tax for owning a pet fish

[ReefHog]

https://www.denver7.com/news/politi...r-being-introduced-following-intense-backlash

 

[KrisReef]

Clearly the author has no idea what they wrote. This Bill is chock full of ain't gonna happen. Not with regard to aquatic life anyway.

Page 6, Line 22 - Fee imposed isn't going to provide a service that benefits reef keepers.
Page 7, Line 25 - Pet name, owner, breed, age, caregiver & is it dangerous? Nobody knows their tank inhabitants age, and not everyone names them.
Page 8, Line 19 - Can you imagine first responders tracking down a shelter to take care of your fish and/or inverts?
Page 8, Line 23 - And if by some miracle they do, can you imagine the shelter taking custody of & responsibility for everything in your tank until you are otherwise able to?

Wait, you are telling me there may be an opportunity to keep conficscated reef pets in Colorado? I'm gonna have to read that thing and start planning a move into the High Country! If your coral dies in my tank, it was sick when it came in. Tanks up front, and tanks out back, this is going to solve my frag addiction easily! :cool:

Edit: Never mind. I see this was just the first trial ballon. We'll have to wait until next leg cycle to see what mulm they slap together and call that an improvement.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

https://www.denver7.com/news/politi...r-being-introduced-following-intense-backlash

Yeah, this is what I thought it might be. Lots of cities have laws requiring pet owners to register their companion pets. It's not a tax, per se, in Houston, and is primarily used to confirm rabies vaccination for dog bites...

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

And, having worked with chronically ill elderly persons for many years, IMO the stated intent behind the bill is a noble one.

 

[MnFish1]

Yeah, so that's why I am not worried about it.

I agree don't worry about it - my guess is that any tax will occur at purchase, and thereafter depending on how its worded - until the taxpayer says the xxxx is dead

 

[areefer01]

Do what Frankie says and Relax - bill is already postponed. Never had a chance to reach low earth orbit.

 

[MnFish1]

Clearly the author has no idea what they wrote. This Bill is chock full of ain't gonna happen. Not with regard to aquatic life anyway.

Page 6, Line 22 - Fee imposed isn't going to provide a service that benefits reef keepers.
Page 7, Line 25 - Pet name, owner, breed, age, caregiver & is it dangerous? Nobody knows their tank inhabitants age, and not everyone names them.
Page 8, Line 19 - Can you imagine first responders tracking down a shelter to take care of your fish and/or inverts?
Page 8, Line 23 - And if by some miracle they do, can you imagine the shelter taking custody of & responsibility for everything in your tank until you are otherwise able to?

The bill says this:
"PET ANIMAL" MEANS A DOG, CAT, RABBIT, GUINEA PIG, HAMSTER, MOUSE, RAT, GERBIL, FERRET, BIRD, FISH, REPTILE, AMPHIBIAN, INVERTEBRATE, OR ANY OTHER SPECIES OF WILD OR DOMESTIC OR HYBRID ANIMAL SIX MONTHS OF AGE OR OLDER, THAT IS SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR RETAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING KEPT AS A HOUSEHOLD PET."

So - the bill covers coral and fish. (however, as people have said, it's tabled, and your points are valid.). IMHO - this is just step one of saying 'you can't keep aquaria, reptiles, pets at home without a tax). This is an attempt to end the hobby, as compared to a law designed to help anything. Completely weird IMHO. I have no idea how they would enforce anything beyond the initial purchase if it was going through

 

[MnFish1]

And, having worked with chronically ill elderly persons for many years, IMO the stated intent behind the bill is a noble one.

And having done the same - I disagree - this is a completely ridiculously worded blll. - It does apply to cats and dogs, however - they list multiple other species - that cannot be regulated, (unless at point of sale)

 

[areefer01]

The bill says this:
"PET ANIMAL" MEANS A DOG, CAT, RABBIT, GUINEA PIG, HAMSTER, MOUSE, RAT, GERBIL, FERRET, BIRD, FISH, REPTILE, AMPHIBIAN, INVERTEBRATE, OR ANY OTHER SPECIES OF WILD OR DOMESTIC OR HYBRID ANIMAL SIX MONTHS OF AGE OR OLDER, THAT IS SOLD, TRANSFERRED, OR RETAINED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BEING KEPT AS A HOUSEHOLD PET."

