Fish that should be less sold of because

Joined
Mar 17, 2005
Messages
9,869
Reaction score
1
Location
Southampton
LONG PHILOSOPHICAL THREAD WARNING!

Do you think there should be some fish that are known tank busters(or for other reasons) that should be less sold of in certain countrys because they can survive and breed in in its native waters? Or fish simply because they are prone to being dumped or for other reasons?

I was thinking about this recently after i found this news article;

http://mdn.mainichi-msn.co.jp/waiwai/news/...0dm010000c.html

I definatly think there should be less piranhas sold simply because they are prone to being dumped due to their requirements for being looked after; you cannot stock many in a large tank like a 100gallon tank can only safely hold 5 red belly piranhas, they are messy eaters that their high protein foods often mess up water quality and you become limited as to what you can stock with them.
Many piranhas become shy fish that scurry to the back of the tank when you go near it and the high energy violent feeding frenzys that many people expect of piranhas are apparently more than often, disapointing...
So the piranha is already on a losing streak to many fish keepers you buy them- you suddenly realise that the rather expensive large tank you bought for them can only hold a couple of fish, you are constantly doing water changes and other hard tank maintanence work more than you would normally do with most fish and your piranhas are not the people tame fish that you once expected of them and become shy scaredy fish everytime you go near the tank. So you dump them in the local river system where nature will take care of them- either the water is too cold and they die a slow and stressful death or the conditions suit them and you now have a new highly effective predatory fish terorising every other fish in the lake.

I don't alot about flowerhorns, but apparently the problem is the same for them. Everybody wanted one in their tanks at one point and record sales ensued in lfs's as the demand rose as they became a "fashionable fish".
But then people quickly came to the realisation that they were difficult fish to stock with varying agressive personallitys and needed a fair amount of tank space- the lfs's had too many of these fish already so rehoming them became a problem as the novelty soon wore off so people dumped them in the local rivers and lakes;

http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...em.php?news=682

Large growing plecs, namely sailfin and common plecs are also a problem as they are commanly sold sue their their cheapness and are usually sold as "effective algae eating fish that will grow to the size of your tank". The reality of the situation is that although they do suffer stunted growth to a certain extent and this usually kills them, they more than often grow massive and after a certain size, give up eating algae on a regular basis and sit in the tank hardly moving a fin or just keep out of sight altogether- i often hear things like "my plec does nothing but hide all day since i got it but it seemed to be pretty active in the lfs tank", many people don't realise they are primarily nocturnal fish and you are never going to see them about as much as, say, a guppy for example.
So they get dumped into the wild and often thrive due to their ability to hybridize with each other and tolerate a wide ranger of temperatures.
It is the same story for so many other fish out there, most of it comes down to they are too commanly sold in lfs's- i heard piranhas are easy to come by in america and pretty much anyone can buy them.
In england we don't have a huge problem with non native fish causing havoc in our waters thankfully, the coldwater fish selection are pretty limited over here and most fish can't survive in the low temperatures although koi karp can be a problem. But we do have issues with non native water plants.

I think most of what leads to these issues are these factors;

a. "Fashionable fish"- i do believe fish can become fashionable, like suddenly a new fish becomes widely available on the market and everyone wants one to see what its like to keep or to show it off to there fish buddys or simply because they prefer unusual fish and not the usuall common livebearer, tetra and catfish assortments found in most lfs's.
What happens though when this fish becomes just as common as all the other or people realise issues the fish may have like how hard it is to stock it with other fish- take the flowerhorn for example?
Or when a more desirable fish arrives on the market? At the moment it appears rare L no. plecs and cichlid tanks are all the rage...

b. "Novelty fish"- this ties into the fashionable fish aspect, most fish that tend to be considered novelty fish are hybrid ones, dyed ones or ones that have a certain reputation for being some way- like the piranhas reputation for being agressive and violent, or the many color changing fish available.
Novelty is as novelty does and novelty soon wears off through no fault of the fish.

c. Tank busters- too many tank busting fish are sold in my opinion and i am sure many of you will agree, some have been sold for too long like the many large growing plecs. Tankbusters tend to be cheap to attract unknolegable fish keepers to buy them, all in most cases the owner can't afford, or doesn't have the space, or simply can't bothered to buy a suitable sized tank for the fish. Either the fish gets put down, it dies in its current poor tank set up or the owner releases it into the wild.

