Discussion of some ethical issues

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
I think CITES already does a good enough job of regulating trade of threatened or endangered species. Take Asian Arowanas for example, they allow the farm raised ones to be sold.
But, when govt gets involved, they always screw things up. The Endangered Species Act here doesn't allow even the farm raised ones into this country.:screwy: These farmers should be rewarded for breeding this endangered species and could be making lots of extra American $$$$, while at the same time encouraging more to do the same.


Keep the govt out of my fish tank!
But I wouldn't mind seeing a politician or two in my piranha tank.:naughty:
 
One thing a lot of folks don't understand is that many 'stupid' laws exist to close loopholes. For example, freshwater mussels are protected in my home state. I can be arrested for collecting mussel shells on the riverbank. How does my collecting dead shells hurt live mussels? It doesn't, but the law is worded to cover any collection of mussels so that people collecting live mussels cannot try to claim they collected the animal when it was already dead.

I believe the Asian arowana situation is similar. It would be expensive and difficult to prevent smuggling of wild-caught animals IF farm-raised animals are permitted, but it becomes much easier to enforce the laws if ALL Asian arowanas are banned. No paperwork, no DNA tests, no faked documents- if you have an Asian arowana you are breaking the law.

I'm not saying this is the way it should be, just that I understand where the writers of the rules are coming from.

Again though, my first topic was NOT about endangered species. That will be another topic down the road.
 
I just think banning a certain fish only encourages smuggling, doesn't stop it. Most laws written about keeping fish/pets wind up being as stupid as the politicians who write them. In my state it's illegal to keep piranhas, unless you pay $100 for a permit, then it's ok...
 
Yeah, banning can definitely lead to increased smuggling in some cases. That's one of the reasons I think a permit system is needed.

Animal keepers do need to be aware of the larger issues as well. Irresponsible keepers do a lot of damage- to pets, to people, to the environment, and to the hobby as a whole. Many animal bans are enacted after a well-publicized attack or escape by a dangerous animal- usually due to an inexperienced or irresponsible hobbyist keeping an animal he had no business possessing.

Also be aware that lawmakers are not and cannot be experts on every subject they write laws about. They rely on others to provide them with information. This is why we should all talk to our lawmakers about issues that concern us. Don't take it for granted that the lawmakers have considered your side of the issue and rejected it for some reason; it is just as likely that they have only heard from interested parties on the other side of the issue.
 
I agree with cichlaholic, who desides what species is advanced? What is difficult for one keeper will not be for another. If we do end up with either form of governmental control, why would they stop at fish? Would they then tell us what dogs we can keep? What birds?
 
I think imposing any type of law would not work or be near impossible at best.
I think it is a shame to see any animal or fish living in subpar conditions. Without getting into other species and just sticking to the matters or aquaria. I wouldnt mind seeing a ban on imports on some species.

Just an example, take a Red Tailed Cat, while I am sure some people are able to provide ample living conditions I would bet 99.9% of RTC owners are not providing ample living conditions for a full grown RTC.

Another thing that bothers me is corals that are for sale and coral reefs are depleting around the world. A rare coral fall into the hands or a newbie and it is lost in weeks, when on a reef that same coral could live for years (even hundreds of years depending on the coral) Why not buy tank propagated corals?

I see ALOT of posts on here about people overstocking and putting fish in undersized tanks, and alot of posters supports the guy who made the thread. I hold my tongue ALOT on this forum to not start a flame war. One common thing on here is I see alot of over crowding in big tanks. I think sometimes people get some big gallonage going and think just because its big they can put a zillion tank busters in there. Even when gallon for gallon pound for pound that same stocking in a smaller tank they would say how over crowded it would be. Follow what I am trying to say?

Also a gripe is the people who buy a tank buster, put in in a small tank, because they are gonna "upgrade" later. Im not accusing anyone of lying but I bet more often than not, that "upgrade" never happens. Life happens, bills to pay, other priorities etc. come up and that big tank never arrives and who suffers for it? the fish does.

Alot of these Mega fish have long life spans, most people dont take this into account. I have fish right now I have had for 10 years and the average age of my fish are probably 5 years old. They will never have another home because I plan on providing for them for life.

Blah, I will get off my rants now, not in a great mood and feel sick today, but I speakith the truth. :irked:
 
I would go with "Require permits for advanced species".
This would make the animal available for people who would want to have them. For example, stingrays in California.
Also, it would ensure that the animal will be cared for properly.
 
oscarcrazy;2763197; said:
I agree with cichlaholic, who desides what species is advanced? What is difficult for one keeper will not be for another. If we do end up with either form of governmental control, why would they stop at fish? Would they then tell us what dogs we can keep? What birds?
Click to expand...

Obviously the process would be somewhat difficult and would require input from many sources. However, I see it as a necessary process if we want to find some middle ground between the current unacceptable state of the pet-keeping hobby and massive bans, such as the controversial recent propositions in Australia.

You're putting up a slippery slope argument which I don't find compelling at all. There are dogs and birds that beginners should not be keeping either. The permit process is not intended to prevent you from keeping animals you want; it is intended to ensure that you know the animals' requirements first and are not just buying it on a lark.

heavyhitter- I understand your sentiments. However, I don't think an absolute ban (except for special cases such as endangered species) is beneficial- there are people who are willing and able to provide the necessary care for red-tailed cats and even arapaima or sturgeon. I don't think it's fair to deny them the opportunity just because some people are irresponsible.

Jmotion- I agree, I think as a general principle regulation is usually going to be more effective than outright banning. I don't want to get too off topic here, but I think the current situation with marijuana is similar- the ban is expensive and ineffective, where carefully regulated trade could be beneficial to all of us.

spring007- Thanks, I'm glad you agree!
 
In Germany the government has developed a system where a pet shop isn´t allowed to stay open unless the head of a department, for example aquatics or bird or small animal dept, has been to seminars and taken an exam in their area of expertise. The seminars and exams are carried out by the ´Bund für Natur- und Artenschutz´ which translates to ´association for nature and species protection´. Govt vets regularly control whether each dept. head has passed the necessary exam and checks whether forbidden species are being traded. The vets also exercise the right to shut down shops not up to husbandry standards. Trading in dogs and cats for instance is forbidden. You can only get these animals through a breeder.

j<><
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
MonsterFishKeepers.com
Top Bottom