Swiss Legislation To Affect Aquarium Hobby

[kewskills]

Practical fish keeping website article

 

[andywg]

Interesting that, when the science is still very much open as to whether a fish feels pain or not, the Swiss government have decided for themselves.

Why no transparent aquaria? How will they decide if a fish grows larger than 20cm? Will it be on the captive or wild size? What happens if a freakishly large specemin is found, will everyone have to change their tanks?

And all the above is without stepping into the realm of how such laws are enforced.

The UK already has perfectly adequate laws to deal with people who truly abuse their animals and I, for one, shall be happy to see the UK avoid adopting anything too similar to this legislation. This looks like a badly designed law by people who haven't thought long, or hard, enough about what they are doing and the wider implications.

 

[WILDER]

I agree with andy myself.

 

[pauly]

Does anyone else find Andy's avatar picture really really annoying, or is it just me?

Sorry mate, it's nothing personal

 

[darknirvana217]

The Swiss are probably looking at scientific measurements to decide whether or not the fish is 20 cm, that's easy to find. I can look up a fish in two seconds and tell you how large it is, I'm sure the Swiss government will have no trouble. And I have found that fish act less stressed if you put wood and decorations along a black background, as it makes the fish feel enclosed. I'm sure all of this will be dealt with through an animal protection bureaucracy similar to the one dogs and cats are regulated by. In the U.S. there are thousands of cases where are animals are re homed from abusive owners, how do they find out about them? Usually somebody reports them for animal abuse. Surely you could report someone about fish abuse as easily as you could for a dog or a cat. Its about time someone actually cared about fish, and wanted to at least try and protect them from irresponsible owners.

 

[ALW]

I have to also agree with andywg

 

[geo7x]

I also think it would be interesting to see what evidence the Swiss government has gone by to come up with these.

It states that parameters including temperature, oxygen levels and salinity should be correct for the species concerned.

I'm also concerned on how they are going to come up with 'correct' measurements for this. Opinion varies so much on such parameters it can only cause disagreements. If they choose to get such measurements from a fish's natural habitat then they are going to find extreme variations from one place to the next.

How are they supposed to enforce this? Are police officers now going to come equipped with hydrometers in their belts?

It's pointless, it's a complete waste of time and money especially whilst opinions vary and there seems to be little hard evidence on these issues.

 

[invader]

You lot are so quick to bash this. I'm surprised that not more people are happy that there is actually a push for change, whether it is unrealistic or not. It is a start.

 

[geo7x]

You lot are so quick to bash this. I'm surprised that not more people are happy that there is actually a push for change, whether it is unrealistic or not. It is a start.

Oh come oonnn, nothing wrong with a bit of light hearted skepticism now is there

 

[andywg]

The Swiss are probably looking at scientific measurements to decide whether or not the fish is 20 cm, that's easy to find. I can look up a fish in two seconds and tell you how large it is, I'm sure the Swiss government will have no trouble.

The scientific ones will be the natural ones. Consider (as an extreme example) the cigar shark or the african tiger fish. These rarely, if ever, get past 20" in captivity, yet can reach anywhere pushing 4 feet in the wild. As you can see, this makes quite a difference in the size of tank you need.

And I have found that fish act less stressed if you put wood and decorations along a black background, as it makes the fish feel enclosed.

You will forgive me if I don't like law being passed on the findings of anecdotal statements like that. And what about a transparent tank which is up against a dark wall? Surely this is the same?

I'm sure all of this will be dealt with through an animal protection bureaucracy similar to the one dogs and cats are regulated by.

My emphasis above. It clearly points out what I think this law is mostly going to produce.

In the U.S. there are thousands of cases where are animals are re homed from abusive owners, how do they find out about them? Usually somebody reports them for animal abuse. Surely you could report someone about fish abuse as easily as you could for a dog or a cat. Its about time someone actually cared about fish, and wanted to at least try and protect them from irresponsible owners.

But you can already report people for abuse. The UK has only recently enacted the Animal Welfare Act 2006 which sets out ability to pursue people for abuse, but is nowhere near as draconian or bureaucratic as the Swiss one appears to be going on the PFK report. I can't see how making someone like CFC a criminal because they have an all glass tank is actually helping the animals.

Like I said, they just haven't properly thought through the effects of what they have done.

You lot are so quick to bash this. I'm surprised that not more people are happy that there is actually a push for change, whether it is unrealistic or not. It is a start.

Going from what some might think is not enough, to enforcing very strange and random elements of keeping a fish is not a good start. Why not have a consultation with the actual fishkeepers and find out what they think is important? I can't believe anyone is going to say that having one side of the tank painted dark is more important than ensuring adequate filtration/water changes. Similarly, rather than making the owner (who may not have more knowledge) a criminal for keeping an RTC in too small a tank is far less desirable than placing some form of restriction on the importation of these monsters.

Bad law is a very bad thing, it has all sorts of unseen and nasty consequences.

