Snakeheads. Available?

[Open Water Predator]

I have a long running love affair with the snakehead familiy. Does anyone know if it's still possible to get them. Seems like I read something about a bill being passed outlawing them because some idiot let one go in a Michigan lake and w/in 2 yrs. it had decimated the lake. Come to think of it, I haven't seen any in the pet stores lately either.
Anyone?

[fish dude]

i was gonna ask the same question:(

[Bantam]

obviously being from the uk i wasn't too sure about this but i'm sure i'd read on here something about them being banned. i did a quick search on the web and found this;
http://policy.fws.gov/library/02fr62193.html

regards

[Dangerdoll]

a bill was passed banning the sale of these fish due to that release into the wild......if you are able to obtain them in the states, it will be illegally.

[cdawson]

they're legal up here in vancouver, everywhere sells them.

[OrionGirl]

Buying one out of country and importing it into the States is illegal. If you are caught, the fish will be destroyed. If you currently have one, it will not be able to legally cross the state lines (Lacey Act violation). This means you will need to find it a home or kill it is you ever move to another state.

[BluEyes]

Oh well - stupid burecrats.

I guess we'll just have to find "Bowfins" and "Bichirs" to move...

"No, officer, that's not a channidae, it's a polypterus..."

[OrionGirl]

Rather than blame the F&WS, or the lawmakers, blame the irresponsible idiots that released these guys into the wild to begin with. It wasn't hobbyists, it was people who imported them for food, and released them. I agree it's frustrating, but don't blame the lawmakers, blame the people who can't do the responsible thing without the force of law behind it.

Rather than make enforcement determine the difference between the species, they ban them all to prevent confusion and illegal 'mistakes'. Trying to protect wildlife is not a fun line to walk. Between the politics and the mis-informed but demanding public, science frequently gets lost in the shuffle. This is one time when the science actually was the driving force behind the legislation.

[BluEyes]

But instead of banning them, how about banning their sale for food? (since that was what started the problem)
Or, make them registered - put a chip in them, and make the person pay a small fee. (c'mon - government loves this kinda stuff!) Then if a fish turns up loose, just fine the heck outta the person!
You can do this with cats/dogs very easily and for not very much. If your pet gets lost the vet just scans their neck with a reader to get the number on the chip, and pulls up the info on a network.
I think they also do this with Asian Arowanna, since they are CITES protected. The chip is registered and confirms that the fish was captive-bred and legal for you to have.

[OrionGirl]

The problem is twofold: determining which species the fish belongs to, especially when they are fingerling/fry/eggs, and funding the process. It's not easy, and implementation won't be cheap. There's no way to implant a chip of any kind into fry and eggs, which means you're then increasing the costs and labor for the suppliers, since they have to raise the fish and feed them longer. The costs would shoot through the roof, reducing demand even lower. The numbers imported were ridiculously low, for the combined food, research and hobbyist industries. So how many hobbyists are really being denied something they wanted in the first place? This proposed legislation was very well published, and yet there were only a few people who submitted any sort of comment.

It's not like laws just magically appear. They are proposed, studied, published, discussed, and then voted on by the people elected to represent all of us. If a law makes it in that you disagree with, ask yourself if you did anything to impact the decisions one way or another. If you didn't, blaming the law makers is silly.

[BluEyes]

I never heard anything about a law even being considered.
How did they spread the word that a new law was being considered?

The proposal was introduced 7/26, and enacted by 10/4 - seems kinda fast :confused: And they only invited comment for 30 days?

There were less than 500 voices raised on the issue, and most irrelevant to the topic - sounds like a rushed-through, hushed job.
What, weren't there any petitions to stop the banning of the channidae?

[OrionGirl]

I recall reading about this in the newspapers, and seeing a few things floating around the web about it as well.

A 30 day comment period is pretty standard. Let's not start some conspiracy theory about them hishing this up--there was tons of media attention given to the topic.

http://www.usnewswire.com/topnews/prime/0723-162.html

http://dnr.state.il.us/pubaffairs/2002/Sept/snakeheardban.htm

http://www.greaterboston.tv/features/gb_072502_snakehead.html (i love this one--calls them part fish, part snake :rolleyes: )

http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg03_fishing/pg3g3.htm

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,58538,00.html

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/07/0712_020712_snakehead.html

This is but a small sample of the stories that ran.

[tyler]

why would you want to keep something like this? and where would you keep it?

[ThirdEyE]

a friend of mine who works at a local lfs has 2 snakeheads,
ones 42 inches and the other is 36 inches.

he keeps them in a garage in a 240 gallon and said they've broken about 7 55 gallons growing up. they dont like anyone near the tank and the biggest one is about 6 inches in diameter.

