bettas in plastic cups

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
.. .
Koi-lo wrote:

"NetMax" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that this is a widely applied corporate policy, but
saying
stores legally have to sell something is not true, at least to the best
of
my understanding in Canada.

======================
Here in the USA you can be sure a lawsuit would soon commence...... :-(

This rule also applies in the UK...I believe it has something to do with
the sale of livestock rather than any other law...my local stores will
totally NOT sell fish unless they can be as sure as possible that these
pets will be properly cared for....no lawsuit in the UK would win against
a retailer refusing to sell anything alive to an unsuitable home

$$ In the USA you'd have to have PROOF the home was unsuitable. People here
sue for the least little thing. One woman got rich suing McDonald's because
SHE spilt hot coffee on her own crotch! Surely you heard about that one.
How do the stores in your country make sure the home is suitable for all the
pets they sell?

Today, I have seen in the press that our largest supermarket chain has
refused to sell a certain brand of chocolate to someone as it went against
their quality principles....maybe it's time that there was some
legislation in the US protecting livestock (and chocolate - being
flippant) being sold into unsuitable hands....

$$ I wish there was - there isn't. People who are seldom home buy cats to
live in virtual isolation. They buy huge dogs to languish in tiny
efficiency apartments. They buy expensive birds and hang their cages by
open windows or above air conditioning vents. They buy a bag of koi for 100
gallon unfiltered preformed ponds.....

Honestly, I think if you cannot provide a proper home for a pet you should
not be buying it....I don't discriminate against a mammal, bird or fish in
this....if you can't provide a proper home it is cruel...part of pet
owning is responsibility for the creature you are giving a home to....I
don't care what it is, I don't care how much money someone has...if they
buy it they need to provide the care for it and if they can't afford to
house it suitably they shouldn't be buying it in the first place...end of
story...

$$ There is no way to know how they will care for it once they leave the pet
store or breeders facilities. That's probably the reason we don't have such
laws here.

and goodnight
Gill
--
Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o

"Koi-lo" wrote in message
.com...

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
.. .
Koi-lo wrote:

"NetMax" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that this is a widely applied corporate policy, but
saying
stores legally have to sell something is not true, at least to the
best of
my understanding in Canada.

======================
Here in the USA you can be sure a lawsuit would soon commence......
:-(

This rule also applies in the UK...I believe it has something to do
with the sale of livestock rather than any other law...my local stores
will totally NOT sell fish unless they can be as sure as possible that
these pets will be properly cared for....no lawsuit in the UK would
win against a retailer refusing to sell anything alive to an
unsuitable home

$$ In the USA you'd have to have PROOF the home was unsuitable. People
here sue for the least little thing. One woman got rich suing
McDonald's because SHE spilt hot coffee on her own crotch! Surely you
heard about that one. How do the stores in your country make sure the
home is suitable for all the pets they sell?

Today, I have seen in the press that our largest supermarket chain has
refused to sell a certain brand of chocolate to someone as it went
against their quality principles....maybe it's time that there was
some legislation in the US protecting livestock (and chocolate - being
flippant) being sold into unsuitable hands....

$$ I wish there was - there isn't. People who are seldom home buy cats
to live in virtual isolation. They buy huge dogs to languish in tiny
efficiency apartments. They buy expensive birds and hang their cages
by open windows or above air conditioning vents. They buy a bag of koi
for 100 gallon unfiltered preformed ponds.....

Honestly, I think if you cannot provide a proper home for a pet you
should not be buying it....I don't discriminate against a mammal, bird
or fish in this....if you can't provide a proper home it is
cruel...part of pet owning is responsibility for the creature you are
giving a home to....I don't care what it is, I don't care how much
money someone has...if they buy it they need to provide the care for
it and if they can't afford to house it suitably they shouldn't be
buying it in the first place...end of story...




$$ There is no way to know how they will care for it once they leave
the pet store or breeders facilities. That's probably the reason we
don't have such laws here.

