Controversial Fish Care. Ethics of fish keeping and tank sizes.

[hey]

 

God I want to visit many places in asia so bad though for the fish shops

[glennr1978]

Well this hobby is hypocritical. We are removing fish from the wild and plenty die along the way. I commend those trying to breed new fish so we can have less of an impact on wild populations.

 

Exactly. I just think it's funny how people are so quick to bash the guy that owns the tank in the video when we all are essentially doing the same thing. Except for me, my tanks are HUGE, lol.

[jack1978]

 

Exactly. I just think it's funny how people are so quick to bash the guy that owns the tank in the video when we all are essentially doing the same thing. Except for me, my tanks are HUGE, lol.

 

...............that's not what your wife told me

[Tamberav]

Exactly. I just think it's funny how people are so quick to bash the guy that owns the tank in the video when we all are essentially doing the same thing. Except for me, my tanks are HUGE, lol.

 

I trolled him for having an ugly scape and boring fish choices

[Dr.Brain Coral]

I trolled him for having an ugly scape and boring fish choices

Dang way to rip into him

[Cameron6796]

 

Oh I totally understand your point - I didn't think you were saying "hooray big fish tiny tank". So far - and it's good because as others have pointed out, these things often go downhill very quickly - it's been a nice, civil discussion overall. I'm glad to be discussing this in such a way. I think it's important for us all to think about.

Thank you for pointing out the fact that we are trying to keep it very civil here because people are on mixed sides it's nice to have it this way.

 

It's really just opinionated tbh. Some of us see nothing wrong with it while others are outraged or sad. Tibbsy made a great connection to the hostage situations, when you realizes these things you should naturally care. Yes my reaction to start a thread that caused rude comments was unnecessary it has turned into a great discussion about the ideas behind keeping any fish NOT JUST TANGS in a little glass box.

 

hmm.. tang tank size... that's never been a topic of discussion on any forum before.. lol, didn't your last tang police thread get locked by the mods for spiralling out of control?

Yes because that one was left to do so I only commented twice on it I beleive

[Dr.Brain Coral]

I guess if the tang is healthy it would be fine to have one but I would go as large as I can if I was going to get one

[farkwar]

The real issue is that we are anthropomorphizing fish in general, until studies come ....

 

On that note, if I were a fish you know what would make me happy, being comfortable knowing nothing around is going to eat me.

 

^YES^

[TJ_Burton]

Tangs, like all other fish, should be respected and given the necessary living conditions to:

a) Grow to their natural adult size in an appropriate amount of time
Live out their entire potential life span in captivity
c) Consistently show natural behaviour and little to no signs of stress on a regular basis

 

Until someone can prove to me that X tang can meet the above criteria in X size tank, I think we are all simply speculating. Ethics should come down to what is best for the animal, measured by criteria that are clear signs of an animal's positive health and wellbeing (like those stated above).

Most of us will never keep a single aquarium around long enough to accurately measure any of this. Tank crashes, moves, lifestyle changes, disinterest, etc. happen all too often, and fish are lost or change hands. If none of us actually intend to keep a fish for its entire lifespan, why are we so concerned about how we treat it while its in our care? We obviously do not take the life of the fish as a real/serious responsibility. I personally feel that people simply like to get up on a soapbox because it makes them feel better about what they are doing. If someone else does it worse, it must make me look better, right?

Do I think those tangs are in an appropriate environment? Hell no... but who is to say my methods are truly any better than his? Will my fish live its full, long, healthy life? Will I not accidentally kill it anyways? Who knows. I will certainly try my best and do what I think is right, but that doesn't make me any better than anyone else.

Just my two cents.

[hey]

Tangs, like all other fish, should be respected and given the necessary living conditions to:

 

a) Grow to their natural adult size in an appropriate amount of time

Live out their entire potential life span in captivity

c) Consistently show natural behaviour and little to no signs of stress on a regular basis

 

Until someone can prove to me that X tang can meet the above criteria in X size tank, I think we are all simply speculating. Ethics should come down to what is best for the animal, measured by criteria that are clear signs of an animal's positive health and wellbeing (like those stated above).

