Snakeheads. Available?

[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 also

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 $$$$$$$$

 

[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

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

Another little thing with me is "never assume"

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