If I might be so brash, that sounds like a cop-out. I never had trouble
establishing the conditions the fish were going into. I wasn't a nazi
grilling them. I'd just conversationally inquire about the tank-mates,
foods given, number of fish, size of tank. Almost 100% of them seemed
very eager to discuss their hobby with someone who cared and showed
knowledge. Most people taking the fish into an abusive application were
unaware of it, and we informed them regarding growth rates and eventual
size (usually keeping Arowanas, Oscars, Koi, Pacus and TinFoil barbs out
of 5 to 10g tanks). The odd one would still tell me the truth, but
simply didn't care or it was a cultural thing. Only once did someone
outright lie, and it was quite obvious.

Your attitude sounds like the same cop-out used in the US regarding gun
control (or lack of), so maybe it's a cultural 'freedom' thing. Almost
seems like the freedom being protected, is to take the easy way out.
--
www.NetMax.tk *stumbles off soapbox he didn't notice was there*



and goodnight
Gill
--
Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bottom posted.

- --
You can find my public key at https://keyserver1.pgp.com
"NetMax" wrote in message
.. .
"Koi-lo" wrote in message
.com...

"Gill Passman" wrote in
message
.. .
Koi-lo wrote:

"NetMax" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that this is a widely applied corporate policy,
but
saying
stores legally have to sell something is not true, at least to
the
best of
my understanding in Canada.

======================
Here in the USA you can be sure a lawsuit would soon
commence......
:-(

This rule also applies in the UK...I believe it has something to
do
with the sale of livestock rather than any other law...my local
stores
will totally NOT sell fish unless they can be as sure as
possible that
these pets will be properly cared for....no lawsuit in the UK
would
win against a retailer refusing to sell anything alive to an
unsuitable home

$$ In the USA you'd have to have PROOF the home was unsuitable.
People
here sue for the least little thing. One woman got rich suing
McDonald's because SHE spilt hot coffee on her own crotch!
Surely you
heard about that one. How do the stores in your country make sure
the
home is suitable for all the pets they sell?

Today, I have seen in the press that our largest supermarket
chain has
refused to sell a certain brand of chocolate to someone as it
went
against their quality principles....maybe it's time that there
was
some legislation in the US protecting livestock (and chocolate -
being
flippant) being sold into unsuitable hands....

$$ I wish there was - there isn't. People who are seldom home
buy cats
to live in virtual isolation. They buy huge dogs to languish in
tiny
efficiency apartments. They buy expensive birds and hang their
cages
by open windows or above air conditioning vents. They buy a bag
of koi
for 100 gallon unfiltered preformed ponds.....

Honestly, I think if you cannot provide a proper home for a pet
you
should not be buying it....I don't discriminate against a
mammal, bird
or fish in this....if you can't provide a proper home it is
cruel...part of pet owning is responsibility for the creature
you are
giving a home to....I don't care what it is, I don't care how
much
money someone has...if they buy it they need to provide the care
for
it and if they can't afford to house it suitably they shouldn't
be
buying it in the first place...end of story...




$$ There is no way to know how they will care for it once they
leave
the pet store or breeders facilities. That's probably the reason
we
don't have such laws here.

If I might be so brash, that sounds like a cop-out. I never had
trouble
establishing the conditions the fish were going into. I wasn't a
nazi
grilling them. I'd just conversationally inquire about the
tank-mates,
foods given, number of fish, size of tank. Almost 100% of them
seemed
very eager to discuss their hobby with someone who cared and showed

knowledge. Most people taking the fish into an abusive application
were
unaware of it, and we informed them regarding growth rates and
eventual
size (usually keeping Arowanas, Oscars, Koi, Pacus and TinFoil
barbs out
of 5 to 10g tanks). The odd one would still tell me the truth, but

simply didn't care or it was a cultural thing. Only once did
someone
outright lie, and it was quite obvious.

