Already Tu-pac! lol
That’s why everyone should migrate to Asia ?
That’s why everyone should migrate to Asia ?
When fish get too big to keep look into donating them to a local aquarium or zoo. You may even get a charitable donation tax deduction.There are certain realities…
.
When I was a child my dad liked to keep Channa micropeltes. I grew up to the realities of the species. They were kept in customs made aquariums. Many are the experiences which I enjoyed. For instance, there was the lady in the neighborhood who was giving away swordtails. My dad of course was interested and accepted all which she gave. Her husband was quite disinterested until she asked my dad what he intended to do with so many swordtails. At which point he roared in laughter… My dad beat a hasty retreat.
.
So it is, I’ve developed both a love for the swordtail, and a love for those which eat them.
.
I often note that there is a certain reality which we who keep big fish must at some point face… What to do with our big fish when they outgrow our capacity to house them? For the lady with the swordtails it was giving them away. And the same was true for my dad.
.
I eat a lot of fish. Mostly salmon and tilapia. Mostly.
.
But I always advise that those who insist on keeping big fish to have a good recipe on hand.
.
I line breed Amphilophus lyonsi. I can neither be absorbed in moral issues nor merciful if I am to maintain an attempt to keep this fish.
.
I've kept and maintained Hygrophila polysperma. A species possibly more hated than the Snakehead. This, because I liked my Uaru amphiacanthoides very much, and I liked the H. polysperma very much. (What’s it to you… who have an opinion and sit in the seat of democracy? I say, "Death to your swordtails with a roar of laughter!"
.
Just a thought from a lover of the American republic.
View attachment 1486963
This has been in the works for some time now. I filled out the survey quite some time ago. And I’m in the same boat of thinking if it passes other provinces will follow suit.
I'm curiousjjohnwm . In that link at the end is a step by step guide of where they are up to. It started with the "by-law review begins" in May of last year, and the latest part is their "public engagement" which takes part Jan-Feb this year, which I suppose is to gauge public opinion on this new bullsh.....err, legislation.
However, they also had a "public engagement" in August last year, and they have a big tick at the side of it, I presume meaning all went well. Surely there must have been public outcry back in August of last year when these new rules were publicised? Enough outcry to make them realise that they were on a hiding to nothing with this, and maybe ditch the whole nonsense.
I don't live in Winnipeg or Manitoba for that matter, but I just took the survey. I agree with having minimum housing laws as a requirement for big animals (including fish), but some of the premises (like social needs and coming from the wild to ban animals) are ridiculous!
Those would put a damper on pictus catfish and loaches (clearly not dangerous pets to own), because one, the other, and in some cases both applies to them. I would not like that if it applied to where I am, so I'll do what I can to prevent it from happening there.
They have decided that keeping Corydoras cats and Cardinal Tetras constitutes a threat to national security, public safety, the environment...really, who knows what they really think

How? I clicked the link thinking I could do it again and it simply said you’ve already taken this surveyUpdate: The survey can be retaken. I think that's what I'll do.
jjohnwm, you mentioned even partially agreeing gives the gov't more room to be rigid. Going by that, this retake will have zero support for any control.
The older I get the more I complain about things and I ask my bf who the hell they surveyed and his response was so you ever do those phone call surveys? I shut up and have been waiting for my phone to ring lolYes, the original bombshell was dropped last year, and it had a laughably short window of opportunity for interested parties to speak their minds; roughly a month, I believe? I did the survey then and the new one seems different, and the website did not stop me from doing the new one as well so I did that too.
It absolutely will set a precedent and be used as a guideline and an example of the sort of forward-thinking New-Age-Man quasi-intellectual BS towards which the gummint loves to steer us.
The original public engagement period was very short, and not very well received by the public. Since we didn't say what they wanted us to say, they're giving us a chance to change our minds and agree with them; after all, they know what's best, don't ya know, and they like to make it at least appear that they actually care what we think. The whole flavour of this debacle is "This is the right course of action, and the smart thing to do, so you really want us to do it, don't you?"
I don't know where to begin here. Agreeing to this sort of control on even a partial basis is simply opening the door for the control to continue growing more onerous and more rigid. When they put forward an idea like this, they don't expect to get away with the whole thing. They present a laundry list of new bans and restrictions and impositions, and then when even the docile Canadian population rears up and says "Whoa!", they will simply back off a few details here and there and pass what they really want. We relax and pat ourselves on the back for having faced down Big Brother...but in actuality Big Brother has successfully rammed down our throats more control. That is always the government's goal: more complete control over every aspect of our lives.
A year or two later, a new wave of further restrictions follows on the heels of the first, and they will get a few of those passed...and the pattern continues until they have achieved everything the original proposition suggested, and more!
I don't know about the U.S.A., but here in Canuckistan the federal government can force literally anything into law by means of an Order In Council. This doesn't require debate or a vote or a majority; the party in power can simply issue a mandate and that's it, you are hooped. It has happened with firearms, and once our prime-minister/drama-teacher is told by his handlers that this is the next logical step in the domestication of Canada, and that it has succeeded on the municipal or provincial level, it will happen with exotic pets as well.
They have decided that keeping Corydoras cats and Cardinal Tetras constitutes a threat to national security, public safety, the environment...really, who knows what they really think. What on earth will you do when your beloved pictus cats and clown loaches appear on some "ban" list, or more likely, simply don't manage to make it on the ever-shortening "approved" list?