stupid florida laws rant

[monkey_toes]

WARNING: OPINIONS EXPRESSED

Who are these dim bulbs in charge of deciding what can and cannot be kept by Florida aquarists? Some of their decisions seem to be based on opinion or misinformation, with apparently intentional disregard for facts. A few of their best decisions:

Freshwater stingrays: Must have a special permit from the director of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to possess any of the family Potamotrygonidae (Potamotrygon spp., Paratrygon spp. and Plesiotrygon spp.). I'm not a big fan of exotics moving into natural waters, but why this family only? What about Asian and African species? What about the fact that there are already native freshwater stingrays in the St. Johns river system? I can find no reported injuries from the St. Johns population. What about the fact that Florida's salt and brackish waters are loaded with bazillions of stingrays? Who's going to turn $100 fish loose, anyway?

Piranhas: Subfamily Serrasalminae (including Serrasalmus spp., Pygocentrus spp., Pygopristis spp., Rooseveltiella spp.) banned entirely, due to human safety concerns. Yeah, because everyone who swims or bathes in the Amazon gets stripped down to a skeleton in 30 seconds. Piranha bites are rare and deaths almost unknown, besides which there are only a couple species that have been found guilty of ANY harm to humans. OK, fine, make the potentially dangerous species illegal, but to throw a blanket on all of them is absurd.

Walking catfish: The entire Clariid family is banned, except Clarias batrachus, which is already established — and RESTRICTED, due to concerns it could expand its range. Look, I've seen walking catfish hundreds of yards from any water during heavy rains. Anywhere that is suitable habitat, THEY'LL WALK THERE. It makes sense to ban the species that aren't already here, but the one that's been established for 30+ years? Stupid.

Tilapias (Sarotherodon spp., Oreochromis spp., Tilapia spp.): All prohibited except four species that are already established, which are restricted. Every species, including two other established species. Over 100 species — despite their varied habitat requirements, dietary needs, etc. This is simple laziness on the part of the state. How does the incredible reproductive capacity of O. aureus justify the banning of, say, Tilapia buttikoferi? Did anyone research this in any way? I doubt it — it's a lot easier to just say "no."

Bony-tongued fishes: Family Osteoglossidae (including Arapaima gigas, Scleropages formosus, Osteoglossum ferreirai, Heterotis niloticus). All species except O. bicirrhosum are restricted. Survey: Who thinks pirarucu could actually become established in Florida? And why the exempt one species of arowana but make me jump through flaming hoops to acquire another? FWC sez: "Potential Concerns - All bony tongue fishes, family Osteoglossidae* are restricted, except arowana (Osteoglossum bicirrhosum) is exempted, due to their inability to survive temperatures below 58 degrees Fahrenheit." Oh, now it makes sense. It's because those other tropical species adapt well to cold. Silly me.

Restrictions and prohibitions of some species are necessary, and I understand that. I would hate to see trahira or any additional species of snakehead (we've already got one) become established like so many other exotics have. I also understand the need to prevent uneducated buyers from purchasing fish they will probably later release because it's too big or expensive to feed. I just think facts should be used when writing the law, not impressions from B-movies or old adventure novels. As a Libertarian at heart, I don't feel morally obligated to obey a law that is based on stupidity, ignorance or laziness. Potential owners of any living animal need education, and I think both the state and the pet industry have failed miserably in that regard. Knowledge, not laws, will be the key to preventing the spread of exotics.

[sthawke1]

Do you really think any of the politicians making those restrictions have aquariums that they care for :duh:
obviously not ... they just dont understand :p:
but still if your a politician you've got to be concerned about your area's wildlife situation b/c you never know when some idiot will put a $100 fish somewhere other than its own environment. Its kidn of mandatory. Unfortunately.

[Toirtis]

Its not so much damage to people that concern them, but damage to ecosystems. In Florida already, some 30% of the wildlife is introduced, causing untold, irreperable damage to native species...and as far as Arapaima surviving there...clown knives, African bichirs, Madagascan geckos, Burmese pythons, African Nile monitors, etc all have quite well, so why not Arapaima?

