I hope HR 669 Passes

[jcardona1]

That's exactly my point. If that oscar cost more money, wouldn't somebody be more willing to spend a little more to keep from having to buy a second one? Also, when I said "little, if anything", telling people they should "do this and that" is what I was referring to as "little." We don't stop buying from the store that lies to its customers about the fish's needs, do we? Most of us don't even bother to complain to the manager, or to the corporate headquarters. We just shrug our shoulders and move on to the discount flake aisle. My general point in this thread is that if we were all willing to give up a little bit in one way or the other, we may be able to make this hobby better than it's ever been, and yes, passing a restrictive law may not be the best way to do it, but maybe if we put a little more effort into shaping the hobby into something better, instead of saving our $10 and selfishly turning a blind eye, people wouldn't be trying to impose this legislation on us.

yes, i agree about the responsible pet keeping, but this bill would not do that. all it would do is segregate those who can afford the fish and those who cant. so, instead of having poor idiots buying fish they cant take care of, youll have rich idiots buying fish they cant take care of.

and again, youve solved nothing.

 

[cguarino30]

ah here I can whole heartedly agree with you it should be our mission to encourage responsible fishkeeping.

This is an activity that I am totally committed to and do my very best as a hobbiest to not only give my fish the best care, but also to make sure when I encounter another person who keeps pets to do my best to help them know how to do well by their pet and see if I can learn from them as well.

But legislations such as the one in concern are very very very very bad.

Have you ever seen the plan that the united nations has to establish a nature preserve right down the middle of north america?

There is a very great reason why those in the know are such proponents of opposing such legislation. It is the underlying things the people behind the scenes wish to accomplish with this, all they have to do is get people relaxed enough to accept it as a harmless law and be ignorant to the real agenda. After all it is the little holes that sink the big ships because of the force of water and the erosion it causes.

I will find a vid to show what I mean bbl next post

All good points. I don't want to be forced into doing the right thing anyway, but I think that if we want to avoid a situation like this, step one is preventing a situation where the government has a reason (by which I mean excuse) to impose them on us. If we put more effort into preventing irresponsible fishkeeping (not supporting irresponsible dealers, giving more options to people with large fish, etc) they wouldn't have a reason to submit a bill like this. I think HR 669 should be a wakeup call to all of us. If we don't want things like this to happen, we need to prevent the issue, not piss and moan when the issue comes up. For years we have been buying cheaper and more mass-produced fish from all over the world, and some of us have been carelessly letting them live in inappropriate conditions, or tossing them in the local creek, and this is what happens. We focus too much, as a hobby, on how much things cost, and not nearly enough on what is best. Pay the extra couple of bucks and buy the right fish. Pay the extra couple of bucks and boycott stores until they give out accurate information about their fish. We need to stop acting like we didn't bring this on ourselves.

 

[bigspizz]

They should ban dancing....Like in flash dance...I'll start doing the running man again.

 

[cguarino30]

yes, i agree about the responsible pet keeping, but this bill would not do that. all it would do is segregate those who can afford the fish and those who cant. so, instead of having poor idiots buying fish they cant take care of, youll have rich idiots buying fish they cant take care of.

and again, youve solved nothing.

haha. It's a good, if a little over-simplified, point. There will always be rich idiots, but I think most people who don't care if they keep their fish right would rather buy the cheap ones, though I again admit no problems will be solved, only abated a little.

 

[cguarino30]

They should ban dancing....Like in flash dance...I'll start doing the running man again.

I could be wrong, but I thought that was Footloose? haha

 

[bigspizz]

I could be wrong, but I thought that was Footloose? haha

+1 I was like 4 had to be one of them. Kevin Bacon who has the coolest last name ever, is all I remember.

 

[cguarino30]

+1 I was like 4 had to be one of them. Kevin Bacon who has the coolest last name ever, is all I remember.

haha, no worries, I was half sure you were gonna come back an call me an idiot for correcting you.

 

[bigspizz]

haha, no worries, I was half sure you were gonna come back an call me an idiot for correcting you.

Nope, I spammed your thread, you owned me, we are even bro...hahaha



But serious, I hope this does not pass. Not that it will.

 

[---XR---]

Has anyone here actually read the bill? They're not going to take ALL the fish. Only the ones they deem an environmental or health concern. And even then, they're not going to take any of them, just prohibit the import, transport, or breeding of the "invasive" ones. Piranhas are banned here in NC, and much as I think it's ignorant, and personally love piranhas, we still have a thriving hobby and pet store industry, and I still manage to be a part of it.

Do you people really think that they even COULD take everyone's fish if they wanted to (which I reiterate, nobody wants to do)?

i would like to make the point that there has been no in depth studies on the fish released into the amercian waters. Such as channa, piranha, cichlids, and so on. No one has prooved that the release of these fish into warm water area's where they can thrive has made any detrimental environmental impact.

 

[cguarino30]

Nope, I spammed your thread, you owned me, we are even bro...hahaha



But serious, I hope this does not pass. Not that it will.

Honestly, I don't think it will either. And I'd greatly prefer us hobbyists making the necessary changes to make this bill unnecessary, but if I had to choose between people continuing the way they are or the government passing this (arguably unenforcable) bill, I still choose the bill. Hopefully people will get the wakeup call and make it so no bill like this ever has reason to be put into play.