An absolutly disgraceful act of selling a particular fish in the aquarium trade is the . Pangasius sanitwongsei, more commanly known as the paroon shark, which should not even appear near a glass box. THESE FISH CAN GROW TO 8FT LONG!! They have a fondness of eating large dogs;

http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/panga...gasiu/268_f.php

d. Agressive fish- recently i found out that a fish called the wallago attu was being sold in the aquarium trade....In their native habitats, the locals are more fearful of these fish than crocodiles- they will eat small children and dogs and bite off your hand given a chance and can grow to a massive 80inchs long;

http://www.planetcatfish.com/catelog/silur...llago/163_f.php

With such a fish it would be imposible to safely stock anything with it and it would require a hefty and pricey tank to house- i have often noticed people go bored when their tanks can no longer hold anymore fish and few at that- the abilty to stock your tank for a while and have numerous fish seems to keep most people interested in their tanks. It would be a disapointment then if you paid thousands of pounds setting up a huge tank to find out it can only hold one fish that could potentialy bite off your hand when doing a water change- the future suddenly becomes dismal for the fish in question; piranhas also seem to be connected to this factor.


.........
So with these factors taken into consideration- enviroment, fish personality and availability and max size, if there were any fish that should definatly be banned in the aquarium trade or seriously less sold of in your country, what would they be?
I am not talking about fish you don't like because of their looks or because they are simply common or whatever, i am talking about truly unsuitable fish.
All comments/suggestions appreiciated :)
 
This reminds me of the panic about African Clawed frogs. They're illegal in quite a few states in the US. I know they're illegal in Hawaii or atleast I read that they are. And in New Jersey. But people get them as cute little froggies. Then they grow to monsterous sizes and eat the little fish in the tank. So people dump them out. And they end up whiping out whole ponds.
 
I think it's illegal to own Snakeheads (Chana species) in the U.S.A. as the adapt so easily into their natural waters.
I also happen to think that baby Red Tailed Catfish (Phractocephalus hemioliopterus) should be sold less or at least some sort of vetting and monitoring system put in place so as aquarist shop owners can be sure that the purchaser is competent and has all the necessary requirements at his/her disposal to be able to house and look after such a large fish.
 
wasn't there a very similar thread very recently ?
not-sure.gif

it was a fairly long thread too .... I'll see if I can track it down.
 
bloozoo2 said:
wasn't there a very similar thread very recently ?
not-sure.gif

it was a fairly long thread too .... I'll see if I can track it down.
[snapback]923602[/snapback]​

I do not think so, if there was its probably quite a few pages down the line now- this thread is about serious fish that should be banned/less sold of, while the last thread i can remember of this sort was just about fish you don't like because they are common or their looks don't appeal to you or somthing etc.
It is better to have a fresh chat in my opinion, if we dredged up old threads all the time no new ones would ever have to be started.
 
no it's not that old at all - probably no more than 8 weeks.
Just thought you might find it of interest.... no harm in adding some existing views is there ? It was about tank busters and other similar fish such as CAE's and sharks, pacu's etc.
I'll do a search when I have a mo.
 
I was thinking about this earlier.....

I thnik that in all honesty anything thats going to get aggresive, needs special tank conditions (eg, mbuna) or gets to 12''+ or so should be available on an order only basis. Unfair? Not really. Take a commonly available fish. Actually, I'll take two. Common plec and Oscar. How many people will have a correct sized tank? That cuts out a lot of people. Oscars need over 50g each. You are hardly going to amble into a lfs, say 'oh, they're nice' and buy them like neons, are you? Yet there are sometimes more oscars than neons at lfs's. If you want one of two and have the right sized tank, lfs's should do an 'available by order only' system. You don't order, they don't get. Simple. Yes, I know that only leaves small, often common fish. But would you rather go to a bit more hassle or carry on and let idiots carry on buying innappropriate things?
 
Personally i dont believe that any fish that has an adult size of over 30 inches should be sold to the general public, to keep a fish of this size requires a tank of at least 10 feet long by 4 feet wide and deep which is just about on the doable size of things for a serious fish keeper, anything larger just isnt practical for anyone but the utterly dedicated.
 
Bala sharks and id shark shouldn't be sold.
 
I don't think any fish should ever been banned. Anyways, even if some of these fish you speak of were banned, if someone really wanted one they would get one. They would just spend more money doing it, and would have that much less money to put into there hobby/carring for the fish.

The bottom line is fish keepers need to be aware of what they are purchasing and do plently of research before hand. Although I can't see that happening myself. A start would be if LFS's started to provide better information and give warning on what size fish actually get. Or even post a chart with all large/common fish with a picture and adult size. That would definitalty help a little, if the information is avalible people will likely use it. If people see a picture/info right in front of them about the fish they are going to by and can see that it will get bigger then them maybe they'll think twice.

