What are your thoughts on fish like Pacu being sold

[Gourami Swami]

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.





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

Well no, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the solution is a permit requirement for large fish. The part of the solution that I won't pretend to have the perfect answer for, is the cut off size, or exact requirements. That would require a lot of thought and input from different people with different perspectives, to arrive at a compromise that makes sense. But doing nothing, because you don't have the easy answer in front of you, is a cop out to finding any solution for the problem.

If you can house a 2' fish, great, more power to you, pay the small fee. I'm not saying that makes you wealthy, but it's incredibly unlikely that somebody who can afford to house the large fish could not afford to pay the very small permit fee for the fish. Do you know what electric, water, and food to take care of a pacu in a 1000g-ish tank is? Certainly much higher than a one-time 20$ fee. If somebody can't pay the small fee, they can't house the fish, and shouldn't own it. IMO.

 

[jaws7777]

Well no, that is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying the solution is a permit requirement for large fish. The part of the solution that I won't pretend to have the perfect answer for, is the cut off size, or exact requirements. That would require a lot of thought and input from different people with different perspectives, to arrive at a compromise that makes sense. But doing nothing, because you don't have the easy answer in front of you, is a cop out to finding any solution for the problem.

If you can house a 2' fish, great, more power to you, pay the small fee. I'm not saying that makes you wealthy, but it's incredibly unlikely that somebody who can afford to house the large fish could not afford to pay the very small permit fee for the fish. Do you know what electric, water, and food to take care of a pacu in a 1000g-ish tank is? Certainly much higher than a one-time 20$ fee. If somebody can't pay the small fee, they can't house the fish, and shouldn't own it. IMO.

So say the committee decides the permit is required for 20 inch fish. What happens when these threads turn into the poor treatment of 12 inch fish ?

 

[jaws7777]

On a site called monster fish keepers we're advocating on makong it harder to obtain large fish.

 

[Gourami Swami]

So say the committee decides the permit is required for 20 inch fish. What happens when these threads turn into the poor treatment of 12 inch fish ?

I kind of doubt that would be the case, since 12 inch fish are much easier to house than 20 inch fish. Though if it were to happen, and the government cared enough to extend permit restrictions to 12 inch fish, I would personally be OK with that. A 12 inch fish is still difficult to house for many people, and similarly, anybody who can afford the care of the animal will be able to afford a one-time 20$ fee.
It's a matter of priority; Im placing the priority on the welfare of the animals, not on the convenience of the shopper.

And yes this is monster fish keepers, where we advocate the correct housing and proper care of large fish. A law like this would be for the benefit of monster fish. To me, any real monster fish keeper (as opposed to just "owner") wants to provide the best for their fish, and wouldn't want to see other fish in horrible conditions either. Though as a disclaimer, these are my own personal opinions, not necessarily the opinion of MFK as an entity.

 

[thebiggerthebetter]

I commend and admire your tenacity! I suppose that both what Swami and Jaws are arguing for can lead to the same result - the Australia scenario in the end.

In the USA, the process of federal and state-level prohibitions with the goal of environmental protection and animal rights protection has already been going. It is just a matter of speed, fueled by the looming ecological catastrophes, local and global, and the rights movement. Which will go faster - a stepwise fashion catalyzed by what Swami is proposing (start with an arapaima and make your way to a guppy) or an exponential growth of prohibitions as we chug along and nothing changes significantly in our hobby as a whole with its cruelty and illegal releases (Jaws)?

IDK but I fear it is all going the same direction anyway. The only thing we as a community and each of us as a hobbyist can do is try our best to do it right in our own tanks and by our own fish and to raise the awareness. That may delay the prohibition process, which, again, has already started its choking action.

Sorry, Swami. Maybe I see the glass half empty. I hope to be wrong but look around and see no ground for a bright future for us, our kids, and our grandkids. They will be learning about the great fish we now enjoy from books, or rather plastic screens. It'll be pathetic and we all as a current humankind, a civilization are to blame. Just my $0.02.

 

[jaws7777]

I kind of doubt that would be the case, since 12 inch fish are much easier to house than 20 inch fish. Though if it were to happen, and the government cared enough to extend permit restrictions to 12 inch fish, I would personally be OK with that. A 12 inch fish is still difficult to house for many people, and similarly, anybody who can afford the care of the animal will be able to afford a one-time 20$ fee.
It's a matter of priority; Im placing the priority on the welfare of the animals, not on the convenience of the shopper.

And yes this is monster fish keepers, where we advocate the correct housing and proper care of large fish. A law like this would be for the benefit of monster fish. To me, any real monster fish keeper (as opposed to just "owner") wants to provide the best for their fish, and wouldn't want to see other fish in horrible conditions either. Though as a disclaimer, these are my own personal opinions, not necessarily the opinion of MFK as an entity.

What we think and what is reality are two different things. Im sure if either of use were here maybe 10 yrs ago and i said hey do you think they"ll ever be a requirement to have a permit to keep a 2 ft fish they would have laughed at me... so dont bet that a 12 inch fish permit would be off the table


You keep saying "I wouldnt mind" or "I prefer" thats fine for you but what your talking about is imposing a regulation on everyone because it suits your opinion of this hoppy. I think allot of things are acceptable but that doesnt mean its works for the whole.