[tricksterpup]

It because the same type of people who get these type of fish, will tire of them and dump them into the local rivers and waterways. This is the reason why Florida has so many exotics in the state. I think its a good law.
The everglades has a problem with Burmese Pythons. Yes there are responsible people who have exotic pets but for every 10 there is atleast 2 who are not. Also complaining here doesnt do any good. If you want to have exotic pets, then you must then meet with your State Representatives and talk to them. Get a group of people to join up with you and do discussions. Change the politicians minds. But if you have to have a special license for exotic animals, is that a really that big of a problem?? seriously, this would stop the casual buyer and only the most serious of Keepers would buy them.

[DeputyChiefJR]

i agree, i think the licensing would make it so only those who have done research, and made the difficult decision to get involved with the care of these animals, would get the priviledge of getting them...i think some should not be banned outright if someone had the skill and dedication to care for them, but even then you could probably get a license or scientific grant if you cared to try...

[dorkfish]

I have no problems with thier laws, it's to protect the local ecosystems, the reasons those fish are'nt naturally there is because they could'nt get thier, and thats how most of the enviroment should have stayed, the way nature intended it. Completly outlawing the species, I have a problem with, but banning them becuase of the idiots and making the more determined aquarists get a permit to have them is nothing you should be mad about, unless, you hate the enviroment.

[monkey_toes]

Its not so much damage to people that concern them, but damage to ecosystems. In Florida already, some 30% of the wildlife is introduced, causing untold, irreperable damage to native species...and as far as Arapaima surviving there...clown knives, African bichirs, Madagascan geckos, Burmese pythons, African Nile monitors, etc all have quite well, so why not Arapaima?
If the well-being of the environment were the root of their concern, the sensible solution would be to prevent importation of any species which could potentially reproduce in Florida's environment. There's no evidence that freshwater stingrays would have a more (or less) harmful impact on native species than, for example, pictus catfish. The difference is in the perceived negative impact on tourism dollars an established stingray population would cause. I'm well aware of the exotic wildlife problem — all the native treefrogs and anoles in my town are gone, replaced by Caribbean imports. What I'm saying is the animals they've chosen to outlaw have been selected based on emotional criteria rather than factual.

[monkey_toes]

making the more determined aquarists get a permit to have them is nothing you should be mad about, unless, you hate the enviroment.
There is no clear set of requirements for the granting of said permit. It's at the discretion of the director of the FWC. A well-regulated permitting procedure would be wonderful to ensure animals would go into only the right hands, but with the current system you just get stonewalled.

[born2lovefish]

I just love this government....Oh and this "free" country........

[twig]

to my understanding, piranah's were banned because people were introducing them to lakes and such and they can actually live in the environment.

>.> Might want to check it out but I heard people were getting bitten.

I had a red piranah who bit me once while I was adjusting a silk plant. =( It hurt a lot and I didn't put my hand in the aquarium after that. Imagine a really deep paper cut. It was almost surgical... Gah

[Toirtis]

What I'm saying is the animals they've chosen to outlaw have been selected based on emotional criteria rather than factual.

I disagree...I am quite familiar with Florida's laws and I do a lot of biological/ecosystem impact studies as part of my prefession...most of what is included in Florida's laws is of real concern...the rest might be a bit aggressive, but I believe your authorities have learned to err on the side of caution with exotic species.

[msouth468]

It looks good to me. All those laws make sense.

[reptileguy2727]

i think it is good to help protect the environment from people who disregard it when dumping their foot long peacock basss into a lake (or these days at best a "water management channel") because they thought they would get a bigger tank by the time they needed it. and i dont think it is a prerequisite to have already damaged the environement in order to limit any particular species (such as the fw stingrays that have yet to prove damaging to the ecosystems). i do think it is rather stupid to take steps like these to protect the environment while allowing some developer to simply pave over it.

[tricksterpup]

i think it is good to help protect the environment from people who disregard it when dumping their foot long peacock basss into a lake (or these days at best a "water management channel") because they thought they would get a bigger tank by the time they needed it. and i dont think it is a prerequisite to have already damaged the environement in order to limit any particular species (such as the fw stingrays that have yet to prove damaging to the ecosystems). i do think it is rather stupid to take steps like these to protect the environment while allowing some developer to simply pave over it.
I agree with this a 100%. Florida is loosing lots of its natural beaches and country side every day because of Urban growth. We are hearing the stories of Alligators attacking people. Hmmm. well I live along side Large Predators why should they see me as a food source? I am slow and have no external protection on my body, easy food.
Minnesota counties are starting to adopt strict Exotic Laws as well. In Minneapolis, it is illegal to own an Iguana and other large reptiles. And in out lying counties, they are making it hard for people to own big cats. Its amazing how many people in this state own large cats.


