Angel Fish.....

[angel_lover]

Oh my,its debate class all over again Sorry I always seem to throw humour in at the worst time.Well I'm gonna stick to my original comment.Fish eating other fish is natural,as with animals eating animals etc.And I also think its perfectly ok to breed or buy fish for food.Circle of life!!Havent you seen the lion king??That guy Mufasa knows what hes talking about :kira: ..Sorrry i had to

 

[andyt_uk]

Worms etc...

Feeding fishes by giving them other fishes (vertebrate) is also forbidden here in Fin. And it's good.. First you should check your law (animal laws) and then think about ethical side. Of course they eat small fishes in nature, but is it ok to buy or breed fishes for food?

how on earth can that law be upheld?

how can you stop fish breeding?

how can you stop a small fish losing a fight with a bigger fish, or stop them swimming into the mouth of the bigger fish?

 

[Sondan]

Angel
Mufasa and the Lion King...I have not seen that show for a while. My nieces and nephew loved to watch that thing...over and over and over and over.
Signed,
Sondan

 

[missyintx_99]

I find this amazing. I would never have imagined that there would be any place in the world that would have this kind of law.
I buy feeder fish, mainly rosie reds and goldfish here, to feed my fish regularly.
I never would have thought it to be unethical since it is the natural way of things in the wild. Fish eat other fish just like a tiger or panther eats a rabbit or other prey.

Fascinating, simply fascinating.

As far as the death penalty goes, I think by doing it so privately they are proving it is shameful. I am not against having a death penalty, but I think it should be done in the open, where all can see. Maybe if they did it that way, violent crime would drop.

 

[smb]

I find this amazing. I would never have imagined that there would be any place in the world that would have this kind of law.

LOL, well it's pretty dumb to have a law like that and even more dumb to think it can be enforced.

 

[missyintx_99]

I find this amazing. I would never have imagined that there would be any place in the world that would have this kind of law.

LOL, well it's pretty dumb to have a law like that and even more dumb to think it can be enforced.

I have to agree.
They would probably try to commit any law maker in this state if they even brought up the thought of a similar law.
I'm all for ethical treatment of animals but lets be realistic.

 

[Cian McLiam]

Well on the other hand, how many laws are truly enforced? Laws are passed to protect people yet in the vast majority of cases the law has to be brokenbefore it is enforced. A law against murder is not much use to a dead person.
Laws allow a wrong to be righted, but there must be wrong doing to begin with.

I think the point is that a law sets out what the society sees as unacceptable, it is there for anyone to read for a kind of moral guidance.

Perhaps the person thinking of feeding the fishes will think twice if he knows that it is unlawful, perhaps not, but in the bigger picture society has said 'we dont like what you are doing' and I suppose theres nothing more you can do.

Ken

 

[CFC]

There was a case some years ago of a pub landlord (in England) feeding live guppies to his oscar and taking bets on which guppy would last the longest before being munched, the proceeds were donated to charity. The RSPCA got wind of this and succesfully prosecuted the landlord for animal cruelty with him recieving a large fine and being banned from keeping any animals for a period of time (5 years is the usual for a first offence). Here animal cruelty is taken quite seriously and although the legal system does drag its heals in cases of animal cruelty those who are brought to court recieve stiff punishments, a old aquaintance of mine was imprisoned for a year for feeding live guinea pigs and piglets to his 20ft python and had the snake confiscated.

 

[Jo]

I'm all a bit confused by this kinda topic, I can see that feeding fish to other fish isn't neccessarily wrong (heck, I've done it myself!)

And when it gets to the extremes that CFC is saying about people being arrested it is going a bit far, but I think that it's hard to know where to draw the line on this one...is horseracing cruel, dog racing, hunting...where should the line be drawn...so I'm going to sit well and truly on the fence until someone persuades me one way of the other I think....feeding fish to fish for food is not cruel, so i dont see how making a sport of it (eg accepting bets on what gets eaten first), provided nothing unatural is done to the fish can be considered cruel...?

 

[missyintx_99]

I'm all a bit confused by this kinda topic, I can see that feeding fish to other fish isn't neccessarily wrong (heck, I've done it myself!)

And when it gets to the extremes that CFC is saying about people being arrested it is going a bit far, but I think that it's hard to know where to draw the line on this one...is horseracing cruel, dog racing, hunting...where should the line be drawn...so I'm going to sit well and truly on the fence until someone persuades me one way of the other I think....feeding fish to fish for food is not cruel, so i dont see how making a sport of it (eg accepting bets on what gets eaten first), provided nothing unatural is done to the fish can be considered cruel...?

