like big catfish? read this first!

[sidguppy]

a grand total of 3000 wolves in the US not counting Alaska isn't exactly "overrun", it's barely a healthy population struggling not to inbreed.....
and they're shot from helicopters because the guys with guns want to kill more of the other animals?

just overlooking that killing off the top predator will wreak havoc on the entire ecosystem, I can only gasp at the blood thirst of you guys
you just like to kill and destroy, that's the whole thing

and when there's not enough to kill and destroy, you shoot from helicopters the few surviving predators, so there's more to kill and destroy

frankly this attitude makes me puke.

at least over here, when someone has a mindset like that, we lock em up (sadly sometimes too late, see Norway) in the loony bin annex prison
it's mass psychosis with violent tendencies.

it's a disease. not a hobby.

you know what the US is overrun with?

people

fat, lazy, stupid, agressive, violent, inbred people

300 million and counting, the number's rising every year

so for every wolf there's about 100,000 of those yahoo's for ewvery wolf....
that's not just sad, it's scary as hell

when I have to choose between the wolves or the violent and dangerous murrikans, I'll stick to the wolves, thank you very much

[Scleropages]

NJ sounds like a gun owners hell. Didn't think any US state had such prescriptive gun regulations as that.

Ha! You got that right. And, I didn't even mention what it takes to get a carry permit (so you can legally carry your gun in public)--it's pretty much impossible unless you are in law enforcement or private security or you own a jewelry store. NY is worse.

So you're saying you shoot bears? That's terrible

AFAIK, the legal hunting of all game animals in the USA is based on a permit system run by the states' divisions of fish & wildlife (or fish & game)--which also varies from state to state. For instance, in NJ, we had our third ever bear hunt this past November. The bear population has grown to the point where there have been too many man-bear encounters at residences and public places (schools, etc.). The NJ division of fish and wildlife instituted the hunt to cull the population. There have been a lot of protests from animal rights groups on up to the state supreme court level, but the hunt has gone on.

I can only gasp at the blood thirst of you guys
you just like to kill and destroy, that's the whole thing and when there's not enough to kill and destroy, you shoot from helicopters the few surviving predators, so there's more to kill and destroy

it's a disease. not a hobby.

As a U.S. citizen, I do not appreciate your generalization.

[kruseman]

;)

[Shane]

at least over here, when someone has a mindset like that, we lock em up (sadly sometimes too late, see Norway) in the loony bin annex prison
it's mass psychosis with violent tendencies.

lmao Sid. That is why you belong over here with the rest of us crazies! Your attitude toward individual rights is much more new world than old. I, for one, would be too happy to have you on this side of the pond.

Keep in mind that the very people that "want to kill" these animals do an amazing amount of fund raising and political activity to protect the natural habitat of these same animals. People that belong to Ducks Unlimited like to shoot ducks... they have also fought to save and protect tens of thousands of acres of wetlands. I do not hunt myself, but I defend their activity because once the hunters and fisherman are gone there will be no one left to protect our wide open wild places (and those that are will not have guns, so nobody will care what they say or think).

-Shane

[apistomaster]

