Jump to content

Public outrage halts state's execution of Clay man's pet fish


The Rover

Recommended Posts

http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/200..._a_clay_ma.html

large_021109snakefishLL.JPG

Dateline: Clay, NY -- Feb. 26, 2009

"Rocky'' gets a reprieve, at least temporarily.

The NY State DEC (Department of Envirmental Conservation) officials said today they will not pick up Chris Deverso's 10-year-old pet snakehead fish today, as originally planned.

"We kind of wanted to do this low key,'' DEC Lt. Don Pleakis said. "The word of protesters and news crews kind of changed the scenario for us, so we're going to just pull back and look at all the options.''

Pleakis said he wasn't sure when the DEC would take the fish and kill it.

"Chris still has to give up the fish; he knows that,'' Pleakis said. "But for me to go over there today . . . it's not just a good situation.''

Pleakis said he understands what Deverso is going through.

"I understand this has been his pet,'' Pleakis said. "He's called the senators, he's called the legislators. There's just no wiggle room. This has gone all the way to the commissioner's office. It's been debated. It's a decision we've got to live with, and a decision Chris has to live with.''

Pleakis said all the publicity from the case may turn out to be a good thing.

"The word of this case is getting out all over the place,'' he said. "Maybe somebody reads something and he does find the fish a home. That's still not off the table.''

Previous story:

Clay, NY -- Time has run out for a Clay man's pet snakehead fish.

The state Department of Environmental Conservation today rejected appeals from the banned fish's owner to spare the 10-year-old, 28-inch-long giant snakehead.

Chris Deverso, the fish's owner, said DEC officers will pick up the fish today.

"I've done everything I can possibly do," he said. "They're going to kill my fish."

Snakeheads have been illegal to own in the United States since 2004. Deverso purchased the fish he calls Rocky legally in 1999, before the ban.

The invasive species, originally from Asia, has a voracious appetite, often consuming all other fish in a lake or pond, and even eating its young. It can also slither across land, staying out of water for up to three days, to find new sources of food.

Deverso has been trying to convince the state his fish is not a threat to Central New York waterways.

His main argument: His type of snakehead can't survive in our cold climate. He's also found one state, Maryland, that amended its law to allow people to own snakehead like his and others that would die in cold water.

"The DEC says it doesn't have the power to give me a permit to keep the fish," he said. "A state senator couldn't help. It's not like I can call (President) Obama and ask him to give my fish a pardon."

DEC Region 7 Capt. Woody Erickson said Wednesday that after reviewing the case, the DEC determined the ban on snakeheads does not distinguish among the different species.

"It'd be very difficult for the department to distinguish these species of fish and which can and can't be kept," Erickson said. "This has risen to the highest levels of the DEC."

DEC officers are working with the owner to determine a time that's convenient to pick up the fish. "We're sensitive to the situation. This fish was a pet," he said.

The fish will be taken to a DEC facility and placed in a walk-in freezer, Erickson said. The fish's metabolism will slow and it will die.

The fish will be frozen because the owner wants to consider sending it to a taxidermist, he said.

Deverso earlier this month pleaded guilty in Clay town court to possessing an illegal fish. He met Tuesday with DEC Region 7 Director Ken Lynch and Erickson. The meeting was arranged by Sen. John DeFrancisco.

He showed them documents that his fish is a subtropical fish that can't live in cold water. He also showed them the Maryland law that bans only two of the 29 species of snakeheads -- northern and blotted snakeheads -- because they're the only two that can survive in cold water.

Deverso has contacted zoos and aquariums, including the Rosamond Gifford Zoo at Burnet Park in Syracuse. No one local is willing to take the fish.

Now, he's just waiting for the DEC to take the fish.

"It's really sad," Deverso said. "There's no reason this fish has to be killed."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This particular fish could evolve to the point where it reproduced generations that might tolerate cold water. I wonder what its normal life expectancy is.

A Creepy Catch of The Day

By David A. Fahrenthold

Washington Post Staff Writer

Thursday, April 29, 2004; Page B01

The snakehead fish, a voracious Asian invader that's been known to breathe out of water and scoot short distances over land, has reappeared in Maryland, state authorities announced yesterday.

A 19-inch northern snakehead was caught Monday at a lake in Wheaton Regional Park -- the first appearance of the toothy green fish in the area since 2002, when the state of Maryland had to poison a pond in Crofton to prevent snakeheads there from wiggling away.

Unlike the Crofton snakeheads, the newly caught fish was not in an isolated fishing hole. Pine Lake drains into the Northwest Branch, which goes to the Anacostia River and the Potomac River.

Yesterday, authorities tried to play down the possibility that the predatory fish had spread, saying they used electric shocks and large nets to gather fish from the surrounding waters and had found no other snakeheads.

Still, to be sure, they said they will drain the five-acre lake beginning today.

"I'll be confident when the pond is drained," said Steve Early of the Maryland Department of Natural Resources.

The northern snakehead is native to China and Korea and is prized as a food in several Asian countries. It is imported to the United States for sale in some fish markets and as an aquarium fish.

