keeping illegal fish

[nicholasdances]

What some of you guys don't realize by saying it is stupid that a Piranha or Snakehead can't survive in MN, KY, CT etc., is they don't stay in those states permanently. In other words, if they allowed those fish to be kept in those states it makes it that much easier for them to be distributed to areas where they CAN survive. Some of these fish are already causing problems in some areas.

So it is a good idea they are illegal all together. They spend millions of dollars trying to fight these invasive fish, not to mention that it is all in effort to preserve the native fish/habitats. If you can't appreciate that then you are selfish, same goes for wanting endangered fish. Like I said before, they are illegal for a reason. You are given enough privileges to keep fish, find something else to satisfy you.

the issue with that is RBP are legal in RI which I Live under 45 minutes away from....
if there was a national ban like snakehead I would see your point
even snakehead are legal in Canada which isn't really all that much farther away from south Florida then CT

 

[Pyramid_Party]

I'm of the same mindset as chaz, if it is a species that stable in its natural habitat, but illegal because of its potential to become invasive or if it is considered dangerous, I'm usually okay with it if the owner is a responsible keeper who I know would not do anything stupid like release it. I they are an idiot then I would have a problem with it because they are the ones that ruin it for the rest of us.'

How do you know who is an idiot or not? It is just easier to ban the fish altogether.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

What some of you guys don't realize by saying it is stupid that a Piranha or Snakehead can't survive in MN, KY, CT etc., is they don't stay in those states permanently. In other words, if they allowed those fish to be kept in those states it makes it that much easier for them to be distributed to areas where they CAN survive. Some of these fish are already causing problems in some areas.

So it is a good idea they are illegal all together. They spend millions of dollars trying to fight these invasive fish, not to mention that it is all in effort to preserve the native fish/habitats. If you can't appreciate that then you are selfish, same goes for wanting endangered fish. Like I said before, they are illegal for a reason. You are given enough privileges to keep fish, find something else to satisfy you.

How much money goes into pounds and animal control agencies for dogs and cats? Think about that and wonder why we don't outlaw them? I think it all comes down to how owners are not held accountable.

Most of us aren't really arguing the viability of invasive species. I'm arguing that everything is invasive, dogs/cats, we human beings are invasive. We need to realize that and stop discriminating and make more general sweeping laws that actually effect change, and allow for a more free economy/animal trade. If the fish species can be killed/wiped out by a snake head I'm sure our pollution will kill them off eventually or bull sharks when they start breeding in the great lakes

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

"If they did not have laws about native fish, everyone would take anything and everything they wanted."

Think about it I've posted before if every MFK member took home and put two natives in there tank(since they all get large by aquarium standards) that would not even register on the scale of fish caught ever year, legally or otherwise. No one enforces the law assuming you aren't poaching on the large scale. I hate poaching but there isn't really anywhere you can do that any more. Exempting the rare species of NA fish like the paddle fish and some kinds of sturgeon we as fish keepers could never really impact those populations even if it was legal because not that many people would keep them. There is a pet store by me that sells farm raised natives and the just sit there and don't move for months on end. Some outgrow the display tanks and end up in the pond. the demand isn't there for the trade of them as aquariums specimens so its a silly law. Like how its illegal to domesticate certain native animals but you can get some ridiculous specimens for central and south america(think raccoons and such) Its illegal to keep a raccoon but legal to kill/relocate one? Illegal to keep a squirrel but legal to poison one. Silly laws.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

I say outlaw pets. Problem solve then we can focus on fixing this economy.

 

[Pyramid_Party]

How much money goes into pounds and animal control agencies for dogs and cats? Think about that and wonder why we don't outlaw them? I think it all comes down to how owners are not held accountable.

Most of us aren't really arguing the viability of invasive species. I'm arguing that everything is invasive, dogs/cats, we human beings are invasive. We need to realize that and stop discriminating and make more general sweeping laws that actually effect change, and allow for a more free economy/animal trade. If the fish species can be killed/wiped out by a snake head I'm sure our pollution will kill them off eventually or bull sharks when they start breeding in the great lakes

The only way to do this is ban all pets. Then everyone would freak out. People were given way too many privileges and it got out of hand. We still got some privileges, you either be grateful for that or not. Maybe one day they will ban all pets.

