Fish that should be less sold of because

[CFC]

Just to clear things up, fish that are endangered and not captive bred are illegal to export/import or sell without a CITES permit and then only a very very small number of those fish are allowed to be caught, usually for scientific research rather than for private hobbiests. I would doubt very much if anyone here owns a wild caught endangered species.

Fish like Paroon sharks and Wallagu attu are not sold in their thousands by any means, have you ever actually seen either of these fish on sale? I spend huge ammounts of time searching fish stores around the country to find unusual fish and have only ever come across 2 Wallagu attus and have never seen a paroon shark.
The fish that do worry me from the ammount of them i see is Tiger shovelnose catfish which can be bought for as little as £10 but can grow to 4 feet given enough to eat and a large enough tank. The same goes for Pangasius cats (ID sharks) which are usually even cheaper.

 

[annka5]

In an ideal world, people would take responsibility for their own actions and their own environment, so dumping fish would not be a problem. People would take those responsibilities seriously, so they'd research before they bought; etc etc.
But they don't.
Ideally, every fish shop would invest huge amounts of time and money, and risk losing customers to make sure the fishes welfare was certain. They don't -arguably if they did, they'd go out of business.
I don't think these are things/attitudes which will happen with everyone in the near future.
So, I reckon that a licence for inappropriate fish (excessively large fish, endangered fish, ones that if dumped could survive in the country they are retailed in) would be a good idea, but the cost of policing it would be really high - should be bourne 100% by the purchaser of the fish/licence. Which would effectively act as a huge deterrent to all but the most dedicated 9and therefore, appropriate) fish keepers.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

I think another factor in this is the common viewpoint many people share about fish.
I know that the vast majority of people on this forum care about fish to a certain extent and the majority of us would never keep say, an oscar in a 10gal tank knowing how big it grew and its needs.
But most people in this world believe that fish are lower forms of life in comparison to say, dogs or cats and basic morality does not apply to them half as much.
Every now and then on the news here we get some horror story of some couple that kept 60dogs in their puny appartment, 5 horses in their garden and 20 cats in the bathroom or whatever rotting away and there is always much concern and disgust from the public when they hear these things.
But if it were a case of some person keeping 20 koi karp in a 50gallon pond or a dozen oscars in a 50gal tank no one even spares a second thought or emotion about it. Fish in many peoples eyes, are are despensable and morality does not apply to them- most people wouldn't keep a kitten in a carboard box its entire life but most people would keep a betta in a pint glass and not think twice about it.

I think that lfs's should not sell a fish in their shop if they do not sell the right size tanks appropriate for it- my lfs sells many common and sailfin plecs every week but they do not sell tanks larger than 40gallons, so even if you wanted a larger tank for it you would not be able to find one in town.
If you can only sell tanks of suitable size for the fish by special order, then i think the fish should only be available by special order too.

I think most fish that grow over one and a half feet long should be sold by special order as well. Most of these unsuitable fish get bought by the person on an impulse buy after they see the fish in the lfs tanks- i am sure if this fish could only be ordered by speaking to the head lfs staff or owner then most people simply wouldn't be bothered to go through the process of buying it; it is true that most newb's that come on here with issue tank buster fish, bought their fish after seeing it in the lfs tanks, but i have yet to come across somone who has specifically ordered a fish that was unsuitable for their tank, no? This fact of fish keeping is often staring us in our eyes.

Also i think it should be made a law that if a lfs sells a fish, they not only write its scientific and common name on their tank but they also write down its correct max size and minimum size tank for adulthood- this i think could also be another solution to discouraging people to buy unsuitable fish for their tanks.
Any lfs that does not follow this proceedure should not be allowed to sell the fish in question if they display uncorrect information about it. A lfs staff can tell you all the lies they want and you can do nothing about it, but to make a law that a lfs writes down the scientific and common name, max size and tank size for fish then i think this would be more effective.
It would also help make their own staff more knolegable about the fish they are selling to a certain extent- right now though plenty of lfs's across the world sell fish under false names and false max size info and there is little you can do about it.

 

[Bloo]

wasn't there a very similar thread very recently ?

it was a fairly long thread too .... I'll see if I can track it down.

