Death Sentence For Rocky

[cabinetman]

This story just makes me plain mad. Reminds me of Gestapo tactics. Here's the deal. Rocky, a fish was bought at a pet store in 1998, as a pet when it was legal to have him. The family has him in a 200 gallon aquarium. The DEC says he can be a danger to wildlife, if...if...if, and are going to kill him. I don't see this "pet" being a threat, do you?
.

[cgallery]

I'm torn on this one. Many invasive species are released into the wild by pet owners for a variety of reasons (moving, cost to maintain, etc.).

Telling the owner that you're going to freeze it was dumb, though. It is someone's pet, after all. Why not try to find an institutional home for it?

[docrowan]

I have to agree with the comment about the TV cameras. If it's legal to seize the property of citizen and destroy it, why wait until the media attention subsides? Government agents regularly destroy illegal property on TV (drugs, guns, in the days of prohibition whiskey stills). If you don't want to do it in view of the cameras, there's something wrong with it.

[pelligrini]

That's ridiculous, another example of unintended consequences with the law. The DEC there has got their heads up an orifice and a total lack of common sense.

I do understand the potential threat most snakehead species pose, but this particular fish in this setting poses none at all. There might be concern if it were kept in an outdoor pond near a natural source of water that's connected to other bodies.

There are many species in the aquaria trade that really shouldn't be readily sold. There are only so many Pacus, Shovelnose & Redtail Cats and Pangasius catfish that zoos can take after they far outgrow most fishkeepers abilities.

[vaking]

I don't think this case has such a clear black/white sides.
My calculations say that 200 gallon tank is a cube with the side 36". In my opinion 28" long fish in 36" tank does not make a good pet. It can't move much, so there isn't much to watch. It isn't colorfull and mezmorizing like tropical fish. Not long ago we all agreed here that wild animals don't make good pets because they are too unpredictable. One minute they are friendly, next minute they attack. In other words - even though they seem friendly keeping them as pets presents danger. The risk is not worth it. With fish - this is perfectly clear - you cannot make friends with the fish.
So I simply fail to see why 28" fish should be kept as a pet. The argument that fish does not present much danger while in the tank therefore we can - just does not cut it for me.
If the fish ever gets out - that would be a disaster. If it does not - freezing this fish will put it out of its misery. It already spent 10 years in a tank not much bigger than its size. What can possibly justify taking risk here? Just because the fish cannot hurt people does not mean people have right to hurt the fish for no reason. I guess I am with DEC.
As for avoiding the press - I can also understand.
The owner bought the fish when it was legal. Technically owner did not brake any laws yet. Now the law prohibits keeping the fish and DEC can force the resolution. But the public opinion in this case will most likely be devided, so publicizing the case will produce no clear winner or loser except the media. The media always thrives when there is a conflict. So DEC is simply trying to avoid confrontation in public because it will not help its case.

[pelligrini]

My 135 Gal tank is 6' long.

If the fish ever gets out - that would be a disaster.

That is highly debatable too. I believe this particular species of snakehead is from Malasia. Most of the fishes from that region cannot live in the colder waters of North America.

[Uncle Cracker]

Even if it could tolerate the climate (which it can't), how could it breed in the wild unless it found another snakehead? What are the chances? Although I live in a state where many non-native and invasive species have been introduced into the wild, and I can see reason for the authorities' concern, I think this case should be handled independently of the broader (and after-the-fact) regulations. I also think the authorities owe it to the owner to exhaust all avenues of relocation (like to a zoo) before taking this animal. And I also agree that, if they're gonna put it down, it should be done on camera with full media access, and the official whose final decision was to destroy it should be present, and prominently identified, including name, business address, business phone number, and business e-mail. If he/she will not take ownership (and bear the consequences) of the decision, then it should not happen.

[Bruce Cohen]

Hey Cab,

Got to disagree with you on this one. Remember fishing in Nam, gets the suckers every time.

Bruce

[ironhat]

My 135 Gal tank is 6' long.

That is highly debatable too. I believe this particular species of snakehead is from Malasia. Most of the fishes from that region cannot live in the colder waters of North America.

I haven't hear of them discriminating about which species they find around here (south-central PA) when they pump a pond dry even on a suspicion.

[pelligrini]

That's some of the problem, they did a blanket ban on 29 different species. From what I understand many of the tropical species don't really pose a threat.

Most of it is hype and the thing of movies and tabloids. Say "snakehead" and a lot of people think of the media tags for it: fishzilla, frankenfish etc..

There is cause for concern about that fish species, but the particular fish in the article is no threat.

[Ed62]

I don't see this "pet" being a threat, do you?
.

No I don't. But I can understand why laws like this are made. Our Great Lakes have non-native fish that are really causing a lot of problems. When you get problems like that, it costs a small fortune to try to get rid of them. I like the idea of finding a home for it in an institution of some type.

Ed