PDA

View Full Version : banning the sale of sharks


cycler
04/26/2003, 09:00 PM
hi-ya;To echo a thread in an English forum;Is there something us hobbyists can do to get some laws passed to stop the sale of sharks.We all know they grow too fast to be held in all but the biggest tanks,then too most species are threatened with extinction after 100,000 yrs.The u.s. alone has an estamated 100,000 reef tanks alone.How about 999999 reefers with brains.

Lrgclasper
04/27/2003, 01:49 AM
I agree that there are many species of sharks that do not belong in the hobby, but these will not be banned becuase the places they orginate from do not have governmental control over thier fisheries. An interesting note is that you can buy whitespotted bamboo sharks which breed in captivity and tank raised. Petwarehouse sells captive bread sharks that orginated from Sea World. Activites such as these should be supported!

To try to stop the sale of sharks is tough and obviously stopping the stores from carrying them and people buying some species is the first step. Perhaps a more disturbing occurance is animals and rock orginaiting from the Phillipines. Two issues, it is impossable to regulate the use of cyanide no matter how reassuring your dealer is and second, there is a serious human rights issue with collectors.
It seems the dealar associations that claim to be "eco-friendly" are self regulated and limit the scope of thier advisory boards to buisiness related interests.

Back to sharks, many of those cheap shark egg cases come from that part of the world.. think about why they are so cheap? The only way to regulate this is to buy animals and rock from areas that have working regulations(such as hawaii).

As for reefers (which I am one), some of the best live rock was obtained at a serious cost. The removal of whole habitats is perhaps the worst of all problems. If someone knows of a legitmate watchdog group working WITH the aquarium industry, I would like to hear about it. Sharks are just the tip of the iceberg.

cycler
04/27/2003, 09:05 AM
lrgclasper;Thanks for the imput,I thought I was opening a can of worms,but your imput helps disway my misgiveings. make it a good day!

Leopardshark
04/27/2003, 10:30 AM
Sharks should not be sold to reefers, but as long as there are irresponsible reefers, there will be irresponsible sellers.:(

dendronepthya
04/27/2003, 12:26 PM
I don't so much mind seeing bamboo cat sharks, but the leopards, nurses, and blacktips are suitable for maybe 6 tanks in the entire country.

Evergreen
04/27/2003, 08:04 PM
perhaps a compromise would be to require a permit to keep them, similar to the way you need one to keep a Pirhanna fish.(sp?) It would certainly discourage impulse buyers.

RooFish
04/27/2003, 08:33 PM
You don't need a permit to sell or buy Pirhanas, at least not in Michigan.

I think there are a few decent species of shark for keeping, but only if you have a huge @$$ tank for them. Obviously, the big ones aren't them, but cats and such are okay. We didn't sell them, so I guess were doing our part.

RooFish
04/27/2003, 08:34 PM
Well, I shouldn't say we didn't sell them, we have sold two, for specific people, and we knew what they had and that they could handle it.

Lrgclasper
04/27/2003, 10:34 PM
The state of California has specific seasons to harvest sharks such as horns and leopards. Also, those really small leopards you see in the store are cut out of the mothers stomach, so legal leopards are generally fairly large. I have to admit I am a bit concerned about the number of shark eggs making and cat sharks making it to the market than the sale of nurse, blacktip, lemons, and wobby's. The price of those species make it fairly prohibitive and many stores will not carry them becuase overhead is high, but cat sharks are a dime a dozen and easy to get becuase many come from the philippines.

Wobby's come from austrailia which has good managment schemes. I think buying from regions like California and Austrailia are a good thing, rather than buying from problem regions.

To try and impliment a permitting process would be very expensive and difficult to inforce, besides, people tank situations change. A prohibition on the number of sharks entering the US might be much easier to control. A dealer could be required to turn in a sales slip (simular to fish tickets in a commercial fishery). This would not solve the husbandry problem, but we cannot even solve that for dogs and cats, let alone fish. Economic prohibition from regions seems to be the most direct route, but I think the majority of aquarists are not willing to make this leap! Environmental groups may make it for us at some point if we do not become more proactive. Ok now I can step off my soap box.. hahaha.

drue131
04/30/2003, 07:35 AM
I disagree. I think fish are usually feed better in your tank than in the ocean. a lot of fish die while being shipped in this hobby. and tank melt downs kill many. remember the fish are not people. I think we just need to be somewhat be respondible and educated and if you get a shark try to find a place for it when it out grows your tank or make sure you have a huge tank. There are also a lot of corals sold like flower pots that usually die quick. The neat thing about aquariums are you can take pieces from oceans all over the world and people that do not dive can enjoy an aquarium. I do scuba dive by the way.

Lrgclasper
04/30/2003, 12:56 PM
. I disagree. I think fish are usually feed better in your tank than in the ocean. a lot of fish die while being shipped in this hobby. and tank melt downs kill many. remember the fish are not people.

I guess I do not see your point here, you say fish are fed better in the tank (which suggests a positive outcome) then you go on to say they die and the whole part about not being people doesn't make any sense.

Are you against aquarium aquaculture or protecting fish stocks throughout the world that DO benifit people?
I agree people should have a large enough tank to accomadate them, but this true for any fish or coral for that matter. The question here is what is large enough? Even corals in the wild have huge reproductive dispersions that insure gentic variability.

I don't think aquaculture is a substitute for proper managment, but aquarist's do have a choice on the area and type of species they buy. Wait untill an organization like PETA gets a hold of the industry, then we will be wishing that it was clean and self regulated. Other Non-govermental organizations already have the industry in there sites and with a few having budgets approaching that of the Red Cross, they have the power to create broad sweeping regulations that may not be compleatly fair to the industry. Responsable aquaculture is one way to avoid all this agony.

lexusboy
04/30/2003, 09:48 PM
I don't mind when they sell the smaller sharks like some listed above. But it is when they sell the ones that get big. It would be like taking a baby and puting it in a closet and tell it to live the rest of its life there. Would you want to do that? Especially if the leopard sharks and how they are cut from their mothers. I think that is very wrong. Oh yeah and nurse sharks those guys get huge! I would support anything to help our sharks stay where they belong. I mean it is ok if you have them for instance in aquariums for people to see but they don't need to take them home.

drue131
04/30/2003, 10:30 PM
what I mean by fish aren't people is. if you had a dog drowning in a lake and a person. some people would save the dog first. I think that is terrible. in other words people and there freedoms come before animals. that don't mean you shouldn't treat animals or fish good. if you protected every fish to good none of us could have an aquarium that would suck. thats what I mean by we and others kill fish by them dying in shipments and tank melt downs. I love the ocean and I think we should protect the reefs and fish it is a beautiful world down there. but remember fish eat fish in the ocean and they also eat corals. so let don't go farer than mother nature to protect the reefs and ect. also some people don't scuba dive and they can see the ocean in an aquarium. ( nothing like stirring the pot huh)

drue131
04/30/2003, 10:35 PM
I have had sharks and you got a good point there. but they are cool killing machines. when I was a kid I had pet bob cats. and coyotes. all those things are to high of maintance for me now for sure. and costly to keep correctly.