Your attitude sounds like the same cop-out used in the US regarding
gun
control (or lack of), so maybe it's a cultural 'freedom' thing.
Almost
seems like the freedom being protected, is to take the easy way
out.
--
www.NetMax.tk *stumbles off soapbox he didn't notice was there*



and goodnight
Gill
--
Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o






It is a cop-out. It's like saying that criminals will always find
guns so there's nothing that can be done about it. Also - criminals
will do whatever they want no matter what so why bother trying to
re-rehabilitate them. It's like saying a criminal will do what-ever
they want whenever they want and that they should be executed, when
quite frankly not only is it cheaper to keep them incarcerated for
life compared to executing them the criminal will never commit
another crime while permanently incarcerated. It's like saying a
person can not be swayed from committing suicide so why bother trying
to convince them not to. It's like saying boys will be boys so don't
try to prevent fights. It's like saying the universe will either
expand until entropy becomes present or that the universe will
collapse in a big crunch, so don't even try to do anything about it
but just lay down and die. It's like saying the sun will die in 20
million years so don't try to move civilization to another system in
the form of traveling. It's like my mom saying she will die from
breast cancer anyway so why bother having the tumor removed (just
found this out today :-( very big frown). I could go on about other
cop-outs that are the same as these but I will just say instead that
these cop-outs are totally anti-proactive and quite frankly just
plain total stupidity. There is always a chance something good can be
accomplished instead. Just because the answer doesn't answer a
question 100% doesn't mean it's wrong. Maybe netmax couldn't ALWAYS
tell correctly that the fish would go to good homes but AT LEAST he
could accomplish it at a 70% level or something close to that and
even a lower success rate would still be better than doing nothing.
Even the most conservative perspective has to agree with this
practically speaking. Good luck netmax, and later!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.7.96rc1

iQD1AwUBQ405E62WfcjE5myzAQLREwb+PHuQYeyOseZ5T21BO3 52huTW0hTebFPN
TqzaiSkOuPk54cdHH+s4D/fcnt6+pVIh2aepefI4PlU22gg7be42Xhm4Kfg9kLs6
zY2lnnI7S/mIoZ3F4Wv92tUWJRHkNR1UVYKTTiWOaeMWYqg7bVZLW/MlDoTcBgEw
UEY5ZJURJK01+jmHqQ+fa+HDiDo01GfDUMnKbyl6BICc6XtEJN mhHL1WjklQVX4a
TuuJUahGnx4wm7ljLW89iHRXm+CJULG+2q84EDv8PyTEcOUIfk 7y+kwq0dkqtVlQ
/cY/U9IfFnQ=
=0z1j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Daniel Morrow wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Bottom posted.

- --
You can find my public key at https://keyserver1.pgp.com
"NetMax" wrote in message
.. .

"Koi-lo" wrote in message
re.com...

"Gill Passman" wrote in

message

k...

Koi-lo wrote:

"NetMax" wrote in message
. com...


I'm not saying that this is a widely applied corporate policy,

but

saying
stores legally have to sell something is not true, at least to

the

best of
my understanding in Canada.

======================
Here in the USA you can be sure a lawsuit would soon

commence......

:-(

This rule also applies in the UK...I believe it has something to

do

with the sale of livestock rather than any other law...my local

stores

will totally NOT sell fish unless they can be as sure as

possible that

these pets will be properly cared for....no lawsuit in the UK

would

win against a retailer refusing to sell anything alive to an
unsuitable home

$$ In the USA you'd have to have PROOF the home was unsuitable.

People

here sue for the least little thing. One woman got rich suing
McDonald's because SHE spilt hot coffee on her own crotch!

Surely you

heard about that one. How do the stores in your country make sure

the

home is suitable for all the pets they sell?


Today, I have seen in the press that our largest supermarket

chain has

refused to sell a certain brand of chocolate to someone as it

went

against their quality principles....maybe it's time that there

was

some legislation in the US protecting livestock (and chocolate -

being

flippant) being sold into unsuitable hands....

$$ I wish there was - there isn't. People who are seldom home

buy cats

to live in virtual isolation. They buy huge dogs to languish in

tiny

efficiency apartments. They buy expensive birds and hang their

cages

by open windows or above air conditioning vents. They buy a bag

of koi

for 100 gallon unfiltered preformed ponds.....


Honestly, I think if you cannot provide a proper home for a pet

you

should not be buying it....I don't discriminate against a

mammal, bird

or fish in this....if you can't provide a proper home it is
cruel...part of pet owning is responsibility for the creature

you are

giving a home to....I don't care what it is, I don't care how

much

money someone has...if they buy it they need to provide the care

for

it and if they can't afford to house it suitably they shouldn't

be

buying it in the first place...end of story...




$$ There is no way to know how they will care for it once they

leave

the pet store or breeders facilities. That's probably the reason

we

don't have such laws here.

