# Scientific References to Help Tanganyikans in Maine



## Gusmyster (Feb 3, 2008)

Hi:

I am looking for the best scientific reference material available for citation on Tanganyikan cichlids. I am planning on submitting multiple applications to the State of Maine Division of Fisheries and Hatcheries to add several Tanganyikans to the state Unrestricted list. There are very few species currently on the list, which means that it is illegal in the state of Maine to possess or sell most Tanganyikan cichlids. The application cost for each individual species is $50 (of which I am going to foot the bill, so others can hopefully benefit). Please help me help the hobby. I need answers to the following questions and would like to use citations to back up my answers:

a. Does the species potentially threaten MaineÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s indigenous fish or wildlife population or is a potentially invasive species?

b. Is the species threatened, endangered, or experiencing declines throughout much of its native geographic range?

The Commissioner may grant the request if :

1) it is part of a recognized scientific recovery or sanctuary effort, or

2) the requested species is to be possessed as breeding stock to maintain unrelated bloodlines, or

3) the species is available from captive-bred stocks not negatively impacting native populations.

c. Does the geographic distribution and life requisites of the species increase the likelihood of the species surviving in Maine if accidentally or intentionally introduced into the wild?

d. Is there a history of adverse environmental impacts of the species in other locations?

e. Is it possible that the species may harbor or disseminate an agent harmful to humans, domestic livestock, poultry, native wildlife, fish, other animals, or Maine flora?

f. Is the species capable of inflicting serious bodily harm to humans and/or endangering the public welfare?

g. Does the possession of the species potentially threaten a fish or wildlife population or the public welfare?

Any help, answers, suggestions for literature to back up my application would be great.

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

How odd... I've never heard that Maine's wildlife importation policy also applied to aquarium fish. Funnily enough, altolamps and fronts are listed, along with oscars, angels, and apistos. I can't imagine who thought a comprehensive list was possible, let alone a good idea.

That said, I've regularly seen many species not on the unrestricted list in pet stores in Maine. I myself have imported at least a dozen species not on that list. I imagine that your time and money may be better spent talking to your LFS, who I bet has plenty of unlisted species and better understands how the statute is practiced and applied in Maine.


----------



## Gusmyster (Feb 3, 2008)

Problem is that the majority of the LFS in Maine are a joke and have really poor quality fish.


----------



## Gusmyster (Feb 3, 2008)

Plus I like the idea of pursuing the challenge presented by this application process and adding some species to the list will be good for the aquatics hobby in Maine


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

Working on the unrestricted list isn't going to change the quality of LFS. :lol:

As much as I would like to support local businesses, I get most of my tangs from mail order and from other breeders. I haven't heard of this statute being enforced for tropical fish, even when clearly picking up boxes labeled LIVE FISH at the airport.

Out of curiosity, why do you think it's a problem, or one that you want to spend money on?


----------



## Gusmyster (Feb 3, 2008)

A couple years back the Department took action on a restaurant in Freeport. I am thinking about housing some of these species in a commercial space and would like to do it legally so that I don't have any trouble down the road. Plus, I don't see any harm in going through the process. I'm going to start with one species and if I like the results I'll submit another.


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

Those were koi, which are not legal to possess in Maine because of their potential to become invasive in natural waters. Fish that cannot survive outdoors here are hardly a concern to IF&W folks. But you might find out some interesting things about Maine bureaucracy, and perhaps get some clarification from IF&W staff on how the statute is actually applied. Good luck! :thumb:


----------



## FishFlake (Mar 7, 2010)

I didn't know this was an issue here in Maine. As Triscuit said, "Fish that cannot survive outdoors here are hardly a concern to IF&W folks."

Also, be careful not to wake a sleeping giant...


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

Seems like all you would need is one citation saying they need 78 degree temps to live. Can't find that in Maine, LOL.


----------



## Gusmyster (Feb 3, 2008)

I agree completely on the temperature issue, I think there more concerned about parasites and disease, however it is ridiculous that they allow some from the lake and not others (presumably if they originate from the lake they would be exposed to the same environmental/biological conditions. Also, I'm not afraid of waking up a "sleeping giant". I highly doubt they have the staff or money to chase around tropical fish hobbyists. I just thought it would be nice if LFS in Maine could carry these fish without having to worry about big brother stepping in and levying fines. Who know's maybe we get a bunch listed and someone opens an awesome cichlid based LFS in Maine!


