Aquariums becoming prohibited in Canada ?

[blaxsun]

Pfft. This is a working document that's being shopped to community "stakeholders", and not the final language of a by-law that's been enacted. It's also not terribly unreasonable, as it allows for marine fish "expecting" [their misspelling, not mine] those which are wild-caught. And those that are expected to grow beyond 14 inches in aquaria and those with "wide-ranging" habitats. Clearly, residents should rethink that last-minute panic-buy of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna smolts in anticipation of the 2022 ban, lest they run afoul of ruler-toting by-law officials.

The upside, of course, is that the Jird will remain "allowable" in the city. Never having heard of this mystery, images of a jackal/bird chimaera danced around in my head until I made google my friend. I'm just impressed that owning one of these is apparently a thing in Winnipeg.

Read through the entire article. None of the relevant stakeholders (societies, groups, businesses, hobbyists, etc.) have been involved, and while you indicate this is a draft - the proposed wording (whether or not it ends up becoming law) should scare the heck out of you.

They also have a valid point about Winnipeg being a major transit hub and how fish (etc.) shipments travelling through Winnipeg may be affected.

The animal rights groups/activists are clearly driving this short bus and using the pandemic as an opportunity to ram their hidden agendas through.

 

[Sean Clark]

Read through the entire article. None of the relevant stakeholders (societies, groups, businesses, hobbyists, etc.) have been involved, and while you indicate this is a draft - the proposed wording (whether or not it ends up becoming law) should scare the heck out of you.

They also have a valid point about Winnipeg being a major transit hub and how fish (etc.) shipments travelling through Winnipeg may be affected.

The animal rights groups/activists are clearly driving this short bus and using the pandemic as an opportunity to ram their hidden agendas through.

The idea that this is even being developed or talked about should be a concern. Good work reading through it; as most do not.

 

[ScottJ]

It’s even more amazing when you consider that the same government decriminalized marijuana that is now considering to criminalize inverts.

This is the way progressives think. Here in NY, you can smoke a joint anywhere you can light a cigarette. BUT you can't have a plastic grocery bag to put your purchases in at the pot dispensaries.

 

[davidcalgary29]

Read through the entire article. None of the relevant stakeholders (societies, groups, businesses, hobbyists, etc.) have been involved, and while you indicate this is a draft - the proposed wording (whether or not it ends up becoming law) should scare the heck out of you.

They also have a valid point about Winnipeg being a major transit hub and how fish (etc.) shipments travelling through Winnipeg may be affected.

The animal rights groups/activists are clearly driving this short bus and using the pandemic as an opportunity to ram their hidden agendas through.

I read through the draft legislation myself. I am not relying on somebody else's opinion of this to form my own perspective on the issue.

If people have concerns with the draft they might find it more productive to directly engage citizens in Winnipeg with the issue rather than foment speculative panic on the internet.

 

[jft]

Stupid dummy pRogressives Rotten to the CORE!!!

 

[MnFish1]

Winnipeg Considers Banning Many Aquarium Fish (and many other pets, too!) - AMAZONAS Magazine

Winnipeg, Canada has announced a sweeping series of proposed rules that, if enacted, would ban the ownership of many types of aquarium life (both fish and invertebrates) along with many other pets under the City's Responsible Pet Ownership By-Law. Such a ban would set the tone for similar bans...

www.reef2rainforest.com

After reading this article from coral magazine .
Winnipeg could change what’s deemed as pets and what’s allowed ?

if this actually can go further than proposed . What’s the chance of other Canadian provinces following suit ?

IMHO - people that think 'this can't happen here' - are keeping their heads a little in the sand. There are MULTIPLE animal rights organizations who feel that keeping ANY aquarium is unethical. Some people think that non-captured coral and fish are 'ok'- but others say 'no' - because there is no way to prove that a coral is 'bred' vs. harvested. Look at the various Hawaii bans - and Indonesian bans that are/were perhaps more detrimental than helpful. No one thought those were going to happen.

I don't personally think this is a Winnipeg-specific issue. Its like 'selling dogs in pet shops'. One by one people protested outside stores - until they were forced to close. There are no general pet-stores in our area (a big city) left. Many cities have very strict breeding laws, etc. As one city does it, others follow.