If I might be so brash, that sounds like a cop-out. I never had

trouble

establishing the conditions the fish were going into. I wasn't a

nazi

grilling them. I'd just conversationally inquire about the

tank-mates,

foods given, number of fish, size of tank. Almost 100% of them

seemed

very eager to discuss their hobby with someone who cared and showed


knowledge. Most people taking the fish into an abusive application

were

unaware of it, and we informed them regarding growth rates and

eventual

size (usually keeping Arowanas, Oscars, Koi, Pacus and TinFoil

barbs out

of 5 to 10g tanks). The odd one would still tell me the truth, but


simply didn't care or it was a cultural thing. Only once did

someone

outright lie, and it was quite obvious.

Your attitude sounds like the same cop-out used in the US regarding

gun

control (or lack of), so maybe it's a cultural 'freedom' thing.

Almost

seems like the freedom being protected, is to take the easy way

out.

--
www.NetMax.tk *stumbles off soapbox he didn't notice was there*




and goodnight
Gill

--
Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o





It is a cop-out. It's like saying that criminals will always find
guns so there's nothing that can be done about it. Also - criminals
will do whatever they want no matter what so why bother trying to
re-rehabilitate them. It's like saying a criminal will do what-ever
they want whenever they want and that they should be executed, when
quite frankly not only is it cheaper to keep them incarcerated for
life compared to executing them the criminal will never commit
another crime while permanently incarcerated. It's like saying a
person can not be swayed from committing suicide so why bother trying
to convince them not to. It's like saying boys will be boys so don't
try to prevent fights. It's like saying the universe will either
expand until entropy becomes present or that the universe will
collapse in a big crunch, so don't even try to do anything about it
but just lay down and die. It's like saying the sun will die in 20
million years so don't try to move civilization to another system in
the form of traveling. It's like my mom saying she will die from
breast cancer anyway so why bother having the tumor removed (just
found this out today :-( very big frown). I could go on about other
cop-outs that are the same as these but I will just say instead that
these cop-outs are totally anti-proactive and quite frankly just
plain total stupidity. There is always a chance something good can be
accomplished instead. Just because the answer doesn't answer a
question 100% doesn't mean it's wrong. Maybe netmax couldn't ALWAYS
tell correctly that the fish would go to good homes but AT LEAST he
could accomplish it at a 70% level or something close to that and
even a lower success rate would still be better than doing nothing.
Even the most conservative perspective has to agree with this
practically speaking. Good luck netmax, and later!

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (MingW32) - WinPT 0.7.96rc1

iQD1AwUBQ405E62WfcjE5myzAQLREwb+PHuQYeyOseZ5T21BO3 52huTW0hTebFPN
TqzaiSkOuPk54cdHH+s4D/fcnt6+pVIh2aepefI4PlU22gg7be42Xhm4Kfg9kLs6
zY2lnnI7S/mIoZ3F4Wv92tUWJRHkNR1UVYKTTiWOaeMWYqg7bVZLW/MlDoTcBgEw
UEY5ZJURJK01+jmHqQ+fa+HDiDo01GfDUMnKbyl6BICc6XtEJN mhHL1WjklQVX4a
TuuJUahGnx4wm7ljLW89iHRXm+CJULG+2q84EDv8PyTEcOUIfk 7y+kwq0dkqtVlQ
/cY/U9IfFnQ=
=0z1j
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



OMG Daniel :-(

snip

It's like my mom saying she will die from
breast cancer anyway so why bother having the tumor removed (just
found this out today :-( very big frown).