Bud your a mod on monster fish keepers. And want to make it harder on people to obtain large fish, think Bout this for a second. Advocating for education is always great this has nothing to do proper care for fish... this has to do with proper care for fish that you cannot house, almost every member on this site preaches proper care. What your talking about would make sense on guppy fish keepers.

Look these permits or regulations isnt going to happen in my lifetime god willing. Nothing mentioned is even feasible.

I dont know how old you are but but nothing ever ends how its starts when you start regulating everything.

Your 20 permit would most likely be renewed yearly. Then the whackos will start talking about classes or training. Who pays for all of this ? I mean the employees maintaining this system and all its regulations would require a salary. Who enforces the rules ? Cops, feds, sheriff's dept ? Wait another agency right ? How would you even catch someone keeping the pacu in 40 breeder do home inspections ? You know what happens after you make it harder for people to get these large fish ? Prices would sky rocket and they would be sold under the table.

I commend and admire your tenacity! I suppose that both what Swami and Jaws are arguing for can lead to the same result - the Australia scenario in the end.

In the USA, the process of federal and state-level prohibitions with the goal of environmental protection and animal rights protection has already been going. It is just a matter of speed, fueled by the looming ecological catastrophes, local and global, and the rights movement. Which will go faster - a stepwise fashion catalyzed by what Swami is proposing (start with an arapaima and make your way to a guppy) or an exponential growth of prohibitions as we chug along and nothing changes significantly in our hobby as a whole with its cruelty and illegal releases (Jaws)?

IDK but I fear it is all going the same direction anyway. The only thing we as a community and each of us as a hobbyist can do is try our best to do it right in our own tanks and by our own fish and to raise the awareness. That may delay the prohibition process, which, again, has already started its choking action.

Sorry, Swami. Maybe I see the glass half empty. I hope to be wrong but look around and see no ground for a bright future for us, our kids, and our grandkids. They will be learning about the great fish we now enjoy from books, or rather plastic screens. It'll be pathetic and we all as a current humankind, a civilization are to blame. Just my $0.02.

Viktor i get all of that, you'll never hear me argue about invasive species. I know little to nothing about the subject and wouldnt take a hard stance on either side.

Regulations based off size i do not agree with. I dont believe in punishing the competent keepers because of the idiots. Along with giving online sellers more of a competitive edge over the mom and pop lfs. Hate to see any animal suffer but imo this is not the way.... sheesh i remember when they started increasing the tax on cigarettes. From 2 bucks all the way to 15 (nyc), the sales pitch was they were attempting to force people to quit...yeah ok unrelated but the same scenario.

 

[Gourami Swami]

I commend and admire your tenacity! I suppose that both what Swami and Jaws are arguing for can lead to the same result - the Australia scenario in the end.

In the USA, the process of federal and state-level prohibitions with the goal of environmental protection and animal rights protection has already been going. It is just a matter of speed, fueled by the looming ecological catastrophes, local and global, and the rights movement. Which will go faster - a stepwise fashion catalyzed by what Swami is proposing (start with an arapaima and make your way to a guppy) or an exponential growth of prohibitions as we chug along and nothing changes significantly in our hobby as a whole with its cruelty and illegal releases (Jaws)?

IDK but I fear it is all going the same direction anyway. The only thing we as a community and each of us as a hobbyist can do is try our best to do it right in our own tanks and by our own fish and to raise the awareness. That may delay the prohibition process, which, again, has already started its choking action.

Sorry, Swami. Maybe I see the glass half empty. I hope to be wrong but look around and see no ground for a bright future for us, our kids, and our grandkids. They will be learning about the great fish we now enjoy from books, or rather plastic screens. It'll be pathetic and we all as a current humankind, a civilization are to blame. Just my $0.02.

it certainly is a frightening prospect, that all, or our favorite, fish would be banned to keep completely. I see where you are coming from for sure. I guess I just have more faith in the law system not to go too far in restricting species or imposing fees than I do in the general public responsibly keeping large fish. I'm definitely not for the banning of any species, or unreasonable fees and regulations- just think it would be a good idea to put a small fee on very large fish, for their own benefit. I guess maybe the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Jaws, I think we understand where we each stand, let's agree to disagree.

 

[duanes]

Probably 90 % of us has had Tilapia, which is a cichlid, so we all know, they taste just like any perch or blue gill, we've pulled out of the lake. depending on what they were fed.
And Swai has become pretty popular lately, and is Iridescent shark
One of the reasons managuense has become feral all over Central America, is it tastes mild.

 

[jaws7777]

Probably 90 % of us has had Tilapia, which is a cichlid, so we all know, they taste just like any perch or blue gill, we've pulled out of the lake. depending on what they were fed.
And Swai has become pretty popular lately, and is Iridescent shark
One of the reasons managuense has become feral all over Central America, is it tastes mild.

Wife stopped buying tilapia. Gonna have to fry up that pearsei

 

[AnthonyFish20]

This is a topic that has been discussed here many times, can turn into a heated debate, but I do think it's a topic worth discussing. For what it's worth I think any fish that grows to 2' or larger should require a simple permit and need to be special ordered. Would stop all the iridescent sharks being sold at Petco, etc, and still be easy enough for the people who really want to to keep them.

I say the same thing so true