PlanetCatfish.com

A recent edition of the OFI Journal carried an advert from 7 German importers concerned about a move to ban the import of all wild-caught pets. This is something which is gathering momentum and to date, major restrictions have been brought in for Belgium which not just halt the import of some wild-caught pets but go much further and also prohibit the keeping of many pets, regardless of their source. So far, this affects mainly mammals but there are signs that the intention is to work down the vertebrates and include herptiles and ornamental fishes. At the very least, the proposals coming out are for the banning of ALL wild-caught pets, so you can wave goodbye to a lot of those interesting corys, L-numbers and apistos among other.

Leading the charge is the Federation of Veterinarians of Europe which has released a position statement , saying the EU should create a list of animals that can be kept as pets. Sounds innocuous until you read the detail, with the organisation welcoming Belgium and The Netherlands’ approach to restrict acceptable pets to just a small handful of domesticated animals. You might like to think about how much the average vet knows about keeping ornamental fish. The FVE, which is working with the Born Free Foundation, supports the position that wild-caught and some captive reared non-domestic animals are not suitable as pets. The British Veterinary Association abstained from supporting this document, saying they wanted more information.

The Eurogroup for Animals’ campaign was launched to target MEPs. It wants MEPs to sign a pledge to protect animal welfare. Sounds harmless until you see the manifesto which includes the objective to ‘ban the import of wild-caught animals and restrict the number of exotic species that can be imported and traded in the EU, in line with EU policies which tackle related concerns including human health, animal health and the protection of the environment’. It looks as if they have got their sights on marine and tropical fish. If you’re interested you can find out the campaign here and you’ll see 15 UK MEPs have already signed up. You might like to see what your MEP think on the issue. I have warned about this before but now the campaign seems to be getting serious. The fight is not equal; the Born Free Foundation has a fund of some £3M just to support the campaign against the exotic pet trade. You might think about doing something before the only fish you are allowed to keep are guppies and goldfish. Thanks for OATA and OFI for supplying information.

OATA has opened a campaign page called “Hands off my Hobby” where you can find information on the campaign and suggestions on what you should do to counter it which you can find at http://www.ornamentalfish.org/hands-off-my-hobby. Do not sit back and leave this to others!

Get involved and protect your hobby.

The loss of jobs, tax, trade and other things would be huge from this. I admit in comparison to some things it wouldn't be bad but allot of people depend on this trade for a living.

Plus they would actually damage the animals bred in captivity as some would have very limited blood lines. Lets face it the few breeders who had stock would be hard pushed not to interbreed.

If they want to improve a fishes lot their are better ways to do it. Banning is a sledge hammer to crack a monkey nut.

I edited the orignal post to make it a bit more readable. This is important stuff folks. The following MEPs MEPs have signed the vote4animals manifesto to end trade in fishes (with the area they represent and affiliations):

Bill Newton Dunn – East Midlands, Lib Dems
Jill Evans – Wales, Plaid Cymru
Keith Taylor – South East, Green
Alyn Smith – Scotland, SNP
Arlene McCarthy – North West, Labour
Michael Cashman – West Midlands, Labour
Catherine Stihler – Scotland, Labour
Brian Simpson – North West, Labour
David Martin – Scotland, Labour
Derek Vaughan – Wales, Labour
Linda Mc Avan – Yorkshire and Humberside, Labour
Glenis Willmott – East Midlands, Labour
Peter Skinner – South east, Labour
Jean Lambert – London, Green
Richard Howitt – Eastern, Labour

See more at: http://www.ornamentalfish.org/hands-off ... JOvCK.dpuf

I edited the orignal post to make it a bit more readable.

Maybe you could edit the title of the topic too? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

racoll wrote:Maybe you could edit the title of the topic too? It doesn't make a lot of sense.

Ah, yes, have done.

Cheers,

Jools

Hmmm, thanks. Still a crappy title though ;) If you can be bothered to change it again, something like "Stop EU plans to ban wild caught fishes" might attract more attention.

Still, if the trade continue to ignore problems with unsustainable exploitation and the significant mortalities associated with shipping ornamental fishes, then this kind of legislation is entirely to be expected.

P.S. not to mention the tankbusters and invasive species ...

I had to look it up MEP = Member of the European Parliament.

So instead of attempting to save / change / regulate the market, they are voting to shut it down all together? Are they going after the Australia model?

Not really

Australia has - if I remember correectly - banned import of animals, including fishes, which might survive in Australia, in order to protect the wildlive from invasive species.

Whether this is needed or not, there is still some honor in this idea

In Europe people who don't klnow anything about keeping animals, including fishes think their well-being is not right. And that is supposed to be an argument.

Firstly, even though in many cases there are well-being issues, there is no reason to ban everything
Secondly, due to this ban the wildlive areas will no longer make money, and therefore whill be made to pay differently - the forrest will be cut down and oil plantages will be started.

Precisely what these well intending people dislike the most. But in their arrogance they don't think they should consider the measures before they are taken

Hi all,

Still, if the trade continue to ignore problems with unsustainable exploitation and the significant mortalities associated with shipping ornamental fishes, then this kind of legislation is entirely to be expected.
P.S. not to mention the tankbusters and invasive species ...

I think Racoll has a point, if you look at the legal world trade in wildlife it is huge in scale, and can't possibly be sustainable.

If you just take a lot of the "L.numbers" for example, everything about them (small brood size, parental care, long life span, restricted ranges, specialist feeding strategies) makes them analogous to Monkeys, Turtles, Parrots, Mahogany or Orchids, and equally vulnerable to exploitation or habitat destruction.

Should you really be able to go and buy a wild collected Liquorice Gourami or a large Panaque "off the shelf"? Not every-one will agree, but I just don't think you should be able to.

Whichever side of the argument you are on, the real problem is the size and unsustainable nature of the trade in wild animals.

Hopefully at some point in the future we will be in a position where this trade is properly regulated, and there is a sustainable harvest that will help protect what rain-forest remains and the people and animals that depend upon it.

cheers Darrel

Darrel,

I think you made a point, and a good one.

With arguments such as these, I could accept people banning the export of some L numbers, and as custom officers don't know about fish, all other Loricarids. Still, it would be better not banning their export, but restricting it to a certain number.

For instance 100 L 123 to the USA and 100 to Europe a year. And the same for the other numbers. That would allow the captive stock to remain healthy, stimulate breeders and still protect the wild fishes

But this is not an argument to ban Cichlids, neon fish and so on. Perhaps some of them need a restriction too - but baserd on other arguments.

I could live with a ban - of grounded on proper arguments. NOT on a personel opinion by a professor, or something, but on persuasive arguments