# Reposting BCSPCA Model Animal Control Bylaw



## Fishy_Addiction

Felt the need to repost because the SPCA is trying to ban a whole bunch of animals... saltwater fish included.

Just give me a bit while I copy and paste. It was posted originally by either the admin or president of BC Reptile Club.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

> The legal trafficking of exotic animals (non-native wild animals, whether live-captured or captive-bred) is a global industry worth billions of dollars annually. Exotic/wild animals are captured and taken far from their natural wild habitats or are bred specifically for sale to pet owners in countries around the world, including Canada.
> The introduction of exotic animals into urban communities raises a number of serious public health, public safety and animal welfare concerns. Exotic/wild animals should not be kept at pets for a variety of well-documented reasons:
> Risks to Public Safety:
> 1. Exotic animals can present special risks to humans and other animals if not handled properly due to exotic pathogens. For example, Centers for Disease Control statistics show over 74,000 cases of salmonella poisoning from reptiles and amphibians in the United States each year, many of which are from animals kept as pets8.
> 2. Exotics still retain their natural predatory and defensive instincts, making them dangerous or unsuitable to living in an environment with other animals and humans. Even in play, many exotics can unwittingly harm another animal or human.
> Risks to the Environment:
> 1. Escaped or released exotics may breed with local species, diluting the gene pool and introducing exotic diseases. For example, in 2003, a shipment of Gambian rats from Africa escaped and introduced the potentially fatal disease Monkeypox into North America.
> 2. Escaped or released exotics can disturb natural indigenous ecologies. The devastating effects of releasing exotic catfish, toads, red-eared slider turtles, bullfrogs, and other species into local environments, for example, have been well documented.
> 3. Many wild-caught exotics are captured through partial or whole destruction of their environment.
> Risks to Animal Welfare:
> 1. Exotics are often acquired as "status" pets, without due consideration being given to their specialized needs.
> 2. Exotics have food/housing/maintenance needs that cannot be provided by the average guardian. Few exotic guardians recognize the specialized needs of exotics or can provide the full Five Freedoms* for their exotic pets.
> 3. Many new exotic "fad" pets are introduced into the pet trade each year that are not domesticated animals but wild caught or captive bred and suffer from confinement or improper care.
> 4. Relatively few veterinarians possess the training/experience to address the medical needs of exotics.
> 5. Exotic pet guardians often attempt to change the nature of their companion animal by surgically removing teeth/claws, leaving the animals potentially stressed and defenseless.
> 6. Exotics have specialized behaviours some of which their new guardians try to forcibly alter, with devastating effects on the animals' well being. Many nocturnal exotics, for example, are forced to adapt to the diurnal lives of their human keepers.
> 7. Many exotics become unwanted a few months after the novelty of the pet wears off. Few resources exist to take in these unwanted pets as most zoos, animal shelters, and wildlife sanctuaries do not have the capacity to take in unwanted exotic pets. The result is poor animal welfare, a high rate of euthanasia, and widespread abandonment of these animals.
> * The Five Freedoms is a concept first developed in 1965 by The Brambell Committee, formed by the UK government to examine the conditions on commercial farms. Now internationally recognized, the Five Freedoms are considered applicable to all animals. The BC SPCA's Five Freedoms (adapted from the original list) are:
> 1. Freedom from hunger and thirst;
> 2. Freedom from pain, injury and disease;
> 3. Freedom from distress;
> 4. Freedom from discomfort;
> 5. Freedom to express behaviours that promote well-being.
> The BC SPCA's Five Freedoms form the basis of the Society's Charter and describe conditions that must be fulfilled in order to prevent the suffering of all animals in human care.
> 7
> References:
> 1 Klaassen B, Buckley JR, Esmail A. 1996. Does the Dangerous Dogs Act protect against animal attacks: a prospective study of mammalian bites in the Accident and Emergency Department. Injury. 27: 89-91.
> 2 Ledger RA, Orihel JS, Clarke N, Murphy S, Sedlbauer M. 2005. Breed specific legislation: Considerations for evaluating its effectiveness and recommendations for alternatives. Canadian Veterinary Journal. 46:735-743.
> 3 Duffy DL, Hsu Y, Serpell JA. Breed differences in canine aggression. 2008. Applied Animal Behaviour Science. 114: 441-460
> 4 White, J., McBride, E.A. and Redhead, E. (2006) Comparison of tethering and group-pen housing for sled dogs. At, Universities Federation for Animal Welfare (UFAW) Conference 2006, London, UK, 13 Sep 2006. Accessed at: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/55343 on November 14, 2008.
> 5 Sacks, J, Sinclair, L, Gilchrist, J, Golab, GC, Lockwood, R.2000. Breeds of dogs involved in fatal human attacks in the United States between 1979 and 1998. Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association. 217: 6.
> 6 Report on the Identification and Registration of Companion Animals. 2002. Companion Animal Welfare Council. Available at:
> http://www.cawc.org.uk/documents/CAWCRepID&Registration02final.pdf
> 7 Independent market research conducted by Market & Opinion Research International Ltd (MORI) on behalf of the Dogs Trust, 2000.
> 8 United States Centers for Disease Control. 2005. Salmonellosis Associated with Pet Turtles --- Wisconsin and Wyoming, 2004. Accessed at http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5409a3.htm on November 14, 2008.


Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

> SCHEDULE 2
> LIST OF PROHIBITED ANIMALS
> - all nonhuman primates
> - all felidae, except the domestic cat
> - all canidae, except the domestic dog
> - all ursidae (bears)
> - all proboscidea (elephants)
> - all pinnipedia (seals, walrus)
> - all marsupials
> - all edentates (anteaters)
> - all xenartha (such as sloths, armadillos, and tamanduas)
> - all monotremata (spiny anteater and platypus)
> - all venomous or poisonous reptiles and amphibians
> - all reptiles and amphibians over 2ft adult size
> - all venomous or poisonous invertebrates (such as black widow spiders, tarantulas, and blue-ringed octopus)
> - all ungulates, except the bison and the domestic breeds of cow, goat, sheep, pig, horse, mule, donkey, ass, llama, and alpaca
> - all hyenidae (hyenas)
> - all hyracoidean (hyraxes)
> - all erinaceidae (tenrecs and hedgehogs)
> - all mustelidae (skunks, weasels, otters, wild ferrets), except the domestic ferret
> - all procyonidae (raccoons, coatimundis)
> - all viverridae (civets and genets)
> - all herpestidae (mongooses)
> - all cetacea (whales, porpoises, dolphins)
> - all rodentia, except the hamster, gerbil, guinea pig, domestic mouse, and domestic rat
> - all chiroptera (bats), colugos (flying lemurs), and scandentia (treeshrews)
> - all lagomorphs (rabbits and hare), except the domestic rabbit
> - all birds except the domestic quail, pheasant, pigeon, chicken, duck, goose and turkey, plus the budgie, cockatiel, lovebird, finch, and canary
> - all saltwater fish
> Sources:
> 1. City of Calgary, Alberta. Bylaw 23M2006: The regulation, licensing, and control of animals in the City of Calgary.
> 2. City of Ottawa, Ontario. Bylaw 2003-77. Respecting Animal Care and Control.
> 3. Town of Markham, Ontario. Bylaw 2005-254. Animal control bylaw.
> 4. City of Edmonton, Alberta. Bylaw 13145. Animal Licensing and Control Bylaw.
> 5. City of Richmond, British Columbia. Bylaw 7538, Part 12. Animal Control Regulation.
> 6. City of Stratford, Ontario. Bylaw 195-2002. A bylaw to prohibit, regulate, restrict animals and to require the registration and identification of animals.
> 7. City of Toronto, Ontario. Municipal Code Section 349. Animals.
> 8. Regional District of the Central Okanagan, British Columbia. Bylaw #1028. Prohibited animals.
> 15
> BCSPCA SPEAKING FOR ANIMALS


Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Some of the animals I question why? Like hedgehogs? They can't breed with wild animals and if escaped they would die otherwise too cold. they would hibernate and die.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Claudia

All saltwater fish? crazy


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Yeah I know! It isn't right there need to be restrictions rather then full on ban.there are so many people that take amazing care of their salt water setups. It's those that don't that hurt the community. 

And I am not liking the 2' Max limit for Reptiles. My ball is 4' and a doll. <3

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Vancitycam

Some of it I can understand but some just isn't well thought out. Like birds I'd really love to hear how an african grey escaped would pose any threat here, it would just get pneumonia and die. I guess it just boils down to where to draw the line and its just easier to out right ban a potential problem then sort through all the what ifs and stuff in the middle.


----------



## Fire_eel

Interesting that rabbits werent included with the rodents. Rabbits arent friendly anyways.


----------



## nigerian prince

eventually nuts who run organizations like this will be calling for licences to own pets, its obsurd


----------



## xxKeatoxx

just a bunch more BS from the government


----------



## xxKeatoxx

if all these animal laws had it there way id be completely petless i have two pitt crossses i own beardies who can get over two feet


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

It is as simple as this for me I am not supporting them any more. Was going to donate enclosures to the thrift store in Cloverdale and take a look but no way.

Also for this program I am in I was going to voulenteer but fat chance there. Going to have to look at an other rescue or I may need to do pet store. Only nice thing was the SPCA is 10min or less drive from me, D:<
Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Before I forget my mom did say if you have an animal now and it goes through they are grandfathered in. They cannot do anything. 

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Momobobo

nigerian prince said:


> eventually nuts who run organizations like this will be calling for licences to own pets, its obsurd


How is that absurd? I, for one, would be happy for that. Less men who buy big dogs just to scare others, less idiots buying a bowl and putting a nemo in it, etc.

This is just one huge slippery slope.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

The ones who run this organization have become very aggressive and big-headed, as if they know what is right for EVERYONE. If they can ban all the pet shop animals and get most pet shops closed due to lack of any animals to legally sell, then they are the only ones who have animals to sell. Also, they are completely unregulated so nobody knows where all people's well-intentioned donations go to. There are a lot of good people volunteering their time but those at the top probably take home a nice salary and bonuses for their "time".


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

The ones who run this organization have become very aggressive and big-headed, as if they know what is right for EVERYONE. If they can ban all the pet shop animals and get most pet shops closed due to lack of any animals to legally sell, then they are the only ones who have animals to sell. Also, they are completely unregulated so nobody knows where all people's well-intentioned donations go to. There are a lot of good people volunteering their time but those at the top probably take home a nice salary and bonuses for their "time". 

In Powell River, the crazy lady who runs their PR shelter will actually trespass and go into people's yards to illegally remove dogs if she (in her I-am-God-mind-set) thinks the owners are not taking good enough care for them. She did this to my friends who had a huge fenced in yard and spent a lot of time and money on their beloved dog. Then she lied when they called and asked if she had their dog. They finally did track it down after several sleepless nights and burning up tanks of gas driving all over the area looking for their "lost" dog/canine-family-member. Then they had to threaten a lawsuit before she would return their stolen pet. Real nut-bar. I've heard similar horror stories about that individual from other Powell River pet owners. She is known as the Pet Nazi among my friends.

Anthony


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Think I saw a posting of that event on CL warning people about the lady and a similar story that happened to them or possibly could have been posted by your friend sounds familiar nonetheless, I no longer feel the SPCA is doing what they do out of love for the animals, they sicken me. You hit the ball when you said that about pet shops having to close down etc. Etc.

If I ever donate I will be donating to SARS, or Richmond Reptile Rescue.

An other thing look at their TV ad's those are far from cheap gaurentee 95% of what people donate go to that. 

As a child I thought the SPCA was awesome. Now I'm ashamed of myself for ever thinking that yes they take care of their animals... BUT... in the end it is all about the money. 

I should stop otherwise I'm going to get verbal. XD

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## nigerian prince

i don't have any problem with them paying people high salaries or any of that, what bothers me is them using that money lobbying to force new laws down peoples throats, in the name of "keeping everybody safe", because of a few irresponsible people.


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Think about it though those people getting those high salaries are taking away from what the SPCA stands for the animals and at the end of there post it even says for the sake of animals or something like that.

And I also do agree on that.


I think BCA members need to go to whatever meetings they can for their towns (honestly don't know how it all works) and fight for our rights to own these animals.

But sorry don't agree wtih keeping walrus' and all that. XD the rules for bigger animals, just be enforced. And of course the animals that pose a true threat. 

But guess what? Ball pythons and many species depend upon the pet industry so they don't fully go extinct. I know balls are not so well in their natural territory.

But anyways...

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Vancitycam

Never heard of that "pet nazi" lady or any of those stories and I don't fully agree with all the ban but I can see some of it like with big wild animals and bears for example with the Asians and bear paws or sharks and fins you know the more illegal side like a drug dealer with a tiger or poisonous stuff. But out right ban is senseless and wrong but was thought of with good intentions. And FYI on the donations everybody when the SPCA donators choose how much to give and they can also choose where it goes. Also if the ban did happen the SPCA wouldn't be the only place to get animals there's still breeders for dogs and pet shops can still sell normal cats n things.


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

The breeders however are within the municipalities.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fish rookie

xxKeatoxx said:


> just a bunch more BS from the government


I think a lot of people may think they are a government organization because they kind of represent themselves that way but correct me if I am wrong, I believe they are just a non-profit organization like many others. 
As Anthony said there is not enough regulations to govern them. 
May be some bylaws should be passed to regulate them and increase their transparency. I also want to see their dogs/cats in their shelter under better care as a lot of them look to be under a lot of stress. Regular inspection by government inspectors to ensure their standard at least meets those required by pet shops should be done in my opinion.
I personally like to support the Vancouver Aquarium. They spend a lot of money in research, rescue, and education, which is what I would consider a much more constructive way to care for our ecology.