[Open Water Predator]

yeah i found some of those same articles shortly after posting the thread; confirming what i'd already known. maybe i'll move to vancouver.

[JamisonBWolsh]

Pirahana are illegal in many states, yet poeple own them. If you really want them, its possible to get them.

Ferrats are illegal in California. You cannot buy them or have them as pets. YET, you do see "how to care for Ferrets" books in the pet stores. Local vets are also willing to take care of them if they are sick.

Some Laws are meant only for the "common" fishkeepers that are irresponsible and dump them in a lake. I think professionals like us, are able to keep them.

[BluEyes]

Originally posted by JamisonBWolsh
Some Laws are meant only for the "common" fishkeepers that are irresponsible and dump them in a lake. I think professionals like us, are able to keep them.

enforcement MIGHT work this way if "Officer friendly" is the one who comes knocking. But, by the letter of the law (as I understand it) this means that no-one is allowed to. "amateur" or "professional", or someone selling a fish for food.
Of course, if the guy who you get it from never tells, and you don't tell, and you don't set it loose then...

Tyler, as for "why would you want to keep something like this? and where would you keep it?" Not all snakeheads are 3' viscious monsters like the red snakehead (yes, they are one of the more aggressive fishes in the aqarium trade)
There are also species like Channa orientalis which only grows to 6" and can be kept with other compatible species (no neons!)
Personally, I would someday like to have a Red. In something like an 8' tank, of course...

[JamisonBWolsh]

The law is the law is the Law. What can I say. A law should be based on merit. Just because one person released it in the wild, does that mean it must be taken away from everyone? IMO, NO! what about the laws that should be in place, but arent.

I think there should be a law Outlawing Saltwater fish? Why? Because many of the species are all wild caught and I believe for every one that come into the LFS 15 died. Of the fish that survive the LFs and comes into the homes aquarium...how long are their lifespans? very short I believe. Also, in catching these fish, they destroy many of the coral reefs as well as "poison " the waters. Sure, this practice was supposed to have been stopped..but people still use it. If you want a MORAL law.. I vote for a law against saltwater fish. I will never have a saltwater tank for this reason. Its immoral and cruel. Unlike the snakeheads dilemna.

BTW, most people get into SW tanks for their "colors". Well, hey, I can put up a FW tank that would look just as nice. Check out RTR's tanks.

so... write your congressman and VOTE against Keeping saltwater fish!

[tyler]

sorry. i really don't know much about the fish. guess i just saw it as one of those "the face only a mother (or a fish geek ;) ) could love. all i knew about them is what i read in those articles which were a bit (cough) biased against the fish.

[tyler]

and as far as jamison's proposal, i don't really know how i feel about that. i'd like to keep a sw tank some day, and not at all for the color. the particular fish i have in mind (pork puff) isn't very colorful at all besides their pretty blue eyes. i do agree that fish that are routinely unsuccessfull in aquariums should not be marketed, but i wouldn't go so far as outlawing sw. don't want to upset those reefer addicts...

[lesley]

Wild collection of saltwater fish has not been fully determined to have negative effects. The way that many reef fish "recruit" to the reef habitat (many, many fry released with few individuals finding niches) means that in the case of some species, population levels may not be affected at all. The removal of one fish just makes way for another to colonize the now opened niche.

This is certainly not true of all saltwater fish, but for some species, wild collection may actually be helping populations by increasing public interest. People are much more likely to want to visit the reefs and want to keep them in good condition if they have personal connections with them.

Still, the key in maintaining sustainable collection is habitat preservation. This is also true of many freshwater fish. Wild collection of Amazon fish may be helping to prevent destruction of the habitat by the influx of agriculture and timber harvesting.

It's not all as simple as "wild collection is bad."

[BluEyes]

Originally posted by tyler
i do agree that fish that are routinely unsuccessfull in aquariums should not be marketed, but i wouldn't go so far as outlawing sw. don't want to upset those reefer addicts...

Just to play devils advocate here: why do we say "don't pass this law - wouldn't want to offend the reefers" but OTOH, it's okay to ban a FW fish even though it'll offend the FW hobbyists?
I think it has a bit to do with many non-fish peoples view that FW is just a 'hobby', while SW people are the 'pros'.
Just something to think about...

I do agree many SW fish are collected using unethical methods. Ask your LFS owner - some guys only sell captive-bred fish.

[Molino]

I'm not into SW myself, so don't know a lot about it but I would think the worst side effect would be the "live rock/corals" taken from the reef. To my knowledge it grows extremely slowly and a lot of the worlds reefs are in serious trouble. By taking away the fish habitat that probably has a more negative effect than taking a few fish for the aquariast.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. I'm assuming these live rocks and/or corals I see at the LFS are taken from the ocean and not "cultivated" somewhere.

