http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/25/italy.fishbowls.reut/index.html
Rome bans 'cruel' goldfish bowls

Tuesday, October 25, 2005; Posted: 11:43 a.m. EDT (15:43 GMT)

ROME, Italy (Reuters) -- The city of Rome has banned goldfish bowls, which animal rights activists say are cruel, and has made regular dog-walks mandatory in the Italian capital, the town's council said on Tuesday.

The classic spherical fish bowls are banned under a new by-law which also stops fish or other animals being given away as fairground prizes. It comes after a national law was passed to allow jail sentences for people who abandon cats or dogs.

"It's good to do whatever we can for our animals who in exchange for a little love fill our existence with their attention," said Monica Cirinna, the councilor behind the by-law.

"The civilization of a city can also be measured by this," she told Rome daily Il Messaggero.

The newspaper reported that round bowls caused fish to go blind. No one at Rome council was available to confirm this was why they were banned. Many fish experts say round bowls provide insufficient oxygen for fish.

In July 2004, parliament passed a law setting big fines and jail terms for people who abandon pets and since then local governments have added their own animal welfare rules many of which will be difficult to police.

The northern city of Turin passed a law in April to fine pet owners up to 500 euros ($597.7) if they do not walk their dogs at least three times a day.

The new Rome by-law requires owners to regularly exercise their dogs, and bans them from docking their pets' tails for aesthetic reasons.

It also provides legal recognition for cat lovers who provide food for the colonies of strays which live everywhere from the city's ancient Roman ruins to modern office car parks.

Animal rights groups estimate that around 150,000 pet dogs and 200,000 cats are abandoned in Italy every year.

Oh god....

But some fish do very well in brackish water (betas being one of them) and actually do better in round bowls than in square ones.


What does brackish water have to do with Gold Fish Bowls?

Edit:
Brackish water is a mixture of Fresh and Sea water.

Neither one is used in Perrier?

LOL... you can't walk our dog three times a day unless you dragged her. One time is great. She'll go willingly. If I want her to go twice I may get lucky, or I may get a sullen look. Three times? No way. The dog is much too lazy. Put me in handcuffs now :) . The typical walk is only 1.5 miles.

It seems that Italy is adopting the same animal culture I witnessed in the Netherlands. There are few wild animals, and people dote on their pets. There are animal amblances, animal cemeteries with headstones and enormous animal shelters.

We put down headstones where we buried our wolfhounds on our property.

What does brackish water have to do with Gold Fish Bowls?

y mistake, I meant stagnant water: the kind the Amazon basin gets during its rainy hot season, when the puddles sit there but not much oxygenation occurs due to the heat of the water.

Although I suppose if you don't change the water often enough, the chemical soup created by the fishes' excrement could almost make it brackish.

Certain breeds that is the way the international bodies have determined the dogs should be.

Noone from Turin will be showing Rottweilers(sp?) anymore, it seems.

So? I'd say those international bodies should adjust then. Fairly ridiculous you have to mutilate your dog to have to considered showable.

Its history and tradition.

Dogs with cropped ears and tails had them cropped for reason when the breed came to be, generally to keep the dogs from injury in the line of work the dog was bred for.

I don't see it as being any different than, say, circumcision.

Neither one is used in Perrier?And ya can't use Perrier in a goldfish bowl because they're allergic to benzine :/

Lets hope the ant lobby doesnt gain power or generations of childrern will be jailed!

Its history and tradition.

Traditions change.

I don't see it as being any different than, say, circumcision.

Which is also mutilation.

A sanitary procedure that in modern days is used by many for not only religious purposes, but sanitary ones, doesn't equal mutilation.

It's not for sanitary purposes anymore.

Edit: I'll rephrase that. It is done for sanitary reasons, but those reasons are out of date.

It's not for sanitary purposes anymore.

Edit: I'll rephrase that. It is done for sanitary reasons, but those reasons are out of date.

That's for sure! You can teach a boy how to wash his face and hands, brush his teeth and pull back his foreskin and clean his penis. I learned that with my son but it's not something that people talk about very much.

