PlanetCatfish.com

friend of mine on the Dutch forum posted this link (Kruseman, he's on here as well)
luckily it's in English....

so I can steal/plagiarize/copycat his idea and share it here.

it is not only informative, but it touches a vein that should be touched
again
and
again
and
again

Mandatory Reading for Potential Big Catfish Keepers

I read this earlier in my PFK email - very well put, but having been in the trade i know only too well the calibre of some customers. . . .

The responsibility for 'monster' fish must lie with the importers. If they were not imported in the first place none of this would be an issue.

I disagree with that last comment completely

it's about time buyers should own up when it comes to responsibility

it's too easy to always point that finger somewhere else

you buy it, you own it.
and use that brain before you buy

you don't buy household chemicals to drink, do you?
so you know which bottle is the beverage and which bottle is the cleaner for a clogged up sink

it should be the same with fish; if you want to open up the wallet, use the brain first.

RickE wrote:The responsibility for 'monster' fish must lie with the importers. If they were not imported in the first place none of this would be an issue.

And I take it people who do 160 mph in a Ferrari can blame the Ferrari importer as well, because they imported a car that is capable of doing 160mph?

--
Mats

RickE wrote:The responsibility for 'monster' fish must lie with the importers. If they were not imported in the first place none of this would be an issue.

Agree entirely. Good article, but seems to entirely ignore the responsibility of the shops. After all, they are the ones who know full well what it takes to keep these fish, and that none of their customers will be able to care for them correctly.

sidguppy wrote:I disagree with that last comment completely

Haha. I understand the need for personal responsibility, but it's a bit like selling guns. Why not just sell handguns in corner shops? If kids start shooting each other, it's their fault right? They only have themselves to blame!

Act responsibly yes, but to do that you need to base your decisions on accurate information and I think that's the problem.

How many shops truly give good advice? Sure there are some, but there are at least as many that employ part-timers or young fish-keepers who frequently do not have sufficient knowledge. If it's in the shop they will try to sell it especially if it is highly priced. If it's not in the shop, it can't be sold.

I'm not saying the trade in large fish should be banned, but I do believe that if the trade does not act responsibly that is a likely outcome at some point in the future.

racoll wrote:I understand the need for personal responsibility, but it's a bit like selling guns. Why not just sell handguns in corner shops? If kids start shooting each other, it's their fault right? They only have themselves to blame!

Gun ownership & rights is a whole can of worms I would not compare keeping fish to. In some parts of the U.S., they practically do sell guns and ammo in corner shops. If kids start shooting each other, it's the parent's responsibility in most jurisdictions.

I'm in agreement with sidguppy on this one. If the customer doesn't buy something, the importers and retailers won't keep trying to sell it. It's straight economics. That would be an example of demand affecting supply. If the customer does buy a living animal to keep as a pet (as opposed for food), there are laws that protect the ethical treatment of that animal in most countries. There's a cable TV show about that very thing. It's usually about someone who is hoarding cats in disgusting conditions or someone who is partipating in dog fighting, but the law does come down on animal abuse. Keeping some of these big catfish in tanks that are too small or otherwise poor conditions can be considered animal abuse.

In these cases of abuse, who is at fault? The pit bull breeder, or the person who is actively putting their dog into dog fights? The person hoarding the cats, or the neighbor who gives them one of their kittens?

Of course, many LFS's could take more responsibility and either not regularly carry these behemoth cats or they could insist on educating the customer (maybe screening them) regarding the demands of keeping large catfish. However, in a free market, the responsibility ultimately lies with the end buyer.

Scleropages wrote:However, in a free market, the responsibility ultimately lies with the end buyer.

Perhaps so, but is it ethical, knowing that what you are selling for your own profit is entirely inappropriate or harmful to the ignorant customer?

Most people would agree that multinational tobacco companies heavily promoting discounted-cigarettes to poorly educated people in rural China or Africa is unethical, yet I imagine even in these places, people know full well that smoking is bad for you.