[BluEyes]

Yes, live rocks taken from the reef are bad, but they used to (and probably still do in some places) use cyanide bombing to get fish and livestock. Basically, anything they didn't want to haul away ended up dead afterwards :mad:

There's also the problem that there are so many of us and so few of them! Now, FW fish exist in tremendous quantities, and a great many die off during the dry season anyways, so captures are not as bad on the wild fish population. BUT, even so I have read that the aquarium fish trade is causing an impact on wild populations in the Amazon. There are simply too many humans.
With our population, I think humanity can pose a serious depopulation issue for the reef fishes very easily. It's not just taking away a few fish when you consider that there are millions of SW reefers around the world, and only so many reefs...

[lesley]

Consider that most reef fish release hundreds or thousands of eggs or fry at each spawn. Some reef fish even spawn daily. The habitat is generally thought to be the limiting factor for settlement of the larvae. As long as reproductive adults are left, and the habitat remains suitable, it is probable that the numbers of fish removed for aquarium trade are quickly replaced. This is certainly not true in all cases, but for many fish that have wide distributions and high reproductive rates it may not cause a problem. Certainly, the fish must be caught in a non-destructive manner to avoid damaging the habitat.

[tyler]

Originally posted by BluEyes


Just to play devils advocate here: why do we say "don't pass this law - wouldn't want to offend the reefers" but OTOH, it's okay to ban a FW fish even though it'll offend the FW hobbyists?
I think it has a bit to do with many non-fish peoples view that FW is just a 'hobby', while SW people are the 'pros'.
Just something to think about...

I do agree many SW fish are collected using unethical methods. Ask your LFS owner - some guys only sell captive-bred fish.

it was a joke. i have just as much respect for fw keepers, especially plant geeks. nothing, not even a reef(or a snakehead ;)) is more beautfiul than a planted tank.

[slipknottin]

This board will not tolerate people advoacating you break the law.

No matter what your hobby, you are not above the law.

If you dont agree with a law, call your state representive and have them change it.

As far as SW is concerned, the majority of reefers will band together and stop any such laws from being passed. They have come out in force before to prevent such things. There are great strides being taken to captive raise many different SW species, and they are becoming much more common. Dont forget there are more "reefers" that are very into the hobby than FW keepers. That is easily illustrated by the size of the largest FW and the largest SW boards. SW keepers generally spend far more money also, wether it means there more watchful of the govt, or spend more time researching their hobby, they do pay attention and attempt to stop any law that would impose on their hobby.

Do not try to "punish" reefers because a FW fish was banned, they had absolutly nothing to do with.


JBW- I have warned you before about telling people its ok to break laws. That is not tolerated here and you will not be recieving any more warnings on the subject.

[OrionGirl]

Many live rocks are in fact cultivated. Very few areas permit the taking of corals and rock from the reef systems. Collection of specimens that fall off (storm damage, ect) is legal, and this helps a great deal. For example, HI allows collection of fish, with permit. I believe rock, sand and corals can't be collected--or even owned legally--in HI. Ask Reefscape if you're interested.


Many soft corals are easily fragged (cut a portion off, attach it to a rock and give it time--it will grow into a new specimen). The average SW hobbyist is very concerned about conservation efforts, probably more so than many FW hobbyists who aren't even aware that the fish they have are wild caught.

[BluEyes]

Originally posted by tyler
it was a joke. i have just as much respect for fw keepers, especially plant geeks. nothing, not even a reef(or a snakehead ;)) is more beautfiul than a planted tank.

I know it was a joke - I don't think there is really anybody on this board who believes that - but there are plenty of people out there in the world at large that DO believe that philospohy. The kind of "why don't you get serious and get a SW tank" thing. Like just because keeping FW costs a load less than SW that we don't aren't as smart about it, or as dedicated or something...
Maybe it plays into the lawmakers minds a bit, too. "it's okay to pass a law banning a FW fish, because they're just hobbyists and not really serious" whereas "oh, we can't restrict SW fishes - those guys are professionals they really must know what they're doing"
Not saying for sure that's what happens, but it's something to think about...

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there have been a few instances (along the coasts, of course) of people releasing SW fishes, and causing disturbances in the local ecosystem?
Have they banned those families of fish that were released?

Remember, they didn't just ban the species of snakehead that was released, they banned the whole blasted family! If I'm remembering classification correctly, that's basically like banning Tetras, or Barbs of all kinds...

[slipknottin]

They have tried to ban SW fish before.

