What are your thoughts on fish like Pacu being sold

[SwampFins]

Buddy if a permit is required who manages this process ?

A federal or local gov right. Saying big brother has nothing to do with politics.

These facts you speak where are they ? I get it, these threads always take this route. Your feelings are hurt because you thought every reply would be in agreement with your thoughts.

Stop being so binary. No one is talking about ideologies. Im just proving how what is being requested makes 0 sense.

A. The Lfs could handle the process. Or a non profit organization. There are plenty of options.

B. For facts you can read my last post. Hell, I even posted a video.

C. My feelings are not hurt at all. It's just a little silly that people get all up in arms when someone mentions the word regulation.

I get it, people dont like regulations. Again I respect that. And that is definitely up for debate. But to negate the fact of the mishandling and effects on eco systems is just ridiculous.

And to clarify for the third time, I never suggested a ban on anything. A simple registry would suffice.

Same way your neighbors can report someone for keeping a dog in a crate 24/7 or people hoarding cats and keeping them in inhospitable conditions should apply for fish.

Not to take away from your "freedom", but to help educate, preserve some species and to keep the typical Oscar from living happilly ever after in his 30 gallon tank.

 

[Tanks of Steel]

They shoot horses that have ankle problems and churn them into dog food. But wait, we need to save the Pacu!

I have eaten horse plenty of times and there is no need to put them in dog food-they are delicious.

 

[jaws7777]

On the O's thing- I'd be down to pay $20 for an Oscar permit as well! Maybe I'm a bleeding heart liberal (consider myself a moderate tbh) but the animal welfare comes before most other concerns to me- certainly miles ahead of the shopping convenience of pet owners. 2' is kind of an arbitrary limit I thought of, because of the very negative reactions some people have to the idea of the permits at all. if the limit was 2', it would still let people buy small fish willy-nilly, and keep things like pacus out of the hands of casual impulse shoppers at Petco.

Basically, my opinion is this; there is a problem here. Large fish are far more often than not, neglected, and are very easily available. You can't educate everyone, and beyond that, you can't make everyone care. The information is all readily available; but the vast majority of people don't bother to look it up, and from working in fish stores for years, I can tell you that many people even after being educated, decide the fish's health is less important to them than their short-term amusement. I don't see a single way to stop this rampant neglect other than some sort of government intervention, requiring a permit or something similar. If there was another way, I'd be happy to hear it.

Your solution does nothing for the overall problem though. It neglects ever fish smaller than 2 ft.

You still havent made a case for the guy with the 600 gal vs your average hobbyist? You might not care about permits for every fish, i dont think ot would fly.

A. The Lfs could handle the process. Or a non profit organization. There are plenty of options.

B. For facts you can read my last post. Hell, I even posted a video.

C. My feelings are not hurt at all. It's just a little silly that people get all up in arms when someone mentions the word regulation.

I get it, people dont like regulations. Again I respect that. And that is definitely up for debate. But to negate the fact of the mishandling and effects on eco systems is just ridiculous.

And to clarify for the third time, I never suggested a ban on anything. A simple registry would suffice.

Same way your neighbors can report someone for keeping a dog in a crate 24/7 or people hoarding cats and keeping them in inhospitable conditions should apply for fish.

Not to take away from your "freedom", but to help educate, preserve some species and to keep the typical Oscar from living happilly ever after in his 30 gallon tank.

a non profit org ? Serious ?

I dont mean this to offend anyone but is it possible that you guys dont have large tanks and are jot realizing how many people do ? Take a stroll in the diy section.

 

[Gourami Swami]

Your solution does nothing for the overall problem though. It neglects ever fish smaller than 2 ft.

You still havent made a case for the guy with the 600 gal vs your average hobbyist? You might not care about permits for every fish, i dont think ot would fly.



a non profit org ? Serious ?

I dont mean this to offend anyone but is it possible that you guys dont have large tanks and are jot realizing how many people do ? Take a stroll in the diy section.