Crevalle
06/25/2003, 05:52 PM
My 2-cents:

Running to the government for help is the worst possible course of action.

Al G Blenny
06/26/2003, 01:20 AM
First of all this thread has the worst grammer. Second of all sharks should not be sold as pets. I have worked in aquarium stores for over ten years and I have seen the tanks that people keep their sharks in. I have yet to see a shark tank that was a suitable size for its inhabitant. I'm not sure the exact size but I have heard that the smallest sharks reach three feet. A three foot fish would feel very cramped in a 1000 gal. tank. Who has a 1000 gal. shark tank? Not too many people. Even if a person did have that big of a tank, like I said the shark would still feel cramped. I'm not even touching the nurse shark and reef shark topic.

Crevalle
06/26/2003, 08:39 AM
That's a pretty broad statement AlGBlenny: "A three foot fish would feel very cramped in a 1000 gal tank."

Secondly, did you know you spelled "grammar" incorrectly? That is the definition of ironic.

Al G Blenny
06/26/2003, 11:58 AM
subtle joke.

Al G Blenny
06/26/2003, 12:03 PM
I don't think that's a broad statement. I can't imagine any three foot fish that naturally comes from the ocean, would not feel cramped in a 1000 gal. tank.

MaryHM
06/27/2003, 05:26 PM
Perhaps a more disturbing occurance is animals and rock orginaiting from the Phillipines.

Rock is not exported from the Philippines. It is illegal.

Bluetangclan
06/29/2003, 06:10 PM
Wrong, people and their freedoms do not come before animals in most cases, People are reproducing at incredibly fast rates, at the same time the worlds oceans are being depopulated at fast rates. You tell me who has the right away. As harsh as it sounds people are a dime a dozen. If the people in those areas cant take care of their environments then someone from outside has to come in and do it, livelyhoods be damned, we are talking world survival, individuals do not matter.
In alot of cases fish are safer in a properly run tank than in the ocean. Some sharks are suitible for the aquarium trade and some arent, that much is obvious. The ones that are tank bred and aquacultured should be allowed to be traded. the big ones and non-aquacultured ones should be illegal.

DgenR8
06/29/2003, 07:40 PM
I'm no expert on sharks, but I can't remember ever seeing one that was small enough to be housed in the average Joe's tank. (fresh water irridescent sharks don't count here)
This is not the same issue as Tangs in 75 gallon tanks. Sharks need to move in order to breathe, they are voracious, messy eaters, and not the prime community minded neighbor for your clownfish, and gobies.
Public aquariums with tanks that hold hundreds of thousands of gallons can arguably be adequate to house sharks, but I don't think even the advanced hobbyist has any place keeping them.

Al G Blenny
06/30/2003, 02:03 AM
Bluetangclan,
There are no sharks suitable for the aquarium trade. It is extremely rare that someone has a tank big enough to house a 3 foot shark let alone being able to keep it happy.


DgenR8,
Irredescent sharks get too large for most peoples tanks also. I agree with you about everything else.

Crevalle
06/30/2003, 08:07 AM
Sharks don't scare me--several of you do though. It concerns me when people WANT government intervention with respect to solving a problem. This country was not built by looking to the government for help. As George Washington once said, "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence. It is a force--like fire. It is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Or, as President Reagan said: "The best minds are not in government. If they were, businesses would hire them away."
Do you ACTUALLY think the government would step in, ban these sharks, and then leave? Ever heard of capillary action? Well, that is exactly how the government would eventually saturate this hobby/industry. If you don't have the initiative to begin a boycott campaign (the only thing that truly works--money talks, folks), then you just don't care enough. You're too lazy to fix the problem yourself. If that's the case, just keep your mouths shut, and quit complaining. It's giving some of us a headache. Of course, it's impossible to reason with left-wing liberals. They want the government to fix everything. You may (GASP) have to fix this "problem" yourself! THE HORROR!

Al G Blenny
06/30/2003, 12:00 PM
Crevalle,
I agree with you about keeping the government out of this hobby. This hobby should be self regulating. That is why sites like this one are helpful. People can voice their opinions and others can learn from others experiences. I personally consider myself to be mostly consevative but I don't think this thread is here so that we can bash each others political standpoints. You could have made your point without telling everyone to "keep their mouths shut, and quit complaining". IMO if you are getting a headache, stop reading and go to a different thread. Hopefully your headache is not a serious medical condition. Sounds to me like you are stressing yourself out.

Crevalle
06/30/2003, 12:53 PM
AlGBlenny, you are right, I did get a little frazzled there. And no, I shouldn't have brought politics into it. I re-read my post a while afterwards, and it sounded a little harsh.

JIM27
06/30/2003, 07:27 PM
As a shark keeper I strongly disagree that sharks should be banned in the hobby. There are many species(epaulette/bamboos, catsharks, bullheads, etc) that can live perfectly happy lives in home aquariums.

I'll use the brownbanded bamboo shark(most common shark available in the US probably) as an example. These sharks adapt to aquarium life very quickly and can be kept perfeclty happy and healthy in tanks as small as a standard 180g. How can this be you ask? They're benthic sharks, they lay around all day and only get active when its time to eat. You can even breed these sharks like bamboos, epaulettes, and coral cats in tanks as small as a 180g, and I think we can all agree that fish will not breed unless they are in the right environment and are healthy.

Active swimmers like blacktips and leopards or just plain big sharks like nurses and wobbies dont make very good choices for the average person, but I also dont think they should be banned either. It would be best if lfs's wouldn't get sharks in stock, but rather order them on request.

bruddah
07/01/2003, 04:05 AM
hi JIM27
Originally posted by JIM27
As a shark keeper .....
just wondering what types of sharks you are keeping and what size tank.

Flanders
07/01/2003, 06:52 AM
Active swimmers like blacktips and leopards or just plain big sharks like nurses and wobbies dont make very good choices for the average person, but I also dont think they should be banned either.

You have got to be kidding me. Don't make 'very good choices,' huh? I mean, that's got to be the understatement of the YEAR. Do you know anyone that can care for any 10-foot seawater dwelling animal in their home? It's probably easier to care for a full-grown sea turtle.

