PlanetCatfish.com

Went to a LFS that I don't go to very often, but they do sometimes have some unusual catfish, so as I was passing, decided to stop by.
Found a tank of Leiocassis (possibly heokhee), a couple of nice plecs (snowball and l.galaxias), the tanks that really surprised me were a tank of at least 5 3-4" redtails (priced just £23), and another tank of at least 20 . No idea on price.
They also had, in the marine section, orange faced batfish, who are just way too big for anything but public aquaria, if you can get to feed!
Shame fish like these are still so readily available.
Martin

I take it tanks are clearly marked with the requirements of these fish, so at least the customers understand what they are setting themselves up for.

--
Mats

Sadly Mats, none at all. Just name and price and from the attitude of the guy when I told him he had a long dead fish in one of his marine tanks, would not be surprised if they didn't pass that info on!
Martin

Martin S wrote:They also had, in the marine section, orange faced batfish, who are just way too big for anything but public aquaria, if you can get to feed! Shame fish like these are still so readily available.

I know what you mean, Martin, and I concede your points, especially the ready availability one. Still your seemingly general, sweeping statement may need a minute correction. Keep in mind my utter inexperience, but there are people out there, freaks by the standards of most people, who house big fish properly. Not many but they do exist. I am not implying I am one of them but I do hope I may be one of them. Only time will show.

Having said that, how big does the batfish in question get?

depends

it's the gruesome commen names issue again; the bane and scourge of my existance


if only people weren't allergic to Latin

the "Orange faced batfish" can be this or it's close relative:

in wich case it will get friggin huge

or it can be something like this:

in wich case keeping it will be another challenge

both fish genera are called "batfish" but they are completely unrelated, short of both being fish.

Alex
I did mean the former, i.e. Platax pinnatus, but as juvenile, they are far more attractive than the fish you have shown above:


And Victor, yes, it was not a dig at everyone who houses large fish, more so at the dealers who feel it acceptable to sell fish such as the red tails and batfish, and I can bet you they don't warn all customers who don't ask of their eventual size.

Martin

I can certainly see the attraction in that fish, but when I looked them up on Fishbase, they range from 40-70 cm in length, and given that they are a tall fish too, they would need massive space.

And yes, there are a few people in the world that can, in their private home, take care of fish that grow well over two foot. But I'm pretty sure, as I said in another thread, you could fit ALL of them in a single airliner, and probably not even need a long version of 747... Yet, there is multiples of these fish at really affordable prices in one shop in southern England (where house-prices are incredibly high in the first place, so there's very little money left for other activities).

--
Mats

Viktor Jarikov wrote:Not many but they do exist.

Glad you raised this Viktor. The point I would suggest is that shops shouldn't get big fish in just on the chance that one of those rare beasts, someone who actually keeps big fish well and for a long time, comes in to buy in that six month timeframe that the fishes are still small and cute. For me, there are equally precious few retailers that have such a clientèle base, and even then, what are the chances? So, everything else is impulse buying.

I'm certainly not saying these fishes should not be sold, but what is wrong with getting them in to order? Otherwise it's like putting cigarettes in the sweetie (candy) section.

Jools

Well put, Jools! I agree, as special order items, they aren't a problem (and it only takes a few days to get a box of fish from South America or Asia to the shop, so there isn't even much need to have an importer stock the bigger ones of the "too large for most people to keep" fish).

--
Mats

Good food for thought, Jools. For the argument's sake, who would stock the fish? Would you recommend that transshippers (relatively close to the LFSs in the delivery chain) should stock the "potentially too large" fish? Because, if I understand it right, fish are shipped from SA and Asia by tens or hundreds per box to make it economically feasible. Clients won't wait for weeks or months or years (needed to collect enough orders) to get their fish at the price they want to get them at.

What you are proposing may smell like a socialist measure (government- of something-controlled distribution of goods) in the capitalist world. Anyway, in the end, I also agree with you that Mr. $, or Mr. pound will decide it all anyway.

Practice shows it is very hard to educate general folk even about vital things - like good and bad health habits etc. - things that should matter to them a lot. Furthermore, using your cigarette analogy - people know they are bad and STILL do it. What's to say about some obscure hobby and the right ways of practicing it? Yes, fish-keeping is way, way down below dog- and cat-keeping. And do we think people that keep them know much about canines and felines issues? Ignorance rules everywhere, including my life too.

Such is reality, which still does not mean that people who wanna change the world for the better should quit, no matter in how small a facet of the world it is, IMO. Others would say that the limited precious energy that each of us has should be better spent on other things that matter more.

Whilst shipments are made in bulk from South America, when the fish are relatively large (and if you are going to keep a red-tail catfish, wouldn't you prefer to get one that is 8-10" rather then 2-4"?), they come in a box with one or two fish in it. It doesn't really matter if the trans-shipper or the exporter sends the fish. What does happen, particuarly in conjection with smaller but expensive fish, such as exotic plecos, rays and such, is that a group is sold by the exporter, and then the group gets split by the importer/transshipper/wholesaler between different shops.

There are shipments to Europe/USA every week. Availability of certain fish may be seasonal, so THIS may limit the availability of some species. Red tail catfish and several other large pims are bred in captivity for food, and I'm pretty sure the "kittens" we get in the shops are from the food trade, so there shouldn't be much of a problem with these for the entire year. Some others may be more seasonal.

I don't really think we want the government to control this - they have more important tasks to deal with. What would be nice would be some sort of code of conduct within the industry. And I'm sure you agree that it's not much point in someone who can just barely fit a 4ft tank in their house (and thinks that is a BIG tank) buying a fish that should grow to well over 4ft. And this is the customers we don't really want.


--
Mats

Viktor Jarikov wrote:Good food for thought, Jools. For the argument's sake, who would stock the fish? Would you recommend that transshippers (relatively close to the LFSs in the delivery chain) should stock the "potentially too large" fish?

Transshippers don't stock fish, that's the point of transshipping. If you mean exporters, no, why would they, it means a commercial risk. My overall point is that, generally, big fish are seen in the light that their commitment deserves, and wholesalers therefore get fewer orders for them. That happens just a little and importers have a big problem as many of these fish will grown and take up a lot of space. So, all good, no bulk big fish.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:Because, if I understand it right, fish are shipped from SA and Asia by tens or hundreds per box to make it economically feasible. Clients won't wait for weeks or months or years (needed to collect enough orders) to get their fish at the price they want to get them at.

Again, this feeds the "big cat for Christmas" crowd. If you are really serious about keeping a big cat, then paying to have one w/c fish in a box shipped ($250) is small change in the costs of the whole project. Really, this is just nonsense.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:What you are proposing may smell like a socialist measure (government- of something-controlled distribution of goods) in the capitalist world.

Goodness, no, legislation is just not good for this very international and detail specific issue. Very bad idea, but then, we did not see legislation brought in for the anti-dyed fish campaign and that appeared to work well (UK at least). I think quite a lot of it is about the stance of leading websites. It's about education. There are still parts of the world where you can buy ivory and all manner of other dark objects, let the legislation worry about bigger things like that.

Viktor Jarikov wrote:Practice shows it is very hard to educate general folk even about vital things - like good and bad health habits etc. - things that should matter to them a lot. Furthermore, using your cigarette analogy - people know they are bad and STILL do it.

I am not sure that's true. In the UK fewer people smoke all their lives than used to and I think that is down to education but also better quality of life. Different countries are in different stages in relation to this. I'm an ex-smoker and very aware of his point - it doesn't change over night. I don't think it's very hard, I just think it's very slow.



Jools

I would like to see certain large fish available only to those with a license to own them. Such a license would be expensive and issued only if they had the required tank space.
It might be draconian , it might cause issues. But it would solve the problem.