----------



## nigerian prince

they are a non profit but they lobby for more laws,taxes and regulations by exploiting heartbreaking one in a million stories which they represent as almost common to get a public outcry. and 99.9% of pet owners are hurt by these new laws not helped..


----------



## DBam

We had something related to this already come to a hearing for city of Burnaby over pet sales. A few BCA members went out to it (thank you again you folks that went!). Anthony has said this before and I'm sure plenty of us know, but to restate, all these discussions start with some agreeable points, like that no one should abuse animals and yada yada yada but it quickly turns to suggestions to ban all pet sales, alter extremely young cats and dogs, and institution of very pro nanny state policies. It's my belief that unless a hardline stance against these movements are taken, the people behind them will institute whatever they can to take animals away from people. I think I hurt some feelings when I told some people to stay home from the Burnaby hearing, but these animal rights people hook you with something very sympathetic and then bring on their true agenda. Unless you don't subscribe to any of it, they'll label you as a supporter of their cause by default in order to push the entire package of agendas, some agreeable, others not. Really, the benefit to be gained by stopping a small number of abusive individuals, poachers or psychos would be outweighed by the losses suffered by basically everyone else.

On a side note, I think it's really really really important to know how charitable donation money is handled if you care about the difference it may or may not make towards the cause it's meant to support. Here's just one example; this is an article on the business of 5k colour runs: 
http://www.thealbatross.ca/27335/colour-runs-are-a-faux-charity-scam
I won't give another dollar to SPCA. If we ever decide to adopt again I'll look for a less politically active animal shelter that releases their financial statements.

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Vancitycam

Read the five values the SPCA uses and think to yourself, if I'm not in violation and keep care of my normal animals it will be ok. The 99% will be fine it's just the remainder that will get trouble. Like us for example we have a normal rabbit, a pitbull,African cichlids,a koi pond and two planted tanks with tetras and guppys. Now look at the five values , freedome from hunger, pain, stress ect ect now all my animals are plump healthy happy licensed and cared for so im all good now why would I care if a few morons loose their pet for whatever reason neglect, it's poisonous or extremely large and dangerous. It's is really to benefit the majority and you can't please everyone.


----------



## Vancitycam

What's a colour run have to do with anything about pets? I think you added a wrong link


----------



## Fish rookie

I think some people have problem also with being told what to do and how they should take care of their own pets. BCSPCA is only a charity organization--not a government organization--why do they get to impose a set of rule (5 freedom or whatever) on all animal lovers and in a way attack anyone whom they deem to have violated such rules? Why are they the "official" authority of how animal should be care for when the animals they care for in their shelters do not appear to be in particularly good condition?
The way BCSPCA demands their rules to be followed by others the way they do which at times causes so much troubles to individuals and tax paying businesses is getting excessive and is annoying a lot of people--even animal lovers whom they are supposed to represent--as can be seen from the responses on this forum and many others.
There are also incidents when a person who has taken good care of his pets and has all the registration and whatever in place is harassed by some animal activists such as the story told by Anthony. 
What a lot of people have problem with is the " you need to keep your pet the way I tell you to" attitude. We are not disagreeing with the idea that we need to do what we can to protect animals from being abused, but it is how they go about doing it and their invasive and dictatorial attitude that is the problem for a lot of people.
I like the people in the Vancouver Aquarium when it comes to fish. They are very well trained and qualified and they spend their time in doing research and education. They do not have the "nanny" attitude but they are patient and knowledgeable in educating the public during the many daily shows they run. This attitude is much better in getting the message across.
All animals can be dangerous but in a free country we cannot just ban everything because they can be dangerous when they are being mis-handled. Education is the right approach to teach us, and our next generation, on how to properly handle and care for these animals so we can still enjoy interacting and keeping them without causing harm to the ecology in many generations to come. Banning them will not necessarily ensure their survival in the wild anyway; but it will surely take the chance away from our children and their children to appreciate and enjoy wild life.


----------



## Vancitycam

If you met all five criteria you wouldn't object, honestly now and I do believe all animals owners should meet those criteria, and an animal lover would meet those either way with or without being told. Now once again it's for the ones who don't care, don't know or are just plain mean. As for the animals in a shelter not being properly cared for is just bs the spca uses a vet and of course they are stressed lets take animals and house them in a jail or corrections type facility like come on look what jail and solitary confinement does to humans. And for big snakes what about that kid that got strangled at a sleepover because some gentle snake got out it wasn't even poisonous just big, I know guys that have gone a bought scorpions and tarantula just because they are poisonous now why should the 99% be subjected to those dangers ?? Nobody can guarantee it won't get out and wiggle into your appt and sting your kid like geez people lets think outside the box for a moment. And what about red ear sliders they are cute when little but grow up and no one wants them then what?? Remember its for the 1% of animal owners who don't care for them well and my wife and I are huge financial supporters so your guys little donations omissions won't hurt a thing because I know we aren't the only ones who pony up cash for animals with no voice, my mother in law runs a prominent vet hospital in van and they think the SPCA is doing good work so who would I side with the vets that care for our animals or the morons who get pitbull a to be tough and sunburst tarantula to throw at people and get cool poisonous scorpions to watch it kill feeder mice all day


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Ok people, let's keep the tone calm. I know this is a contentious issue but if we keep it as a "friendly" discussion, then the thread will remain open. 

Vancitycam, this is not a personal attack but just my take on what you just posted. You claim that it is the "1%" of bad pet owners who don't care and cause the problems. Those are the ones that the SPCA are supposed to go after. I am all for the SPCA going after those animal abusers and removing animals from their homes. The issue now is that the SPCA wants the governments to change their laws which will remove everyone else's right to own and care for animals that this non-profit deems unacceptable. So if 1% of pet owners are bad, then why do they feel that they have the right to impose their ideas on the other 99% of good pet owners. A few pitbull owners are bleeps and so nobody is allowed to have pits? (Not really a fan of pitbulls myself, just using your own example here). A few tarantula owners have thrown their spiders on someone (never heard of this in the news), so ban all tarantulas? 

If the government followed all these recommended bannings, there would be almost no legal pets allowed by the system and almost all petshops would go out of business since they cannot economically survive on selling the few remaining species.

If these proposed animal bans did occur, over time, many of these species would go extinct (faster) because humans no longer have an economic incentive to keep them or breed them. In the wild, many of these species are seeing their natural habitats shrink or become destroyed. It is often the home or commercial breeder who are, by default, the best hope of preventing some species from going extinct by keeping and breeding them for the petshop industry. Zoos and public aquariums can only do so much and for only certain species. They don't have the time, resources or facilities to do this for all the species, whereas people with a passion for certain types of animals (i.e. reptiles) are willing to devote their lives and their homes to rearing and breeding some exotic species (many of which are probably on the SPCA ban list).