Not that I think they should be banned, necessarily - that's just a really funny thing to say. I don't think you're helping your cause much with statements like that. I do agree with you regarding the less active sharks and with the overall sentiment of your post.

But on the other hand, if we know no one can care for a nurse shark properly, why shouldn't it be banned, or why shouldn't you need a permit to purchase one?

Crevalle
07/01/2003, 07:06 AM
Flanders, how many people do you actually know of who purchase nurse sharks? Even if they do, I know people (M.dandaneau) who raise animals to a certain size, and then let them go into the ocean, assuming they're resident animals. Why should a few "bad apples" ruin it for everyone?

Flanders
07/01/2003, 08:21 AM
Flanders, how many people do you actually know of who purchase nurse sharks? Even if they do, I know people (M.dandaneau) who raise animals to a certain size, and then let them go into the ocean, assuming they're resident animals. Why should a few "bad apples" ruin it for everyone?

Thankfully, I don't know think I know anyone is stupid enough to purchase a nurse shark, and I would be very disappointed if I did. Releasing captive animals in the ocean when you don't really know what you're doing is much, much more irresponsible than just killing the fish. It's a great way to introduce wild populations to diseases they've never been exposed to and aren't resistent to. Plus, how well do you think a pampered shark that has never hunted will compete in the wild? I wonder.

I have less of a problem with just eating the shark when it gets too big. Actually, I have no problem with that.

Irresponsible behavior like this is why a few 'bad apples' should and probably will ruin it for everyone. I am very disappointed to hear that you know someone who does this and you consider it responsible.

Crevalle
07/01/2003, 10:44 AM
Sharks have what some term "instincts." If they eat fish in an aquarium, they will eat fish in the ocean. They do not learn to find food from their mother--as a bear or lion would. Yes, I am being facetious.

While I realize that releasing captive fish into the ocean could potentially have negative results, you're missing my point. The point is that some people have self-control and are willing to part with their animal once they realize they can no longer provide suitable living conditions. I could have just as well said "donated the shark to the zoo." And, no, the bad apples won't ruin this for everyone. People like you who run to the government for intervention will.

Flanders
07/01/2003, 01:04 PM
I'm going to play along here, all in good fun of course.

Sharks have what some term "instincts." If they eat fish in an aquarium, they will eat fish in the ocean. They do not learn to find food from their mother--as a bear or lion would. Yes, I am being facetious.

Thanks for the informative lesson on instincts. Actually, all animals -- including bears and lions, believe it or not -- have instincts, believe it or not.

Did you know there is a difference between eating a dead hunk of meat and killing it yourself? No kidding, there really is. Have you ever tried to tackle a cow and extract a burger? That can get pretty messy, let me tell you, and it isn't as easy as it looks.

Just to let you know, this next bit is called sarcasm. When you feed a predator dead fish in an aquarium, it really prepares that animal well in competing against its wild brethren. In almost all cases, it can hunt better than its cohorts, who have years of practice. And hunting technique does come into play when a shark hunts, I learned that by watching the Discovery Channel. When you feed a predator live fish in an aquarium, catching the fish in a small area really prepares that animal well for preying on fish in the open ocean -- so well, in fact, that it will be able to prey on more fish, pound for pound, than its wild brethren who have years of practice in that environment.

I'm not really sure how significant that is, but I would bet it is a factor.

While I realize that releasing captive fish into the ocean could potentially have negative results, you're missing my point. The point is that some people have self-control and are willing to part with their animal once they realize they can no longer provide suitable living conditions.

I got your point loud and clear the first time. That is not self control. Self control is when you realize you cannot care for an animal properly throughout its lifespan, and you DO NOT PURCHASE that animal. Anything less is totally irresponsible, whether it's a shark, or a dog, or a bobcat, or a wolf, or an alligator. Unfortunately because there will always be IDIOTS in this world who fail to exhibit that vital self control, the government often has to step in and make laws to protect the lives of animals from the stupidity of people.

I could have just as well said "donated the shark to the zoo."

How would that make it any better?

And, no, the bad apples won't ruin this for everyone. People like you who run to the government for intervention will.

While it may be convenient to blame me -- a pretty responsible person who doesn't buy animals he can't care for for their entire lives, but DID get into a small argument with you on the Internet -- if sharks were banned from the hobby, wouldn't you say it would be more accurate to blame people like your friend, who purchase animals that grow to be 8, 10, or 12 feet long, then release them into the ocean, threatening wild populations, not to mention entire ecosystems?

Irresponsible people make us all look bad. Irresponsible people are the reason Californians can't legally buy caulerpa now -- whether or not reefkeepers are responsible for the caulerpa outbreak, it has been blamed on reefkeepers -- so save your lame attitude for a time when you have a better argument. And stick around. You may just learn something about what it REALLY means to keep an animal responsibly.

Crevalle
07/01/2003, 03:24 PM
Get off your high horse. The thing I find interesting about this forum, is the number of people who "know everything," and never capitulate anything.

All animals have instincts, but not all animals can survive without being taught. Sharks do not have to be taught how to hunt (they can become better at it through experience, but they know how to hunt from birth). Bears, deer, rabbits, etc would ALL perish without being "brought-up" by a parent.

A person who looks to the government for help (you, for example), is a person who has no answers or ideas. The government sure has done an excellent job preventing long-liners from decimating ocean populations...so why not have them monitor us too?! Good point.

There will ALWAYS be "bad apples." You/we deal with it and move on. There will always be drunk drivers--does that mean we should outlaw cars?

JIM27
07/01/2003, 04:54 PM
You have got to be kidding me. Don't make 'very good choices,' huh? I mean, that's got to be the understatement of the YEAR. Do you know anyone that can care for any 10-foot seawater dwelling animal in their home? It's probably easier to care for a full-grown sea turtle.

OK fine they make very very BAD choices for the average person. Happy now? :p


I agree with Flanders on the nurse being released. Bad idea because of the possibility of introducing foreign parasites.

Bruddah:

My sharks are a whitespotted bamboo shark and a horn shark, both somewhere between 15" and 20" long(haven't measured either in months).The tank is a 180 until I can find a good 300 or so.....

DgenR8
07/01/2003, 06:28 PM
I don't want the government sticking it's nose any deeper into my life than it already is, so don't get the idea that I'm for government regulation of this hobby. I'm for responsibility on the part of the aquarist.
I don't think buying an animal that you can't provide for is right, weather you already know you'll have to give it up later, or not. I won't touch on letting a shark go in waters that are foreign to the species, other than to say that's downright wrong, on MANY levels.
When you buy an animal with the intention of "donating it to a zoo" once it becomes too much of a handfull for you to deal with, do you ever consider that maybe the zoo already has it's fill of orphaned sharks in it's care? They only have room for so many, once they are at capacity, what do you suggest people do with a 72" Nurse shark?
If you have the means to support the animal through it's life, go ahead, you'll get no flack from me. I think we both know that "I'll get rid of it when it gets too big" is a bad attitude to have.

