Angel Fish.....

[Sondan]

I love this topic!!
I guess Mr. V I don't see the differenece between a 10,000 gallon pond (Fish tank) and a 10 gallon puddle (Fish tank). So if a fish has a chance to get away then it is OK? So now it is based on chance now??? Cut it any way you want but WHO are the people making these laws? Biologists? I don't think so. I just think it is crazy when "WE" try and make new laws for mother nature. I mean so where do you draw the line?? Is a 1000 gallon tank natural? I have seen small ponds that low and the fish are still eating each other if they can and that is in the wild. Now I take that exact same 1000 gallons and I put it in my 1000 gallon fish aquarium and now it is not right??
I am with SMB on this. I like to watch other fish eat other fish. It is a natural part of the world. I mean the example of the Pinky mice not being eaten....so it is more humane to freeze them to death or suffocate them??? Sorry but that is an opinion. Anyone have an proof that it is more humane Wait a second....we are trying to change the natural world again. I have lived on a farm and I have seen a snake get into a mouse den and come out with more then one bulge in its stomach. The only difference is that I didn't SEE it. So if I do it in my tank where I can watch then that is not ok but if it happens in my yard it is ok?? With this kind of thing (TO ME!!) it is just one more way to remove us from the REAL WORLD. Life is not always pretty and clean where only dead things get eaten. I am not saying that animals should be purposely misteated but also Mother Nature has not silly laws like this.... It is a cruel world outside and when we realize it I think WE can appreciate it for what it is and also appreciate what we HAVE. I went hunting and fishing as a kid and I grew up to be a wildlife biologist. So am I cruel person for hunting? (Oh yes,,,,is hunting and fishing allowed in Finland?)
Signed,
Sondan
P.S. Again this was NOT directed at Mr. V but to everyone participating in this discussion.

 

[missyintx_99]

I personally don't find hunting cruel, especially since all the guys I know that hunt, eat what they kill. Man has hunted beasts since time began. Should it matter that we can more easily go to a grocery store and buy steaks already cleaned and ready to cook? I don't think so.
I also enjoy watching my Oscar devour feeders. My little girls who I was initially afraid would be mortified by this actually enjoy watching it too. I don't feel that there is anything wrong with it. It is as it would be if my fish were in the wild.
And as far as the snake thing goes, I personally can't stand snakes, but I can't see feeding such an animal nothing but frozen mice. That seems unnatural to me.
I've never heard of any snake in the wild climbing into a freezer to get his food.

I guess I am just not prepared to say that by man doing what mother nature does he is acting unethicaly or illegally.

 

[AquaNut]

I have said this same stuff on this board before, but as the debate keeps arising, I guess I will repeat my opinions.

How is it not cruel to take a snake that belongs in a jungle somewhere and keep it in a glass display tank for your own personal viewing pleasure, yet it is thoughtlessly cruel to at least allow that snake to hunt and eat the way it would in the wild? My daughter has a lovely storybook called "Stellaluna". It is a story of a young fruit bat that gets separated from its mother and lands in a bird nest. Although Stellaluna is a fruit bat, she learns to accept the insects that the mother bird brings for her babies, as there is no other choice available. Forcing our 'pets' to eat something that is totally unnatural and undesirable to them is cruel. As Jeff said, you can't pick and choose when you want to be ethical in animal keeping. Keeping fish in tanks is cruel, period, but we all do it for our own selfish enjoyment.

Although I also feed live fish to my other fish, my perspective is a bit different than some of the others given here. I am not a big fan of the carnage, and rarely even watch the fish get eaten. However, I think that if I choose to keep predatory fish, I owe it to them to provide appropriate conditions for them, and I believe allowing predators to hunt for prey is an integral part of providing for their needs. Perhaps you are meeting their nutritional needs adequately without feeding live foods, but they have hunting instincts I feel they should be entitled to enact. Furthermore, it helps my livebearer tank if I remove fish regularly. Otherwise, the tank overpopulates and fish start to suffer.

I have one more problem with this whole debate. Is the suggestion that if I wish to keep livebearers, I must continually stress the females in order to move them in and out of breeding traps or tanks, or should it be required of me to keep these naturally pairing fish in isolation from one another to prevent the impregnation of my females? Surely that cannot be the recommendation? If not, then I do not understand why it is okay for guppy fry to be eaten by other guppies in their own tank, but it is abhorrent and sick of me to scoop a few out in a net and put them in another tank, six inches away. That is truly delusional thinking. Fish eat other fish. That's the way it goes.

