And I think those that release store bought minnows into the water should be made to eat a pound of live minnows everyday for a year.

Ewww. slimy! Unfortunately, GA law permits the use of live store-bought fish as bait. We have a very popular bait shop here in town, selling minnows in variouis sizes (as well as worms, crickets, grubs, you-name-its).

I would find this hardly an offense in a public lake where people use (and dump) store-bought live minnows as bait every day.

This is a whole other issue that makes me want to scream at the top of my lungs and throw stuff......But to the hypothetical situation.

In my personal opinion I would NOT advise the release of the fish. The greater good here needs to be weighed.

Yes.. I admit the very little chance of this situation causing great enviornmental harm, but what are you actually teaching the kid about nature by just taking it out of the wild for a bit then just throwing it away ? It also says to the Kid that this is just fine to do, Of which it is not fine to do. In such a case here it would be re-enforcing the same behavior that should be discouraged.

...but what are you actually teaching the kid about nature by just taking it out of the wild for a bit then just throwing it away ? It also says to the Kid that this is just fine to do, Of which it is not fine to do. In such a case here it would be re-enforcing the same behavior that should be discouraged.

It could teach the kid to be interested in nature by watching a wild fish, possibly nurturing a life-long interest in the natural sciences. There are hordes of kids that never get the chance to look at the natural world (case in point: a college student in a class I taught who ran away screaming from a butterfly during a population study). A lot of kids in my area are barely allowed out of the house or yard, to keep them out of trouble.

It could also be an opportunity to teach about adaptation and not introducing species where they don't belong. We could say that we will watch the fish, but since it isn't adapted to life in our little bowl, we have to let it to. Similarly, if we have a goldfish in another bowl, it isn't adapted to life in the lake, so we shouldn't let it go. Since the goldfish was bred to be in a bowl, it is well adapted to that environment. We can even talk about the importance of not letting the two fish meet so they don't pass "germs" into the lake that don't belong there.

This kind of stuff isn't above a 7-year-old's head. It's amazing what they can incorporate into their understanding of the world. But if the kid never gets the chance to watch a part of nature, he may have no reason to care about it at all. The result of this is seen all the time. When I teach about environmental issues, I am constantly asked "why do we care"? Oftentimes, it has to be couched in terms of cost in dollars ("what would it cost to clean up the water mechanically"). I can only believe that this is the case because the student did not develop an appreciation for altruistic sense about the natural world. And these are college students, who will be out there making decisions on how to act, what to spend money on, how to vote, and what to teach their own kids.

I would find this hardly an offense in a public lake where people use (and dump) store-bought live minnows as bait every day.

This is a whole other issue that makes me want to scream at the top of my lungs and throw stuff......But to the hypothetical situation.

In my personal opinion I would NOT advise the release of the fish. The greater good here needs to be weighed.

Yes.. I admit the very little chance of this situation causing great enviornmental harm, but what are you actually teaching the kid about nature by just taking it out of the wild for a bit then just throwing it away ? It also says to the Kid that this is just fine to do, Of which it is not fine to do. In such a case here it would be re-enforcing the same behavior that should be discouraged.

Do I understand your objection here. Don't release the fish since it would teach the child (that may not understand these very special circumstances) that release is okay?

I'm not sure I undestand your "thowing it away" comment. The suggestion is: put it back right where it came from (not in the garbage) after a night.

We could say that we will watch the fish, but since it isn't adapted to life in our little bowl, we have to let it to. Similarly, if we have a goldfish in another bowl, it isn't adapted to life in the lake, so we shouldn't let it go. Since the goldfish was bred to be in a bowl, it is well adapted to that environment.

I know this has little to do with the subject but as a goldfish keeper and hater of keeping any fish in bowl I have to say, goldfish DO NOT belong in bowls, no more than any wild minnow species.

