tax for owning a pet fish

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

How? It says dogs, or really any animal. Explain.

Read the whole thing!

 

[Sesty22]

@Sesty22, I hope you never have be involved with perfectly healthy pets being put down simply because their owner was hospitalized or died... smh

Thank you for your positive vibes! I hope the same for you

 

[salty joe]

What a load.

 

[areefer01]

You obviously didn't read the whole thing. The problem is clearly outlined.

I did read it. It is not applicable to our hobby. Fresh or marine ornamental fish, corals, and inverts.

English said. “It would create a safety net for first responders, because with people registering a guardian over their pets, it would also come with a sticker that would identify a certain color to let the first responders knew if there's an aggressive pet in the home.

Previous life I was in explosive safety so I'm very well aware of first responders, licensed facilities, and signs. As I noted above fish, corals, and inverts do not apply. Applying a blanket was not a solution.

”English said the idea came from a LifePet.Care pilot study. However, the draft of the bill was not what she envisioned.

Then it should not have been submitted.

Edit: I am open to how you believe this is applicable to our hobby though.

 

[jda]

Since we were dialing up to bulletin boards, people have been freaking out over bills that don't even get much past introduction. Nearly every single one of them have never made it except for some really smart ones that deal with public safety things that include venomous snakes, tigers, lions, crocodiles, cougars (the four legged ones), etc.

We once took a full-blooded Wheaten Terrier because granny got really sick and the kids and grandkids were going to just put it to sleep. These are the most sweet and hypoallergenic dogs - would have got taken in a heartbeat if they even cared to make half of an effort. We just got kinda lucky or else this 5 year old dog would have been dead.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

I did read it. It is not applicable to our hobby. Fresh or marine ornamental fish, corals, and inverts.

Of course it's not. No one is arguing that.

Then it should not have been submitted.

And the bill's sponsor agrees.

 

[dadnjesse]

People just keep voting back in the same like minded to run thier states.

 

[areefer01]

Of course it's not. No one is arguing that.


And the bill's sponsor agrees.

I guess I'm not sure why you are asking if I read it above. I gave my reason why I read it, why I stopped, and how I felt it was a waste of tax payers time.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

Did you even read the article??? The person who introduced the idea has already said the bill was not worded anywhere near correctly. And the rep that introduced it has already withdrawn it.

I think you may have missed @MnFish1 point here. The bill is going after individual species with vague wording and trying to get things that can't be done.

By saying "invertebrates" they are including pods which is something that can't be regulated taxed/regulated because we have no idea of the reproduction rate and life cycles of those creatures in our aquariums.

The phrase "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" comes to mind here.

They may be trying to create a fund to help reconnect animals with owners but this bill has language that's cost is punitive. $16/year per fish? How many fish are in your tank? I am not paying hundreds of dollars a year to be reunited with my fish. As the only disaster that is likely to happen that would require a reuniting is a fire in which case they are dead anyway.

Multiple times now in this thread you have now also insulted people's intelligence by asking "did you even read...?"

This may invoke a strong emotional reaction in you due to personal experiences, but don't insinuate that someone who is taking the time to provide their interpretation is not intelligent.

 

[MnFish1]

Did you read the article about it?? It's not a bad idea overall... not the best solution to the problem but at least someone's thinking about it.

SO - you think it's reasonable to pay a minimum 8.50 for every invertebrate or fish you buy every year? This has to be the oddest law I've ever seen. A CUC would cost $1000.. I read the whole article - it really seems like nonsense (probably why it was taken down)

 

[MnFish1]

@Sesty22, I hope you never have be involved with perfectly healthy pets being put down simply because their owner was hospitalized or died... smh

Every individual is responsible to write a will, etc - and to whom they are planning to give their pets. Its impossible to enforce, its impossible to implement and it was a non-sensical idea IMHO

 

[jabberwock]

@Sesty22, I hope you never have be involved with perfectly healthy pets being put down simply because their owner was hospitalized or died... smh

What does "smh" mean? Thanks

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Multiple times now in this thread you have now also insulted people's intelligence by asking "did you even read...?"

Yes, I did! Because if anyone read the entire article, they would see that EVERYONE is in agreement that the bill was poorly written and did not actually do what the sponsor intended.

 

[jda]

In general, nearly none of these bills will ever become laws because pets are property to most legal system. This is why if a dog food company kills your dog with a pathogen, they only have to pay a few hundred dollars to replace it - no other damages. You cannot mistreat a pet, but changing the right to get rid of it should you desire would cause too much legal collateral damage.

Some of you do not know, but Dogs are treated better than humans in most of Colorado... they are allowed in stores, doctors offices, and just about anywhere else that does not need to be sterile. The unintended consequences to this is pet food companies not wanting to sell their products in a state, groomers getting sued over bad cuts for emotional loss, etc. You would see the same kind of law suits that you see with humans.

Nobody has to have a will. Pets are the dead owners personal property and are subject to probate like homes, furniture and the junky stuff that is headed to Goodwill. I have no idea if many ever get there... but if they do, who takes care of them until a judge rules on who gets them? Terrible situation and I hope that humanity takes over in most cases, but it probably does not.

 

[areefer01]

Every individual is responsible to write a will,

Just as an aside but everyone in this hobby should have a "letter to a loved one" in case something happens to us. Cost, what to feed, how to run, start, stop, diagrams, etc. I don't mean this to be directed at you but as I read your comment this came to mind. Something I try and tell new hobbyist, and old alike. Just something good to have along with accounts, passwords, etc.

Stressful time for them. I personally would hate to make matters 10x worse because I didn't take time to leave basic notes. Again not directed at you. Sorry about that.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

SO - you think it's reasonable to pay a minimum 8.50 for every invertebrate or fish you buy every year? This has to be the oddest law I've ever seen. A CUC would cost $1000.. I read the whole article - it really seems like nonsense (probably why it was taken down)

I can't believe I have to keep saying this - NO ONE believes the bill was correctly written and they agree that bill, as submitted, WAS NOT going to solve the problem it intended to.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

Yes, I did! Because if anyone read the entire article, they would see that EVERYONE is in agreement that the bill was poorly written and did not actually do what the sponsor intended.

And that gives you permission to insult someone's intelligence?

This thread was to discuss the bill and it's wording. Even though the bill was tabled we can still discuss the bill itself.

And Rep. English is more proof the these lawmakers are not writing or even reading their own proposals before submitting them.

 

[MnFish1]

Yes, I did! Because if anyone read the entire article, they would see that EVERYONE is in agreement that the bill was poorly written and did not actually do what the sponsor intended.

But - it seems like you are defending the premise of the bill - which was nonsense. It seems like you still do - Unlike others, including myself, I haven't heard any of your criticisms of the bill, only defense of how everyone is misunderstanding?

 

[jabberwock]

Thread shutdown timer starts... NOW!

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

And that gives you permission to insult someone's intelligence?

Actually, I was giving them the benefit of the doubt... Assuming they had not read the entire article and therefore were spouting nonsense.