Endangered Fish Illegally On Sale In Uk

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Anyways...



At the end of the day, petshops hold a position of responsability- if they aren't up to the job of keeping up to date with the law and abiding by it, and the petshop is not acting in a responsable manner, then IMHO they shouldn't be selling animals.

I don't care if what the petshop is selling is a fish or a frog or a lizard, snake or birds etc, it doesn't matter what type of animal the petshop is selling if they break the law by trying to make profit from critically endangered animals (which is what the barbs were).

I wouldn't sell a horse to someone if they didn't have a stable and a decent sized field for the horse and the customer didn't seem to know important things about keeping horses- i'm not going to sell an animal to someone so they can make newb mistakes at the expense of the animals welfare. And you can't say that a customer is going to look after an animal well if you don't even know what it is.

Yes, there are some situations where hard to indentify fish are wrongly identified and sold, but the petshop in this case wasn't even able to indentify the fish, so it is not like they can even use mis-indentification as an excuse.

Petshops do not have to take in fish from customers, many petshops do not for numerous reasons, and i think if a petshop is not confident about selling a fish because they don't know what it is, then they shouldn't even consider selling it until it has been identified. If they do sell a fish which they do not know what type of fish it is, and the fish does turn out to be a critically endangered species which is illegal for sale to the general public, then the petshop only has itself to blame since it took the unesarsary risk in the first place etc.

These endangered fish deserve to be kept in a zoo where professionals can either attempt to breed the fish to help further the future survival of the fish, or keep them as an attraction where profits made from the fish can be used to fund their breeding program or put into preserving their natural habitat better etc, or just simply return the fish back to their natural habitat all together where the fish can breed. Petshops selling these fish for profit does nothing to help save these fish from extinction.

 

[andywg]

If the customer says they have a 10gallon tank, you assume thats what they have- if you have 3 tanks and a petshop staff asked you about how many tanks you had, it would be unlikely you would tell the staff you just had a 10gal when you actually had a 80 and 120gallon tanks as well.

Ahhh, but now you are assuming tank size. there is still no explanation of how one can "obviously" know someone is not going to properly care for a fish. Tank sizes are open to much subjectivity, just look at how many different sizes there are. How else will we "obviously" know someone is not going to look after a fish.

And even if they are buying another tank that is the right size for a BGK, it is still not adviseable to sell them the fish on the same day they get the tank, since such fish need matured tanks and the fish will not fair well in a 10gallon waiting for months on end for its proper size tank to cycle and mature.

Ever heard of cloning? Instant cycling. Every one of my tanks running now had fish in it from the very first day it was set up. No need to wait. Anyone who cycles a second tank is just wasting their time.

At the end of the day, you can't look after a fish well if you don't have the right tank set up for it, even if you do want to look after the fish very well.
So yes Andy, there is an easy way to tell if a customer is obviously going to be able to look after a fish well or not.

So that is it. So long as someone has the right tank they will look after the fish well? Never mind whether they even have a filter, know anything about looking after a particular fish? Many people would say some of my fish are too big for my tank (many people look at the max size of cigar sharks and don't notice they seldom, if ever, get anywhere near 2 feet, let alone 3.5 in captivity) so I must be "obviously" not looking after my fish correctly. Sadly I don't agree, and it isn't "obvious" by any stretch of the word.

So how is it actually "obvious" that someone will not look after the fish well. What stops them lying about tank size? And what about a grow out tank? CFC bought fish that would get too big for his tanks before he had his 900 gallon tank. Does that make him a bad fish keeper?

What happens when someone lies about their tank size?

It really annoys me when people mis-interprets what somoene says on purpose, just for the sake of having an argument.

There is quite a difference between trying to buy a fish and actually purchasing it. you stated you saw someone trying to purchase a fish, you did not state any success. The argument here is about shops actually selling fish to people who "obviously" will not look after them. That someone trys to buy the fish suggests the shopkeeper did not actually sell them, indicating that the shopkeeper did not sell the fish to the inappropriate purchaser. This disagrees with TP's assertion that the shopkeepers will sell anything to anyone.

