Talk:Beluga sturgeon
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Isn't there something about beluga sturgeons now being raised in fish farms outside of Russia and surrounding countries? I heard something about fish farms raising these in Florida. Liist 00:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
This article is really full of bullshit, I really asked me what references were used for this...
This article is in need of some serious clean-up.
- Yes. It seems like nearly every paragraph has a comparison with the Mekong catfish or some other fish, which is confusing and quite unnecessary. I guess I'm guilty of this myself, having added the Ocean Sunfish comparison... oh, well. PenguinJockey 15:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted this nonsense: "While the beluga rules the rivers that it lives, being larger than most species of crocodile, when young, it is potential prey for brown bears, crocodiles and adult sturgeons. In egg stage, it has even more enemies, as it is possible that, like tadpoles and sharks, the baby belugas may eat beluga eggs. Despite its huge size, there has been no case of a beluga attacking or killing a human. Even human property (handbags, clothes, boats etc) have not been known to be attacked by belugas, regardless of the beluga's size. The smaller pirarucu has been known to eat children, though this is rare. However, it is also true belugas don't eat prey large in comparison to their body size; humans may be too large, and their babies are usually under their protection. The same applies for other sturgeons." but they page has been locked.Vitoldus44 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
And also this one "When in open ocean, the beluga's predators include killer whales, sharks and perhaps sperm whale." I'll check on occurrance in the Adriatic Sea, although it is not very likelyVitoldus44 23:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] this needs cleaning
1. the bit about living up to 150 years is a myth. sturgeons live at a maximum of about 80 years. 2. the bit about it being the largest freshwater fish with "unconfirmed reports" is a bunch of shit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.211.169.9 (talk) 04:53, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
- I have modified the age to match that given by Fishbase. Regardless of the truth of unconformed reported max. size, they are worthy of inclusion in the article, as long as it is clear they are unconfirmed (exactly as done in published sources). This is no different to claimed max. size in the majority of other large species, be that Lions, Elephants, Arapaimas, Blue Whales, Green Anaconda, etc, etc. Rabo3 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Assessment
Assessed mid-importance for WikiProject Fishes because of conservation status. Neil916 (Talk) 23:56, 16 May 2008 (UTC)