Scottish government is one step closer to "positive" species list

[Jools]

A worrying development for the fishkeeping citizen of Scotland - http://news.scotland.gov.uk/News/Review ... -15ea.aspx

Jools

[unblinded]

Wow, irresponsible owners ruin it for everyone. Politicians get involved and exacerbate the situation.

[Jools]

Wow, irresponsible owners ruin it for everyone. Politicians get involved and exacerbate the situation.

It's a very tricky one, as no one wants to see animals mistreated. As someone who manages a database of fish species however I know how hard it is to manage, I fear a positive list would see the majority of fish species we keep (in Scotland) removed from sale just simply due to lack of expertise in them. Then, I would think relatively soon afterwards, the rest of the UK would adopt it. Not good.

Jools

[Marc van Arc]

Although I have a firm opinion about this, I will not be lured into talking politics.
So, why do I react? You might want to change the title; I take it it should read "positive" instead of "postive".

Edit: "meaning" replaced by "opinion" as suggested by Panaque.

[racoll]

Inevitable unfortunately. As the saying goes, "this is why we can't have nice things".

[KungFish]

Unfortunately the responsible aquarists (us) are always going to be lumped in with idiots like the people who released snakeheads in the US. Which leads to situations like this, where "all exotic pets should be banned because they always get released".

If they want to do something like this, they should at least make it so you have to get a permit to keep them, instead of applying the restrictions to everyone. Hopefully this does not carry over to the rest of the UK.

[Jools]

Hopefully this does not carry over to the rest of the UK.

Scotland tends to lead the UK in terms of legislative change, the very likely result will be that whatever happens in Scotland will be replicated in the rest of the UK within a year or two - certainly within four.

Jools

[racoll]

Scotland tends to lead the UK in terms of legislative change, the very likely result will be that whatever happens in Scotland will be replicated in the rest of the UK within a year or two - certainly within four.

Yes, there's certainly no easier way to convince someone that something should be illegal than by saying it's already illegal somewhere else.

[Bas Pels]

As the article states, we do have a positive list in the Netherlands - for keeping mammals.

It is highly critisized, because the list does not really make sense - some animals which everybody says are easy are forbidden, others are not. As I am not into mammals myself I can not name examples.

But I do think, if say an 80 kg dog is allowed, which needs 2 walks of an hour a day and lots of space - then any animal which does not demand that much care, should be allowed.

[panaque]

I am all for improving animal welfare in fish keeping. We are all aware of how common it is that fish suffer and die unnecessary deaths due to being housed in tanks that are too small, overpopulated, with wrong kind of water, not matured, inappropriately filtered etc etc. However, the vast majority of this happens at the 'bread and butter' end of the spectrum, which will probably be allowed to continue (don't get me started on goldfish!). The restrictions are most likely to occur at the more specialised end which is dominated by the keepers that go out of their way to home their fish the right conditions to live long healthy lives and to breed. People pushing for this legislation are generally well-meaning but ill-informed and a positive list will have minimal impact on animal welfare.
You gotta love the reference to a handful of cases of abandoned reptiles. According to the RSPCA, there are 17 million dogs and cats in the UK of which a quarter of a million are rescued from cruelty by them every year (and many more should be but aren't). If you want to make an impact on animal welfare then restricting dog and cat ownership would surely be the obvious place to start, rather than citing a few anecdotes about abandoned bearded dragons and going after keepers of exotic pets. Honestly!

By the way, Marc, "meaning" = betekenis or bedoeling in Dutch. I think you meant to say "opinion" (mening). Easy mistake to make

[Marc van Arc]

By the way, Marc, "meaning" = betekenis or bedoeling in Dutch. I think you meant to say "opinion" (mening). Easy mistake to make

You are right of course; I have edited my message. Thanks.

[jp11biod]

I believe there are rules that need to be in place but those rules will not work unless the targeted community gets involved. In the US, the public has an opportunity to participate in the rulemaking. If you know there are rules coming, get organized and get involved now before it gets out of hand.

[racoll]

I am all for improving animal welfare in fish keeping. We are all aware of how common it is that fish suffer and die unnecessary deaths due to being housed in tanks that are too small, overpopulated, with wrong kind of water, not matured, inappropriately filtered etc etc. However, the vast majority of this happens at the 'bread and butter' end of the spectrum, which will probably be allowed to continue (don't get me started on goldfish!). The restrictions are most likely to occur at the more specialised end which is dominated by the keepers that go out of their way to home their fish the right conditions to live long healthy lives and to breed. People pushing for this legislation are generally well-meaning but ill-informed and a positive list will have minimal impact on animal welfare.
You gotta love the reference to a handful of cases of abandoned reptiles. According to the RSPCA, there are 17 million dogs and cats in the UK of which a quarter of a million are rescued from cruelty by them every year (and many more should be but aren't). If you want to make an impact on animal welfare then restricting dog and cat ownership would surely be the obvious place to start, rather than citing a few anecdotes about abandoned bearded dragons and going after keepers of exotic pets. Honestly!