 

Most of us will never keep a single aquarium around long enough to accurately measure any of this. Tank crashes, moves, lifestyle changes, disinterest, etc. happen all too often, and fish are lost or change hands. If none of us actually intend to keep a fish for its entire lifespan, why are we so concerned about how we treat it while its in our care? We obviously do not take the life of the fish as a real/serious responsibility. I personally feel that people simply like to get up on a soapbox because it makes them feel better about what they are doing. If someone else does it worse, it must make me look better, right?

 

Do I think those tangs are in an appropriate environment? Hell no... but who is to say my methods are truly any better than his? Will my fish live its full, long, healthy life? Will I not accidentally kill it anyways? Who knows. I will certainly try my best and do what I think is right, but that doesn't make me any better than anyone else.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

 

Brutal honesty right there

[glennr1978]

 

...............that's not what your wife told me

 

 

Tangs, like all other fish, should be respected and given the necessary living conditions to:

 

a) Grow to their natural adult size in an appropriate amount of time

Live out their entire potential life span in captivity

c) Consistently show natural behaviour and little to no signs of stress on a regular basis

 

Until someone can prove to me that X tang can meet the above criteria in X size tank, I think we are all simply speculating. Ethics should come down to what is best for the animal, measured by criteria that are clear signs of an animal's positive health and wellbeing (like those stated above).

 

Most of us will never keep a single aquarium around long enough to accurately measure any of this. Tank crashes, moves, lifestyle changes, disinterest, etc. happen all too often, and fish are lost or change hands. If none of us actually intend to keep a fish for its entire lifespan, why are we so concerned about how we treat it while its in our care? We obviously do not take the life of the fish as a real/serious responsibility. I personally feel that people simply like to get up on a soapbox because it makes them feel better about what they are doing. If someone else does it worse, it must make me look better, right?

 

Do I think those tangs are in an appropriate environment? Hell no... but who is to say my methods are truly any better than his? Will my fish live its full, long, healthy life? Will I not accidentally kill it anyways? Who knows. I will certainly try my best and do what I think is right, but that doesn't make me any better than anyone else.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

 

Your two cents are worth more than anything posted in this thread, IMHO. Well stated!

 

 

...............that's not what your wife told me

 

She's given up her bedroom so that I could fill them with tanks. Must be doing something right!

[jack1978]

 

 

She's given up her bedroom so that I could fill them with tanks. Must be doing something right!

 

LOL, must be that silver tongue of yours.

[glennr1978]

LOL, must be that silver tongue of yours.

 

Whatever works..

[Alexraptor]

Regardless of the actual ethics of keeping animals in a glass box, I strongly feel that the world would be much worse off today if the aquarium hobby had never existed in any shape or form.

 

And I am convinced that for those of us who pour our heart and soul into it, we are providing our animals with a good life.

[Cameron6796]

^ sweet and simple one of the most positive things I've heard in this thread.

[khuzdul]

This thread reminds me of a study Oxford made on pacing and land based carnivores. Basically it found that a lot of carnivores exhibited stress symptoms (repetitive stereotypic behavior - see the NYC Central Park Zoo polar bear videos on Youtube, and breeding difficulties) and excessive pacing when confined to confinement unsuitable to their natural range. Some animals however thrive in captivity.

 

http://www.whozoo.org/Intro2003/ZachMercer/nature03.pdf

 

In the end, we don't have a similar measure of stress or psychological dysfunction for fish. Perhaps some aspiring marine biologist amongst us can come up with a study that we can participate in to try to get a better understanding.

 

In the end, while zoos slowly get renovated to be "more humane" to their captives, and some zoos are no longer keeping some animals, overall a lot of zoos still keep a lot of animals in confined areas far smaller than their natural range. The question of if keeping individual fish (and the loss of fish in bringing the ones that survive into aquaria) in potentially "inhumane" conditions compared to their natural ranges better for the species overall (needs of the many over needs of the individual) can not really be answered without getting a better measure of how keeping the species in aquariums benefits the species, and how keeping the species in aquariums harms the individual and species.

