# Should I set my fish free?



## woai75 (Dec 16, 2006)

Hello everyone,
This is my first time posting in this forum so I'm sorry if I post this in the wrong topic or am doing anything else wrong. I joined because I have a question to ask. Last year, my son came home from a fishing trip with a small (about 7 inch) largemouth bass. I didn't want to kill it and also didn't feel the need to drive 3 hours to bring it to the closest lake so we put him in our 50 gallon tank. Now, almost a year has passed and it's grown to about a foot long. My son is about to go on another one of his fishing trips and I was curious if I should send the fish along with him to be released. But, the problem is that it is so used to people now that it actually gets very excited and happy when it sees a person. I thought that might pose a problem since I don't want to release it only to be caught again. It is also very used to being hand fed and I don't know if it will be able to catch food on its own anymore. So, I was wondering if it would be best for us to release him or to start investing in a much larger tank.


----------



## flamingo (Nov 5, 2005)

Either give it away, or get a tank at least 180 gallons. They get LARGE, and releasing it is out of the question. While it may adapt back to hunting for food it may not and starve. Even if it did find a food item, possibiblity is that it wont even like how it tastes, since its so used to commercial foods.

Also, releasing any fish back to the wild is dangerous, as you might introduce some type of bacteria, parasite, etc. back in the waterways. May not, but its a precaution everyone has to take.

Keep in mind that since its been in an aquarium, that's how it should stay, and even though I suggested a 180 gallon tank, its still kind of small to keep one.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

Releasing fish is not only quite dangerous, but highly illegal. 
By your name, I'm guessing you're in San Antonio? There's bound to be someone around there who might want such a fish.


----------



## (RC) (Jan 18, 2005)

I don't know if releasing a bass back into the same waters it came from would be illegal. The last thing I did with a 12" in bass was eat it:fish: 


RC


----------



## woai75 (Dec 16, 2006)

Thank you, that info was really helpful! I'm going to be moving to a new house in a few months and plan on buying him a bigger tank when we move in.


----------



## Mazzy (Dec 16, 2006)

I'm glad you are deciding to keep him. I agree with everyone else that it is the best thing for him now. 
I, however, disagree that he will introduce something bad into a lake. When once captive animals are released, the concern is actually that the captive animal, having not been exposed to the diseases in the wild, will succumb to illness itself, not the other way around. All animals, including ourselves, build up immunity to what is in our environments. Since this bass has been captive since it was young, it hasn't had the opportunity to grow that immunity by being exposed to the diseases that it would have naturally encountered. 

If you want to give him to someone to eat, you can get rid of him that way - I know it sounds harsh since he was a pet but people eat fish everyday ya know. Otherwise, enjoy your not-so-new pet


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

Mazzy said:


> I'm glad you are deciding to keep him. I agree with everyone else that it is the best thing for him now.
> I, however, disagree that he will introduce something bad into a lake. When once captive animals are released, the concern is actually that the captive animal, having not been exposed to the diseases in the wild, will succumb to illness itself, not the other way around. All animals, including ourselves, build up immunity to what is in our environments. Since this bass has been captive since it was young, it hasn't had the opportunity to grow that immunity by being exposed to the diseases that it would have naturally encountered.


Actually its quite the other way around for captive animals. As a captive wildlife minor at UWSP, we have been taught that releasing an animal that has been exposed to other animals from different regions can have serious concequences. Quarentine is of the utmost importance when releasing new animals into a population of wild animals, although this applies to animals coming into a captive facility as well. So if you have had any other fish in the tank at any point in time whether it was when this fish was in the tank or not, DO NOT RELEASE IT. 
Its highly dangerous and highly illegal. Glad you've decided to keep the fish and get it a bigger home.


----------



## Mazzy (Dec 16, 2006)

Maybe you are right about the captive animals, I have never heard of that myself - I too have my degrees in the biological sciences. In that case it goes both ways. Captive animals in fact do not have the immunity built up to deal with what they will encounter in the wild. It would be like a person living in a bubble and then being released into general population - they would probably die from the common cold.


----------



## TheOldSalt (Jan 28, 2005)

Three words- Viral Hemorrhagic Septecemia. This virus is clobbering the fish of the midwest, and it's spreading fast.
The source?
Goldfish, among other things. This is why the import of goldfish into the USA has recently been banned, and you can bet that a great many oher fish will wind up banned soon enough as well.
Other sources are boats and runoff water during heavy rains.

This is just one example. Introducing captive specimens into the wild is a very, very bad idea. The facilities which are designed for the very purpose of this are just that, designed for the purpose, and they meet very strict management protocols put in place for the very purpose of averting such disasters. The home hobbyist could never be expected to have fish safe enough to release.


----------



## eimaj (Dec 8, 2006)

Like others have said DO NOT RELEASE IT. UP here in BC Canada, bass are not a native species, but through some pioneering down south fishermen, we now are having a heck of a time with bass overrunning local fisheries. They come they muliply and they eat everything. They are a threat to the native stocks in any lake they are introduced to. So well I don't know the down south laws up here it is illegal to not only release wild fish but to capture and take them home in the first place.


----------



## captaineddie (Nov 8, 2006)

Go ahead and release the fish back into the wild. Here in Georgia, game fish are raised in hatcheries and released into the wild all the time. This fish is in no more danger than these as the situation is virtually the same.


----------



## Gourami Swami (Jul 4, 2006)

If it is a local fish, Id say either buy a bigger tank or release it.


