before it is enforced in September 2008.


----------



## iamntbatman (Jan 3, 2008)

It'sJames said:


> How would the authorities discover someone's single loach? Are they going to be patrolling people's homes and looking into their aquariums? It's a silly legislation - some things cannot be controlled by government. This is one of those things. How are they really going to regulate the things in this legislation?


I don't really think it'd be like that...more like the animal cruelty laws here in the U.S. People could report abuse when they see it, such as at pet stores or even neighbors. It seems pretty generally accepted on this forum that people don't really care for the big chain stores' generally poor conditions in which they keep their fish, so reporting negligent stores seems to be no real problem. When it comes to private citizens...well, I'd definitely report a neighbor if he was clearly abusing his dog by leaving it chained up in the backyard malnourished. How is reporting a neighbor's mistreatment of his fish any different?


----------



## Flashygrrl (Jan 18, 2008)

iamntbatman said:


> How is reporting a neighbor's mistreatment of his fish any different?


In the case of fish, unless you had them over for coffee or something I kind of wonder if you couldn't get them arrested for peeping or report them for suspicious behavior because in most people's cases they'd have to have their noses pressed to the window to see the tanks. I myself live in a 3rd floor apartment so if someone decided to report me for abuse the first question I'd be asking is "Why were you on my balcony?".


----------



## iamntbatman (Jan 3, 2008)

Third floor? How do you get your tanks up all those stairs?

You're absolutely right, but even if my neighbor were being friendly and invited me over for coffee and his tanks were a mess, I'd say something to him about proper fish care. If he didn't change his ways after mentioning it several times, I'd be inclined to tell him he's breaking the law and I'll have to report him if he keeps it up. Actually reporting him would be a last resort.


----------



## 1077 (Apr 16, 2008)

They would not need to peep in a window or kick in a door they could simply regulate the sales of aquarium equipment and supplies.In order to purchase them you would need to produce a urine er.. water sample. all joking aside ,when you consider what fish must endure to produce the colors and often hideous sub- species maybe its a start in the right direction


----------



## tophat665 (Sep 30, 2006)

I think we're missing the big picture here. That was a great picture of a flag tailed prochilus with that article.

Governments will do what the loudest, most generous with campaign donations, and most annoyingly persistant people want them to. If you want to make a difference, figure out a way to tax selfrighteousness. If legislators are exempted from the tax, it will pass so fast your head will spin.


----------



## okiemavis (Nov 10, 2007)

I'm confused why loaches can no longer be kept? I didn't see anything specific about that in the article.

I'm really annoyed that euthanasia by freezing is outlawed. That's very humane, it's even recommended on this forum! They could have at least done some research before hand.

I think the only thing about that law I agree with is that live fish aren't allowed to be flushed down the toilet. But even that, it's freaking stupid to pass more laws that cannot be enforced. How the hell will they prove if your fish was alive or dead before you flushed it? That's to say there's any way to prove a fish was even flushed!


----------



## iamntbatman (Jan 3, 2008)

Every loach (to my knowledge) is social to a degree and benefits from the presence of other loaches. The law bans keeping social fish as solitary specimens.


----------



## tophat665 (Sep 30, 2006)

iamntbatman said:


> Every loach (to my knowledge) is social to a degree and benefits from the presence of other loaches. The law bans keeping social fish as solitary specimens.


Read up some more. Some are territorial. The one that springs right to mind is the Batik Loach, _Mesonoemacheilus triangularis_, which is pretty feisty and can be kept in groups in an aquarium with a large enough footprint, but also does as well alone. Treat it like a RTBS allowing for it being less than half as big fully grown. There are other loaches with that kind of temperament as well, mostly stream dwelling IIRC.


----------

