Swiss Legislation To Affect Aquarium Hobby

[darknirvana217]

How do you know if I have read the law or not, don't make statements about me if you don't know the truth. You know what, fish are animals and deserve equal treatment that dogs and cats enjoy in my opinion, so keep your goldfish in ten gallons and bettas in piss cups, ignorant hobbyists that keep things because they are "pretty" and don't know how to do a simple water change. Regardless of nerve endings or spinal columns they are living creatures that should be treated with care. And yeah I do support the not fully transparent sides. several times i have stepped into my room and my Characins go berserk because the fast movement startles them. By covering a side they are less startled and thus less stressed. Its not like the authorities are going to arrest you for this, its probably just a fine. Am I considered a criminal because I got a traffic ticket? Not really, you act like they are going to throw you in jail for life. research is your friend, and if you can't do that you shouldn't be able to own living creatures at all. Maybe there should be a permit to own any animal, because obviously careless people want to think of these things as expandable objects. and bad European policy, I'm tired of your pity party, its not like America doesn't have a bureaucracy or bad legislation so don't even play that card about how I don't know. Because of idiots that couldn't take care of their fish and to put them into the local waterways, snakeheads, pirhanas, stingrays, wolfish, tilapia, dorados, electric catfish, electric eels, Nile perch, glass carp, Australian crayfish, African tigerfish, lampreys, zebra mussel, walking catfish, mitten crab, airsac catfish, parasitic catfish, green sunfish, big head carp, red swamp crayfish, silver carp, airbreathing catfish, silver carp, snail/black carp, bony tongued fish, or blue catfish are all banned. So there, I cannot own these because some idiot didn't do their research and dumped these fish and someone got hurt or they were invasive to our ecosystem. I have been punished because of a few people, I won't even call hobbyists, did this and because someone can't take care of their fish now I will not be able to own these species, even though I could. I am not a man of natural science an I apologize for making the error of saying fish can feel pain. I went out on a limb. But with that, I will say I have a conscience and treat animals with compassion and not as just another little object in my room. bad legislation or not, its a first step and someone has to do it. Its not like our countries have tried to protect fish rights, so perhaps we should be less critical of it and watch how it progresses before we are so quick to say no.

 

[CFC]

The trouble is with this law being passed in Europe it wont be long before it is forced upon us in England too, after August this year we will no longer be able to buy imported snakeheads, spiny eel species, some species of gourami and several species of Cyprinid because the findings of some European scientists show that these species may be able to carry a virus which kills carp. If this law is enforced in England it will most likely lead to prosecution in court which will give you a criminal record which will be on your record for life

I have my tanks clear on all sides so that the light from the window is able to reflect off the silver foil backed insulation so i dont have to have lights on the aquariums which keeps my power costs down so i can afford to run my fish house, if this law comes in and i am forced to cover the backs of my tanks i will have to close down the fish house as the cost of running 500 watts of lighting for 12 hours every day would push my electric consumption over the edge.

If they are basing their minimum tank sizes on fish size many of my tanks will probably be declared too small, but do they know anything about the fish, my Cephalosilurus apurensis is around 18" long but apart from when hungry its about as active as a rock so its 4x2x2 tank is ample in size and anything larger would be a waste of room as it cannot be kept with any tankmates, if the European law decides that all fish should be kept in tanks 6 times the fishes length (this is what PFK recommend on their website) then i would have to provide a 9 foot long tank for a single fish that only uses 2 foot of the tank at one end, likewise electric eels actually prefer a less spacious aquarium as they need contact with solid objects at all time and become stressed if given too much room, in the wild they reach over 6 feet so to keep one they would say i should have a 36 foot long aquarium to keep a single fish that will be stressed out of its mind from too much open water unless i pack the tank full to the brim with driftwood ,and then you wont be able to keep the tank clean or see the fish.

I think we are all for fish getting a better deal but laws like this only serve to make things more expensive and difficult for real hobbiests while the people who just want a pretty aquarium in their front room and know nothing about the fish they keep are blissfully unaffected.

 

[tenohfive]

Whilst an interesting article, I wouldn't expect this legislation to jump the English Channel just yet.

As for the legislation regarding importing fish...surely that won't affect fishkeepers, only the people who import to sell. And given a number of recent instances of dangerous diseases entering the country (Bird Flu being the first one that springs to mind) you can understand that there will be an element of caution from UK scientists.


Incidentally, I don't think that someone who has made an honest (if ignorant) mistake in keeping a number of fish in a tiny tank will find themselves dragged from the street, handcuffed and stuck with a massive fine. I won't speculate on Switzerland but I can tell you from some degree of experience that the UK legal system does not work like that. Honest mistakes are very rarely penalised. (In fact, forgive my cynicism but I believe its fair to say that a large number of dishonest mistakes aren't currently penalised.)

 

[geo7x]

How do you know if I have read the law or not, don't make statements about me if you don't know the truth.

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!"