Just as zoos and public aquariums help convince the general public to love and care for the continued survival of species that they see in these facilities, on a smaller scale per store, but perhaps with an equally wider overall effect, petshops help nurture children's and adults love of animals and responsible pet owners do the same. My kids love the sw fish, corals, etc. that they see in our aquariums and will grow up with a healthy appreciation for the need to protect wild coral reefs. Banning the sale of marine fish (which is on the SPCA list) would not only see many petshops disappear (like J&L and Oceanic Corals) but it would also mean future generations will never know much about or learn to care for/develop the desire to protect coral reefs. Instead of taking care of their pets hands on, more kids will lose themselves playing video games and other non-animal related activities.

I think almost everyone on this forum supports the SPCA's fight against animal cruelty. It's the entering the political arena and imposing their own agenda on every law abiding, non-abusing pet owner that we object to.


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Another point is that even if the SPCA's intent is to prevent cruelty to animals by getting these new laws legislated, it will NOT only affect bad pet owners. 

Personal example here. In Vancouver, they changed the bylaws so that homeowners can raise chickens in their backyards if they want. In Burnaby, the bylaw is no poultry is allowed. Well a few years ago, Felicia wanted to have quails for pets. Quails are small, harmless, make almost no noise and reasonably easy to take care of. I was told quails were legal (given wrong info). We have a nasty neighbour and they called first the SPCA who came, inspected the quails and said no problem. Then they called City Hall and someone from the municipal government came over here 3-4 times to make sure we got rid of Felicia's quails. So, even though you are allowed to keep giant, destructive, noisy parrots like Macaws, the bylaw states no poultry and quails are classified as poultry, even though they were kept as pet birds. But since that is the bylaw, our nasty neighbour used it against us to make us get rid of Felicia's pets. The bureaucrats who first wrote up that bylaw banning poultry in Burnaby were probably thinking of preventing people from keeping roosters, flocks of chickens and turkeys in people's backyards. Their original intent was probably not to make my little girl cry at having to lose her pair of pet quails. Yet because that bylaw was in the books, our nasty neighbour could use the law to harass us at the expense of my little girl. Nice, eh.

So even if the intent of animal bans is to prevent cruelty to animals, how the real world works will see these types of laws bent and abused to serve people's own personal agendas. Good luck if you have a nasty neighbour or two and keep animals. They can use those laws to make your own life a living hell, even if you are a law-abiding, good pet owner.


----------



## Fish rookie

If all dogs/cats are to be neutered/spayed, all wild animals are to be banned, all domestic animals are not allowed to be imported from any places deemed to be "pet mills", and to adapt a dog/cat would require the owner to fill up paperwork showing lease agreement and to give consent to have his place inspected by SPCA workers, pet shops are not allowed to sell most animals...etc how many people do you think will still own pets 50-100 years from now? How many species will remain available to the public a few generations from now?

Is this really the vision of someone who loves animals? Is that what we want for our children and their children?


----------



## Vancitycam

To sum it up nope not quite. The potential laws don't change our right to own pets just certain ones and the majority make perfect sense although the sw fish appears to be ignorant as I myself are on sw. Are there captive bred sw fish corals ect here locally ? Or are they all wild stocks that are being depleted? I really don't know, I know my cichlids are captive bred. And I'm assuming most Africans and sw fish aren't much threat to our ecosystems or people so I see no reason to not let kids have sw tanks and stores like j&l close that's bad I love j&l just to look around when got LEDs for my cichlids. Now zoos and public aquariums are a whole other issue on their own. Have you been to the not so greater vancouver zoo lately ?? It's a pretty sad example of good animal housing with healthy stock living long lives in wild like enclosures, it's far from it and far from how it was 20+ years ago as I remember it. The public aquariums is another issues education from those facilities is sometime false like with orcas and the males fins folding over being normal is false and you know how they get them ad split pods and what not its just sad but hey it makes money big money and they cover it up by saying its educational. Now aquaruims having smaller animals is fine frogs fish ray tanks ect it's educational and instilled love for aquatic animals for me as a kid I loved vancouver aquarium now as a wise grown adult not so much.

And I won't even start on the pitbulls as I'm a proud owner of a model obidient one that has been trained socialized and loved and would do no harm to anyone although I will admit is capable just as any medium to large dog can. To say otherwise is just nonsense any big dog can inflict pain and damage but its not cool to have a pack of killer spaniels so again it's the 1% of bleeps as you called them who ruin it for the rest. I blame the media for spreading misinformation about the breed blowing up any attack a pitbull does and leaving out details if its a Doberman or greman Shepard or rotti. But to say simply a dog is dangerous because the breed it is and not recognizing the bad ones are simply not more than a tool in the hand of moron and is as ignorant to say say a black man 18-25 is likely to rob you. It's just stupid. And as for the scorpions and spiders as weapons you don't know any D.dealers I'm assuming and the people who they have thrown a sunburst tarantula in the face of were in the wrong so most of the time things happen and are not reported so people who aren't associated have no clue

Here are some animal documentaries that will change anyone's doubts

Blackfish - it's about orcas and the garbage at public aquaruims

Beyond the myth - it's about pitbulls, the good ones. for those who don't know one in real life it will change your mind

Pick the Pit - Can you find the Pitbull?

As for pitbull talk for me I'm out I too passionate about the misrepresentation of a good loving loyal dog sorry to those who never got to hug-a-bull

About the qual it's just misinformation again good intentions gone bad. I would not want a bunch or chickens or a rooster in my neighbours back yard. But the little girls quails is just sad I guess it's edable and wild so it's just got lumped in there. Shame on your neighbour big time. And on a side note people live across the street in front of us have crazy noisy birds and I don't like them but that's what happens when you live in a subdivision I may not like their bird and they may not like my dog but that's no reason to not say hi and be neighbourly and I'd wouldn't want to see their pets get removed although these bans may affect them I don't know what kind of birds they are besides loud lol.


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Quoting and taking out things for what I feel is most important to quote and respond to since I am using tapatalk and is hard for me to remember all the posts and don't want to have multiple posts.



Fish rookie said:


> What a lot of people have problem with is the " you need to keep your pet the way I tell you to" attitude. We are not disagreeing with the idea that we need to do what we can to protect animals from being abused, but it is how they go about doing it and their invasive and dictatorial attitude that is the problem for a lot of people.
> I like the people in the Vancouver Aquarium when it comes to fish. They are very well trained and qualified and they spend their time in doing research and education. They do not have the "nanny" attitude but they are patient and knowledgeable in educating the public during the many daily shows they run. This attitude is much better in getting the message across.
> ---------------------------------------------
> All animals can be dangerous but in a free country we cannot just ban everything because they can be dangerous when they are being mis-handled. Education is the right approach to teach us, and our next generation, on how to properly handle and care for these animals so we can still enjoy interacting and keeping them without causing harm to the ecology in many generations to come. Banning them will not necessarily ensure their survival in the wild anyway; but it will surely take the chance away from our children and their children to appreciate and enjoy wild life.


I agree. The way they come off gets on my nerves. I don't like dictators. Lol I get defensive because they make me feel I'm in the wrong even if I'm not kind of thing.

