Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Massachusetts doesn't allow native fish to be kept as pets?

Started by Guest_wispfox_* , May 15 2014 07:54 PM

Next

Reply to this topic

25 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_wispfox_*

Guests

Posted 15 May 2014 - 07:54 PM

I'm becoming very dismayed in my search for the legalities of things, sparked by my curiosity about keeping a fish that is protected here but not in a nearby state.

I'll be calling someone tomorrow who might be able to clarify, but at least at the moment, it looks like aquarium trade fish as defined by: "Aquarium Trade Fish means those freshwater fish which cannot survive year-round in a wild environment above 30º north latitude (approximately from Jacksonville, FL west to Ensenada, CA) or below 30º south latitude (approximately from Puerto-Alegre, Brazil west to La Serena, Chile). Notwithstanding the foregoing, aquarium trade fish shall also include the goldfish (Carassius auratus), koi or Japanese carp (Cyprinus carpio), and guppies (Poecilia spp.), but shall not include tilapia (Tilapia spp.) which require a permit." and fathead minnows are it for lawful pet fish. They specifically list 'native and established fish in Massachusetts' as unlawful. (http://www.mass.gov/...s.html#domestic - for the info about unlawful natives and lawful fatheads)

I'm unable to tell how difficult something I found about a propagater's license would be to obtain, as I think it might be the way to go for those of us wishing to keep native fish. It certainly seems very complicated, though, and unnecessarily so for people just wanting pets... (http://www.mass.gov/...00-fishing.html)

*sad* Somehow it didn't occur to me that it would be illegal to keep fish that are common enough that they can be eaten or used as bait. I guess I'm only going to be catching, identifying, and releasing, not catching and keeping.

I kind of want to know what is involved in attempting to get laws like these changed, but a) I'm in grad school, and b) I feel like it's a _huge_ uphill battle.

#2 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guests

Posted 15 May 2014 - 08:33 PM

Welcome to the hobby. Often you need to find the loopholes. Might even need to purchase fish so you have a bill of sale. You may find that the permit you need is not that difficult to obtain. Maybe if you volunteer as a regional rep at some point in time, that the state may issue you an educational permit. There is surely a way that you can keep native fish legally. Does your state offer an aquaculture license? A bait dealers license?

#3 Michael Wolfe

Board of Directors

North Georgia, Oconee River Drainage

Posted 15 May 2014 - 08:40 PM

Looks to me that according to the fishing regulations, you are able to take, alive, a group of fish that are listed as baitfish. And while you are not allowed to keep them as pets, you are allowed to keep them as live bait. Which I assume you can keep at your house with no problems (in a glass box?). There are also a list of fish that you just cannot keep or apparently even photograph.

http://www.eregulati...ons-advisories/

Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing. - Benjamin Franklin

#4 Guest_Subrosa_*

Guests

Posted 16 May 2014 - 05:46 AM

A MA always thinks she knows what's best for her children.

#5 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 16 May 2014 - 06:24 AM

Yup, knows what's best and what's best often has very little to do with your interests and a lot to do with theirs.

Wispfox, there are permits for your activity. I don't know what they're called, and I don't know how to get them, but if you work hard enough, I bet you'll succeed.

#6 Guest_gerald_*

Guests

Posted 16 May 2014 - 08:42 AM

"Trade" might be an important word here. Native fish might be illegal "in the aquarium trade" in MA, but there might not be any law against simply keeping fish that you caught, with no trade involved. I'm just guessing here, and following Michael's reasoning, but that might be a helpful "loophole". BTW, are sailfin mollies illegal in MA?

#7 mattknepley

NANFA Member

Smack-dab between the Savannah and the Saluda.

Posted 16 May 2014 - 07:37 PM

Wispfox,when I first got serious about keeping natives the fish that most interested me carried a low-level of concern in my state. But I wanted to be sure to do things the right way, and looked into it by speaking with SC DNR. They suggested I get a "scientific collecting" permit. In it I spell out my collecting methods, and that animals may be collected (and sacrificed) and housed for home study. The only catch is I have to immediately release and report Robust Redhorse. The price for this is ten bucks annually and turning in an annual report of my "field trips". (Which I already kept out of personal interest anyway.)