If it is released in a pond or lake in this area, experts say, the snakehead is instantly at the top of the food chain: It can grow as large as 47 inches long and weigh 15 pounds. The fish can clean out a pond of native fish, officials said, and it also eats insects -- probably including this year's expected bumper crop of cicadas.

The snakehead caught Monday appears to be about 4 years old -- old enough to reproduce, though it is still too early in the year for breeding, Early said yesterday. Because the fish had not been dissected, authorities were not sure of its sex.

The draining of the lake, which is no deeper than eight feet, will begin this afternoon and probably be completed tomorrow morning, authorities said. They said native fish will first be captured and then reintroduced to the lake when it fills again with water.

Early said that authorities would continue to look for snakeheads in other bodies of water, including downstream. But he said that with a food-laden environment such as Pine Lake, a snakehead would be unlikely to leave.

"If they've got a good place to live, they're not moving," he said.

The fish was caught by Terry Wintermoyer, 23, of Silver Spring, who was trying to catch a largemouth bass with a lure called a top-water spinner.

Wintermoyer said yesterday that he had made several casts from the shore when he saw something dart out from under an underwater rock and take the hook.

"I was pretty positive it was about a 25- or 30-pound largemouth, the way it was fighting on the line," Wintermoyer said. "It's probably the most fighting fish I've seen so far."

When he finally landed the fish, Wintermoyer said, he was surprised to find a sleek, scaly thing weighing only about four pounds. He said it had the head of snake and the teeth of a shark.

"I hadn't seen anything like it in my whole life," he said.

Wintermoyer said that a friend recognized the fish from news coverage about the Crofton snakeheads. They put it in a plastic bag and took it to a nearby station of the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission Police.

There, he held the bag up in front of a window where an officer was sitting.

"I think I caught what they call a snakehead fish," Wintermoyer told the officer.

Officials confiscated the fish, which Wintermoyer said he would have eaten otherwise, and kept it in a water-filled wastebasket. Experts from the Department of Natural Resources confirmed that it was a northern snakehead.

Officials said they did not know how long the snakehead had been in the lake or who had put it there.

"I don't think there's any way to find" the culprit, said Doug Redmond of the parks commission. "If someone were to come forward and say they had done it, that's probably the only way to find out."

Redmond speculated that the snakehead may have been a pet that was released after it became too big for its aquarium. That was the case with the snakeheads in Crofton, which originally were ordered as food, then kept as pets by a man who lived near the pond.

In general, authorities sought to play down the threat posed by the fish, saying they were dangerous only to fish, not to people.

But Wintermoyer told a story that hinted otherwise.

He and his friend were debating what to do with the fish, which was lying on the ground inside the plastic bag. A park maintenance worker walked up, curious, and stuck his foot near the animal.

Suddenly, Wintermoyer said, the snakehead lunged.

"It put a pretty good tooth mark in his steel-toed boot," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2004Apr28.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting something entirely irrelevant to the conversation. Good debate tactics. :rolleyes:

They're bad for the ecosystem. Yeah, I know. But why can't I have one for a pet if it's doing no harm to me or anyone? It's not breeding in the wild or anything, it's sitting in a tank in my house. :slapface:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're bad for the ecosystem. Yeah, I know. But why can't I have one for a pet if it's doing no harm to me or anyone? It's not breeding in the wild or anything, it's sitting in a tank in my house.

Because people empty their fish tanks into the ecosystem when they change residence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If that were the case, but when there is a fish in the water...

Ok enough with the video clips ok and random pages? It doesn't prove your point if it's not relevant. I'm not impressed by a bunch of random clips/pages showing the exact same thing all right?

Christ, all I'm saying is that owning this fish as a pet when it was legal does not give the government the right to kill your pet NOW because all of sudden its illegal.

Please, read and reread this and enough of youtube

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok enough with the video clips ok and random pages? It doesn't prove your point if it's not relevant. I'm not impressed by a bunch of random clips/pages showing the exact same thing all right?

Christ, all I'm saying is that owning this fish as a pet when it was legal does not give the government the right to kill your pet NOW because all of sudden its illegal.

Please, read and reread this and enough of youtube

This is bullsh*t how cruel to stick it in a freezer to die. He bought it legally let him agree to surender it after it dies iin it's tank.

It's like the guy who had a horse that was 20 some years old lived in a pasture that now is surrounded by homes now they kick the horse out cause they don't like the idea of a horse in town. The horse and owner were there first for many years, now the yuppies want them out of their rural slice of pie.

They move rural to get away from the city, just to run rural out and drag there big city in and bulldoze over long time residents rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Christ, all I'm saying is that owning this fish as a pet when it was legal does not give the government the right to kill your pet NOW because all of sudden its illegal.

If the fish presents a substantial risk to the ecological balance, then the government may have the right to destroy the fish. This would be a scenario where the public's right to preserve the ecological balance may supersede the individual's right to own property.

For instance, in the case of the chimpanzee in Connecticut, law enforcement was called to destroy the owner's pet chimp when the chimp attacked a woman. Although the chimp did not pose a danger to the ecology, it threatened humans, and thus caused harm to humans and the public.