It is as Shane wrote.
In Idaho we had to reintroduce wolves because they had been exterminated. This true of most of the states where they have been reintroduced.
The natural balance works fine when there are few or no human beings. But the "natural balance" hasn't existed in North America for going on two centuries. They lands out west are largely federally owned and put to multiple use; mining, grazing, recreational exploitation be it hunting, fishing or ecotourism. When necessary endangered species get extreme protection but little is any longer left to chance(the natural way) so when major predators take too much native game endangering their numbers or excessive inroads on domesticated grazing animals on private and public lands a certain number is agreed upon for harvest. This often is decided by the Federal Courts. We have wild runs of salmon, sea run rainbows and Bull Trout, a fish which once was subjected to bounty fishing to exterminate them. they were felt to eat too many salmon and trout. We have more European Brown Trout than the entire population on the Eurasian continent. Our native salmon and trout are are given complete protection but we allow the harvest of hatchery bred fish identified prior to release by clipping off their adipose fins. These supplemented runs wouldn't have been necessary but it was decided that many wild rivers had to have hydroelectric dams built on them thus destroying most natural reproduction of anadromous fishes. Cheap renewable power. It is all about trade offs. Despite the flaws perceived to be made by North Americans and apparently especially US citizens, we still have more wildlife of all kinds than anywhere in Europe. Europe lost virtually all it's native salmon, bears, wolves and native ungulates but we have vast open public lands in this country still supporting huge wildlife populations and side by side with agribusiness and mineral extractions of various kinds and we will not allow the complete loss of any of it. What is and has Europe done to restore what it had before the Roman Empire absorbed it's resources followed by many successive and exploitative regimes of various forms of government? Some Carp, Tench Eels and Wels sums up most of your fish. Big mammels barely exist. Some Roe deer on private preserves and a few salmon in Scandinavia and Scotland, mainly on privately owned lands and waters. I have to pay $25 a year to fish anywhere in my state I want. It can take thousands of euros to get a chance to fish private European waters for native salmon and hatchery trout. All our blue ribbon trout streams rely completely on natural reproduction. Stocking of trout where they traditionally existed is avoided. Many lakes which had no fish to begin with are stocked periodically. Like every alpine trout fishery which drives billions of dollars in recreational equipment sales and makes the hikes in to have an extra reward at the trail's end enhance the wild flowers and scenic vistas.
Ours is not a perfect system but it is still the best in the world when it comes to wildlife protections among other things. You don't see hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens every year trying to immigrate into Europe but they sure seem to want to be part of what we are and have what we have. You do not already have 11 million illegal immigrants living in all combined European countries. No country on earth has taken as great steps to preserve and even reintroduce lost populations of wildlife as the USA. This is despite over the objections of big agribusiness and mineral extraction interests. They relentlessly fight to gain access to protected areas decade after decade.
All this BS aside, you really can not compare the differences of the North American wilderness experience with anything in Europe. The preservation of what we have is an enormously complex enterprise. The accounting system for maintaining our wildlife is exceedingly complex and expensive but by doing so we can at least still be able to lose a few wolves and bears for the continued maintenance of many more.

[racoll]

In the UK one has to have a license to own a TV while in the US one does not even need a license to own a gun

There seems to be a few impressions that the UK is some kind of Orwellian nanny state. True, we do have to have a license for a TV, but frankly most people a glad of that. Paying a relatively small fee for dozens of world class TV and radio channels of high quality BBC programming, not to mention the Web site, all completely free from annoying advertising. Here in NZ, it's almost impossible to sanely watch a movie on TV, because there are so many infuriating ads.

We can't buy handguns in the UK, true, but I think 99.999% of the population supports that. Heck, even the Police don't have guns, and that is a good thing!

On the other hand, how about alcohol. We are trusted at the age of 18 to have a beer (in the States it's 21). The list goes on. I really don't think the UK is oppressive as people make out.

it seems to me like the people in favor of licensing with respect to the topic of the thread are from the commonwealth of nations (UK, NZ)

I assume "NZ" refers to me. For the record (again), I think licensing is a terrible idea, for all the reasons stated. All I have said, is that retailers should not routinely stock tankbusters, which will immediately stop the impulse purchases (which are probably most of the problem). If someone really wants a certain species for their appropriate aquarium, then the shop can make a special order.

[apistomaster]

Despite my rant about excessive restrictions, I truly agree that the OTF industry and retailers in particular should not routinely stock tank busters. The problem is if they don't carry these fish their competitors will so they all end up perpetuating these unfortunate circumstances.

I'm sure my previous post sounded like another "American exceptionalism" diatribe.
In some respects that is justified but there are many areas in which we do a poorer job than many other nations.

I think all of us who are subjected to advertising on TV hate it.
We still have PBS which is a major broadcaster that introduces Americans to many of the best BBC shows commercial free. I love the BBC America channel but they are subject to exactly as much advertising as any other channel.
I subscribe to Netflix and similar content service delivery companies and their material is commercial free although new and much of the best content is not available from them, at least not anytime soon. But ISP's keep finding creative ways to extract higher fees based on one's volume of GB usage. That would not be so bad except we are only 28th among the world's countries fastest internet speeds rankings.
I've read that Netflix alone accounts for nearly 50% of the USA's retail ISP's bandwidth use. These are sobering statistics. So much for "American exceptionalism."
We really do take pretty good care of our wildlife and their essential environment. Someday perhaps we can say the same for our citizens. But not today.
It is galling enough to pay the big satellite and cable companies premium prices AND still be deluged with commercials unless one also adds premium providers like HBO, Showtime, Starz and the like in addition to the already high prices for their various levels of service "packages". And most charge us another $10 a month for HiDef TV service.

