Reefs.org Forums

[MaryHM]

I am really proud of the work we have done so far on the USL. Obligate feeders are probably the hardest section of the list, so the next two categories should be a breeze.

Category 1: Dangerous Animals- The only one I can think of that is deadly is the Blue Ring Octopus. If anyone can come up with another example, post it.

Category 2: Animals that get too large. This one is pretty tough, because we need to define "large". It's also complicated because of different characteristics of fish. We could define large as an animal that exceeds 2 feet in length. However, a 2' eel is acceptable based on the fact that they don't need the swim room a 2' tuna would need. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] So put on your thinking caps and let's try to figure this one out...

[ December 28, 2001: Message edited by: MaryHM ]</p>

[galleon]

Category 1:

Blue Ringed Octopus (Hapalochlaena sp.) is a given... hmm... perhaps electric rays and stingrays in general.

Category 2:
I think rays, along with pretty much every elasmobranch should should show up here.
...most species of grouper, along with the more highly pelagic tang species. Larger species of Gymnothorax eels, ie G. funebris. Angels like Pomacanthus paru (French) can reach about 18" if kept healthy and in appropriate habitat.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: galleon ]</p>

[MaryHM]

I wouldn't consider stingrays to be in category 1. Potentially harmful, yes. But so are lionfish in that regard. I don't think anyone is going to die because of a stingray. (Waiting for someone to say "But my grandma's 3rd cousin's sister in law got stung by a ray and died a horrible death [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] )

I agree with what you have listed for category 2. I'll have to do some research on the french angel. We still need to try to give a definition to "large"...

[galleon]

Mary, good point re: rays in cat. 1, I didn't know they had to be positively deadly to qualify. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: galleon ]</p>

[Bill2]

#1: Scorpion fish. I think some of them are highly dangerous. Also not a fish but a reptile but I could see some idiot getting one at a lfs. Sea snakes and Sea krats. I don't think you can just rule out any fish becuase it's poisonous. That would elimiinate all fang blennies (midas, smiths, canary) and tangs. I think it has to be deadly to be on the list

#2 I would say you need to do a large fish on genus by genus basis if not species by species. I would never think of putting a green moray in a 60g tank but a nice golden morray might fit in well. Also what size tank are we talking about. I would have to say we need to talk about the average tank size so I would venture to say 120g or so.

[Anemone]

Mary,

Many larger shark species would fit in this category. Did you already do a shark list?

Kevin

[SPC]

I would also put the Great Barracuda on the list which BTW I have seen for sale on some sites. [img]images/smiles/icon_sad.gif[/img]
I am still thinking about this whole size issue and how to come up with some standard, this is a tough one to pin down.
Steve

[MaryHM]

Bill: Yes, I agree that animals on the dangerous list should be deadly.

Anemone: I haven't done a shark list yet. Does everyone agree that would be a good place to start?

SPC: Barracudas for sale!! Yipes!!

[MaryHM]

I've been thinking about this "large" definition for a couple of hours and think it's going to be practically impossible to create a definition that will take all of the variables into account. I mistakenly thought this section of the USL would be easier than obligate feeders, but at least obligate feeding is a straight-forward, documented trait. "Largeness" isn't. [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img] So here's what I've decided to do. We're going to go through the Burgess Atlas section by section. It's going to be tedious and probably take quite a bit of time, but it's for a good cause. If you have the Burgess Atlas, GREAT! It'll be easy for you to follow along. If not, I'll try to be as informative as possible.

First up- SHARKS AND RAYS
Ok, we have sharks that swim pretty much constantly (like a black tip) and sharks that lay around (like nurse sharks). I think that any constant swimmer (I think there's a term for this, but I can't find my old Ichthyology book) that exceeds 2' in length should be on the USL. Actually, I think most constant swimmers far exceed 2', so there shouldn't be too much of a problem there.