Anyways, no bannning fish... in my opinion. Just work on getting better info out there.
 
Anyways, no bannning fish... in my opinion. Just work on getting better info out there.
I agree with that colen...
 
I don't know if it should necessarily be illegal, but you should be required to have a special lisence for specific fish. Also, it would help if business wasn't so insistent on perpetuating mindless consumerism and instead stepped forward to encourage people to use critical thinking. This of course is problem stemming from government which doesn't really care what happens as long as it doesn't effect the cash flow.

Requiring people to obtain a liscense for certain fish would significantly cut back on the sale of fish that could decimate a natural habitat. Those who are to lazy to care for their fish once they see its not as interesting to their simple minds as their idiocy lead them to beleive, and then dump the fish into a natural body of water, would be greatly discouraged from going through the process of obtaining a lisence due to their laziness.

It would probably also help if the lisences had certain criterion, such as those who apply must be certified in proper aquatic care and knowledge by an acreddited institution such as a club.

Of course this will never happen because that would cause a drop in sales, and business doesn't like drops, even if they're still reaping obscene mounts of money, and whatever business doesn't like, the government doesn't like either.
 
colen said:
I don't think any fish should ever been banned. Anyways, even if some of these fish you speak of were banned, if someone really wanted one they would get one. They would just spend more money doing it, and would have that much less money to put into there hobby/carring for the fish.

The bottom line is fish keepers need to be aware of what they are purchasing and do plently of research before hand. Although I can't see that happening myself. A start would be if LFS's started to provide better information and give warning on what size fish actually get. Or even post a chart with all large/common fish with a picture and adult size. That would definitalty help a little, if the information is avalible people will likely use it. If people see a picture/info right in front of them about the fish they are going to by and can see that it will get bigger then them maybe they'll think twice.

Anyways, no bannning fish... in my opinion. Just work on getting better info out there.
[snapback]923661[/snapback]​

Yes but no lfs will agree to acting completely fair towards their customers 24/7 as selling fish does not make much money, somtimes even a loss and it is the tanks that make the only profit, so this is why there are so many lfs's that sell unsuitable fish with little info on what they are or how to care for them properly.
I think it is only wishful thinking that everyone should research their fish more often and actually give their fish what they need. Any many fish sold are rare or endangered anyways.
I do think some fish should be banned because to keep them would purely be for selfish reasons i.e the 8ft long paroon shark, we are talking about an imense tank for a fish like that- more like a public aquarium. No one is going to spend 10's of thousands of pounds setting up a tank that can only hold one fish like that unless they are insane about fish and a millionare with some cash to chuck around.
No one sells great white sharks so i don't see why paroon sharks should be allowed either.
It would be alot more simply to simply ban some fish out there- the fish would benefit because they could stay in their natural habitats and ecosystems and the fish keepers would also benefet from not going through the stress of becomming attached to a favorite only to find they can no longer look after it- it would also save many fish from being bought by bad fish keepers.
 
I think for big tank busters fishekeepers should fill a form in at the lfs, stating how big there tank is, and asking some questions on that type of fish to see what they no about them,then having a home visit by the lfs to see if they do have the correct size tank, and the lfs charging for this service so they won't lose out, but i suppose there is ways of getting the fish even with this.
 
colen said:
I don't think any fish should ever been banned. Anyways, even if some of these fish you speak of were banned, if someone really wanted one they would get one. They would just spend more money doing it, and would have that much less money to put into there hobby/carring for the fish.

The bottom line is fish keepers need to be aware of what they are purchasing and do plently of research before hand. A start would be if LFS's started to provide better information and give warning on what size fish actually get. Or even post a chart with all large/common fish with a picture and adult size. That would definitalty help a little, if the information is avalible people will likely use it. If people see a picture/info right in front of them about the fish they are going to by and can see that it will get bigger then them maybe they'll think twice.
[snapback]923661[/snapback]​

*shrug* I completely disagree. The whole point in banning the general sale is that only those who really want, ie. have researched, know tank size, have right tank size and are willing to go to the hassle will get them. The other part is already in use, Pets At Home, for instance, below every tank, a label saying how big they get and some info, ie. on CAE something like 'May become aggressive as an adult'. But do people listen? No. Why should they, when in an act of utter hypocrisy the employee says 'Yes, that pleco will go in your 10g tank'. The info is more widely available than ever, the only way to stop something that shouldn't be happening is to make sure people who can't keep can't get.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top