Should be people be allowed to buy any fish they like, or should some fish only be available on special request? Red tailed cats, pacus and so on? Give opinions, reasons. My own feeling is that here in Europe regulation is inevitable as 'wastage' is so high, and sooner later the EU will do something, like it or not. Example - Lots of sterlets are sold here at up to 20 cms lengh, and almost all of these die unhappilly - what % are practically sold to people with the resources to deal with a 3 foot fish.
Should the aquarium hobby be regulated?
- Thread starter wayne
- Start date
personally i dont think they really care about the well being of the fish. Most bans are due to people releasing them into the local waters, when they become unwanted or to big. The foreign fish upset the local eco system.
Although unfortunate, I personally feel the integrity of the local waters is much more important, than the fish tank in my livingroom. I wish there was a better anwser but not likely
Although unfortunate, I personally feel the integrity of the local waters is much more important, than the fish tank in my livingroom. I wish there was a better anwser but not likely
Hi all,
Wayne brought up a good point about fish regulation. IMO the entire pet industry as a whole needs to be better regulated. Theres too many pets being mistreated and abandoned as it is and still the puppy mills keep pumping out more puppys to put on the market. There are a lot of moral and ethics issues that need to be looked at when talking about pet regulation, or fish regulation. I really believe that some people don't understand the scale of the problem when looked at in a large perspective. Something needs to be done, but it's always easier said than done. MHO. What's yours?
Wayne brought up a good point about fish regulation. IMO the entire pet industry as a whole needs to be better regulated. Theres too many pets being mistreated and abandoned as it is and still the puppy mills keep pumping out more puppys to put on the market. There are a lot of moral and ethics issues that need to be looked at when talking about pet regulation, or fish regulation. I really believe that some people don't understand the scale of the problem when looked at in a large perspective. Something needs to be done, but it's always easier said than done. MHO. What's yours?
And what army will enforce all this?
There are rules on the books, at least here in the US, such as the federal Animal Welfare Act, as well as many state that have their own individualized laws.
The fact of the matter is, no government, state or federal, has the money to hire people who will monitor these conditions. People talk priority over animals, and if it was between doubling the Narc division or increasing ASPCA patrols, Narc has the upper hand.
There are rules on the books, at least here in the US, such as the federal Animal Welfare Act, as well as many state that have their own individualized laws.
The fact of the matter is, no government, state or federal, has the money to hire people who will monitor these conditions. People talk priority over animals, and if it was between doubling the Narc division or increasing ASPCA patrols, Narc has the upper hand.
Animal Welfare Act covers dogs, cats, gerbils, hamsters, guinea pigs, non-human primates, and livestock. It does not cover rats, mice, or exotics. Many local laws will have appendixed the federal law to include rats and mice, but still don't include exotics. Birds are fast becomming acknowledges as needing protection, especially those in the pet trade, but fish are way down there on this list, just below reptiles.
Most of the problems lie in the fact that fish are regulated not by Animal Welfare, but by National Marine Fisheries, and state Fish and Wildlife Departments. The regulations refer to fish as, well, a "crop," and are worded for the food-fish industry, not the ornamental trade. Permits are issued that regulate size, that regulate ammount, that regulate fishing seasons, but not everybody applies for the proper permits. There just aren't enough officers to enforce the laws.
The Department of Agriculture is responsible for imports, the US can regulate how much they allow into the boarders, but not how much is caught on the other side. And while they work really hard, it is difficult for them to capture all black-market dealers. As long as there is a demand, the black market will supply.
All State Departments of the Environment have permit requirements for colleciton of anything from the wild. From shells, to leaves, to picking flowers. A permit is required, and is so full of red tape and processing that an individual seining along a private beach to stock their tank is not as much a concern as the individual who is poaching out of season, or who rigs "cat hunts" with retired circus panthers.