Err... At which point did I make a statement about you? 'We' is a general term.

But if you have read the law then please feel free to share and correct us

The people policing this will most likely know nothing about the majority of fish, particularly the more unusual species that some of us keep. The only people that could know the true care levels of practically all fish would be scientists who study aquatic life and they have better things to do than go round knocking on people's doors because their goldfish is in a vase.

There's nothing wrong with the cause, but the reasons for going about it are very flawed. Apparently they are going to check you have the right oxygen levels and pH and all that, but surely ammonia and nitrite are more of a concern? I don't want someone coming round to my house and telling me I need to do this and that to my tank because the catfish apparently are better in acidic water when I know full well that if acclimatised correctly they will be fine.

 

[tenohfive]

I don't want someone coming round to my house and telling me I need to do this and that to my tank because the catfish apparently are better in acidic water when I know full well that if acclimatised correctly they will be fine.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you live in the UK-right? If thats the case, unless you happen to live in the Swiss Embassy then I honestly think you can expect 10 angry stormtroopers not to be knocking your door down.


I honestly think you'll be fine. If I'm wrong, I'll personally fit the new door and buy you a beer to calm your nerves. Sound like a deal?

 

[geo7x]

lol.

I'm just putting myself into the shoes of people who would be affected, and if such a thing is already starting in other areas of Europe then it could soon come over here.

 

[darknirvana217]

I wasn't talking about you geo, I was talking about Andy, he said I hadn't read the law without even knowing whether I had or not. And no I haven't got to it yet, but he shouldn't jump to conclusions.

 

[andywg]

I wasn't talking about you geo, I was talking about Andy, he said I hadn't read the law without even knowing whether I had or not. And no I haven't got to it yet, but he shouldn't jump to conclusions.

I said you hadn't read the law because you are picking up on the same points from articles about the law. Also you comment about what will probably be in the law in your earlier posts. All the evidence to hand suggests you have not read the law. Now, from the above, I am proved right. It wasn't a jump to a conclusion, but an evaluation of the evidence you placed before me. That's my job.

If you want to read on how a law regarding animal welfare should be written, I suggest looking through the UK Animal Welfare Act 2006. I have read this Act from start to finish, including the Schedules. It takes a far better approach to animal welfare and it can be seen that a pragmatic approach has been taken following discussions with those involved. The history behind the approach can be fully understood when reading the Hansard records of the House of Lords. Of particular interest to many will be the discussions in the upper chamber regarding the feeding of live vertebrates to predators (mostly it focuses on reptiles, but it equally applies to fish as well).

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Personally, i view these new laws with both agreeability and concerns.

"From September 1st 2008, it will be illegal in Switzerland to flush a fish down the toilet, or freeze it, as a form of euthanasia.

The legislation states that fish should be stunned before killing using narcotic substances available without veterinary prescription.

Switzerland’s 100,000 anglers will also be affected by the new legislation.

Anglers will be required to demonstrate their expertise by taking a course on humane methods of catching fish, which the government says should be done as gently as possible.

The legislation states that fish caught should be killed immediately following capture with a sharp blow to the head from a blunt instrument."


My main concern with this is how it will affect fishing. Most fish which are sold as food in shops are caught using trawling or other fishnet methods- fish caught by this methods are hauled alive up onto ships where they then left on the deck, still flipping around, and are sorted and then flash frozen. Most fish caught by these methods slowly suffocate to death in the air, and undesired fish which are chucked back into the sea often do not survive due to injuries and stress caused from being caught. Surely this is not humane?
While anglers will have more laws passed on them, it looks like those fishermen who catch fish with nets will be allowed to continue their practices uninterrupted. But to feed the human populations demand for fish, it would cause significant damage to the economy if catching fish with nets was banned- however on the other hand, you can't just impose one law on one group of fishermen for catching fish in one inhumane manner, but then ignore another group of fishermen for catching fish in a particular inhumane manner simply because it would cause damage to the economy etc. So again, it looks like the government is only passing laws which are financially acceptable, rather than passing laws purely on a moral/ethical basis (even though this seems to be what the Swiss government is saying its doing). You can't just apply morals to one matter and not to another when the same moral implications affect both.

And another thing;

"Under the new legislation, aquariums in Switzerland must not be transparent on all sides, and minimum aquarium and pond size restrictions will be put in place for any fish over the size of 20cm."

Will this law be based on whether the fish can grow to 20cm+ or whether it is currently 20cm+? Because you could say that it is fine to put a Red Tailed Catfish in a 150gallon tank if its only 8inches long (although it will surely grow larger in time to come and eventually outgrow such a tank).