----------



## Furcifer158 (Feb 16, 2008)

Sorry but this just seems pointless. :-?


----------



## GTZ (Apr 21, 2010)

Furcifer158 said:


> Sorry but this just seems pointless. :-?


Well then, you can continue to do nothing about it.
I say knock yourself out :wink:


----------



## shellies215 (Jan 7, 2011)

I would think if you were going to do anything you should try to prove that no tang is a threat, and get them all approved in one shot instead of $50 per species.


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I'm sure the $50 fee for each species is not negotiable. After all, each species would have to be researched individually. A way to prevent frivolous applications.

But please note that in other states that do not have this problem, there are no fabulous cichlid-based LFS, LOL. There is just not the demand for cichlids, unfortunately.


----------



## Furcifer158 (Feb 16, 2008)

GTZ said:


> Furcifer158 said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry but this just seems pointless. :-?
> ...


I will :thumb:


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

Every couple of years this topic surfaces in aquarium hobby circles... usually triggered by some over zealous case of enforcement. Reselling bought Tanganyikans would be a simple as keeping a receipt for the fish to show it was bought legally in Maine, so it's not truly illegal to sell a Tanganyikan in Maine is it?

Where this sort of request usually stems from is home based fish breeders looking to make sure that they won't get into trouble for home based aquaculture. Is that your situation? I'm just curious.

If you want proof that the species won't survive Maine winters, you'd likely want to hunt for some literature or articles written about Florida cichlid aquaculture. I hope that helps


----------



## ahud (Aug 22, 2009)

With no intent of offending anyone we are not being very helpful. The OP had a very intelligent and well thought out post and I am sure he knows if he wants to go through the process or not.

To the OP:
I would try to dig up any information on species that have successfully been made legal in Maine through the process you are trying with the Tanganyikans. Could be helpful.


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

ahud said:


> With no intent of offending anyone we are not being very helpful. The OP had a very intelligent and well thought out post and I am sure he knows if he wants to go through the process or not.


I thought about that too, but my deliberate lack of information is because I'm waiting to hear back from some folks I know who work for the IF&W. Our local watershed restoration project and some of the work I do as a geochemist has given me some good contacts. However, I know these guys don't have time or money to be worrying about pet fish that don't endanger native species.

So, in this case, I recognize the OP's right to pursue this, but I don't agree that it's a productive, necessary or wise exercise. Unless I hear back from IF&W that this is a good idea, I'm not going to be helpful because

- it's not going to improve cichlid availability in this poor rural state
- it's not something I've heard any hobbyist or pet store owner lament
- I'm unconvinced the OP has done the necessary background work to justify undertaking the process
- and it will cost state resources when some state employee (who's already overworked because of furlough days) handles the application.

$0.02 
Of course, these are just my personal feelings on the topic, and I reserve the right to take it back when proven wrong. :wink:


----------



## DJRansome (Oct 29, 2005)

I don't think cichlids would survive Maine summers either. As a kid I summered in New Hampshire and I barely survived. :lol: That water is COLD!!!


----------



## fmueller (Jan 11, 2004)

FishFlake said:


> Also, be careful not to wake a sleeping giant...


That would be my main concern as well. In German there is a saying: 'If you ask a lot of questions, you will get a lot of stupid answers'. That is particularly true when dealing with bureaucrats - and I am saying this as somebody who has worked as a bureaucrat for many years


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

:roll: (we need an emoticon showing a dope-slap or beating-your-head-against-a-brick-wall)

My contact shunted my emails up to the Division Director- Here's how that exchange went:


> Hello,
> I was hoping for clarification regarding pet fish in Maine. I work on a couple of hobbyist forums for cichlids, and was made aware of Maine's "unrestricted list" which includes only a fraction of the species readily available for home aquariums. Does this list apply to all tropical fish? It seems that it would be an impossible task to list all aquarium fish species or to begin to regulate their importation on such a fine scale. Here's an example of just some of the common genera of cichlids that are available for home aquaria: http://www.cichlid-forum.com/articles/a ... allery.php
> 
> Perhaps what I'm really asking is if it is illegal for a hobbyist to buy, possess or sell tropical fish not on that list?
> ...





> Melinda:
> 
> You are correct. You may not sell, buy or possess any tropicals that are not on the Unrestricted List.
> 
> ...