Now that that's said, I admit that I used to be of the mindset that it was alright to let fish go back into the wild if certain precautions were made (not housing with tropical species for instance), after all...hatcherys all over the country release fish into the wild on a regular basis. I do now of course know differently. I came to realize that even the hatcherys shouldn't be doing at...at lest not most of them, i.e. brown trout hatcherys. For the average person it's difficult to realize there is any risk at all, the odds of anything negative coming out of it is very slim. Your fish intoducing a disease, disrupting the genetic pool, outcompeteing it's smaller relatives...all of it seems like a streach. But even if there is only the slimist chance it will happen that chance is still there and we shouldn't take that chance, it's really not worth it. You can only gamble for so long until something happens.

I'm not too fond of keeping goldfish in a bowl, either. That requires daily water changes. It is too much work. Just put them in an aquarium.

Actually, I'm not too fond of goldfish, period. They are just small, inbred carp. And you saw what I wrote on the carp thread.

The real error with the previous statement (that the goldfish "isn't adapted to life in the lake") is that the goldfish is adapted to life in the lake. I have seen them in more than one small lake. The fact that they can survive there is undoubtedly one reason that Pennsylvania law (probably other states as well) forbids using them as bait.

The statement that the odds of spreading disease being very small doesn't justify isolation. That is like saying that you should not send your children to school because they may come home with an illness, or spread an illness to the other children. Of course you are going to send your children to school, and you deal with the illness when it happens. But I don't think the odds of spreading parasites are small. And I recall reading of a fish disease that is spreading across the Great Lakes area as a result of tropical fish introductions. Does anybody know anything about this?

Letting one's dog or cat outside, whether on a leash or not, exposes the animal to the environment, and the environment to the animal. Diseases and pests can be exchanged with the environment. Does anybody want to suggest that dogs and cats should never be allowed outside?

There are multiple sides to this issue. I can't honestly say that I know the right answer. I just know that if I don't want to keep it, I won't take it.

Dogs and cats must have their shots for that reason.

Please remember....sleepover only. Nativeplanter was only hypothetically suggesting a night sleepover and nothing else.

OK, goldfish adapted to be pets, or in an aquarium. Whatever. You understand the point. Teaching about adaptation was the point here. Whether or not fish should be kept in bowls is a topic for a different ethics conversation, I think. I'm just trying to get an idea across.

As far as the goldfish not being adapted to the lake, we could instead say that the goldfish "was not meant to live in our lakes". And if the goldfish was one of those fancy double-tail things, I think we could certainly say that it is not lake-adapted.

edbihary, why don't you think the odds of spreading parasites are small from this scenario? Remember that the fish would have been in contact with no other, while out of the lake for a weekend. Let's assume that nets, etc. were also not shared. Where would he pick up the parasites?

edbihary, why don't you think the odds of spreading parasites are small from this scenario? Remember that the fish would have been in contact with no other, while out of the lake for a weekend. Let's assume that nets, etc. were also not shared. Where would he pick up the parasites?

I wasn't referring to your hypothetical scenario. I agree with you. What kid hasn't brought home a toad, and then been told by his parents to return the toad to where it came from? As a child I brought home garter snakes and ringneck snakes, kept them for a few days, and then released them. Many children do such things. That is not a crime against nature, it is just part of growing up.

I was referring back to the original subject of releasing captive, tank kept, fish into the wild. I think that there are too many parasites out there, and they can easily be transferred into new watersheds. They might already be in the new watershed, they might not. Can you be sure your fish are parasite free before you release them? Maybe. That seems to be the subject of debate also.

Dogs and cats must have their shots for that reason.

I understand that, although they cannot be vaccinated for everything. Neither can we. People, animals, fish, etc. have all sorts of interactions with the environment, each of which carries a risk of spreading parasites and disease. That does not mean we should live in a plastic bubble. (Okay, so your fish can live in a glass bubble!) The point is that the line between reasonable caution and paranoia is not necessarily a clear one.

