The Arguement For An And Against Keeping Fish As Pets

[fry_lover]

There was a thread a month or two ago and now i can't find it anywhere

Someone's friend was taking the "p" about them keeping fish and there was a thread trying to justify us keeping fish in tanks as pets.

A couple of members argued that a lot of fish have a longer lif expectency in home aquaria than they would in the wild, now with predation this makes sense,

But how does we/someone know that some fish have longer live expectancy's in tanks? where's the evidence? How we do know what the life expectency is in the wild, can this figure possibly be a reliable source of information?

If it's just for a very few 1-2% of fish that have longer lives in tanks then that argument loses a lot of weight with me.

anyone got any other feedback on this?

 

[Corleone]

Reliable studies depend on the species, but it should be noted that in all the species of any type of wild animal, old age is not a normal cause of death. Predation, illness, injury, and starvation take a heavy toll on every part of nature. The older an animal is, the more vulnerable they are to all four.

In captivity, we effectively eliminate starvation, greatly reduce predation (it happens, but steps are normally taken to prevent it), work to prevent injury and illness and provide treatment (with some level of success) when they happen. All of these things decrease the chances the fish will die at any given point in its lifetime, and delay the point when age catches up to them and even our best efforts are no longer enough. Disease alone is noteworthy, since a great many are death sentences to any animal without treatment.

Also, at the other end of life, fry are provided with a better chance at life. That's not the normal way of things in the wild. A guppy in captivity can produce an immense number of young, and given resources and space, we can save the majority of them. In the wild, entire drops are wiped out before they have a chance, and a single female is unlikely to produce more than a handful of adult offspring in her life. Even when left to face the tank, in the wild they'd be facing a lake full of hungry adult fish, not a well fed adults.

 

[Tobigara]

Wow! Well said Corleone

 

[ox5477]

I'll go another route in the argument here... In most cases, there is no way we can reproduce the exact size and conditions of the natural environment of most species that are kept in the home aquaria trade.

But, to that statement, we can remove the variables such as weather (droughts drying up smaller streams, the seasons basically disappear in home aquaria due to man made equiptment and the reduced chance of destruction of landscape due to erosion and hurricanes) as well as human devistation in the wild from pollutants, poaching and food sources. So the fish have a greater chance to survivewhen kept in aquaria controlled and maintained by a knowledgable fishkeeper.

That said, for a good portion of the trade, fish are sold and bought without knowledge and without the well being of the fish first hand. The article last week about the chinese man selling goldfish in a sealed plastic bag for the olympics is a great example of humans profiting from fish without the concern of the fishes well being. More often the big culprit is a parent taking their child into the lfs and the kid wanting fish because of how they look and then the parent not looking into how to keep the fish or whether fish can live together. So either when the child gets bored of the fish or the fish die, then it is all for not as the fish are either already dead or get flushed because the parent doesn't knwo what else to do with them.

This is by no means a straight answer debate

 

[CFC]

In the wild fishes lives are shorterned considerably by parasites such as intestinal worms, fish lice (argulus) and gill flukes, almost all wild caught fish are infested with these when first caught and have to be treated before going on sale.

An example of better captive life would be the humble neon tetra. In the wild the average lifespan of a neon that doesnt fall prey to predation earlier is one year as their habitat all but dries up in the dry season, in a aquarium they have been known to live 10 years when well kept.

 

[fry_lover]

thanks everyone for this, i know this has probably been done a 1000 times (this kind of thread), i appreciate the detailed responses




I think what i want to do is collect a lot of views (not necessarily just on this thread) and write my own little "essay" on it, for my own knowledge and awareness and to also educate or atleast engage in discussion with friends / partners or family of mine.

 

[OscarWilde]

I'd make the same case I make to Vegies about cattle.

The majority of the fish you see in LFS's are bred too be sold. As such most of the fish in our aquariums would not even be alive if there was not a demand for them to be kept in tanks.

 

[ox5477]

To rebuttle you OscarWilde... alot of fish are no longer living in the wild because of mans lust to keep it in a bowl at home... so now the only place they exist is in the home aquaria because man has basically made the wild version of the fish extinct....


(but I agree 100% with the cow thing... vegitarians need to get their factas straight.... they eat chicken but not "meat"? ####?....)

 

[OscarWilde]

Granted! I love good debate.

I came up with an interesting Moral paradox regarding the environment too.

All the things that we call unnatural and artificial such as plastic, nuclear power etc (and yes the extinction and displacement of some species) are by-products of the human race. The human race's naturall evolution has brought about these "unnatural" products which are damaging the environment.

So are these products their damaging effect in fact unnatural or just nature taking it's course?



Hmmm... Answers on a post card....

 

[ox5477]

you wanna go down this road huh? well it all goes down a path of how you define the words natural and unnatural.

If you define something that can be formed through natural evolutionary processes by the heat and workings of the earth, then you can't consider petrochemicals or most chemicals that is as natural because they would never form either on their own or at all in nature.

But, if you define something can be formed through natural evolutionary processes of the earth and its species, then you have to consider those things natural, because even though we as humans feel wwe are the masters of our world, we are still a part of nature and this world so anything we can create or produce from the products that our world and environment gives us, then can be considered natural...

It basically comes down to be a Websters dictionary nerd and being able to define a word an exact way and understanding how that definition impacts the view of th world...

 

[OscarWilde]

Yes, we've just been discussing it in the Office actually. I agree that It basicly comes down to your definition of the word natural.