You have to tell her that there is every reason to have the tumour
removed....not only is Breast Cancer one of the most common cancers it
is also one of the most treatable - especially if caught early enough.
Granted the treatment is quite aggressive but it is generally
successful. I can understand how your Mother feels...when diagnosed with
a disease such as this you start on an emotional roller-coaster...the
fact that it is in the Breast makes it even more emotive and hard to
deal with....another problem is that you don't actually feel ill with it
(until the latter stages I guess but that is outside my experience) -
because you don't feel ill or in any pain it is easy to deny it and
pretend that the problem just doesn't exist. There is also a great fear
of the unkown along with a fear of the disease itself and it's
consequences. You might feel one way about it one day/minute/second and
then the opposite another day/minute/second....the only thing to do is
accept the ride and the treatment and know that it will go away, or if
not that at least you have done everything to get rid of it - I think in
the UK the survival rate is around 70% and improving all the time.

In the UK when diagnosed you get assigned a "Breast Care Nurse" - I
don't know if it is the same in the US. This person is there not only to
discuss every aspect of the treatment, but to support you and your
family through it (and be there to give hugs when necessary). There are
also lots of support groups out there....A good source of information
can be found:-

http://www.breakthrough.org.uk/index.html

All though this is aimed at women in the UK a quick google will pick up
a wealth of info that may be more relevant to you in the States.

Please tell your Mum that however daunting the surgery and treatment
seems right now it is just so, so worth having it...in my mind there
never was any other option (even though the temptation to just say no -
was also sometimes there).

Feel free to mail me direct if you wish

Gill

NetMax wrote:
"Koi-lo" wrote in message
.com...

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
.. .
Koi-lo wrote:

"NetMax" wrote in message
.. .

I'm not saying that this is a widely applied corporate policy, but
saying
stores legally have to sell something is not true, at least to the
best of
my understanding in Canada.

======================
Here in the USA you can be sure a lawsuit would soon commence......
:-(

This rule also applies in the UK...I believe it has something to do
with the sale of livestock rather than any other law...my local stores
will totally NOT sell fish unless they can be as sure as possible that
these pets will be properly cared for....no lawsuit in the UK would
win against a retailer refusing to sell anything alive to an
unsuitable home

$$ In the USA you'd have to have PROOF the home was unsuitable. People
here sue for the least little thing. One woman got rich suing
McDonald's because SHE spilt hot coffee on her own crotch! Surely you
heard about that one. How do the stores in your country make sure the
home is suitable for all the pets they sell?

Today, I have seen in the press that our largest supermarket chain has
refused to sell a certain brand of chocolate to someone as it went
against their quality principles....maybe it's time that there was
some legislation in the US protecting livestock (and chocolate - being
flippant) being sold into unsuitable hands....

$$ I wish there was - there isn't. People who are seldom home buy cats
to live in virtual isolation. They buy huge dogs to languish in tiny
efficiency apartments. They buy expensive birds and hang their cages
by open windows or above air conditioning vents. They buy a bag of koi
for 100 gallon unfiltered preformed ponds.....

Honestly, I think if you cannot provide a proper home for a pet you
should not be buying it....I don't discriminate against a mammal, bird
or fish in this....if you can't provide a proper home it is
cruel...part of pet owning is responsibility for the creature you are
giving a home to....I don't care what it is, I don't care how much
money someone has...if they buy it they need to provide the care for
it and if they can't afford to house it suitably they shouldn't be
buying it in the first place...end of story...




$$ There is no way to know how they will care for it once they leave
the pet store or breeders facilities. That's probably the reason we
don't have such laws here.

If I might be so brash, that sounds like a cop-out. I never had trouble
establishing the conditions the fish were going into. I wasn't a nazi
grilling them. I'd just conversationally inquire about the tank-mates,
foods given, number of fish, size of tank. Almost 100% of them seemed
very eager to discuss their hobby with someone who cared and showed
knowledge. Most people taking the fish into an abusive application were
unaware of it, and we informed them regarding growth rates and eventual
size (usually keeping Arowanas, Oscars, Koi, Pacus and TinFoil barbs out
of 5 to 10g tanks). The odd one would still tell me the truth, but
simply didn't care or it was a cultural thing. Only once did someone
outright lie, and it was quite obvious.

