🌟 Exclusive Amazon Black Friday Deals 2024 🌟

Don’t miss out on the best deals of the season! Shop now 🎁

Any strong opinions on the ethics of long-fin varieties of fish?

I would define a longfin as an artificially selected and fixed trait that causes fins far larger than documented wild specimens.

Fin filaments can be outrageous on some wild fish, usually as part of sexual selection. But no forest spirit has sat down and thought about how they could extend the fins of a wild fish, and no one worked hard to do the culling and choosing necessary to make the fins grow longer. You'll notice in stores that we're rarely looking at a couple of extended fin rays, as we'd see in wild fish, but usually the entire fin that grows very large and is often wrinkled. The guppy endler hybrids @davros has are an exception. They get points on the caudal.

It's important for a wild fish to be able to move, eat and escape danger, but it's worth giving some of that up to be sexy as well, and fin displays are big in a lot of species.


My view is this. Every aquarist is a predator. Every fish we have in a fishtank is the living dead - a zombie of sorts. They have been removed from the environment that created them, and they are out of the breeding population that matters. We are a strange species that doesn't just eat its prey, but that also plays with it with a sincere interest and often a desire to prolong its life. We use creatures to feed our minds, and to try to understand our place in the world. Or to to look at because they're pretty. Both ways work for us.

We get both artistic and practical with our zombies. We modify farm animals for better yields, etc, and we modify fish in pursuit of some goal connected to our love of beauty or of novelty. Or, we like to show off what we can do. If we are responsible, we never release our experiments into the wild, because our games can cause harm. The fish we capture or have had captured and bred for us can be baked into all kinds of recipes - hybrids, longfins, banner tails...

If I see a newly found fish, I like to see how it lives in an aquarium as close to its habitat as I can set up. Why? I've asked myself that many times, and it seems to stop at my curiosity having fixed itself on underwater life. I watched some wild type Poecilia butleri mollies when I was 8 years old and wanted to know what they were doing and why, why they were shaped like that, and why they had those colours. So I see a new fish, and I want to watch it. I want to breed it, and I want to make the young available to likeminded aquarists. I want to share info on it, if anyone cares. Sometimes, I have been able to make small contributions to the scientific study of fish, and that's very worthwhile on a larger stage. But fundamentally, fancy fish, wild fish, long fins, natural fins - whatever. They are all zombie fish removed from what matters, and we're all strange humans with an instinct to learn. We shouldn't use our skills to be monsters and create suffering, even if it pays. But if we are comfortable that we can provide good environments to healthy zombies, they're good company. There is a huge amount to be learned, and there is a lot of beauty to be appreciated.
 
@GaryE
I wonder if you will keep dogs or approve of those who do. Most dog species/types would not exist if not for manipulation by mankind of both wild wolves and the early very limited species of dogs which had begun to evolve away from wolves.
https://historycooperative.org/the-history-of-dogs/

Humans have been manipulating animals, plants and anything else they can for a very long time. But it is only in the recent past that we have been able to understand and manipulate genes in a lab. That science has made cross breeding and selective breeding more "informed."

What about plants in the hobby. Windelov ferns are not natural, they and a few other hobby favorites are cultivars some created by Holger Windeløv, founder of Tropica Aquarium Plants.
Microsorum pteropus 'Windeløv' is a patented variety of Microsorum pteropus, named after Tropica's founder Holger Windeløv.
Here are several more cultivars we love in our tanks: Hygrophila polysperma 'Rosanervig', Echinodorus 'Barthii', Echinodorus 'Reni', Anubias barteri var. coffeefolia, Echinodorus 'Aquartica'.

Then what about this. We keep a number of fish species in tanks. When done properly this often extends the lifespan of the fish. In a tank if a fish gets a disease or an injury which would kill it in the wild, it may live on because we take steps to heals or cure it.

Finally, in the wild there are instances of species created due to hybridism. Different species able to mate may do so and if this happens often enough, we may get e new species. L236 plecos are a perfect example as far as I am concerned.

Many of the fish we keep have been farmed as ornamentals. Ho much harm is done if one removes a pair of wild angels from a river or lake and they breeds them at home. A few 100 offspring all survive and go to other fish keepers. Most of those fish would not love a month in the wild.