People that seem to like to protest, once their original issue is 'solved' - seem to go on to another 'area'. IMHO - aquarium keeping is next. And whether its as 'bad' as this law seems, it will be stifling for this hobby in the future. (I'm not criticizing protesters, just making a point that there are many very vociferous animal rights people out there - and they will keep coming in all likelihood)

Sorry this was so long - to answer the OP - looking at some of the things done in other countries, YES - it could very well happen that this logic 'spreads'. Isn't Canada one of the countries that bans medications for fish? (which seems like an oxymoron to me)

 

[MnFish1]

Winnipeg just opened a Black Market. Fargo is only 200miles South

If this happens in the U.S., I dare the State Of Ohio to get a search warrant to search my premises.

What they gonna do, test my sewage for SW salinity? Go for it... I'll dump my water change waste water on their flower garden at City Hall at 3am. just watch me

I'd probably move my tank in the basement and play "Catch me if you can" home version of the game


.

What 'They' could do - is put distributors out of business. Do you realize the fines for importing illegal animal life into canada is? Where would you buy food, supplies. I suppose the Internet. But - not from an LFS. I also doubt that (any-time soon) - that this will happen in the US. But - I researched this a while ago - the feelings that various groups have about aquariums and pets in general. It is AMAZING some of the thinking out there. BTW - this also applies to all zoos and public aquaria (the negative feelings). It only takes a quick google search to find the ideas.

PS - it is kind of funny thinking of Fargo as the hub of a black market in coral and fish...

 

[Frostblitz20]

if you live their just get another tank set up with CUC start having them breed to keep your own stock up. if you can also share the love and sell for cheap to local reefers also in the area. the community is strong and their will be people who will keep them around to give to those in need im sure.

 

[ZoWhat]

What 'They' could do - is put distributors out of business.

U.S. has roughly 750,000 reef hobbyists and if all Distributorships got locked down... I would think the 750k hobbyist would start a Black Market.

Maybe us hobbyists should start up some SpeakEasy locations with a tiny window in the door and a secret phrase.... "Fish smell fishy"

 

[Alaeriel]

It’s even more amazing when you consider that the same government decriminalized marijuana that is now considering to criminalize inverts.

Government official: 2 kilos of Marijuana? Sure. No prob. IS THAT A BLUE LEG HERMIT? YOU MONSTER!

 

[Alaeriel]

U.S. has roughly 750,000 reef hobbyists and if all Distributorships got locked down... I would think the 750k hobbyist would start a Black Market.

Maybe us hobbyists should start up some SpeakEasy locations with a tiny window in ghe door and a secret phrase....

The password is Zoa.

 

[MnFish1]

And those that are expected to grow beyond 14 inches in aquaria and those with "wide-ranging" habitats. Clearly, residents should rethink that last-minute panic-buy of Atlantic Bluefin Tuna smolts in anticipation of the 2022 ban, lest they run afoul of ruler-toting by-law officials.

I just talked to a friend in Alberta - who is mentioning the various restrictions in place in Canada - about another issue - Not going to describe it but lets say it starts with a C and ends with a 19 - that seem to have little to do with 'science' and more to do with 'control'. As several other people people have said certain countries have gone 'nuts'. And - I can very easily see this law passing. And - it seems like its a valid discussion. Especially when you read the posts of many people here who already feel 'tangs should not be kept', 'small tanks are bad', etc etc etc.

BTW - I'm sure you're aware - but many of the fish we keep are very 'wide ranging' in the wild much further than the largest tank anyone keeps in a home. Tangs, angels, triggers, etc etc etc. it all depends on what they consider a wide-range, right? I mean a 100 gallon tank for a clown would be fine. Perhaps not for anything else.

 

[MnFish1]

U.S. has roughly 750,000 reef hobbyists and if all Distributorships got locked down... I would think the 750k hobbyist would start a Black Market.

Maybe us hobbyists should start up some SpeakEasy locations with a tiny window in the door and a secret phrase.... "Fish smell fishy"

Like I said - I don't think its going to happen here anytime soon. And it sounds like (in this law) - that current tanks, etc would be grandfathered in. Enforcement would be extremely difficult. LOL I can picture them saying 'ok - selling the fish, corals, etc is 'legal' - but you can't buy/import salt.

 

[davidcalgary29]

I just talked to a friend in Alberta - who is mentioning the various restrictions in place in Canada - about another issue - Not going to describe it but lets say it starts with a C and ends with a 19 - that seem to have little to do with 'science' and more to do with 'control'. As several other people people have said certain countries have gone 'nuts'. And - I can very easily see this law passing. And - it seems like its a valid discussion. Especially when you read the posts of many people here who already feel 'tangs should not be kept', 'small tanks are bad', etc etc etc.

