F
Joined: Mar 05, 2009
Posts: 34
|
F
On 2014-02-18 13:19, SandraDee wrote:
I still think the original owners of Bahooka did this and the rest of the aquatic life (living and now dead) wrong by assuming that whoever bought the place from them would take care of these animals.
I think someone else said this but its true--you wouldn't include your dog in the sale of your house and assume the new owners would take care of the dog the way you did.
The original owners of Bahooka really screwed up.
[ Edited by: SandraDee 2014-02-18 13:20 ]
I absolutely agree with this. If ANYONE should have been expected to have any sense of responsibility to these fish it would be them (besides their caretaker of course - who clearly still has actively cared for them.)
That said - and I speak as someone that was as sad for Bahooka's closing as any of you - I went there a lot, and I also speak from the perspective of an animal lover - but I dont see the point in personally bad mouthing the new owner - as there is zero reason the new owners should have ANY emotional investment into a bunch of fish other than if or if it will not have a positive impact on their new business. Why would any of you expect anything different? New owner sounds like a typical business man looking to run a successful business if you ask me. The orig owners are the ones who dropped the ball here. I knew the moment I heard the fish were going with the orig sale last year, that each and every one of them have a questionable future.
If you want to speak of how MOST humans care little about the welfare of other life on this planet, then thats another story and Ill be right beside you - but even the law sees pets as property first in many respects.
[ Edited by: Fate 2014-02-18 14:11 ]
|