Okay, I lied. I do have another issue here. Do you really believe that the fish that were killed to make up the first ingredient on your can of tropical flakes lived and died so humanely? Where would you get the idea that this is the case? Do you realise how routinely animals are mistreated and abused by large corporations? Do you really believe that the millions of fish (or fish parts) that go into dried fish food were given individual humane deaths? Do you think they had their heads sliced off with a sharp scalpel and their brains pithed, as so many of you insist is the only humane way to kill a fish? When I put a guppy into my oscar's tank, it lasts less than 5 seconds before it is eaten whole. I challenge you to tell me how the fish in your dried food can be killed more quickly and with less suffering than that. Often, the guppy doesn't even realise there is another fish in the tank before Una gobbles it up. Una knows what it means when I hold that little net over her tank, and she is at the surface, waiting for the fish to drop from the net.

 

[mrV]

... guess Mr. V I don't see the differenece between a 10,000 gallon pond (Fish tank) and a 10 gallon puddle (Fish tank). So if a fish has a chance to get away then it is OK? So now it is based on chance now??? Cut it any way you want but WHO are the people making these laws? Biologists? I don't think so.

Do you feed dogs by living cats? Or cats by living mice? Or are they just better animals than fishes, bacause they are bigger (talking about fishes in aquarium), you can hug them and they can walk and do different things? Or do you think that fishes can't feel pain and you can do anything to them - because they are just fishes, nothing else?

I like to watch other fish eat other fish.

Do you like to watch dogs killing dogs too? Or is it too cruel? And if it is, why? Or are fishes only fishes again - because they cannot show their emotions/feeling so good that you can understand it? Dogs can and they even use their expressions to e.g. get something from human. What about fishes - they don't feel anything or pain at all?

I went hunting and fishing as a kid and I grew up to be a wildlife biologist. So am I cruel person for hunting? (Oh yes,,,,is hunting and fishing allowed in Finland?)

Fishing and eating living animal aren't same thing. And yes, good fisherman can kill fishes immediately without unnecessary pain. Bad fisherman doesn't even know how to kill fishes.

Do you think they had their heads sliced off with a sharp scalpel and their brains pithed, as so many of you insist is the only humane way to kill a fish?

Unfortunately this is true, but it doesn't either mean that "if someone else does it, I can do it too." But hey, many of us think exactly in that way: If my neighbour has something, I have to have it too. If (s)he does something, I have to do it too or I have at least rights to do it too, because someone else does it too.

 

[Sondan]

Do you feed dogs by living cats? Or cats by living mice?

Yes I do. When I was on the farm (as a kid) and I shot a birb with my BB Gun I would yell, "Toughy!!! Toughy!!!" and the old yellow tab cat knew that was his dinner bell. Now he did not just eat birds but also cat food. And more then once I saw him eating a mouse that he had caught. I still do not see the difference if I give him a mouse or he catches his own mouse. As for feeding dogs cats no because I don't believe dogs normally eat cats. They may not like them but I have never seen a dog just start chowing down on one.

Do you like to watch dogs killing dogs too?

OK there is a BIG difference between KILLING and EATING. Almost no animal is a killer but everyone kills something to eat. Killing is just death without a purpose....Hunting or Eating is death with a purpose. I mean we as people kill animals all the time to eat so are we cruel? Even if you are a vegetarian you still are killing animals to eat.

Fishing and eating living animal aren't same thing. And yes, good fisherman can kill fishes immediately without unnecessary pain. Bad fisherman doesn't even know how to kill fishes.

Well if you have ever gone fishing you know that it takes much longer to hook a fish, land the fish, and then club it over the head to kill it then it does for an Oscar to chow down on a guppy. I have never caught a fish and had it killed within less then 10 seconds. I have seen an oscar have a guppy gone in literally 1 second.

Now back to what Aquanut said. Isn't it cruel to cage a fish in an aquarium when they naturally live in 1000-10,000 of gallons of water?

