Fisherman Catches Piranha In N.C. River

This article appeared on MSNBC today:
http://www.msnbc.msn...5612/?GT1=10150

The photo in this article looks more like a pacu to me. Most US "piranha" catches seem to be pacus.

http://www.walb.com/...y.asp?S=6736366

The fish in this photo definitely looks like a pacu. It's amazing how human-like those teeth look, almost like molars

I'm very surprised that the DENR officials there have not realized that this is a pacu. Granted, it shouldn't be there either, but it is a much less sensational story without the piranha aspect.

Hopefully, someone will clear this up shortly.

From the MSNBC article:
"Wildlife officials told Melton on Saturday that he caught a 1 pound, 4 ounce piranha that was probably dumped in the river."

I've seen both piranhas and pacus at my LFS (they're both legal here in Pennsylvania), and they look very similar. I'm amazed, though, that the "wildlife officials" couldn't tell the difference.

Here's another version of the story:
http://news.bostonhe...ticleid=1009698

Notice that this one starts with "A fisherman looking to catch a catfish for dinner instead reeled in a toothy fish that would have devoured him if it had half a chance." As most of us here probably know, piranhas are not maneaters. So, aside from mistaken identity, misconceptions continue to be spread about the fish.

It goes on to say "The angry piranha flashed its teeth and bit his knife." More sensationalism. The MSNBC article says "When Melton opened the fish's mouth with a pocketknife, he said the fish bit down and left an impression on the blade." That makes more sense, and is more consistent with the behavior of a pacu. It didn't attack the knife, he inserted the knife in the fish's mouth. Pacus have a very strong bite, which could have left an impression on the blade.

I'm very surprised that the DENR officials there have not realized that this is a pacu. Granted, it shouldn't be there either, but it is a much less sensational story without the piranha aspect.

Hopefully, someone will clear this up shortly.

Voracious flesh-eating pirahnas are definitely more of an attention grabber for your story. Nobody is frightened out of the water by something that normally feeds on Brazil nuts and low-hanging fruit

Whatever it is, it should not be there.

I kinda thought the water in PA would be too cold to support a pacu?

Whatever it is, it should not be there.

I kinda thought the water in PA would be too cold to support a pacu?

You are correct on both counts. However, the fish was not found in Pennsylvania, it was found in North Carolina. Perhaps pacus and piranhas are not banned here in Pennsylvania because they could not survive our winters, and they are banned in North Carolina because they may survive their winters.

Actually, the WALB article stated that "A wildlife officer says piranha are illegal to possess in North Carolina." What about pacus? Are they illegal to possess in North Carolina?

Pacus won't be illegal until someone convinces members of the legislature that: 1) they exist, 2) look like piranha, but 3) are not piranha. I would think that pacus would only be a problem in Florida, the Gulf Coast in general, and isolated hot springs. But pacus need fairly substantial food inputs, like large fleshy fruits and nuts found in flooded forest floor, from what I've understood. Piranha would probably do better as an invasive because they'd be able to feed on local small fishes. Unfortunately it's another case of ignorant people buying pretty little fish that grow too big for aquaria and wind up being dumped. Same old same old.

You are correct on both counts. However, the fish was not found in Pennsylvania, it was found in North Carolina. Perhaps pacus and piranhas are not banned here in Pennsylvania because they could not survive our winters, and they are banned in North Carolina because they may survive their winters.

Actually, the WALB article stated that "A wildlife officer says piranha are illegal to possess in North Carolina." What about pacus? Are they illegal to possess in North Carolina?

Pirahnas cannot survive New York waters and they are illegal here. Pacu are the ones that should be illegal. Though they cannot survive here they grow far to large for aquaria anyway. About the worst a pirahna can do is bite it's owner and it still won't do as much damage as many other perfectly legal animals.

I'm not suprised that a wildlife officer would not know the difference between a pacu and pirahna, I don't think their job requires a knowledge about fishes of the Amazon.

You are correct on both counts. However, the fish was not found in Pennsylvania, it was found in North Carolina. Perhaps pacus and piranhas are not banned here in Pennsylvania because they could not survive our winters, and they are banned in North Carolina because they may survive their winters.

Actually, the WALB article stated that "A wildlife officer says piranha are illegal to possess in North Carolina." What about pacus? Are they illegal to possess in North Carolina?

