With pictures of said $10 fish fully grown up in that 10x4x3...
Indeed visual aids would be invaluable. Maybe they could get some life size cutouts of Jeremy Wade holding the different species.
Alex I'm not trying to be confrontational and I hate cruelty as much as anyone,but you yourself had a pacu and have in the past recommend silver dollars for a 55 gallon.
We are all a little guilty of what you are saying but I don't feel banning these fish from sale is the answer.
I can't house a rtc fairly but there are plenty here on mfk that can.
I don't see a solution to fish being unfairly housed unless we ban them all,and who wants that? I know I don't.
We are all a little guilty of what you are saying but I don't feel banning these fish from sale is the answer.
I can't house a rtc fairly but there are plenty here on mfk that can.
I don't see a solution to fish being unfairly housed unless we ban them all,and who wants that? I know I don't.
I don't think they should be banned, because I believe the people who DO have gigantic monster tanks, like the 10k tank and other large installments you used to see posted here on MFK, should be able to get gigantic fish.
But I do think that these fish should NOT be in the hobby to the degree that they are. ID sharks, pacu, RTC should be a rarity that you have to special order if you want one, they should not be selling them in petsmart or LFS for 5-10$. The thing that really gets to me about it, is there are so many fish that would grow to an appropriate size, that look similar to the giant counterparts, that there is no reason to sell the monsters. Want a pacu? Get a couple spotted SD's. Want an ID shark? Here, take a pictus cat instead. It's that easy
But I do think that these fish should NOT be in the hobby to the degree that they are. ID sharks, pacu, RTC should be a rarity that you have to special order if you want one, they should not be selling them in petsmart or LFS for 5-10$. The thing that really gets to me about it, is there are so many fish that would grow to an appropriate size, that look similar to the giant counterparts, that there is no reason to sell the monsters. Want a pacu? Get a couple spotted SD's. Want an ID shark? Here, take a pictus cat instead. It's that easy
This hobby is cruel, and selfish. Millions upon millions of both freshwater & marine fish die every year during collection, transportation, while in holding tanks, ponds, vats, and of course in our tanks. Making fish illegal doesn't stop the death of those fish, or any other fish, it doesn't even make a blip on the radar. If saving fish is a life choice that you want to make, join PETA, because this most certainly isn't the place for you.
A
AquaAlex1993
Guest
Well not necessarily. I am talking about the people who buy these fish, they outgrow the tank, then they put them in ponds,lakes, and rivers.
Yes, your right, I did have a pacu. And I admit it was an impulse buy because this particular one I had, had a ton of red coloration.Someone from CT came and got him.
I have recommended silver dollars for a 55 gallon, yes. 55 gallons would be the starting point, but obviously the bigger the better and I would go for 75-300 gallons.
Silver dollars look a lot better than pacu, IMO. Pictus cats are better than ID Sharks too.
In your OP you asked if it should be illegal to buy "these" fish.
Now, I'm really confused. Now you seem to be saying that what you really meant is to stop people who put "these" fish in ponds, lakes and rivers.
But there are already laws for that. So aren't you asking if there should be a law that will only stop people who plan to buy "these" fish and then illegally put them in ponds, lakes, and rivers? If so, how exactly would that law work?
Last edited:
A
AquaAlex1993
Guest
Good point, I myself was confused at the question I was responding too, as you can tell. Part of the ban does include those people releasing them into the ponds, rivers, etc. I am saying that there should be a law to make a person sign a paper if they want to own a big monster fish. The paper would state that the buyer is responsible for the fish, the size it reaches, and will be held responsible for rehoming. I bet that would be a big help. I know up here, people have to sign papers for dogs, cats, and some reptiles and exotic birds, why can't we do it with the monster fish? It doesn't have to be every fish available in the hobby hell not even Oscars, just the fish like pacu, ID sharks, rtc, etc.
I agree. These are actual living beings, vertebrates no less, and I imagine there are quite a lot of unhappy fish sulking about in aquariums. After all the tanks we provide for our fish is their entire world, and as their captors, or gods really, I think it's our responsibility to provide them as adequate housing as possible. And when a fish gets larger than a certain point that simply isn't possible for most people, often not even in the largest public aquariums. There is one such public aquarium in Denmark where they have a sunfish which is so supposedly fantastic, while I just think it looks terribly sad. Same goes for the sharks they keep. Creatures that are literally supposed to have the entire sea to explore reduced to living curiosities.
I don't think larger species should be restricted for sale simply for being large, as more laws are seldom a solution unless it's concerning pressing matters such as invasive species. Perhaps more importantly it would acknowledge the fact that fish have feelings in a way that many governments and people won't readily acknowledge, as an eventual law would be purely for the well-being of the fish, which might bring other matters up for discussion. Fish all over the world are having a seriously hard time as a direct consequence of humanity, and although much of it is being brought to light such as sharks getting their fins cut off, other matters still are not commonly discussed and some times best not discussed. Take for example the food fish farming industry. Here in Norway we have what is best described as giant cages in the sea and sometimes lakes, where we breed species such as Salmon and Trout to be eaten. These fish are really constrained, and really densely packed. The sea provide filtration so you can really stuff quite a few in there. The sad truth is that fish farming will become more and more necessary, and while somewhat cruel it's far better than sourcing fish and indeed meat by traditional means. So where exactly do we draw the line? What is right and what is wrong? I think the bigger species shouldn't really be in any stores, and only available through order. It would nearly eliminate the possibility of impulsive acquisition, while still being available for those who absolutely has to have one.
I don't hold anything against anyone who keep larger species, and don't have any strong opinions where other people are concerned. That being said I try to provide as comfy surroundings as possible for my fish, something that might prove quite the project now that I have two Gars in addition to my Polys, Ery and Channa.
I don't think larger species should be restricted for sale simply for being large, as more laws are seldom a solution unless it's concerning pressing matters such as invasive species. Perhaps more importantly it would acknowledge the fact that fish have feelings in a way that many governments and people won't readily acknowledge, as an eventual law would be purely for the well-being of the fish, which might bring other matters up for discussion. Fish all over the world are having a seriously hard time as a direct consequence of humanity, and although much of it is being brought to light such as sharks getting their fins cut off, other matters still are not commonly discussed and some times best not discussed. Take for example the food fish farming industry. Here in Norway we have what is best described as giant cages in the sea and sometimes lakes, where we breed species such as Salmon and Trout to be eaten. These fish are really constrained, and really densely packed. The sea provide filtration so you can really stuff quite a few in there. The sad truth is that fish farming will become more and more necessary, and while somewhat cruel it's far better than sourcing fish and indeed meat by traditional means. So where exactly do we draw the line? What is right and what is wrong? I think the bigger species shouldn't really be in any stores, and only available through order. It would nearly eliminate the possibility of impulsive acquisition, while still being available for those who absolutely has to have one.
I don't hold anything against anyone who keep larger species, and don't have any strong opinions where other people are concerned. That being said I try to provide as comfy surroundings as possible for my fish, something that might prove quite the project now that I have two Gars in addition to my Polys, Ery and Channa.
I wholeheartedly disagree with any attempt to regulate available species in the hobby. Why would an oscar be ok to keep? I would estimate there are probably 100+ oscars at my lfs right now. I bet fewer than 30% end up in a 55g or larger tank and probably less than 10% make it a year. Think of all the comets in fish bowls, we will need to regulate goldfish as well. Should stores be allowed to sell fish in cups? Truthfully, I seriously doubt many people outside the hobby give a rats bum about what goes on in the hobby, but if governments get involved the hobby will suffer. The cost of everything will be driven up and most retailers will probably quit selling fish altogether.
