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.
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.
: 