Google is an advertising company which "freely" provides it's products users with what have become almost indispensable services.
There are complicated "work arounds" for entertainment and nearly every other service but alternatives are too complex for typical consumers. And I include myself as being among the typical consumers.

[Bas Pels]

I think this discussion is getting very far off topic, and if I may say so, getting into a dangerous area.

It is now discussing guns, wildlife, TV programs and commercials (I like commercials myself, so I can go to the bathroom, get another beer or read a few pages in the book which I have at hand while watching TV) which have nothing to do with keeping big (cat)fishes and where the opinions will differ a lot.

I'm against hunting, as some 90 % of my fellow countrymen is. We have a law against owning firearms which is said to be much more imposing than the UK one - and I'm happy to say it will become even harder to get a permission to own a gun.

In fact, one reason not to visit the USA is the fact virtually everyone wons a gun, which frightens me to hell.

But the people in the USA think differently, and they are completely free to do so

Still, I don't think this does not add anything to the dischssion about keeping big catfish in a tank. Yes it kind of points out why some people immediately say 'no' when they are confronted with the word 'permit'.

But than, if we, in Europe, would get a system of permits to keep fish over 50 cm or so, this is something others may consider stupid, or a good idea, but basically, it is something we decide.

If the USA does not follow our (good) example, too bad. It has happened before. For instance, owning genetically modified fishes is illegal in Europe, and as far as I know permitted in the USA.

[Mike_Noren]

As for the big catfish, I think one should keep things in perspective: the Pangasius etc sold in pet shops are a tiny percentage of the vast numbers produced for pond aquaculture in south east asia. I am not at all convinced that the aquarium specimens on average have shorter lives, or worse quality of life, or die more slowly or painfully, than their pond-cultured brethren.

Now, I don't think the hobby would suffer if the tankbusters were banned, but why stop there? Common plecos are too big for pretty much all hobbyist aquaria too. And how difficult is "too difficult"? What about, say, Cetopsis or Chaetostoma? They are fish which the average aquarist would find difficult, should they be banned too? And above all: who decides?

[Shane]

Yes it kind of points out why some people immediately say 'no' when they are confronted with the word 'permit'.

I agree the topic has meandered a bit and some have made statements that others may find emotionally sensitive or even slightly offensive. That said, in my opinion, the topic is in the speak easy section and it is very much serving the purpose you point out above.

Racoll, my comment above about TV licenses was not meant to cast the UK in an Orwellian light. It was to point out that in a place where licensing is common Rob's proposal may be viable. However in places where licensing is rare (like the US) it would not be a potential solution.

In fact, one reason not to visit the USA is the fact virtually everyone wons a gun, which frightens me to hell.

I really hope that this does not hold you back from visiting the US. I might have philosophical differences with some European laws and attitudes, but I have spent enough time in both the UK (Scotland, Ireland and England anyway) and the Netherlands to know that they are both wonderful places.
-Shane

[Scleropages]

Ours is not a perfect system but it is still the best in the world when it comes to wildlife protections among other things.

Apistomaster, (without me quoting the whole thing) great post. Very well writen and expressed. Thanks for taking the time to write that.

In fact, one reason not to visit the USA is the fact virtually everyone wons a gun, which frightens me to hell.

You do not have your facts straight. ~40% is not virtually everyone.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/14509/americ ... fense.aspx

Personally, I feel safer in areas where citizens can legally own and carry firearms than where only law enforcement has legal guns and criminals have illegal guns.

it seems to me like the people in favor of licensing with respect to the topic of the thread are from the commonwealth of nations (UK, NZ)

I assume "NZ" refers to me. For the record (again), I think licensing is a terrible idea, for all the reasons stated.