Again I miss the point or difference between Big fish eating a Small fish in my fish tank and the same Big fish eating the same Small fish in a pond.
Signed,
Sondan

 

[AquaNut]

Do you think they had their heads sliced off with a sharp scalpel and their brains pithed, as so many of you insist is the only humane way to kill a fish?

Unfortunately this is true, but it doesn't either mean that "if someone else does it, I can do it too." But hey, many of us think exactly in that way: If my neighbour has something, I have to have it too. If (s)he does something, I have to do it too or I have at least rights to do it too, because someone else does it too.

I'm honestly not trying to be confrontational here; I think this is a good debate and I would love for you to convince me that you are right and I am wrong here.

Here is what I think on this. Most fish are not vegetarians. They eat other fish, whether we feed them live fish that they hunt and kill naturally, or we feed them flake (etc) food containing fish. It has been suggested that one reason it is not acceptable to feed live fish is that the feeders have no possible chance to escape or survive. I don't know what kind of fish are used to make dry fish food, nor do I know how or where they are harvested, but I'm almost certain that the battle is an unfair one. These are not fish caught by a lone fisherman with a lure and an afternoon full of patience. It has also been suggested that it's not okay to feed live fish because the death is cruel (natural, but cruel? Who are we to label nature as cruel and unacceptable; even if the capture is unnatural due to the confines of the tank, the actual death is the most natural death a fish can have). However, you are acknowledging that the fish in prepared fish foods have almost certainly died a more cruel death at the hands of the fish food makers. Is it okay to support the makers of a product who have inflicted worse suffering on fish than what feeding live fish would do, simply because it keeps the unpleasantness of reality out of your vision? Is that not burying one's head in the sand?

I also still fail to see how it's okay to allow guppies to eat guppies, but not okay to allow my oscar or my convict cichlid to eat guppies. If it's not okay to let guppies eat guppies, then it shouldn't be legal to keep them, because constantly separating pregnant females before birth causes totally undue suffering and stress.

 

[Cian McLiam]

I think after some thought I am with MrV on this one, the difference between what most people describe as natural predation and killing and what goes on in our aquariums is one of responsibility. No matter what happens inside an aquarium, every single fish and life we put into this enclosed enviornment is our responsibility, the predator has not selected and preyed, we have supplied.

This is the absolute crux of the argument. We must accept that every fish that goes into our aquarium is there because we chose it to be there, and as MrV said we have hypocritical views on the value of life. We catagorise the value of one fish seperate to another, one should be treasured and given the best of care, another should be fed live to a predator. If I said I fed Discus to a dog, there would be uproar in this forum. Why is a guppy different?

Whether a fish eats live fish or not in nature, it does not matter to us, as long as the fish is not starving, we are choosing to supply live food. Its the same argument a drug dealer would make, if you excuse the bad analogy. They are merely supplying the drugs, not forcing anyone to take it. The addicts are to blame.
It is the same with us, if it is necessary to feed live fish, that is natural and ok. If we go out and buy fish to be eaten for our viewing pleasure, this is something different. The fish are no longer the issue, our attitudes to other living things is.

I am no townie with no concept of nature. I have seen natural predation. I do not wish to see it in my tank. That is my opinion, nothing important. If I had a fish that required live food, I perhaps would feed it live food, perhaps it would be cuel not to feed it live food. Again this is a seperate argument.

My feeling is that live food is a sometimes necessary evil, and sometimes it is not.

Ken

 

[smb]

and as MrV said we have hypocritical views on the value of life. We catagorise the value of one fish seperate to another

I agree wth that and that we are responsible for what we put in the tanks and should care for them. That's why I feed them feeders once in a while because I love my cichlids and piranhas I keep. Does this mean I put a lower value on feeder fish? I'm not sure what it looks like but I'm here to tell you I do. I have a bond with my fish I have and they like to eat and chase feeders, so that's what they'll get from time to time. I just happen to enjoy the hell out of watching it. I don't do it only for my personal entertainment. It just so happens it's another animal they like to eat.

I get tired of people preaching to me (not you or anyone here discussing it but over the years and the whole buildup of it) about the ethics of feeding live fish and how cruel it is. I feel anyone that keeps fish in an aquarium is picking and choosing what ethics and humane treatment they would like to go by and what's worse, they preach to others about it. This imo, is the ultimate of hippocracy. If anyone here really cared enough about the fish then go right now, grab a net and dispose of your fish and never buy anymore because you are as cruel as I by keeping a fish that is used to a heck of a lot more space for swimming and in better conditions than whatever glass box any of us can afford.