Go do something more productive.

I like that, try and enter the argument and when someone actually breaks down what you put just tell them to do something productive rather than come back with a substantive response.

Why don't you try and engage in adult debate without resorting to such derogatory comments above? Why not come back and correct me as to whether the shopkeeper allowed the sale or not?

 

[andywg]

At the end of the day, petshops hold a position of responsability- if they aren't up to the job of keeping up to date with the law and abiding by it, and the petshop is not acting in a responsable manner, then IMHO they shouldn't be selling animals.

What is irresponsible. The shopkeeper didn't know what it was. Many stray fish come into the country and the shopkeeper will attempt to ID it, and then sell it.

I don't care if what the petshop is selling is a fish or a frog or a lizard, snake or birds etc, it doesn't matter what type of animal the petshop is selling if they break the law by trying to make profit from critically endangered animals (which is what the barbs were).

And if they didn't realise the fish was critically endangered? While ignorance of the law is no defence, in a case like this it is huge mitigation. No one is going to memorise the entire set of CITES appendices as they should not come into the country. The public interest test will show that there was no attempt at truly gaining from this.

And let me point out the language of the article you cited (my emphasis):

Aquatic retailers may be trading in a fish that has been illegal to sell without authorisation since the 1970s; shops or fishkeepers caught using the species for commercial purporses without certificates risk £5000 fines for each specimen and/or up to five years in prison.

Practical Fishkeeping can exclusively reveal that retail outlets in the UK may have offered one of the world's most endangered fish, Probarbus jullieni (the Isok barb), for sale to the public in recent months.

There is no actual knowledge that the fish was even offered for sale as there are two other species in the same genus which aren't restricted for sales. This entire debate is on something which is nothing more than rumour and supposition.

And you can't say that a customer is going to look after an animal well if you don't even know what it is.

Every frogfish I have bought I have not been sure on the species. The most recent one took a question to a university researcher who specialises in frogfish before I could actually ID it. Just because you don't know the ID for certain before purchasing does not mean you will not look after it properly.

Yes, there are some situations where hard to indentify fish are wrongly identified and sold, but the petshop in this case wasn't even able to indentify the fish, so it is not like they can even use mis-indentification as an excuse.

He did not know its identity until getting to compare it. It may be that he mis-identified it. When one considers that there is still no certainty yet as to whether this even was the fish in question, it is a bit early to condemn the shopkeeper.

Petshops do not have to take in fish from customers, many petshops do not for numerous reasons, and i think if a petshop is not confident about selling a fish because they don't know what it is, then they shouldn't even consider selling it until it has been identified. If they do sell a fish which they do not know what type of fish it is, and the fish does turn out to be a critically endangered species which is illegal for sale to the general public, then the petshop only has itself to blame since it took the unesarsary risk in the first place etc.

This fish closely resembles many carps which are sold in this country without any problems. On that basis the shopkeeper will likely put it on sale. No petshop will spend hours looking through the books on every fish it receives before selling it. And does your ID hold true for fish ordered in? Many wholesalers will substitute stock or sell them under incorrect common names. Should the lfs check each and every fish to ensure that it receives?

These endangered fish deserve to be kept in a zoo where professionals can either attempt to breed the fish to help further the future survival of the fish, or keep them as an attraction where profits made from the fish can be used to fund their breeding program or put into preserving their natural habitat better etc, or just simply return the fish back to their natural habitat all together where the fish can breed. Petshops selling these fish for profit does nothing to help save these fish from extinction.

But the petshop did not know it was selling it. And we still don't even know if it has been sold.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

What is irresponsible. The shopkeeper didn't know what it was. Many stray fish come into the country and the shopkeeper will attempt to ID it, and then sell it.