Personally, i would be happiest seeing laws mostly imposed on fish stores. For example, i would be happy seeing laws imposed on fish stores like;

1. Fish store staff must ask the customer buying fish how large their tank is, how long it has been set up for, what and how many fish they already have and if there is any ammonia, nitrites or excessive nitrates present in the tank in recent water quality test results. If any of the answers are not ideal for the new fish being purchased concerned, then the sale of the fish should be halted.
2. Fish store's should sell tanks that are large enough for the fish they sell, or should at least have information to places which a customer could go to if they wanted a tank large enough for the fish that they want to buy from the store.
3. Fish store staff should be made to have better (and mandatory) training on fish- fish store staff should be aware of the nitrogen bacterial cycle and the concept of cycling tanks, doing water changes with dechlorinater, advising appropriate heating and filtration on tanks and appropriate diets and water quality conditions for the fish they sell. If the store does not educate its staff for these things, then it should be against the law for its staff to hand out advice to customers on these matters.
4. Fish stores should sell informative up-to-date books on fish and fishkeeping- if they do not, then they should at least be able to direct customers to places that sell such things or good sites on the internet for research etc. If a customer is obviously new to fishkeeping, then they should be advised to research certain matters or be directed towards good books or internet sites to research them etc.
5. The practice of selling bowls for goldfish should be completely banned.
6. It should be against the law for pet shops to sell fish under made-up names (like "Lolly pleco" or "Dolphin fish" etc). Algae eating fish should also not be sold under the vague general name of "sucker fish".
7. Fishes minimum healthy full grown adult size range should be displayed under the fishes names in the pet shops to help deter people from ignorantly buying completely unsuitable fish for their tanks who which they have no intention of buying a proper size tank for etc.
8. Staff should be banned from telling customers of very potentially harming fishkeeping myths like "don't worry if the fish grows really huge, it'll grow to fit the size of your tank comfortably", or "to cycle a tank you simply need to fill it up with water and turn the heating and filtration on and then leave it running for 3weeks before putting fish in" etc.
9. Fish bought from the store should be placed in an appropriately sized plastic transport bag which is insulated in some form (like has newspaper or a paper bag wrapped around the plastic bag) and does not have too many fish in it (like say 30 guppys in one bag).

I think if these 9 laws were passed, then there would be a heck of a lot less people keeping fish in completely unsuitable conditions or accidentally killing their fish etc. During my time here on the fishforum, i would say that the large majority of people that come here to this forum who keep their fish incorrectly, do so because they have received very poor advice/info from pet shop/fish store staff that really weren't informed enough to advise customers on the numerous fishkeeping matters that they did. Many such people who have ended up in such bad situations also cannot buy a large enough tank for the fish they bought because the store where they bought their fish from does not even supply suitably sized tanks for the fish they sell.
In one of my LFS, they sell Bala Sharks on a regular basis even though the largest tanks they sell in the shop do not exceed 15-20gallons- i see people buying these sharks all the time from the shop (which is also the only fish store/pet shop in the whole town), however i am sure a lot less people would buy these sharks if they were told how large such fish can grow and how large a tank they really need in the long term and how expensive such a tank can be etc.

IMHO A major problem in this hobby with pet shops is simply that when it comes to buying fish, it is too much of a no questions asked matter between the customer and member of staff- i have seen pet shop staff sell customers fish like Senegal Bichirs or masses of guppys to customers without a single question being asked between staff member and customer etc. I think pet shops should have a moral obligation to help ensure that the animals they sell end up in good hands with capable people looking after them etc.

These new Swiss laws largely target the fishkeepers, and i do think that people should take a lot more responsibility for their fish, however most people i have met here on this forum ended up in their situations because of the pet shop selling them unsuitable fish and telling them unsuitable information. I think its only natural though that people ask pet shop staff for advise, i think almost everyone here has done so at some point in their fishkeeping hobby, so i don't think the customer should always be entirely blamed for their situation- pet shops need to hold a lot more responsibility for the fish they sell willy-nilly to any random Joe.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

aye, while it's good that they're doing something it would be significantly better to do somethine like ban imports of pangasius cats and the other tank busting species that we all see regularly and no one can house.

admittedly it'd leave the handful of people who can house them restricted, however i think if you put it to them that either everyone could keep them and consequently huge numbers of them would die in cramped conditions as happens now or that no one could keep them regardless of weather they had space or not it'd be a fairly easy decision to make.

 

[loachman]

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.

Yeah, some of the provisions are going to be nearly impossible to enforce. This is one example.

Also the fish length is going to be hard to control. Is it actual fish length, potential fish length (which is NOT easy to know), or some other measure. They are all quite different and there is no "universal" agreed upon length.

The euthanasia of fish is also a stupid provision from a practical standpoint. It is well intentioned, but how will they ever enforce it?

Sociable fish need to be kept in groups is another nearly unenforceable rule. LFS don't even know what fish are schooling fish half the time, and an inexperienced hobbiest is also supposed to know? As an example of that, there is a local chain that has signs up saying that tetras are great for small, unheated bowls.

There is nothing worse than a well-intentioned, vague law that can be interpreted many different ways, or is overly draconian in it's provisions (see DMCA).

dogs, cats, cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, guinea pigs, lizards and rhinoceroses.

There is an interesting array of animals it covers though.