Should pet shops be regulated? Undoubtedly. By whom? Departments of Health and Departments of Agriculture are those primarily responsible. Naussa County in NY State has just installed a new branch of their ASPCA that will monitor and enforce animal welfare laws at local pet shops. Unfortunately this only applies to dogs and cats, they are trying to stem the tide of backyard breeders that sell to these type of places. While they can note down injustices against reptiles or aquatics, or issue orders of compliance to clean up their shops, legally, there is nothing they can do. Reptiles and fish just do not fall under animal protection.
If you think that LFS should have their aquatics rooms inspected, that laws and standards need to be in place for fish keeping, that hobbiest should be required to apply (and pay) for lisences of ownership of fish (Pirranha in the state of NY require owners to hold permits if they intend to sell, but requires no permit of ownership), write your local congressperson.
~~Colesea
Most of the problems lie in the fact that fish are regulated not by Animal Welfare, but by National Marine Fisheries, and state Fish and Wildlife Departments. The regulations refer to fish as, well, a "crop," and are worded for the food-fish industry, not the ornamental trade. Permits are issued that regulate size, that regulate ammount, that regulate fishing seasons, but not everybody applies for the proper permits. There just aren't enough officers to enforce the laws.
The Department of Agriculture is responsible for imports, the US can regulate how much they allow into the boarders, but not how much is caught on the other side. And while they work really hard, it is difficult for them to capture all black-market dealers. As long as there is a demand, the black market will supply.
All State Departments of the Environment have permit requirements for colleciton of anything from the wild. From shells, to leaves, to picking flowers. A permit is required, and is so full of red tape and processing that an individual seining along a private beach to stock their tank is not as much a concern as the individual who is poaching out of season, or who rigs "cat hunts" with retired circus panthers.
Should pet shops be regulated? Undoubtedly. By whom? Departments of Health and Departments of Agriculture are those primarily responsible. Naussa County in NY State has just installed a new branch of their ASPCA that will monitor and enforce animal welfare laws at local pet shops. Unfortunately this only applies to dogs and cats, they are trying to stem the tide of backyard breeders that sell to these type of places. While they can note down injustices against reptiles or aquatics, or issue orders of compliance to clean up their shops, legally, there is nothing they can do. Reptiles and fish just do not fall under animal protection.
If you think that LFS should have their aquatics rooms inspected, that laws and standards need to be in place for fish keeping, that hobbiest should be required to apply (and pay) for lisences of ownership of fish (Pirranha in the state of NY require owners to hold permits if they intend to sell, but requires no permit of ownership), write your local congressperson.
~~Colesea
I agree with much of what Cole has said. However, I warn you now that you had better be very, very careful when you scream "regulation."
I agree with regulation of fish throughout the commercial industry to fight senseless mass fish loss and disease, but NOT at the consumer level. Actually, regulation at the consumer level is impractical and impossible.
Government regulation could benefit the consumer sector by providing much needed scientific data, but would also severely raise prices at the consumer level. How about that $25 Discus jumping to about $50 or more and that purty little 99 cent neon at $4?
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind that for every action there is a reaction. There are many pros and cons. Right now, I don't think there needs to be any further regulation. The fishkeeping hobby is improving at a substantial rate due to the internet. Wal-Mart's fish aren't the first fish to die needless deaths, and they won't be the last either. When consumers learn to say "NO, I'm not going to open my wallet because your fish look like crap," only then will commercial markets learn to play by the hobbyists' rules.
After finishing that letter to your senator or congressmen, send a carbon copy to the corporate offices of companies that deal in the fish trade.
I agree with regulation of fish throughout the commercial industry to fight senseless mass fish loss and disease, but NOT at the consumer level. Actually, regulation at the consumer level is impractical and impossible.
Government regulation could benefit the consumer sector by providing much needed scientific data, but would also severely raise prices at the consumer level. How about that $25 Discus jumping to about $50 or more and that purty little 99 cent neon at $4?