> Hello Peter,
> Thank you for the fast reply. I suspect that you may have more pressing tasks this week than explaining pet fish policy, but I would appreciate a bit more of your time.
> 
> I'm not sure I understand how the policy is implemented. I regularly see fish for sale in licensed Maine pet stores and in restaurant display tanks that are not on the list. When considering just the hundreds of cichlid species that are popular for home aquaria, it seems that the unrestricted list is rather abbreviated and arbitrarily enforced.
> ...





> Melinda:
> 
> The Unrestricted species list provides Maine citizens an opportunity to obtain common freshwater aquarium fish that should pose only minimal disease and aquatic nuisance species threats to indigenous Maine fish and wildlife species. The list is purposely abbreviated because of the cost associated with assessing disease and invasive species threats for each species. Individuals who feel strongly that an individual species should be added to the Unrestricted list may submit a formal application to the department requesting review of that species. Each application for a new species costs $50.00 and requires a response to a series of questions which I can provide to you. We recently had an individual interested in adding 1-3 cichlids from Lake Tanganyika. He has the information necessary to apply.
> 
> Peter


So- I take some of my opinions back- I'm guessing Peter is talking about the OP who _has _done his homework. And I'm just a lawbreaker, content to remain anonymous to the bureaucrats. It would cost me around $750 to apply for legality right now.


----------



## ahud (Aug 22, 2009)

Nice of you to go the extra mile and clear things up Triscuit.


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

I'd take a different approach and start communicating with your state representatives, the people you elect to office, to take a look at this. This should be a much simpler, less expensive process. Seems to me a little common sense could quickly expand the list without the expensive 'reviews' of each species.


----------



## jrf (Nov 10, 2009)

prov356 said:


> Seems to me a little common sense could quickly expand the list without the expensive 'reviews' of each species.


Yes, but that would do little to keep your Representatives brother-in-law employed at the Department of Fisheries & Hatcheries. :lol:


----------



## Gusmyster (Feb 3, 2008)

Yes, I did do my research, in fact as someone earlier suggested, I actually did ask the question as to whether I could submit species as groups (such as covering all Tropheus by submitting Tropheus spp.). The answer was no, it's $50 per species regardless of whether they belong to the same Genus. So I will start with one. I am going to try and max out the application with properly cited scientific references to hopefully make the reviewers job easier and the review less time consuming and hopefully successful. I will let you all know the results of my labor. Again, please feel free to suggest some scientific resources (I'm going to try Ad Konings material).

Also, one final note.....there is no doubt that the division is very hesitant to add to the list. Hopefully they will rely on the scientific documentation in coming to their decision. It will be very interesting to see how they react to an extremely well put together application. I bet they have not had one in years!


----------



## shon982 (Jun 18, 2010)

Just some things you could add and suggestions etc.
Hope even a little helps 

a. Does the species potentially threaten MaineÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s indigenous fish or wildlife population or is a potentially invasive species?

I live in Australia so I wouldn't know, but I highly doubt due to the species strength against local wildlife population and/or environmental needs it will not threaten any native species. This species is too small to threaten species and it's diet requirements will never be met in the local waters.

b. Is the species threatened, endangered, or experiencing declines throughout much of its native geographic range?

I think the site fishbase.com may be able to help you there

The Commissioner may grant the request if :

1) it is part of a recognized scientific recovery or sanctuary effort, or

2) the requested species is to be possessed as breeding stock to maintain unrelated bloodlines, or

3) the species is available from captive-bred stocks not negatively impacting native populations.

Yes, you should be able to see most Tanganyikan cichlids on suppliers lists to import them as pond raised

c. Does the geographic distribution and life requisites of the species increase the likelihood of the species surviving in Maine if accidentally or intentionally introduced into the wild?

No, there is no increase in the likelihood or even survival of a species if accidently or intentionally introducted into the wild.

d. Is there a history of adverse environmental impacts of the species in other locations?

No

e. Is it possible that the species may harbor or disseminate an agent harmful to humans, domestic livestock, poultry, native wildlife, fish, other animals, or Maine flora?

No, the fish are too sensitive and require perfect water conditions to survive. E.g. pH, KH, GH, temperature ...

f. Is the species capable of inflicting serious bodily harm to humans and/or endangering the public welfare?

No

g. Does the possession of the species potentially threaten a fish or wildlife population or the public welfare?

Again, check on fishbase.com for this information


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

prov356 said:


> I'd take a different approach and start communicating with your state representatives, the people you elect to office, to take a look at this. This should be a much simpler, less expensive process. Seems to me a little common sense could quickly expand the list without the expensive 'reviews' of each species.