[snapback]923602[/snapback]​

Haha - it was one of your own threads I was thinking off

Here it is "Fish you'd like to see less of..., ....in your lfs's..." on the 9th of May.

(In there is another similar thread by SirM - all of which should add to your research and investigation.)

I have a good memory

admittedly not that "recent" but then again I do glitch sometimes - time flies when you're having fun

 

[annka5]

I agree with you about the need to have accurate basic information on the tank the fish are displayed for sale in. This would at least help.
I still think that some fish should be licensed though, rather than only special order - special order would help solve the issue of really large fish, but not of ones which if realesed cause significant damage to local ecosystem, or ones where over-collecting has decimated species numbers in the wild.
Also, if you increase the cost of these fish (by adding on the cost of a license) then it's likely that people will take better care of them.

 

[Angry_Platy]

In Australia there are a lot of illegal tropical fish. i.e. royal plecs to name one. I guess it is because Australia has the most diverse range of native animals in the world and they don't want the native animals being affected by any introduced species. That said, there are very few areas in Australia where most of the illegal fish would survive (cold waters etc).....but they aren't going to take the risk I guess.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Again, people assume I/whoever means a TOTAL ban. I didn't mean that. Another similar idea is that anything other than peaceful community fish, ie. large fish should be kept only in the back room of the shop. The person has to specifically request it. That way, unless you know what an Oscar is, (and if you do you've probably done a bit of research), you ain't going to get one.

 

[Boxcar Muzzdogg]

If you can only sell tanks of suitable size for the fish by special order, then i think the fish should only be available by special order too.

I really like this point because most lfs' don't make the majority of their money off actual fish sales, its the products needed for the fish that make the money. If you are selling fish that you do not also sell an adequate tank for, that most likely means that you are attempting to make money by selling inadequate tanks to go with these fish, which is wrong. Using tokis' method would eliminate two problems at once.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

If you can only sell tanks of suitable size for the fish by special order, then i think the fish should only be available by special order too.

I really like this point because most lfs' don't make the majority of their money off actual fish sales, its the products needed for the fish that make the money. If you are selling fish that you do not also sell an adequate tank for, that most likely means that you are attempting to make money by selling inadequate tanks to go with these fish, which is wrong. Using tokis' method would eliminate two problems at once.

[snapback]926278[/snapback]​

Thankyou boxcar, though, if i wanted to change this factor of fish sales where would i go to discuss this for serious change? i know little about where to go for these things to help change them ?

 

[Dragonscales]

I agree with alot of things said here such as liscences being needed for certain fish, lfs selling tanks big enough to house fish they sell, etc. I don't agree with banning any fish though, not even large specimens such as maneating catfish. Your argument is to say "Well they don't sell great white sharks, how would you feel about that if they were to tell you how to care for it properly then sell it?". The truth is that those are two completely different issues without a comparison between the pair. Great whites rarely survive even a few years in public aquariums, the reason being that they need to move to survive. Even a public aquarium doesn't allow for the shark to be able to rest properly while continually moving as they tend to swim way out into deeper water in the wild and coast along while sleeping. Obviously catfish don't have this problem and are able to survive long periods in captivity if given the correct conditions. Not to mention that great whites are a protected species and not one that is captive bred (and I doubt they ever will be in a tank, maybe in an ocean based enclosure, but not in a tank).

I agree wholeheartedly with the advent of licenses in the fish trade, here in Oz we have to have licenses (they come in three different levels with different prices) for most native species and alot of exotics so why not with fish as well? Banning isn't a viable option I think, we get royally done over here in Oz with what fish we are allowed to keep and it often leads to a result of frustrated hobbyists while smugglers still bring in the fish and charge a fortune for them. This leads to:

a. not being able to obtain the fish at all
b. finding the fish for sale illegally and paying premium for it
c. the elevation of recessive genes in a species due to few specimens available for breeding stock
d. the afformentioned decrease of information about the species in question.