Your attitude sounds like the same cop-out used in the US regarding gun
control (or lack of), so maybe it's a cultural 'freedom' thing. Almost
seems like the freedom being protected, is to take the easy way out.
--
www.NetMax.tk *stumbles off soapbox he didn't notice was there*



and goodnight
Gill
--
ponding since 1995...
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o



NetMax wrote::
Koi-Lo....
Your attitude sounds like the same cop-out used in the US regarding gun
control (or lack of), so maybe it's a cultural 'freedom' thing. Almost
seems like the freedom being protected, is to take the easy way out.
--
www.NetMax.tk *stumbles off soapbox he didn't notice was there*

You get your butt right back up there my dear. = )~
It's quite easy to say there's nothing you can do about what the
customer will house the critter they want to purchase in, but it
doesn't take much time or effort to ask. It also doesn't take much
effort to figure out if they know what they're doing, or plan on
keeping the animal (be it fish, bird, reptile or mammal) in proper
conditions.
One local shop near me used to sell anything, to anyone no questions
asked, unless it involved the marine fish. Only then did strict
standerds come into play.
They also kept all males Bettas in Ivy bowls (or a bowl the same size
without the fluted top).
Then they got in a couple of new employees who put a stop to all of
that.
This is also when I became a frequent customer, as I didn't like the
condition of the freshwater tanks or the lack of caring from the owner
towards the freshwater fish purchases.
After these ladies started working there, customers were actually being
asked about the tank at home...tank mates, tank maintenance, and the
male Bettas were NO longer in such tiny bowls. They also stopped
ordering more then what they could keep in heated tanks with non
nipping fish, Cichlids, or Goldfish.
I aslo got them to start getting in female Bettas too. (their shipper
is about the only one around here that gets in long finned females,
and was the first to get in DT females).
I was in fishy heaven!
I've watched either of the ladies actually turn down sales before. More
than once too.
It's perfectly legal, as the store had every right to not sell one of
it's animals and there are no lawsuits. There'd be lawsuits if it were
against the law to deny a customer the right to purchase an animal, but
there isn't in Illinois (USA). As far as any other states, I'm not
sure.
There was a man who had a sissy fit because this young lady (teenager)
wouldn't sell him a common Pleco for his kid's 5g tank. She explained
why...didn't matter. He wanted that Pleco to "eat the Goldfish poo".
Wasn't bad enough that he had a Goldfish in a 5g tank, but he also
wanted a fish that could grow to over a foot and half long!
I was so proud of her, and I let her and her boss know it.

"Tynk" wrote in message
ups.com...

www.NetMax.tk *stumbles off soapbox he didn't notice was there*

You get your butt right back up there my dear. = )~
It's quite easy to say there's nothing you can do about what the
customer will house the critter they want to purchase in, but it
doesn't take much time or effort to ask.
============ Brevity snip!

This may not be allowed in the chain pet shops where fish are sold by the
hundreds each day. They simply can't afford to hire and train enough
employees (where the turnover is so rapid) to spend the extra time with the
customers. We can't assume all the stores are individually owned. I'm not
condoning what they do, I'm just explaining why it is the way it is in the
chain stores.
Maybe someone should fight for laws forcing the chains to train their
employees before putting them out on the sales floor.
--

Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o

"Koi-lo" wrote in message
...

[snip snip]

Maybe someone should fight for laws forcing the chains to train their
employees before putting them out on the sales floor.

A law requiring competant employees? It'd never pass.... the
politicians would be legislating themselves out of their jobs.

James

James Evans wrote:
"Koi-lo" wrote in message
...

[snip snip]


Maybe someone should fight for laws forcing the chains to train their
employees before putting them out on the sales floor.


A law requiring competant employees? It'd never pass.... the
politicians would be legislating themselves out of their jobs.

James


Of course the other option is to promote them to the true level of their
incompetence - LOL

"James Evans" james.evansatflashpoint_com wrote in message
. ..

"Koi-lo" wrote in message
...

[snip snip]

Maybe someone should fight for laws forcing the chains to train their
employees before putting them out on the sales floor.

A law requiring competant employees? It'd never pass.... the
politicians would be legislating themselves out of their jobs.