If kids start shooting each other, it's their fault right? They only have themselves to blame!

you hit it on the nail!
guns don't kill people; people kill people

so, yes, I definitely put responsibility where it should be put: with the buyer/owner.

what to do if someone buys a big car and starts his own little Carmageddon, randomly killing pedastrians?
sue Ford?

I think this whole "blame the shop/store owner/importer/salesman/factory" thing has gotten completely out of hand

it gave the consumers a very big excuse to act as morons, to avoid any responsibility and it made the lawyers a whole lot fatter and richer.

it's the same with these big fish.

you buy it, you own it, you should take care for it

it's about time we should stop giving the stupid, uneducated and ignorant a Free Pass to behave like anti social jerks.

want to buy something?
a gun?
a big car?
a baby catfish that'll grow into a huge baby-whale-sized monster?

do at least the little, tiny effort so find out what it actually IS you buy

it's that simple.

I think the difference is Sid, that when you buy a gun you know what you are buying. Most fish shops sell fish that will get much too big for most tanks, an example being . How many of them make this clear to their customers?

Perhaps so, but is it ethical, knowing that what you are selling for your own profit is entirely inappropriate or harmful to the ignorant customer?

I am with Sid on this one. Fundamentally, it is a question free will. It is not Budwesier's fault if you become an alcoholic, nor McDonald's if you are fat, nor Marlboro's if you smoke. If every company in the world was forced to only sale "ethical" products we would be no better than slaves forced to eat, drink, and do what we were told. We can only strive to be "good," whether your ethics are religious or philosophical, because "bad" choices are available.
-Shane

Ok - here's a couple of examples:

Couple of new-ish fishkeepers are asking me about 2" oscars. I ask what their set-up is and they've got a 2 foot community, been running a month or so with neons, guppies etc. I inform them of how big they get, their messy feeding habits, predatory nature etc. They respond with the "won't they stay small in a small tank?" The conversation continues and they leave with some checker barbs but i can tell they're not too happy. A fortnight later the wife is in the shop wanting to know if we'll buy a pair of oscars as they've eaten all her fish! (clearly bought somewhere else, where perhaps the advice they got might not have been honest or the cutomer mis-informed the retailer). The customer has the majority of responsibility & the retailer should provide proper advice - after all there are sooooo many species of fish to choose from that can be kept easily in 2-3 foot tanks.

Example 2 - a guy buys a 3 foot set-up - high end accessories, not budget - he listens carefully, pays attention, writes stuff down & appears to be someone on the right track. Several weeks later he's in & talking to a part-time member of staff about SA Arowana. The staff memebr tells him they get to 3 foot long and need huge tanks. The customer then tells the staff member that's exactly what he's got; that he bought the entire set-up at this shop a number of weeks ago!!!

These are genuine & not isolated incidents.

I am in-between the poles on this one. I think it should be the law to show estimated adult size as well as price on any live animal sold. It's one of my deeply help views (as it's part of the "21st century fish store" thing). This law enforces the retailers duty to (minimally) inform but the massive bulk of the responsibility lies with the consumer. Same goes for eBay listings, public auctions of fishes etc. It would also avoid any more cumbersome legislation being introduced (I'd bet next months salary that will happen in the UK in my lifetime).

If we can put the amount of calories in anything we buy on the packet, we can do this!

Jools

I can go along with this view just fine; there are many stores that do just that.

they have a little card on the tank with a picture of the fish; the adult size, best temperature, required food and compatibility

there's a bunch of brands that deliver such cards to shops, I know for sure that TETRA does and probably others as well

but I balk against this attitude that customers are allowed to get away with enormous amounts of stupid behavior, can blame the shop for any mistakes they have made themselves and then bring on the attack lawyers

we end up with LFS being forced to go through any lengths, because the fish they sell have to be "idiot proof".
look what will happen not only to the prices of any fish, but likely the "anti pet hobby" will jump on this one and we end up with 'positive lists'.

you can bet that not just big fish will not be on those, but also any weird or oddball fish; in general such laws are made up and executed by burocrats that know nothing about them

do we want that?

because a bunch of idiots want a "fool proof aquarium society", we can only buy Neons and guppies and anything fun like Glyptothorax is illegal?

and more fat lawyers and burocrats and more rules stacked on what we are not allowed to keep?