When my son was about 4 years old he got an infection of the penis. Our family doctor sent us to a specialist who recommended circumcision. Since cutting of a chunk of skin from a sensitive area is something that shouldn't be blindly accepted I asked some questions I thought were fairly reasonable and intelligent (you don't mess with the health of your child). The response from the doctor was stunning. He said that my son didn't have much of a problem but I did. He talked about my son causing cervical cancer to a partner when he grew up. He was aggressive and unprofessional. Ummmm... I thanked him quietly for his advice and said I was going to seek a second opinion. My responses were very mild, because you never let personal ego get in the way of your child's health.

y family doctor was delighted that we wanted a second opinion. He referred us to another specialist, but this person had a six-week waiting period. While we waited, we gave our son a bath nightly, used Vaseline and progressively pulled back his foreskin more every night. After a couple of weeks, he was able to do it on his own, and clean appropriately. The infection disappeared, we had a final visit with the family doctor, and we cancelled the appointment with the specialist. My son hasn't had any problems since. He is now 25 years old.

Circumcision was totally unnecessary. It was the fault of my wife and I for not knowing and using proper sanitation with our son. We simply didn't know.

I reported the first specialist. It was not his medical advice that I was upset about (hey, doctors can be wrong), but his bullying to try and force an operation. *Shrug*... I don't think anything ever happened with the complaint.

The infection disappeared, we had a final visit with the family doctor, and we cancelled the appointment with the specialist. My son hasn't had any problems since. He is now 25 years old.
Except that dad now has a horribly embarassing story to tell about him at cocktail parties and/or to post on the internet! :D

Oh hell yeah, Thicket. I've heard a lot of stories like that. It is disgusting.

Traditions change.



Which is also mutilation.

Would you ban that too?

Spaying and Neutering is mutilation when you get right down to it.

Ban circumcision?

Personally, I think that there is a lot of horrible and out of date information about circumcision. There are many doctors, like Thicket pointed out, that are so vehemently for circumcision that they refuse to look for other alternatives. For example, phimosis is when the foreskin of a penis is too tight around it, preventing it to be retracted. A lot of doctors jump right to circumcision despite the fact that a single snip of the foreskin or a steriod cream could fix it. Phimosis is one of the few proven problems that an uncircumcised penis can have due to having foreskin, and as I've always pointed out, having someone circumcised to prevent phimosis is like having a breast removed to prevent beast cancer from occuring.

Should it be banned? I understand the religious significance of it. Because we have religious freedom in this country, I can't say I'd outright ban it as it'd be unfair to certain beliefs. Of course, a lot of other stuff in religions aren't exactly permittable here (like animal sacrifices), so I guess that is iffy. However, I don't think it's something a parent should be able to choose for their child. I think if someone wants to mutilate their penis for religious significance, more power to them. Someone else shouldn't have the right to decide that for them, even if it is their parent.

Spaying and Neutering is mutilation when you get right down to it.

Yes, but spaying and neutering have an actual purpose other than aesthetic reasons.

That's called "rationalizing". I'm sure any number of people who profess to be "animal lovers" could rationalize tail/ear docking, funky haircuts, etc with views that they honestly believe are completely relevant and as substantial as your reasons for being against the practices.

I think circumcision should be banned in the US. Yeah, I know the religious thing with it, but then, some religions like to sacrifice animals and we don't allow that. Unless it is medically necessary, and I doubt most circumsicions are, I don't think you should be allowed to remove parts of your child's body.

I'm with Cantatus on spaying and neutering versus "plastic surgery" on animals. I think the one doing the rationalizing isn't Cantatus...

And that would be an "opinion"

That's called "rationalizing". I'm sure any number of people who profess to be "animal lovers" could rationalize tail/ear docking, funky haircuts, etc with views that they honestly believe are completely relevant and as substantial as your reasons for being against the practices.

First off, "funky haircuts," and tail cropping and ear docking are two completely different things. That'd be like saying a barber and a surgeon are in the same line of work.

Secondly, what relevant reasons are there for doing ear cropping or tail docking aside from "It makes him look vicious!" and "I have to do it so I can show him in a dog show!" (which isn't always true by the way, especially not in Europe?) This is another outdated "tradition."