Its extremely doubtful any lawmaker takes into consideration the average hobbiest and how much they spend. Its not a factor at all. What is a factor is how much these people care about there hobby and if there willing to take political action to prevent a law like this from passing.

[somefinnfishy]

:mad:
I'd bet more FW species are disapering than sw
Its sad but with time we will learn how to save our reefs with the knowlage gained buy advadced hobbyists at home research.
Plus think how many thousands of rivers and lakes have been RUINED with the weeds we like to call aquatic plants.If you wanted to outlaw something plants should be the first to go.
Or howbout cats they are killing off songbirds like they are going out of style.
BTW over 75% of rock corals and fish were captive breed I cant say that about my fresh water tanks.

[JamisonBWolsh]

Originally posted by JamisonBWolsh
Pirahana are illegal in many states, yet poeple own them. If you really want them, its possible to get them.

Ferrats are illegal in California. You cannot buy them or have them as pets. YET, you do see "how to care for Ferrets" books in the pet stores. Local vets are also willing to take care of them if they are sick.

Some Laws are meant only for the "common" fishkeepers that are irresponsible and dump them in a lake. I think professionals like us, are able to keep them.

SLip: Where in this statement do I advocate breaking a law? It doesnt. This website (I believe) and you (I know) are in the USA. The United States of America stands for freedom. I have a freedom of speech. Because you are a new mod on this board does not give you the right to step on these rights. There is nothing illegal in what I stated. If you decide to continue this harassment, legal action will be taken. Thank you.

[ChilDawg]

JBW,
It would seem that you were advocating breaking of laws. I understand that your intent may have been to just mention that it is possible to illegally obtain and maintain certain types of pets, but why would you feel it necessary to even mention that fact? The case is, if snakeheads are illegal to obtain and maintain, they are illegal to obtain and maintain. I don't see how it needed to be said that going outside the law to do so is a possibility. We should work within the laws of the U.S. to try to lift the ban on snakeheads, but advocating (or seeming to advocate) breaking current statutes does nobody any favors when it comes to challenging them in future if lawmakers are of a mindset where they don't want to encourage currently illegal behavior by suddenly legalizing it. Again, I understand what your intend may have been, but understand that it can be read in a different light, and that your statement, whether advocating illegal possession of snakeheads or not, was neither necessary nor deemed proper.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by JamisonBWolsh


SLip: Where in this statement do I advocate breaking a law? It doesnt. This website (I believe) and you (I know) are in the USA. The United States of America stands for freedom. I have a freedom of speech. Because you are a new mod on this board does not give you the right to step on these rights. There is nothing illegal in what I stated. If you decide to continue this harassment, legal action will be taken. Thank you.


This was clearly stated to you when you registered.


By clicking the Agree button, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

Further, you are certainly allowed your right of free speech. But it is this boards right to disallow any post they deem fit to be removed or edited.

Im opening the thread back up, this better stay inline or its getting locked for good.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by OrionGirl
For example, HI allows collection of fish, with permit. I believe rock, sand and corals can't be collected--or even owned legally--in HI. Ask Reefscape if you're interested.

.

I believe your allowed to collect fish, and 1 cup of sand a day. or something like that. But your right, you cannot collect LR or coral.

[jiggerpolebill]

A law should be based on merit. Just because one person released it in the wild, does that mean it must be taken away from everyone?

its not just one person, its ALOT of stupid people doing it. everyday. with alot of exotic species.

you should do some research into the environmental impact of exotic species on our natural resourses. i wont score alot of brownie points with some people, but i support the ban. the potential for substantial damage to our own ecosystems and natural resourses is there, and as much as i dont like the government getting involved in any of my own interests, i feel the need for them to step up and take measures is substantiated(sp).


If you want a MORAL law.. I vote for a law against saltwater fish. I will never have a saltwater tank for this reason. Its immoral and cruel. Unlike the snakeheads dilemna.

the introduction of exotic species isnt immoral??? the decimation of our own native species isnt cruel??? im not real sure i follow your train of thought. this issue and the collection methods of SW species are two entirely different matters.

the snakehead is an awesome predator and, being an angler, id love to feel one on the business end of a good fishing rig, but not in this country. you cant pass a law to limit who is able to buy what kind of fish the same as you cant limit who is able to buy what kind of car. there's always gonna be boneheads out there to ruin it for those more responsible. i this case, i think its better to err to the side of caution.

[RTR]

Any "professional" aquarist who wishes to foot the tab for the Maryland clean-up (several million dollars) is more than welcome to do so. My taxes are quite high enough already, and the state deficit is massive.

They were far from the first, and certainly will not be the last, fish to be banned due to careless dumping. It has been no more than a day and half since dumping was suggested in a thread on this board.