BTW - I'm sure you're aware - but many of the fish we keep are very 'wide ranging' in the wild much further than the largest tank anyone keeps in a home. Tangs, angels, triggers, etc etc etc. it all depends on what they consider a wide-range, right? I mean a 100 gallon tank for a clown would be fine. Perhaps not for anything else.

You know I agree with you most of the time, but we're going to have disagree here. The title of this thread should have been "Winnipeg seeks to ban wild-caught aquarium fish: let's discuss", and not something as incendiary as it was. And that's not a dig at the OP, with whom I also agree most of the time.

I'm personally indifferent to the proposed by-law, but you can look at this way:

Pro: it seeks to regulate and enforce animal welfare
Con: it's sure to run up against s. 8 of the Charter (no unlawful search and seizure; a part of our constitution), and is going to be almost wholly unenforceable against the public AND would be an added, massive, expense (more by-law officers), diverting precious resources away from other resources

I can see both points of view and, frankly, there are better ways to ensure animal safety. But encouraging reasoned debate, looking at all perspectives, is not going to endanger public discourse. And I live in Alberta, and can attest to the fact that reasoned debate here about many topics has become vanishingly rare.

 

[204Reef]

You know I agree with you most of the time, but we're going to have disagree here. The title of this thread should have been "Winnipeg seeks to ban wild-caught aquarium fish: let's discuss", and not something as incendiary as it was. And that's not a dig at the OP, with whom I also agree most of the time.

I'm personally indifferent to the proposed by-law, but you can look at this way:

Pro: it seeks to regulate and enforce animal welfare
Con: it's sure to run up against s. 8 of the Charter (no unlawful search and seizure; a part of our constitution), and is going to be almost wholly unenforceable against the public AND would be an added, massive, expense (more by-law officers), diverting precious resources away from other resources

I can see both points of view and, frankly, there are better ways to ensure animal safety. But encouraging reasoned debate, looking at all perspectives, is not going to endanger public discourse. And I live in Alberta, and can attest to the fact that reasoned debate here about many topics has become vanishingly rare.

Thank you for what might be one of the VERY few decent and intelligent thoughts put forward here!

As a Winnipegger, I am not at all concerned about this and the amount of overreaction here is borderline ludicrous. This is a draft proposal which has pretty much zero chance of becoming law in its current form. This is city hall saying "hey, we're taking a look at this. This is what we have thus far, tell us what you think". This is a proposal, nothing more yet.

I have zero doubt once the businesses around here such as Concrete Blonde Corals, Intotheblue, Nestors, Petland, Afishionados, etc, all let city hall know that some aspects of this are ridiculous, that it will be changed to be less broad-ranging and less likely to effect the hobby here in any significant way. The really big sticking point in this proposal, at least as far as us Winnipeggers are concerned, is the relegalization of pitbull ownership, which was banned 30 years ago after multiple mawlings include of children.

For those who are trying to shoehorn their own politics into this, I would remind you that Mayor Brian Bowman and our current provincial premiere are both conservatives.

And for the one person likening vaccines to poison and therefore won't go to Canada anymore (at least I assume that's what that's refering to), I can likely speak for 80+% of the vaccinated total eligible population when I say please DON'T come here. We don't want you.

 

[Karen00]

When I see stuff like this it makes me embarrassed to be a Canadian. To be honest though if you dig deep into most legislation you will find very little thought and research went into crafting it. It's literally one buffoon saying to another buffoon.. "hey this sounds like a good law to enact because I have nothing better to do with my time." I am absolutely supportive of regulation as other members have mentioned but this solidifies my view that a lot of people crafting laws have less than two brain cells to rub together. There are so many other issues plaguing the country and the planet that it's just sad they chose this hill to die on. :-( I'm sure I will see an online petition about this soon.

 

[ScottJ]

Thank you for what might be one of the VERY few decent and intelligent thoughts put forward here!

As a Winnipegger, I am not at all concerned about this and the amount of overreaction here is borderline ludicrous. This is a draft proposal which has pretty much zero chance of becoming law in its current form. This is city hall saying "hey, we're taking a look at this. This is what we have thus far, tell us what you think". This is a proposal, nothing more yet.

I have zero doubt once the businesses around here such as Concrete Blonde Corals, Intotheblue, Nestors, Petland, Afishionados, etc, all let city hall know that some aspects of this are ridiculous, that it will be changed to be less broad-ranging and less likely to effect the hobby here in any significant way. The really big sticking point in this proposal, at least as far as us Winnipeggers are concerned, is the relegalization of pitbull ownership, which was banned 30 years ago after multiple mawlings include of children.

