Any body up for a challenge??

[The Lumpfish Guy]

Then why are companies allowed to sell the means to do so?

If I had a good answer for you I would give it to you, but at the end of the day It's not illegal for them to sell it, but it is if you house a goldfish in it

 

[mbsqw1d]

• the animals are kept in accommodation that is both suitable and clean
• that they are supplied with appropriate food and drink
• are adequately protected from disease and fire

So this is the law?

This does not even begin to advise how a person keeping fish as a pet should go about complying to this law.

 

[mbsqw1d]

If I had a good answer for you I would give it to you, but at the end of the day It's not illegal for them to sell it, but it is if you house a goldfish in it

Surely they'd be getting sued all day long?

 

[WhistlingBadger]

I don't know about the UK, but I think the AWA only applies to research facilities. We do trial and error all the time with pets without even thinking about it. I don't think anyone is going to go to jail for experimenting with alternative dechlorination methods.

I'm a bit disappointed with the uncivil tone that many people are taking in this thread. It feels like a facebook political discussion: Lots of yelling, very little calm consideration of other viewpoints. I feel like we're better than this. Maybe we should all take a deep breath and calm down.

 

[mbsqw1d]

And why might that be?

Because by your interpretation, you are experimenting on fish by the very nature of keeping them as pets

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

the animals are kept in accommodation that is both suitable and clean

Don't forget these regulations are vague for a reason, a 100L tank is fine for a pair of Angels or some guppies but wont be "suitable" for a red tail catfish.
They cannot spell our everything for every single species which is kept by people.
Is a 1 gal bowl a suitable accommodation for a goldfish? no? then it is in breach of the law.

As I said above, they can barely catch the people who mistreat cats, dogs and horses let alone every person with a fish.

 

[mbsqw1d]

Don't forget these regulations are vague for a reason, a 100L tank is fine for a pair of Angels or some guppies but wont be "suitable" for a red tail catfish.
They cannot spell our everything for every single species which is kept by people.
Is a 1 gal bowl a suitable accommodation for a goldfish? no? then it is in breach of the law.

As I said above, they can barely catch the people who mistreat cats, dogs and horses let alone every person with a fish.

Ok, so size of tank dealt with. What about the 'clean' aspect? Would they imply a particular method for the fish/pet owner to use in order to comply?

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

Because by your interpretation, you are experimenting on fish by the very nature of keeping them as pets

I am afraid that is taking things a little past the point of absurdity

An experiment was proposed whereby fish were exposed to potentially harmful situation (exposure to chloramine)
It is one thing to trail adding garlic as an attractant in a home made diet or experimenting with lighting regimes
But not to put a fish in the potential of harms way

Set up a tank. Around 100 liters. with a natural neutral base, plant it, discuss filters, lighting, position, etc. Let it cycle, add fish that have been chosen for their hardiness a suitability. Plan to never add anything else apart from water from your town supply into it.

Exactly, that's the spirit. This hobby is what we do for fun so lets have a little, see if we can't just make a little science!!

 

[mbsqw1d]

All I'm saying is that within this thread, the wording 'experimenting on fish' has possibly been taken out of context. We do the best we can to keep our fish thriving, and that often involves some, trial and error

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

What about the 'clean' aspect? Would they imply a particular method for the fish/pet owner to use in order to comply?

You're asking me like I wrote it?
I would imagine in the case of fish unnecessary harm from chemicals, waste products ect

All I'm saying is that within this thread, the wording 'experimenting on fish' has possibly been taken out of context. We do the best we can to keep our fish thriving, and that often involves some, trial and error

Not in this case, Just look at the amount of people who said it was a bad idea.

 

[Chad]

No experimentation is needed on this subject. The science is known. Rather than experiment, just research.

Here are some links you can look into on this subject.

Here is a simple language link: https://sciencing.com/remove-chlorine-from-water-4516999.html
"The simplest way to remove chlorine is to simply let it evaporate from the water. Chlorine is a gas at room temperature, and in water it's a "volatile solute" meaning its molecules are diffused in the water, and it will escape into the air over time. "

Here is a complex language link: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4433738/
"For decay of chlorine there are two methods: 1-Storage of the samples at ambience 2-Storage of the samples in refrigerator. Results indicated that if water samples contain FRC (0.2-0.8mg/l) are maintained in ambience and refrigerator, after 24 hr, FRC will decrease by 62% and 51% respectively. It was observed that FRC in the first method diminished sooner than the second method; this was due mainly to exposure to higher temperature and light. FRC dissociates more rapidly when the water is stored in bottles or containers which have no lid because the chlorine evaporates from the water that it is exposed to the air. "

There should also be some research done on chloramine to round out the discussion.

Again, no need to get anyone's fish involved in this at all - we already know the answers to this question (i.e. it's known science).

 

[mbsqw1d]

You're asking me like I wrote it?
I would imagine in the case of fish unnecessary harm from chemicals, waste products ect

Lets say hypothetically, a person from the animal welfare dept has knocked on my door and wishes to inspect my fishkeeping practices. They ask, do i dechlorinate my tap water. I say yes. But not with a chemical water conditioner, but with activated carbon and UV light. The end result is the same but not the method. Both however are arguably experimental.

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

No experimentation is needed on this subject. The science is known. Rather than experiment, just research.

I assume this is directed at me, I think you might have missed the OP's point.
and we are also talking Chloramine not chlorine

 

[The Lumpfish Guy]

Lets say hypothetically, a person from the animal welfare dept has knocked on my door and wishes to inspect my fishkeeping practices. They ask, do i dechlorinate my tap water. I say yes. But not with a chemical water conditioner, but with activated carbon and UV light. The end result is the same but not the method. Both however are arguably experimental.

I don't really want to be arguing the minutia of what the law says or does not say, I will leave that to the lawyers.

However that is not the issue. the OP (and I attach the quotes below) was talking of actively experimenting where there was the potential to cause harm ( which is the issue) not whether it will or wont or does or does not cause harm. It the potential for harm which is the issue.
Take @Colin_T 's example of filling from the tap one day and the fish go belly up

As I said before, its ok do trial different feed additives in different capacities or change your lighting or water change regime, but when It has the potential to cause harm then there is an issue.

Set up a tank. Around 100 liters. with a natural neutral base, plant it, discuss filters, lighting, position, etc. Let it cycle, add fish that have been chosen for their hardiness a suitability. Plan to never add anything else apart from water from your town supply into it.

Exactly, that's the spirit. This hobby is what we do for fun so lets have a little, see if we can't just make a little science!!

 

[mbsqw1d]

I don't really want to be arguing the minutia of what the law says or does not say, I will leave that to the lawyers.

However that is not the issue. the OP (and I attach the quotes below) was talking of actively experimenting where there was the potential to cause harm ( which is the issue) not whether it will or wont or does or does not cause harm. It the potential for harm which is the issue.
Take @Colin_T 's example of filling from the tap one day and the fish go belly up

As I said before, its ok do trial different feed additives in different capacities or change your lighting or water change regime, but when It has the potential to cause harm then there is an issue.

I think the OP has been open to discussion rather than dictating a method that will cause harm. There are other means for dechlorinating water than using chemicals. We discussed what filters to use(active carbon was later discussed), lighting (UV light was mentioned).


How do we know changing lighting and water changing regimes don't harm the fish? We don't. Stress in fish is the leading cause of them being diseased. For example constantly changing the artificial light above them will impact on their circadian rhythm and stress them out and potentially cause them harm.

I'm not after arguing the minutia of fish keeping practices, I'm just saying these methods are not set in stone (law), they are experimental.