What To Do?

[andywg]

I fully understand that andy as you can see form my earlier quote in this thread. I just think that speaking technically (probably just playing with semantics a bit here) it is a needless death

the need (given by DEFRA and those who have deemed it to be illegal) to destroy it is that it is a threat to british wildlife, the individual circumstances show that this animal will not be be a threat therefore the need for this individual is not there, therefore it is needless.

But neither you, or I, or DEFRA, can be sure this cray will pose no risk. How many of us really know Wolf? I have chatted to him quite a number of times, but certainly couldn't put my hand on my heart and be sure that he would never release this cray into the environment. All we know is what we are told through the internet.

If Wolfy had some link to a research institute or puyblic aquarium then it would be more likely to help his case, but as an amateur hobbyist you just can't know.

Because of that uncertainty, I claim there is a need to destroy this animal. Essentially your argument fails on one major point:

the individual circumstances show that this animal will not be be a threat

You simply cannot prove the above. You certainly cannot prove it beyond reasonable doubt, and I doubt DEFRA would want anything less than that sort of burden before considering an exception. The amount of work DEFRA would have to put into ensuring this one creature hadn't now become a risk would detract from their abilities to search for, and deal with, other alien creatures that pose risks.

We are just members of the public, like anyone else. Just because we write on the internet how much we care about the fish does not elevate our status or make us any more responsible than others.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

damn, OK you've got me on that one. I can't prove it, but I do still believe it to be the case

foiled by my own logic as well sort of, rememeber bringing it up in a discussion a few weeks ago that we should never just assume one person on the internet is correct as we never know if they are who they claim to be or if they keep the fish they say they do etc etc. can hardly argue against it now.

 

[cleekdaFish]

Im reporting u to the cops , wolf. Im sorry but u broken a huge law , u must be punished

 

[tetraqueen]

I agree with Andy sorry but if it is illegal then you should have the shop prosecuted. Now you cannot say you bought it in good faith. I hope they are lenient.
I get cross as if endangered surely DEFRA killing them makes it worse. It should be taken back to where it came from. ? some fish farm for endagered specie??

hpe it works out please keep us posted.

I agree with Andy sorry but if it is illegal then you should have the shop prosecuted. Now you cannot say you bought it in good faith. I hope they are lenient.
I get cross as if endangered surely DEFRA killing them makes it worse. It should be taken back to where it came from. ? some fish farm for endagered species??

hope it works out please keep us posted.

 

[andywg]

I don't think the shop should automatically be prosecuted.

Wholesalers are not always great at putting correct things into orders, or supplying what they say they are. Most importantly the source of this cray needs to be ascertained.

Someone has brought it into the country (or even bred it here) and DEFRA need to stop that possible route of access. Remembering that most crays are farm bred for food, this one that made the shops could well be the tip of the iceburg.

Alternatively, it could just be a rogue import. Either way, knowledge needs to be gained about the history of this individual to ensure there are not a load more destined for the wild.

 

[The-Wolf]

neither you, or I, or DEFRA, can be sure this cray will pose no risk.

to further that, whilst i can gaurentee that at this moment in time
if it stays in my tank it will never go anywhere else.
Even I can't gaurentee that will be the same in 3 months, 6 months or years later.
no-one knows what the future holds.

How many of us really know Wolf?

without trying to be philisophical,
how many of us really know ourselfs, let alone a person who posts on the internet.

 

[wendywc]

A crayfish is NOT worth getting yourself into any legal problems, Wolf. You did the right thing by contacting CEFRA/DEFRA; now just follow their instructions.

