The point is that it is probably too late now. If a clean list had been in place in the first place, we’d be saved having more cockroaches in our houses. And the favorite organisms for this kind of practice are, inevitably, the ones that have high reproductive rates, are extremely hardy, and can survive under a wide range of conditions. Otherwise people would not want to mess with them. We could have stuck with crickets for this type of feeding, but cockroaches were hardier and reproduce faster.
I did not know that exotic cockroaches were illegal in Florida now. Is that all non-native cockroaches, or just some of them? (makes me wonder about the other species which have been here for a long time - how are they dealing with German cockroaches, for example?) Will exotic pet dealers just switch to another species that will in turn escape and become invasive? Does the ban apply to CB roaches? At any rate, the roaches are still available, in Florida and elsewhere. (We know that some people smuggle insects in cakes, for example)
We need an attitude change, and people to understand that bringing in exotic animals for pets is just a dumb idea. The pets we have now create enough problems.
I am, or at least in the past have been, an aquatic gardner. Most people into aquatic plants keep them in aquariums and know what is invasive and what is not. I’d hate to have aquatic plants denied to me, and wonder if invasive aquatic plant species are the fault of aquatic gardeners or some other source of irresponsibility?
Aquatic gardens are undeniably and documentably responsible for water hyacinth introduction into the hemisphere. Water hyacinth control costs us many millions every year in control, and keeps us from getting boats through many waterways altogether. This is true throughout central America and much of South America, as well, all because somebody thought it had a pretty flower and these neat floats, so let’s import the darn thing.
Aquatic gardens are the most likely source of water lettuce established on the west coast, and the hyacinth that was recently found established in Illinois (and hopefully eradicated, with taxpayer dollars). People don’t usually document when they dump their ponds, or they flood over, or when they dump their aquariums, so it is difficult to track how the introductions to the wild occur. But clearly aquatic gardeners move a lot of things around, often illegally.
Movement of invasive aquatic plants into Minnesota (USA) through horticultural trade
Kristine Maki , and Susan Galatowitsch , 1
Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota, 305 Alderman Hall, 1970 Folwell Avenue, St. Paul, MN 55108, USA
Received 20 November 2002; Revised 22 August 2003; accepted 14 September 2003. Available online 3 December 2003.
Abstract
The extent to which invasive aquatic plants move via accidental inclusion in aquatic plant orders or sale of prohibited species is unknown. Forty orders were placed to 34 aquatic plant vendors across the US between May and September 2001 to determine the prevalence of movement into Minnesota via horticultural trade. Federal noxious weeds or Minnesota prohibited exotic species were acquired 92% of the time they were ordered and included Alternanthera sessilis, Butomus umbellata, Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, Potamogeton crispus, and Lythrum salicaria. Ninety three percent of orders received from aquatic plant vendors contained a plant or animal species not specifically requested; 10% of these purchases contained federal noxious weeds or Minnesota exotic species. Lemna minor was the most common incidental receipt found per taxa and per purchase, although Hydrilla verticillata, Lythrum salicaria, Salvinia molesta, and Potamogeton crispus (all prohibited taxa) were also found. Misidentified plants were found in 18% of the orders; unordered seeds in 43%. The sale and transport of prohibited aquatic plants likely presents the greatest risk associated with the aquatic plant trade. Other important factors include misidentification leading to the unintentional sale of invasive plants and the incidental inclusion of species during translocation.
Great thread.
Just wanted to add a couple of thoughts related to aquaria:
You mentioned prices for 55 and 40g tanks. It is very common for stores such as Aquarium Adventures to have reglar “buck a gallon” sales. If you don’t need a tank “THIS MINUTE!” you may want to ask retailers whether and when they have such sales. Larger tanks are generally $2/gal.
If keeping reptiles, a tank need not be watertight, so you can look for used tanks extremely cheap if not free. 55s are extremely commonly found used for a number of reasons. They are a mid-size, so folk often move up to them from a 10 or 20. But their dimensions limit what you can do with them, so many folk quickly desire to move up to 75/90/125.
If considering the poison dart frog/terrarium route, you might want to consider going whole hog with a paludarium. Perhaps not the project for a neophyte, but IMO just about the most attractive use of an aquarium out there.
As carp suggests, there are many examples of invasive plants attributed to aquatic gardeners. I remember watching a PBS show once that linked a horrific outbreak in the Mediterranean to a specific public aquarium.
Yes, most of the aquatic gardeners I know are responsible with their plants and clippings. But all it takes is one person flushing the wrong plant down the wrong drain . . .
Hydrilla verticilata is probably second behind water hyacinth in costly introduced invasive aquatic plants, and Salvinia shows every sign of being worse yet. Texas and Louisiana are in deep trouble with salvinia, and an eradication was recently attempted in Tennessee at probably a high cost in taxpayer funds. We don’t know yet it if it was successful. The above reference does not give me any confidence that the average aquatic gardener knows what he is about, or even that the vendors do, or care.
Yikes! we could start a whole 'nother thread on the issues of aquaculture and invasive aquatic plants. In this area, I agree that the pet industry has a LOT to answer for. In fact, other than some other exotics kept for commercial reasons, it is responsible for most of the problems in aquatic habitats with invasive species.
I do not however, support family, or genus bans as an acceptable method of control. It only drives the sale of the less dangerous species underground. I would like to see a lot more education, identification, and common sense go into the laws regarding this problem.