This is only the tip of the iceberg. Keep in mind that for every action there is a reaction. There are many pros and cons. Right now, I don't think there needs to be any further regulation. The fishkeeping hobby is improving at a substantial rate due to the internet. Wal-Mart's fish aren't the first fish to die needless deaths, and they won't be the last either. When consumers learn to say "NO, I'm not going to open my wallet because your fish look like crap," only then will commercial markets learn to play by the hobbyists' rules.
After finishing that letter to your senator or congressmen, send a carbon copy to the corporate offices of companies that deal in the fish trade.
Last edited:
Wow, some good answers. From a european perspective I think legislation is inevitable, and probably not so far down the road if the industry were to screw up. Fortuneately it's managed to clean itself of things like dyed fish by intelligent consumer lobbying by the likes of Practical Fishkeeping, and the trade organisation here.
For the US legislation could take a few forms I believe - marine reef fish/inverts could be declared 'ecologically sensitive' under existing legislation. Suitable legislation exists - it just needs to be applied. Freshwater fish would require new leg. I tihnk, that your knowledge seems to suggest is distant.
Avalons comment 'None of my money, your fish look like crap is good, and a standpoint from an experienced aquarist - I personally will NOT buy fish from several local lfs because they consistently die, and I will not tolerate that. But what about the beginner who buys an oscar for their 10 gallon?
For the US legislation could take a few forms I believe - marine reef fish/inverts could be declared 'ecologically sensitive' under existing legislation. Suitable legislation exists - it just needs to be applied. Freshwater fish would require new leg. I tihnk, that your knowledge seems to suggest is distant.
Avalons comment 'None of my money, your fish look like crap is good, and a standpoint from an experienced aquarist - I personally will NOT buy fish from several local lfs because they consistently die, and I will not tolerate that. But what about the beginner who buys an oscar for their 10 gallon?
Wayne brings up a very good point. Here in the US there is lobbying going on to declare Marine sanctuaries, and possibly freshwater ones as well. Much of the Florida Keys have no sport fishing/no collecting sanctuaries set up around certain reefs and bays. There is much to do around Long Island as well as various local tree-hugging organizations are trying to get The Great South Bay, and Long Island Sound declared ecologically sensitive.
Tourisms is top dollar though, and many of these elcologically sensitive areas also must support industry. Clammers, oystermen, lobster catchers and crabbers would be out of jobs then. And while there are no-fish zones, tourism wreaks havoc as inexperienced boaters destroy coral heads from not knowing how to put down anchor, or the disturbances placed on a location from 100+ divers a day.
Most freshwater lakes and streams are stocked with hatchery raised fish. That is the draw to these locations. Catch and release does nothing, cause fish still die simply from the stress of "the fight."
But it doesn't matter a lick what you do at the governmental level. Enforcing it on the consumer level all depends upon the individual's sense of morallity. Even the best LFS dips into black market trade or non-permit business to keep itself going.
Arrawana is also pretty right. There are people out there who simply don't know right from wrong, perhaps it is because their parents didn't teach them right, or whatever, so it is up to "the masses" to set the socially acceptible norms. If the hobbiest as a whole decide it is "wrong" to purchase a painted fish, then a newcommer is going to get highly ridiculed for the purchase of that blueberry oscar and find it difficult to be accepted by aquatic peers.
But how much song and dance should an individual have to do before the LFS employee sells them that oscar? I've worked in the industry, I have been that LFS employee. Nothing ruins my day more than being bad-mouthed by that idiot who demands to buy that oscar for their 10 gallon tank because they are ignorant and think they know more than I do. Or have an experienced aquarist get snotty with me because I have questioned their intelligence. I may say one thing, I could turn red in the face and refuse the sale, but they will go somewhere else to get their fish and my manager will fire me. Hey, I've gotta eat too ya know.
