Ethics

[[bt]]

I'm sure this has been broached here before, but I am very interested in the ethics of fish-keeping. "But it's the same as having any other pet", I hear you say. Well, no.

Par example;
Today I've been searching for information about Dwarf Frogs, Harlequin Rasbora and Neon Tetra. I've come across all manner of amateur and professional sites and forums and have read a lot of postings.
Within several discussions on frogs, I came across numerous posts where the owner of the frog had written things like, "It's grown too big. I don't want it any more. Will the shop take it back?" and "It's eating my fish - can I release it in my garden?".

Similarly, I have noticed several occasions on this forum ("bored with my fish" etc).

Basically, there's a air of disregard for fish. When it becomes difficult or starts acting in a way that it would in its natural environment, we have no time for it.

I have always had a tough time ethically when it comes to fish, perhaps more with the act of fishing (bit of a shame seeing as I live in a huge sea fishing community!). I have opinions on how fish can be caught for sport and then merely released after all that stress on the fish. One would not catch a deer or bird, parade it around for photo's and then release it, would we?

I think it boils down to the fact that fish seem to be treated more as 'objects' and play-things than other animals. I don't know whether this has anything to do with them being small (as hamsters, mice, insects also seem to get this treatment also) or whether it's because there's just so many of them (although rapidly dwindling in the wild due to over-fishing).

If you'd like to offer your thoughts on this, please do. I would be very interested to hear them.
Here are some quotes I found very interesting:
"Its seems to me that attitudes to animals in the west are majorly shaped by the idea that God gave us animals to do with as we want. "
"I have never heard a persuasive argument in favour of animal rights. But denying the case for rights is not the same thing as supporting cruelty."
Taken from this BBC forum.

[chrisinha]

To me fish are pets just like any other animal and they are treated the same way I treat my dogs, my cat and my turtle. My b/f always says that I treat my pets better than myself. For instance, I dont cook for myself or for anybody else, but I do cook for my pets.

Anyways, I dont agree with the "i want to get rid of" statement. I dont return my fish no matter what. Instead, first, I try to solve the problem in a different way. That's why i started with one 10 g tank and now I have 5 different sized tanks. I might give them away to someone I trust if I run out of options, but I dont return them to LFS

[fish_doc]

I would say that if you plan on keeping them as pets it is your responsibility to study before you buy and be ready to keep them for their full life. Just as any other pet. Many people that buy parrots dont realize how long they live and get rid of them early.

Never release into the wild. although many do this with dogs, cats, birds, and fish it is only letting them go to their death or in the case with fish you could be ruining a entire ecosystem in some ponds.

With eating fish - Well some people keep pigs as pets. Im sure they have eaten bacon or ham. And that is the more interactive type of pet. You pet it train it and can snuggle with it. So eating fish is not a issue. Fish eat fish for survival so why is it wrong if we do it?

I would avoid eating fish kept as pets though it may cause many emotional problems and if they have been medicated while in the tanks there are hazzards to humans with those medications.

[[bt]]

Originally Posted by fish_doc @ Sun Mar 27, 2005 7:17 pm

I would say that if you plan on keeping them as pets it is your responsibility to study before you buy and be ready to keep them for their full life. Just as any other pet. Many people that buy parrots dont realize how long they live and get rid of them early.

I quite agree. If you buy just one fish, say an ordinary goldfish, you have effectively decided to look after that fish, no matter what. Therefore you should have done your research and should be willing to do what it takes to care for it.

I find it strange that people can quote that they like to keep their tanks clean and the water healthy as it's only fair on the fish, then say they're bored of them and want to get rid of them.

[Ron the handyman]

I agree also before I got my first tank I did my home work and I did a fishless cycle, I have a friend that is a chemist and he got me 39 % ammonia for it. cycling went fast R.

[fishfreaks]

i agree, fish are just like any other pet. They all need pretty much the same amount of care, just in a different way.

[UgLy_eLf]

I think that MOST people dont think of fish as pets because the first thing I usually hear when someone wants to set up a tank is "I need a center piece for the room" "They're so pretty" Those people dont CARE about the FISH they want something asthetically pleasing to the eye in their house.

I like how you used Game fishing as an example, no one trots around a deer, they kill it instead in stick it on a wall, yeah real men use guns to hunt eh they even to the same to fish...

[[bt]]

Originally Posted by UgLy_eLf @ Mon Mar 28, 2005 3:44 am

they want something asthetically pleasing to the eye in their house..

Exactly. That's what I'm trying to get at.
I know most people here purposefully set out to care for their fish, but it's a common occurance to see posts like "we bought a tank for my son and now his fish are dead. I need to get him some more, but ones that last longer".