I stated in my post, I'd be down to pay a 20$ fee to own Oscars as well! My 2' rule is pretty arbitrary, aimed at keeping the permit less restrictive, while still addressing the major problem in the original post. And like I was saying before, I don't think we should do absolutely nothing, just because we can't fix everything. And the guy with the 600 gallon, has paid thousands of dollars, what's 20 more to be able to keep the fish he wants?

Also just a friendly reminder not aimed at any one person, let's keep this respectful guys. Nobody has gone off the rails or crossed any lines yet, let's keep it a peaceful discussion.

 

[jaws7777]

I stated in my post, I'd be down to pay a 20$ fee to own Oscars as well! My 2' rule is pretty arbitrary, aimed at keeping the permit less restrictive, while still addressing the major problem in the original post. And like I was saying before, I don't think we should do absolutely nothing, just because we can't fix everything. And the guy with the 600 gallon, has paid thousands of dollars, what's 20 more to be able to keep the fish he wants?

Also just a friendly reminder not aimed at any one person, let's keep this respectful guys. Nobody has gone off the rails or crossed any lines yet, let's keep it a peaceful discussion.

So which is treated worse in your opinion oscars or pacus ?

So you have the right to decide he can afford to spend another 20 since he already spent thousands ?

 

[Gourami Swami]

So which is treated worse in your opinion oscars or pacus ?

So you have the right to decide he can afford to spend another 20 since he already spent thousands ?

Pacus get much larger, and are much harder to house. An Oscar can live pretty comfortable in a 100 gallon tank, which to the vast majority of fishkeepers is a "very large tank", this would still be much too small for a pacu. So, I think Oscars are much easier to provide for, and thus probably less necessary to regulate. Not quite sure what you mean by treated worse, but an oscar in the average fishkeepers' tank, is certainly better off than a pacu IMO.

And the second part of your question, I don't understand what you are saying. All I am saying, is that to somebody who actually has the means to buy a tank to house the pacu, an extra 20$ is certainly a drop in the pond, and not a major problem. The benefits of protecting all the fish which would be sold to tiny tanks, far outweighs the extra 20$ being spent by the guys who has already invested hundreds or thousands into the hobby, IMO.

 

[jaws7777]

Pacus get much larger, and are much harder to house. An Oscar can live pretty comfortable in a 100 gallon tank, which to the vast majority of fishkeepers is a "very large tank", this would still be much too small for a pacu. So, I think Oscars are much easier to provide for, and thus probably less necessary to regulate. Not quite sure what you mean by treated worse, but an oscar in the average fishkeepers' tank, is certainly better off than a pacu IMO.

And the second part of your question, I don't understand what you are saying. All I am saying, is that to somebody who actually has the means to buy a tank to house the pacu, an extra 20$ is certainly a drop in the pond, and not a major problem. The benefits of protecting all the fish which would be sold to tiny tanks, far outweighs the extra 20$ being spent by the guys who has already invested hundreds or thousands into the hobby, IMO.

Just because they can live comfortably in a 100gal doesnt mean they will be kept in a tank that size.


I'll rephrase the question. Which fish has the higher fatality rate because of this hobby oscars or pacu ?

You or gov official doesnt have the right to come to that conclusion. Just because he spent more on his tank than you or I did doesnt make it anymore acceptable.


You also cant be arbitrarily deciding where the cut off is either. Remember your talking about a regulation. It has to be black and white no grey areas. Wheres the cut off ? 20 inches ? 2 ft ? Who decides what species ? Is it all species that can get to what ever size we come up with or just a few ?

 

[Gourami Swami]

Just because they can live comfortably in a 100gal doesnt mean they will be kept in a tank that size.


I'll rephrase the question. Which fish has the higher fatality rate because of this hobby oscars or pacu ?

You or gov official doesnt have the right to come to that conclusion. Just because he spent more on his tank than you or I did doesnt make it anymore acceptable.


You also cant be arbitrarily deciding where the cut off is either. Remember your talking about a regulation. It has to be black and white no grey areas. Wheres the cut off ? 20 inches ? 2 ft ? Who decides what species ? Is it all species that can get to what ever size you come up with or just a few ?