"Professional" - LOL!

[somefinnfishy]

I owned a cayman croc for 3 years It was to scary to keep around my babys so I phoned around No one would take or put it down for less than $200 so I placed an add for a good home found a guy who wanted it he housed 4 large snakes and many reptiles he bought the 220g to house him all the right stuff to keep it happy then I let him have my croc.Two months later on the 6pm news there is my croc in a lake and a story about the scared local residents and the closed public beach.:(I procided to call the DNR and tell them who let it go in to the wild they wanted to charge me as well as the guy who I gave it to?
The moral the croc should not have been avalible legally @ the local DNR should take some responsibility-help with disposal of unwanted pets if they dont want them released most who keep exotics cant find a home for big ones and dont have the heart to put them down so they relese into the wild.

[Strider]

The law is a protective law. Just like the 4" rule that was enacted for turtles who where sold as hatchlings and lived in a bowl. People just didn't know how to take care of them and led to the spread of salmonella due to sanitary reasons. Now the law is pretty much outdated because of the strides the hobbists have taken to learn about how turtles need to be cared for. For every one person that knows how to properly care for a snakehead there are probably 5 that don't or won't. I would rather not be able to purchase these fish than see them abused then abandoned.

I think it is a good law until education catches up with everyone in the hobby. I don't think people are intentionally trying to do bad they just don't know. Who knows, this might actually help people learn how to care for fish better by bringing this subject to light.

[Open Water Predator]

it seems i've struck a nerve here. i certainly did not intend on such a heated discussion. i do agree w/ jiggerpolebill:

i support the ban. the potential for substantial damage to our own ecosystems and natural resourses is there, and as much as i dont like the government getting involved in any of my own interests, i feel the need for them to step up and take measures is substantiated(sp)
we have a responsibility to our environment and the natural systems w/in it. mankind's disruption of ecosystems has been the source of many tragedies throughout history.
with that said i do ALSO agree with BluEyes:

Remember, they didn't just ban the species of snakehead that was released, they banned the whole blasted family! If I'm remembering classification correctly, that's basically like banning Tetras, or Barbs of all kinds...
the law needs to be revisited to include only those posing a threat. most species of snakehead could not survive a winter if, unfortunately, they were released. I AM NOT ADVOCATING RELEASING ANYTHING. HAVE NEVER RELEASED ANYTHING. WILL NEVER RELEASE ANYTHING. it's morally wrong. but there are many species of snakeheads that aren't lake decimators if someone were ignorant enough to do something stupid. i've got my eye on the Parachanna insignis, brown snakehead, from Africa. at 16" it's not a tankbuster.
http://www.aquariacentral.com/species/db.cgi?db=fresh&uid=default&ID=0598&view_records=1
if we want the recognition and presence the SW community has established we must be INVOLVED. SO FWs COME OUT. SPEAK OUT. contact your state representatives. let's get a more sensible law so i can have my brown snakehead.

[slipknottin]

This rule is not intended to punish hobbyists;
it is based upon the scientific evidence that indicates that snakehead
fishes are aggressive and highly predatory and therefore threaten the
wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States. It is important
to note that individuals or organizations who possessed snakeheads
prior to the injurious wildlife listing in States where possession of
snakeheads is legal will be able to continue to possess them; however,
they will be prohibited from transporting them across State lines.



Although the tropical to subtropical species of snakehead fishes
are not likely to become established in the northern waters of the
United States, all of the Channidae species, including the dwarf
species, are aggressive and highly predatory. Should a species of
snakehead fishes be accidentally or intentionally released into U.S.
waters, the 131 taxa of threatened and endangered amphibians, fishes,
and crustaceans could face additional threats. Additionally, because
snakehead fishes are morphologically very similar, it would be very
difficult for biologists, wildlife inspectors at entry ports, and law
enforcement agents to differentiate among species of snakeheads.



If you took the time to read the law that passed you would understand why they did what they did.


All the questions you are bringing up now were asked of the legislature passing the law and the legislators gave their side of the story, and there reasoning for the law being the way it is.

[BluEyes]

the fact that one or more species could become
established in most waters of the United States, and the fact that it
is very difficult to differentiate among the species of snakeheads, the
Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that all 28 of the currently
recognized species of snakehead fishes in the Channidae family should
be listed as injurious fishes under the Lacey Act


"We're too lazy to tell one fish from another, so we'll just ban the whole lot..."

I mean, really, there are other ways to go about this. Restrict them - make the owner have a lisence, you must register the fish and all. We already do this with dogs, why not fishes? I'd be willing to pay a few bucks for a fish lisence to keep a snakehead.