You know what so true, ban pit bulls? Ok then ban chiuahas, poodles, Maltese, laso apsos', etc. Because guess what folks!?! They all have the same potential to be vicious, I've been bit by small dogs never a big dog... EVER. I am more cautious around small dogs then I am big unless told to take caution. So really want a calm almost nill aggressive dog. Get a lab. Haha. Never here of chocolate labs being aggressive. But in all honesty at the end of the day it is how the owner treats the dog, cat, or whatever. Banning pitbulls is like being forced to the back of the bus due to not being white (not a racists comment just a true comparison) if something like that happened nowadays (not actual statistic just a guess) 95% of people of all races would be outraged.

Exactly. I love wild life. I grew up with a German shepherd for 3yrs(RIP Sheba), a poodle for 1 (grandparents pets lived on same property, and fish granted they were feeders and my parents weren't educated at the time so a 2gal jar for a 1" comet no filter (but good food), and bettas. Had a pond in the back where I learned about our resident muskrat and or not stick a stick in the hole (keep in mind I was 3-4) otherwise bye-bye sticky (lol). In pre-k we even had a field trip to Petland (now pet Superstore) in Langley. Got to hold a corn snake hamsters etc viewed the fish which was where I truly fell in love with animals. However wasn't allowed to keep my first pet (rats) till I was 16. Through out those times I wanted a rabbit and a snake never got it and i don't have animal fads. I get an animal and love for it and care for it foe the rest of its life unless circumstances force me to rehome. But anyways I have said so much I got lost and trailed. XD



SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> If these proposed animal bans did occur, over time, many of these species would go extinct (faster) because humans no longer have an economic incentive to keep them or breed them. In the wild, many of these species are seeing their natural habitats shrink or become destroyed. It is often the home or commercial breeder who are, by default, the best hope of preventing some species from going extinct by keeping and breeding them for the petshop industry. Zoos and public aquariums can only do so much and for only certain species. They don't have the time, resources or facilities to do this for all the species, whereas people with a passion for certain types of animals (i.e. reptiles) are willing to devote their lives and their homes to rearing and breeding some exotic species (many of which are probably on the SPCA ban list).
> -----------------------------------------------
> Just as zoos and public aquariums help convince the general public to love and care for the continued survival of species that they see in these facilities, on a smaller scale per store, but perhaps with an equally wider overall effect, petshops help nurture children's and adults love of animals and responsible pet owners do the same. My kids love the sw fish, corals, etc. that they see in our aquariums and will grow up with a healthy appreciation for the need to protect wild coral reefs. Banning the sale of marine fish (which is on the SPCA list) would not only see many petshops disappear (like J&L and Oceanic Corals) but it would also mean future generations will never know much about or learn to care for/develop the desire to protect coral reefs. Instead of taking care of their pets hands on, more kids will lose themselves playing video games and other non-animal related activities.
> -----------------------------------------------
> I think almost everyone on this forum supports the SPCA's fight against animal cruelty. It's the entering the political arena and imposing their own agenda on every law abiding, non-abusing pet owner that we object to.


I strongly agree with that. I don't want these animals to go extinct. If thier goals are to ban these animals and ruin the economy, things like crested geckos new to the industry but the population is dwindling due to shrinking homes. We need to preserve them not risk harming,

I love this paragraph. It is extremely true. Animals get banned our kids and future kids won't get that opportunity to care and learn about these animals. Then 20yrs down the road or more the kids might end up caring less and less about the environment and the animals living in them that we are pushing out.

I am 100% behind them for the fight against animal cruelty.
Not only that but the ads. How much did they pay Sarah Mclauchlen(SP?) to be on the now extremely annoying ad?



SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> Personal example here. In Vancouver, they changed the bylaws so that homeowners can raise chickens in their backyards if they want. In Burnaby, the bylaw is no poultry is allowed. Well a few years ago, Felicia wanted to have quails for pets. Quails are small, harmless, make almost no noise and reasonably easy to take care of. I was told quails were legal (given wrong info). We have a nasty neighbour and they called first the SPCA who came, inspected the quails and said no problem. Then they called City Hall and someone from the municipal government came over here 3-4 times to make sure we got rid of Felicia's quails. So, even though you are allowed to keep giant, destructive, noisy parrots like Macaws, the bylaw states no poultry and quails are classified as poultry, even though they were kept as pet birds. But since that is the bylaw, our nasty neighbour used it against us to make us get rid of Felicia's pets. The bureaucrats who first wrote up that bylaw banning poultry in Burnaby were probably thinking of preventing people from keeping roosters, flocks of chickens and turkeys in people's backyards. Their original intent was probably not to make my little girl cry at having to lose her pair of pet quails. Yet because that bylaw was in the books, our nasty neighbour could use the law to harass us at the expense of my little girl. Nice, eh.


You're neighbour is a royal donkey. However, it could have also been worse. If I were your kid that had their pet taken away I'd be devestated... extremely. And if i were your kid at my age, I'd be tossing my dogs turds on to the roof if I could be sure it would make it. XD

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Vancitycam

[/QUOTE]I am 100% behind them for the fight against animal cruelty.
Not only that but the ads. How much did they pay Sarah Mclauchlen(SP?) to be on the now extremely annoying ad?[/QUOTE]

Really buds? I bet she financially supports them lol and gives free endorsement haha even if its an ad for them and their cause its still advertising for her and cast her in a positive light. I'm also sorry you to find dogs in pain and misery annoying just shows our next generation is hopeless in thinking beyond thier finger tips and smart phones regardless of keeping pets or not. I get a kick out of the surrey "the future lives here" we are screwed


----------



## Vancitycam

BC SPCA Salaries in Canada | Glassdoor
http://www.charityintelligence.ca/images/toppicks/bc spca.pdf

Sure CEO makes six figures but nothing compared to other ceo and lets not forget the almost 500 employee average salaries is on par with other canadian salaries


----------



## architeuthis

What about horses? 
More people are killed by them every year than by most of the animals on that list.


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Vancitycam said:


> I am 100% behind them for the fight against animal cruelty.
> Not only that but the ads. How much did they pay Sarah Mclauchlen(SP?) to be on the now extremely annoying ad?
> 
> 
> 
> Really buds? I bet she financially supports them lol and gives free endorsement haha even if its an ad for them and their cause its still advertising for her and cast her in a positive light. I'm also sorry you to find dogs in pain and misery annoying just shows our next generation is hopeless in thinking beyond thier finger tips and smart phones regardless of keeping pets or not. I get a kick out of the surrey "the future lives here" we are screwed
Click to expand...

I sure as hell hope so. If not shame on her and shame on the SPCA for paying a celebrity.

Please do show me where I said I find dogs in pain and misery annoying!

I only find her annoying if she took a profit. The whole point is if she took money (which celeberities charge a lot to do TV ads), that was a lot of money that should have been put towards the animals not her. This feeling will change if someone can prove or she said she didn't get paid to do the ad.

No issue with the animals in pain and misery other then the animals were put to that point by someone to whatever reasons, and it being heart breaking, but it is to make a point.