Well tell me what is responsable about the situation? How can a petshop stocking an illegal critically endangered fish which can weigh up to 70kg and grow to 5ft long be in anyway an adviseable or responsable thing?

And if they didn't realise the fish was critically endangered? While ignorance of the law is no defence, in a case like this it is huge mitigation. No one is going to memorise the entire set of CITES appendices as they should not come into the country. The public interest test will show that there was no attempt at truly gaining from this.

And let me point out the language of the article you cited (my emphasis):

Aquatic retailers may be trading in a fish that has been illegal to sell without authorisation since the 1970s; shops or fishkeepers caught using the species for commercial purporses without certificates risk £5000 fines for each specimen and/or up to five years in prison.

Practical Fishkeeping can exclusively reveal that retail outlets in the UK may have offered one of the world's most endangered fish, Probarbus jullieni (the Isok barb), for sale to the public in recent months.

There is no actual knowledge that the fish was even offered for sale as there are two other species in the same genus which aren't restricted for sales. This entire debate is on something which is nothing more than rumour and supposition.

I see you missed this part;

"Shops stocking or importing the fish and fishkeepers that have purchased specimens which are not covered by the necessary CITES paperwork risk a fine of up to £5000 for each fish, and/or a prison sentence of up to five years."



Simply by keeping the fish they were breaking the law. Would you show the same sympathy towards a petshop if they started stocking endangered baby crocadiles not knowing they were endangered crocadiles?

Also there is actual knowledge that the illegal fish was purchased because;

"One reader purchased a single 20-25cm/8-10" Probarbus jullieni last week.

One user on an internet fishkeeping forum specialising in large fish said: "Yeah, I saw your fish [on sale]. It's a P. julienni. Nice fish! Some are bred and distributed in the Asian countries and sometimes make their way overseas. Just watch out as there are no permits allowing them to be kept as pets."

The retailer who sold the fish, claimed that the specimen was brought in to the shop by a customer.

The retailer told Practical Fishkeeping that the fish is the only one he has ever seen and did not know its identity until it was compared to an image in a fish identification guide.

Another shop had at least seven specimens on sale earlier this year for £32.00 each under the common name Julie's barb."




So yes, the fish were put up for sale and some were sold, so this article is based on actual knowledge. Also;


"A DEFRA spokesman told Practical Fishkeeping that it was unaware of previous illegal trade in the species and confirmed that no import, re-export or Article 10 certificates had been issued for the species in the last 10 years. Penalties could be severe for unauthorised commercial use of Annex A species.

Under COTES (Control of Trade in Endangered Species [Enforcement] Regulation 1997) an Article 10 is required to sell, purchase or use an Annex A species for commercial purposes, and without this, those found guilty could be fined up to £5000 per specimen and/or up to five years imprisonment.

The legislation is specifically formatted in such a way as to make the offence two ended. In other words both the purchaser and vendor commit an offence if there is no Article 10 certificate.

"Both the purchaser and vendor commit an offence if there is no Article 10 certificate...""



So they were breaking the law- you break the law, you should pay the consequences for doing so.

Every frogfish I have bought I have not been sure on the species. The most recent one took a question to a university researcher who specialises in frogfish before I could actually ID it. Just because you don't know the ID for certain before purchasing does not mean you will not look after it properly.

But the point is that the shop didn't know what the fish was, and you said earlier on in the thread "How do we "obviously" know that the prospective purchaser will not look after the fish well? Should all us keepers sit a test and submit our homes to inspections by the shop?". Well simply put, if the shop doesn't know what the animal is then in know way tell if the customer is capable of looking after it- it is irresponsable for petshops to sell animals to people if the person does sound like they will look after it well, but there is no way for a petshop to find this out if they don't even know what the animal they are selling is, so it is irresponsable for them to sell animals which they do not know what they are.