It depends how you look at it. Higher fatality rate in concrete numbers, probably Oscars because they are more popular and common. As a percentage, I would say a much higher percent of Oscars survive or are housed properly than pacus.

Where our opinions seem to differ to me, is that I would accept something that helped quite a lot, even if it still left some issues such as unregulated oscars. You seem to be defending an "all or nothing" position, and reject something that would help a lot, because it doesn't address every issue.

And on the limit, or on having the right to decide that; I don't have the right, your correct, but the government would if they were to devote their energy to this. What the limit would be doesn't matter to my argument, that would be figured out in the discussion. I am not defending the 2' limit, and I'm not claiming I have figured out the specifics of what the law would be. That would require plenty of discussion from a devoted committee of some sort to figure out. What I am in favor of, is having that discussion, figuring out what would make sense, and implementing it. Instead of just pointing out that there are difficulties in figuring it out, and doing nothing instead.

 

[duanes]

I'm a bit midi-evil, I believe the law should be made, that when you buy a fish you and the seller sign a contract, if it gets too big for your tank, you have a limited amount of time to get another tank, and if you can't house ihe fisht properly, either you, or the person who sold it to you are required to eat it.
For those a little squeamish about eating Pacu, watch the Netflix show, Somebody Feed Phil, the episode from Buenos Aires.
Here in Panama, we eat Peacock Bass, and Black Belt Cichlids all the time, among others.
P-bass fillets below.

 

[jaws7777]

It depends how you look at it. Higher fatality rate in concrete numbers, probably Oscars because they are more popular and common. As a percentage, I would say a much higher percent of Oscars survive or are housed properly than pacus.

Where our opinions seem to differ to me, is that I would accept something that helped quite a lot, even if it still left some issues such as unregulated oscars. You seem to be defending an "all or nothing" position, and reject something that would help a lot, because it doesn't address every issue.

And on the limit, or on having the right to decide that; I don't have the right, your correct, but the government would if they were to devote their energy to this. What the limit would be doesn't matter to my argument, that would be figured out in the discussion. I am not defending the 2' limit, and I'm not claiming I have figured out the specifics of what the law would be. That would require plenty of discussion from a devoted committee of some sort to figure out. What I am in favor of, is having that discussion, figuring out what would make sense, and implementing it. Instead of just pointing out that there are difficulties in figuring it out, and doing nothing instead.

I meant you or the gov doesnt have a right to decide its ok for the 600 gal tank owner to have to pay the permit fee simply because it appears hes wealthy.

So you dont actually have a solution. What your saying is theres a problem i dont know how to fix it but we definitely have to do something...anything. Umm i can give a few examples of how this thought process severely back fired in the past but that would cause the thread to be locked. Dont take this the wrong way but i cant take your side of the argument very seriously when the focus is on just a couple of big fish and claim that stopping the death of pacu and prima are making this huge impact when theres literally millions of other fish suffering the same fate but on a larger scale. Im no way in favor of bans but i can at least understand what the people that would want to ban all fish sales over the pick and choose permit method.

Some of us can house a 2ft fish no problem. No way should i have to gain a permit to keep these fish and you dont because your tank isnt big enough. So the gov committee says the cut off is 12 inches. Until someone comes on here lamenting about how 12 inch fish are treated. Then what happens ?


The logic just doesnt fit man.

I'm a bit midi-evil, I believe the law should be made, that when you buy a fish you and the seller sign a contract, if it gets too big for your tank, you have a limited amount of time to get another tank, and if you can't house ihe fisht properly, either you, or the person who sold it to you are required to eat it.
For those a little squeamish about eating Pacu, watch the Netflix show, Somebody Feed Phil, the episode from Buenos Aires.
Here in Panama, we eat Peacock Bass, and Black Belt Cichlids all the time, among others.
P-bass fillets below.
View attachment 1364785

How do cichlids taste ? Do they have a strong fishy taste or mild ?