 

[Tokis-Phoenix]

If you bought this critter from a shop, then the shop must be notified to the authorities so they do not import anymore of these crayfish/lobsters.
It could have just been a rogue import and got mixed up in an import of lobsters/crayfish/shrimps etc that were perfectly legal in this country, but the fact that they sold it regardless is where the shop went wrong- petshops shouldn't sell animals which they do not know what they are and the rules concerning the sale of them, so they can't use ignorance as an excuse. It would be like a petshop selling lizards when they don't have a license to. The fact that they tried to make a profit on an illegal species should not be allowed nor tolerated.
The authorities that enforce these laws are just doing their job, as ultimately the needs of the native wildlife of this country come first over non-native animals like this one.
I know you wouldn't release this animal into the wild Wolf as i know you are a responsable fishkeeper, but the authorities don't know that and ultimately they can't count on anyone to not release these animals into the wild. IMHO, the lobster will probably be destroyed, but it might not if you explain your situation/case to them, who knows? However i wouldn't feel anger nor blame the authorities if they did put destroy the critter as they are just doing their job, as ultimately the needs and safety of our native animals in this country take priority over non-native animals like this crayfish.

Edit: After a little research, it appears that Blue Florida Crayfish do not always come in blue, i think this could be a juvenile thing, but it appears that Procambarus alleni (Blue Florida Crayfish) also comes in a redish form;

http/www.akwafoto.pl/nieryby/raki/procambarus_alleni2.jpg


Hmm...I think yours could be a Blue Florida Crayfish, i don't think these are illegal in this country? In that case, yours could be perfectly legal


Edit: Hmm...Maybe not then, even though yours looks like a Procambarus alleni and is a sort of blue lobster, apparently not all blue lobsters are legal (even the tropical ones);


http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...?article_id=432

Ah well.

Edit: Actually, apparently there is also a redish looking colour variety of Cherax quadricarinatus which looks very similar to yours, so yet again, perhaps yours is legal?

 

[screamingdonkey]

ultimately the needs of the native wildlife of this country come first over non-native animals like this one....

IMHO, the lobster will probably be destroyed...

Exactly. It's unlikely that one stray lobster/crayfish is going to decimate the UK's native population - even locally. After all, how is it going to carry on the population over here without a mate?
But the authorities tend to err on the side of caution. For those who haven't seen it, read the PFK article on a Surrey pond that was cleared of all it's inhabitants

http/www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/pfk/...m.php?news=1229

This way of thinking (protecting native species from non-native, often more aggressive species) has developed considerably over recent years and gained more momentum. Often cited as a prime example of what can happen if non-native 'invaders' aren't put in check is the case of grey squirrels imported to the UK from Canada in the 19th century. How many red squirrels have you seen lately?

 

[mark.w.jones]

I think he would probably taste bloody great and you wouldn't then have wasted your money!

 

[CFC]

Youre nuts telling DEFRA about the crayfish, i've been after a Amia calva for years but they were recently made illegal to own which has made my chances of obtaining one practially nil, however if on the off chance one did appear in the country and fell into my possession there would be no way i'd be ringing the authorities to come around and destroy it.

 

[The-Wolf]

still no reply from DEFRA but I have spoken to the London Aquarium
and they are willing (provided DEFRA ok it) to take him from me.

here is hoping for a good result.

 

[kewskills]

thats good news so far keep us informed about defra.

 

[Miss Wiggle]

still no reply from DEFRA but I have spoken to the London Aquarium
and they are willing (provided DEFRA ok it) to take him from me.

here is hoping for a good result.

excellent news wolfy

i would think that the london aquarium have many species we aquarists wouldn't be allowed to keep, as they obviously have many more links to research programmes and this sort of thing and have a much more predictable future than any of us can provide for the fish.

here's hoping DEFRA make an exception

 

[fatboy]

There might be a chance of DEFRA asking people or institutions holding a crayfish licence to adopt this one. Who knows, there might be a college or somewhere that would be glad to have it.

Regarding the danger of non-native crays, I spoke to a defra bloke about this and he says the biggest concern is crayfish plague which can decimate a local population even if the carrier dies a few days after being dumped in a river or pond. If it's genuinly that risky, I can understand the very frustrating ban. Edit: he mentioned c. clarkii as an invasive species, now that I think back.