Not a bad idea- the state government got quite the shake up in the last election, and there's a strong anti-red tape, anti-regulation agenda now. While I typically favor strong environmental protections, this is a bit over the top.

The trick will still be not to expose myself or other folks to overzealous scrutiny... Will I be looking over my shoulder next time I get fish airmailed? I think I preferred my blissful ignorance! :?


----------



## prov356 (Sep 20, 2006)

Interesting, the whole thing. They obviously do little to nothing to enforce this, as there are many pet shops selling tropical fish. Occasionally raid a restaurant, so they can get some publicity and show the public what your government is doing with your tax dollars to protect you. They rely on no one looking too closely at anything or having much knowledge about it. I think I'd try to find an ally somewhere in the state government that can help. But, I"m sure they've got other concerns, and might not want to get involved in anything that looks 'anti-enviroment'. Not a politically safe move. You'd have to motivate them politically with numbers of constituents involved in tropical fish keeping. Maybe start with a petition. I think the other approach of trying to knock off species by species at $50 a pop, while admirable, isn't going to be practical. The $50 fee is just an attempt to discourage any applications. If someone moves ahead anyway, then they'll to to plan B and find some reason to reject the application. I think as long as you don't ruffle feathers, they won't have the time or motivation to be watching for your incoming fish orders. And if you can show how it'll make the departments life easier... Come up with a way for it to be a win-win-win for the the hobbyists, poltiticians, and the ones assigned to enforce this. I know it's a long row to hoe.


----------



## Bluetangclan (Jan 6, 2011)

Haha, with the weather we have had here in Florida we have lost(is that the right word?) quite a few invasive species that cannot take the cold. I cannot imagine Maine has any such concerns. Last years freeze here in Central FL had all the huge plecos in my lake die off, my lake isnt giant by any means but hundred of dead plecos floating and feeding the birds.

Thats weird that they have done that though, I'll have to ask my breeding hub guy if its ever come up in his business.

Actually we have a store here thats about 50/50 cichlid/ saltwater. They have some amazing stuff, probably 50+ tanks of cichlids, each a different species or two. They have the traffic too, about $3k in FW cichlid stock every 2 weeks. Not all Africans, they have quite a few of oddball SA and Madagascar, plus about twenty tanks of normal Petsmart trash fish but better quality than the big boxes.


----------



## rnrsq (Jun 27, 2011)

I'm new to the forum and rather new to keeping cichlids. I am interested in this topic because I'm fond of Tanganyikas.


----------



## triscuit (May 6, 2005)

Welcome to Cichlid Forum- always good to see another Mainer on the boards. :thumb:


----------



## BioG (Oct 12, 2008)

If I pursued the issue, and I wouldn't I would address the statute directly, that is, legally. For 2-$500 you could retain legal and probably wipe out the whole deal which was probably never intended to govern the limits of ornate fishes etc. If they'll allow goldfish in maine then the "Wild Disease and parasite" notion is mute.

All this is simple as you know, but I'd cut the problem at the root instead of allowing an old statute to get modern playtime. You might get a senator to just pork the whole issue if you get a hold of one of his interns!

I know $500 is a lot, but if it's really an issue in your state then the local aquarium clubs should be more than happy to have a hundred guys throw in a couple bucks each as they'll presumably benefit as well?


----------



## rnrsq (Jun 27, 2011)

triscuit said:


> Welcome to Cichlid Forum- always good to see another Mainer on the boards. :thumb:


Thank you. I'm very happy to find the forum.


----------



## rnrsq (Jun 27, 2011)

BioG said:


> If I pursued the issue, and I wouldn't I would address the statute directly, that is, legally. For 2-$500 you could retain legal and probably wipe out the whole deal which was probably never intended to govern the limits of ornate fishes etc. If they'll allow goldfish in maine then the "Wild Disease and parasite" notion is mute.
> 
> All this is simple as you know, but I'd cut the problem at the root instead of allowing an old statute to get modern playtime. You might get a senator to just pork the whole issue if you get a hold of one of his interns!
> 
> I know $500 is a lot, but if it's really an issue in your state then the local aquarium clubs should be more than happy to have a hundred guys throw in a couple bucks each as they'll presumably benefit as well?


I do go to Church with one of our State Reps. It would be worth a shot just to bring the subject up.


----------