Yeah, I think I was referring to you. My mistake. By that point, this thread had grown quite extensive and I posted without going back to note each persons' nationality and position on licensing, hence why I qualified my observation with:

While I may not be entirely accurate,

Anyway, thanks for pointing out my error. The conservatives and libertarians among us will be proud of you.

[apistomaster]

I have one pet peeve about how the USA interprets the CITES Treaty.
As it pertains to Scleropages formosa, it is illegal to import any Asian Arowana into the States.
This made perfect sense in it's original beginnings because the species was endangered in the wild.
But for years now there have been many commercial Asian Arowana farms selectively breeding a variety of color forms. By their own countries' laws, these farmers must release 20%(I think) of all these fish they produce back into the wild habitats and all fish sold for the trade must have embedded passive radio tags. This makes it very difficult to mistakenly allow wild Asian Arowanas through and the trade is mainly interested in the fancy colors and not particularly in the wild type. We are among the very few countries which do not make an exception for the hatchery fish which are permanently identified.
A change could be made at the administrative level so it would not require Congressional review and approval.
By anyone's definition, an Asian Arowana is a major tank buster fish but they do very well in captivity and reach extremely large sizes when given even a minimally large enough tank. They may cost up to several thousand dollars for select few specimens.
The Asian Arowana is considered a very special household pet by almost all who own them. In fact, it is the only extremely large fish I would ever consider keeping if I could legally buy an affordable grade of them.
A very long time ago I had a few large common SA Arowanas I grew out from little fry to 22 iches. Ultimately I lost both of the two I grew out at different times because I did not use an escape proof cover. I used weights on the covers as a precaution but I did not use enough as they reached the largest sizes. I could only bear losing the two so I never kept them again. I enjoyed them more than any other large species of aquarium fish I have ever had.

[Scleropages]

I have one pet peeve about how the USA interprets the CITES Treaty.
As it pertains to Scleropages formosa, it is illegal to import any Asian Arowana into the States.
This made perfect sense in it's original beginnings because the species was endangered in the wild.

Dude, tell me about it. In case you couldn't tell by my username, that is my favorite fish. As you noted, times and conditions have changed, but we still can't import them here. One of the drawbacks of a bureaucracy is, in spite of changing conditions in the real world, change of policy may not come easily or quick.

When I had an aquarium maintenance company, I had the honor of taking care of some big S. formosus specimens for one of my clients. You can bet your bottom dollar that I made sure to keep those tanks securely covered each time I left. I even assisted the owner with a minor surgery to excise curled gill covers on a beautiful x-back--the guy is a millionare, but didn't want to pay a vet to do it (probably because he had the fish illegally). I soooooooo wanted to take pictures to document the whole process, but he (understandably) wouldn't let me. Needless to say, I was very reluctant to give up that client when I moved on with my career.

[apistomaster]

Until about 14 years ago I lived in the Seattle area for 27 years and met a few fellow fish keepers in the Asian community who had there own secret S. formasa. Magnificent fish.

[Scleropages]

Therefore, if you're thinking about buying a fish, please do some research about the fish and find out how big it gets, its habits, what type of water conditions it needs, what it eats, and how much it poops. Then, you are ready to make the decision if you are prepared to keep it.

Otherwise, keep your water clean and learn some good fish recipes.

How's that for bringing this back on topic? And, how big of a tank do I need for a school of Salmo salar? Mmm, mmm!!!
http://www.nmfs.noaa.gov/pr/species/fis ... salmon.htm

[racoll]

Now, I don't think the hobby would suffer if the tankbusters were banned, but why stop there? Common plecos are too big for pretty much all hobbyist aquaria too. And how difficult is "too difficult"? What about, say, Cetopsis or Chaetostoma? They are fish which the average aquarist would find difficult, should they be banned too? And above all: who decides?

I don't think anyone is suggesting that "difficult" species be banned, although I may have missed that post? If certain species have a particularly high mortality rate, the market is usually self-selecting, and they rarely get exported as a result. See altum angelfish,

Astroblepus

, etc.

Now, I don't think the hobby would suffer if the tankbusters were banned, but why stop there? Common plecos are too big for pretty much all hobbyist aquaria too.

I certainly wouldn't object to that.