People need to stop picking and choosing which cruelty procedures they choose to follow and ignoring the others that befit them and their enjoyment within this hobby. It's the hippocracy of this whole argument whenever it comes up that gets me. It's ok to do whatever you want want as long as you get enjoyment out of it but the preaching starts when someone else does something they may deem uncivilized. Some choose to ignore the cruelty of keeping fish caged up when sometimes the width of the tank is smaller then the fish and others take it a step further, like me, that chooses to add to the enjoyment of the fish I do keep and feed them feeders. I may be more cruel but I'm not a hippocrite. I guess this is a case of picking your poison.


And no Ken, I'm sure this might sound like I'm mad. I'm not. The "you" is not intended for you personally. It's not even really meant specifically for anyone here. Just the whole thing bothers me I guess.

 

[Cian McLiam]

If I had a fish that required live food, I perhaps would feed it live food, perhaps it would be cuel not to feed it live food. Again this is a seperate argument.

I think that sums up my attitude. Im not against feeding live food in any circumstances, as I say it can be cruel not to feed live foods.
All I am trying to do is point out that people should examine their motives before feeding the fish.

Ken

 

[smb]

If I had a fish that required live food, I perhaps would feed it live food, perhaps it would be cuel not to feed it live food. Again this is a seperate argument.

I think that sums up my attitude. Im not against feeding live food in any circumstances, as I say it can be cruel not to feed live foods.
All I am trying to do is point out that people should examine their motives before feeding the fish.

Ken

I totally understand and like I said my post wasn't intended for you or anyone here. You just happened to post last before I saw the thread again.

I know my motives aren't what others deem necessary and to be honest, it isn't necessary. I've never tried to hide that fact nor will I ever start. It's just what I do and how I give the best and most pleasurable life for my fish.

 

[Cian McLiam]

It's just what I do and how I give the best and most pleasurable life for my fish.

I am sure your fish love you for it too!
I think that you are correct in that it makes for a more natural life for your fish, that is a proper and right thing to want for your fish.

However, you must also accept the criticism of those who dont like to see the fish they are also fond of being fed alive to larger fish! People cannot pick and choose what offends them. I dont mean you should take criticism as a judgement on you or to stop doing this because people are of the view that it is cruel, it is just impossible to convince people who have a different set of values that your values are more valid. I think people should follow their concience on this one!

Ken

 

[smb]

I am sure your fish love you for it too!

Ima great fish daddy to my own fish.

I think that you are correct in that it makes for a more natural life for your fish, that is a proper and right thing to want for your fish.

Yea, that's all I mean bro. A well intentioned betterment for the fish I love is what it's about for me. I'm sorry it has to be at the hands of other fish but that's the way it goes, I guess. I don't mean to sound calloused about it but I guess after 27 years of having cichlids and seeing it and hearing those opposed to it all that time, you get that way.

it is just impossible to convince people who have a different set of values that your values are more valid.

Well, you see, Ken, this is the whole point I'm trying to make here, mate.

This is EXACTLY what I'm trying to tell others that disagree with the feeding of live fish and have to say so in every post about it on all forums, not just this one. Have you ever seen me try and convince anyone to feed live fish or tell of the merits or ethical values of it? Have you seen others that disagree with it talk about their merits and ehical ideals of it? THEY need to stop trying to convince people that their values are more valid and we can all get along in our own little fishy world.

I have come out and in essence said ...

"I feed live fish to my fish because I like watching them kill them and eat them and they enjoy doing it. It might not be right but I don't care what anyone thinks about it and I will always continue to do it"

They are the ones that are trying to do the convincing, not us that feed live feeders.

I think Kirsten made a good point that I never even thought of. What about the fish in the fish food. I KNOW the fish suffer much more at the hands of larger corporations. Are they going to stop feeding them that type of food now? Or is it because it's not being broadcasted they'll hide their head in the sand and pretend it doesn't exist? OR are we back to picking and choosing the ethics one chooses to go by again?

However, you must also accept the criticism of those who dont like to see the fish they are also fond of being fed alive to larger fish!

Oh, I do but that doesn't mean I have to remain quiet about it everytime they try and teach us their ideals and values.

