Shark license

[blackghostknife]

I would like to say that first licenses are needed for certain things. Driving and flying for one. However not for things like being a florist.

At the same time I think you should be required to have a license to own certain exotic pets like sharks and monkeys. But not for things such as jerbils, cats, or dogs. I think that inspectors should come and make certain that the sharks are cared for properly. Is anyone out there with me? It would keep just anyone from getting their hands on these delicate and fascinating creatures.

 

[Jabba954]

In short, more government = bad. Particularly any bureaucratic agency that isn't self funding - my taxes are much too high as it is.

 

[L8braker]

In short, more government = bad. Particularly any bureaucratic agency that isn't self funding - my taxes are much too high as it is.

I'd def have to agree with Jabba.

The tough question lies on the dividing line of the animals considered exotic vs not. The other problem is alot of dog/cats are treated just as bad or worse than the sharks. Take a 80lb dog and put it in a crate all day.....

Anyways I do agree a certain level of experience would be great before buying any "upper end" item. This applies to exotic sports cars & motorcycles.....on and on it never stops.

 

[blackghostknife]

I agree that more gov. = bad the people should make the majority of the decisions but some people out there have no idea what they are doing. I consider the government to be made of idiots that have no idea what is going on but I still think that a shark license is needed. I am one of those, "Right wing wackos" and disagree with the governments way of doing things but I would have to make this one exception.

 

[Deano1956]

yea right, let a government employee come into my house and tell me I am or am not taking care of a shark? Really? Who's going to pay for their education and training? You? They cant even govern themselves!!!! Where do you guys come from that suggest things like this? You are on the wrong website to suggest such a foolish thing. I think all of these extra agencies as you suggest should ONLY be funded by private people like you that have a desire to have them and not us tax payers that want to be left alone and enjoy a uncomplicated normal life with a few fish from the ocean of course, void of foolish regulations. So there!!

 

[sikoko]

well put deano

 

[krj-1168]

I can see both sides of this debate. And I feel that maybe certain animals(fish included) need special permits for private individuals to keep.

But I also there needs to be set guidelines for any given type of animals and not just say that all animals in a given group should be restricted or banned. IMPO - such guidelines would be if the species of Animal in question represents a serious threat to human life (be it the owner, owners family or the public at large).

For example - I think it's wrong say all cats should be restricted, because the potential danger of certain large exotic cats (ie Lions, Tigers & leopards). A much better option whould be just to restrict permits for keeping the large exotic cats.

The same thing is true with most other exotic animals, and that includes sharks. The vast majority of shark species which are available to private aquarists - are in fact no more dangerous than an Eel or Grouper. In fact there is actually about 2 or 3 species of shark which are available (at pretty high prices) to private aquarists, which could rightfully be considered to be potential dangerous to humans. Those species would be the Bull Shark, The Lemon Shark, and possible the Whitetip Reef.

I agree with Jabba, & Deano. More government in this situation is bad. And it could hurt some conservation efforts to breed certain species of sharks in captivity.

To make a law requiring a special permit to keep sharks would require - the government to educated wildlife officials in all 50 states on the requirements of what is humane for keeping sharks. And the fact is that would be far more difficult to do than you realize.

 

[clemsonguy1125]

The thing is less people have a pool to house there shark in that have a decent yard for a dog. Im fine with being able to get a bamboo shark at the lfs but for things like bullsharks, yeah you should need some sort of certification

 

[turbo253]

I gotta be honest this topic and the sharks to ban topic are getting pretty played out now. I feel that there are far more bamboo,cat,horn and other benthic sharks right now that get far whose homes and care then the few bull sharks that end up in private aquarist hands. Personally I don't think you can compare a shark to a tiger or lion. A shark could be dangerous to its owner but trust me my lemon has not gotten out and eaten my neighbors dog yet. Trust me you can make these animals as illegal as you want and make people jump through hoops to get them but all it will do is push the whole thing underground.

So instead of starting stupid topics on what to outlaw why don't you guys talk about what it takes to care for some of these animals and educate yourselves and others so they don't impulse buy.

And lastly when it comes to the really tough sharks like bull,grey reef, Atlantic black tips, and hammers,etc... you can't Just buy these from a LFS. You got to know someone and have deep pockets and even then the few legal and ligit sellers that can get them use great discretion on who they sell them to. Trust me I can handle a bull and paid the heavy cost and still don't have one that is my own. I just babysit the one I have now. This has been going on for about 10 months now. So as you can see its not like buying a red tail cat fish.

On that note I am done with these topics!!

 

[Zoodiver]

I agree. There are FAR better things to worry about than the one bull shark in the US in private hands. It's doing well.