Catfish LFS shouldn't stock?

[AlaskanCorydoras]

I'm looking for a list of the various cats that LFS stock, but shouldn't. Along the lines of Mr. Lee, and the other bigguns.

The reasons behind why they shouldn't be stocked would also be useful/ interesting. Thanks!

[MatsP]

Literally anything capable of growing beyond 2ft is serious specialist stuff, since we are now looking at prices for the tank and equipment (not counting heating, water bills, etc) that match a small car. And whilst there are people who haven't got much money that are capable of scraping together enough to run such a system, those people are very rare. And unfortunately, rich [financially] people aren't common enough (they wouldn't count as rich if it was common to have that much money!)

Since most large fish also live for a very long period of time [at least if they are healthy], it's means that there are more likelihood for livechanging events, such as children, marriage, divorce, unemployment, etc, that will put different strains on the finances and importance of things in life.

When it comes to catfish, it is really not that big a deal if we remove the ones that grow large - out of the 2278 fishes currently in the Cat-eLog, 121 are listed with a max size over 600mm. That's not even 5% of all of them.

And in my experience, most good (knows what they are doing) LFS will not stock these type of fish.

Unfortunately, there are some LFS' that aren't so particular about what they do.

--
Mats

[Richard B]

The most obvious frequently available things are RTC, asian RTC, TSN, Shark cats & pangasius -i'd also say silver sharks as they can be twitchy & get huge - they are stocked as they are easily available & popular with people who think they know how to keep them effectively

[L number Banana]

I was going to add

Pterygoplichthys gibbiceps

because that was the label I saw in a fish store on Saturday but now that I look at the pictures in the Cat-elog, that wasn't the fish anyway! The label said P. gibbiceps and growth to 24 inches but the fish looked like a very yellow version of an striped fish like an L401, fatter stripes though.

Need to get some pics just in case it's a smaller more easily-housed fish
So let me change that to any catfish that requires special housing! Or at least they should attach a picture of a full grown fish so people can really see what 24 inches actually means.

[andywoolloo]

I do not think they should sell common pl*cos as willy nilly as they do. Pterygoplichthys pardalis. They are everywhere for so inexpensive with such bad info on them, or no info. I think maybe you should have to get a permit for one. Poor things.

[Bas Pels]

Personally, I think P pardalis and P gibbyceps can be kept in a 3 meter tank, or slightly smaller - which is something I do. I think permits would be a good idea, for fish loo large, or agressive for a 5 meter tank

Therefore, in my eye, the P pardalis and P gibbyceps don't have to be permitted, but others do

[andywoolloo]

is 3 meters a 9 foot tank? 9 feet long? I have one in a 4 foot tank and feel bad for him, searching for a bigger tank currently.

[Bas Pels]

is 3 meters a 9 foot tank? 9 feet long? I have one in a 4 foot tank and feel bad for him, searching for a bigger tank currently.

actually 3 meters is 10 feet, but 2 of my Pterogoblichthys tanks are 2,70 M - which is 9 feet

So perhaps we keep it at 9 feet?

[andywoolloo]

wow...lucky. Well done to you.

[Jools]

You know, isn't it the responsibility of the buyer to decide if they can keep a fish or not? My vote goes with mandatory max. size labelling, so it's more "fish LFS shouldn't stock without labelling" for me...

Jools

[Richard B]

You know, isn't it the responsibility of the buyer to decide if they can keep a fish or not? My vote goes with mandatory max. size labelling, so it's more "fish LFS shouldn't stock without labelling" for me...

Jools

I would agree in principle - the problem being when poor advice is given, or the new owner thinks he knows better than the storekeeper - this is a too-often occurrence for my liking

Mandatory labelling means that incorrect advice (on size attained) is dramatically reduced. The new owner thinking they know better again means that the responsibility lies with the buyer. I just think introducing a framework to precludes certain species from sale is a bad idea. What does it really solve, I mean, you can still by an Oscar and the risks of it being misused are high.

Jools

[andywoolloo]

I think what I am meaning by the common pl*cos should have some type of permit or class sign off , like a boating license, I mean because how many of your typical people who go in and want, shudder "An algae eater" could really properly care for the eventual size of that fish.

How many people who have fish could obtain a 9 foot tank realistically.