I do not.


there is also another reason why I'm all for pointing at the customers first and at shop owners and importers second: the availability of information.

First:
in the old days, if you wanted to know things about weird or rare fish, you had to go to a well stocked library and if you were lucky; they had a few books on fish
not easy to read, you'd need a fair amount of Latin known as well, before you would know what they said about Catfish X.

Second:
then we got used to the internet and we have google; and we have had this easy to get massive pile of information for at least 20 years

Third:
now it's made even more easy.....we have mobile gadgets and almost everyone has some!
that means you don't have to go to the library, you don't have to go home to access the PC, no
you can whip out your Iphone or Blackberry or Android or whatever while standing next to the tank, run up Google, type in the fish' name and get all the information in 4 milliseconds.....


getting facts for a fish has never been easier; the only thing a shop owner has to do is put up the proper Scientific name on the tank.
that's all.

Gadgets will do the rest....


"you can lead the horse to the river, but you cannot make it drink"

that's all we have to do nowadays: drink in the info.
;)

Shane wrote:Fundamentally, it is a question free will. It is not Budwesier's fault if you become an alcoholic, nor McDonald's if you are fat, nor Marlboro's if you smoke.

So, I am agreeing with this but maybe I didn't explain myself very well. The point I was trying to make was to avoid all that stuff we don't like (bureaucratic nonsense, dumb laws, positive lists etc) then the Budweiser/McDonalds/Marlboro approach is where it ends up. And those companies all have clearly thought about it and, irrespective what you think of them, have quite a lot of effective lawyers and influences. For them to continue making profit and growth, and do rather well at it, they "play the game" and label what they have for sale in a way that positively offloads responsibility to the consumer. And isn't that what we are wanting here?

So, from a fish point of view, all the same fishes are still available, just the "point of sale" labeling clearly states estimated max. size and passes the onus of responsibility for a sensible purchase on to the buyer. The retailer, on order to keep their licence, just has to have more or less the right labels which could easily be an international standard.

I tell ya, this would sort out the Pangasius and Pterygoplichthys issue!

Poecilia sidiculata wrote:getting facts for a fish has never been easier; the only thing a shop owner has to do is put up the proper Scientific name on the tank.
that's all.

Gadgets will do the rest....

Yup, and actually a quick response code would even mean you don't even need a scientific name - guppy or goldfish would do equally well on the label with size and price.



Jools

Jools wrote:I think it should be the law to show estimated adult size as well as price on any live animal sold.

That's a good idea: some informed consent (regarding max size) on the price tag.

I'm definitely in favour of proper identification at the fish store, with a photographed full size specimen next to a ruler/tape measure, I might go as far as to say I'd be happiest if the photo was a 1:1 scale. That way, the "innoscent buyer" knows exactly what they are letting themselves in for, that sweet looking 5cm Clown Loach is going to turn into a chunky 25+cm fish etc.

I'd love to see an international ruling that made anything that needs more than a 4-foot tank long term, because of either its individual needs and/or the amount of space to accomodate a social group, to be licensed (all the way down to the buyer). I'm basing that dimension on the presumption that a 4-foot tank is in the ballpark of the biggest typically sized tank the average fishkeeper is going own. Having said that, given how fierce the competition seems to be for tanks under 2-foot, maybe I'm overestimating.

It sickens me to the stomach to think of the millions of inappropriately sold/bought fish that have ended up in shockingly undersized tanks, before we even touch on the compatability or sub-tropicals in tropical temp water issues, over the last few decades.

@ licencing

Personally I'm in favour of licencing, but not for fish too big for a 1.20 cm tank. I think plenty people have tanks much larger than that.

Here, in NL, you may keep large dogs which are only suited for big houses without permission, which are not common either.