Also, I think there is something to be considered that when you ban something, it just becomes more attractive to the people who are more likely to screw things up.

I did read the law, and the rationale they published behind it earlier - still didn't entirely agree.

[OrionGirl]

I don't think it's a matter of laziness. Snakeheads were being imported at sizes too small to have identifying morphological features, or even as eggs. I am willing to bet there isn't anyone here who can identify which species of snakehead a batch of eggs are from. I've seen millions of trout eggs, and I can't tell the difference between the Colorado River Cutthroat and the rainbow trout. I asked the head of our culture section if it could be done visually, and he rolled his eyes and snorted. Heck, take 10 day old trout and tell them apart--I doubt many people would be able to beat the odds.

Now play the same game with a critter like the snakehead. Yes, I am sure there are tests that can be established to verify the origins and species. Most of these tests will be fatal, but I am sure they will be effective.

Tagging and tracking those fish would be a cost that right now, no G&F/DNR is willing to take up. The Feds don't have the money or the time to fiddle with it either. Really, I understand that there are people who want them, but the simple truth is that the numbers being imported are miniscule. Is it worth ticking off a few hobbyists to preserve native species and habitats? Who pays the bigger costs?

[Open Water Predator]

SLIP, just yesterday you posted:

If you dont agree with a law, call your state representive and have them change it.
today, you want to me make sound uninformed or unintelligent by posting some snide comments. i HAVE read the law. thank you very much. after all this did you honestly think for a #^$%second that i had not yet read the law? hey guess what? i understood it too! (it was real cool 'cuz they used small words! ;) ) i just disagree. just because you're clearly a reefer and even more clearly won't miss, ANY, snakeheads, EVER, doesn't give you place to belittle anyone.

Additionally, because snakehead fishes are morphologically very similar, it would be very difficult for biologists, wildlife inspectors at entry ports, and law enforcement agents to differentiate among species of snakeheads.
please. i'd be surprised if 'law enforcement officials' could distinguish a juvenile lepidota pike cichlid (or any other pike for that matter) from a juvenile snakehead. and you can't honestly tell me that biologists and wildlife inspectors (people educated, trained, and knowing what they're looking for) can't distinguish them? i don't buy it.
Snakeheads were being imported at sizes too small to have identifying morphological features, or even as eggs. okay. so no snakeheads enter that aren't a certain size, with identifying morphological features, are allowed in.

scientific evidence that indicates that snakehead fishes are aggressive and highly predatory and therefore threaten the wildlife and wildlife resources of the United States.
piranhas are 'aggressive and highly predatory'. yet, i can go to any of several local LFS and purchase several different species of piranha.
I understand that there are people who want them, but the simple truth is that the numbers being imported are miniscule. Is it worth ticking off a few hobbyists to preserve native species and habitats?it's not a matter a 'ticking off' anyone. it's a matter of the fact that there ARE snakehead species that CAN be kept healthily and happily. OG you can't tell me that a school of overgrown tankbusting piranha wouldn't endanger native species.
there are more "reefers" that are very into the hobby than FW keepers...SW keepers generally spend far more money alsoso, basically, since FW keepers are fewer in number and spend less money they don't matter. now we're striking the vein of government. follow the $$$$$$$$

[Dale W.]

Ok you guys, Lets keep this to a mellow debate and we can keep this thread going.

"Attack the issue and not the person"

Slip

"If you took the time to read the law that passed you would understand why they did what they did."

You had that one coming :D

Another little thing with me is "never assume"

[OrionGirl]

Long term, piranha won't survive in most waters. However--they are not legal in all 50 states. In those states where survival in the wild is deemed likely, piranha are illegal. If someone dumps 50 pirahna in a local waterway, some of the native species will get snapped up. There will be some shocked fisherman, as well. However, come winter time, even the warmest local waters large enough for piranha are going to drop down to about 35 degrees ambient. Or colder. Those fish will die. I've found their carcasses in the ice on local ponds. One season isn't enough to decimate a population. Snakeheads won't die over winter in many locations, which makes them a much larger threat to the ecosystem and it's native populations. They will establish self-sustaining populations, and expand beyond that one location.

How do you enforce an age limit? I'm not being difficult here. You are saying that this situation is ridiculous, I'm identifying the difficulties. Who, if not law enforcement, is going to enforce this patial ban? Are we pulling biologists (most of whom are not familiar with non-native, non-game tropical species) off of existing projects to go do border patrol? Who's paying for that? Are we really more concerned about a small percentage of the hobbyist population than we are about the threat to the environment?