It could teach the kid to be interested in nature by watching a wild fish, possibly nurturing a life-long interest in the natural sciences. There are hordes of kids that never get the chance to look at the natural world (case in point: a college student in a class I taught who ran away screaming from a butterfly during a population study). A lot of kids in my area are barely allowed out of the house or yard, to keep them out of trouble.

Being the Senior Naturalist in an Urban park Nature Center I understand what you are saying and I REALLY understand the issue of Nature deficits in todays youth (and adults), However, I disagree that in any case that it is good to re-enforce environmentally detrimental behaviors. Releasing captive held fish is an environmentally detrimental behavior.

Your examples of how this 48 hour fish could be used to nurture a sense of nature in a child is not really what a non-trained parent would do for their kids. (They dump them off at my Nature center for that). If the parent had enough information and ability of explaining to a child the adaptations of Wild vs Domestic animals, I would assume that they would expose their children frequently to natural areas or something other than animal planet in the first place.

The problems that exist today when it comes to nature deficit disorder in the youth will not be fixed with keeping a fish for 48 hours and then releasing it. This really is a totally separate problem and subject.

I'm not too fond of keeping goldfish in a bowl, either. That requires daily water changes. It is too much work. Just put them in an aquarium.

Actually, I'm not too fond of goldfish, period. They are just small, inbred carp. And you saw what I wrote on the carp thread.

Goldfish (Carassius auratus) aren't carp, as you can see by the latin name, they aren't even in the same genus.

Letting one's dog or cat outside, whether on a leash or not, exposes the animal to the environment, and the environment to the animal. Diseases and pests can be exchanged with the environment. Does anybody want to suggest that dogs and cats should never be allowed outside?

Cats belong indoors, dogs closely watched or within the confines of a yard. Where either animal runs free they pose a serious threat to wildlife, they are no different than carp.

Cats belong indoors, dogs closely watched or within the confines of a yard. Where either animal runs free they pose a serious threat to wildlife, they are no different than carp.

Both should comply with leash laws. Even so, they still can exchange parasites and diseases with the environment. How does keeping a dog in a fence differ from keeping fish in a pond connected to a stream? I don't see that it does. You will never stop people from keeping pets, and you will never stop pets from interacting with the wild environment, whether they be dogs, cats, fish, etc. There are leash laws for dogs and cats, and laws pertaining to releasing fish. The laws are reasonable. But there is a point where we can go beyond reasonable, and enter paranoia. When we say don't transport a fish across state lines and release it, that is reasonable (IMHO). When we say don't keep a fish in a bowl for two days and return it to where it came from, that is paranoia (IMHO). The boundary between reasonable and paranoia lies somewhere in between, and I don't know exactly where. I don't think anybody really does. That is all I am trying to say.

Cats belong indoors, dogs closely watched or within the confines of a yard. Where either animal runs free they pose a serious threat to wildlife, they are no different than carp.

Both should comply with leash laws. Even so, they still can exchange parasites and diseases with the environment. How does keeping a dog in a fence differ from keeping fish in a pond connected to a stream? I don't see that it does. You will never stop people from keeping pets, and you will never stop pets from interacting with the wild environment, whether they be dogs, cats, fish, etc. There are leash laws for dogs and cats, and laws pertaining to releasing fish. The laws are reasonable. But there is a point where we can go beyond reasonable, and enter paranoia. When we say don't transport a fish across state lines and release it, that is reasonable (IMHO). When we say don't keep a fish in a bowl for two days and return it to where it came from, that is paranoia (IMHO). The boundary between reasonable and paranoia lies somewhere in between, and I don't know exactly where. I don't think anybody really does. That is all I am trying to say.

You don't see a difference between a dog getting loose and releasing a fish? Or keeping a dog in a fence and keeping fish not native to that water that is also connected to a stream? You must have a lot of wolves in your neighborhood....I might further add it's pretty tough to get a wolf to (a hem) procreate with a dog without the wolf taking the life of the dog. I would also have to further add the fact that disease transmission is quite different on land than in water. I'm sorry but releasing a dog is quite different than releasing a fish. Not a good comparison in any way.