I'm with you on this one. I don't understand how the pub owner's actions could be considered cruel. And as far as the snake guy goes, what else was he supposed to feed the snake? Would it have been considered a crime if he fed the snake nothing but white mice?
Cruelity to an animal would in my eyes be not feeding them, not doing what was needed to keep them healthy, abandoning an animal, that sort of thing.
Those are the things that are offensive and should be prosecuted. Not feeding your pet the kind of diet that they would eat if in the wild.
What ever happened to common sense on this one?
Sheesh~

 

[Sondan]

Yes I don't see how the pub owner got into trouble for that. I can understand the gambling side but not the animal cruelty side. If he had not taken bets I bet nothing would have been done. So the real crime was gambling...not animal cruelty. I guess city people who have no idea how mother nature will always try and "Do the right thing" but in the end....They learn. What is the only thing we have not been able to control...mother nature. I just don't understand how killing the animal BEFORE you feed him is some how better then letting the animal take is natural course and do it himself. If I butcher a chicken in 2 days and then eat him or butcher him in 5 minutes and eat him...what is the difference Mr. V or any one else, can you shed some light on this please?
Signed,
Sondan

 

[Cian McLiam]

Sondan,
I think the point is drawing a line between killing an animal out of neccessity ie my fish wont eat anything else, and killing an animal for spectacle or enjoyment. This should rightly be stamped out and a clear message given, I dont agree with the prison sentences given but we must distinguish why the decision was made from what we see as a necessity.
As you pointed out earlier, the death penalty is used as a deterrent and as a revenge act for a serious crime. A psychopath killing a person for their own gratification is of course viewed as sick and worthy or the highest punishment. The result is the same, a person is killed, but the reasoning behind it in both cases is calculated, one is socially accepted in parts the other is not.
An extension of this to animals is only right, we must not glory in the suffering of animals.

Ken

 

[mrV]

But they were alive once, and maybe even bred for eating

Hopefully they were alive.. But the idea was, that they have fished for food and killed before they are eaten. It's huge difference to eat dead fish than eat living fish to dead.

Whoa I know how to get around this Fin Law. Take the fish out of the tank....Knock the fish silly until he dies and then feed him.

Because fishes are vertebrates, they belong to same category than other vertebrates and it's forbidden to feed animals by vertebrates - vertebrates including fishes have good nervous system. It's also said (in law of animal protection), that owner must be take good care of animals and protect them from unnessecary pain.

I mean what is the big deal if the fish is dead when you eat it or it is living?

Try to bite yourself and ask this question again.

Yes it is very natural...it is called a lake, an ocean, or a pond (manmade or natural).

You cannot affect what happens in nature, but you can affect your own doing. So is it ethical to keep predators and small fishes in same tank at the same time? If you answer yes, then consider the situation that tank is limited. Those fishes have no change to escape. Is it still ethical? Or is it just fun?

how on earth can that law be upheld?

Most finnish have very concerned about health of animals and want their best. And I don't even believe that only we have these laws. Haven't checked swedish or german laws... Have to check them in better time.

how can you stop fish breeding?

Why should I stop? I choose fishes which don't breed so easy and keep them in a way that they don't get so much fry. And if Im going to breed them, I'll ask from lfs do they want to take them. If not, I don't see, why to breed them if I haven't any change to give them away or keep them in another tank(s).

how can you stop a small fish losing a fight with a bigger fish, or stop them swimming into the mouth of the bigger fish?

I have no need to do that, because I don't put those fishes into same tank. You should use common sense when choosing fishes.

LOL, well it's pretty dumb to have a law like that and even more dumb to think it can be enforced

Well, this is your opinion. Have you checked your laws of animal protection? Are you sure, that it is allowed to feed vertebrates by vertebrates? (Fish is vertebrate too.)

Most hobbiests here in Fin are even more demanding, including me. We want that it should be written in law that the bigger the fish is the larger tank it needs. It has been written already, but it has said too generally. Most of us want too that those mutant creatures (too breeded goldfishes, parrots etc...) would be forbidded to import. But it's quite risky.

 

[CFC]

My girlfriend keeps snakes and none of them have ever eaten a live animal in their lives and are quite happy with the diet of frozen mice (pinkies when smaller) that they are given, the guy who used guinea pigs and piglets was doing it for his own perverse pleasure of watching his snake crush and kill a living creature, the snake would have happilly eaten frozen rats. I know many of you are having trouble getting your heads around the difference between live and dead foods but the difference is that the dead frozen foods have been killed in the most humane way possilble, the live ones have been killed in the way of their worst nightmares. How would you preffer to die, quietly and peacefully while under the influence of a strong pain killer or kicking and screaming while having your body sliced and crushed by a huge shark? Most fish DO NOT require live fish to survive and will quite happilly take frozen alternatives and some will even take pellet foods which are proven to be nutritionally better, i keep and have kept more predatory fish than i care to remember and only 3 have ever actually needed live food to survive as they would not take anything else and would not have survived without live feeders, but these are specialised predators not omnivors like angelfish and most other cichlids and catfish.

 

[smb]

I've never said that fish need to eat other fish to live or not. I do it because I like watching them kill them. That's why I keep cichlids and piranhas. I like watching them stalk, tear up, kill and eat other fish. I love the carnage. I always will like it so everyone can throw out all the ethical thoughts they want to me. If we want to talk ethical, then I can say it's cruel to keep fish in ANY sized tank. And we all know we all do that so let's not pick and choose what ethics you want to support and what you don't.