I have a tank with 5 kulhi loaches. Every non-hobbyist fish biologist that has come in my office has asked me if I have a SW tank because of the 'eels'. These aren't idiots, these are fish biologists who don't work with tropical fish. Kuhli's are pretty easy to identify...Snakeheads are not.

I don't think there are more SW keepers out there than there are FW keepers. It's just that the level of devotion of the AVERAGE SW keeper is much greater than the levelof devotion of the AVERAGE FW keeper. In general, SW keepers do more research before purchasing a critter. Part of that is cost--if you're spending $50 for a tang, you're going to put more effort in securing long term survival than you would for a $1 guppy. Not saying the tang is a better fish than the guppy, or that the guppy doesn't deserve the same level of care, but that's what it comes down to.

I made the point previously in this thread: this law didn't just sneak by overnight. It was very well published and covered thoroughly by the media. Hardly anyone cared enough to respond. Why the vitrolic reaction now?

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by deepblue
:

today, you want to me make sound uninformed or unintelligent by posting some snide comments. i HAVE read the law. thank you very much. after all this did you honestly think for a #^$%second that i had not yet read the law? hey guess what? i understood it too! (it was real cool 'cuz they used small words! ;) ) i just disagree. just because you're clearly a reefer and even more clearly won't miss, ANY, snakeheads, EVER, doesn't give you place to belittle anyone.


Sorry, I wasent directing that towards you at all. It seemed many held the opinion that the law was complete BS and they didnt consider FW hobbyists at all.

Im not a reefer, Ive kept numerous FW fish for the past 8 years or so. I definatly agree that if you dont like a law, that you contact your representive and have them change it. Thats what they do.

The problem with that as it applies to snakeheads is that there was a massive amount of media coverage and they definatly swayed the general publics opinion of the fish.

Sorry If it seemed I was attacking you. Didnt mean to.

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by deepblue
OG you can't tell me that a school of overgrown tankbusting piranha wouldn't endanger native species. so, basically, since FW keepers are fewer in number and spend less money they don't matter. now we're striking the vein of government. follow the $$$$$$$$

Piranhas are illegal in many states including here in CT, where its impossible any piranha could survive.

[Strider]

Originally posted by OrionGirl

I made the point previously in this thread: this law didn't just sneak by overnight. It was very well published and covered thoroughly by the media. Hardly anyone cared enough to respond. Why the vitrolic reaction now?

I checked my local Fish and Game regs and it stated that snakeheads were illegal in Idaho since 1994. If Idaho had a law like this a long time ago I imagine many other states did as well and it wasn't enforced or even noticed. Heck even three types of pirahna are illegal(Serrasalmus, Rosseveltiella, Pygocentrus).

[slipknottin]

Originally posted by Reefscape


Slip

"If you took the time to read the law that passed you would understand why they did what they did."

You had that one coming :D

Another little thing with me is "never assume"

You should just stay in hawaii. quit coming over to my forum. :rolleyes: :D

[JamisonBWolsh]

Your Forum? I guess you can dream... nothing wrong with that :)

[slipknottin]

inside joke.... :D

[Dale W.]

Hey Slip, BITE ME :D

Oh crap, this isnt General marine is it ? :D

[O-man21]

People.....People..why can't we all just settle down...
so the snakehead is illegal, accept it.. so the piranha is in some states, like here in Iowa, yet I still see red bellied piranahas being sold in a lfs.
I will say though, that is does seem that thre is a huge byast against the snakehead, actually, I disagree that they should be illigal, but, really, are we going to all sign and e-mail petition and sent it to the president??? (wait..I'm giving ideas..I'll sign it)But really..how many people are there out there that have a tank large enough form a full grown 3ft snakehead, (no offense to all of you that do), but I think that we (the government) should just assign certain people the right to own a snakehead. I do think they are awesome fish, and maybe, if we revolt and illegally sneek them in, then this might turn out like when they tried to ban alcohol. (;) )

[slipknottin]

You can attain a permit to keep one. Though I have no idea how much this permit costs, or what you need to get one.

[jiggerpolebill]

im not against snakeheads. i feel that they are, ounce for ounce, at the top of the FW species food chain. thats a respectable title to earn, but something that can be catastrophic for our own natural resourses. i dont feel that size would be a very good limiting factor in any type of regulation/registration for these species either. its true that some species do not grow all that large, but a quick look to our own endangered species list will show quite a few fish species, such as darters and chubs, that could easily wiped out by the smaller species. once the smaller species start to disappear, the domino effect starts up the food chain.