That's all I meant, the size thing. When I bought mine I was aware of how big he might get. Altho I did imagine the really big ones , 24 inches or so, were only in the wild. My error there. I knew I had a 50 then a 75 already existed and established for him. I knew I wanted to get my syno euptera into a bigger tank one day with him with them. I also felt sorry for all the commons doomed to stunting and being dumped in waterways and that did effect my decision to try ansd save one mighty dinsosaur.

I saw a man sell 4 commons to a lady one time and she told him she had a ten gal tank for them already with goldfish and he say good, sounds fine. I talked to her later on in the store, very nicely, about the size tank they would need to grow out to not be stunted, about the potential size and tank size needed. About their diet etc, and that they cannot sustain on tank algae. She bought all 4 anyway. Altho she did nod sympathecially to me and go hmmmm alot and smile and thank me. I think it is the advice given to people at fish shops pet stores that bothers me the most.

[MatsP]

Jools,

I do understand where you come from. Regulations aren't

But I also think there are VERY few people who can ADEQUATELY care for fish that grow much beyond 18". Whether they are correctly informed of the ultimate size of the fish or not.

I went a bit further, and allowed fishes up to 2 ft.

And the subject is "shouldn't stock", not "make completely illegal" - there are still some people who have enough money to keep big fish appropriately. But it is not many enough that it would actually make sense for your average, or even rather specialist, shop to stock them except on special request.

It is always a compromise between allowing people to be stupid, and protecting innocents (in this case the fish) from unnecessary suffering.

And there is a bit of difference between "Showing adequate instructions" and "ensuring customer understands it".

Of course, there is no law in the UK that prevents a person from buying a car or motorbike, getting it insured, and driving it on the road without having a driving license. At least, I have never been asked to show my license when dealing with a car/motorcycle outlet. Nor when dealing with insurance companies - they ask how long I've had the license and whether it's a UK license or not, but no real evidence is required. I wonder how many people "use" this loophole?

[Btw, did you EDIT Richard's response rather than QUOTE it?]

--
Mats

[Bas Pels]

.
Of course, there is no law in the UK that prevents a person from buying a car or motorbike, getting it insured, and driving it on the road without having a driving license. At least, I have never been asked to show my license when dealing with a car/motorcycle outlet. Nor when dealing with insurance companies - they ask how long I've had the license and whether it's a UK license or not, but no real evidence is required. I wonder how many people "use" this loophole?

Although off topic, I think it illustrates nicely how such a problem can be prevented - and perhaps used with fishes

We, in NL don't have a law against owning a car without driving licence either, but if you own a car, you need to pay taxes for it, and the gerister needs to be on your name. This registry asks for a driving licence

So, for all practical purposes, I would not know how to own a car without a driving licence.

If all petshop owners would - by law - be required to be member of a professional association, or be prohibited to sell living animals, this association could make rules for its members

As this association is supposed to know both about the animals and the trade, the rules could be nicely adapted to all needs

[Jools]

[Btw, did you EDIT Richard's response rather than QUOTE it?]

I did, sorry Richard, I am a donut.

Jools

[Jools]

And the subject is "shouldn't stock", not "make completely illegal"

A point well taken, yes, but we're talking about businesses here. Actually most of the good LFS I know have, say, <10% of the total of all plecos on sale being the larger ones. Of course, I'd much prefer to see

Ancistrus

everywhere rather than

Pterygoplichthys

but I think what I'm saying is a lot less people would buy and LFS' wouldn't stock these fish if they were properly labelled. It's all a bit like putting ingredients on the tin.

Jools

[Richard B]

No worries Jools, it added the extra explanation i was after & i agree completely

[avianwing]

We should also take into consideration the invasive potential of the catfish? If a species has a reputation for high fecundity and/or ability to colonize new habitat outside its range, then only the albino or long finned varieties of that species should be available at the LFS . This rule would of course apply to all fish not merely cats.

For example common goldfish might be invasive but it is unlikely that the veil tail variety of the goldfish would colonize lakes and rivers. At the other extreme- severely deformed varieties like Bubble-eye which are too artificial should also not be stocked.

