CichlidFish.com - Fish That Think.

Also does any one get AQUARIUM FISH MAGAZINE??  They have an artical in the January 2007 issue YES I have this already!! months in advance!! THAT says that the UK is CAMPAIGNING AGAINST KEEPING BIG FISH!!

NOW if that isn't something!!   :protest:

This goes on to say that SOME PPL out their HAS DETERMAINDED THAT YOU are not smart enough to know to get a bigger tank for fish that out GROW YOUR TANK so they want to BAN ppl from keeping ANY  FISH/CICHLIDS THAT GETS TO BIG FOR THE HOME AQUARIUM!!

NOW how big is to big??   

I bet this streams from the PUBLIC AQUARIUM ( in the artical) that turns down hundreds of requests from ppl to take their LARGE Saltwater/Freshwater/Cichlids that have out grown their tanks...
This CAMPAIGN says it is striving to raise awareness of the problem of fish that grow to LARGE for MOST home aquarims.. MOST being  every one with a tank it seems in the UK.. (artical stresses this later)

I do find many places IN the USA that sell fish that should NOT be sold for home aquaria as they get to dang big and the FISH  STORES DONT' TELL PPL HOW BIG THEY WILL GET!  OR the right TANK SIZE they are going to need later...YOU always have time to get another BIGGER tank later as the fish you buy at the fish store are LITTLE, Juveniles really.. But MOST can get HUGE in 6 months time depending on the species you get... THIS is the problem..

EDUCATING the BUYER is the key!! ( and this is stressed too in the artical..) AND that wil never happen as long as a FISH STORE sees a MONEY MAKER and has UN-EDUCATED PPL who work at the fish stores that are told to SELL! SELL! SELL!!..
They dont' tell YOU about the fish becoming a monster later,  just SELL!!
AND they wil do fine in a 10 gal tank !!

I have seen this HERE in the USA.. So it is not just in the UK that this problem is prevailant.. Sorry to say!!

FISH/CICHLIDS that are on the list ARE:::  Oscars, PACU, Silver Sharks, Giant Gourami, RED-Tailed catfish, Arowanas, Metynnis- silver Dollars??, Plecostomus, Pangasius salt??,  and more..

So get ready for PPL to TRY to keep these fish OUT of the fish stores tanks.. Starting in the UK and probibly here later as well..

Anyone else have a comment for this?? I am sure it wil generate some GOOD DEBATES!!  BRING it on ppl!   

I've often thought that one of the deterrents to running a pet shop would be the certainty that most of the animals you'd be selling probably wouldn't make it through a year with their proud new owners.  So there you'd be, in the pet shop business largely because you love animals, and yet the financial (and maybe legal) constraints of selling enough of them to make a living strongly mitigate against being too picky about what you sell to whom. 

The trouble with the whole "banning" thing is of course who decides? Look at the fierce debate we had here not long ago regarding tank size and water change amounts.  I cringe when I see people here in New York City walking their Huskies, Rottweilers, and Mastiffs, but I don't think we really need some bureaucrat setting standards for how big a house you have to have to own breed X.  You can't ban stupidity, much as we might like to, and the sad fact is that the folks writing and enforcing such a ban aren't likely to be much smarter than the people they're hassling.

Most Laws have come into place due to the stupidity and lack of savy (common sense) people have, look at Heath and Safety training courses for instance that teach people not to pile up boxes or rubbish infront of fire doors lol!
Its a shame that people that know what they are getting themselfes into and take the care of thier pet seriously, and do provide adequate sized homes for thier pet etc, are going to be the loosers here!!!! I think that what should happen is that people should be made to sign a contract that states all the facts about keeping big fish, and outlines how this fish should be looked after, the RSPCA should follow up these contracts and do regular checks, if the fish isn't being looked after the way it should be the person should be tryed and fined in a court of law under the animal cruelty act, the money from the fines should be used to house the fish, this way the fish will be looked after and we would have more public aquariums to help educate people about fish and reduce the amount of fish not being looked after properly!!!!

Most Laws have come into place due to the stupidity and lack of savy (common sense) people have

yep and unfortunatly it goes both ways where stupiity is concerned.

easy example - piranha bans in the U.S.

Some places set bans since the fish could possiably bred and become established. And be a problem.

Some set bans when there was no such risk just because of the name piranha.