Sorry if that last little bit was hard to understand or sounded mean in anyway. It wasn't meant to. Just having a hard time wrighting the sentence properly due to discraphea and having written SO much today my mind is "hahahahhaha... NOPE. Give me sleep." Lol. -_-

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Nonetheless CEO's do not do as much as the people who are out on the floor with the animals in and out of the facilities kind of thing. If anything those people doing that kind of a job deserve more but ultimately it should be put for the animals.



Yeah that is true horses are pretty dangerous. More dangerous then a 6' snake. Of course that figure depends on what kind. 

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Oh also good PDF. However I'm speaking for the Canadian SPCA all together. Not just BC's.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## DBam

Vancitycam, you sound a little heated. Let me just ask you one 'yes' or 'no' question. Do you believe that the SPCA lobbying to ban all saltwater fish is in the best interest of animal cruelty prevention or the interests of members here on BCA?

Sent from Petguide.com Free App


----------



## Vancitycam

Apples and oranges my friend, do i agree with the ban but banning saltwater fish in the name of animal protection including cats to dogs to horses and everything between not a chance but not really a simple yes or no question. I believe if you read my first 3 or 4 post one might find I agreed for the most part with the ban but there's some issues like certain birds, reptiles, fish that aren't really a threat or threatened and need protection. But a line has to be drawn somewhere. There is too many different tangents that have been added to this discussion to be simply yes or no. 

It kinda sucks to be on the apparently "wrong" side of the line doesn't it ? Even with no wrong doing like my fish are okay with this ban but your might not. Just like with my dog if they ever brought in bsl I'd be on the "wrong" side and be moving to where there is no bsl but your labradoodle will be okay. You win some you lose some just like they can't please everyone. 

I do wish they had consulted with experts for certain kinds of animals beyond the domesticated dog and cats they deal with regularly atleast then there could be informed exceptions to an out right ban.


----------



## Fire_eel

think about what we do: we keep fish in cages. We keep fish in extremely small enclosures, MUCH smaller than they would have in the wild. They are in effect, IN JAIL.

I would support a blanket ban on all fish species.


----------



## kacairns

I support a ban of the phoenix bird.


----------



## nigerian prince

i support a ban on all monkeys who are unemployable as butlers


----------



## Vancitycam

Well seeing this is sideways I fully support having to apply to have children it's seems only the dumb are reproducing *sigh* only in a perfect world


----------



## nigerian prince

for any new comers to this *thread please refer to pages 1-3 and parts of 4 haha


----------



## Adz1

nigerian prince said:


> eventually nuts who run organizations like this will be calling for licences to own pets, its obsurd


with how often pets are abused and or miss treated I do not think this would be a bad idea..


----------



## nigerian prince

any real solution to a problem doesn't involve more laws/regulations and taxes that are levied.

the solution is education and self responsibility but of course those options don't make certain people money, a forum like this is more productive to the well being of animals than any good to do sales pitches to keep everyone/pets safe from these rare incidents


Adz1 said:


> with how often pets are abused and or miss treated I do not think this would be a bad idea..


----------



## Fire_eel

How can you ban a mythological creature?

answer:


YOU CANT.




I think Ive already proven that.


----------



## Diztrbd1

actually you can... and I proved that


----------



## Fish rookie

Vancitycam said:


> Well seeing this is sideways I fully support having to apply to have children it's seems only the dumb are reproducing *sigh* only in a perfect world


I respect that you have a different opinion. We are all trying to have a civilized discussion. If you do not agree you can bring out your points with supporting arguments.
Is it really necessary to say that only dumb people are reproducing?
Are you calling my parents and that of all those who do not agree with you dumb?
Is this type of attack/insult tolerated on this forum?


----------



## nigerian prince

at first i didnt realize it but being quite dumb myself i take offence to this haha


Vancitycam said:


> Well seeing this is sideways I fully support having to apply to have children it's seems only the dumb are reproducing *sigh* only in a perfect world


----------



## Diztrbd1

Fish rookie said:


> I respect that you have a different opinion. We are all trying to have a civilized discussion. If you do not agree you can bring out your points with supporting arguments.
> Is it really necessary to say that only dumb people are reproducing?
> Are you calling my parents and that of all those who do not agree with you dumb?
> Is this type of attack/insult tolerated on this forum?


1) with all due respect....please practice using the "preview post" feature before you actually post something. You make it hard to respond to your post as you hold the current record for the most edited post on the forum and even edited that one while I was trying to respond

2)Not gonna be a " civilized discussion " when you read too far into someones sarcastic post and ask a bunch of questions that are surely going to get a response that you probably wont like and then you'll have to reply and it just keeps going on and on until I close it.

Wanna know why I dislike topics like these. Because they always become a heated debate or someone doesn't like someone elses comment, makes it known and ends up getting the thread closed. I do not enjoy having to babysit threads knowing that eventually it will go south and get closed. It gets old having to constantly check a certain thread every time a comment is posted to ensure it stays civil. Granted it is my job here and I am not complaining, but it would surely be nice if a person believes a post crosses the line....that they simply contact one of us mods as opposed to making the problem worse.
For the second time ......Please keep this civil


----------



## nigerian prince

lets at least take the bright side here, it was quite a good thread for about 3 1/2 pages.
a debate thread usually unravels eventually nothing out of the norm, no harm no foul as im seeing it
cheers to all views, especially the ones who agreed with me =), im finished in this one.


----------



## Fish rookie

Diztrbd1 said:


> 1) with all due respect....please practice using the "preview post" feature before you actually post something. You make it hard to respond to your post as you hold the current record for the most edited post on the forum and even edited that one while I was trying to respond
> 
> 2)Not gonna be a " civilized discussion " when you read too far into someones sarcastic post and ask a bunch of questions that are surely going to get a response that you probably wont like and then you'll have to reply and it just keeps going on and on until I close it.
> 
> Wanna know why I dislike topics like these. Because they always become a heated debate or someone doesn't like someone elses comment, makes it known and ends up getting the thread closed. I do not enjoy having to babysit threads knowing that eventually it will go south and get closed. It gets old having to constantly check a certain thread every time a comment is posted to ensure it stays civil. Granted it is my job here and I am not complaining, but it would surely be nice if a person believes a post crosses the line....that they simply contact one of us mods as opposed to making the problem worse.
> For the second time ......Please keep this civil


John,

Thank you for your response.

I am sorry if my editing of my posts has made it hard for you to reply. For the record I do preview my posts before I post.

I hate to sidetrack this discussion to one about editing but I will briefly respond here since you brought this topic up in this thread. With all due respect you also edit your own posts. Although I do not spend my time tracking other people's posts or how often each person has edited their post as I have better things to do with my life, just looking back 2 pages in which you have posted twice--both your posts, namely, #50 and #53, have been edited. I am sure you have good reasons for that and I do not have any problem whatsoever with that. I do not see how any reasonable person would have any issue with how you choose to write or edit your posts either. I am sure you have used the "preview" function as you have suggested to me, but as you have proven with your own need to editing two posts you have posted in the last two pages in this single thread, editing is sometimes needed and used. Some people use the preview more often than others as it is a forum with many users who have many different writing habits.

