On 2014-02-18 13:14, SoCal Savage wrote:
Maybe if the new owner doesn't get the response he's expecting (an outpouring of donated funds to help him with his new plans) he will change his mind and Rufus can go to Damons after all. If anyone is in contact with this guy he should be told that moving Rufus into a new tank with other fish is a bad idea.

Personally I'd be okay with my contribution going to Jorge if he's going to be taking care of Rufus anyway.

My worry is that the owner would not pay Jorge for his services if he was already compensated
by a donation and risk loosing his job taking care of Rufus if he did not turn over any money
he might think belongs to him?

At this point Jorge is the only person whom gives a damn about Rufus at the restaurant.

I will continue to update on Rufus as much as I can. My "roll" still affords me access to the site, Jorge, tbe owner, and Rufus.

The above address is Bahookas old addy that's all.
That one guy sounded like he wanted to donate and that would be the place
as the old fund raiser is done.

And Jorge would need to not tell anyone he got any funds.

Or we could just give it to the first homeless fish we next see.
But he would just spend it on booze and drugs.

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 ]

Yeah the old owners messed up too.
BUT.. Alan Zhu said get this fish out NOW, you have one week.
Then he wanted cash.
So many people put time, money, ect into solving Mr. Zhu problem.
Now Alan Zhu new owner wants to keep said fish AND the money!
Bad form Alan Zhu.

AND now old owners and new owner love and care what will happen to Rufus!
Come on.

On 2014-02-18 14:19, tikiskip wrote:

AND now old owners and new owner love and care what will happen to Rufus!
Come on.

oh I agree with you, just not surprised in the slightest is all, I guess.

[ Edited by: Fate 2014-02-18 14:22 ]

This thread was initiated for finding "Rufus" a new home
and the community efforts to help, it should stay focused on that subject

May I suggest using one of the other Bahooka threads like this one:
http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=45184&forum=1&hilite=Bahooka

To address any concerns or complaints about the original owners culpability
in the original sale of the Bahooka, I don't disagree with some of your sentiments
but feel this is not the place to discuss them.

On 2014-02-18 14:26, Atomic Tiki Punk wrote:
This thread was initiated for finding "Rufus" a new home
and the community efforts to help, it should stay focused on that subject

May I suggest using one of the other Bahooka threads like this one:
http://www.tikicentral.com/viewtopic.php?topic=45184&forum=1&hilite=Bahooka

To address any concerns or complaints about the original owners culpability
in the original sale of the Bahooka, I don't disagree with some of your sentiments
but feel this is not the place to discuss them.

hmmm - but you personally attacking the new owner for being a typical businessman is fair game for this thread about finding Rufus a new home? :)

[ Edited by: Fate 2014-02-18 14:41 ]

I am perturbed to say the least about his opportunistic turn about
and his flagrant disregard for "Rufus's" well being, He is the one
who created the need for this community effort in the first place
and whom has made it quite clear this is about money, when he saw value
in "Rufus" he changed his mind & even had the nerve to ask for the funds raised to help Rufus!

There is nothing noble or good about a "Businessman" who only sees profit & greed
over Humanity, Empathy & the well being of another life.

[ Edited by: lucas vigor 2016-09-01 09:27 ]

Well, I am still hoping that this situation can be salvaged in some way.

If the new owner wants the money, then he has to get it only under the condition that Rufus's current situation is disrupted as little as possible. If he wants to buy a new tank and throw all of the fish in there, including Rufus, that is not acceptible. I would still have major trust issues, though, as I agree that it seems at least on the surface that the new owner really just wants the money to go toward his remodel and he couldn't care less about Rufus and the other fish. It does seem to me that there are still some opportunities for negotiation and coming to an acceptible agreement. If the money is what he wants, then that gives us a lot of leverage.

I'll post what I want on this thread...the whole point of this thread was to help find a home for Rufus...eh...he has a home it looks like so this thread is pretty pointless anyways at this point.

As cool as it is animals don't belong in restaurants as decor. I know this was an old restaurant with old fish but I wonder about places like Rainforest Café...when those places close you never hear about what happens to all those fish in the built in aquariums.

I could care less how Bahooka closed--but it surprises me that the original owners seem to not put much thought into these animals mainly because they had them for so long. 30+ years and not care? That seems really lame.

I wonder what the current owner is going to do when the restaurant doesn't last (although I hope it does for his sake) or when he decides he wants to get rid of the fish after all and Damon's no longer can accommodate that.

Plus I wonder what Rufus is going to do when all of a sudden he has other fish hanging with him in his tank.

I hope the new owner looks into the correct way to handle/care for this and the rest of the fish. Hopefully the dude feeding him will be able to steer him in the right direction.

[ Edited by: SandraDee 2014-02-18 16:21 ]

[ Edited by: lucas vigor 2016-09-01 09:27 ]

On 2014-02-18 15:05, Atomic Tiki Punk wrote:
I am perturbed to say the least about his opportunistic turn about
and his flagrant disregard for "Rufus's" well being, He is the one
who created the need for this community effort in the first place
and whom has made it quite clear this is about money, when he saw value
in "Rufus" he changed his mind & even had the nerve to ask for the funds raised to help Rufus!

There is nothing noble or good about a "Businessman" who only sees profit & greed
over Humanity, Empathy & the well being of another life.

But some of us perhaps disagree with you on who "created the need" for this effort. In theory - I, of course, agree with you, but people have been putting "profit and greed over humanity, empathy and the well being of another life" since America was founded. Heck its practically the American way - admit it or not. (and no, I dont like it, support it, nor do I practice it). Good and Noble businessmen are hard to find these days. Did you not see my comment about Facebook?

Anyway, Did the new owner enter some sort of agreement about securing care for the animals? This is a serious question btw - I am curious.