And i would also have to say that it is never adviseable to buy a fish if you do not know exactly what it is, i do not know much about frogfish, but i would never ever advise someone to buy an animal if they didn't know what it was and i would view someone knowingly doing such a thing as an irresponsable action. Barbs in particular are an enormously varied family of fish and vary massively in their care, you cannot predict that the care of one type of barb is going to be the same as the next etc.

He did not know its identity until getting to compare it. It may be that he mis-identified it. When one considers that there is still no certainty yet as to whether this even was the fish in question, it is a bit early to condemn the shopkeeper.

I see you say he "may" have mis-indentified it, however this is not mentioned in the article at all, in fact, the retailed himself said "the fish is the only one he has ever seen", so if he's only seen one example then how could he had mis-indentified it to begin with if he had nothing to compare the fish with etc?

This fish closely resembles many carps which are sold in this country without any problems. On that basis the shopkeeper will likely put it on sale. No petshop will spend hours looking through the books on every fish it receives before selling it. And does your ID hold true for fish ordered in? Many wholesalers will substitute stock or sell them under incorrect common names. Should the lfs check each and every fish to ensure that it receives?

Since i'm not going to go on your word alone and since you didn't answer my question properly, have you actually ever seen an fish that could be confused with this one? Can you actually give any examples here of such a fish?

This was also not a fish which was ordered in, the retailer said he took it off a customer, so it is hardly the case of him ordering in one fish and accidentally getting another. And to your question, yes i do think petshops should make an effort to accurately ID the animals they sell so they do not end up misleading innocent customers etc.

But the petshop did not know it was selling it. And we still don't even know if it has been sold.

The petshop did sell it, see further up this post for proof.

 

[andywg]

"One reader purchased a single 20-25cm/8-10" Probarbus jullieni last week.

One user on an internet fishkeeping forum specialising in large fish said: "Yeah, I saw your fish [on sale]. It's a P. julienni. Nice fish! Some are bred and distributed in the Asian countries and sometimes make their way overseas. Just watch out as there are no permits allowing them to be kept as pets."

The retailer who sold the fish, claimed that the specimen was brought in to the shop by a customer.

Oh well, someone posted something on an internet forum. That MUST be true, yes? Or maybe not.

So yes, the fish were put up for sale and some were sold, so this article is based on actual knowledge.

No. If it was actual knowledge the fish had been traded the articel would not have opened with all the mays.

But the point is that the shop didn't know what the fish was, and you said earlier on in the thread "How do we "obviously" know that the prospective purchaser will not look after the fish well? Should all us keepers sit a test and submit our homes to inspections by the shop?". Well simply put, if the shop doesn't know what the animal is then in know way tell if the customer is capable of looking after it- it is irresponsable for petshops to sell animals to people if the person does sound like they will look after it well, but there is no way for a petshop to find this out if they don't even know what the animal they are selling is, so it is irresponsable for them to sell animals which they do not know what they are.

And i would also have to say that it is never adviseable to buy a fish if you do not know exactly what it is, i do not know much about frogfish, but i would never ever advise someone to buy an animal if they didn't know what it was and i would view someone knowingly doing such a thing as an irresponsable action. Barbs in particular are an enormously varied family of fish and vary massively in their care, you cannot predict that the care of one type of barb is going to be the same as the next etc.

So because I cannot be entirely sure of a frogfish species until I can get it home and start examining the membranes on the second and third dorsal spine and do some ray counting, by your test, I am "obviously" not going to look after my frogfish correctly. I assume we shall ignore the fact that the fish are now showing signs of courtship and potential spawning activity, yes?

And what about bumblebee gobies? Almost no one truly knows what species they are as you need to start doing some scale counting under a microscope to get an accurate ID. Would you perhaps group everyone who buys a bumblebee goby as "obviously" not going to give the correct care?

I see you say he "may" have mis-indentified it, however this is not mentioned in the article at all, in fact, the retailed himself said "the fish is the only one he has ever seen", so if he's only seen one example then how could he had mis-indentified it to begin with if he had nothing to compare the fish with etc?