~~Colesea
Tourisms is top dollar though, and many of these elcologically sensitive areas also must support industry. Clammers, oystermen, lobster catchers and crabbers would be out of jobs then. And while there are no-fish zones, tourism wreaks havoc as inexperienced boaters destroy coral heads from not knowing how to put down anchor, or the disturbances placed on a location from 100+ divers a day.
Most freshwater lakes and streams are stocked with hatchery raised fish. That is the draw to these locations. Catch and release does nothing, cause fish still die simply from the stress of "the fight."
But it doesn't matter a lick what you do at the governmental level. Enforcing it on the consumer level all depends upon the individual's sense of morallity. Even the best LFS dips into black market trade or non-permit business to keep itself going.
Arrawana is also pretty right. There are people out there who simply don't know right from wrong, perhaps it is because their parents didn't teach them right, or whatever, so it is up to "the masses" to set the socially acceptible norms. If the hobbiest as a whole decide it is "wrong" to purchase a painted fish, then a newcommer is going to get highly ridiculed for the purchase of that blueberry oscar and find it difficult to be accepted by aquatic peers.
But how much song and dance should an individual have to do before the LFS employee sells them that oscar? I've worked in the industry, I have been that LFS employee. Nothing ruins my day more than being bad-mouthed by that idiot who demands to buy that oscar for their 10 gallon tank because they are ignorant and think they know more than I do. Or have an experienced aquarist get snotty with me because I have questioned their intelligence. I may say one thing, I could turn red in the face and refuse the sale, but they will go somewhere else to get their fish and my manager will fire me. Hey, I've gotta eat too ya know.
~~Colesea
i guess my post didnt work...
well here it goes again...
there a new law in california.. i dont think only cali..
well.. it goes like this
store who sell live stock( when i say live stock i mean live animals.. fish dogs, etc,..)
must have its customers sign a paper which releases the store from anything wrong with the fish.. or if the fish or water causes any damage to your current fish...
it also.. says that the employee which sells your the fish much teach you the basics on how to raise that fish..
like feeding.. temperment , etc...
and now.. at the fish store you cannot buy live stock.. unless your over the age of 18 or accompanied by a person over the age of 18.. which has to sign the paper
well here it goes again...
there a new law in california.. i dont think only cali..
well.. it goes like this
store who sell live stock( when i say live stock i mean live animals.. fish dogs, etc,..)
must have its customers sign a paper which releases the store from anything wrong with the fish.. or if the fish or water causes any damage to your current fish...
it also.. says that the employee which sells your the fish much teach you the basics on how to raise that fish..
like feeding.. temperment , etc...
and now.. at the fish store you cannot buy live stock.. unless your over the age of 18 or accompanied by a person over the age of 18.. which has to sign the paper
That law isn't in NY. And I am sure there are several aquarist on this board who would get highly insulted if they had to have mommy's or daddy's "permission" to buy a neon.
This is a good law, it means a customer can't come back and demand a refund on a dead fish they killed out of ignorance. They'll do it anyway, and most stores would rather replace the fish or return the cash than loose the business, and trust me, if people don't like the store, they will still go back.
It is also a bad law because an LFS could sell sick fish to an unsuspecting individual then claim no liability because of the signed waiver. It also doesn't stop ignorant employees from perpetuating myths instead of having any real skill or knowledge about fish care. Trust me, I've seen (no offense) teenagers who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground sell a start up kit to someone, and give them all the basic care for that animal incorrectly. The customer wouldn't have even known the differance.
All that piece of paper is doing is killing trees. Way to go California towards making a better environment!!
~~Colesea
This is a good law, it means a customer can't come back and demand a refund on a dead fish they killed out of ignorance. They'll do it anyway, and most stores would rather replace the fish or return the cash than loose the business, and trust me, if people don't like the store, they will still go back.