Even a huge species should be able to be obtained by a hobbyist who is able to provide the means to house and care for it, of course, exceptions in the case of endangered species should still apply and I would personally love to see all wild caught specimens stamped out in favour of captive bred ones one day (I highly doubt it will ever be completely eraticated but it is slowly being decreased which is great). I think a new way of regulating the hobby should be set in place. It should be government funded and run, either by the existing wildlife department for that country or by a completely new one (the latter would be better because it means they can pour all their available resources into it). As a hobbyist I think you should need to obtain a license to keep fish AND have to register with the said department every fish they keep (this would also help track down specimens who are on the verge of extinction in the wild and perhaps allow a hobbyist to be offered compensation for the animal so it can be bred with others of it's kind to repopulate habitats). They have this sort of registration system with cats and dogs here in Australia (not sure about anywhere else) so it could be done with fish as well.

The actual lfs should be held alot more accountable than they are too. Heavy fines should be put in place for selling to people without a license, not displaying proper names on tanks along with max sizes and for not providing detailed info about caring for the fish being sold. This info could be easily provided for little cost by placing a photocopy of the info into the bag whenever the species is sold. Granted not everybody will read this info, but these people aren't going to listen either and are already offenders right now. By providing the info it should cut back on the number of people willing to learn from making beginner mistakes.

Heavier regulation of actual fish distributers should also be set into place. Fines should be handed out for any distributer not providing the correct names for fish being shipped (this would work in co-ordination with the fines for the lfs for not displaying them, because is all honestly, it is not always the lfs fault).

By making all distributers and lfs keep a written log of all fish being sold and to who (in the case of lfs they are going to have to ask to see a fishkeeper's license before purchase anyway so the name can be obtained during this time and distributers know the names of the shops they are sending orders to) the government department would be able to keep tabs on where all the fish are going to, etc and cross reference all their databases when needed, etc.

The system itself would be self sustaining to at least a certain degree with profits received from licenses, registration, fines, etc and what it needed could be taken from government money (before you ask, they spend an awful lot on making bombs, etc. I'm sure they could syphon off some of this money, not that that would ever happen. It'd probably come from hospital and school funding like everything does, such is life I guess). The actual additional costs to lfs and distributers would be quite minimal as long as they weren't doing the wrong thing, in which case they shouldn't be in operation anyway. I know this would make an expensive hobby even more expensive for us, but considering the benefits to things like conservation, animal rights, etc I think it is a fair exchange.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

"BUMP" 'cos i thought it was a good topic B)

 

[aixsponsa]

as a side note why would it be so hard to get a gun in the US

buy a gun here

I think you'll find that it's not as easy as clicking a website and sending a paypal authorization, though that's what the alarmists would have you think. Look on the right hand side of the page, under 'shipping terms', and you'll see it says 'FFL Dealer'. That means they'll only ship to a person holding a 'dealer' level Federal Firearms License. To buy over the internet or the phone means you have to arrange a local dealer to take delivery, then you will have to go through all required local licensing and background checks with that local dealer before he can turn it over to you. You're better off buying locally, it's less hassle.

Anyway, back on topic- I don't really agree with bans most of the time, but it's clear that not every aquarium owner is smart enough to be turned loose with some fish. I live in the southeastern US, where non-native plants and animals are becoming a huge issue.

Already aquarists have been blamed for the scourge of the lakes hereabouts- hydrilla. This is a pretty common aquarium plant, and it's absolute murder on the lakes around here. There are thousands of acres of lakes where hydrilla is a monoculture- it's destroyed every other plant in the area. The lakes are basically non-navigable now, because the weeds foul boat motors faster than you can move.

These bullet points from http/www.actionbioscience.org/biodiversity/simberloff.html pretty much underscore it all:

• Compared to other threats to biodiversity, invasive introduced species rank second only to habitat destruction, such as forest clearing.
• Of all 1,880 imperiled species in the United States, 49% are endangered because of introduced species alone or because of their impact combined with other forces.
• In fact, introduced species are a greater threat to native biodiversity than pollution, harvest, and disease combined.

I don't know if bans are the answer- education sure hasn't been working, because the people fool enough to dump a snakehead or pirhana into a local lake have proven themselves quite resistent to even the most persistent efforts to educate them.