Are these piranhas?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Piranhas are not legal to own in Maine and Massachusetts, but are in New Hampshire. Strange.
 
Given the general public's love of buying destructive, invasive species as pets, getting bored of them and then dumping them into the nearest stream or park...We're lucky to be allowed to keep ANYTHING without permits and inspections.
Oh please. The possibility that piranhas can survive in pretty much any US state (aside from maybe florida) is zero. That's also taking away people's right to keep a fish in their own fish tank on their own property, just because they might release them. That's like banning alcohol because of drunk drivers.

And animals like dogs are still legal, yet they are invasive, intrusive, and take a look how many people dogs killed last year: https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2017.php

But oh no! Fish in a fish tank! Quick, ban them!
 
Oh please. The possibility that piranhas can survive in pretty much any US state (aside from maybe florida) is zero. That's also taking away people's right to keep a fish in their own fish tank on their own property, just because they might release them. That's like banning alcohol because of drunk drivers.

And animals like dogs are still legal, yet they are invasive, intrusive, and take a look how many people dogs killed last year: https://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2017.php

But oh no! Fish in a fish tank! Quick, ban them!

You bring up many good points, however:

In many/most cases, the federal or local wildlife and parks department are well aware of a given macro organisms higly unlikelihood of taking hold of watershed (pirahna flourishing in a temperate climate, etc)

The concern is typically parasites and micro organics that may infiltrate and destroy native species.

And truthfully, look no further than Silver/Asian/Bighead Carp. Just because non natives aren't dangerous to humans means jack squat in their ability to destroy a watershed
 
You bring up many good points, however:

In many/most cases, the federal or local wildlife and parks department are well aware of a given macro organisms higly unlikelihood of taking hold of watershed (pirahna flourishing in a temperate climate, etc)

The concern is typically parasites and micro organics that may infiltrate and destroy native species.

And truthfully, look no further than Silver/Asian/Bighead Carp. Just because non natives aren't dangerous to humans means jack squat in their ability to destroy a watershed
Those carp were brought here because the people who brought them here already knew that they would thrive here, just like the tilapia, goldfish, common carp, koi and brown trout. These are invasive species that were brought to the US with the deliberate intention of having them established as "improvements" over our native fish. There is no comparison. Convicts, Mayans, Midas, Snakeheads and others might be good examples of fish that inadvertently were released and damaged native stocks, but if you'll notice, none of them have caused any damage in places where you wouldn't expect them to be able to live.
If you'll notice goldfish, which are probably the most potentially dangerous aquarium fish to the environment (besides maybe tilapia) are legal in all 50 states. I can tell you that many small ponds and lakes here in NY are so infested that there is nothing else in them, and noone cares. I don't want goldfish to be illegal, I like to keep them myself, but the laws are designed to sound nice, not help the environment. If we really cared, we would do something about, like the New Zealanders have been systematically eradicating the invasive cats in many of their islands that have been destroying their native animals.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pescado209
Those carp were brought here because the people who brought them here already knew that they would thrive here, just like the tilapia, goldfish, common carp, koi and brown trout. These are invasive species that were brought to the US with the deliberate intention of having them established as "improvements" over our native fish. There is no comparison. Convicts, Mayans, Midas, Snakeheads and others might be good examples of fish that inadvertently were released and damaged native stocks, but if you'll notice, none of them have caused any damage in places where you wouldn't expect them to be able to live.
If you'll notice goldfish, which are probably the most potentially dangerous aquarium fish to the environment (besides maybe tilapia) are legal in all 50 states. I can tell you that many small ponds and lakes here in NY are so infested that there is nothing else in them, and noone cares. I don't want goldfish to be illegal, I like to keep them myself, but the laws are designed to sound nice, not help the environment. If we really cared, we would do something about, like the New Zealanders have been systematically eradicating the invasive cats in many of their islands that have been destroying their native animals.
Great post.
 
You bring up many good points, however:

In many/most cases, the federal or local wildlife and parks department are well aware of a given macro organisms higly unlikelihood of taking hold of watershed (pirahna flourishing in a temperate climate, etc)

The concern is typically parasites and micro organics that may infiltrate and destroy native species.

And truthfully, look no further than Silver/Asian/Bighead Carp. Just because non natives aren't dangerous to humans means jack squat in their ability to destroy a watershed
All those examples you listed were introduced by department of Fish and Game, how ironic.
 
MonsterFishKeepers.com