Cats belong indoors, dogs closely watched or within the confines of a yard. Where either animal runs free they pose a serious threat to wildlife, they are no different than carp.

Both should comply with leash laws. Even so, they still can exchange parasites and diseases with the environment. How does keeping a dog in a fence differ from keeping fish in a pond connected to a stream? I don't see that it does. You will never stop people from keeping pets, and you will never stop pets from interacting with the wild environment, whether they be dogs, cats, fish, etc. There are leash laws for dogs and cats, and laws pertaining to releasing fish. The laws are reasonable. But there is a point where we can go beyond reasonable, and enter paranoia. When we say don't transport a fish across state lines and release it, that is reasonable (IMHO). When we say don't keep a fish in a bowl for two days and return it to where it came from, that is paranoia (IMHO). The boundary between reasonable and paranoia lies somewhere in between, and I don't know exactly where. I don't think anybody really does. That is all I am trying to say.

If you keep a fish in a pond connected to a stream the fish can escape, a fenced in dog cannot, surely you can see the difference. I have no problem keping fish in isolated ponds as long as those fish cannot leave the pond and enter a watershed. Compairing dogs to fish though is a bit of a stretch, that's like compairing apples to pinecones. For starters, many fish populations are isolated in small pockets of water, small section of streams or stream pools, vernal pools in woodland environments etc. Terrestrial life can roam all over the place, many species mix and mingle and exchange diseases constantly, it's a much larger ecosystem where there is an established order. Why do you think fishes are so diverse? Why do you think a fish can be found in one body of water and not be found in a stream nearby? Well with that fish diversity comes disease, parasite and genetic diversity. Besides dogs or cats or pigs or whatever going feral can have a nasty impact on wild places. For instance, New Zealand was an island with virtually no mammals except bats, humans come over with other mammals and now cats and dogs pose a serious threat to the flightless birds who evolved no defence against them. Over in Africa canine distemper is passed on to lions. Don't beleive me, read it for yourself http://www.sciencene...05/14905-08.pdf.
The aquatic world is a world completely different from our own and works in ways most people don't understand. We may sound paranoid but I think it's better to be safe than sorry.

Goldfish (Carassius auratus) aren't carp, as you can see by the latin name, they aren't even in the same genus.

Actually, the term "carp" encompasses several genera in the the family Cyprinidae. The genus Carassius includes, in addition to goldfish, such notable species as C. carassius, the Crucian carp, and C. gibelio, the Prussian carp.

Goldfish (Carassius auratus) aren't carp, as you can see by the latin name, they aren't even in the same genus.

Actually, the term "carp" encompasses several genera in the the family Cyprinidae. The genus Carassius includes, in addition to goldfish, such notable species as C. carassius, the Crucian carp, and C. gibelio, the Prussian carp.

Yes, I am aware. What I should have said was common carp, I'm just so used to calling them straight up carp since they are the only species we have in NY. They aren't in the same genus as common carp and often people think they are, especially since koi and goldfish look so much alike.

Please keep this on topic. Carp can be discussed in the Invasive & Exotics forum http://nativefish.us...b70cc3bbf039309. Any further Carp discussion will be moved there or deleted. This topic relates to the impact of releasing fish into the wild and not specific to carps.

There is an alternative to keeping Laura's hypothetical fish for life/destroying them/releasing them, and that is to find a new home for them. Aside from that, common sense dictates in this hypothetical scenario that there is no danger of disease transmission or problems related to selective fitness. I agree in this hypothetical case that arguments against releasing the hypothetical minnows amount to paranoia.

Presumably this family will not have a goldfish bowl handy, or one which has housed goldfish within the last few days, so they would use some sort of cooking vessel or jar to house the specimens. As far as I know, minnows are not known to acquire diseases which are common to pickles or other kinds of produce.