Look at the photos. It just looks like a striped carp.

Fish in question:

Common Carp

Note the similar body shape (and that adults are often easier in fish to distinguish from juveniles). We are not dealing here with some random, strange looking fish which looks out of place and is obviously strange. This is a fish which quite closely resembles a native fish to these isles.

Since i'm not going to go on your word alone and since you didn't answer my question properly, have you actually ever seen an fish that could be confused with this one? Can you actually give any examples here of such a fish?

Easily. Juvenile P. jullieni differs from P. labeamajor in having only 5 (instead of 6) stripes between lateral line scale row and dorsal fin base; lips which are not as enlarged and the free posterior margin of lower lip interrupted at midline (from fishbase).

There is plenty of confusion between P. jullieni and its congeners. How can the internet expert be sure that the fish is the endangered species and not one of the others? Considering how rare they are it is highly unlikely that the internet poster has had much experience distinguishing the fish from its congeners. Hell, even a number of experts confuse the species in this genus, to the point there is some confusion over which previous papers refer to which actual species. Can you really still sit there and complain that the shopkeeper didn't get an absolute perfect ID when one of the distinguishing characteristics between the 3 species is the number of vertebrae?

This was also not a fish which was ordered in, the retailer said he took it off a customer, so it is hardly the case of him ordering in one fish and accidentally getting another. And to your question, yes i do think petshops should make an effort to accurately ID the animals they sell so they do not end up misleading innocent customers etc.

Make an effort, or get a truly accurate ID? There is quite a difference there. See above on the issues regarding identification within this species and the bumblebee gobies.

The petshop did sell it, see further up this post for proof.

No, the main part of the story is not confirmed that it is sold. Someone on an internet forum claims it was sold. I am sure you are aware of how many people tell less than the truth on the internet. The lack of sources on the story, and the very careful language at the start (together with identification woes) means we absolutely cannot say that a banned fish was sold.

 

[raptorrex]

in the end the shops both stocked and sold fish that are illegal to keep and sell in the UK. many of us will understand how there errors could happen, but that does not detract form the fact that, however innocently, these fish have been put on sale. i don't see what wrong with accepting the mistake and ensuring that they do their utmost to avoid the problem cropping up again. and the best way to make businessmen take notice is to hit them in the pocket.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Oh well, someone posted something on an internet forum. That MUST be true, yes? Or maybe not.

Haha....

Andy, stop being so silly and sarcastic, i never said what was said must be true because it was on the internet. I am not that naive, you've gone through this "lets go round in circles for 5 pages of thread" thing before (remember the farming/supermarket thread?) and it does nothing positive for the sake of debate- so lets just what with info is given in the article.

If you get into all of that sort of stuff, you will never get anywhere. Lets work with what was given in the article, you could just as well say that "well maybe none of this ever happened and that PFK is just a big fat liar who hates all petshop retailers etc", but then what would be the point of that?

I'm working with what is actually said in the article- perhaps you can go into imaginary posibilities over what may have really happened, but then that would get neither of us anywhere; even if this whole article was just some imaginary story, my opinions would still hold the same.

No. If it was actual knowledge the fish had been traded the articel would not have opened with all the mays.

Are you slow or something? The retailer admitted to putting fish up for sale.

So because I cannot be entirely sure of a frogfish species until I can get it home and start examining the membranes on the second and third dorsal spine and do some ray counting, by your test, I am "obviously" not going to look after my frogfish correctly. I assume we shall ignore the fact that the fish are now showing signs of courtship and potential spawning activity, yes?

And what about bumblebee gobies? Almost no one truly knows what species they are as you need to start doing some scale counting under a microscope to get an accurate ID. Would you perhaps group everyone who buys a bumblebee goby as "obviously" not going to give the correct care?

