Yea but i'm talking about the scientist and biologists that do it. I've seen a bunch of tv shows where they keep an animal or raise one and then release it back into the wild. So technicaly there is nothing wrong with releasing a native species otherwise they wouldn't have donne it
I don't want to seem stubborn here but I don't think a person should give up on something just because someone else says it can't be donne without giving a valid reason.
A bunch of experienced aquarists just gave you a plethora of valid reasons, and if you'd bothered to post your question in the right forum you'd have even more. You're just choosing to ignore the advice you've been given because it doesn't support what you want to do, regardless of how irresponsible it is.
Agreed. I just think that keeping an animal in captivity for years and then releasing them isnt a good idea, regardless of wether scientists do it or not. Scientists also kill animals for venom for antidotes and things like that but it doesnt mean its right.
No I'm not a scientist but my point is if there were any valid reasons for not releasing native species back into the wild, those who are more knoweledgable then me and you wouldn't have donne it.
A bunch of experienced aquarists just gave you a plethora of valid reasons, and if you'd bothered to post your question in the right forum you'd have even more. You're just choosing to ignore the advice you've been given because it doesn't support what you want to do, regardless of how irresponsible it is.
None of the reasons given were valid, let's review:
-Loosing the ability to hunt/ not recognizing natural prey ; I've seen plenty of wild species being released after being in capivity and haven't lost abilty to hunt also check my argument about captive breed angels hunting neons.
- Not used to new water ; what new water? the new water it was originaly cought from and which was replicated in the tank
- Can't build up its immune system from standard bacteria found in the wild ; again it will be wild cought so it will have immunity being that it's already coming from the same waters.
- and the most common argument being : IT WILL DIE ; ???
I did post inquieries in the right forum in the tank recomendation thread and their answer was simple: dwarf and lantern sharks are deep water species and there simply isn't enough information on their behaviour to derive a tank size requirement formula. Now that is a viable argument. Also they confirmed that the tank requirment for the smoothhounds would be the same as other swimming non-ORV species. Simple and specific. No one there said No u can't keep those species they will die etc etc!!! I'm just saying let's keep it less apocalyptic please and not make it look like as if i'm trying to rape mother nature.
No I'm not a scientist but my point is if there were any valid reasons for not releasing native species back into the wild, those who are more knoweledgable then me and you wouldn't have donne it.
None of the reasons given were valid, let's review:
-Loosing the ability to hunt/ not recognizing natural prey ; I've seen plenty of wild species being released after being in capivity and haven't lost abilty to hunt also check my argument about captive breed angels hunting neons.
- Not used to new water ; what new water? the new water it was originaly cought from and which was replicated in the tank
- Can't build up its immune system from standard bacteria found in the wild ; again it will be wild cought so it will have immunity being that it's already coming from the same waters.
- and the most common argument being : IT WILL DIE ; ???
I did post inquieries in the right forum in the tank recomendation thread and their answer was simple: dwarf and lantern sharks are deep water species and there simply isn't enough information on their behaviour to derive a tank size requirement formula. Now that is a viable argument. Also they confirmed that the tank requirment for the smoothhounds would be the same as other swimming non-ORV species. Simple and specific. No one there said No u can't keep those species they will die etc etc!!! I'm just saying let's keep it less apocalyptic please and not make it look like as if i'm trying to rape mother nature.
You did not post in the correct forum. This is the sub-forum for general salt, there is a sub-forum dedicated to sharks/rays. I am not going to tell you what you can and can't do, but rehabilitating a creature for wild life is no simple task. I would recommend only purchasing animals that you can properly house and care for for the duration of their life.
On subject, to the OP. I understand you may be bummed out, I would love to keep a clown trigger in a reef tank but it just isn't possible. You are wanting a shark that "looks like a shark" but stays small. There simply aren't any that fit your criteria, if you want jaws then go turn your swimming pool into an aquarium. If you want a small shark for your home aquarium, then get a bamboo shark or something of that nature. It's really that simple. All this nonsense about reintroducing a shark to the wild is just that, nonsense. Please practice proper husbandry for the animals that you choose to take, turning them back to the wild to die is just not a humane option.
Well if it's native y not? Ppl catch wild animals all the time and release them in to the wild they come from. Including predators like lions and tigers. It could also be useful as for gathering more information on keeping them. I mean someone must've cought the first captive shark like the nurse shark for example and kept them on trial and error untill they figured out what they need.
It is not the origin of the animal that is important in this case, it is the origin of the parasites and diseases it has likely come into contact with on numerous occasions both before you obtained it, as well as while it's in your own aquarium if you are keeping it in a tank with other fish, live rock, etc. When you release a fish back into its native body of water, you are introducing multiple foreign diseases and parasites with it, which the native population may not have built up an immunity to. For your "scientists and biologists do it" argument, first of all: are you a scientist or biologist? And secondly, they take those animals from the wild and don't keep them with other animals that have been kept in captivity, so they aren't polluting the ecosystem when they release them.
Not to mention the illegality of releasing animals into the wild without the proper permits.
Ok ok take a breather everyone the whole thing was just hypothetical anyways. I am just trying to research the possibilities. But let's take for example Mustelus asterias - The Starry smooth-hound, it has commercial uses, so let's say a person get's a young small one from the local fisherman, raises it and then sells it to the fish market when it get's too large to keep. That would be ok right?
Your seriously asking an online forum of people dedicated to the proper husbandry of these animals, people who just said it should be a commitment for life, if you can raise an animal until its too large so you can sell it for slaughter? Are we talking about farm animals or sharks here? There is a difference between livestock and pets, please don't further contribute to the world's sharking issues.
WOW! So if a food animal is a food animal that means we must treat them poorly? but if an animal is raised in a decent living condition then you can't eat it?
I raise/breed fish and guess what sometimes I feed some of my fry to my other fish!!!
good husbandry and eating fish are two different topics and meshing them is getting confusing. Also the blunt attacks on the rational of wild release for tank animals seems unfounded beyond potential legal implications. Heck it is policy for certain fish(asian arrows and several american game fish).
@OP releasing a fish(given the right care and in the right situation) is fine, eating a fish is fine, selling a fish is perfectly fine... taking poor care of a fish because you plan to release, eat or sell them is not. I think that is the stance people on here are trying to take but failing to articulate. Don't plan to not take inadequate care of an animal ever.
Sharks are a special kinda fish that really need the adult space to grow in and don't do well when raised in smaller rearing environments. So pick a tank size you can manage then pick a fish don't do it the other way around unless you have that kinda money/room.
Raising feeders for other fish is completely different than aquiring a shark from a fisherman to keep until in becomes inconvenient to do so. Of the two options the OP has presented, I suppose selling the fish to market is the best, though how he could possibly think he'd get a positive response here is beyond me. As to releasing, you can he can ponder the finer points of releasing captive animals into the wild (and I don't think catch and release counts), but you're simply wrong. Animal rehabilitation, species reintroduction and other forms of wild release conducted by trained professionals is not comparable to keeping an animal in undersized quarters with the express intention of releasing or otherwise getting rid of said animal when it gets too large. This sort of positively ignorant thinking is what leads to all oversized animals in the hobby - nurse sharks, groupers, alligators, big snakes, which in turn leads to all the negative publicity that ruins the hobby for everyone.
You and the OP are going to do whatever you want to do regardless of what's right and what the majority of experienced keepers advise you to do. I just love facing the consequences when some politician uses your actions as an excuse to legislate away my rights.
