Tuesday, September 2, 2008

No anthropocentrism for the Swiss!

Talk about government intervention!

http://www.theage.com.au/world/no-more-live-goldfish-flushing-for-swiss-20080902-47c5.html

Could this be real? The last line makes me think its a joke. I love my dogs and my cat, but this might be a little over the top.

Assuming its true, how might this actually be bad news for Swiss animals?

13 comments:

Brad Coffey said...

I came across another article on this that suggests negative economic effects from all of the regulations. From reading both articles it seems neither writer is taking it very seriously.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3818457.ece

I would think the pet product industry would thrive due to the requirement of learning compassion for the variety of animals, as well as veterinary services. The additional costs to the owners would also discourage neglect.

The only thing I can think of that might be a negative for the animals is owners abandoning them to avoid the additional costs, which could lead to a lot of strays.

Mandy Isaac said...

I really hope the article was a joke! I'm all for humane treatment of animals, but this is crazy! If the article is real, there is potential for a serious negative impact on animals. While someone may want to adopt one lama, not everyone wants a bunch of lamas in their backyard. The new laws could leave many pets without a home because people would not want to have to deal with the costs and strict rules and regulations of owning an animal. I definately think that people should treat animals kindly, but I don't believe there needs to be a law written about the proper way to dispose of an old goldfish.

robynl83 said...

I'm thinking this is not real, because it would be extremely difficult (if not impossible) to enforce such laws; especially the fish part. I mean honestly, only you would know whether or not your fish was dead or alive when you flushed it. If this article is legit, then I agree with the others. I think this would lead to an increase in the number of strays.

Whitney Knapp said...

This article has to be a joke. As said by others, How would it be enforced? In the US there are so many animals that are unlawfully abused and neglected (to a much greater extent than the provisions set forth by this article). Sometimes Animal Control finds these animals (usually if a neighbor or passer-by calls it in) but there are so many cases where it goes unnoticed.

To enforce this law, people would probably have to obtain a pet purchasing license or something equally absurd. Law enforcement would have to randomly check houses. It would be a nightmare.

Colin said...

(I'm posting this assuming that the article is truthful.)
I think it's great that they're stepping up their animal protection program because after are, we're all animals. Just think about if some other creature owned you and wanted to clip your ears and give cosmetic surgery.
On the other hand, I think it's nice that they want to give the animals other animals in their species to accompany them, but this is just not financially or economically feasible for some pet owners. Some of the other restrictions outlined in the article do seem a little absurd, such as the goldfish. Though it's a nice ideal, and this may actually make people do it; it is completely unenforceable.

Andreanne said...

Enforcing this law would be economically impossible considering who would make a large enough budget for this, moreover to force it upon an entire country is over done. If the public voted for this law then so be it but a referendum will probably take place because not everyone will want to follow the law. They expect public opinion and mandatory training classes to do most of the work for them but that isn't going to do it, unless they go door to door, which they said they wouldn't do. Farm raising animal may need those extra "more humane" laws but it's going to hurt them, another added cost. Their SPCA will be overcrowded with strays...

Lindsay Lamb said...

True? I don't know. It sounds like a pretty unrealistic idea. I agree that this would be impossible to enforce. How do they even know that people are flushing goldfish who are still alive?? Did they do a survey on that?

Anyways I agree with everyone else. There would be more strays if this law was inforced. There are people who don't even care for one animal little less getting an additional one to neglect.

Plus, for example, keeping two sheep together (male and female-I would think would be most common) would lead to more sheep. Like in the Tragedy of the Commons. If everyone is buying one additional animal friend then "just one more" turns into "one more times everyone else's one more". Too many.

Chris said...

Absurd. I have heard/read some ridiculous articles in the past, and assuming that there is even an inkling of truth to this one, it would most certainly take the cake. The fact that goldfish now require a more "dignified" death is asanine. After all, goldfish can't even remember their owner's face from one encounter to the next, how are these "exhaustive" laws going to affect a being that is not even self-aware? Hamsters can't be left alone? Give me a break. I advocate the fair treatment of animals, and think that there is an inherent value in ensuring a smooth and enjoyable life for animals(particularly domesticated animals)however; the wasting of financial resources on the development of such utterly insignificant legislation is indicitive of intensely flawed governmental prioritizaion. I think that Swiss animals could be negatively affected by the fact that no one is going to want to put up with all those regulations which will lead to overpopulation in the animal-shelters, leading to wasting more money on housing/euthanizing the unwanted animals. Taking care of a dog or cat is a job within itself, adding more responsibility, concievably, could decrease the demand for some animals by certain owners.

jordan summerlin said...

I'm in agreement with most of the other comments. This isn't serious, and if it was, it would be too hard to enforce. Goldfish cost much less than what the enforcement cost would be, and unless the goldfish sympathizers could come up with a sufficient value for a goldfish's life and its humane disposal, I doubt the law would be taken seriously, because it wouldn't be enforced. Again though, I think this is most likely a joke.

Robyn Lipscomb said...

This post is related to the questions Dr. Schuhmann raised in class about mercury in cement. I found a link that may be helpful if anyone is interested. It breaks down the cement-making process & discusses ways to reduce mercury emissions.

http://www.epa.gov/bns/reports/stakemay2006/mercury/Smith051706.pdf

Robyn Lipscomb said...

http://www.epa.gov/bns
/reports/stakemay2006/
mercury/Smith051706.pdf

Lauren Hazlett said...

Although it may seem strange and insignificant to pass legislation on seemingly arbitrary actions to be taken on animals, the Swiss are taking a more eco-centric stance. All of life has value and to disregard animals, or really any of life, as a disposable commodity that has no value in and of itself, is to ignorantly bypass the existence of the thing and how it does contribute to this life we all experience, regardless of the magnitude its life has on other life. It is kind of paradoxical; people who want animals for whatever use, you would think would at least have some respect and gratitude for the benefits it gives off, yet to have/use animals in a non-degrading way seems to be too much of a hassle. Does the instant gratification (benefit) one gets from the possession and use of the animal really outweigh the cost of taking a little more extra time to ensure proper treatment and use of an animal where its integrity is respected, which then would give a deeper value and benefit to the user? Cause and effect does exist, the rules of karma do apply; there is an exchange of energy between the animal and the user, just because the user (people) have the power to exploit animals doesn’t mean it is right and by doing so it often does lead to people's own downfall.

matthew pickett said...

My concerns on the this legislation, legitimacy assumed, are great. Mainly I think to the sustainability of fisheries where catch-n-release are banned. Being from the mountains where trout are scarce and weekend "a river runs through it" romantics plentiful it is hard to imagine the viability of such fisheries without it. Although some are lost due to the fragile nature of trout it it hard to believe that keeping every fish you catch is a responsible management tool. What about size limits. Finally, if a native rainbow could talk which do you think it would prefer, the frying pan or his little corner of the earth where his lip may sting every once in a while.