As odd as it may sound, some people actually do use the breeds for their original purpose, whether it's hunting, herding, sledding, guarding, etc. Aidon gave examples on why cropping/docking would be done a few posts up.

The only reason I see that Aidon gave is "to keep the dogs from injury." This is comparable to what I said about circumcision. It's doing something extreme as a preventative measure for something that might not even occur. Like I said, it's like having a breast removed because someone might get beast cancer.

Also, most people that have dogs with docked tails and cropped ears do not do it for the reasons you cited.

Really? You have numbers and proof to back that up? Because to make a statement like that, you'd have to assume that the majority of pets in the world are registered with some sort of organization which keeps track of stuff like that (and before you say the AKC or SPCA/Local registries, let me say that that's wrong).

And before you go writing off having a breast removed to avoid cancer, many people I know had their female pets neutered not because of fear of pregnancy, but because of risk of mammary cancer - I was considering breeding my Malamute and was not going to have her fixed until I made up my mind. That is until I learned that having your female pet neutered before their first menses greatly reduces their chance of developing mammary cancer (I really have no idea what the technical name for mammary cancer is... "breast cancer" when talking about dogs doesn't sound right).

And also, many breeds to have their ears docked have a habit of developing ear infections and drainage problems if they don't have it done. I want to say that the dobie was one such dog, but I can't remember for sure.

You have to remember that many of the current dog breeds would probably never have evolved to their current state naturally. It took a lot of human meddling to get them where they are now, and many of them have huge defects built directly into their breed. While docking and cropping seem cruel to us now, many of those practices came into being because they had to.

:lmao:

That goes right along with their law prohibiting people from passing gass in public.

Really? You have numbers and proof to back that up? Because to make a statement like that, you'd have to assume that the majority of pets in the world are registered with some sort of organization which keeps track of stuff like that (and before you say the AKC or SPCA/Local registries, let me say that that's wrong).

There are an estimated 13 million hunters registered (in 2001) (http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html) and an estimated 60 million pet dogs (in 2002) (http://www.avma.org/membshp/marketstats/sourcebook.asp) in the United States, it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that not all dogs' tails and ears are altered for those reasons. Even if every registered hunter had 2 dogs (which is clearly not the case), they would still be outnumbered by the amount of people with pet dogs that don't hunt.

Also, the argument that dogs' tails are cropped because of their work is very inconsistent. Many hunting dogs do not have their tails cropped. Setters, Beagles, and Foxhounds, for example, are not known for having cropped tails. There are also many breeds of dogs which are not hunters which do have their tails cropped, poodles, for instance.

And also, many breeds to have their ears docked have a habit of developing ear infections and drainage problems if they don't have it done.

I'll refer to my point above. Cocker Spaniels are notorious for ear infections, yet their ears are rarely cropped.

If the argument is that cropping and docking are done for health reasons, why is it that some hunting breeds have their tails docked while others don't. Why are there some breeds that don't hunt that have their tails docked? Why do some dogs that are notorious for ear infections have their ears cropped while other breeds do not? Why do some breeds that aren't known for ear infections have their ears cropped? There is no consistancy in this argument.

But again, it's surgery to stop something which may or may not happen.

And before you go writing off having a breast removed to avoid cancer, many people I know had their female pets neutered not because of fear of pregnancy, but because of risk of mammary cancer.

I'm not talking about in dogs. (I originally brought up this point in regards to circumcision.)

While docking and cropping seem cruel to us now, many of those practices came into being because they had to.

I disagree. You never have to mutilate something - human or animal.

You never <i>have</i> to do anything. You can just accept the consequences of what happens when you don't do it. If your dog gets cancer or has a litter of 39843 puppies because you didn't spay/neuter your pet, you have no one to complain to, and your vet will probably say "I told you so."

There are an estimated 13 million hunters registered (in 2001) (http://www.fws.gov/hunting/huntstat.html) and an estimated 60 million pet dogs (in 2002) (http://www.avma.org/membshp/marketstats/sourcebook.asp) in the United States, it's fairly easy to draw the conclusion that not all dogs' tails and ears are altered for those reasons. Even if every registered hunter had 2 dogs (which is clearly not the case), they would still be outnumbered by the amount of people with pet dogs that don't hunt.