 

[mrblah]

What some of you guys don't realize by saying it is stupid that a Piranha or Snakehead can't survive in MN, KY, CT etc., is they don't stay in those states permanently. In other words, if they allowed those fish to be kept in those states it makes it that much easier for them to be distributed to areas where they CAN survive. Some of these fish are already causing problems in some areas.

So it is a good idea they are illegal all together. They spend millions of dollars trying to fight these invasive fish, not to mention that it is all in effort to preserve the native fish/habitats. If you can't appreciate that then you are selfish, same goes for wanting endangered fish. Like I said before, they are illegal for a reason. You are given enough privileges to keep fish, find something else to satisfy you.

and what you don't seem to grasp is that fish that are legal in one state will invaribly make it into a state where they are illegal. how did all of the FW rays make it into socal? how did all of the snakeheads make it into socal? how did all of the asian aros make it into socal? the bottom line is until common sense measures are taken these fish will continue to float around and these threads will pop up from time to time and get the same responses.

 

[Pyramid_Party]

"If they did not have laws about native fish, everyone would take anything and everything they wanted."

Think about it I've posted before if every MFK member took home and put two natives in there tank(since they all get large by aquarium standards) that would not even register on the scale of fish caught ever year, legally or otherwise. No one enforces the law assuming you aren't poaching on the large scale. I hate poaching but there isn't really anywhere you can do that any more. Exempting the rare species of NA fish like the paddle fish and some kinds of sturgeon we as fish keepers could never really impact those populations even if it was legal because not that many people would keep them. There is a pet store by me that sells farm raised natives and the just sit there and don't move for months on end. Some outgrow the display tanks and end up in the pond. the demand isn't there for the trade of them as aquariums specimens so its a silly law. Like how its illegal to domesticate certain native animals but you can get some ridiculous specimens for central and south america(think raccoons and such) Its illegal to keep a raccoon but legal to kill/relocate one? Illegal to keep a squirrel but legal to poison one. Silly laws.

You'd be surprised what some people are capable of. If everyone was allowed to take what they wanted there would be nothing left. Were are not talking about a guy taking 1 or 2 fish, but some guys netting big loads of fish in a pond/river/lake.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

Some people make the argument that dogs and cats are located around people and not a problem. I'm confused by that statement. So to make the point that there is no nature left to corrupt so its fine? Hey a stray cat walks through my back yard no harm its not nature, it killed that song bird, or a rare kinda wood pecker or something no problem this isn't the preserve. That is a silly sentiment, if you think about it the core of the issue is revealed in that notion. What is wild america? Does it still exist? I saw some kinda meter long golden fish(goldfish?) in a harbor north of Chicago, quick ban goldfish, koi, all the lot of em. If you don't hold pet owner to standard the situation will never improve.

If a mountain lion kills an invasive species like a dog or a white person we (the invasive regulators) hunt down that native doing what any good natives should do and kill it because preservation is the most important, preservation of the non natives in this case? less than 1 percent of the American human population is native and we do a very poor job of preserving them. Should We consider breeding programs? Maybe we can stock the rural regions again, but what if they rise up? should we make quick work of them like we did last time it was inconvenient to have a native population? Preservation is such a abstract notion considering how everything is always changing. Our government doesn't really care about preservation that is why the laws are so spotty and goofy. If they did care they wouldn't outlaw keeping native fish/animals etc. These laws are made to appeal to a special interest group that is really good and giving money or being annoying. Its the arbitrary nature of conservation and pet trade regulation that makes all this feel so superfluous.

Sorry for my ramblings they are kinda all over the place.

 

[soul_assassin]

Yeah, they're a pain in a lot of places. What I meant is they're not spreading off into wild ecosystems in North America. Most wild dog issues are around areas with people.



The logic behind banning all of them is to prevent people bringing in in the bad ones under the name of the others. I'm not saying it's the best thought out plan, but still.

Trust me, I understand stupid animal restrictions....in my home town, it's technically illegal to have (this is word for word);

-pythons or boas of any species
-terrapins
-giant tortoises
-lionfish
-poisonous colubrid snakes
-rabbits*
-geckos*
*these were removed eventually

However, it is legal to have cobras, komodo dragons, stonefish, stingrays, gila monsters and a variety of other dangerous stuff. The bylaw was cooked up by people with no animal knowledge, no research of any kind and apparently no common sense.

and pitbulls (dog) as far as I know