A lot of speices have been eradicated in the wild by the activities of people. Pollution for example, or large scale buring of forests to make farmland have cause the extinction of species. Is it wrong for some folks to have kept a now extinct species them alive in tanks so they still exist on the planet. No hobbyist was responsible for the extinction only the survival.

As I wrote before this whole area is a slippery slope and I am not sure where the lines have been drawn nor by whom.

Morganucodon is usually considered the first mammal but its oldest fossils, only represented by isolated teeth, date from around 205 million years ago.Sep 6, 2022

Homo sapiens, the first modern humans, evolved from their early hominid predecessors between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago. They developed a capacity for language about 50,000 years ago. The first modern humans began moving outside of Africa starting about 70,000-100,000 years ago.
 
Last edited:
@GaryE
I wonder if you will keep dogs or approve of those who do.
You've misread my posts. I'm getting set up as a strawman here!

There's no question of approval. If you like linebred fish, go for it. I approve, if that matters. I try to avoid them when I can. As your examples show, with dogs, cows, plants, etc, they are unavoidable sometimes. That's fine by me.

I won't keep a french bulldog or a pug. The breeding causes health problems. I have friends with both, and they are nice animals and nice friends. I just won't encourage their breeding myself. But other breeds of dog, sure, as long as they work as dogs. When I was a kid, a local guy used to walk his wolf, raised from a cub. It didn't turn out well.

Life isn't static. Natural hybridization is a driving force in evolution, the most natural of processes. If 2 species meet at the edge of their range, what they do isn't my business. We're all neanderthal sapiens crosses ourselves, it seems. But if you put fish that don't meet in nature together to create something new, I'm not interested. I can make a tank that looks like a lab, or a bare tank very easily. A mountain stream or a tributary brook is more challenging. I'm more interested in what the long process of nature produces, and not what Fred down the block creates.

But I'll gladly have a look at Fred's work. I just won't buy it, and I know he'd think my wild type fish were boring cr%p. Fine by me.

Lifespan? There is that awful question of how ethical our hobby is. But I eat animals and plants, and I keep fish in tanks. They are still zombies in that they are not part of their habitat and their natural history anymore. They are out of the game. I think they live very good lives in my tanks, and those lives are generally much longer than in nature. But I don't know why you offered that point up.
 
I offered it up because the term zombie is not a kind one. My fish are not zombies. They have a nice place to live, they have no fear of predation. They get better food than they might in the wild. They get treated when sick and have the opportunity to breed.

Fish are not happy or sad. They live basic lives where normally the most important consideration is survival. They do not want to be kiled by predators, the want to eat, they usually want to spawn.

No they do not live in the wild, but they are not zombies either.

Stress is harmful to fish. My fish are rarely stressed.

What is the lifespan of a clown loach?

The typical Clown Loach lifespan in captivity is at least 10 years. What is this? There are a lot of factors that can affect the life expectancy of this fish. In pristine natural conditions, this species can reportedly live up to 25 years! Apr 20, 2022
https://www.aquariumsource.com/clown-loach/

I recently lost my largest clown Loach. It was about a foot long TL and plump. I got it in 2002 at about 4 inches. I estimate its age was between 23 and 25 years. it was bever a zombie. It was the alpha fish in the tank. It occupied the best cave in the tank and after it died neither of the next largest two about 10 inches, will not venture into the cave several months later.
 
I use the term zombie because the goal of an animal to to survive and to breed. If a species can be said to have goals, it's to adapt to its environment and keep existing.

That isn't the story for aquarium fish. We may breed them, but in small numbers outside of their environment. They travel from tank to tank, adapting to captive conditions. They are as much out of their world as if we ate them. As far as their species and its survival is concerned, they are the swimming dead.

For seasonal breeders like clown loaches, I believe they are still bred by hormone injections.

It's better for them than being in the belly of a bird, for sure.

