Government regulations on large fish

[houie925]

Glad to see the poll results as they stand right now. I wouldn't know what to think if monsterfishkeepers wanted to ban the keeping of monster fish.

Improve the situation yourselves, refer people to this site, educate people, shop at good LFS that warn folks of the eventual size of fish they are considering, don't spend a dime at the box pet stores or LFS that lie to their customers about the fish's eventual size, write online reviews of the good and bad LFS in your area, and keep government out of our aquariums.

If RTCs are outlawed, only outlaws will have RTCs.

 

[Cu455]

Glad to see the poll results as they stand right now. I wouldn't know what to think if monsterfishkeepers wanted to ban the keeping of monster fish.


If RTCs are outlawed, only outlaws will have RTCs.

I am not sure which line I like better.

 

[aldiaz33]

So many MonsterFishKeepers, so few MonsterFishTanks.

I'm going to take a guess here, but I am pretty confident that 95% of RTC's and Arapaima's sold in the U.S. have a 2 year or less mortality rate. Most are sold to little Johnny or Sally that just setup a "huge" 55G tank and the "look at my new cute little Redtail" thread is pretty quickly followed by "why did my RTC die?"


For those that are so passionate about not outlawing these truly enormous growing species, you really believe that your right to keep one supercedes the fact that 95 out of every 100 sold will suffer a slow death at the hands of irresponsible/ignorant people?

I'm all for banning Pima's, RTC's, Bumblebee Groupers etc. There are only a handful of people on this site that have the resources to care for these species, yet how many "look at my cute little RTC" threads pop up every day?

With such a huge mortality rate, I think government intervention is justified. If shops were more ethical and would "self regulate" then we wouldn't have this problem, but anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows how self regulation turns out...especially when there are big profits to be made.


Question: How many of you who have posted here can keep a Pima or a Bumblebee Grouper for life?

Crickets?

 

[Chicxulub]

So many MonsterFishKeepers, so few MonsterFishTanks.

I'm going to take a guess here, but I am pretty confident that 95% of RTC's and Arapaima's sold in the U.S. have a 2 year or less mortality rate. Most are sold to little Johnny or Sally that just setup a "huge" 55G tank and the "look at my new cute little Redtail" thread is pretty quickly followed by "why did my RTC die?"


For those that are so passionate about not outlawing these truly enormous growing species, you really believe that your right to keep one supercedes the fact that 95 out of every 100 sold will suffer a slow death at the hands of irresponsible/ignorant people?

I'm all for banning Pima's, RTC's, Bumblebee Groupers etc. There are only a handful of people on this site that have the resources to care for these species, yet how many "look at my cute little RTC" threads pop up every day?

With such a huge mortality rate, I think government intervention is justified. If shops were more ethical and would "self regulate" then we wouldn't have this problem, but anyone who hasn't been living under a rock knows how self regulation turns out...especially when there are big profits to be made.


Question: How many of you who have posted here can keep a Pima or a Bumblebee Grouper for life?

Crickets?

So you're willing to risk what would effectively be the end of our hobby to save the life of fish that are considered food in their home range?

I don't agree with their being kept in small tanks either, but there is no way in hell that we need government intervention in our hobby. Do you honestly not realize that by creating the agency to police our pets, the people who work in that agency would ensure the continuity of their income by making it harder and harder day by day to keep pets?

 

[Adamrhh]

No. IMO, the last thing we need is another government agency trying to find ways to justify its own existence by regulating our lives. I'm all for vendors taking responsibility for where their fish go, but a government agency? No way in hell.

Basically this. If a seller is selling RTC, Arapaima, ETC.. hopefully he can get a better idea of where they are going. Just like guns, if you walk in their knowledgeable vs walking in there clearly not needing a gun.

 

[aldiaz33]

So you're willing to risk what would effectively be the end of our hobby to save the life of fish that are considered food in their home range?

I don't agree with their being kept in small tanks either, but there is no way in hell that we need government intervention in our hobby. Do you honestly not realize that by creating the agency to police our pets, the people who work in that agency would ensure the continuity of their income by making it harder and harder day by day to keep pets?

All I'm saying is that I am fine with not being allowed to keep a fish that grows larger than a German Shepherd (even if I had the resources to care for it) if it means that the 95% of fish sold that are doomed to die are no longer going to suffer.

I disagree with your "slippery slope" theory...I don't think just because they outlaw one species doesn't mean they will outlaw all. There are many banned species in my state (with good reason), yet I still have many options in regards to what I can keep.

A new agency would not need to be created, at least not in my state of California; the Department of Fish and Game oversees the possession of exotic animals and enforces current laws. You get caught with P's, Freshwater Rays, Snakehead's etc, they will likely be the agency that busts you.

I can understand your concern, but I don't agree that it's going to turn into an all or nothing scenario...that argument is really weak...we can only address the immediate issue and not fear some "end of days" outcome to a very logical ban of humongous fish that almost always end up mistreated/abused.

 

[Chicxulub]

All I'm saying is that I am fine with not being allowed to keep a fish that grows larger than a German Shepherd (even if I had the resources to care for it) if it means that the 95% of fish sold that are doomed to die are no longer going to suffer.

I disagree with your "slippery slope" theory...I don't think just because they outlaw one species doesn't mean they will outlaw all. There are many banned species in my state (with good reason), yet I still have many options in regards to what I can keep.

A new agency would not need to be created, at least not in my state of California; the Department of Fish and Game oversees the possession of exotic animals and enforces current laws. You get caught with P's, Freshwater Rays, Snakehead's etc, they will likely be the agency that busts you.