So - the bill covers coral and fish. (however, as people have said, it's tabled, and your points are valid.). IMHO - this is just step one of saying 'you can't keep aquaria, reptiles, pets at home without a tax). This is an attempt to end the hobby, as compared to a law designed to help anything. Completely weird IMHO. I have no idea how they would enforce anything beyond the initial purchase if it was going through

Makes you want to do some basic math on the time spent, authors salary, and time voters in Colorado will never get back...

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Makes you want to do some basic math on the time spent, authors salary, and time voters in Colorado will never get back...

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.

 

[WalkerLovesTheOcean]

I mean, some people need animals to survive, whether it's a physical thing or mental. Service animals help thousands if not millions of people a year, and health care is already expensive, so the fact that you would now have to pay tax for your service animal??? Mind-blowing!! Animals are just part of our life. They can't tax us on this.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

I mean, some people need animals to survive, whether it's a physical thing or mental. Service animals help thousands if not millions of people a year, and health care is already expensive, so the fact that you would now have to pay tax for your service animal??? Mind-blowing!! Animals are just part of our life. They can't tax us on this.

Not. What. The. Bill. Was. About.

 

[Js.Aqua.Project]

So it is intended to create a registry to help first responders be aware of what animals are on the premises....

Question...

How does it help them to know that there is a half black mimic tang in my tank versus there just being multiple aquariums in my house?

That said, it is already tabled. Another bill that was way over reaching and poorly worded.

Like the bill in the house, I wouldn't be surprised if a four lettered anti-pet organization authored this bill and paid Rep. English to sponsor it in order to highly tax and regulate the pet industry.

 

[areefer01]

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

Hmm....did I read it? Yes, I did actually. I stopped when I got here:

The bill claims it will “connect pet animals with their owners and designated caregivers when and after emergencies occur, and protect pet animals by supporting animal shelters that are caretakers of last resort.”

I don't know about your fish, corals, and inverts but none of mine have escaped running amuck throughout our neighborhood. So for me it was a hard stop when I read connect pet animals with their owners. Our fish will not be in animal shelters. An act of Mother Nature or Godzilla walking through my area more than likely means a total loss and death.

Now your turn. What is the problem the author was proposing the solution for?

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

And having done the same - I disagree - this is a completely ridiculously worded blll. - It does apply to cats and dogs, however - they list multiple other species - that cannot be regulated, (unless at point of sale)

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.

 

[WalkerLovesTheOcean]

Not. What. The. Bill. Was. About.

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

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Hmm....did I read it? Yes, I did actually. I stopped when I got here:

The bill claims it will “connect pet animals with their owners and designated caregivers when and after emergencies occur, and protect pet animals by supporting animal shelters that are caretakers of last resort.”

I don't know about your fish, corals, and inverts but none of mine have escaped running amuck throughout our neighborhood. So for me it was a hard stop when I read connect pet animals with their owners. Our fish will not be in animal shelters. An act of Mother Nature or Godzilla walking through my area more than likely means a total loss and death.

Now your turn. What is the problem the author was proposing the solution for?

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

“The idea behind it was to create a pet contingency plan for mainly senior people when they're in crisis or something happens, and they would have that person that would have guardianship over their pet, if something happened. Because we all know that our pet shelters are over capacity," 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.

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

"English said. “It wasn't to create this pet tax that people are dubbing it as and the idea was the money go to help first responders and pet shelters... I will continue to do the work for the people and put the people of Colorado first. And that starts with just simply pulling this bill and reworking this piece of legislation, and hopefully bring something back that's more thoughtful and meaningful."

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

And here is the program she refers to...
https://www.dvm360.com/view/new-pet-contingency-plan-for-senior-citizens-launches-in-colorado

 

[jabberwock]

I'm not going to vote anymore.

 

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

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