There's a line that we've drawn somewhere that defines how much of a priority we give to certain animal life.
Look at this way - you see a chimp rescue program or advert on the tv and more often than not you feel sympathy and want to give money. It's the same with most large mammals, especially ones that "look cute" or have some form of "intelligence" (whatever that is).
But no-one bats an eyelid when they see film of trawlers hauling in thousands of cod. Imagine seeing film of a large bulldozer and dumper, scooping up chimps hundreds at a time......

I'm interested in the line that's been drawn, when it happened and why. Do you think we've always seen fish as aesthetic food? Right back to say our own Paleolithic period?

[fish_doc]

I know that I eat beef but I had problems when I saw video of thousands of cows being buldozed into pits during the mad cow outbreak a few years back. I guess survival killings vs needless killings are the difference for me. Killing for food is fine but needless death is hard for me to take. I do agree that the mad cow slaugher was needed but It was still hard to take because the meat was not useful so it felt like needless murder.

[TylerFlom89]

I'm a avid fisherman, I'm also probably about to make a ass of myself

First off, I would actually rather tranq. a deer and take some pics, then let it re-awake and leave if i could. Second off, fishing is shown to be the oldest thing done for fun. also, it's a lot more challenging then almost any other sport. Studies show that fish don't feel pain, and it has been proven that they don't have the part of the brain that inables them to feel pain, if they did, why do they always fight it? You could easily say that keeping fish in 4x2 foot tubs of glass is inhumane. I'll think of more later, and I'm sure this subject will be around for awhile. Finally, I am an avid fisherman, and also an aspiring fish___ (not sure what a person into the aquarium hobby is called hehe). I mean no offense, and I am just arguing for the sake of arguing, and since I'm a teen, it's the law I must oppose all adult thoughts !!!

[Fishfirst]

Unfortunately "tranqing" a deer is not black and white to shooting one. When you tranq, you have a lot of factors that could go wrong... wildlife managers are required to have a vet on call to tranq a wild animal. They can go into shock if you dose it too much, hurt itself if you dose it too little. Also you gotta admit that killing one with a gun is a lot better than a slow starving death it may endure without controlling the deer herd. lol just a little tid bit from the wildlife side. Also yeah fish don't feel pain in the maxillary area... but I think they feel pain in the body region. Also I believe that you can submit to a fishes needs in a 4X2 foot tub of water. They get food, water, and shelter... much easier than in the wild... but its up to us to keep the water quality up/stocking it correctly.

[UgLy_eLf]

Im growing weary of the "its just as inhumane to keep animals caged up" argument. Most of these animals are bred in tanks correct, now let's think about it this way.

You grow up in a nice home, you've got money, food, you're comfortable ahh its nice to have a heater in the winter time, and one day, PETA wants to free you!

They strip ya butt naked and toss you out into the woods, have fun fending for yourself.

I'd rather be in my room eating cookies.

[TylerFlom89]

Originally Posted by Fishfirst @ Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:34 pm

Unfortunately "tranqing" a deer is not black and white to shooting one. ****When you tranq, you have a lot of factors that could go wrong... wildlife managers are required to have a vet on call to tranq a wild animal. ****They can go into shock if you dose it too much, hurt itself if you dose it too little. ****Also you gotta admit that killing one with a gun is a lot better than a slow starving death it may endure without controlling the deer herd. lol just a little tid bit from the wildlife side. ****Also yeah fish don't feel pain in the maxillary area... but I think they feel pain in the body region. ****Also I believe that you can submit to a fishes needs in a 4X2 foot tub of water. ****They get food, water, and shelter... much easier than in the wild... but its up to us to keep the water quality up/stocking it correctly.

Sorry, should of made it clearer. I know it's not practical, I meant if it was, It would be nice.

[shev]

just a few things:

Studies show that fish don't feel pain, and it has been proven that they don't have the part of the brain that inables them to feel pain, if they did, why do they always fight it?

fish can feel pain. there have alos been many studies showing they can. but, they may not feel the pain of a hook in their cheek, since usually where the hook breaks through the skin there isnt much actual tissue. its instinct to get away when in danger, even if there is pain, many animals do so, even ones that we know can feel pain. like deer, I've seen them tangled up in a mess of barbed wire, and when someone approached they would rip and tear themselves out. if the fish felt it was in grave danger, it wouldnt simply give up at the first sign of pain.

but I also fish. but catch and release.

Also you gotta admit that killing one with a gun is a lot better than a slow starving death it may endure without controlling the deer herd. Smile lol just a little tid bit from the wildlife side

nature has its own system of keeping populations under control, the 'ol predator prey relationship. as the prey population increases, so does the predators, as the predators increases the preys decreases. in areas where natural predators have been completely eradicated fromt hey should be reintroduced.

but thats all I'm gonna say about that.

