Is Fish Keeping Cruel?

[joshrm115]

Many people consider fish keeping a cruel hobby I thought the same thing until I went to my first LFH. I saw how they keep d the fish . In tiny little tanks 5,10 some times 20 to a tank and not just small fish like guppy's all fish from tetras to Oscars so what is every ones opinion on mass fish keeping? I personal think they live a better life with me then In the fish shops.

 

[OldMan47]

Josh, that is like arguing that by eating beef, you reduce the gasses that cattle give off from their digestive system. There would be zero fish in the LFS if nobody was buying any.

 

[rdd1952]

A very deep subject!!! I understand that they are better off in our tanks than in the cramped fish store tanks but if there was no such thing as aquariums and fishkeepers, then they wouldn't ever be in the store tanks. They'd still be swimming in their streams, ponds, rivers, oceans, etc., as free as the wind.

I certainly don't think it's cruel as long as they are properly cared for. The one thing that I do question is keeping wild caught fish. Those that have been tank bred know nothing else but pulling a fish from it's natural habitat and keeping it in an small (in comparison to where it came from) enclosed space does seem cruel. Even at that though, in our tanks, it is probably free from it's normal predators and not part of the food chain. It is also becoming an increasing problem with some wild caught species that are being driven toward extinction because of the hobby and that is definitely wrong.

 

[backtotropical]

I suppose fishkeeping is cruel to some degree, but not compared to keeping fish in the LFS. I am referring to keeping fish in a tank rather than in their natural habitat, whether it be a river, a lake or the ocean. You can never properly re-create their natural habitat in a tank.

However, that said, I suppose its no more cruel than keeping any other pet. Rabbits aren't meant to be kept in hutches, nor are budgies meant to be kept in cages. Dogs aren't meant to be restrained by a lead when you go into the shops. You see my point.

I think the real question is whether keeping animals in captivity is cruel? (Oh no, what have I started?? )

BTT

 

[ollyhtafc]

I don't agree with wild caught fish. Obviously some have to be, but when i see people type "for sale wild caught xxx" or whatever it just makes me cringe. There shouldn't be a Kudos for that kind of thing.

 

[Straydum]

the fishes we have now still origin from the wild one way or another. keepers prefer wild caught as it doesn't bring down the gene pool (with massive in-breeding and all), and they're willing to pay high prices for them. suppliers want the money and catch the fish.

 

[jonny_dw]

I don't agree with wild caught fish. Obviously some have to be, but when i see people type "for sale wild caught xxx" or whatever it just makes me cringe. There shouldn't be a Kudos for that kind of thing.

My fish is wild caught so am I cruel?

There are no tank breds of my fishes species so I would never have my fish if it hadnt of been wild caught, and it gives me hours of enjoyment,not to mention how much she loves interacting with me. Yes a tank is not the same as its wild habitat but my fish has many benefits that it didnt have when it was in the wild.

For example its free from predators, gets regular food and can be treated when it has illness. When I got her she was very thin but now shes grown well and is in great shape!

I understand your point but keeping wild fish has its benefits for the fish aswell.

 

[Mikaila31]

Well from some point in time all fish originated from the wild. We can't learn how to tank raise a species of fish, without first taking them from the wild and putting them in a tank. If you argue that fish keeping is cruel(I agree with you that some parts of it are), what about fish that live in the wild. The don't have perfect lives either, tons of predators, pollution, and they can suffer from droughts and such. I have wild caught fish and I don't feel cruel for having them taken out of there homes, I doubt they care. Since they are healthy and spoiled rotten.

I would say that for the informed fish keeper, fish keeping is not cruel. Most cruelty comes from misinformed people, it is the same with any animals people want to keep in captivity.

Fish shops are there to house the fish temporarily, a young oscar doesn't need a giant tank in a LPS. Because it is not likely to stay there for very long. I don't see any cruelty in this, as long as the fish are kept healthy and buyers are informed correctly about the fishes needs. Also I feel it is the buyers responsibility to get reliable information, relying on someone else to inform you on how to care for a pet is IMO negligence. LPS carry books on fish and the internet is full of information.

 

[ollyhtafc]

I never said anyone was cruel, i said i didn't agree with it.
I have no doubt that a wild caught fish gives just as much enjoyment as any other fish, and you do indeed provide a safe home for said fish.
And course all fish have to come from somewhere, but if captive bred species already exist, why take them out of the wild? Are you saying that there aren't enough captive fish for a large enough genepool?

 

[jonny_dw]

I never said anyone was cruel, i said i didn't agree with it.
I have no doubt that a wild caught fish gives just as much enjoyment as any other fish, and you do indeed provide a safe home for said fish.
And course all fish have to come from somewhere, but if captive bred species already exist, why take them out of the wild? Are you saying that there aren't enough captive fish for a large enough genepool?

No, but some species can only be wild caught like for example mine, which is rarely seen at all so if people didnt take fish from the wild I would never have this species.

 

[Seriz]

Potentially not, since components of the gene pool are concentrated in smaller groups than is necessary for true genetic variation, plus most exporters concentrate on producing fry to sell rather than the long term effects on their stock, hence their stock depletes and must be replaced.

To give my answer to the original question, I agree with Mikaila: it's all about being an informed consumer. This counts for all walks of life not just aquatics, we can rarely trust any industry or corporation to act on moral principle and so we, as consumers, must shoulder some of the responsibility.

On the flip-side there will no doubt be a time in the future where ecological change leads to the extinction of many species and it will be up to people like us to maintain them. I'm sure this is already happening on some level.

Good topic, long may it continue!

 

[OldMan47]

There are fish in my tanks that are extinct in the wild. They are well treated and are thriving. They were saved from extinction by people bringing them into aquariums because their natural habitat has been completely destroyed. I do not consider saving a fish from extinction as being cruel but I could be wrong. What if there is never an environment that they could be returned to? Isn't that just prolonging the extinction of the species? I have very mixed feelings about removing fish from the wild where their numbers are small and the habitat is still thriving but I have no problem keeping fish in my tank that would not exist except for being kept by hobbyists.
I agree with RDD1952, this subject is deeper than we are ever going to be able to settle in this kind of arena. I might be able to settle it in my own mind with some deep thought over time but a forum frankly doesn't lend itself well to self examination.

 

[dnn3]

i think it's pretty simple,it's cruel if you don't do it right or care enough to do it right.

 

[hihi100202]

i only think its crule when people overstock there tanks. like having a 30 teras in a 5 gallon tank, for example. or if you dont take care for ur fish right, thats bad. i think that should(if its not alredy) be considered animal crulety. it makes me sad 2 see people who r mean to thet'r fish, like making bettas fight. its just like dog fighting, but on a smaller scale.

 

[rdd1952]

There are fish in my tanks that are extinct in the wild. They are well treated and are thriving. They were saved from extinction by people bringing them into aquariums because their natural habitat has been completely destroyed. I do not consider saving a fish from extinction as being cruel but I could be wrong. What if there is never an environment that they could be returned to? Isn't that just prolonging the extinction of the species? I have very mixed feelings about removing fish from the wild where their numbers are small and the habitat is still thriving but I have no problem keeping fish in my tank that would not exist except for being kept by hobbyists.

Yours is a very good case. If we can keep a species of fish (any animal for that matter) alive until it can hopefully be returned to the wild then that is a wonderful thing. As you mentioned, some habitats have been wiped out, especially in countries where conservation isn't a huge thing. The ones that worry me are the wild caught species that we keep that are so popular they are nearing extinction because of our hobby. There was a thread just recently about a country putting a ban for 3 months a year on catching one of the species that is in danger of extinction. I can't seem to find the thread though.