[Cameron6796]

Orcas ^ and seaworld

[khuzdul]

Cetaceans are not fish. Personally, I think that the evidence shows that they have recognizable stress symptoms in captivity!

[Cameron6796]

... Well still you said it reminded you of land based carnivores those are not fish.

[atrox]

It really just boils down to common sense. If the fish looks big in a small tank then the big fish would be better of in a big tank. Heck I'm quilty of it, I have a quarter size blue tang in my 40 breeder, but when it gets bigger it will move on to a larger tank. This is hobby is just like any other there are the ones who really love this hobby and then there are the ones that have pretty salt water fish because they think it makes them look educated. Although I agree in the humane treatment of any animal, We will always have the "idiots" like the fools who insist on wearing ball pythons like necklaces in public who have now hurt the responsible reptile keepers.

[NorthGaHillbilly]

To carry on with the pathetic fallacy, having children, or at least attempting the deed, is the true root of happiness. if you want to make your tangs happy, skip the tank upgrade and turn on the berry white and dim the lights

[khuzdul]

Straw men

[Lynaea]

Tangs, like all other fish, should be respected and given the necessary living conditions to:

a) Grow to their natural adult size in an appropriate amount of time Live out their entire potential life span in captivityc) Consistently show natural behaviour and little to no signs of stress on a regular basis

 

Until someone can prove to me that X tang can meet the above criteria in X size tank, I think we are all simply speculating. Ethics should come down to what is best for the animal, measured by criteria that are clear signs of an animal's positive health and wellbeing (like those stated above).

 

Most of us will never keep a single aquarium around long enough to accurately measure any of this. Tank crashes, moves, lifestyle changes, disinterest, etc. happen all too often, and fish are lost or change hands. If none of us actually intend to keep a fish for its entire lifespan, why are we so concerned about how we treat it while its in our care? We obviously do not take the life of the fish as a real/serious responsibility. I personally feel that people simply like to get up on a soapbox because it makes them feel better about what they are doing. If someone else does it worse, it must make me look better, right?

Do I think those tangs are in an appropriate environment? Hell no... but who is to say my methods are truly any better than his? Will my fish live its full, long, healthy life? Will I not accidentally kill it anyways? Who knows. I will certainly try my best and do what I think is right, but that doesn't make me any better than anyone else.

Just my two cents.

 

This thread reminds me of a study Oxford made on pacing and land based carnivores. Basically it found that a lot of carnivores exhibited stress symptoms (repetitive stereotypic behavior - see the NYC Central Park Zoo polar bear videos on Youtube, and breeding difficulties) and excessive pacing when confined to confinement unsuitable to their natural range. Some animals however thrive in captivity.

 

http://www.whozoo.org/Intro2003/ZachMercer/nature03.pdf

 

In the end, we don't have a similar measure of stress or psychological dysfunction for fish. Perhaps some aspiring marine biologist amongst us can come up with a study that we can participate in to try to get a better understanding.

 

In the end, while zoos slowly get renovated to be "more humane" to their captives, and some zoos are no longer keeping some animals, overall a lot of zoos still keep a lot of animals in confined areas far smaller than their natural range. The question of if keeping individual fish (and the loss of fish in bringing the ones that survive into aquaria) in potentially "inhumane" conditions compared to their natural ranges better for the species overall (needs of the many over needs of the individual) can not really be answered without getting a better measure of how keeping the species in aquariums benefits the species, and how keeping the species in aquariums harms the individual and species.