It is also a bad law because an LFS could sell sick fish to an unsuspecting individual then claim no liability because of the signed waiver. It also doesn't stop ignorant employees from perpetuating myths instead of having any real skill or knowledge about fish care. Trust me, I've seen (no offense) teenagers who don't know their arse from a hole in the ground sell a start up kit to someone, and give them all the basic care for that animal incorrectly. The customer wouldn't have even known the differance.
All that piece of paper is doing is killing trees. Way to go California towards making a better environment!!
~~Colesea
I agree with Colesea. I hesitate to admit that I am that pimple-faced Petsmart employee (manager in fact, though not so pimply), and I think that people jump far too quickly to assume that those in the pet trade have no interest in the animals that they sell. If the fish look like crap, it can just as easilly be from frustrated efforts to correct the issue as it can be from disinterest and laziness. And if a fish is sold to a customer who should not have it, I blame it more on the national mentality of "Don't tell me I can't" than I will blame it on the person who sold it. I have more than once gone to great lengths to dissuede people from doing stupid things with fish or animals, only to be frustrated that they insist, because it's their money ad they are insulted that you might suggest that they can't spend it how they see fit.
It's a simple fact that people are stubborn, arrogant and (mostly) ignorant. I consider the leap from ignorance to stupidity when the individual is not intereste in correcting behaviour that is detrimental to the animal, when given the opportunity and the knowledge. I would also say it's cruel. Unfortunately, I can't say that it's uncommon. It's also not unrewarded. The number of times that I have had to replace fish for someone who killed them with poor husbandry numbers in the dozens or more, and I'm sure that it won't be the last time. It's the thing I hate about the pet trade. But it's the mentality of the people, not the pet tradeitself, that is the root of the problem. Ever try and tell someone no when they are putting down their money for a "product"? It won't and can't work because people are stuck on the idea that they are the customer so we must all treat them with the respect that they frequently don't deserve.
Fish are just one part of this equation. I have seen people keep hamsters in shoeboxes, dogs in the garage, 3 foot water dragons in an unheated 10g, 12 foot burmese in the basement with no lights or heat, and 3 6 inch oscars in a ten gallon. You can't regulate it adequately because animals are not considered important enough to earn stiff enforcement. Look at what happens to people who are found guilty of VERy obvious animal abuse (i.e starving a dog to death or placing a batch of puppies in a dumpster); in most cases, a fine, a slap on the wrist, and freedom to commit the crime again. If animals were treated with the same respect as people, I think people might learn to be more responsible creatures in general.
Don't be so quick to point the blame at us pimply-faced Petsmart employees. It a sad truth that we are meeting a demand, but the problem is that the demand is there in the first place, not that it's being met.
Imp
It's a simple fact that people are stubborn, arrogant and (mostly) ignorant. I consider the leap from ignorance to stupidity when the individual is not intereste in correcting behaviour that is detrimental to the animal, when given the opportunity and the knowledge. I would also say it's cruel. Unfortunately, I can't say that it's uncommon. It's also not unrewarded. The number of times that I have had to replace fish for someone who killed them with poor husbandry numbers in the dozens or more, and I'm sure that it won't be the last time. It's the thing I hate about the pet trade. But it's the mentality of the people, not the pet tradeitself, that is the root of the problem. Ever try and tell someone no when they are putting down their money for a "product"? It won't and can't work because people are stuck on the idea that they are the customer so we must all treat them with the respect that they frequently don't deserve.
Fish are just one part of this equation. I have seen people keep hamsters in shoeboxes, dogs in the garage, 3 foot water dragons in an unheated 10g, 12 foot burmese in the basement with no lights or heat, and 3 6 inch oscars in a ten gallon. You can't regulate it adequately because animals are not considered important enough to earn stiff enforcement. Look at what happens to people who are found guilty of VERy obvious animal abuse (i.e starving a dog to death or placing a batch of puppies in a dumpster); in most cases, a fine, a slap on the wrist, and freedom to commit the crime again. If animals were treated with the same respect as people, I think people might learn to be more responsible creatures in general.