I personally would put the limit on 3 meters or more. However, in many cases - especially not catfish, the rule of thumb for tank size of 4 L * 2L * 2L (L being the maximum expected length of the fish) is too little. For a red tail catfish it might suffice, but for Pangasius? Or a Clown Loach? Not to start with cichlids (Parachromis dovii males can reach half a meter in a tank. Still a 4 meter tank will not suffice to keep the female alive, due to agression and the need for huge teritories)

This leaves the real tankbusters under a permit, while the owners of a 'somewhat larger than average' tank are not bothered

There are several problems with licensing, one of which is the overall bureaucracy involved.

Your idea then needs further details to be determined:
When you say 4ft,what other dimensions are we talking? 4 x 2 x 2ft? or the "standard 55g" in the US, which is 48" long and roughly 13" wide and 19" tall?

And by what means do we determine what size tank is needed for a particular fish?

Judging by the effect on pond fish that require license to sell, I would expect the result on the availability for any fish on the list of "needs a license" will be "nearly none". Is that really what we want? No fish that possibly could need a bigger tank available? I guess that also will kill the market for larger tank manufacturers.

--
Mats

Licensing is, I fear, the first step down the road to retail positive lists. It would raise the retail cost of every fish by about 25% or perhaps more to administer. It would also create a black market And will have lots of unimagined wrinkles For example, what do you do with a child who has bought a goldfish. In my mind, it's too cumbersome.

Jools

agreed
again
;)

once we unleash the burocrats on our beautiful hobby, they will start forbidding anything unknown, like in Brazil

if it isn't on the list, even if it will make a perfectly suitable nice little pet; it's illegal

they won't stop there.

give these guys a finger and they'll yank out the arm at the socket.

The below article is also one worth giving some thought. The stats for marine fish deaths is in the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands?) for every monster freshwater fish.
This type of information really gets me rethinking my views on hybrids, fancies, and other "abominations." Maybe the best thing we could all do is encourage people to keep these artificial animals to take pressure off of mother nature.
-Shane

Breeding Tropical Fish to Save Their Schools
For every tropical fish that becomes a pet, four are killed. Joan Holt wants to take the violence out of their world.

http://www.miller-mccune.com/environmen ... ols-39918/

Euthanize the fish, then barbecue it. Serve with potatoes, lemon, and the sauce of your choice.

Problem solved.

I'm not being facetious, most of these huge catfish are bred in mass quantities as foodfish - that's the main reason they keep showing up in the trade - and are good eating.

EDIT: Shane, the stats in that article is fraudulent, actual losses during shipment is in the single digit percentage range. That article is published by a guy who runs a campaign to completely ban all collection of marine animals in Hawaii, that he runs a company selling captive-bred fish may be a factor in it.

sidguppy wrote:give these guys a finger and they'll yank out the arm at the socket.

Amen to that. I'm definitely against any type of licensing regarding aquarium fish. There is just so much diversity that any type of licensing system for the end buyer would be insane.

Shane, thanks for sharing that article. While the numbers may not be entirely accurate, it is something that many hobbyists are not even aware of. On the flip side, it is nice to hear about importers who take an active approach in maintaining sustainability. There are a few here in NJ that make such efforts. One of my friends is one of the big marine importers on the east coast. They have set up facilities in Vietnam, Colombia, and the Philippines where they teach the local collectors/fishermen how to catch the fish w/o cyanide (or other poisons) AND breed the corals and propogate the reefs. In exchange, he claims he gets first pick on a lot of the specimens caught in those areas.

Mike, even better... marinate fileted fish in garlic, olive oil, and pepper. Bake at 400 deg F for 10-13 minutes (depending on thickness). Serve with brown rice and steamed beets over fresh spinach leaves with a mustard/olive oil/lemon dressing. That's how I like my swai!

I too am against licensing but I fear that is where this will end if the industry cannot regulate itself.

IMO 'It says on the label that it grows to 3 ft' or 'I told him it grows to 3 ft and he said don't worry he has a big tank' are just not good enough if the trade does not want outside interference. There is simply no need for the majority of these fish to be traded.