I think that Carptracker and all taxpayers have a right to be angry over government funds being spent to clean up or fix the environmental problems caused by un-conscientious, to say the least, sometimes, buyers and sellers of foreign species, be they plant or animal. I hate to see dollars wasted over stupid behavior as much as the next girl. And at first I thought that Acid Lamp’s line about “there have always been people who want to own them, what can you do, etc” was sort of a cop-out, but as you guys have been talking more, I guess I’m agreeing with it after all, I mean, what can we do if there really will always be people who want to own these things and will go to illegal means if they have to to get them and therefore be more likely to un-wittingly introduce a harmful species? What would you like to see, Carptracker? Stiffer penalties? And how far would that go? The point I’m trying to make now is that this problem of new species getting in and wrecking the environment was most likely caused by otherwise good people making mistakes, while all around us in this country we have PLENTY of people already wrecking the environment, knowingly, who get away with it scot-free.
Also, just want to say, my gut tells me that the whole planet could very well do without all snakes and reptiles. Permanently. Yup, we’d be fine. My gut tells me so.
Okay, I’ll grant you aquatic gardeners make mistakes, but things like lemna minor (duck weed) are so common it’s like passing a law making dandelions and European honeybees illegal because they are “exotic.” Who can I sue when I get a dandelion in my plant shipment?
Lemna is not the issue. You are right, it is very common throughout the USA, and it is also small and difficult to remove from other plants. So it is no surprise that it showed up inadvertently in most of the other shipments. But Salvinia molesta!!! Salvinia is a plague that completely covers large waterbodies and causes massive dissolved oxygen depletions. Ask anyone who goes on the (fresh)water in SE Texas or southern Louisiana and they’ll know what this stuff is and they won’t have any good words for it.
Minnesota prohibited exotic species were acquired 92% of the time they were ordered and included Alternanthera sessilis, Butomus umbellata, Hydrocharis morsus-ranae, Potamogeton crispus, and Lythrum salicaria. These are INTENTIONAL shipments of illegal goods. Hydrilla and salvinia, two of the three worst aquatic invasive plants in the world, showed up inadvertently in this study.
If I order a shipment of t-shirts and it is delivered with a vial of anthrax, it doesn’t make it OK if the shippers also delivered some inocuous underwear.
Most environmental contaminants dissipate or break down over time. Even contaminants like mercury, which does not break down, will move through the system and enter deep sediments and become less bioavailable over the very long term. Biological pollution, like extinction, is forever.
What we need is an attitude change, brought about through education and laws that make sense (How can what I am doing be bad? It is not against the law!). Also, when something is illegal it is clearly less likely to happen often and openly. If you really, really want that python for a pet, you will still get it - but the chance of getting caught and fined will make the people who sell it more scarce, and the price higher. That will have an effect. And, as mentioned above by Acid, many of these purchases are impulse buys. One does not make an impulse purchase of something that is not easily accessible.
Propagule pressure is important in the establishment of invasive species. Just one or two animals or plants getting loose, or even a dozen, is not likely to cause an invasion (although there is a chance and even small numbers of animals sometimes do create populations). Keeping the number of propagules down is an effective method of invasion control.
The problem isn’t the legitimate dealers, they guys who try to obey the rules, who won’t deal with obvious illegalities, don’t import critters on the CITES list, who vet their customers before selling a difficult to care for exotic, who refuse to obtain wolf pups for people with odd sexual desires, and so forth.
The problem is the guys who are out and out illegal, who will smuggle a thousand parrots in horrific conditions on the hopes a dozen will survive for resale, who happily hunt down the last of a species, and so on. The problem is also people with monstrous egos who want a big cat or dangerous animal to look tough or guard their crack house or achieve some sort of twisted status with their bent friends. Passing more laws is not going to stop those guys, only more enforcement will have an effect.
Hell, there is entirely unintentional introduction of harmful exotics, like the Asian Long Horn Beetles eating trees in Chicago these past few years, or the Emerald Ash Borer, or rats on Pacific islands eating the local birds and reptiles into extinction. At least with legal pet shops there is SOME control over what’s going on, imperfect as it is.
Great thread! Both entertaining and informative. Good job AcidLamp!
I am sorry I came in late and read this -
I had hoped that someone would have asked this question and I would have my answer but didn’t find one.
What is it about monkeys that you found so disgusting? Monkeys appear far more intelligent than most animals and I would have thought that they would make great pets. I have seen a few pet monkeys, and also some in circuses performing tricks. That would seem to imply that they can be trained. Yet they are not popular as pets. Why?
I’m not Acid Lamp, but I’ve always heard that monkeys are foul tempered, intelligent enough to be stubborn and/or get into trouble, they’re strong, destructive, and, oh yes, they do fling poo. They also bite. Hard.
Latecomer to this thread, and have enjoyed it, Acidlamp. Loved the Hermoine story.
I grew up with all kinds of exotic pets as a kid, from biologist parents’ trips to South America and Mexico (bufo marinus toads are oh so cuddly), and being the default waystation of pets from folks who got in over their head, heavy on the fish and reptile dept.
A question for ya: What animals would you not sell due to their social requirements/needs of species ? And your observations with that in the trade.
I agree with you that invasive species suck, but this is just hysterical. Ecosystems, are not static, they are in constant flux. Invasive species usually thrive because they out compete a native species and have no native predators. Well, that is what has happened with every species migration ever. Some native organism will sooner or later adapt to prey on the invasive species and balance will be restored.
Give the lady a cigar, we have a winner! Monkeys are all that and more. It’s like caring for an evil toddler than can climb a greased pig. If you have the time to devote to them and are able to keep them with you all day, they can be wonderful and rewarding pets. For 99% of people though, they are best left to zoos. They don’t just fling poo, they also smear it, use it like playdough, and will gleefully rub into the bite wound they just put in your thigh.