As Mats said ... the people that have the space to keep for arguments sake a RTC would fit in a 747 (in the US and Europe) in Asia ...well lots of huge tropical ponds there.

A-a-ah, nice, refreshing approach. Just slice the Gordian knot. Socialism-like, but I think Taksan is onto something here, even if it is another bite for thought...

Having worked with multi national licensing systems and legislation for much of my career (liquor, taxis and other things including sex shops, venison dealers and pet shop licences), I can say I think this is not a good idea. As soon as you can licence some fish species, you can ban others, and, it tends to be a person that needs a licence - not a fish! So, more than likely that a person with a big tank can get a licence and then put too many big fishes in it anyway. It solves little but it could make fishkeeping a lot worse for a lot of us.

In summary, a licence may stop people buying fish without the tank to keep them in, but how do you evaluate that a person can then keep that tank running for the 30+ years the fish should live?

I am also looking at this from a Scottish perspective. So, it could be possible, for example, to buy the fish in England because the law is different. If it is, for example, an EU law, then what fish we can keep is decided by some dude (likely not an aquarist) in Brussels? No thank you.

Also, consider when (and it would) a black market appears. Owners of black market fishes they need to offload (surprise surprise, they have grown beyond their owners ability to look after them in the medium to long term) will be less likely to do so responsibly.

I rather prefer the education/stigma approach where shops and fishkeepers are viewed as better if it doesn't stock tankbusters routinely. Same thing as dyed fish etc.


Jools

Jools wrote: I rather prefer the education/stigma approach where shops and fishkeepers are viewed as better if it doesn't stock tankbusters routinely. Same thing as dyed fish etc.

I agree, but it will take a lot longer and be a fair bit more difficult to get people on board with this.

Cruelty caused to tank-busters can be a lot more subjective than it is to dying a fish.

Jools wrote:Also, consider when (and it would) a black market appears. Owners of black market fishes they need to offload (surprise surprise, they have grown beyond their owners ability to look after them in the medium to long term) will be less likely to do so responsibly.
Jools

Well put mate, look at the laws we have in Australia where ONE yes only one "L" numbered catfish is on the allowable import list. It creates an instant black market (with insane prices to match) as bureaucratic gimps make the rules rather than aquarists.

Jools wrote:In summary, a licence may stop people buying fish without the tank to keep them in, but how do you evaluate that a person can then keep that tank running for the 30+ years the fish should live?

Sadly, one answer may be sudden and random inspections by the State Dept of Pet Life and Game... what a sad miserable world that would have become!

Viktor Jarikov wrote:

Jools wrote:In summary, a licence may stop people buying fish without the tank to keep them in, but how do you evaluate that a person can then keep that tank running for the 30+ years the fish should live?

Sadly, one answer may be sudden and random inspections by the State Dept of Pet Life and Game... what a sad miserable world that would have become!

Yeah, and that guy is paid for by our taxes. So, again, not going to happen. There are a lot of things needing public cash ahead in the queue. Animal welfare charities are not big on fish. I mean, an advertising campaign showing a cramped red tail is not going to get as many donations as a starving donkey. At least not in the UK anyway.

Again, it's down to the aquarists to change this opinion amongst ourselves and not look for someone to do it for us.

Jools

IMHO, not going to happen in 1000 years for the general folk, may be 10,000

there is animal police, at least in Miami or so I watch on AnimalPlanet, never seen a case with fish yet, though... not that I've seen much either...

Also, a red-tail like the one rescued by J Strazinsky looked pitiful enough, I think, to bring even an avid donkey-lover to tears of compassion...

Animal planet shows ASPCA from Miami, Houston (and nearby counties), Michigan and New York. And I don't watch those much, but my wife does (or used to at least). They also show RSPCA (UK version) and a few other animal welfare. But very rarely do they show fish - I've seen a snake-head being rescued.

And I've never heard of anyone being prosecuted for keeping large fish in small tank.

--
Mats