I see you say he "may" have mis-indentified it, however this is not mentioned in the article at all, in fact, the retailed himself said "the fish is the only one he has ever seen", so if he's only seen one example then how could he had mis-indentified it to begin with if he had nothing to compare the fish with etc?

Look at the photos. It just looks like a striped carp.

Fish in question:

Common Carp

Note the similar body shape (and that adults are often easier in fish to distinguish from juveniles). We are not dealing here with some random, strange looking fish which looks out of place and is obviously strange. This is a fish which quite closely resembles a native fish to these isles.

I'm sorry but a common carp looks nothing like a julie barb, julie barbs are striped fish for a start (when did you last see a stripey common carp?), secondly, their dorsal fin is completely different to that of the common carp. Confusing two such fish together would be like confusing a molly with a danio.

This selller had NO idea what type of fish this was, you are trying to compare frogfish to julie barbs- as i said before, this was not the case of the seller confusing the fish between two similar looking fish (i've already talked about this and given examples earlier on in thread about stuff like this).

Easily. Juvenile P. jullieni differs from P. labeamajor in having only 5 (instead of 6) stripes between lateral line scale row and dorsal fin base; lips which are not as enlarged and the free posterior margin of lower lip interrupted at midline (from fishbase).

There is plenty of confusion between P. jullieni and its congeners. How can the internet expert be sure that the fish is the endangered species and not one of the others? Considering how rare they are it is highly unlikely that the internet poster has had much experience distinguishing the fish from its congeners. Hell, even a number of experts confuse the species in this genus, to the point there is some confusion over which previous papers refer to which actual species. Can you really still sit there and complain that the shopkeeper didn't get an absolute perfect ID when one of the distinguishing characteristics between the 3 species is the number of vertebrae?

Probarbus jullieni and Probarbus labeamajor are two of the largest carps in the Mekong River Basin, each reaching a maximum weight of about 70 kg. P. jullieni is listed in Appendix 1 of the Convention on the International Trade in Endangered Species, and both are listed on the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species, the first as endangered and the second as data deficient. So it doesn't matter if the retailer confused these two fish together, it is not responsable to be selling either fish.


I see you perhaps intentionally missed out the other info on differences between julies barb and major if you got your info from fishbase;

"Dorsal soft rays (total): 13 - 13; Anal soft rays: 8. Differs from P. labeamajor in having only 5 (instead of 6) stripes between lateral line scale row and dorsal fin base; lips not enlarged, free posterior margin of lower lip interrupted at midline; large adults without mentum; maxillary barbel invariably well developed, length one-third or more of eye diameter. The only species in which body stripes may extend to every scale row, but this only occurs in some larger and more darkly pigmented individuals. P. labeamajor and P. labeaminor have no more than three stripes below lateral line scale row, and the abdomen is uniformly white. Adults and larger juveniles of P. jullieni usually have much more red and sometimes yellow coloration on head, body, and fins than the other two species. Scale rows between lateral line scale row and pelvic fin 4."




But we know that the retailer didn't confuse these two fish with each other anyway, since the retailer himself said he had never seen any fish like the julie barb- so you arguement that he confused it with another similar looking fish is flawed.

No, the main part of the story is not confirmed that it is sold. Someone on an internet forum claims it was sold. I am sure you are aware of how many people tell less than the truth on the internet. The lack of sources on the story, and the very careful language at the start (together with identification woes) means we absolutely cannot say that a banned fish was sold.

No it was sold because the retailer who sold the fish admitted as so "The retailer who sold the fish, claimed that the specimen was brought in to the shop by a customer.

The retailer told Practical Fishkeeping that the fish is the only one he has ever seen and did not know its identity until it was compared to an image in a fish identification guide."