Don't be so quick to point the blame at us pimply-faced Petsmart employees. It a sad truth that we are meeting a demand, but the problem is that the demand is there in the first place, not that it's being met.
Imp
Sorry to really be the one to say this....but regulating fish is a far cry from other types of pets. Old roommate of mine had a ball python, 3-4 feet max. Nice animal, check them out if you are in to it. I thought I'd try out a snake for a pet, went to the mall (oh my oh my, worst place ever) to buy a ball python as well. By the time I got there, I was told it went out the door 5 mins before I walked in. Ding ding ding! (moron alert didn't hit me hard enough). So I allow this salesdude to show me this other python he has. Was just barely a foot long, little bitty thing. Reticulated Python baby is what it was. So I ask...how big does it get? 8 feet I am told. Sure enough, I pay and head on home. After checking on the net, I find out 2 things that tell me I made a big mistake. #1 Retics are second worst rated snake for human deaths, second only to one other...anaconda. WHOOPS...thats bad....now for the length...***30*** feet. There is a pic on the net somewhere of a retic that swallowed a human...some villager that was trying to collect them for sale purpose. So here I am, with this weee snake, that one day would become a man eater. How many fish at any LFS can do that? So point here is, how can it be legal for anyone to own a 30 foot animal, that one day will no longer see you as the bringer of food, but instead will see YOU as FOOD. Not a smart move IMO. But on the other hand...I did buy it......consumer level would be impossible to regulate. But all the stores that sell animals should....SHOULD have all information posted on the various pets they sell. On a side note, the retic I bought had 2 forms of parasites, and not even my vet could save it. It died after a month, and the mice that was in with him on its last day took a few chunks from the snake. In 2 hour time frame, the mouse was dead and badly into decomposing(sp)....the parasites is my assumption. I called this pet store about that, and was told all the reptiles they sold had parasites................I won't even buy a dog collar from them anymore, much less step foot inside the store. Anyone....rant on 
Allow me to clarify.
I am not advocating that everyone should believe that all pet stores are active employers of the most intelligent and wisest of people. Nor am I advocating the notion that most pet stores are a perfect place for any source of information that a person could need. I have had similar experiences with people in pet stores, so I can agree and attest to the stupidity of some people who work in the industry. I can also say that I doubt it is much different than in any other industry.
I merely suggest that instead of blaming the woe of it all on the peolpe who sell the animals, and try to regulate their businesses out of existence, perhaps we need to examine the state of the mentality that consumers have. I would say that pet owners fall into four categories. The first group has no clue what they are doing, but wants to do the right thing and will seek out the appropriate information. The second group has a clue, and will make informed decisions based on their knowledge. The third group thinks they have a clue, when in fact they don't even have the beginnings of one, but will argue to the death that they are the authority on the issue. The last group hasn't a clue, and couldn't be bothered to express any energy at finding out, since it's a cheap investment in the first place.
So then, the last group is unlikely to last in the business of fish, since they will undoubtedly kill their fair share, become frustrated, and give up. The first group will probably look for information from more than one source, since they are genuinely interested in the hobby. Really, the only groups that we have to show concern for are the ones who have a clue and the ones who think they do. The ones who think they have the knowledge will no doubt argue the most when their "rights" are infringed, or when you try and tell them they are wrong. They are the ones that will do the most harm to the animals and should therefor not be allowed to have them. They are irresponsible.
Those who truly do have the knowledge are an equal risk, since a fair number of them think that because they have knowledge that we don't, only they should be allowed to partake in the hobby. They are elitist and selfish.
Luckilly, they aren't all like that. If they were' a lot of us would not have learned what we know.
Unfortunately, the first response to a situation is to say "Let's limit everyone!". That makes a hobby that has no doubt learned and advanced from the proceeds and experiences of thousands and millions of people suddenly very inaccessible. How many of us could do what we do now, and how far along would the hobby be if it had been that restrictive from the beginning?