My point is not that my way is the best way, heck- in SC it probably isn't necessary at all, but it illustrates that there is a way. These types of permits aren't published mainstream, generally, but they aren't hidden either. As you're in grad school, you might even be able to find a professor or fellow student who can get you under their permitted wing. Might take a little extra work if you're chasing letters in post-modern, minimalist, abstract, feminist underwater fire prevention; but I bet there is someone you know who knows the someone to know. Y'know?

Matt Knepley
"No thanks, a third of a gopher would merely arouse my appetite..."

#8 Guest_Skipjack_*

Guests

Posted 16 May 2014 - 09:27 PM

Just from the feedback, looks like you may need to put in a bit of work, but you probably have several options, and this is not going to be a deal breaker for you. This learning curve is part of the fun.

#9 Guest_Subrosa_*

Guests

Posted 17 May 2014 - 08:36 AM

Yup, knows what's best and what's best often has very little to do with your interests and a lot to do with theirs.

Wispfox, there are permits for your activity. I don't know what they're called, and I don't know how to get them, but if you work hard enough, I bet you'll succeed.

My interests are based in the premise that in a country "conceived in liberty" that if a governmental agency wishes to prohibit a specific behavior that they need a compelling reason to do so. I understand that what constitutes "compelling" varies from person to person, and I accept that parts of the regulations under discussion fall within that gray area. Personally I don't find any argument based on a presumption of guilt very compelling, so while I disagree with the ban on keeping non-natives capable of surviving, I understand why those parts of the ban exist. But I'm all eyes and ears for anyone who can present a compelling argument against the keeping of non-threatened/endangered native species for one's personal pleasure.

#10 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 17 May 2014 - 10:41 AM

The primary reason many states have adopted policies that discourage collecting and keeping fish, in particular, is that they don't have the resources to monitor this collection so that vulnerable species are collected, or other species are overcollected. The raw truth is that typical wardens have little knowledge of fish identification, beyond being able to tell catfish from bass, or bluefish from striped bass. So the easy way to solve the problem is to prohibit most citizens from collecting fish. This is largely what happened in Tennessee.

#11 Guest_Uland_*

Guests

Posted 17 May 2014 - 11:46 AM

Bruce, I'm not trying to pick a fight (scouts honor). I ask the subsequent question since I'm curious if any evidence exits. Question: Are there any documented cases of "joe six pack" over-collecting?

I will leave my personal comments regarding the philosophy of "make it illegal because we don't know what we're doing" to myself.

#12 Guest_Subrosa_*

Guests

Posted 17 May 2014 - 12:09 PM

The primary reason many states have adopted policies that discourage collecting and keeping fish, in particular, is that they don't have the resources to monitor this collection so that vulnerable species are collected, or other species are overcollected. The raw truth is that typical wardens have little knowledge of fish identification, beyond being able to tell catfish from bass, or bluefish from striped bass. So the easy way to solve the problem is to prohibit most citizens from collecting fish. This is largely what happened in Tennessee.

I've seen that first hand. We had a game warden come in to a place I was working, walk over to a tank full of Pike Cichlids and accuse us of selling Snakeheads. He ignored a tank two spaces over that was full of baby Bowfins which we needed (and had) a separate permit to sell. I guess I just believe that what's good for the goose is good for the gander. If ignorance of the law is no excuse for unlawful behavior on my part, there's no excuse for those charged with enforcing it to be ignorant of what they're enforcing. In the case of TN with the large number of rather similar species it's far more understandable than MA. In any case, ignorance/laziness is less compelling to me than a presumption of guilt.

