All gars banned in Singapore.

[Cheesetian]

Facepalming ur support of bogus laws. All dogs can hurt u. Banning certain species is assinine. Gar dont attack people. Period. So reasoning that a banning of fish that might attack someone, when there is no confirmed attacks that im aware of, is smart or reasonable deserves a facepalm. So is ur statement that asserts snakes should not be in the home with a child because it will attack it. Assinine and worthy of facepalm. Im on my phone so sadly I cant post a pic.

Its a pointless ban and im sorry for yall

Posted on mobile.monsterfishkeepers.com

Who says i'm supporting the this whole AVA saga? I'm just using their point of view as a perspective to attack them. Asinine as it may seem to you, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place if it wasn't for a reason and although the reason is still unknown to everyone else, no matter how "bogus" it is. And now we're arguing not because of AVA banning these toothy fishes but because people are stating statistics that Gars don't attack people. Who cares if they don't attack people? They're big and they've got rows of teeth so why shouldn't the government, who has no clue about these fishes at all, ban them? You're not even thinking straight. Given the chance, most snakes will attack a child if it comes too close because the snake either sees it as a threat or a potential meal.

 

[xander]

Did not want to get into this but can't help myself.

"who has no clue about these fishes at all"

Think u just answered yr own question.

 

[E_americanus]

Who says i'm supporting the this whole AVA saga? I'm just using their point of view as a perspective to attack them. Asinine as it may seem to you, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place if it wasn't for a reason and although the reason is still unknown to everyone else, no matter how "bogus" it is. And now we're arguing not because of AVA banning these toothy fishes but because people are stating statistics that Gars don't attack people. Who cares if they don't attack people? They're big and they've got rows of teeth so why shouldn't the government, who has no clue about these fishes at all, ban them? You're not even thinking straight. Given the chance, most snakes will attack a child if it comes too close because the snake either sees it as a threat or a potential meal.

i understand you disagree with the govt, but your line of logic in trying to understand them and the arguments you present don't make any sense. may as well let it go--
--solomon

 

[Lepisosteus platyrhincus]

Who says i'm supporting the this whole AVA saga? I'm just using their point of view as a perspective to attack them. Asinine as it may seem to you, they wouldn't be doing it in the first place if it wasn't for a reason and although the reason is still unknown to everyone else, no matter how "bogus" it is. And now we're arguing not because of AVA banning these toothy fishes but because people are stating statistics that Gars don't attack people. Who cares if they don't attack people? They're big and they've got rows of teeth so why shouldn't the government, who has no clue about these fishes at all, ban them? You're not even thinking straight. Given the chance, most snakes will attack a child if it comes too close because the snake either sees it as a threat or a potential meal.

actually given the chance they WONT attack unless we are talking a a 20 foot burm with a newborn or a highly aggressive snake and if its the later it will bite anyone. MOST snakes(this is the statement you made) will NOT attack a child. If they grab it would most maybe bite? Yeah, but not attack. That is the kind of stupid statement that gets stuff banned on BOGUS science. And if they have no clue they shouldnt act on it. They should do there research. Its not hard. Its clear that you dont know what your talking about when it comes to gar so Im sure we all would appreciate it if you would butt out of a conversation that you know nothing about. Thanks and have a great day.

Xander, i believe you ment not to respond to the last line and only the last line and i wont. If you ment the entire "thing" then i apologise and you can delete this post.

 

[pharmaecopia]

This seems to be getting a bit ridiculous.

Most likely the reason for this is the general public perception on these fish. For example where I used to live there was a ban on boas and pythons. It was put in place because it was found out that a local guy had numerous large boids. They hadn't hurt anyone and he had even had them for years without incident but once it was discovered a ban went into place.

Likely the sae thing here. I was lurking on af a couple days ago and came across a story of a big gator being fished out a water body in singapore. If anyone in the gerenal public hears about this without knowing anything about the fish in question it is reasonable to assume they would complain and question why the fish was there. And from there it leads back to the aquarium hobby. So the easier solution from the view of the ava is to just ban the fish outright.