Yes, some people are stupid and don't take their responsibilities seriously but that argument does nothing to help the plight of the oversized fish. If they were't stocked in the first place, the situation would not arise.

RickE wrote:I too am against licensing but I fear that is where this will end if the industry cannot regulate itself.

IMO 'It says on the label that it grows to 3 ft' or 'I told him it grows to 3 ft and he said don't worry he has a big tank' are just not good enough if the trade does not want outside interference. There is simply no need for the majority of these fish to be traded.

Yes, some people are stupid and don't take their responsibilities seriously but that argument does nothing to help the plight of the oversized fish. If they weren't stocked in the first place, the situation would not arise.

Couldn't agree more. It really isn't difficult. It worked for dyed fish in a very short space of time.

I can't support ANY regime which brings in government and bureaucrats into the recipe. It will only end badly for the "most likely to provide proper care of their fish" hobbyists.

I'm sorry if that means a lot of fish will end up in tanks smaller than they need but if it comes down to less instead of more regulations then I am willing to let some make mistakes. Most won't repeat the same mistake twice.

Intrusion of government into our homes and even bedrooms is always unacceptable to me.

No offense to my friends in the UK but imo, your bureaucrats already have managed to become too involved with your hobby.
In the USA, most states have passed laws restricting piranhas, rays and other fully tropical fish which pose no threat to local ecosystems and it has diminished our hobby a little and opened the door to more of the "nanny state" mentality which has become too pervasive.

These are not analogous to issues regarding gun and/or auto ownership responsibilities so please do not use these straw man arguments.
We are talking about fish here and not Tigers or Chimpanzees. Let the buyer and sellers bear the ethical responsibilities knowing that not all will act responsibly. You may pass laws regarding anything and regardless the penalties some will break them. This contributes to the ever growing power of a police state. It is a slippery slope when we try to legislate behaviors which do not affect others. Tank seems too small. Guess we should exercise a search and seize anything else that may be proscribed by law. Look here, we found a joint, guess you should forfeit your freedom and house for promoting trafficking. Where does it all end?

apistomaster wrote: No offense to my friends in the UK but imo, your bureaucrats already have managed to become too involved with your hobby. In the USA, most states have passed laws restricting piranhas, rays and other fully tropical fish which pose no threat to local ecosystems and it has diminished our hobby a little and opened the door to more of the "nanny state" mentality which has become too pervasive

Actually, I think the trade is far more heavily regulated in the States than the UK. In the UK, you can import and keep pretty much any fish you like with very few exceptions (and none of the banned fish are popular anyway). One thing you aren't allowed to do anymore is use live feeder fish, and this law mostly stops kids going in a shop and buying a dozen goldfish to feed to their , which is probably a good thing. However people feel about feeders in general, if you are discretely breeding some yourself at your own home, then you're hardly likely to get caught. Anyway, that's another issue.

But just to be clear, I have not at any time suggested any kind of governmental regulation with regard to tankbusters. All I suggest is that the trade self-regulate, and do not routinely stock these species (unless via a special order).

If they did this, the problem will go away overnight. If they don't do this, and it gets left to the judgement of idiots (the vast majority) to decide for themselves whether it is okay to keep an in their 55g, then it would not surprise me at all if bureaucrats were to eventually clamp down on the hobby.

As a long-time aquarist (42 years), I'm familiar with this issue. My personal preference would be for the local stores not to carry any "tankbusters."

But since it does happen, I'm really curious to know your perspectives on how best to handle "rescue" fish. I sometimes end up with tankbuster fish, for instance with secondhand tanks I've acquired. I don't really want to re-home them to someone who will stuff them into a small tank and kill them slowly that way.

Here are options I've heard so far:
1. house them as best I can (I do have 3 indoor ponds, so that actually is something of an option)
2. rehome them to someone else
3. euthanize them
4. eat them (I think the person was kidding)

Are there any other options I can add to my list?