Also, the argument that dogs' tails are cropped because of their work is very inconsistent. Many hunting dogs do not have their tails cropped. Setters, Beagles, and Foxhounds, for example, are not known for having cropped tails. There are also many breeds of dogs which are not hunters which do have their tails cropped, poodles, for instance.

You misunderstood what I was saying. I was saying breeds which are cropped (tails or ears) were done so for reason (usually because tails and ears provided points of injury to a dog used for hunting aggressive game, like wolves or boars, or a dog used for militaristic purposes). Nowdays, it is done so because that is how the breed is supposed to be.


I disagree. You never have to mutilate something - human or animal.

I disagree. Jewish men have to be circumsized, if at all possible (ie, the government doesn't forbid it, such as the former Soviet Union).

Nowdays, it is done so because that is how the breed is supposed to be.

Which is exactly why it's wrong.

Jewish men have to be circumsized, if at all possible

Which should be a decision one makes for themselves. Like I said in a previous post, if someone wants to mutilate themselves, more power to them. It should be a personal choice, not one imposed on you by your parents or doctors.

I don't want to get into a religious debate, but there are many Jews who believe you don't have to be circumcised. There is even a ceremony called Brit Shalom where boys don't have to be circumcised.

Which is exactly why it's wrong.



Which should be a decision one makes for themselves. Like I said in a previous post, if someone wants to mutilate themselves, more power to them. It should be a personal choice, not one imposed on you by your parents or doctors.

I don't want to get into a religious debate, but there are many Jews who believe you don't have to be circumcised. There is even a ceremony called Brit Shalom where boys don't have to be circumcised.

There are not many Jews who believe that.

Its pretty fundamental to Judaism. Its the sign of the Covenant. I don't know any Rabbi (even reformed Rabbis) who would say "Its ok to not circumcise your son".

In the end, its far better to do so at 8 days old, than to ask someone if they want to do it at 13 (or whatnot). I don't remember it. I don't remember any pain of it. I feel no less as a result of it.

There ARE women who have their breasts removed as a precaution without ever having any cancerous cells detected. It's a bit less common today than it was in the 50s and 60s but it still happens.

Just a warning... don't look up circumcision on wikipedia at work! :p

There are not many Jews who believe that.

Its pretty fundamental to Judaism. Its the sign of the Covenant. I don't know any Rabbi (even reformed Rabbis) who would say "Its ok to not circumcise your son".

Just because you don't know any personally, doesn't mean they don't exist or that they are few in numbers.

In many other countires, it is far less common for Jews to get circumcised. Only 40% of Jews in Sweden do, for example.

In the end, its far better to do so at 8 days old, than to ask someone if they want to do it at 13 (or whatnot). I don't remember it. I don't remember any pain of it. I feel no less as a result of it.

If it's a Covenant, should the pain matter? If it's a Convenant, wouldn't it be better if the person willingly did it rather than had it forced upon them?

Just because you don't know any personally, doesn't mean they don't exist or that they are few in numbers.

In many other countires, it is far less common for Jews to get circumcised. Only 40% of Jews in Sweden do, for example.

Um, dude, there's only 18,000 Jews in all of sweden.

They are few in number...very few in number. There is no massive anti-circumcision movement sweeping through World Jewry.



If it's a Covenant, should the pain matter? If it's a Convenant, wouldn't it be better if the person willingly did it rather than had it forced upon them?

No, for its up to the parents to bring their children up to love and honor their religion. And we are not cruel, though you would have us be. We do not demand a person concious of the pain and capable of knowing it be circumsized.

So... you're saying babies don't feel pain just because they can't remember it 20 years later?

I'm sure it doesn't feel too groovy to get squeezed out of mom, either. Or to suddenly move from a toasty 98.7 degrees to 70 degrees.

A little pain can be suffered for your heritage. Jews have martyred themselves so that they and theirs could uphold the Covenant. It is the arrogance of those who live in places where Jews are assimilating to forgo such a fundamental belief. An arrogance which insults the tribulations our people have faced for our beliefs.