Some set or proposed bans because some idiot release a pacu and the news decided it was a "man eating piranha" to grab some rateings 

the RSPCA should follow up these contracts and do regular checks, if the fish isn't being looked after the way it should be the person should be tryed and fined in a court of law under the animal cruelty act, the money from the fines should be used to house the fish, this way the fish will be looked after and we would have more public aquariums to help educate people about fish and reduce the amount of fish not being looked after properly!!!!

Not sure how it works elsewhere but in the U.S. that would be more of a mess then anything.

Someone would be responsiable for (aspca or humane society here) doing it. Likely there would be permits and fees to cover the costs.
Taxes would raise to cover part of the costs - next government budget fix would be to cut the service ,raise permit fees and make thinks 10 times more complicated then it started 


on the flip side
Theres the argument  thats been ongoing in several countries for years thats always over looked.
The fish feel pain and sufering or don't argument.
Right now - all the "official" results say no. With no sense of pain or suffering  , is there a way to be cruel (law wise) ?


As fish keepers most of us have the tendancy to want to jump in and say something like  of course fish feel pain.

But before you jump on that bandwagon remember  In the U.K. , the U.S. and some other countries - if scientists and law makers would have agreed fish feel pain and suffer. Keeping of fish of any kind and  sport fishing would have been outlawed by animal rights advocates already.

So which side do you support?

Look at your tanks and think "I take care of my fish" .

So do you want to keep them still, have some idiots around but try to help them when you can?
Or are you so against too small of tanks , your willing to give up your tanks?



Personally I sell a lot of fish and keep a lot of fish. Due to personal choice I don't offer people "large" fish (like arapaimas and arowanas ) because I think it's senseless. At the same time you won't see me run a boycott against them either because past laws have show how species like that can turn into list like

Oscars, PACU, Silver Sharks, Giant Gourami, RED-Tailed catfish, Arowanas, Metynnis- silver Dollars??, Plecostomus,

Yes I seem to be anti new laws at times when people read my posts on forums. And some people think I worry to much some times, but look at some local laws in the last few years.

Pitbull ordiances - locally were propsed as a keeper needed a secure yard and extra home owners insurance for pitbull - the laws passed as "dangerous dog laws" which is most of all large dog species.

Kennel laws - to limit the # of dogs a person can have - good idea    , except now if a female has puppies,the owner can be ticketed - yes I know unwanted and stray dogs can be problems but anyone know what happens with no puppies?

Local "Large constrictor" (snake laws) were proposed to keep people from owning large "dangerous" boas and pythons - wording of that law makes owning 90% of snakes illegal and "technically" it's more illegal to own a harmless cornsnake then it is to own venomous snakes.

Local "Marsupial law" was proposed to stop  people from buying kangaroos and others that get large. - What passed is all pouched animals - marsupial tree frogs , sugar gliders and more. For some reason I don't think people had an issue with tree frogs when the mess was proposed.

and we would have more public aquariums to help educate people about fish and reduce the amount of fish not being looked after properly!!!!

Sadly that doesn't seem to be a trend either (in the u.s. anyways) . Some people from my site got together for a zoo tour 2 weeks ago and they had a lot of new fish in quaranteen. Most of those fish came from other zoo's who were "perminately dismantleing" or "phaseing out all their freshwater".

My thoughts on the matter, I am not in favour of a ban, for reasons already stated here by others.
I do think however, a simple bylaw, for signage, which must be displayed by the sellers of
fish, grouping the fish into their adult size, might go a long way to helping educate the people who are purchasing one. There is no way to prevent stupidity,and ban's generally lead to an underground developing, where ever there is a demand, be it fish, gambling, drugs, etc.

Going off the subject a little, I support my local fish store as much as poss and dont buy else where because he's fantastic (the owner), he takes really good care of his tanks and thier inhabbitants, he is pretty minted and doesn't run the shop as a business more like a hobby, he gives out info and care sheets with all of his fish etc, and wont sell any thing without a water sample that passes he test's. He's not always the cheapest place but is reasonable. Its a small shop so guess he cant buy at wholesale prices. Think he's one in a million, I've helped him out at the shop a few times cos he's always looked after me. I often get little presents, like my white cons lol. Other than you guys, he's a world of info, it amazes me how much knowledge he has, guess it would be great if all pet shop owners were like him............ And Stillearnin lolx