These are both great points but even without published studies we absolutely DO have access to large amounts of info about the needs of at least the most commonly kept fish and inverts. All one has to do is search for 'Tang' (haha) here or on other forums to find lots of people saying their smallish tang seems happy in their smallish tank. (And of course lots of people bashing them for it anyway). I would say that just because a fish roams in the wild doesn't necessarily mean they need a large tank. Obviously relative size comes into play, but if they only roam for food and to mate maybe they are content in a medium sized box with ample food and minimal competition. The natural behavior of the fish in the wild comes into play but I think the natural temperament is much more important. Tangs as a group appear to be fairly happy-go-lucky, "thanks-for-the-food", "oh-what's-this-over-here?" kind of fish. (That's a broad generalization, I know)

 

On the other hand the first page of this forum currently has about 8 threads from people having issues with clowns in smallish tanks. They won't eat, they fight, new additions to the tank mysteriously die overnight. Why is no one outraged about this? Clowns are obviously highly territorial and absolutely do not restrict their territory to an anemone. If put in a small tank (less than 30 gallons??) they are apparently quite likely to claim the entire thing and harass new additions, including other clowns, to death. I have gleaned this information simply from reading most of the posts in this forum a few times a week over the last few months. Yet because clowns are small and cute and don't appear to roam in the wild, people continue to put them in nano tanks and then wonder why they have issues.

 

I think we really need to lose the focus on fish size and 'natural' behavior in the wild, we are not keeping these animals in their natural environment. The focus needs to shift to how an animal behaves in captivity, ie its temperament or response to being confined with other animals and how it interacts with others in that environment (this information is absolutely available to us). This also needs to be applied to all the animals we keep, the penchant for certain species or animal types to be viewed as disposable is one of the biggest problems with this hobby as a whole.

 

I also know for sure that bashing people and calling them names does nothing to get anyone's point across, this was probably said somewhere earlier. There is always a diplomatic way to state your opinion, and really, without any scientific studies to back us up, that's all any of us are doing.

[Formula462]

Anthropomorphizing...a term that irks me when used that way.

 

"Stop pulling the dogs ears, he doesn't like that"

 

"Oh don't be silly, he's not a human, things don't bother him, he is not conscious in the same sense we are"

 

It's pompous, human, elitists that make those correlations.

 

Someone needed a study to prove fish feel pain?! Really?

It's always blown my mind that anyone short of a psychopath couldn't figure it out for themselves. No shit Sherlock! Of course they feel pain. What kind of detached idiot can't tell when something is capable of feeling pain or discomfort. That's why they don't lay there and take it when they start getting filleted (word?) They flip, flop, jump, and kick just like you or I would if someone were cutting our ribs from our spine without us being dead or unconscious.

 

If you needed a peer reviewed piece of paper to tell you that fish can indeed feel pain, then I'm afraid you're a ####ing idiot and you need to learn how to open your eyes and draw the obvious conclusions yourself.

[hey]

Anthropomorphizing...a term that irks me when used that way.

 

"Stop pulling the dogs ears, he doesn't like that"

 

"Oh don't be silly, he's not a human, things don't bother him, he is not conscious in the same sense we are"

 

It's pompous, human, elitists that make those correlations.

 

Someone needed a study to prove fish feel pain?! Really?

It's always blown my mind that anyone short of a psychopath couldn't figure it out for themselves. No shit Sherlock! Of course they feel pain. What kind of detached idiot can't tell when something is capable of feeling pain or discomfort. That's why they don't lay there and take it when they start getting filleted (word?) They flip, flop, jump, and kick just like you or I would if someone were cutting our ribs from our spine without us being dead or unconscious.

 

If you needed a peer reviewed piece of paper to tell you that fish can indeed feel pain, then I'm afraid you're a ####ing idiot and you need to learn how to open your eyes and draw the obvious conclusions yourself.

 

And, thread derailed.

 

and to note:

Just because a living creature has a preference to the way it is kept and treated does not make it capable of happiness or anger or sadness.

 

Stating a dog doesn't like having having his ears pulled is not anthropomorphism, it is an observation of a negative reaction to a stimulus.

 

Stating that a dog is sad because his ears were pulled is anthropomorphism. We cannot tell if a dog is sad or not in a scientific manner. Also emotions and their associated feelings are given names by humans, animals may in fact experience a spectrum of emotion far broader than we are capable of and we cannot prove this is true or not at this time.