Crevalle
07/01/2003, 09:35 PM
Listen, some of you seem to think I'm a proponent of keeping nurse sharks in home aquariums. Obviously they're not suited for such an environment. Some of you seem to infer that I would encourage someone to let a fish/animal go in the wild after raising it. I'm not, and I'm aware of the possible ramifications. My whole point is...figure it out on your own. Don't go to the government for assistance. That is the last resort of last resorts.

IceFaerie
07/01/2003, 09:47 PM
Hate to butt into a good argument, but I have to say two things:

1) Someone mentioned "donating to a zoo". Good luck finding a zoo or public aquarium willing to take a nurse shark. Most public facilities are overflowing with nurses and similar animals that were sold and/or purchased irresponsibly. The only person I know of in this region to find a solution did so by contacting a University in FL (can't remember which one) and getting his shark into a captive release program....but the thing died before he could transport it anyway.

2) Someone asked how many people actually buy nurse sharks. The answer is thousands. I can show you one highly respected store (pictures of store in popular aquarium books) in Pennsylvania that sells dozens every year. You would be horrified at how many nurses get pulled out by Florida collectors for pet store sale.

Flanders
07/02/2003, 10:30 AM
A person who looks to the government for help (you, for example), is a person who has no answers or ideas. The government sure has done an excellent job preventing long-liners from decimating ocean populations...so why not have them monitor us too?! Good point.

My answer: be responsible and encourage others to do the same. My idea: don't buy animals you can't provide a home for, and don't argue that people who do are being responsible -- or make excuses for them.

I never once said I WANT to see the government regulating this hobby. I prefer that people be responsible. That being said, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if nurse sharks were banned from the hobby. Personally, I think everyone should be able to legally smoke crack until they die if they choose to. But when our choices affect the lives of wild animals, I do have a problem with that.

Do you think it should be legal to beat a dog to death? Why should it be legal to own a nurse shark but not a grizzly bear cub or an alligator? Tell me what the difference is -- wild populations aside, please, I'm just using these two species as an example.

OK fine they make very very BAD choices for the average person. Happy now?

Yes. :D That probably sounded more combative than I meant it. Like I said, I totally agree with the sentiment of your post. JIM27, do you have any tank pics? I'd love to see your sharks.

2) Someone asked how many people actually buy nurse sharks. The answer is thousands. I can show you one highly respected store (pictures of store in popular aquarium books) in Pennsylvania that sells dozens every year. You would be horrified at how many nurses get pulled out by Florida collectors for pet store sale.

:(

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 10:59 AM
Do you think it should be legal to beat a dog to death?

The problem is, you're likening "keeping" a nurse shark with "beating" a nurse shark. If keeping a shark in a tank that is "too small" is similar to beating the shark, then keeping every other fish is similar to torturing it. Put another way, the ocean is immense in size, and we are forcing our tangs, angels, and others to a prison-term of life in an aquarium. I just don't subscribe to your analogy. In addition, dogs have strong emotions, and fish do not.

I never once said I WANT to see the government regulating this hobby. I prefer that people be responsible. That being said, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if nurse sharks were banned from the hobby.

Well, as I've mentioned previously, the government would not stop at nurse sharks. What about scorpionfish and lions? We could be hurt if we are not responsible in keeping them, so should we ban them altogether? Where do you draw the line?

Personally, I think everyone should be able to legally smoke crack until they die if they choose to.

One reason crack-smoking should NOT be legal is because people who smoke crack, marijuana, etc., can literally kill others if they choose to drive a car, operate heavy machinery, take care of small children, the list goes on.

Why should it be legal to own a nurse shark but not a grizzly bear cub or an alligator?

I'm not sure where you live, but it's legal to keep a bear cub here--as well as alligators. Are these illegal to keep where you are?

MiddletonMark
07/02/2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Crevalle

One reason crack-smoking should NOT be legal is because people who smoke crack, marijuana, etc., can literally kill others if they choose to drive a car, operate heavy machinery, take care of small children, the list goes on.


And no one who is drunk on alcohol beats their wives, children, or kills anyone by drunk driving. Guess we should repeal drunk-driving laws and let everyone who drinks be responsible. That's the solution - yeah right. Nor is banning all drugs [don't forget tobacco and alcohol]. But some kind of oversight is needed for all of these.
I sure don't want gov't oversight of the aquarium hobby; but unless we actively clean up the business - it's gonna happen. We're not a lobby = we don't have power in Washington.

I hate to say but responsibility is not the complete solution. It does not stop those who are trying to show off or have no clue from doing things that shouldn't be done.


I'm not sure where you live, but it's legal to keep a bear cub here--as well as alligators. Are these illegal to keep where you are?


Without a permit they are here. I sure don't want to get a permit for my reef tank; but for something that will outgrow anything but a public institution's tank [or the odd multi-millionaire] ... I can agree should be permitted.

Unless I avoid every LFS [even the best ones here, which are good, order animals I do not think should be traded or kept in home aquaria]. Online retailers? Probably more irresponsible yet.

Glad I have a reef tank, where I can fill it with traded frags and captive-raised fish. That might be all I can get in another decade; and I'm sad to say I've witnessed why.

Flanders
07/02/2003, 12:06 PM
I just don't subscribe to your analogy. In addition, dogs have strong emotions, and fish do not.

Either you believe the government should step in when animals are mistreated or not. Whether or not any animal has any 'emotions' that can be compared to a human's is a debate that could go on forever. Personally, I think that's a silly thing to say.

Well, as I've mentioned previously, the government would not stop at nurse sharks. What about scorpionfish and lions? We could be hurt if we are not responsible in keeping them, so should we ban them altogether? Where do you draw the line?

Nurse sharks cannot be responsibly kept in the home. Scorpionfish can. I don't know where the line would be drawn, but if it's drawn where you don't want it, you will have irresponsible people to blame.

One reason crack-smoking should NOT be legal is because people who smoke crack, marijuana, etc., can literally kill others if they choose to drive a car, operate heavy machinery, take care of small children, the list goes on.

By that argument, alcohol should be illegal, and so should sleep deprivation. That's just a bad argument, I'm sorry I gave that example now and I think we should drop it. I believe drugs should be legal, not driving on drugs, because it threatens the well-being of others. The ability to take care of children is a separate argument entirely, and we have child protection laws to handle that.