OG brought up alot of good points as well. there's no way that state or federal legislation would ever support any type of regulation/registration for what would be, most likely, a very small minority of the people interested in keeping this family. in my state, our legislation is already looking to dip into the DNR funds to help pay for other government programs. the last thing theyre going to do is axe a few state parks programs for the sake of a few aquarists requests. "yes, we realize that by closing our parks to the hundreds of thousands of campers, hikers, anglers, hunters and general outdoors people, both local and tourist, will have a negative economic impact statewide, but we really need to get some programs in place to accomodate this small minority of people interested in keeping species from the snakehead family." would it take that kind of funding? no. of course not. thats taking it to the extreme. but for whats already been proposed here, it will take 10x's the amount of funding that you may think it does. remember, this is the government. additional funding for the writer of such legislation's own pet projects or district would surely be tacked on as it is so often in other areas. and if were proposed to be funded by taxpayers, you can forget about it. ill go out on a limb and say that that will never, EVER happen. our states DNR is already underfunded and ill managed, in my opinion, and the last thing i want to see is our states fisheries and wildlife programs suffer at the cost of keeping a small group of aquarists happy. sorry, and thats not directed at anybody personally, just my opinion. but i garantee you, its an opinion shared by alot of people. how many people out of the general population knew what a snakehead even was before the croften, MD incident? not very many. and there's alot that still dont. do you think there is anything in their lives that they want to sacrifice for the benefit of these fishes? doubtful.

even if there were registration of owners keeping fish, it wouldnt stop the release of them. and once theyre released, the damage is done. two registered fish are capable of creating hundreds of unregistered fish. whats done has been done and doubt that it will change anytime soon, if ever. the numbers of support for it arent there.

the long-term potential impact of this issue is far deeper than simply unethical people releasing exotics. those impacts are environmental, ecologic and economic. its these reasons you will not see the ban lifted anytime soon, if ever, no matter how many letters you write or petitions you sign.

[BluEyes]

Originally posted by Strider
I checked my local Fish and Game regs and it stated that snakeheads were illegal in Idaho since 1994. If Idaho had a law like this a long time ago I imagine many other states did as well and it wasn't enforced or even noticed. Heck even three types of pirahna are illegal(Serrasalmus, Rosseveltiella, Pygocentrus).

HOLY COW! I just noticed you're here in ID, and right here in Moscow! Do you go to the UI by chance?
I live in Lewiston, but drive up for classes...

Anyways, I thought that Piranha were legal here untill just recently - I got my g/f three for her birthday a few years back from a reputable LFS, but they now say they cannot sell Piranha, or take them in (money is tougher since Bush stumbled in, and upgrading their tank will be harder than expected)

I definately think that this should be left up to the individual states. Places like Az and Fl would jump to ban it, but places here along the Canadian border might not see the need (I guess some of southern ID is warm enough for Channidae?)

I didn't know they were importing these fish as eggs, either. But, then again for shipping costs, it makers sense.
Of course, that makes you wonder - how hard/easy is it to tell a Snakehead egg from, say, a trout, salmon, bass, or [insert other legal fish name here] egg?
Yes, there's a law, but is it an enforcable one? It seems like the existing laws already have enough ways to skirt them, or just blatantly defy them. Probably because of lack of enforcement - I doubt the FWS has the resources to send a biologist by every LFS to check up!
No, I'm not advocating breaking any laws, but maybe we should think of a better way to achieve the same goals.

Yes, microchipping and registering the fish wouldn't actually stop someone from dumping them, but if you knew that IF you dumped the fish into a river/lake while it was still alive that you would get a hefty fine ($10,000 enough?, $100,000? Fine+10% of the cleanup operation?) that might provide some deterrent.
Having to go through a liscencing/registration process would likely also deterr the people who want the fish as a macho thing (hey, it's the right shape ;) ) or status symbol, or just to show off "heh, heh, look at my mean fish...".
I think these are the kinds of people who would be more likely to dump when the fish gets big (if it is a species that does get large) anyways, not the dedicated fishkeeper who wants to keep the fish because they like the species, and would be willing to go through a bit of paperwork.

Oh, and you could regulate as well that you cannot own more than one of a species, or even more than one snakehead.

[Strider]

Originally posted by BluEyes


HOLY COW! I just noticed you're here in ID, and right here in Moscow! Do you go to the UI by chance?
I live in Lewiston, but drive up for classes...



I do go to UI and I'm graduating this spring. Wierd.

[stik6shift98]

where can u buy a snakehead?????

[Dabbler II]

I just saw some Snakeheads up here in Canada at Big Al's I don't recall which ones they were but they were there.
(guess you could move up here :D )

[BluEyes]

I have seen some snakeheads for sale around here in the past.

Of course, NOW you cannot buy a snakehead anywhere in the US... legally, that is...

[somefinnfishy]

edit- You know we cant allow you to do that over the forum.