I don't import sharks personally, but here is a list of the ones I've seen on a regular basis:

Chiloscyllium punctatum- Banded Shark- This is probably the most frequently imported shark. It's also the species that is found in the "egg cases" you see in LFS.- Mainly lay around

Chiloscyllium plagiosum- I think this is the Cat Shark- Mainly lay around

Triakis semifasciatus- Leopard Shark- Commonly imported as babies during pup season here in California.- Swim a lot

Heterodontus portusjacksoni- Port Jackson Shark- mainly lays around

Heterodontus francisci- Horned shark- Mainly lays around

Eucrossorhinus dasypogon- Wobbygong Shark- mainly lays around

Ginglymostoma cirratum- Nurse shark- People importing this have a one way ticket to hell, where they will live in a 3'x3' cube for all eternity [img]images/smiles/icon_smile.gif[/img]

RAYS
Again, I don't import these, but here are the ones I've seen regularly:

Taeniura lymma- Blue Spot Ray- Extremely common

Narcine brasiliensis- Brazilan Ray


I need some of you to give more input as to what you've seen in shops/wholesalers. I'm basing this list off my experiences from over 4 years ago. Also, if someone can research and see if there are terms for "swimming" sharks and "sitting" sharks, that would be most helpful.

[JeremyR]

A customer was in yesterday, and proudly announced he had just purchased a wobbygong somewhere and put it in his 75 reef, and wanted to know what it ate. Arrgh. A local store has a 1000g half hex with 2 nurse sharks and a green moray that have been in residence for years.. and they do shark feedings for the public. Mention the tank is cruel and he gets extremely irate. Arrgh.

We have chosen not to sell sharks of any type. I'm sure there are people out there that have larger tanks and can do well with the banded type sharks, but in general it's not something we choose not to support.

[SPC]

No lack of interest here either. Like Dan, I have never considered keeping sharks or rays so have not done any research on them. I have read threads on the boards dealing with this, and one individual in particular seems to have a good working knowledge with these two animals. I will PM him and see if he will respond to this thread.
Steve

[MaryHM]

We worked through the obligate feeders and I think we did a great job. However, now that we've moved on to this topic interest seems to have died. Can I assume that all of you think it's ok for me to start importing great white sharks?? [img]images/smiles/icon_wink.gif[/img]

Let's start focusing on the list again, as I feel it actually has a chance to bring about some positive change!

[naesco]

I think Mary the reason for the lack of response is that the octopus and LARGE fish are obvious. At least that is why I didn't comment earlier.
There are fish like the Vlamingi tang which grow to two feet that should not be at LFS at all but be available for reefers who have 500 gallon tanks. But, I think this is step two in the process. I didn't want to add further fish until we dealt with the first list.
I think the list should go forward to M more or less intact.
I was thinking that if there was dissent we might consult with a few of the experts on the new aquarium online mag for their opinion

[MaryHM]

We need to try to get some kind of working definition for "large". As with obligate feeders, we can't just add things willy nilly. We need some kind of criteria to go by.

[Anemone]

Not lack of interest - it's just that I've never kept any sharks or rays. I know some of the smaller species (less than 3') can be kept, but I've never had a large enough tank, so I really don't feel qualified to comment. But I think almost anything larger than that shouldn't be imported just due to size limitations, but perhaps that is a different, all species-encompassing list unto itself?

Kevin

[ChaoticReefer]

Hey Mary,
I am with Bill2 on his opinion. You have to define a tank size before we can go farther. I would say to define the biggest common tank that is on the market (I would leave out custom made tanks). Once we define a tank size, we can go from there. Right now, I think you are trying to ask a question that has no orgin nor direction. The more specific the details are, the more the question becomes easier to answer.

[MaryHM]

Based on tank size, I would be inclined to say something like 500 gallons. Opinions?

[cjdevito]

Category 1: Dangerous Animals- The only one I can think of that is deadly is the Blue Ring Octopus. If anyone can come up with another example, post it.

Stone fish. Not exactly common, but I've seen about a dozen in the past 20 years.

[SPC]

Yes, and the Scorpion fish. Can you tell I am trying to avoid the shark and ray subject? [img]images/smiles/icon_biggrin.gif[/img]
Steve

[tazdevil]

I know there have been cases of people dying from stingray's stings, however, It's the same idea as a bee sting reaction-most people end up with some pain/swelling, and a very few end up, well, dead. I thought stingray's could have their stingers removed (like the glands on a skunk that produce scent, or dewclaws on a dog/cat). If this was a requirement prior to sale, then they should be safe.