I have a fish here I have bred since 1992. It has a 3 year max lifespan in tanks, usually closer to two. It may get to one in nature. I have the impression that while they look exactly as they did when I got second generation in captivity breeding stock, they have changed. They are easier to breed, and not just because of experience. They are less picky about food, and they seem to tolerate warmer water better. They are beautiful, vibrant and always interesting, but if I were able to put them back in nature? I don't think they are still part of the life flow of their species anymore. That's where the zombie thing comes in. After 31 years and many generations, I doubt they'd survive.

So if I decided to cultivate a long finned form, it would not be any ethical issue. They're already removed from the world that would do harm in. I would never do that, btw, because the wild fish I received all those years ago was so cool I still work at having it to see.
 
I hope this thread doesn't start any actual arguments, but it's definitely interesting to see valid points raised by intelligent people about the nuances of this. It's exactly what I'm internally grappling with myself, but opinions from people who are much smarter and much more experienced in the hobby.

For what it's worth, as a dog fanatic, I'm of the stance that I like many of the dog breeds we have, that were bred for a functional purpose. I'm not even opposed to actually passionate, ethical breeders, who do it for the love of improving the breed in every way, not for profit or extreme show standards. As an example when rotties were getting a bad rap in the 80s and 90s, many of the breeders traced the problem back to a specific line where the temperament was unstable and aggressive, and deliberately bred away from that line to improve the quality of temperament going forward. That's responsible breeding, where it's not making an impairing deformity a breed requirement, or making a sloped back so extreme that it begins crippling German Shepherds.

The closer dog remains to a basic "dog shape", the healthier it tends to be. I have a Springer/Collie, so not someone who requires a purebred, but I'd also rather pick a pup from a litter that a farmer bred from his working dogs, than adopt an unknown bully breed from a shelter that was bred by a backyard idiot who was choosing dogs for big muscles or unusual colours, and giving no thought to temperament or purpose.

There are ethical considerations in all of the animals we keep as pets, tools, or food. It's interesting to see where people draw their own lines.
 
It's hard to know where the line is. I absolutely agree on exaggerating deformities or negative traits for commercial reasons, but having said that I have 2 house cats from breeds that are specifically bred for temperament (Ragdoll & ragaMuffin). A purist could argue that this is cruel because their survival instinct is so muted that they simply could not survive in the wild (or even outdoors). They would literally run up to a fox / wolf / rottweiler / 18 wheeler truck ;) and throw themselves down demanding to be cuddled. But is this a bad thing? - they are house cats and will never be expected to fend for themselves in the wild.
 
It's hard to know where the line is. I absolutely agree on exaggerating deformities or negative traits for commercial reasons, but having said that I have 2 house cats from breeds that are specifically bred for temperament (Ragdoll & ragaMuffin). A purist could argue that this is cruel because their survival instinct is so muted that they simply could not survive in the wild (or even outdoors). They would literally run up to a fox / wolf / rottweiler / 18 wheeler truck ;) and throw themselves down demanding to be cuddled. But is this a bad thing? - they are house cats and will never be expected to fend for themselves in the wild.
I think the solution's easy - keep the cats indoors. I don't think anyone outside of PETA rejects the idea of linebreeding. We'd starve, get bitten by wolves and get our faces ripped off by wildcats. In hobby terms, you keep what you like and try to avoid the cruellest forms, or even the simply cruel forms as you see them. All of our fish have been removed from the wild pool and should not go back. Sometimes, an aquarium fish becomes extinct in the wild but lingers in fishtanks, and that raises different issues. But generally, keep what you like and enjoy the cuddles (but not from fish - that kills them).
 
I've never really loved the look of long fins on cories, but admit to being quite taken with long fin varieties of pleco and rosey barbs. But given that longer fins naturally create more drag when a fish swims, is it really fair and ethical to breed long fins into species that wouldn't be long finned in the wild?
If we don't create suffering and give the fish a good life, reasonable variations are fine.

When Louis Doberman crossed the Rottweiler with various terriers to ultimately solidify the Doberman Pinscher, was that a problem? What about dogs that are mainly companion breeds?

Animal husbandry is a huge responsibility and should be treated as such, but if people don't intentionally cause problems through selective breeding and discontinue practices that do cause problems...what's the problem?😁
 

Most reactions

Back
Top