Pacu possession in NC:
 NC_prohibited.jpg   52.14KB   0 downloads

Just a thought, but maybe the DNRs or Fish and Wildlife could provide some way for people to humanely dispose of unwanted aquatic pets? Because it seems to me that new invasives are popping up all the time, and there is no way that the government can pass legislation fast enough to keep up with this rising tide. We need to educate people and get both the aquarium hobby and the authorities to work together on this.

Pretty funny story btw

Just a thought, but maybe the DNRs or Fish and Wildlife could provide some way for people to humanely dispose of unwanted aquatic pets? Because it seems to me that new invasives are popping up all the time, and there is no way that the government can pass legislation fast enough to keep up with this rising tide. We need to educate people and get both the aquarium hobby and the authorities to work together on this.

I would think you could take back your fish to the pet store. Maybe they could do something with it. Not get a refound or anything...

I would think you could take back your fish to the pet store. Maybe they could do something with it. Not get a refound or anything...

My LFS will buy unwanted fish back from you. I'm sure others will, too. People just don't think to ask.

It depends on the fish, though. If it's a 5 lb pacu, I don't know if you'd have much luck giving it back to an LFS because the store might not have the tank space at the time. I know that if I needed to get rid of my stingrays in a hurry, I would have an extremely tough time of it because they are so large. And then there are the legal issues. No pet store wants to be caught with a snakehead on the premises. It would be great if the authorities could have some system where you could hand over these fish and have them euthanized without getting fined for posessing them in the first place.

I have always thought that pet stores should be REQUIRED to take back any pet they sell, be it fish or dog or parrot or lizzard. It just might make them be a bit more selective in the types of animals they choose to sell, and perhaps more likely to educate the buyer about the nature of the species they are purchasing (e.g., letting people know that oscars get pretty big, iguanas will get to 5 feet plus, and that that parrot just may outlive them!)

I agree the mis-identification in the article was probably the result of a desire to sell print. Hopefully the North Carolina agency was just misquoted, something that the news reporters do frequently of course. But the fish seen from an untrained view does indeed look much like the piranha one gapes at in pet stores etc.

According to the USGS invasive species website no introduction of pacu has taken hold, but there are dozens of records of captures of individuals from several states. Unlike the tilapia or the northern snakehead that has established in some U.S. waters the only pacu i could find info for have a very limited temperature range that would probably not enable survival through winters even in our southern states.

I find some fear in the knowledge that the pacu likes to eat nuts, and may join the fisherman in staying out of the Catawba River

Marc

I agree the mis-identification in the article was probably the result of a desire to sell print. Hopefully the North Carolina agency was just misquoted, something that the news reporters do frequently of course. But the fish seen from an untrained view does indeed look much like the piranha one gapes at in pet stores etc.

Pacu.. Piranha...what is the difference??? they are both Serrasalmid characins (well sort of)....And neither should be swimming around in North American waters..There are many South American Fish and game officials that cannot ID a Bluegill from a crappie, and not everyone is a fish hobbyist or Neotropical fish expert that works for federal and state agencies....

I just hope they know what a Round goby, Channa and bighead carp look like as these are a real threat and real problem...

Remember those baby drops that were invented after there was a series of scared single moms killing their babies after giving birth alone? That way the mom could leave the kid without being prosecuted and the baby would be given to foster care or adoption to save it's life? (Nobody crucify me on this, remember I'm a single mom. I chose to keep and raise my child.)
Well, how about LFS drops for unwanted fish. It would be anonymous so if you have something illegal you could get rid of it. A little chute that leads to the outside, drop your fish down and it drops into a euthanizing tank. Filled with some chemical solution to humanly euthanize fish (the name of the stuff escapes me, I'm exhausted). You could go by in the dead of night and get rid of that cute little snakehead that got too big for your 20 gallon tank and nobody would know.
Ok, I'm tired and rambling and probably gonna get reamed for my suggestion, but there it is.

Unfortunately, knowing the mindset of my fellow Americans, this will lead to an increase in imports of these larger species since people have a way to getting rid of them. There really should be a permit required to keep these species.

If there was a permit for these fish, and the fish were uniquely tagged (similar to a cat/dog chip), when a released fish is found the person can be fined and/or jailed.

This will never happen, as it will be costly, and fish stores will lose most of their big sellers.