 

[darknirvana217]

I'm not even going to debate this again. Its an article not a statute. Its people like you that make me want to come to this forum less and less. Overly critical with little knowledge of the truth at hand. Have you read the exact wording of the law, have you yourself read anything from the animal protection society in Switzerland. Anything with nerve endings can sense pain, it is a natural way of survival and perseverance. Certainly someone who purchased a fish and then crammed it into a tank too small should be penalized. Ignorance is never an excuse for breaking the law. If they can't tell what tank their fish goes or stick it in a small tank without further research, duh I didn't know wouldn't be a good enough answer. It is a good start, and surely is backed by people who really care about their fish. I know that I should have all of my wild caught amazonian species in low Ph, soft water, why, because that's what they thrive in and that's what they like. You should always give fish good clean water and try to mimic their proper water chemistry, whether wild caught or captive bred. This is pathetic that on a fish forum I have to debate with you people on why there should be some form of law under the already established animal protection agency in Switzerland that provides protection to fish. They are no different than dogs or cats, should why not have provisions that protect them. There are guidelines as to what constitutes animal abuse, and now here is one that will protect. Does anybody about there agree.

Why restrict people who can own those fish like red tailed catfish instead of punishing those that break the law. Also, I'm sure the bureaucracy would not grow as large as you think. Switzerland already has an animal protection agency, now it is just covering fish too. I'm pretty sure the article did state that water quality was a factor, not just a painted tank side..

 

[Tolak]

http/www.fishforums.net/content/forum/24.../Swiss-Pet-Law/

 

[andywg]

I'm not even going to debate this again. Its an article not a statute. Its people like you that make me want to come to this forum less and less. Overly critical with little knowledge of the truth at hand. Have you read the exact wording of the law, have you yourself read anything from the animal protection society in Switzerland. Anything with nerve endings can sense pain, it is a natural way of survival and perseverance.

Sadly it is you without the facts. Nerve endings causes nociception, the recognition of damage occurring to the body and a reaction away from it. This is dealt with in the spinal column, hence why you move your hand away from a hot iron before you really realise what has happened.

From wiki: "For scientific purposes, pain is defined by the International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) as "an unpleasant sensory and emotional experience associated with actual or potential tissue damage, or described in terms of such damage".

The area of the brain which deals with pain in higher mammals (such as humans) is not developed in fish, therefore there is some way to go before proving that pain is felt in fish. More studies are coming out claiming they can show that fish feel pain, but there is much critical debate in the peer review stage. I suggest you read the article on euthanasia in the scientific section (which drifted onto pain) it goes through some of the leading papers on each side of the fence. The result? We just cannot be sure whether fish feel pain or not at the moment on the evidence we have.

And have you read all of the law to see that it is such a great thing? No. I have to live with the effects of badly drafted European Legislation every day of my life. You have no idea of how badly drafted legislation can make things, despite intending to improve matters.

Certainly someone who purchased a fish and then crammed it into a tank too small should be penalized. Ignorance is never an excuse for breaking the law.

But this is not about cramming it into a tank too small. The authorities will tell you what size tank the fish needs. And if they go on adult wild sizes then cigar sharks will need something far larger than is necessary due to them not growing very large.

If they can't tell what tank their fish goes or stick it in a small tank without further research, duh I didn't know wouldn't be a good enough answer. It is a good start, and surely is backed by people who really care about their fish.

Is it really backed by people who care about the fish? I doubt people who care about the fish would allow RTC to still be imported unabated while banning all glass tanks that aren't painted on one side.

Why restrict people who can own those fish like red tailed catfish instead of punishing those that break the law.

Because if you really care about the fish then you will stop the fish coming in, rather than making criminals out of people who didn't know better and went on the information and advice they had to hand. Bringing in a bad law to make criminals out of people who didn't know better is not a good thing at all.

Also, I'm sure the bureaucracy would not grow as large as you think. Switzerland already has an animal protection agency, now it is just covering fish too. I'm pretty sure the article did state that water quality was a factor, not just a painted tank side..

But the article clearly says that one cannot have an aquarium clear on all sides. Are you really telling me that you are a supporter of that? Why bother including it at all?

The whole thing smacks of nanny state: We have decided how these must be kept, and you will obey or be a criminal. I for one would rather they didn't, especially when they have not even followed good scientific principles (as discussed at the top of this post).

While one can agree with the underlying intent, this law is just bureaucracy at a level only mainland Europe can achieve. The law even has specific points on the keeping of Rhinos. I can't find a number, but I am pretty sure there are very few people outside of zoos who are keeping rhinos in Switzerland.

Finally, bringing in a law which you will not actually enforce is pointless and a waste of time. Switzerland isn't enforcing a ban on dangerous dogs, so I doubt somehow that it will enforce many of the regulations here. It appears from reading the reports on it that the report has been driven by vets and others with vested interests who stand to make money providing courses for people on how to own a dog, though that is far from unheard of in the world of politics.

I repeat again, this law may well have good intentions, but the actual points that are being reported smack of a nanny state, something which is far from desirable, in particular the adoption of certain scientific findings while ignoring a whole host of other scientific findings.

 

[BigC]

How is this piece of barmy legislation going to be effectivly policed. More beaurocratic jobs being created paid from taxpayers money.
BigC

 

[geo7x]

Have you read the exact wording of the law, have you yourself read anything from the animal protection society in Switzerland.

Well obviously not but this is partially what makes us unsure of this law. We shouldn't presume things and say "oh I'm not sure about this but not all the information is there so I'm sure it's fine. New Swiss Legislation FTW!"