 

[mrV]

Now back to what Aquanut said. Isn't it cruel to cage a fish in an aquarium when they naturally live in 1000-10,000 of gallons of water?

Yes, it's definately cruel to put fishes into small jar like into 2 gallons glassbox or buy large fishes an keep them in few gallons etc. Yes, it's cruel and that's why Im always nagging to people, who are going to put any fishes (except plastic ones) in couple gallons that they should use their common sense if they have any. Nowadays I don't usually say anything if someone askes something about keeping fishes in a small box, 1-5 gallons. I don't see any reason, because I think Im the only one, who is always nagging about keeping fishes in a small tank and everybody else gives some suggestions. It's very conflicting and frustrating. I think if you are going to keep fishes, you should at least give them good conditon. It means enough space, good water, food etc. It's almost impossible to keep small tank in good shape. How do you manage to keep good filtration or plants? Give enough space to swim and enough hiding-places?

And that's why I also keep only small fishes. If I bought some large fish, then I would need to buy larger tank. E.g. I wouldn't put clown loaches or silver shark into tank, that isn't at least 1,5 meters long for clown loaches and 2 meters (79 inches) long for silver sharks. If some one beginner asks about silver sharks on our forums, everybody recommends huge tanks and person who asked about them, usually start to thinking other fishes wchich are suitable for his/her tank.

I don't think it's cruel to keep fishes in tanks that are large enough. Think about e.g. some plecos which only lives their caves most of their life - does it realize difference between being in a cave in a tank or being in a cave in nature?

Or food? Most fishes become fat in aquariums, because they get too much food In nature they must search food, in a aquarium they will get it easily. So, well-kept tank might even be as "a paradise" for them. They don't need to do almost nothing to get food.

 

[CFC]

Many of the large predatory fish will also on occasion eat small birds amphibians and mammals but i wonder how many people would complain if i was to start posting that i was feeding frogs week old chicks or small rodents to my arowana (i havent but he is more than capable of eating them) or if i kept pirahnas and gave them live kittens or puppies to tear apart? Another main part of the natural diet of many predatory fish is carrion that has been washed into the river, does this mean to create a natural enviroment for pirahnas and large catfish i have to collect road kill and chuck it into the tank for them to experience a natural enviroment?

The confines of a tank are not the same as a free enviroment and has a different set of rules to those in the wild, in the wild a predatory fish would pick off the weaker and sick fish yet no one in their right mind would risk introducing disease into their tank via a sick feeder.

 

[AquaNut]

MrV - First let me say that I very much respect your posts on this board, so please do not take my position on this matter personally. However, you cannot have it both ways. It cannot be held that a juvenile guppy has the intelligence? awareness? thinking abilities?? to experience fear and terror when placed in a tank with my oscar, yet also be held that my oscar is unable to determine that the confines of her tank (even a 200 gallon tank) are a miserable excuse for the natural waterways in which she was designed to live. Aside from a cave dweller like the pleco you mentioned, I highly doubt that there are many fish that are kept in home aquaria that wouldn't travel further than their confined space allows if they were in their natural environment.

The other point I wanted to comment on was when you said that the fish would have to search for food in the wild, while in our tanks they just gulp it in at the surface and get fat. This is a good thing?!? I think it's better if there are guppies hiding in the dense foliage in the tops of my cichlids' tanks and they have to swim around underneath and hunt them out, working for their meal, if you will. I refuse to accept that the guppies have the cognitive thinking skills required to experience the kind of terror some would have us believe they go through. Guppies do not 'think', therefore they are not sitting amidst the water weeds, terrified as they contemplate their impending demise. They are doing what is natural to them - hiding in floating plants. The oscar is doing what's natural to her - hunting them.

Btw, I wholeheartedly agree that fish deserve to be given as much space as possible and the only fish I keep in 5.5 gallon tanks are my bettas.

CFC - Many people do feed live rodents to their piranhas. Also, while nobody would put sick fish into a piranha tank, they do still act out that natural behaviour by weeding out and killing any members of their shoal which are too small or weak to hold their own. Also, as deliberately facetious as your suggestion of throwing roadkill in your tanks may be, you obviously did not consider that that is exactly what is being simulated when you throw frozen mice into the tank (or frozen anything, for that matter).