I respect your diligent work in moderating this forum. You have done a lot for this forum and have offered me a lot of valuable help and advice on this forum other than just moderating. If you do not have the time or feel sick and tired of "babysitting" threads, you may want to take a break from threads you do not like to read. There are other moderators on this forum who are also willing to share your workload I am sure. I do not like to contact you or any moderator privately as I would hate to bother you or any other moderator when I know you guys are already doing so much and have given your own precious time for free for us.

Regarding the comment being abrasive or not I am sure you will agree it is really a matter of prespective. It is not really a matter fo looking deep or not, but more a matter of which angle you are looking at it from sometimes. Some may think something is just a friendly banter and some may find it very offensive. I respect your right to use your own judgement in this type of matters as your are the moderator.

You have closed a lot of threads. I am not sure if you hold the record of closing the most thread as I would not want to say anything like that unless I have the statistic at hand--which I do not--but it shows that you are really working hard in keeping this forum going in the right direction and that you spend a lot of your own time checking all threads to make sure they abide to the rules of the forum by your intepretations, for that I want to thank you. Please keep up the good work


----------



## Fish rookie

Anthony,
I sometimes wish they did not pass that bylaw in Richmond to ban dog sales in all pet stores although I can understand why they did it.
When my older kids were younger we used to go to the pet store in Richmond to see the dogs there. They could hug them, pet them and play with them, and it was the highlight of their day. There were many breeds of dogs there that they could interact with personally.
After they passed this law of no dog sales, my youngest daughter has seen images of many breeds of dogs in movies, videos, and books; but not a lot of them in person. 
I took her to BCSPCA trying to introduce her to some dogs when she was very young but they did not really want to let us see them and they kept barking at her which scared her. There are not much breeders here in Richmond and even with breeders around they usually only carry a limited or even a single breed, so, it is not easy to find a way to show my youngest daughter the variety of dogs in person. I used to handle dogs in dog shows and had many dogs growing up. I have a special love for dogs. I do not have any dog now because I cannot find the time and I do not want to have a dog that I may have to give up later. But I still would like to introduce this wonderful human companion to my children when I have the chance.
I miss the time when my children could just go to the mall and had the opportunity to hug, touch, and play with the many breeds of dog there. My youngest kid asked me the other day what kind of animal was a chow chow when she saw a picture of it in the book. She thought it was a teddy bear. After I told her it was a dog she said she wanted to see one on real. My other kids all have seen and touched one because the pet shop used to have them from time to time--but not my youngest daughter--as dogs were then banned from all pet stores in Richmond. 
I never knew this bylaw of banning dog sale would have this impact on my child's upbringing.
Do I support puppy mill, of course not. Through education, my children also understand what it is and they also will not support a store that sells dogs from a mill.
But I feel that if they did not ban dog sales in Richmond, children could have much more opportunities to interact with dogs on a personal level when they visit pet stores.
This brings me back my my original point that we can invest more money in education but should not impose a ban outright lightly.



SeaHorse_Fanatic said:


> Another point is that even if the SPCA's intent is to prevent cruelty to animals by getting these new laws legislated, it will NOT only affect bad pet owners.
> 
> Personal example here. In Vancouver, they changed the bylaws so that homeowners can raise chickens in their backyards if they want. In Burnaby, the bylaw is no poultry is allowed. Well a few years ago, Felicia wanted to have quails for pets. Quails are small, harmless, make almost no noise and reasonably easy to take care of. I was told quails were legal (given wrong info). We have a nasty neighbour and they called first the SPCA who came, inspected the quails and said no problem. Then they called City Hall and someone from the municipal government came over here 3-4 times to make sure we got rid of Felicia's quails. So, even though you are allowed to keep giant, destructive, noisy parrots like Macaws, the bylaw states no poultry and quails are classified as poultry, even though they were kept as pet birds. But since that is the bylaw, our nasty neighbour used it against us to make us get rid of Felicia's pets. The bureaucrats who first wrote up that bylaw banning poultry in Burnaby were probably thinking of preventing people from keeping roosters, flocks of chickens and turkeys in people's backyards. Their original intent was probably not to make my little girl cry at having to lose her pair of pet quails. Yet because that bylaw was in the books, our nasty neighbour could use the law to harass us at the expense of my little girl. Nice, eh.
> 
> So even if the intent of animal bans is to prevent cruelty to animals, how the real world works will see these types of laws bent and abused to serve people's own personal agendas. Good luck if you have a nasty neighbour or two and keep animals. They can use those laws to make your own life a living hell, even if you are a law-abiding, good pet owner.


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Please don't shut down such an important thread. It makes people aware of the SPCA's wishes, and how important it is for us to fight for our rights...

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Diztrbd1

Fighting for your rights is one thing.....fighting amongst each other is another. I have ne desire to shut it down, I simply wish too see it remain civil. When somone questions a post that they even questioned if it was permitted....then that appears as they are simply trying to stir the pot IMO. All Im asking is that it stays a peaceful....if a person has to ask if a post is tolerated or allowed....then they should be reporting it.....not feeding it. Thats simply looking for more drama the way i see it


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Diztrbd1 said:


> Fighting for your rights is one thing.....fighting amongst each other is another. I have ne desire to shut it down, I simply wish too see it remain civil. When somone questions a post that they even questioned if it was permitted....then that appears as they are simply trying to stir the pot IMO. All Im asking is that it stays a peaceful....if a person has to ask if a post is tolerated or allowed....then they should be reporting it.....not feeding it. Thats simply looking for more drama the way i see it


Well I am the OP and have not fought.

If others can't keep it civil then perhaps the ones who don't shouldn't be able to post on said thread for short term or long term? If that is even possible. I don't want to see this go under,

Someone asked about what they posted? Must have missed something lol.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## TKD

Thank you for posting this, I was just about to do the same thing...
Here is the link:
http://www.spca.bc.ca/assets/documents/welfare/model-bylaw.pdf


----------



## kacairns

That Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 are the only things in that document that should be of any worry to anyone by the looks of it, in fact they don't even recommend breed banning but huge licensing fees for dangerous dogs and so on instead... ie regular spayed dog was like $35 I think, dangerous dog $500.... (off the top of my head not going to go get actual figures!)

With those 2 Schedules, you'll note that they reference Vancouver and Richmond as sources, 90% of the stuff on those 2 schedules are already banned by by bylaws in those two cities. SPCA is just trying to piggy back salt water fish and few other things to try and sweep them in with no one noticing.... think they failed =)


----------



## kacairns

So I just compared Richmond bylaw against that of the BCSPCA list I removed all that are already listed on the prohibited list for sale, offer for sale or display in Richmond... There is a lot of things listed in the Richmond bylaws that aren't actually included on the BCSPA list like bullfrogs, axolotyls, scorpions, crocdilians, aquatic turtles and so on... *PLEASE NOTE*, when I say the ban below, it is the ban of "sale, offer for sale or display" in Richmind, it doesn't actually mean you can't have it period but... does mean you could get in trouble for having possibly

The following are not specifically mentioned in Richmonds Bylaw's but.... could fall under them as the bylaws are just guidelines and things don't have to be specifically mentioned by can for other reasons fall under the bylaw.