[Fishfirst]

we have eradicated many preditors in this country. That is why many populations of deer are out of control. Which is why we hunt here in wisconsin. In many areas of the state it is not possible to reintroduce Wolves, and Cougar... its just not enough wilderness and the deer have become quite accustomed to urban sprawl.

[[bt]]

Think we've gone a little astray from the debate I originally proposed.

However, I would like to put across my own views on some of the comments made recently.

"we have eradicated many preditors in this country. That is why many populations of deer are out of control. Which is why we hunt here in wisconsin"

1. Deer populations could never be 'out of control'. It's only out of control to us humans, because we don't like things ruining the controlled environment we've created for ourselves.
Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to when you've been brought up in the US), but this is not our planet. We don't own it (NO, the USA doesn't own it either).
If there was ever a population of any one living creature that is severely out of control, then it's us humans.

2. Why on earth would you want to knock out a deer just so you could take a few pictures of yourself with a sleeping deer?!!!
If things don't occur naturally in the wild (like a deer stopping to pose for a photo with you), then what right have we to force it? Especially when it involves some amount of suffering on behalf on the animal.

Which brings me back to keeping fish.
Why get rid of an animal you decided to raise and care for, just because you don't like it any more?

But now I think perhaps this debate should be moved to the chit-chat forum.

[osteoporoosi]

Why get rid of an animal you decided to raise and care for, just because you don't like it any more?

If a person who considers pets as toys, etc, it is often better to give it to someone who really cares about it.
In my opinion parents should teach their kids to handle their pets(or not to get any). Some people really seem to have lost their touch with nature.

[Fishfirst]

I agree... we don't own this planet and we are definately over populating it. But I rather shoot a deer to keep their population from exploding to the point where a good percentage of them would die from starvation. Starvation is a much worse fate than a gun shot IMO.

[cjdirri]

1. Deer populations could never be 'out of control'. It's only out of control to us humans, because we don't like things ruining the controlled environment we've created for ourselves.
Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to when you've been brought up in the US), but this is not our planet. We don't own it (NO, the USA doesn't own it either).
If there was ever a population of any one living creature that is severely out of control, then it's us humans.

Yes Deer populations can get out of control and have been even before we humans came along. Deers breed like rabbits and have the great skill of being able to live in just about any kind of area. There numbers can get high very quick but nature takes care of this by killing them off with not having enough food and such things. All hunting does is get the numbers down, you have never spent much time the woods of north america if you try to tell me there are not to many deer.

Let me put another way using rabbits and foxes. The number of rabbits in one area is huge, foxes being the main hunters of rabbits are enjoying one of the best years of rabbit kills ever, due to their good health they are breeding and living longer then they did in the years before. This means the number of foxes growing well the number of rabbits is getting smaller. Soon the foxs will be running out of rabbits and the weak and old ones will be begain to starve to death due to the lack of food. Soon the number of foxs in the area will go way down allowing the rabbits to once again making more babies and taking their numbers higher.

Good hunting just helps keep this cycle from getting to bad, most deer have no predators besides humans. Wolfs have been brought back to many areas but unless you kill every human right now they would never be enough to keep the deer levels in check.

Plus hate to sound like a asshole but I get to be the top of the food chain, I try to protect animals as much as I can but sometimes due to life reasons that little goldfish is going to be taking a swim down the crapper and due to the fact there is 10,000 more of him down the street I don't feel bad.

[chrisinha]

Originally Posted by [bt

@ Tue Mar 29, 2005 5:44 am]Think we've gone a little astray from the debate I originally proposed.

However, I would like to put across my own views on some of the comments made recently.

"we have eradicated many preditors in this country. ****That is why many populations of deer are out of control. ****Which is why we hunt here in wisconsin"

1. Deer populations could never be 'out of control'. It's only out of control to us humans, because we don't like things ruining the controlled environment we've created for ourselves.
Believe it or not (and I know it's hard to when you've been brought up in the US), but this is not our planet. We don't own it (NO, the USA doesn't own it either).
If there was ever a population of any one living creature that is severely out of control, then it's us humans.

2. Why on earth would you want to knock out a deer just so you could take a few pictures of yourself with a sleeping deer?!!!
If things don't occur naturally in the wild (like a deer stopping to pose for a photo with you), then what right have we to force it? Especially when it involves some amount of suffering on behalf on the animal.

Which brings me back to keeping fish.
Why get rid of an animal you decided to raise and care for, just because you don't like it any more?

But now I think perhaps this debate should be moved to the chit-chat forum.

i like you