So are you trying to say that practical fishkeeping never bother asked the retailer in the interview if he had the fish on sale?

in the end the shops both stocked and sold fish that are illegal to keep and sell in the UK. many of us will understand how there errors could happen, but that does not detract form the fact that, however innocently, these fish have been put on sale. i don't see what wrong with accepting the mistake and ensuring that they do their utmost to avoid the problem cropping up again. and the best way to make businessmen take notice is to hit them in the pocket.

Lol i agree with you, but try convincing/telling Andy that- he's even in denial that the fish were even put up for sale despite the evidence stacked up against him.

 

[andywg]

Lol i agree with you, but try convincing/telling Andy that- he's even in denial that the fish were even put up for sale despite the evidence stacked up against him.

Now now TP, in the aforementioned previous threads I lambasted you, and even refused to continue with the thread because you would read what I typed, and then claim I said something else and never actually admit you were intentionally misquoting me. It seems you are continuing that here.

I have said it is not clear that the fish have been put up for sale. I have not stated they definitely were not sold. The article very clearly states that the fish may have been sold. The only place it is suggested that the fish has been sold is from an internet poster. If it definitely was that fish which had been put up for sale then the article would have stated so. Is that really such a problematic concept for you to understand?

If the evidence is so stacked up, show me one clear bit of proof that P. jullienni was actually sold. Even DEFRA don't know if it has been yet, so I am amazed you think the evidence is stacked up against me. Indeed the evidence is so obvious that you can be absolutely certain ti happened, yet the journalist who researched the story only feels that one can say it may have happened. However, let's not let facts get in the way here, yes?

The facts are:

1) Someone believes that a controlled fish may have been sold
2) Someone on an internet forum claims to have carried out a correct ID
3) The shopkeeper has stated he didn't realise it could be an endangered fish and only has any idea it may be a controlled fish after being shown a picture.
4) Even the article states there is much confusion within the genus, so there is every possibility it could be one of the other members of the genus even though the shopkeeper has been shown a picture for identification. We don't even know what the picture was of. Did it clearly define the differences within the genus?
5) Based on the above it is impossible to state that a sale of the fish has definitely occurred, whether using the criminal "beyond all reasonable doubt" or the civil "balance of probabilities" burdens.

Now can you understand my viewpoint that we cannot be actually sure that a sale of a controlled fish took place? While it may come to light that the fish sold was indeed P. jullienni, we cannot be so certain now.

And I deliberately did not mention the further differences on the identification of this genus as Fishbase starts referring to large adults whereas I somehow doubt this shopkeeper was selling a 70kg carp.

I guess I should leave this here and go back to "obviously" not looking after my fish correctly, what with buying a fish I am not certain on the scientific identification of to a species level, and buying fish at a time when I do not have a tank to take them as an adult. My, I must be such a bad fishkeeper

 

[mark7616]

At the end of the day you cant blame the fish shop owner. Yes someone bought in an endangered fish and the owner was trying to sell it on but I can be pretty certaint that it was in good faith. Ok they didnt get a positive id but if he did get one by looking through a book this would not tell him that the fish is endangered and illegal to sell in the uk. I did not know anyting about the mentioned barb so if I saw it in a lfs I would not know the problems and ill bet that you didnt either. It just so happens that it turns out to be endangered and illegal and everyone wants to shoot down the lfs not the person who gave it to them. Not all lfs are going to go into and research fish in as much depth as we do or they wont have enough time in the day. Its a simple error nothing like a crayfish that cant be confused with nything else aprt from another crayfish.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

Lol i agree with you, but try convincing/telling Andy that- he's even in denial that the fish were even put up for sale despite the evidence stacked up against him.

Now now TP, in the aforementioned previous threads I lambasted you, and even refused to continue with the thread because you would read what I typed, and then claim I said something else and never actually admit you were intentionally misquoting me. It seems you are continuing that here.

No andy i did no such thing, if you believe that i was actually doing such an injustice like that in the thread and had a problem with it, why didn't you take it to a mod?