No one seems to know for sure how many tigers, lions and other big cats live in Minnesota, but the danger is evident. The recent fatal mauling of a Pine County woman, who worked extensively with tigers, raises new concerns about the effectiveness of a 16-month-old state law that was intended to regulate the ownership of tigers, lions and other exotic cats. Neither that law nor a patchwork of municipal ordinances makes clear how many people own dangerous animals.


"A lot of people in Minnesota ask, 'Why do these people have to have these exotic animals anyway?' " said Lakeville Police Chief Steve Strachan.
But many states are just making Blanket Laws to cover all Exotic animals, its much easier that way than to list everything individually. Its for your protection as well as the animals. I agree with the law against Iguanas. I personally own one. He was an adoption, cause he was an unwanted pet.
To many Iguanas die in captivity, people get bored with them or do not give them proper care for life.

[reptileguy2727]

there are many animals that need to be outlawed or at least more controlled, it just seems usually the ones that are outlawed are the ones that have a direct threat against humans. there arent enough laws to protect animals against idiots who think they know what they are doing, will get a bigger enclosure when it gets bigger, or simply look at the animal as disposable and replacable. this thread is based on laws trying to limit highly destructive species in a unique ecosystem that is already being thrown off balance. that is a good thing in my opinion. i think a healthy ecosystem is more important than every hobbyist being able to get whatever their heart desires.

[monkey_toes]

i think it is good to help protect the environment from people who disregard it when dumping their foot long peacock basss into a lake (or these days at best a "water management channel") because they thought they would get a bigger tank by the time they needed it.
Regarding peacock bass, the state of Florida intentionally introduced both butterfly peacocks and speckled peacocks to south Florida canals back in 1984. The goal was to provide a new sport fishery in waters that were too polluted to support native largemouth bass. Also, the peacocks were supposed to eat up all the exotic tilapias and oscars that were already a familiar part of the Florida aquafauna. The sport fishery is thriving, but so are the tilapia and oscars (and dozens of other cichlid species). The state proclaims the introduction as a huge success, BECAUSE PEOPLE SPEND MONEY TO CATCH PEACOCK BASS. The fact that native bass and sunfish are now rare in the places peacocks are found (not just Miami-Dade anymore; they're all through the Everglades) is officially the result of polluted water or competition from nonsanctioned exotics; never mind that very aggressive piscivore we stocked. The economic benefit far outweighs the environmental detriment. Sure it does.

[monkey_toes]

to my understanding, piranah's were banned because people were introducing them to lakes and such and they can actually live in the environment.

>.> Might want to check it out but I heard people were getting bitten.
The only references I can find in the NISbase database are a few scattered Serrasalmus rhombeus and some old reports of Pygocentrus nattereri back in 1979. I can't find any reliable source reports of anyone being bitten in the wild in Florida. When I was a kid, there were always rumors of piranhas being caught in the Peace River or Lake Okeechobee. Just that — rumors.

[monkey_toes]

But many states are just making Blanket Laws to cover all Exotic animals, its much easier that way than to list everything individually. Its for your protection as well as the animals. I agree with the law against Iguanas. I personally own one. He was an adoption, cause he was an unwanted pet.
To many Iguanas die in captivity, people get bored with them or do not give them proper care for life.
And not just iguanas but many species that are difficult to care for as adults. I have a suggestion.

For any fish that exceeds 2 pounds as an adult, any snake that exceeds 5 feet, any lizard that exceeds 2 feet, any chelonian that exceeds 1 foot, and any mammal not recognized as a domestic species (dogs, cats, ferrets, guinea pigs, etc.) ownership will require a free state-issued permit. The permit will be provided by the seller of the animal, and will be required private sales as well as retail. Prior to providing the permit, the seller will advise the buyer of the adult size and care requirements of the animal being purchased, and of the penalty for releasing the animal. The buyer will then fill out an affidavit stating that he or she has been so advised. The seller will mail the affidavit to Tallahassee, where the buyer's name, address, and species purchased will be entered into a database. Release of any animal requiring a permit would become a felony — 3 years mandatory prison time. Release of any other exotic wildlife would also become a felony, 1 year mandatory.

No lawmaker will suggest this. The pet industry would have them killed, politically speaking. But when I rule the world …