The Ohio situation. Read- this may effect us all

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
kamikaziechameleon said:
Basically keeping pets is in line with the american idea of individualism assuming you don't feed your neighbors to your pets.
Click to expand...

What I meant was, being told what is ok and what isn't ok is what it's all about. You have your freedoms, and at the same time local and federal governments have the ability to create the laws and regulation they deem fit for the greater good of society. It's how America works.
 
jcardona1 said:
Not it isn't, and I've stated that who knows how many times already.
Click to expand...


why, what do you have against fish??? lol, I'm joshing it does dilute your stance a little IMHO but I know what you mean. I personally don't elevate any animal over another its not for me to judge ya know. I feel like if I'm cool with importing fishes from the wild why not honey bears, or lions for that matter.

(oh i forgot to mention I'd love to keep one of those too but they don't control their bowel movements so... I'm talking about the honey bears)

I would stand by the argument of what is wild??? where is man's reach limited? I just think that these animals won't last another century, maybe not even another decade without having a domestic footprint to breed and reintroduce animals, and once you are breeding them why not let private citizens in on it.
 
jcardona1 I would agree with you if I felt their was a actual WILD left in the world with regards to large cats because they have such HUGE territories in the wild probably the largest stomping ground of any single specimen, specifically tigers. Its EXTREMELY difficult to do right by them in captivity but I'm confident there is an individual out there who could do it. I just feel like its keep or kill ya know if you just leave "wild" to itself it will be destroyed by man in short order. :(
 
kamikaziechameleon said:
why, what do you have against fish??? lol, I'm joshing it does dilute your stance a little IMHO but I know what you mean. I personally don't elevate any animal over another its not for me to judge ya know. I feel like if I'm cool with importing fishes from the wild why not honey bears, or lions for that matter.

(oh i forgot to mention I'd love to keep one of those too but they don't control their bowel movements so... I'm talking about the honey bears)

I would stand by the argument of what is wild??? where is man's reach limited? I just think that these animals won't last another century, maybe not even another decade without having a domestic footprint to breed and reintroduce animals, and once you are breeding them why not let private citizens in on it.
Click to expand...

Well sorta kinda. I hold the same feelings for fish also. Anybody who knows what I've kept in the past will tell you this. It's why I threw in the towel on peacock bass and big fish. I thought it was wrong and selfish to keep such big powerful fish cramped in a 400g tank, so I got rid of them all. Now I have a few discus and some tetras in a 200g tank. Just cause I'm a member on this site doesn't mean I agree with keeping anything that swims cramped in a glass box. Most of what folks keep here I wouldn't do it because of my own personal beliefs.

That's why I say this isn't a blanket-type deal. It depends on the animal in question. And it's not a hypocrisy when you allow somebody to keep a house cat but don't allow them to keep a tiger. The two are so vastly different, that it's senseless to even make the comparison.
 
I don't imagine any one living down town keeping a house cat, but I would be fine with a competent person properly housing any exotic or dangerous animal assuming they are doing it right. I think we do agree, the issue is you don't believe anyone can care for such demanding animals and I do, but if someone could live up to your expectations do you think it would be ok for a private person to have such an animal?

EDIT:

I just see so much value in the domestic and commercial presence of as many exotic or endangered animals as possible.
 
jcardona1 said:
Well sorta kinda. I hold the same feelings for fish also. Anybody who knows what I've kept in the past will tell you this. It's why I threw in the towel on peacock bass and big fish. I thought it was wrong and selfish to keep such big powerful fish cramped in a 400g tank, so I got rid of them all. Now I have a few discus and some tetras in a 200g tank. Just cause I'm a member on this site doesn't mean I agree with keeping anything that swims cramped in a glass box. Most of what folks keep here I wouldn't do it because of my own personal beliefs.

That's why I say this isn't a blanket-type deal. It depends on the animal in question. And it's not a hypocrisy when you allow somebody to keep a house cat but don't allow them to keep a tiger. The two are so vastly different, that It's senseless to even make the comparison.
Click to expand...

Now that I know why you got rid of the cichla and how you feel about other big fish I understand your point better. I still disagree
 
kamikaziechameleon said:
but if someone could live up to your expectations do you think it would be ok for a private person to have such an animal?
Click to expand...

Yeah I think so. But it just seems like there's so few places in the country that could actually provide large parcels of land to these big, wild animals. The hard part is, who and how would determine what is appropriate for each type of animal?

rgonzales said:
Now that I know why you got rid of the cichla and how you feel about other big fish I understand your point better. I still disagree
Click to expand...

:ROFL: At least we're getting somewhere

kamikaziechameleon said:
Its funny I feel like the 3 of us are all on the same page but different paragraphs, lol.
Click to expand...

:ROFL: I think we agreed that we agree while disagreeing on our agreements.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom