Fish bans

[OnlyGenusCaps]

4 hours ago, anewbie said:

Not an answer as to specifics but there are two types of fishes illegal - those that are endangered and those that are pests but it isn't only fishes -

That's a great point!  Those are basically the two categories of concern.  I find aspects about each category curious.

For the native rare species, it's odd to me that the officials essentially take the stance of, "Well we don't want you guys keeping and breeding them."  "So you don't want more of them?"  "Of course we want more of them, they are endangered!"  "But letting people breed them would ensure there are more of them."  "Sure, but not in their native habitat."  "True, better they thrive in nature.  What's the major threat to their survival?"  "Habitat loss. And it's almost gone!"  "🙄"

Endangered plants by contrast are not entirely illegal to own.  I've done the federal paperwork for clubs so they can sell them across state lines even.  It keeps poaching down to make them available.  The feds don't want those plants back near the native populations, which makes perfect sense.  But they let people keep them.

For the potentially invasive, I think it's odd that everyone is very concerned right up to the point where fishing could be impacted.  I mean if you can pull it out of the water with a hook in its mouth it can't possibly be a "problem" species, right?  "Sport fish" have been, and continue to be, introduced all the time.  They are often, by any objective measure, invasive. They push out native species, change the communities/ecosystems, and their populations will never diminish because your tax dollars go to ensuring there is a steady stream of them available for people to pull out of the water.

I live fairly near the Great Lakes which have suffered from both accidental and purposeful invasions to the point where they are massively modified and will never return to their former conditions.  I like to tell colleagues at DNR and FWS that we may as well introduce interesting things at this point.  I'm advocating for Baikal seals!  I mean if sport fish are justified by the tourism dollars so too can the seals be.  😁

[anewbie]

46 minutes ago, OnlyGenusCaps said:

That's a great point!  Those are basically the two categories of concern.  I find aspects about each category curious.

For the native rare species, it's odd to me that the officials essentially take the stance of, "Well we don't want you guys keeping and breeding them."  "So you don't want more of them?"  "Of course we want more of them, they are endangered!"  "But letting people breed them would ensure there are more of them."  "Sure, but not in their native habitat."  "True, better they thrive in nature.  What's the major threat to their survival?"  "Habitat loss. And it's almost gone!"  "🙄"

Endangered plants by contrast are not entirely illegal to own.  I've done the federal paperwork for clubs so they can sell them across state lines even.  It keeps poaching down to make them available.  The feds don't want those plants back near the native populations, which makes perfect sense.  But they let people keep them.

For the potentially invasive, I think it's odd that everyone is very concerned right up to the point where fishing could be impacted.  I mean if you can pull it out of the water with a hook in its mouth it can't possibly be a "problem" species, right?  "Sport fish" have been, and continue to be, introduced all the time.  They are often, by any objective measure, invasive. They push out native species, change the communities/ecosystems, and their populations will never diminish because your tax dollars go to ensuring there is a steady stream of them available for people to pull out of the water.

I live fairly near the Great Lakes which have suffered from both accidental and purposeful invasions to the point where they are massively modified and will never return to their former conditions.  I like to tell colleagues at DNR and FWS that we may as well introduce interesting things at this point.  I'm advocating for Baikal seals!  I mean if sport fish are justified by the tourism dollars so too can the seals be.  😁

The long answer to your points would involve talking about politics on how laws are made which is a forbidden topic so I guess we should leave it at laws and rules are political in nature.

Edited April 15, 2021 by anewbie

[gardenman]

A lot of the endangered species aren't really all that endangered these days. There is no shortage of Asian Arowanas. They're captively bred in absurdly high numbers. It's still illegal to own one in the States though as they're "endangered." There are probably more living Asian Arowanas today than at any time in the history of the species. It's likely their total numbers are many times that of what they've ever been in the wild. There are farms raising tens of thousands of them each year. And there are lots of Asian Arowana farms. There is no need for anyone to catch one in the wild as there is a virtually endless supply of captive bred ones. Every US hobbyist who wanted an Asian Arowana could get one and the impact on the number in the wild would be zero. Heck, every hobbyist could get ten and it would have no impact on the number of wild arowanas. But they're still banned. Why? More for appearance than anything. In the real world, the ban has no impact.