I can understand your concern, but I don't agree that it's going to turn into an all or nothing scenario...that argument is really weak...we can only address the immediate issue and not fear some "end of days" outcome to a very logical ban of humongous fish that almost always end up mistreated/abused.

If one were so inclined, they could argue, very effectively I might add, to outlaw the keeping of all exotic pets on that logic. No one, no matter how hard they try, can truly meet the needs of these animals. All fish, reptiles, amphibians, and most mammals could be outlawed under the auspices of it being cruel to keep them. The only animals that wouldn't apply are historically domesticate animals; dogs, cats, swine, bovines, etc.

I doubt F&G would cover this. It wouldn't be their jurisdiction. The animals that you listed are outlawed because they possess a very real capacity to establish self sustaining populations in an environment that falls within the geographical borders of the state that passed said law. F&G is authorized to enforce these laws because they are a legal entity that was created to ensure the health and protection of the ecosystems of the state of California based on the Federal precedent of the Fish and Wildlife Service. There would be no legal ability or precedent for them to enforce what fish can be kept in someone's aquarium outside of those conditions; it wouldn't be legal.

For a similar example of this, consider the US Department of Energy. They have a paramilitary police force that has the authority to kick in your door, throw a hood over your head, drag you outside and ransack your house with no warrant. The way the Fed gets around this is the simple fact that nothing that they recover can be used against you in a court of law unless it is directly related to a CBRNE threat to the United States. They could find a meth lab, a tank of P's, an unregistered M2 .50 cal machine gun with 10,000 rounds of ammo, a nine foot weed bush and three dead hookers, but if there's no CBRNE threat found, they have to let you go scott free.

The problem here is that the government has no entity that is legally allowed to enforce a set of regulations such as this. With the way our government works it would HAVE TO create a new agency to enforce this. It could in theory expand a previously existing agency to enforce the laws, but that would in practice result in the same end result.

 

[aldiaz33]

If one were so inclined, they could argue, very effectively I might add, to outlaw the keeping of all exotic pets on that logic. No one, no matter how hard they try, can truly meet the needs of these animals. All fish, reptiles, amphibians, and most mammals could be outlawed under the auspices of it being cruel to keep them. The only animals that wouldn't apply are historically domesticate animals; dogs, cats, swine, bovines, etc.

I hear you in regards to regulation...it would pose a serious challenge. But in regards to meeting the needs of animals...it's pretty clear that 99% of us on here can care for an Oscar or Angelfish. The same cannot be said for Pimas or BB Grouper.

When the likelihood of a negative outcome is so consistently high, I think something should be done to protect the animal, whether it's a fish, bird, dog etc.

I can understand you don't feel government involvement is the answer, but if not, what is?

 

[Chicxulub]

I hear you in regards to regulation...it would pose a serious challenge. But in regards to meeting the needs of animals...it's pretty clear that 99% of us on here can care for an Oscar or Angelfish. The same cannot be said for Pimas or BB Grouper.

Caring for it and allowing it to thrive are two different things. In order to properly maintain an ecosystem that effectively replicates the natural environment of a group of fishes that don't exceed six inches with such efficacy that the fish would be as comfortable as if they were in the wild, it would require a tank similar to your setup. For that, I commend you.

This is something that I fear has been lost in the conversation. In the grand scheme of things, IMO, there's really no difference in what we're doing to a paima or RTC when compared to an oscar or angelfish. The only difference is that the effect happens to a big fish much more readily and more quickly. Keeping any fish in a glass box is cruel to some extent, especially if they're wild caught. We all just allow ourselves a little narcissism to accept the suffering of the animal for our own pleasure.

When the likelihood of a negative outcome is so consistently high, I think something should be done to protect the animal, whether it's a fish, bird, dog etc.

I can understand you don't feel government involvement is the answer, but if not, what is?

A change in the fundamental psyche of the United States that will cause a return to our traditional concept of personal accountability and stepping away from our present state of suckling at the teat of the Federal Government. The fact that people feel that we need the government to regulate PETS of all things is, in my opinion, an artifact of the fundamental change that big government has caused in our country.

The country is the way it is today because of the over bloated bureaucracies that fund themselves by enforcing laws through internal policies that intentionally create situations that ensure their continued existence. The last thing we need is another one; we can't afford the ones we already have.

 

[Aquaticfan]

I hear you in regards to regulation...it would pose a serious challenge. But in regards to meeting the needs of animals...it's pretty clear that 99% of us on here can care for an Oscar or Angelfish. The same cannot be said for Pimas or BB Grouper.

When the likelihood of a negative outcome is so consistently high, I think something should be done to protect the animal, whether it's a fish, bird, dog etc.

I can understand you don't feel government involvement is the answer, but if not, what is?

I agree with Chicx.

After dealing with many various government agencies as well as law suits with them to try and fix over regulation. Look at the current bill being proposed on what they feel is invasive species of animals.

The government when involved likes to seek max control. Not minimal. I'm not willing to give them anymore control over my life. While I agree with you that its not right for these animals. Government involvement won't help the issue. Its like gun regulation. Criminals will always have access to guns. People will always be able to break the law. If they chose. Personally I'd rather not have the law involved and make the right choice myself. I don't nor would I own something I can't care for properly. I know all people don't fall into that. But something besides government envolvement needs to be done. Seriously. If government gets involvement your asking for far more then bargined.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using MonsterAquariaNetwork App