I'm not sure where you live, but it's legal to keep a bear cub here--as well as alligators. Are these illegal to keep where you are?

I believe you have to have a permit, but I'm not sure, it was just an example and I really don't care.

I'll ask one more time. Do you think the government should step in when people mistreat animals, or would you prefer to see it happen?

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 12:41 PM
Flanders--define "mistreat." It is a seriously subjective term. PETA thinks that simply having an animal in captivity is mistreating it. Bull-riders don't think it's mistreating a bull/horse to strap it up (in uncomfortable areas) and ride it until it bucks you off. Do I think I guy who punches/kicks/beats his dog should be reprimanded? Of course, but where do you draw the line. I say again: define "mistreat." The answer: you can't. There is no one answer, but if it's up to the government, they'll come up with an answer--and guess what--we'd all hate the result.

MiddletonMark & Flanders--your facetious arguments that alcohol/tobacco/sleep deprivation should also be banned are without merit. You can smoke cigarettes without it impeding your judgement (some people have BETTER judgement after a smoke). Alcohol does not completely annihilate your senses after a beer, or two, or three, or four. Crack does. Crack will make you think you're flying a plane when you're sitting on a couch. Lame argument guys--really lame.

MiddletonMark
07/02/2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Crevalle

MiddletonMark & Flanders--your facetious arguments that alcohol/tobacco/sleep deprivation should also be banned are without merit. You can smoke cigarettes without it impeding your judgement (some people have BETTER judgement after a smoke). Alcohol does not completely annihilate your senses after a beer, or two, or three, or four. Crack does. Crack will make you think you're flying a plane when you're sitting on a couch. Lame argument guys--really lame.

Oh yeah, those well reasoned people who've had four beers. Who repeatedly get behind the wheel and drive.

I'm sure I'd rather be riding around with people who've smoked a little pot than people who've had some beers. A study out of UC-SanDiego last week confirmed that pot doesn't affect motor coordination or reflexes.

But this is getting off the point; never mind has turned into flaming not discussion.

The point was - the government regulates drunk driving and most people find it's a good thing. They don't regulate alcohol [and shouldn't other drugs IMO] when used in non-motor, non-child circumstances. Some regulation of this is a very positive thing - and I think that some regulation of the aquarium trade may be in order. Inviting government in is a bad idea almost all the time; but if aquarists looked for regulation of certain species - it's a better chance of live-able regulation than if we wait for it to be imposed without our consultation.

I think SOME use of marine fish should be regulated [or will be eventually despite what we think]. Is it better to fight any regulation or to try to get regulated things that are normally outrageous in the first place? [nurse sharks in any tank, despite of age IMO]. Personally any `cleaning of the aquarium trade' should come from within; else it will be some stupid rules forced by people who know nothing and are influenced by `cruelty' lobbies [PETA,etc] who consider anything in a glass box to be cruel.

I'd love to think my dollars make a difference, and they do - but I still don't know who my LFS's suppliers are and whether or not they're clean. If I don't trust my LFS's advice a lot of the time; I'm supposed to believe them when they say their manufacturers don't do bad practices [or that they're getting the truth.]

Florida banned LR harvest a few years ago ... yet is home to a lot of coral, fish, and even now LR growing/cultivation companies. Is this ban a good thing? I'd say yes. Government imposed and all.

That's the only aquarium-regulation I know of [other than California banning Caluerpa, which seems like people can work with too]. Let it go too long and get out of hand - and I bet it would be harder to work with. Just my opinion [as everyone else's posts are too]

Flanders
07/02/2003, 01:41 PM
Crevalle: Define anything. Practically everything is subjective. Since we can't define 'spousal abuse,' guess we can't have any laws against it, now can we? Define drunk driving, for that matter. Totally subjective. Differing degrees of blood-alcohol content, driving abilities and the way alcohol affects people. Someone with a .05 BAC might not be able to drive as well as a seasoned drinker with a .25. So what do we do? Allow it be legal, or draw a line?

The rest of your argument is not worth responding to. I will simply say that alcohol seriously impairs your motor functions and crack is not a hallucinogen so I don't think your portrayal of it is accurate at all, not that it even matters, because once again you've missed the point. Let's get this discussion back on track.

If you agree nurse sharks cannot responsibly be kept in the home, what is your solution to the people who choose to be irresponsible to the detriment of the animals? To sit back and do nothing in hope they will 'see the light,' or to draw a line? Or another alternative I haven't thought of? I'm really curious to know.

Some regulation of this is a very positive thing - and I think that some regulation of the aquarium trade may be in order. Inviting government in is a bad idea almost all the time; but if aquarists looked for regulation of certain species - it's a better chance of live-able regulation than if we wait for it to be imposed without our consultation.

I totally agree. That it's a better chance, anyway. Seeking legislation armed with evidence to support the need for it and not different types may stop people who know nothing about the hobby from imposing rules we don't like.

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 01:49 PM
MiddletonMark--I hate to disagree with you on this off-topic point, but marijuana does affect motor skills and reflexes short-term. Of course their have to be laws--anarchy is probably worse than its polar opposite--communism. If marijuana doesn't affect motor skills or reflexes, it would be legal. But it's not.

I agree that the government is a last resort--that's been my whole point since the beginning. However, we differ in that I think the government should stay out of our hobby/trade unless the extinction of a species is at stake.

Flanders--I hate to burst your bubble, but there ARE no laws against spousal abuse--because as I've said, this type of thing cannot be defined. That is why we have courts--to make a subjective (and frequently wrong) decision. You cannot apply a blanket definition of "abuse." Personally, I think anyone who abuses another human (especially a woman) should get a royal beat-down, but that's just a rant of mine. Your sarcasm is widdling away at your credibility. Step back, and read your posts. You are comparing drunk-driving laws to keeping nurse sharks. One is absolutely egregious, one is not. That is my opinion.

MiddletonMark
07/02/2003, 02:24 PM
Originally posted by Crevalle
MiddletonMark--I hate to disagree with you on this off-topic point, but marijuana does affect motor skills and reflexes short-term. Of course their have to be laws--anarchy is probably worse than its polar opposite--communism. If marijuana doesn't affect motor skills or reflexes, it would be legal. But it's not.


Check out:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=564&e=7&u=/nm/health_marijuana_dc

You can read more detailed articles about the study, but it's pretty straight with the truth. There are a lot of reasons why it's illegal that don't have to do with a `harmful nature' of it. In the past when I would consume it I learned a little about pot, and I'd say the study is dead on.

Alcohol affects motor skills and reflexes, it's legal - so your argument here is silly.