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

I think he's decided to keep it. Thankfully... btw, hatcheries are licenced and take measures against introducing disease into the wild... and even that can go haywire. Please do not encourage ANYONE to release a captive fish, this kind of ignorance can only waste billions of dollars in damage. Take a look at the Carp, once thought to be "Queen of the river" is now a very big problem in most drainages. Although a local fish is somewhat different, its still illegal for a reason. Disease in the fish industry comes from all around the world... native fishes can't cope with diseases they don't have any immunity for.


----------



## Gump (Aug 2, 2006)

Also hatchery fish arent mixed with tropical fish from around the world.

Pretty simple rule: Never release your aquarium fish in the wild.


----------



## Mazzy (Dec 16, 2006)

So anyway woai75 did you keep it? 
I disagree with the people saying you'd release disease into the ecosystem but that's just me. I didn't read about the hemmoragic disease of the gold fish and I personnally have never heard of a carp (in it's commercial orange coloration) actually living in the wild - it simply doesn't make sense that a bright orange carp would survive predators - it might-as-well be a red and white bullseye painted fish. However, I do know that non-naitve fish are reaking havoc all over the place due their release by unknowledgable hobbiests. That is because of competition for food and killing native species rather than disease.
Bottom line, your fish has not honed his predation skills because he didn't have to and could easily starve to death in the wild and your fish has not built up immunity to the natural pathogens that all animals build up immunity to within their respective environments as they grow into adulthood and so would easily succum to those diseases which would not affect an animal who has lived in the wild it's whole life and has immunity to. 

Again, I just disagree with others, that doesn't mean I think they are absolutely wrong or that I'm absolutely right. As all of us in the sciences know, different people, with different scientific backgrounds, have differing opinions on just about everything. Right now I am working on a dermatitis study for lab animals because most mice with skin lesions are labled as having "dermatitis" while I believe it is not actually derm at all. I just got approval and funding so hopefully I can prove that this is the case and the problem can be remedied, and these animals can actually heal for a change instead of always living with open wounds until it becomes inhumane to keep them. I'm sure many assume I will fall flat on my face and others have told me my hypothesis is insightful and promising - there's never 100% agreement in science (unless you're talking about the laws of course and even then I'm sure there is someone somewhere trying to dispute one or two or 'em  )


----------



## Fishfirst (Jan 24, 2005)

Mazzy, In wisconsin goldfish are prevelant in wisconsin waters. You see... comet goldfish CHANGE color! They can be a steel gray or a bright gold, and they can be found in the WILD in wisconsin.
Don't believe me? click here for the DNR's website on fishing wisconsin, and go to the bottom of the page and click on the pdf file called "wisconsin fish species" On the pdf go to cyprinidae on the list, goldfish is the ninth one down. 
Now I'm not saying it goes both ways... it does... but I find its more risk to the WILD population if an exotic is introduced, and it comes both in pathogenic and out competing wild species. The pathogenic part being the most problematic because many of our tropical species of fish don't do well in cold wisconsin winters. But elsewhere its different of coarse.


----------



## flamingo (Nov 5, 2005)

The actual possibility of releasing diseases into a waterway is so dismal, but it's there.

Like said, a native fish brought into capitvity may have gotten introduced to a disease from tropical fish. Even though it didn't physically show any signs of having the disease- there's no reason to say it's not a carrier. Although it may not be affected by it, another native species may. Even if you quarantine and quarantine, treat it with meds, there's a possibility that it won't go away. In some species of fish, or systems, a disease can cycle throughout it for years- or plain out forever, even though you don't see it.

IMHO, releasing any fish back is a risk in many ways. i've done it before yes, a few years back, but I also made sure it was eating okay, and had been teated and quarantined to make the possibility smaller of diseases, etc.


----------



## Gump (Aug 2, 2006)

This subject is one in fish keeping that will get me going. Mainly because to many people have the mentality that "whats one fish going to matter if i let it go". So now the list of fish i cant legally own in california is huge because someone in XXXXX state released a breeding pair of snakeheads into a local water way and now they are the apex predators and the population blows up causing all warm water states to outlaw them for aquarium sale. Same goes with piranha, gars, stingrays, etc... Look at Florida they actually consider oscars a game fish because there population has gotten so big down there. 

I know the topic is about a native fish but I still try to spread the simple rule of never releasing a fish after its been to a tank.


----------



## Mazzy (Dec 16, 2006)

I agree completely that you shouldn't release a fish back into the wild. I hope my post didn't come off like I was advocating doing so. I've heard of the problems in Florida, I used to own stingrays and have had several Californian's (over the internet) ask to buy direct (since they can't get them there legally) and here in Michigan, biologists actually caused the problem of non-native species issues in our Great Lakes by trying to solve the zebra mussle problem "naturally" - let's put lamprey into the lakes to eat the zebra mussles (oops lampreys are killing our native game species), let's put salmon in the lakes to eat the lamprey (oops the salmon are out competeing the bass for food - luckily the salmon didn't "stick"), and on and on it goes with zebra mussles STILL being the same huge problem they were before we introduced other non-natives to deal with them and that are now a problem themselves. What's more ironic... in NY they are using Sturgeon (one species of which being native to the Lakes and are dying out) to fight their mussle problem and they are suceeding. 

Luckily, here in Michigan, it gets could enough that MOST fish in the trade will not survive our winters and so we've been lucky not to have anything banned as of yet but I empathize with those of you who can't get the fish you desire because someone uneducated in our hobby thought "what's the harm"


----------



## mayastarocker (Dec 29, 2006)

I am a fish eater and a fish lover. In this case, I am the fish eater. Either you eat the fish, or else get a very big tank for it. Although the bass may be native, it may have diseases that are nonative. Here in Michigan, we have enough problems with nonnative species, I'm sure wherever you are at, I am sure that the state doesn't want to spend millions of dollars on a disease that can survive there and sadly thrive.


----------