Would you consent to having part of your penis removed now without anesthesia? You should, after all your ancestors had to endure, what's a little missing bit of anatomy?

an, I'd think if you really were as tough as all that, you'd wait until it was an experience you can remember. Like the Masai.

Nothing says it must be done w/o anesthesia. It is routinely done with a local anesthetic...and a bit of wine to boot.

yself, I was fortunate enough to get circumsized when I was 8 days old.

A few of my Russian friends had to wait until their early teens, when they were able to flee Soviet Russia, before they were circumsized. They all were, though.

But do they give it to the infants?

Yes...the infants get a local anesthetic before the circumcision. I forget if its a shot or if they just spritz on something.

Then they get the infant drunk with a napkin corner dipped in wine. =P

Um, dude, there's only 18,000 Jews in all of sweden.

Still, my point is it does happen, and that obviously there are exceptions. There are movements to stop circumcision in the Jewish religion. Just because they are small now means very little. Most movements start small. ;)

And we are not cruel, though you would have us be.

Well, cruel is probably not the word I'd use. I know the Jewish parents aren't going around devising ways to hurt children. I do understand it is done for religious reasons. (Of course, I could debate just how solid those reasons are, but I'm not here to criticize a religion, just circumcision and other forms of mutilization.) Again though, I'm not saying circumcision should be outlawed to Jews (or anyone.) I'm saying it should be a personal choice. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Torah that stipulates when you have to be circumcised.

Yes...the infants get a local anesthetic before the circumcision. I forget if its a shot or if they just spritz on something.

Then they get the infant drunk with a napkin corner dipped in wine. =P

Do they get pain medication afterwards? (Not asking that to be snarky. I truly don't know.)

Still, my point is it does happen, and that obviously there are exceptions. There are movements to stop circumcision in the Jewish religion. Just because they are small now means very little. Most movements start small. ;)

There is a small movement of people who call themselves Jews who believe in Jesus, too. That doesn't mean anyone actually considers them Jewish or relevant.



Well, cruel is probably not the word I'd use. I know the Jewish parents aren't going around devising ways to hurt children. I do understand it is done for religious reasons. (Of course, I could debate just how solid those reasons are, but I'm not here to criticize a religion, just circumcision and other forms of mutilization.) Again though, I'm not saying circumcision should be outlawed to Jews (or anyone.) I'm saying it should be a personal choice. As far as I know, there's nothing in the Torah that stipulates when you have to be circumcised.

Actually, it does stipulate...it specifies eight days, at least twice in the Torah.

Beresheet 17:12 and Vayikrah 12:3 (Genesis and Leviticus, respectively).

It is considered to be the most fundamental mitzvah of the Jewish faith.



Do they get pain medication afterwards? (Not asking that to be snarky. I truly don't know.)

There is an ointment put on the wound for some time...I don't know how much of that is antibiotic and how much is anesthetic in nature, though.


edit: damn filter blocked out bere**** heh.

There is a small movement of people who call themselves Jews who believe in Jesus, too. That doesn't mean anyone actually considers them Jewish or relevant.

Well, not sure on the Jews for Jesus thing (I never quite understood how that works myself), but I don't think it makes the Jews that are against circumcision not Jewish or relevant. Afterall, when you consider all of the things in both the Torah and Bible that are disregarded or forgotten today, it's hard to say them disregarding this one thing makes them not Jewish, especially when they have a lot of facts to back up their beliefs.

There is an ointment put on the wound for some time...I don't know how much of that is antibiotic and how much is anesthetic in nature, though.

If it isn't anesthetic, then I'd consider that cruel. A lot of people seem to assume babies feel no pain or that there isn't very much pain. I don't think they even give babies painkillers after a circumcision in a hospital. (What a way to be welcomed into the world, eh? :P) Ask any guy that had to go through circumcision (when he was older) how much pain he was in after the process, and I'm sure he'll cringe just remembering. That's like saying I could rip off a babies arm and they wouldn't notice.



As far as the circumcision thing goes, perhaps we'll just have to agree to disagree on it. I consider it mutilation that shouldn't be imposed on babies, while you identify with the religious significance behind it.