But it's off the point, and seems you want to go there; I'm not going to sit by and let someone who knows nothing about it put the stardard B.S. that's hyped on TV down my throat.

--- and back to what we're supposed to be discussing ....

And personally, I'd rather have the government step in a bit before extinction is at stake. At the pace they move, it would be extinct by the time they got finished doing something about it.

Most of the time extinction is threatened; it's past the point it can be brought back. This isn't some easy solution like re-introducing wolves or animals that have another home territory ... if some fish is going extinct there is no `other ocean' to replace it from.

I'd be frightened if Florida let LR be collected to the point to where nearly `all' of it was taken. I'm happy they stopped collection of it - you can still get good rock from there. Maybe you have to watch for hitchhikers you may not want in your tank ... but that's a minor hassle and dealable as it's a renewable resource.

As for captive-bred sharks ... all they know is a tank. I don't see a reason to have something that is man-produced be regulated. I guess if people actually captive-produced nurse sharks I'd let people have them [though not advocate it]. But they're not.

But it's not about that. While I love my aquarium there are plenty of things I don't think I should be putting in it. Anything that cannot reach it's normal adult size within the confines of my glass box I'm fine with giving up the right of having. Few people have over 8' or 10' tanks; and thus I think anything that grows to that length at normal adult size it's okay to ban or at least require a permit for. Temporary housing of an animal that we do not have a larger house for [everyone's planning a bigger tank] ... I'm fine with making that hard to do.

Maybe the fish can't feel strong emotion; that doesn't mean we can just subject it to whatever we want. Putting something that needs to swim to breathe in a space where it can hardly swim - and certainly not to it's normal or desired amounts ... not good.

But whatever, you can act and do as you want; I'd just rather have any rules imposed/suggested by us instead of coming down from above as a reaction against our hobby.

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 02:34 PM
As for captive-bred sharks ... all they know is a tank. I don't see a reason to have something that is man-produced be regulated. I guess if people actually captive-produced nurse sharks I'd let people have them [though not advocate it]. But they're not.

You've just destroyed your entire argument. You are supposed to be a proponent for the shark, but when it comes down to it, you are a proponent for wild sharks. You essentially just said, "If a nurse shark is captive-raised, fine. Otherwise, no." From that, we can infer that it's all about the WC/CB issue for you. Personally, I don't expect everyone to agree with me, but I wanted to point out the incongruity of your argument. Here are a few of your quotes:

Without a permit they are here. I sure don't want to get a permit for my reef tank; but for something that will outgrow anything but a public institution's tank [or the odd multi-millionaire] ... I can agree should need a permit.


Maybe the fish can't feel strong emotion; that doesn't mean we can just subject it to whatever we want. Putting something that needs to swim to breathe in a space where it can hardly swim - and certainly not to it's normal or desired amounts ... not good.

So, which is it? Is it the "happiness" of the shark, or is it wild caught? You're postings seem ambiguous.

Flanders
07/02/2003, 02:50 PM
Flanders--I hate to burst your bubble, but there ARE no laws against spousal abuse--because as I've said, this type of thing cannot be defined.

Do you expect anyone to believe that? You have no idea what you're talking about. There certainly are laws against spousal abuse, people are arrested for spousal assault all the time.

Your sarcasm is widdling away at your credibility. Step back, and read your posts. You are comparing drunk-driving to keeping nurse sharks. One in absolutely egregious, one is not.

Well, then I could say your spelling is whittling away at your credibility. 'Widdle' isn't even a word. At least I was being sarcastic on purpose. Anyway, since there is no good in keeping a nurse shark in the home, I would call that an egregious, foolish, stupid, just plain bad decision, not to mention incredibly selfish. Where is the good in keeping a nurse shark in your home? It is, as you say, absolutely egregious. Explain to me why it isn't.

Step back and read your own posts. Your arguments are far from impressive.

Middleton Mark - as for the captive bred sharks, I've got to disagree with you on that one. What is the point in breeding an animal that is not suitable as a pet?

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 02:59 PM
There certainly are laws against spousal abuse, people are arrested for spousal assault all the time.

There are laws against spousal abuse--once spousal abuse has been defined and identified in a court of law. Period, end of story. You can only be arrested on speculation. Let me ask you: is slapping a husband/wife spousal abuse? How far do you have to take it? No answer? Big surprise (especially considering the fact that you have convinced yourself you have all the answers). I cannot believe we are still talking about spousal abuse.

I apologize profusely for the poor spelling of "whittling." My self-esteem has suffered a terrible blow. By the way, did you have to copy-and-paste the word "egregious" from my post? I just ask because it's the biggest word you've used so far.

Anyway, since there is no good in keeping a nurse shark in the home, I would call that an egregious, foolish, stupid, just plain bad decision, not to mention incredibly selfish. Where is the good in keeping a nurse shark in your home? It is, as you say, absolutely egregious. Explain to me why it isn't.

You either have WAY too much time on your hands, or you are absurdly uptight. Do you actually think I am going to group drunk-driving and keeping a nurse shark in the same "egregious" category, as you have suggested? You need to evaluate your list of priorities in life.

MiddletonMark
07/02/2003, 03:02 PM
I guess I did not take the time to put in enough exclusionary statements in that one. [should have added, with a tank large enough to hold one at adult size].

I certainly did not say `should be putting one in their 75, god help it'.

But as I doubt captive-prop will be done outside of public aquaria [that don't sell such things to home hobbyists] ... I see it as not a potential occurrence anyway.

But I mis-spoke and posted before I had time to review [doing other things at the same time as taking part in this silly flame-war too].

MiddletonMark
07/02/2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by Crevalle
You either have WAY too much time on your hands, or you are absurdly uptight. .... You need to evaluate your list of priorities in life.

I think the same applies to you, who are managing to respond within minutes to every post either of us had written.

Anyway, time to go outside, I'm sick of your endless flaming.
You're not advocating anything, just trying to **** others off.

anyway, I'm done here. It was fun debating until it seemed nothing but flames ... as it has been the last few posts.

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 03:11 PM
Angry about getting caught in the middle of contradictory statements MiddletonMark?

As usual, you are wholly blameless with regard to flaming. You never participated.

MiddletonMark
07/02/2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by Crevalle
Angry about getting caught in the middle of contradictory statements MiddletonMark?

As usual, you are wholly blameless with regard to flaming. You never participated.

I'm not taking this obvious baiting.

For a while I thought this was a debate, but it's not. It's personal attacks. Now that you claim to `have something' on me you've decided to act like this is a bar fight or something. My opinions might be somewhat contradictory - so are a lot of people's. Big deal.