Could not have put it better myself. Unfortunately though, this bill will have 100% public support. I mean, who in their right minds would disagree with improving animal welfare or banning the international trade in wild animals?

[Bas Pels]

The last posting I just made on a Dutch forum was about a lager importer in NL importing Hydrocynus vittatus, a fish growing over 1 meter length, with big teeth

I think nobody in his or her right mind would keep such a monster, and this kind of stupidity is just plainly providing ammonution to our enemies.

Yes, enemies. Because there are people who think keeping anymals, let alone keeping fishes shoud be banned. An although there is nothing against keeping fish such as Corydoras or Platydoras, or a lot of other fishes, there is quite a lot af argument to be found against keeping huge monsters.

Allowing these fools to argue against the keeping of such monsters will make life much easier for them - and much harder for us.

Therefore, I think we should not present our normal 'life and let life' attitude here, but we should show how offended we are by such imports.

In order to prevent a 'positive list' for fishes. Because we would be very happy if it would restrict our hobby to only the fishes any fool could breed. I think we would be restricted to the domesticated fishe,s such as red swordtails and blue guppies. Not much more

[dpm1]

The last posting I just made on a Dutch forum was about a lager importer in NL importing Hydrocynus vittatus, a fish growing over 1 meter length, with big teeth

I think nobody in his or her right mind would keep such a monster, and this kind of stupidity is just plainly providing ammonution to our enemies

Here in the UK we have the Big Fish Campaign that has worked well in reducing the number of Red Tail Catfish, Pangasius etc being offered to Aquariums, however whilst the first round of self regulation worked I feel it was flawed as these fish can still be sold by BFC certified shops as long as they have accurate labeling - and we all know many sales at based on what staff push as opposed what is actually needed/wanted/fits (so far too reliant of good staff).

Worst still there are still far to many Clown loaches, Common plecs etc that really need more than the average 3-4ft tank (and even 6ft 'big' tanks).

Again its ammunition to people who see these and so many other types advertised as 'free to a good home' as it promotes the idea that fishkeepers do not appreciate their stock as 'real pets'.

[racoll]

Here in the UK we have the Big Fish Campaign that has worked well in reducing the number of Red Tail Catfish, Pangasius etc being offered to Aquariums, however whilst the first round of self regulation worked I feel it was flawed as these fish can still be sold by BFC certified shops as long as they have accurate labeling - and we all know many sales at based on what staff push as opposed what is actually needed/wanted/fits (so far too reliant of good staff).

Worst still there are still far to many Clown loaches, Common plecs etc that really need more than the average 3-4ft tank (and even 6ft 'big' tanks).

Absolutely. The trade should have seen this coming and self-regulated a long time ago. The problem is that they don't seem to know any better than the idiots buying these things.

[Bas Pels]

That's right. I got 2 Pt gibbyceps, which I got in 2004.

How many of the, say 10,000, gibbies imported into NL that year would still be alive? I had one from 1988 until 2010, so I know they can live more then 20 years. But if 100 are still alive, it would be a very pleasant surprise to me.

They measure - including the tailfin - close to half a meter, and I keep them in a 4 meters - that is 13 feet - tank, which is large enough, but how many people have this size of tanks? How many of the surviving ones from 2004 will have grown to such a size? I'm afraid most of the others are stunned, and only half this size.

It would be much better if these fishes were banned. I don't like goverments to interfere too much in our lives, but still I think they should be banned - because people don't know what they buy, and pet shops are selling them by the thousands, if not more.

Sorry for the few exceptions - among whom I think I can count myself, but we do need limits.

[barbelman]

I have read the Dutch mammals positive list and it is deeply puzzling. It includes several species of wallaby but not all species of hamsters are included. However, you can keep a llama. A positive list for fish would be a nightmare to manage even if we could be sure that those doing the listing actually knew anything about the care requirements of fish. So, what can you do? Step one is take a look at OATA's relaunched Hands off my Hobby campaign at:

http://www.ornamentalfish.org/hands-off-my-hobby

And you should write to your MP to say how you feel. This, as others have pointed out, is not just a Scottish issues. UK elections are coming up in May and MPs need to be told what the hobby means to us. At the very least, click through the links to the online petition on Hands off my Hobby and check the campaign website for more ideas and information. Don't leave it to others!