- all hyracoidean (hyraxes)
- all cetacea (whales, porpoises, dolphins)
- all colugos (flying lemurs), and scandentia (treeshrews)
- all saltwater fish

The following is a list that is mentioned in the Richmond bylaw already and compared it to what the BCSPCA list shows most aren't that different then current bylaws.

- all marsupials Richmond only allows sugar gliders breed in self sustaining captive populations
- all monotremata (spiny anteater and platypus) Richmond bans Edentates which includes anteaters possibly covers this too
- all reptiles and amphibians over 2ft adult size Richmond already bans snakes over 2ft and lizards over 1ft + specific list of lizards
- all venomous or poisonous invertebrates (such as black widow spiders, tarantulas, and blue-ringed octopus) Richmond already bans "Old World" classified arachnids
- all ungulates, except the bison and the domestic breeds of cow, goat, sheep, pig, horse, mule, donkey, ass, llama, and alpaca Richmond actually has in its bylaws cattle, goats, sheep, pigs and horses, donkeys, and mules being on the prohibited list...
- all erinaceidae (tenrecs and hedgehogs) Richmond bans all except African pigmy hedgehog
- all rodentia, except the hamster, gerbil, guinea pig, domestic mouse, and domestic rat Richmond bans all except those that do not exceed 1500grams and breed from self sustaining captive populations... pretty much same thing
- all lagomorphs (rabbits and hare), except the domestic rabbit Richmond actually has a ban on all doesn't say it allows domestic from bylaw
- all birds except the domestic quail, pheasant, pigeon, chicken, duck, goose and turkey, plus the budgie, cockatiel, lovebird, finch, and canaryRichmond bans raptors such as eagles, hawks, owls, ratites such as ostriches, rheas and cassowaries

As anyone can see based on current Richmond bylaws the only thing that is of real concern is the addition of saltwater fish... I mean when was last time you had a tank large enough to keep a whale or dolphin? =)


----------



## Steve

As you can see in my signature I have a tank large enough to house thousands of whales and dolphins.


----------



## AWW

I have been reading this thread for a few days. I might as well chime in. It's a real shame to see how backwards people make things sometimes, and how short sighted some solutions are. I am all for the importation of SW fish, as there habitat is dwindling down in the wild faster than we even know. The more people are exposed to these fish, the more the public is reminded of that. Although there are areas in the SW fish trade that need to be addressed, an outright ban seems a little... extensive at this point. I would be surprised if it happens. 

As for the other possible "bans", most of them seem reasonable, even though most of those animals are already not allowed, or simply are not traded. A few made little sense to me. 

Hedgehogs I don't understand at all. These guys make great pets, and are not usually a animal of concern. 
Birds... What about our lovely conures, kakarikis, and other small parrots? Although not as common and a small loss to the pet trade, They make amazing pets. I understand banning large parrots at this point, as many are sold to young, and many don't stay with there owners for life, as they should be. 
Tarantulas. i know many people don't like them, But they are one cool pet! Hardly a venomous threat to people...
marsupials, But only because of sugar gilders. This is more of a personal note, as I have 4 Gliders at home. These guys make great pets, if you have the time to devote to them. The cool thing about gliders, Is most owners that have them usually take GREAT care of them, because they know what they are signing onto before they purchase. Its extremely rare to see any other marsupials in the pet trade.... 

Hopefully More species of animals don't get banned for unnecessary reasons. Like tortoises!


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

Also reptiles over two feet. It isn't right it should be reptiles over 9'

My ball python is of no threat to anyone and she is 4'.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## Emily

Momobobo said:


> How is that absurd? I, for one, would be happy for that. Less men who buy big dogs just to scare others, less idiots buying a bowl and putting a nemo in it, etc.
> 
> This is just one huge slippery slope.


Licenses can be a very slippery slope too, which is why I would be very hesitant to agree to that. What is involved with getting a license, for example? Just registering that the pet exists? Does it come with conditions, for example, having to spay/neuter the pet?



Vancitycam said:


> To sum it up nope not quite. *The potential laws don't change our right to own pets just certain ones* and the majority make perfect sense although the sw fish appears to be ignorant as I myself are on sw.


So basically, yes they DO change our rights to own pets, "just certain ones". You are lucky that none of the pets you own fall under these rules, but how do you know that lots of responsible people won't be affected by these laws? I know a number of people who own exotics like tarantulas. One girl in particular loves all 13 of hers and takes top notch, excellent care of them. She also breeds them. I would suspect lots more people like her will be negatively affected than the few "bad apples". I am actually surprised that the owner of such a controversial dog breed is so ok with the outright banning of certain pets. Your breed may be next on the list, are you ok with that? If you are ignorant about keeping animals on this list as pets (you admitted to being ignorant about SW fish, for example), perhaps you shouldn't be promoting the passing of this legislation. I myself have kept birds that are NOT on the "acceptable" bird list (in my case, a conure), and some of the most popular pet reptiles would be outlawed. Yes some wild fish populations are threatened by the aquarium trade, but there are also lots that have been better conserved due to increased interest and even saved via captive breeding by hobbyists. Additionally, there are species that are not threatened by the trade at all and are collected from the wild with no problems.

If banning saltwater fish is ok, then why not freshwater too? Banning animals is a slippery slope, and it is much better to invest in education and welfare than dictating who can own what.

You go on to defend your dog breed and why it shouldn't be banned (which for the record, I agree with), but what if I told you plenty of people could come on here and defend their pets of choice equally as well, and that those pets are no more of a threat to society than your dog is?



Vancitycam said:


> The public aquariums is another issues education from those facilities is sometime false like with orcas and the males fins folding over being normal is false and you know how they get them ad split pods and what not its just sad but hey it makes money big money and they cover it up by saying its educational. Now aquaruims having smaller animals is fine frogs fish ray tanks ect it's educational and instilled love for aquatic animals for me as a kid I loved vancouver aquarium now as a wise grown adult not so much.


Have you been to the Vancouver Aquarium lately? I ask because they don't keep orcas, they do a TON of good work and they are a non-profit. They are an outstanding organization and deserve all the money that comes their way. VA does not provide that false information about orcas, that was documented in Blackfish and came from SeaWorld in the U.S.

If anyone couldn't tell, I do not like the legislation the SPCA is proposing. I am all for animal welfare and being a responsible, informed pet owner, but just banning animals left and right hurts a lot more responsible people than it does helps the pets of irresponsible ones.


----------



## Fishy_Addiction

@Emily couldn't agree more. To your whole post.

Sent from my GT-P6210 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## SeaHorse_Fanatic

Well said (written) Emily.


----------