Reason I entered this discussion was to further clarify what I thought and hear what others had to say. I think I know where I stand, whether contradictory or not. I don't ever plan to have a shark in my tank; and doubt I'll buy from a LFS or distributor that sells one.

Thanks, but no thanks; you can keep your bait. Goodbye.

tag007
07/02/2003, 03:32 PM
orignally posted by MiddletonMark
Glad I have a reef tank, where I can fill it with traded frags and captive-raised fish. That might be all I can get in another decade; and I'm sad to say I've witnessed why.

I am hoping for this day, not dreading it. Too much damage has occured for our benefit. To me sharks aren't even in the scope of things. Between the destruction of reefs for rock, to cyanide use, to the introduction of non native organism into niche ecosystems. Sharks, heck there are plenty of sharks in the ocean, I would have more guilt putting that chunk of 200 year old brain coral in my tank than a shark.
In my early years of reefing, I had no idea what I was buying, where it came from, etc.., or even cared. The first shock was to hear they used cyanide to catch my fish. Shocked the hell out of me (I was a nieve 15). Since then I have had several other "eye openers" to what my hobby was actually doing. So about 5 years ago, when I got back into things after college, I decided to go only with tank raised, propagated species.
It isn't easy, but has gotten easier over the years...
Now I am proud to say that my tank is for the most part tank raised, and none of my corals has ever seen the open ocean. Although my rock was harvested from somewhere. As to the damage that was caused when it was harvested, I can only hope it wasn't too destructive...
If we want to talk responsibility, lets not delude ourselves..

Oh and Crevalle's simple minded comments on drug use are completely off base. Hasn't reefing taught you that there is a big difference in doing something and reading about it
:smokin:

-TAG

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 03:55 PM
Ah, another self-glorifying know-it-all. Welcome, Tag007!

I will admit, I have never used crack or marijuana. Have you? You must have, if you're telling me I'm incorrect. Only a doctrinaire would say what you just did, if he hadn't tried it. I, on the other hand, have witnessed the effects of these drugs, including ecstacy. Quite often, actually. I live downtown, and I see this stuff regularly. So, either you're a recovering drug-user, or you're arrogant. Whatever the case, you're entitled to your opinion. As for myself, I consider drug users (marijuana included) unintelligent individuals--usually with no future.

Sharks, heck there are plenty of sharks in the ocean

Hmmm, I wonder if that's what they said about now-extinct species fifty years ago. Great insight Tag.

JIM27
07/02/2003, 04:30 PM
Just posting the pics Flanders requested.

JIM27
07/02/2003, 04:32 PM
whitespotted bamboo shark

JIM27
07/02/2003, 04:32 PM
horn shark

MiddletonMark
07/02/2003, 04:35 PM
Thanks Tag and Jim for getting back to sharks ....

pantera4203
07/02/2003, 05:13 PM
There are sharks that will grow less than 3 feet. Atelomycterus Marmoratus the coral catshark will grow to 24-27 inches in the wild and 21-25 inches in the home aquarium. I have one in a 240g and he is just fine.
Brandon

tag007
07/02/2003, 05:21 PM
MiddletonMark, I tried.
Crevalle, Of course I am a know-it-all. I wouldn't have jumped into the fire if I wasn't... What I am talking about is responsibility through understanding. I understand that if I am going to do anything, I should think of the ramifications that action will cause.

Now should we bring big brother in to determine for us what should and shouldn't do, well that is a very slippery slope but I would feel alot better about legislation that spend billions of dollars saving our oceans than trying to stop Joe Bob from selling bongs online. If you think legislation is keeping you safe from the crack head down the street, then you are seriously deluded.

I am always amazed at someone who has a reef tank, and can't feel some sort of guilt for what they have, and at cost it was to bring it to them.
My point about sharks is, I bet you have, or have killed species much more exotic than a nurse shark, or any of the sharks discussed in this thread. Sharks have an amazing ability to rebound from near detrimental fishing and what is taken by reefers pales in comparison to what is thrown away on commercial shipping vessels. I remember in my college days (yes I have a degree believe it or not, and fairly productive) seeing dozens of bulls, tigers, and blacktips torn up and dead in the shrimp trolling nets.

But enough, I will not be baited again...

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 05:29 PM
And now, back to the sharks...

Jim27, those are some nice pics.

Two questions for Pantera:

1.) Have you found any detrimental interaction between your ray and shark?

2.) You mention that the coral catshark will grow to approximately 21-25 inches in an aquarium. Is this something you have read, or is it something you have observed through your experience? I'm curious, because I've toyed with getting a coral catshark, but I don't want a three foot shark.

pantera4203
07/02/2003, 05:39 PM
Hello Crevalle,
1. No ray in my tank, sorry. I have never heard anything about the two together in a tank.
2. I have read the information with 3 different sources. I did a lot of research on geting a shark. The main reason is what this discussion is about. I DID NOT want a shark that I could not house for a lifetime. I I knew I would get attached to it plus giving it a way just sucks.
I wish I have tested the growth rate but, my shark Vincent is only 19 inches. He has grown like a weed ofer the past 9 months growing 5 inches. IT will take about a year + for me to know.
Best
Brandon

JIM27
07/02/2003, 05:45 PM
Pantera is right, coral cats are good hardy sharks that get about 27" max. Marbled cats(Atelomycterus macleayi) are even smaller getting about 2ft when full grown. I've seen both at LFS's but they're a little harder to come by.

EDIT- Also, I think the ray Q was for me(since Im the one with the ray in this topic :p )

The ray is a blue spotted ribbontail ray that I've only had for about a month. So far he's been bitten once during feeding by the whitespotted bamboo(surprise surprise :rolleyes: ) but nothing since. They just kind of ignore each other.

dboyd
07/02/2003, 05:53 PM
Crevalle,,,,you are on the money, the last damn thing i want is a big brother telling me anything, if all people would use a little common sense we wouldnt have half the problems that are out their, forget sharks in tanks, try a gun in your house,(my god given right to protect myself!!), or some jerk that doesnt want to pay for their own way in life, why should my hard work be taken from me and given to someone else, you can trust me when i say that if they deserved it id help them myself!, if they need money work!, what ,,we need a new government program, try having a clue, if a shop owner is selling sharks to people that cannot provide the proper environment, try not buying from that jerk! a shop owner will not be doing it for long, a low life wont change, they dont want too! if someone that wants to buy one shouldnt,, tell them why, if they do it anyway they are the type of person that will learn the hard way in the end, all we have to do is start eating them, someone will come along and supply and demand will take over any they will be raised by us, take our rights away and who will save them then?