Just to clear things up, please see the last page of that thread;

<a href="http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...p;#entry1788713" target="_blank">http/www.fishforums.net/index.php?showto...p;#entry1788713</a>



All i did was catch you out with what you were saying- i wasn't the one typing your posts, i just quoted exactly what you said and proved you had said things in the thread which you had denied saying.

I have said it is not clear that the fish have been put up for sale. I have not stated they definitely were not sold. The article very clearly states that the fish may have been sold. The only place it is suggested that the fish has been sold is from an internet poster. If it definitely was that fish which had been put up for sale then the article would have stated so. Is that really such a problematic concept for you to understand?

If the evidence is so stacked up, show me one clear bit of proof that P. jullienni was actually sold. Even DEFRA don't know if it has been yet, so I am amazed you think the evidence is stacked up against me. Indeed the evidence is so obvious that you can be absolutely certain ti happened, yet the journalist who researched the story only feels that one can say it may have happened. However, let's not let facts get in the way here, yes?

The facts are:

1) Someone believes that a controlled fish may have been sold
2) Someone on an internet forum claims to have carried out a correct ID
3) The shopkeeper has stated he didn't realise it could be an endangered fish and only has any idea it may be a controlled fish after being shown a picture.
4) Even the article states there is much confusion within the genus, so there is every possibility it could be one of the other members of the genus even though the shopkeeper has been shown a picture for identification. We don't even know what the picture was of. Did it clearly define the differences within the genus?
5) Based on the above it is impossible to state that a sale of the fish has definitely occurred, whether using the criminal "beyond all reasonable doubt" or the civil "balance of probabilities" burdens.

Now can you understand my viewpoint that we cannot be actually sure that a sale of a controlled fish took place? While it may come to light that the fish sold was indeed P. jullienni, we cannot be so certain now.

And I deliberately did not mention the further differences on the identification of this genus as Fishbase starts referring to large adults whereas I somehow doubt this shopkeeper was selling a 70kg carp.

I guess I should leave this here and go back to "obviously" not looking after my fish correctly, what with buying a fish I am not certain on the scientific identification of to a species level, and buying fish at a time when I do not have a tank to take them as an adult. My, I must be such a bad fishkeeper

Firstly;
a. If none of this took place, then don't bother trying to argue about it. But, why don't you try answering my points on thread actually taking what is said in the article into consideration that it did happen? Or is that too hard to answer? All of my points are based on the knowledge that what was said in the article did take place- if you disagree with any of my points (like how you disagreed with issues over the responsability of the petshop retailer), then you should not hide behind "may haves" and "may nots", but give your reasons over why you disagree with what i am saying exactly (which should not be hard to do if you have well thought out logical reasons for your opinions etc).

Secondly;
b. I never said you "obviously don't look after your fish" at any point in this thread. Since i do not like to be accused of lies like that, if i did say such a thing, can you quote it for me? Since from what i remember, all i said was;

"And i would also have to say that it is never adviseable to buy a fish if you do not know exactly what it is, i do not know much about frogfish, but i would never ever advise someone to buy an animal if they didn't know what it was and i would view someone knowingly doing such a thing as an irresponsable action. Barbs in particular are an enormously varied family of fish and vary massively in their care, you cannot predict that the care of one type of barb is going to be the same as the next etc."




You know what you are buying is at least a frogfish, i said "i would never ever advise someone to buy an animal if they didn't know what it was and i would view someone knowingly doing such a thing as an irresponsable action", so i do not know why you seem to think i told you were an irresponsable or bad fishkeeper, since after all you know what you were buying was a frogfish and since according to you the differences between the types of frogfish are apparently seemingly incredibly slight, unlike barbs etc. I also do not understand why you disagree with this basic concept of fishkeeping, are you now about to start advising people to do this (i.e. buy fish when they don't know what they are) because you do not see doing such a thing as irresponsable?

Do you admit the the shop was irresponsable for putting the fish up for sale if this is confirmed to be the case?