 

[weirdfishlover]

How big was the documented catch ?

 

[pharmaecopia]

How big was the documented catch ?

Trying to find the original article.

Edit
Didn't find the original article, found a thread about it on another forum. Supposed to be 1.5 meters long, almost 60".

http://arofanatics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=451162

 

[channarox]

How big was the documented catch ?

Pretty big, close to 6 feet I think. If you look at the reasons for many other animals being banned, you'll see that most of it is does in fact come about because of stupid "general knowledge".

• They may introduce and spread diseases to humans and domestic animals. I have no idea about this, but I don't think there are may diseases that can be spread between different groups of animals(reptiles to mammals, birds to fish, etc.).
• Collection of wild animals for trading will lead to ecosystem imbalance and threaten the survival of endangered species. The only way this would happen is if people released these animals. Though I do agree that it could further threaten the already endangered species(What's left of them), as they are restricted to the reserves, which is where people would dump their unwanted pets in most cases.
• The welfare of the animals may be compromised due to reasons such as unsuitable living conditions, poor diet and pet owner's lack of knowledge of the proper care for the animal. Could happen with any animal, cats, dogs, rabbits etc.(and it does happen, so why not bad all these too?)
• Singapore's biodiversity would be greatly affected if such exotic pets were released in the wild, as most of them are non-native. Again, much of the native biodiversity is already gone, replaced by all sorts of alien species.
• If the animal escapes, it may cause nuisance, fear and trauma to the general public. That's why the AVA should take the time to teach the public, and not simply dismiss these animals as people-killers.
  

 

[hlshaw]

I have read some comments on the ban. There are pros and cons. Many of you who support the ban write on the pros and those who do not support write much on the cons. There are more monsterkeepers at this forum.

Ava is the agency for MEWR.
This is just an analysis. The last legislation on dogs has caused an uproar of protests and made the Minister unpopular. The 'toothy banned' was planned much earlier and to take effect from June 1, the month after the GE. However the election result is not so rosy as expected, as such the Minister has feeble feet and has other priorities to look into.

Since so many animals has been banned from import and keep as pet, Singaporeans have turned to monster fish instead. However all monster fish have teeth, is either visible or not visible. This community is growing, many young people are starting to keep monster fish and to enforce the ban is going to be unpopular to the MEWR. The GE depend on the growing support of the GenY. With the cut in pay, diminishing popularity, and the 'novelity' of the party has died down, the banned might not eventualised after all, thanks to the GE. They cannot do anymore damage to themselves than what it has already done. Its 1 week from now, so lets keep our finger crossed.

 

[AU_Arowana-RG]

I have read some comments on the ban. There are pros and cons. Many of you who support the ban write on the pros and those who do not support write much on the cons. There are more monsterkeepers at this forum.

Ava is the agency for MEWR.
This is just an analysis. The last legislation on dogs has caused an uproar of protests and made the Minister unpopular. The 'toothy banned' was planned much earlier and to take effect from June 1, the month after the GE. However the election result is not so rosy as expected, as such the Minister has feeble feet and has other priorities to look into.

Since so many animals has been banned from import and keep as pet, Singaporeans have turned to monster fish instead. However all monster fish have teeth, is either visible or not visible. This community is growing, many young people are starting to keep monster fish and to enforce the ban is going to be unpopular to the MEWR. The GE depend on the growing support of the GenY. With the cut in pay, diminishing popularity, and the 'novelity' of the party has died down, the banned might not eventualised after all, thanks to the GE. They cannot do anymore damage to themselves than what it has already done. Its 1 week from now, so lets keep our finger crossed.

This gives some extra insight.

I understand that Singapore has a ban on all herps, is it not? If so, I can see how and why the current ban has only been mentioned, but not materialized (IE, no articles on the web and no black and white).