[jodilynn]

I apologize for misunderstanding the thread.

Yes, the thought that fish that could never be bred in captivity (or even those that could but aren't) would never be able to again be owned is indeed a sobering thought.

[Jools]

Guys, it seems to me we're missing the point with the size of fish thing and to derail this thread by putting blame in one place or another is a mistake. People do terrible things to pets like dogs and horses, fish are no different. What appears to be the agenda with this legislation is to ban the trade in exotic (in fish terms, wild caught) organisms off the back of a thin link to public safety.

It is whether it is domesticated (arguably bred to be a pet) or not. Thus a foot long goldfish or even a larger koi is fine but a wild caught pearl danio may well be never seen again in a Scottish LFS.

Jools

[dpm1]

The 'size of fish thing' may not be central to the point, however it is symptomatic of why the lobbyist are currently on the verge of taking a strong lead over the fish trade organisations. The point is that the trade is seen as being very poorly self regulated - the result is a push for tighter legislation.

If people and campaigns like the RSPCA, OATA, BFC etc (in the UK) go together and made a better framework for fish wholesaler, importers and sellers which could be seen to be working then the more hard line animal welfare groups would have much less pull when lobbying in the political circles.

Personally I would like to see a set of common guidelines and standards that shops etc could display that indicated they had reached a nationwide minimum. At the moment it seems to be a case of registering for a badge or certificate and that's taken as proof for time everlasting that they are a responsible and professional person/business.

These are the aims of the BFC
raising awareness throughout the hobby and aquatic trade about the extent of the problem
dispelling the myth that fish only grow to a size relative to the tank size (!)
asking retailers to sell larger fish responsibly by providing information on realistic adult sizes of these species
encouraging wholesalers and retailers not to routinely stock the "worst offenders" such as Pacu and Pangasius catfish - and instead concentrate on the hundreds of more suitable aquarium fish available to the hobby!

Essentially they are simply asking 'please don't stock big fish, although its OK if its labeled as growing large'. In my opinion this falls far short of self regulating responsible selling of even the small list of 'big fish' available.

If they can't instill confidence about this small percentage of the trade then how are people within the fishkeeping community supposed to get across the message about the much more prolific small fish trade.

I fear lobbying groups will continue to push for such white lists as long as the fish trade remains reactive as opposed to proactive in their approach. They should be out there shouting to the public to treat them as 'real pets' and not 'just a fish'

[racoll]

What appears to be the agenda with this legislation is to ban the trade in exotic (in fish terms, wild caught) organisms

Aye, and how do you win that argument? We are definitely on the losing side here. Anyone can see that the harvesting and international shipping of wild animals for recreational purposes---and while it does have some upsides---is fundamentally a bad thing, and it will be stopped sooner or later. Same goes for recreational angling, another fundamentally bad thing that will end up being banned at some point too (although again, has many many benefits).

IMO the trick is to admit the problems, but also sell the positives. I don't therefore agree with the way that these arguments are currently being made on our behalf. The "hands off my hobby" slogan I find particularly distasteful, as the same libertarian logic clearly applies to badger baiting or dog fighting. Anglers, while they do try to promote the positives, are in systematic denial that they are putting fish through a particularly unpleasant ordeal for their own amusement. Maybe I'm wrong and being too logical; perhaps showing a chink of weakness will lead to an even faster demise of these hobbies. I don't know.

The only hope for us is to push the sustainable development and livelihoods thing: i.e. jobs for humans in poor countries*, but really we are not talking about enough people here to make any difference to anything. Even the "use it or lose it" argument to biodiversity, while being pragmatic, is inherently a morally weak one.

*the ornamental fishermen I've met in Brazil actually appear be pretty well off (much better than me with my three university degrees!).

[dpm1]

IMO the trick is to admit the problems, but also sell the positives. I don't therefore agree with the way that these arguments are currently being made on our behalf. The "hands off my hobby" slogan I find particularly distasteful...

Indeed it should be a case of pushing the message about hobby led initiatives involving for example sustainable catches and conservation and bringing it beyond the niche magazines and websites in to the open air in the same way the Salty side is doing.

And whilst I agree with the aims of HOUH campaign in general I do also think it lacks the title that would draw in public support from outside the fishkeeping world. As it stands Joe/Joanne Public wouldn't have a clue what it is about - Hobby Trainsets? Kite flying? knitting clubs? Unfortunately I also feel it sounds less of a call to 'work with us as we are the experts' as much as 'you wouldn't have a clue what a fish was if a pleco smacked you in the face holding a billboard with"I'm A Fish" written on it '