For those who are trying to shoehorn their own politics into this, I would remind you that Mayor Brian Bowman and our current provincial premiere are both conservatives.

And for the one person likening vaccines to poison and therefore won't go to Canada anymore (at least I assume that's what that's refering to), I can likely speak for 80+% of the vaccinated total eligible population when I say please DON'T come here. We don't want you.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the reaction here is ludicrous or over the top.

What is very concerning is the mere fact that a government is even considering such a far reaching and invasive law. As we have seen recently, it doesn't take much for a "well meaning" government to become intrusive and overbearing. Not to mention, usually, inept.

 

[davidcalgary29]

I get what you're saying, but I don't think the reaction here is ludicrous or over the top.

What is very concerning is the mere fact that a government is even considering such a far reaching and invasive law. As we have seen recently, it doesn't take much for a "well meaning" government to become intrusive and overbearing. Not to mention, usually, inept.

It sort of is, though. What should be a focussed and respectful conversation about pet husbandry (and whether or not municipalities should have a role in regulating it) is instead a thread peppered with insidious insinuations about public health policy, weird bits of country-baiting, and vaguely conspiratorial references. And that's fine, but all of this just shuts people down instead of opening the discussion up to a wider audience.

 

[MnFish1]

Thank you for what might be one of the VERY few decent and intelligent thoughts put forward here!

As a Winnipegger, I am not at all concerned about this and the amount of overreaction here is borderline ludicrous. This is a draft proposal which has pretty much zero chance of becoming law in its current form. This is city hall saying "hey, we're taking a look at this. This is what we have thus far, tell us what you think". This is a proposal, nothing more yet.

I have zero doubt once the businesses around here such as Concrete Blonde Corals, Intotheblue, Nestors, Petland, Afishionados, etc, all let city hall know that some aspects of this are ridiculous, that it will be changed to be less broad-ranging and less likely to effect the hobby here in any significant way. The really big sticking point in this proposal, at least as far as us Winnipeggers are concerned, is the relegalization of pitbull ownership, which was banned 30 years ago after multiple mawlings include of children.

For those who are trying to shoehorn their own politics into this, I would remind you that Mayor Brian Bowman and our current provincial premiere are both conservatives.

And for the one person likening vaccines to poison and therefore won't go to Canada anymore (at least I assume that's what that's refering to), I can likely speak for 80+% of the vaccinated total eligible population when I say please DON'T come here. We don't want you.

Whats helpful on this forum - its nice to quote what you're referring to. I don't recall anyone bringing politics into this. But - if you were referring to me - saying - that certain countries have gone 'nuts'. I was in no way suggesting people shouldn't be vaccinated. What was nuts is that even if vaccinated, we could not travel. Meet friends (though they had been vaccinated), etc. Its all crazy. Its not right or left. Its crazy - unscientific. But - again since I have no clue what you're referring to - I'll stop. PS - I and my entire family have been vaccinated - and I have had the 3rd booster. So - again - what are you exactly referring to?

As far as the Winnipeg law - you're right - its nuts - and most people here have said exactly what you did - it has little chance of passing. But - IMHO - It's coming (i.e. multiple restrictions) - within the decade. There is no point in arguing whether it will or will not at this point.

 

[MnFish1]

It sort of is, though. What should be a focussed and respectful conversation about pet husbandry (and whether or not municipalities should have a role in regulating it) is instead a thread peppered with insidious insinuations about public health policy, weird bits of country-baiting, and vaguely conspiratorial references. And that's fine, but all of this just shuts people down instead of opening the discussion up to a wider audience.

OK - sorry - I assume you're talking about my post. I'm saying Canada and Australia have tended recently to have more restrictive laws on various issues. That is my opinion. I'm not saying its good or bad. And you're absolutely correct - if Winnipeg wants to initiate this law - great. I don't care. I'm just saying - it has the potential to affect 'OUR' hobby. And - Its not just in Winnipeg - its widespread in the US as well - in the animal right's community. So - as I said before - though you seem to think this is an 'impossibility' - I agree with you 'now'. Wait 5-10 years. Remember everyone said the indo ban was 'impossible'. Everyone said the Hawaii ban was impossible. Etc etc. Its funny how things that are 'impossible' keep happening. This is not a political discussion per se - and I didnt mean to imply it was.

But here is the comment that you apparently wanted based on the quote above: "The Winnipeg law is short-sighted, will not be effective, will not achieve its goals, is poorly written, makes no sense, and is typical of other laws in both the US, Canada, Australia, Europe, and elsewhere - which while trying to solve one problem - politicians Right and Left cause or worsen multiple other issues".