Crevalle
07/02/2003, 06:07 PM
I agree Dboyd, boy-cotting is what could potentially work. Money talks, nothing else does. But, educating everyone in order for a boy-cott to become effective....that is the monstrous chore. BTW Dboyd, Minnesota just passed a conceal & carry law. Now any citizen can carry a gun. I expect that the same thing that happened in Texas will happen here: less crime.

drue131
07/02/2003, 07:09 PM
its only a fish not a wife you beating I would say there was a differance there. I doh't have a problem with people loving or caring for fish. But let me ask you guys this. Are you for abortion.
even if you can convince your self you are not killing a human.it is not worth taking the chance. there is a major differance between an animal and a human so don't compare. I don't know how in the heck I got on this one. other than I don't see a problem having a shark. which I don't at the moment

drue131
07/02/2003, 07:10 PM
I agree with your gun thing 100 percent

DgenR8
07/02/2003, 07:58 PM
Catching up with this thread just now, I saw many reasons to say:

[flamealert]

And nearly locked the thread more than once.
If this becomes a debate on abortion now, it will certainly be locked.
Keep to the point of the thread, and everyone proceed with http://www.members.shaw.ca/rcsmilies/caution3.gif

Flanders
07/03/2003, 10:10 AM
Hey JIM, thanks for posting those pics. You have some nice sharks there. I think they could use a bigger tank (in the near future), but you said you're getting one, so no problem there.

I agree with everyone who wants the government out of their lives, but I can't help but feel sorry for the animals who get caught up in the process. I admit I do not know what the best solution is, but if thousands of nurse sharks are being sold to home aquarists each year, what can or should be done?

I would really appreciate everyone thinking about that question and responding. I haven't decided yet.

Crevalle
07/03/2003, 11:30 AM
My 2-cents:

It seems that by educating the masses (no small task) about the daunting requirements inherent in shark-keeping, a "boy-cott" of sorts could emerge. I am not attempting to simplify this, because there is no simple answer, but it appears to be a supply/demand issue. If the demand plummets (via education), the profitability in selling large sharks will plummet accordingly. The cost for aquarists to acquire a large shark would become prohibitively high (due to lower selling volumes) for all but the most dedicated shark-keepers.

Let's say an online SW importer sells 100 "large" shark yearlings per month, and their profit margin is set at 30% on an average retail price of $150. That's a $4,500 profit per month on large sharks--not bad. Now, let's say demand decreases to 15 sharks per month (via consumer education). To maintain an acceptable profit, margin could not remain at 30% and the price therefore would not remain at $150. It would likely rise by hundreds of dollars. And, for the sake of argument, if they needed to maintain the aforementioned $4,500 profit per month, the price per shark would have to rise to $1,000. This is one very simple example of how capitalism can fix certain problems if consumers decide to take action.

Jimmy719
07/04/2003, 12:06 AM
Haha. That was sweet reading the arguments about crack, pot, wifebeating, dog beating, animal behavior, and even abortion on Reefcentral.
Anyways I think the issue is gov. regulation of the trade, esp sharks. I know the government does lots of horrible things, like police our neighborhoods, provide schooling, create roadways... the list goes on and on. Heck, they're paying for my school now- the reason I can afford a reef tank. So why let them intervene when it comes to the hobby?
Because I like diving in the Keys and seeing nurse sharks. And I'm glad the reef isn't overrun with their prey items. If you want a nurse shark, great. The government will give you some extra time to think about it while they take their time processing (I looked up 'process' to make sure it doesn't have two C's... wouldn't want to offend anyone with my egregious spelling errors!) your permit application. And you know what? Since buying a 10,000gal tank doesn't put a dent in your wallet, you shouldn't mind the $200 application fee. I bet the gov. would even put some of that towards monitoring wild populations!
Who even cares enough to put a nurse shark in a home aquarium? Someone who's really fascinated by them would much rather see one in the wild, so it seems odd that there are people who raise them, and live close enough to the ocean to just drop them off. And someone who truly appreciates them would most certainly say "Gee I would really love one of these sharks, but I really can't properly provide for it, so I'll stick to my clowns."
Who does that leave to buy sharks? The stupid, in two classes. Class 1 stupid sat around with his buddies getting high and said "AWWWwww bro, it'd be TOTALLY sweet to get one of those sharky things I saw at the pet store!" LFS says: "Sir I'd honestly love to make a quick buck off your unbridled stupidity, but you'll need a permit, which costs $200 and takes a 2 months to obtain." Class 1 stupid says "Can't afford it, and don't really care that much... I'll take three goldfish!" Class 2 stupid just watched a special on sharks on his 67" projection screen TV, and now his son wants a shark for his birthday. He applies for a permit, digs a pool with underwater viewing window, and sends Jeeves out to pick up the shark. Class 2 didn't realize sharks need filtration, and Nursy dies in a week, but he donated $200 to shark research, so nobodies really that upset.
Sorry for the longwindedness, if thats a word, but wanted to paint a picture of what government regulation might be like. Nobody's going to come to your house and smack the crackpipe out of your mouth, and they're not going to take away the .357 you strap to your leg 'just in case.' My point is really that you can't legislate common sense, and until you can, the government has to make broad, sometimes unfair, laws to keep stupid people from ruining the earth for the rest of us.
As far as small sharks go- carry on boys... I'm pretty sure they breed some of those in captivity, and I'd bet money that a bamboo shark covers less ground in its life than a tang. I only have the captive bred reservation because tangs are a lot more common than small sharks. But thats where I stand.
I'm not on all that often, so if there's something important you'd like me to see, email me. Otherwise, could someone maybe write a post talking about communist abortion doctors... shooting heroin?

Al G Blenny
07/04/2003, 01:37 AM
I hate to disagree with you on this Crevalle because I know that you are going to have one hell of a rebuttal. Unfortunately I don't belive that supply and demand works quite the same way in the aquarium livestock trade. Less people wanting the sharks will not drive up the price. It will only make the wholesalers carry less sharks. They have to fill their tanks with something. If the sharks that they normally carry aren't selling they will likely sell them cheaper and order something else to fill their tanks.

dboyd
07/04/2003, 06:53 AM
Jimmy719,we all know you will pay back the student loans we are giving you, just look how grateful you are, your welcome, no problem, if you need more just keep thinking with that wonderful train of thought!, im sure we can provide you with some more handouts ,and as you know you have mastered your spell check on your free computer, and as far as that .357, you are right about that as well , we will also risk our lives for you, please keep up that wonderful gesture, oh and 911 did not happen, clinton was the best,,and we have all the oil now!

DgenR8
07/04/2003, 06:59 AM
Enough is enough!

This thread is closed