Pterygoplichthys

are an ecological menace, and clearly fishkeepers cannot be trusted not to throw them in local streams when they outgrow their 15 gallon tanks.

[Bas Pels]

Now, I don't think the hobby would suffer if the tankbusters were banned, but why stop there? Common plecos are too big for pretty much all hobbyist aquaria too.

I certainly wouldn't object to that.

Pterygoplichthys

are an ecological menace, and clearly fishkeepers cannot be trusted not to throw them in local streams when they outgrow their 15 gallon tanks.

Obviously, this is especially an argument for people living in an area where the pleco has a chance of surviving the winter. In my country, the Netherlands this is not much of a problem, as we live 52-54 degrees north. Each and every winter the rivers tend to freeze over

There is 'only' the problem with animal welfare

[apistomaster]

We at http://www.finarama.com have some members who have good relationships with several exporters and importers of Altum Angels who have been consulting with some of these companies about ways to improve the survival rates and quality of Altum Angels for the past several years. There have been some notable improvements in reducing the mortality for everyone concerned. Altums will always remain a challenge but things are getting better for all with every passing season.
So sometimes we hobbyists can have some positive influence with the OTF industry and better educate hobbyists who choose to deal with a challenging species like Pterophyllum altum.
We all believe there is still much room for improvement but we have made progress.
I am one of the global moderators on the finarama.com forum and the administrative lead on the new "Discover Wild Discus" section we recently added to our forum expanding our scope beyond wild Angelfish to now include wild and tank bred wild type Discus.

[racoll]

Obviously, this is especially an argument for people living in an area where the pleco has a chance of surviving the winter.

I don't think that it's obvious at all.

These fishes have been found live and well in both Serbia and Poland (remember this thread?). Not the warmest of countries, you'll agree.

Will they then survive a cold winter, and then breed? Remember, these are highly adaptable fish. Populations could easily persist in areas of warmer water such as power station outflows. Once established there, there will be very strong selection pressure towards surviving at colder temperatures. It may only take a couple of point mutations at key enzyme-encoding genes to enable them the survive, breed, and spread across Europe.

I certainly don't agree with legislation for fish welfare (it really isn't that important), but given the potential ecological damage these catfish can do, and the unsuitability of them for aquaria, a total global ban on trading them, really is absolutely essential.

[Bas Pels]

Although I had seen the topic, I assumed - falsely - the fish were found near a energy plant, thewrefore in a warm water area

The fish in Poland was collected out of 7 C water - with food in its gut

I can only say shocking, and no this certainly remouves the obvious

[Scleropages]

it's mass psychosis with violent tendencies.

it's a disease. not a hobby.

you know what the US is overrun with?

people

fat, lazy, stupid, agressive, violent, inbred people

300 million and counting, the number's rising every year

so for every wolf there's about 100,000 of those yahoo's for ewvery wolf....
that's not just sad, it's scary as hell

when I have to choose between the wolves or the violent and dangerous murrikans, I'll stick to the wolves, thank you very much

I find it interesting that you state such things about my country, but then your signature line was written by HST--one of our own aggressive, dangerous, violent geniuses who happened to like shooting guns for no reason other than to shoot them. Smells like hypocrisy to me.

[Viktor Jarikov]

I think what Scleropages is doing is marking a 2-month anniversary of the most offensive, derogatory, racist, and trolling post I have personally ever seen or read on PCF, MFK, WW, etc., that should have been deleted immediately. But that's just my opinion.

[Scleropages]

I saw sidguppy's signature line in another recent thread, remembered his post in this thread, and thought: WTF?

[Jools]

I think what Scleropages is doing is marking a 2-month anniversary of the most offensive, derogatory, racist, and trolling post I have personally ever seen or read on PCF, MFK, WW, etc., that should have been deleted immediately. But that's just my opinion.

There have been worse, but all that replying to it does is increase the exposure of it. We do not delete posts becuase doing so would hide what people do (sometimes we do have censor them). If someone thinks it's OK to post it, then they have to live with it. A poster can delete or edit their post out of apology, but if quoted, then it becuase much more intractable.

I'm not interested in another flame war. I'm not interested in more personal attacks. Topic locked (an unusual occurence in the "speak easy").

Jools