[Bas Pels]

Avianwing

I think you are right, very, very right

However, you life in India, where many aquariumfish are native, or can become invasive. I live in the Netherlands, where a normal winter has ice on the natural waters

Hardly any aquarium fish can survive that - and those fishes are, in all honesty, not easily kept in a tank

[Birger]

We should also take into consideration the invasive potential of the catfish? If a species has a reputation for high fecundity and/or ability to colonize new habitat outside its range, then only the albino or long finned varieties of that species should be available at the LFS . This rule would of course apply to all fish not merely cats.

For example common goldfish might be invasive but it is unlikely that the veil tail variety of the goldfish would colonize lakes and rivers. At the other extreme- severely deformed varieties like Bubble-eye which are too artificial should also not be stocked.

I myself do not mind a natural form albino...but I tend to put longfinned varieties even though not as extreme as bubble-eye's in the same group.

It does not take too long for some fish to revert back to natural form when introduced, not the individual fish of course but over a number of years and many spawnings if the numbers are high enough..

[Taratron]

I think a good chunk of fish found in chain pet stores should not be sold. Not quite the common mollies or guppies, but oscars, the common pleco, the "black" shark, needlefish, most of the larger African cichlids (or very very aggressive ones like auratus), pacu...

As for illegal, every day I check the game and fish wildlife page in my state; it is still legal to own pacu and oscar and the 'silver' sharks that grow to over a foot, but blind cave tetras can get you jail time.

[sidguppy]

the hybrid TSN x Redtails should top the list of banned cats; they're everywhere these days and they belong in a fish farm for BBQ filets, not a home tank.

[MatsP]

the hybrid TSN x Redtails should top the list of banned cats; they're everywhere these days and they belong in a fish farm for BBQ filets, not a home tank.

Indeed.

--
Mats

[Jools]

I've said this before, but, isn't it better to see these fish for sale than wild caught pure species? I mean, if you're going to kill a fish by keeping it in a small aquarium, isn't it better to kill a farm raised one? I must add that I don't encourage them, it's just that a lot of big cats die early, so if we can't change that, at least change what dies?

So, is it better that an LFS stocks farm raised fish of this type? Or am I so far off topic as to have lost sight of land and we should get back to talking about catfish LFS shouldn't stock!?!

Jools

[MatsP]

Jools,

that is a good point - if we have ignorant keepers that think they can keep a fish that grows to 4-5ft in a 4ft tank, then I prefer that the fish was farmed than caught in nature. However, I guess the small red-tailed cats that we get in the shops are also farmed, aren't they?

--
Mats

[andywoolloo]

farm raised or wild, nothing deserves to be ill treated. including hybrids. It's not their fault.

why not just remove it from the equation and disallow them. Or only allow them with a permit to prove you can care for it adequately.

[Jools]

farm raised or wild, nothing deserves to be ill treated. including hybrids. It's not their fault.

Totally agree, but it happens.

why not just remove it from the equation and disallow them. Or only allow them with a permit to prove you can care for it adequately.

Because it's the thin edge of a rather nasty prohibitive wedge and also the permit idea is worthless in my view. You might be able to easily prove you can keep it now, get the permit, but how can you prove you'll still be running that massive tank in 20 years time? Sometimes when you make a thing harder to get, it becomes more prized and attracts more idiots.

Jools

[Sid Guppy]

that's god's own truth......

and it's not just size; once the word goes out that a fish is rare or endangered, suddenly there's a whole crowd out there driving the demand; price goes up, poaching ensues, species gets even more endangered.


as for the difference between hybrids and true specxies that both get too large: none should be for sale.
these fish are both bred for food purposes, take for example the TSNxRedtail together with Pangasius.
1 is a hybrid, the other a true species

both are completely unsuitable for the hobby, none should be for sale

the reason why I named the hybrid to top the list is it's current exploding availability.
years ago these were rare as hens' teeth. now they are EVERYWHERE!

they look great when small and they're a LOT cheaper than redtail babies and sell like hot cakes.
all not good, because eventually when all those critters outgrow the tanks they're kept in; the only thing it amounts to is a lot of unwanted cruelty to animals.


ps I'm amazed this account still lives. so I'd dust it off. too bad it cannot be merged by the other one.
still adds over 800 postings though. thought it was more, I remembered it was over 1K, but I might suffer from amnesia ;)