As we speak, a bill is being brought forward in Washington to restrict the sale and possessing of many reptiles, including iguanas and boids of a potential length greater than 8 feet. Will this help the reptile hobby? Not one bit. The trade will continue almost as strong, only more quiet and under the table. I assure you the individuals involved will be a lot less likely to care for the animals the way they should. The majority that will be affected will be the ones who are most likely to be responsible.
Coincidentally, you are statistically more likely to be killed by a dog, cat, or horse than you are to be killed by any large contrictor. There are very few recorded human fatalities at the hands of big snakes. And the picture that everyone touts as proof of the danger is, and was in fact discovered to be, a fraud.
Regulation will solve nothing. The only thing that helps is the trading of information... just like what's happening here.
IMP
I am not advocating that everyone should believe that all pet stores are active employers of the most intelligent and wisest of people. Nor am I advocating the notion that most pet stores are a perfect place for any source of information that a person could need. I have had similar experiences with people in pet stores, so I can agree and attest to the stupidity of some people who work in the industry. I can also say that I doubt it is much different than in any other industry.
I merely suggest that instead of blaming the woe of it all on the peolpe who sell the animals, and try to regulate their businesses out of existence, perhaps we need to examine the state of the mentality that consumers have. I would say that pet owners fall into four categories. The first group has no clue what they are doing, but wants to do the right thing and will seek out the appropriate information. The second group has a clue, and will make informed decisions based on their knowledge. The third group thinks they have a clue, when in fact they don't even have the beginnings of one, but will argue to the death that they are the authority on the issue. The last group hasn't a clue, and couldn't be bothered to express any energy at finding out, since it's a cheap investment in the first place.
So then, the last group is unlikely to last in the business of fish, since they will undoubtedly kill their fair share, become frustrated, and give up. The first group will probably look for information from more than one source, since they are genuinely interested in the hobby. Really, the only groups that we have to show concern for are the ones who have a clue and the ones who think they do. The ones who think they have the knowledge will no doubt argue the most when their "rights" are infringed, or when you try and tell them they are wrong. They are the ones that will do the most harm to the animals and should therefor not be allowed to have them. They are irresponsible.
Those who truly do have the knowledge are an equal risk, since a fair number of them think that because they have knowledge that we don't, only they should be allowed to partake in the hobby. They are elitist and selfish.
Luckilly, they aren't all like that. If they were' a lot of us would not have learned what we know.
Unfortunately, the first response to a situation is to say "Let's limit everyone!". That makes a hobby that has no doubt learned and advanced from the proceeds and experiences of thousands and millions of people suddenly very inaccessible. How many of us could do what we do now, and how far along would the hobby be if it had been that restrictive from the beginning?
As we speak, a bill is being brought forward in Washington to restrict the sale and possessing of many reptiles, including iguanas and boids of a potential length greater than 8 feet. Will this help the reptile hobby? Not one bit. The trade will continue almost as strong, only more quiet and under the table. I assure you the individuals involved will be a lot less likely to care for the animals the way they should. The majority that will be affected will be the ones who are most likely to be responsible.
Coincidentally, you are statistically more likely to be killed by a dog, cat, or horse than you are to be killed by any large contrictor. There are very few recorded human fatalities at the hands of big snakes. And the picture that everyone touts as proof of the danger is, and was in fact discovered to be, a fraud.
Regulation will solve nothing. The only thing that helps is the trading of information... just like what's happening here.
IMP
since a lot of the replies here are long, I don't remember who posted it...but think it was in CA where a form had to be signed releasing the store from all liability(sp). I think thats a smart idea...in a way. Since most of the fish that are sold are common, meaning most people all sale the same types...it should be rather easy to keep a post of information near or on the display tanks. Then people wishing to buy them, will know at least the most important facts. In turn, if a consumer can read and know this information, the stores themselves would have no excuse for not "knowing". If that makes sense.