The fish, if it infests the waterways, could upset the ecological balance and adversely compromise the environment inhabited by humans. If the fish causes harm to the public, either by nuisance or as a risk to health, the pet owner's rights may be impacted to balance the situation. Apparently scientists have deemed the fish to be a sizable risk to humans due to its impact on the ecology of the waterways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the fish presents a substantial risk to the ecological balance, then the government may have the right to destroy the fish. This would be a scenario where the public's right to preserve the ecological balance may supersede the individual's right to own property.

For instance, in the case of the chimpanzee in Connecticut, law enforcement was called to destroy the owner's pet chimp when the chimp attacked a woman. Although the chimp did not pose a danger to the ecology, it threatened humans, and thus caused harm to humans and the public.

It is a FISH! It's in a tank, it cannot hurt anyone. Let him keep the damn thing as long as he agrees to not dump in a lake or something after its dead. But for now, while it's locked up and whatnot, he should be allowed "custody" of his pet of 10 years which he got while they were legal to have.

The fish, if it infests the waterways, could upset the ecological balance and adversely compromise the environment inhabited by humans. If the fish causes harm to the public, either by nuisance or as a risk to health, the pet owner's rights may be impacted to balance the situation. Apparently scientists have deemed the fish to be a sizable risk to humans due to its impact on the ecology of the waterways.
First of all, I must repeat for the umpteenth time that the fish cannot possibly harm the public so long as its in its tank and no retard jumps in to play with it.

Secondly: It could upset the ecological balance? So what? My neighbor's cat could attack me at any time, thus it is a risk to let outside. Should the government come in and shoot it too?

You're argument about scientists deeming the fish a risk is entirely off-base. They're saying that the fish as a species is a problem to the ecology, not that individual, living-in-a-tank fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a FISH! It's in a tank, it cannot hurt anyone. Let him keep the damn thing as long as he agrees to not dump in a lake or something after its dead. But for now, while it's locked up and whatnot, he should be allowed "custody" of his pet of 10 years which he got while they were legal to have.

Snakehead fish do not remain in the tanks of pet owners at all times. They are released into the public waterways where they multiply. Apparently the scientists and the government are not willing to trust pet owners to keep their fish restricted to tanks, even a fish that has remained in the custody of a private owner for ten years. These fish are seen as a substantial risk by science.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Snakehead fish do not remain in the tanks of pet owners at all times. They are released into the public waterways where they multiply. Apparently the scientists and the government are not willing to trust pet owners to keep their fish restricted to tanks, even a fish that has remained in the custody of a private owner for ten years. These fish are seen as a substantial risk by science.

Yes yes yes, so how about if he agrees to not put it in rivers, he is allowed to keep it hmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes yes yes, so how about if he agrees to not put it in rivers, he is allowed to keep it hmm?

You're going to take his word for it? What happens if he breaks his promise?

Deverso earlier this month pleaded guilty in Clay town court to possessing an illegal fish.

syracuse.com

Incidentally, that is one huge fish with teeth included, not indigenous to the locale, and not an endangered species.

Perhaps they could return the fish to its native home in Thailand. Night herons prey on snakeheads, as do crocodiles and sharks. It's possible that natural predators in Thailand keep snakeheads from upsetting the ecological balance. But they would need permission from the Thai government to transport the fish into the country.

Invasive "Walking" Fish Found Across U.S. South

Asked about importing some of the snakehead's natural predators from Asia, Williams said that "generally speaking, we don't want to go down that road." The predator may be an "injurious wildlife" on its own, he explained. Crocodiles, for example, eat large snakeheads.

news.nationalgeographic.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're going to take his word for it? What happens if he breaks his promise?
So because he "might" break his word, you're chocie of action is invade his home and kill his fish?

How about making him sign a deal and if he breaks it, he's in some trouble, sounds logical enough no?

Incidentally, that is one huge fish with teeth included, not indigenous to the locale, and not an endangered species.
So what? Irrelevant.

Perhaps they could return the fish to its native home in Thailand. Night herons prey on snakeheads, as do sharks. It's possible that natural predators in Thailand keep snakeheads from upsetting the ecological balance. But they would need permission from the Thai government to transport the fish into the country.

Or....they could allow it to stay in its tank, as was the law when he got it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How about making him sign a deal and if he breaks it, he's in some trouble, sounds logical enough no?

Or....they could allow it to stay in its tank, as was the law when he got it.

How would you undo the ecological damage of having the fish reproduce in waterways?

He's apparently broken the law by keeping the fish even if he acquired it prior to the ban. It appears that the public's right to protect the ecology of the waterways may supersede his rights as a pet owner.

There may be a federal law that applies as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:slapface: Another example of a non-indigenous creature in our ecosystem the "Nutria Rat"

Being a vegetarian it has caused extensive damage to our levee systems by tunneling

into the levees and eating the roots of the grass that helps hold the levees together and prevent erosion from rainfall and water currents.

As far as the fish goes "even" confined to a tank it can become a serious problem.

#1 when the tank is cleaned the water may contain eggs that may enter the waterways via the sewerage systems.

#2 You can't trust people to be responsible! Oh! the ignorance of youth :rolleyes:

anutria.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...