James
====================
LOL!!!! You got that right! :-D We can't even get the minimum wage
raised here in the USA. They pay their employees peanuts and they get what
they pay for.
--

Koi-Lo.... frugal ponding since 1995...
My Pond & Aquarium Pages:
http://bellsouthpwp.net/s/h/shastadaisy
~~~ }((((o ~~~ }{{{{o ~~~ }(((((o

NetMax wrote:
"Koi-lo" wrote in message
.com...

"Gill Passman" wrote in message
...

Koi-lo wrote:

"NetMax" wrote in message
om...


I'm not saying that this is a widely applied corporate policy, but
saying
stores legally have to sell something is not true, at least to the
best of
my understanding in Canada.

======================
Here in the USA you can be sure a lawsuit would soon commence......
:-(

This rule also applies in the UK...I believe it has something to do
with the sale of livestock rather than any other law...my local stores
will totally NOT sell fish unless they can be as sure as possible that
these pets will be properly cared for....no lawsuit in the UK would
win against a retailer refusing to sell anything alive to an
unsuitable home

$$ In the USA you'd have to have PROOF the home was unsuitable. People
here sue for the least little thing. One woman got rich suing
McDonald's because SHE spilt hot coffee on her own crotch! Surely you
heard about that one. How do the stores in your country make sure the
home is suitable for all the pets they sell?


Today, I have seen in the press that our largest supermarket chain has
refused to sell a certain brand of chocolate to someone as it went
against their quality principles....maybe it's time that there was
some legislation in the US protecting livestock (and chocolate - being
flippant) being sold into unsuitable hands....

$$ I wish there was - there isn't. People who are seldom home buy cats
to live in virtual isolation. They buy huge dogs to languish in tiny
efficiency apartments. They buy expensive birds and hang their cages
by open windows or above air conditioning vents. They buy a bag of koi
for 100 gallon unfiltered preformed ponds.....


Honestly, I think if you cannot provide a proper home for a pet you
should not be buying it....I don't discriminate against a mammal, bird
or fish in this....if you can't provide a proper home it is
cruel...part of pet owning is responsibility for the creature you are
giving a home to....I don't care what it is, I don't care how much
money someone has...if they buy it they need to provide the care for
it and if they can't afford to house it suitably they shouldn't be
buying it in the first place...end of story...





$$ There is no way to know how they will care for it once they leave
the pet store or breeders facilities. That's probably the reason we
don't have such laws here.


If I might be so brash, that sounds like a cop-out. I never had trouble
establishing the conditions the fish were going into. I wasn't a nazi
grilling them. I'd just conversationally inquire about the tank-mates,
foods given, number of fish, size of tank. Almost 100% of them seemed
very eager to discuss their hobby with someone who cared and showed
knowledge. Most people taking the fish into an abusive application were
unaware of it, and we informed them regarding growth rates and eventual
size (usually keeping Arowanas, Oscars, Koi, Pacus and TinFoil barbs out
of 5 to 10g tanks). The odd one would still tell me the truth, but
simply didn't care or it was a cultural thing. Only once did someone
outright lie, and it was quite obvious.

Your attitude sounds like the same cop-out used in the US regarding gun
control (or lack of), so maybe it's a cultural 'freedom' thing. Almost
seems like the freedom being protected, is to take the easy way out.

The places I go refuse to sell a tank and fish on the same day...when
you actually go to get your first you get questioned to determine your
level of knowledge and then advise is given as appropriate - same
everywhere I've been. When I bought my two current bettas (at a place
where I wasn't known) I got questioned quite closely on the planned
accommodation - I guess he was worried I might put two males in the same
tank....I have known people to be refused fish and they still go back to
the same place - they go away and take the advice they have been given
to ensure that the best provision is made for their pets. One place I go
refuses to sell Clown Loaches to anyone with less than a 30 gall tank -
please let's not go get into a Clown Loach tank size discussion :-) .
Sure anyone can lie but in reality very few people do.

Cat and Dog Rescue Homes in the UK not only interrogate you as to how
you are going to care for your pet, some will actually insist on a home
visit to make sure that you have adequate care provisions and refuse to
allow you a dog or a cat if you don't.

With almost every animal that I buy/acquire I have been asked about how
I'm going to care for it....as I think I've already said, Livestock/pets
are heavily regulated here and there are a lot of prosecutions for
people not providing adequate care for their pets....

Gill