As to invasive species, most people worry about the alpha predators like the snakehead, arapaima, etc. The claim is often that they'll kill everything and eat it. The thing is, they live with lots of other life in their native habitat. They don't kill and eat everything. If they did, they'd end up starving. The predator/prey ratio has to be right or the predators starve. Nature finds a balance. If you have one zebra and a hundred lions, you won't have a hundred lions for long. If you have a hundred zebra and one lion, you'll lose an occasional zebra here or there, but they'll also be giving birth to new ones and things stay in balance. The whole "If those snakeheads breed and have  large spawns they'll kill and eat everything!" folks forget that once they've killed and eaten everything, they'll die. They will quite literally starve themselves out of existence. Nature finds a balance. And the native predators will eat the snakehead fry and young fish also, so the "invaders" can actually help feed the native fish. 

There are a lot of people, bureaucrats, politicians, who think they have way more control over things than they do. At the very least they want more control. In the real world, nature finds a way to keep things under control. If the predator/prey ratio gets out of whack, the predators starve. Problem solved! Wading birds will pick up fish eggs from someplace with fewer predators and deposit them in the now predator free area and they'll thrive there until a new predator comes along. Nature finds a way.

[OnlyGenusCaps]

3 hours ago, anewbie said:

The long answer to your points would involve talking about politics on how laws are made which is a forbidden topic so I guess we should leave it at laws and rules are political in nature.

I liked your post pre-edit better.  At least what I saw of it in the preview alert.  I was looking forward to discussing this with you.  Again from the preview it seemed as though you disagreed with me, and were super respectful.  I'd always chat with someone like that.  Sorry you decided it wasn't worth it or too risky.  But if you do want to have the chat, and don't think it will fly on the open forum (though I suspect there would be much for the casual observer to learn from such a discussion), then feel free to PM me. 

3 hours ago, gardenman said:

A lot of the endangered species aren't really all that endangered these days. There is no shortage of Asian Arowanas. They're captively bred in absurdly high numbers. It's still illegal to own one in the States though as they're "endangered." There are probably more living Asian Arowanas today than at any time in the history of the species. It's likely their total numbers are many times that of what they've ever been in the wild. There are farms raising tens of thousands of them each year. And there are lots of Asian Arowana farms. There is no need for anyone to catch one in the wild as there is a virtually endless supply of captive bred ones. Every US hobbyist who wanted an Asian Arowana could get one and the impact on the number in the wild would be zero. Heck, every hobbyist could get ten and it would have no impact on the number of wild arowanas. But they're still banned. Why? More for appearance than anything. In the real world, the ban has no impact.

As to invasive species, most people worry about the alpha predators like the snakehead, arapaima, etc. The claim is often that they'll kill everything and eat it. The thing is, they live with lots of other life in their native habitat. They don't kill and eat everything. If they did, they'd end up starving. The predator/prey ratio has to be right or the predators starve. Nature finds a balance. If you have one zebra and a hundred lions, you won't have a hundred lions for long. If you have a hundred zebra and one lion, you'll lose an occasional zebra here or there, but they'll also be giving birth to new ones and things stay in balance. The whole "If those snakeheads breed and have  large spawns they'll kill and eat everything!" folks forget that once they've killed and eaten everything, they'll die. They will quite literally starve themselves out of existence. Nature finds a balance. And the native predators will eat the snakehead fry and young fish also, so the "invaders" can actually help feed the native fish. 

There are a lot of people, bureaucrats, politicians, who think they have way more control over things than they do. At the very least they want more control. In the real world, nature finds a way to keep things under control. If the predator/prey ratio gets out of whack, the predators starve. Problem solved! Wading birds will pick up fish eggs from someplace with fewer predators and deposit them in the now predator free area and they'll thrive there until a new predator comes along. Nature finds a way.

I'd say for the invasives at least, I see this as a bit more nuanced.  There are cases where species have out competed native fish, or interbred with them.  And you can have predators tear through a population and wipe it out.  There are, after all, other often more resistant species out there for them to prey upon after the sensitive ones are gone.  But, I do agree that people tend to take a "side" and then see the entire world through that lens. 

I fully understand CITES (I'm a CITES permit holder and have colleagues who determine threat level for the IUCN), and I tend to agree that the Asian arowana thing is a bit perplexing under the current set of circumstances.  Perhaps that one of the more challenging things about conservation legislation and laws - they tend to to be highly responsive to changes as they occur, either to protect when there are new threats, or pull back when the threats diminish.