#13 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 17 May 2014 - 06:19 PM

Uland - not really for most species like, say scarlet shiners. It could be true locally if someone overcollects bait, those guys will fill up the payload of a truck with a liner and basically siphon fish in. But I don't see that as being a massive problem except very locally. States like TN and AL have maybe 2 or 3 non-game wildlife biologists who can identify individual species, which makes informed enforcement difficult; and that's the real problem.

#14 Guest_wispfox_*

Guests

Posted 21 May 2014 - 01:53 PM

I appreciate all the replies, and the suggestions that there is hope.

Unfortunately, I don't have the brain space to figure out the relevant loophole. Darn data analysis and paper writing (and data collection again, soon) eating my brain.

I'm in a program relating to nonverbal communication and robots (on the Psychology side), FWIW.

#15 Guest_wispfox_*

Guests

Posted 21 May 2014 - 01:56 PM

@Michael Wolfe: your point about baitfish is appreciated, as it at least means the banded killis I already collected aren't illegal.

#16 Guest_mikez_*

Guests

Posted 25 May 2014 - 12:15 PM

Oh how I'd love to delve into the bigger issue... been fighting that one for years elsewhere...not the time or place, been working on the whole getting along thing....

As to Ma, you received correct advice regarding the list of acceptable baitfish. Your bait bucket has square glass walls and a filter. End of story RE. state of MA and the Letter of their Law.

Realistically speaking, that means you can't collect in Ma. outside of those bait species, only because while collecting is when you might meet a gamewarden who's anal enough to bust you over such a minor thing.

What we don't need is having the already bad situation made worse by bringing a low profile issue to the attention of buracrats whom spend their days searching for causes which justify their pay checks. Ma has shown itself to be staunchly against allowing collection of any wildlife period, despite some public lip service to the contrary. So far that has not intruded too far into the aquarium beyond bait and goldfish restrictions. Once they are made aware of the "Threat" of native fish collectors, the wardens will be told to make it an issue in the field and the pols will get to work in Boston making our minnows "safe" from the multi-million dollar pet trade.

I respectfully suggest you refrain from calling or writing the state regarding aquarium collecting. Study up on the regs as well as ethical husbandry. Always obey the letter of law in the field and keep your mouth shut while the warden checks your bait bucket. What you do at home should remain your business. Don't invite them in for a look...

Edited by mikez, 25 May 2014 - 12:16 PM.

#17 Guest_mikez_*

Guests

Posted 25 May 2014 - 12:34 PM

For the record, I personally divested all my Ma natives [not counting marine species not regulated] a few years ago when the bait-spread diseases started the new law trend nation wide. I became alarmed when I figured out I had mailed a Ma native to someone in another state who falsely claimed they were legal for him. That kind of screw up is what brings that knock on the door that nobody needs. Sounds paranoid to aquarium keepers but I also follow the pet reptile trade and the "hobby" of collecting arrowheads. Both have seen a large increase in under cover stings targeting folks collecting with arrests and court cases and reputations ruined and thousands spent, only for most cases to get thrown out.
We don't need that in our hobby.

#18 Guest_fundulus_*

Guests

Posted 25 May 2014 - 02:32 PM

The only times I've encountered angry landowners while doing field work in Alabama is when they thought we were looking for Indian artifacts on the sly. Once we told them what we were doing they calmed down and said they didn't mind us running around a stream on their property. There's a really widespread black market in Indian artifacts that drives illegal collectors to dig on other peoples' land at night, at least in the Southeast. It's made me realize that I really don't want to go collect in certain places near sunset because local landowners might be a little more keyed up than in broad daylight.

#19 Guest_mikez_*

Guests

Posted 26 May 2014 - 07:01 AM

Digging is bad. Pillaging intact sites worse. Guys that sell that stuff, go on federal land etc -jails fine for me.
The guys like me who pick up random points with no possible scientific value and never sell shouldn't have to worry about that knock on the door.
Just like an honest MA citizen with a little sunfish which may or may not be on the bait list officer...

Bettya $50.00 9 out of 10 otherwise competent wardens couldn't tell obesus from a baby bluegill, nor recite the bait list from memory. Let's keep it that way. Just sayin'...