Usa Aquabid Seller

[LauraFrog]

You're both right, this happens all the time, and most of the end buyers don't know that what they're getting is an animal that has been through hell and will have a shortened lifespan and much reduced quality of life because of it. That's why I'm particularly annoyed about this episode because somebody with this person's level of experience in the trade must surely know what the fish go through AND that they are essentially cheating the buyers, who are not warned that these fish's colours will not last and that the fish may only live a few months because of the effects of the dye. If I see people my age with no clue about fish selling dyed fish in a chain store, I don't get anywhere near this worked up about it, because that's different. They don't know that the fish have suffered and they're just selling what was provided for them to sell by somebody higher up the chain. But when I see a fish specialist selling tattooed fish, THEN I get upset about it.

A lot of people that are higher up in the chain and selling these fish probably don't care all that much, or can't afford to warn people about the problems of the fish being dyed, people need money.

I have bee thinking... Just here me out for a second

Dyed fish aren't outlawed, and chances are will probably never be (I hate to say it.) So for now, instead of boycotting it, how about embrace it. I mean, all of us advanced fish keepers not buying dyed fish could be worse to an extent. Either they are going to sit and die in a little crowded tank in the LFS, or go to someone who doesn't know what dyed fish are, and chances are don't know much else about the hobby. Isn't fish keeping about passion, empathy and love for fish (and other animals.) I mean I know that they come with some health concerns and such, but the still diserve a good life, it's not they're fault they're dyed.


On another similar note, I know that dyed fish are supply and demand but there will always be ignorant people to demand them, so would taking one home cause a big problem??

I'm lucky that I have never actually seen a dyed fish in RL, because the practise is widely abhorred and very rare in Australia. But here's my argument:

I rescue bettas. I do it all the time. And a lot of people have attacked me with the argument that if I stop rescuing, rehabilitating and rehoming these abused bettas, less bettas will be sold and so less will be produced for the trade. This is true - but when I remove a betta from a cruel environment, I stop its suffering. The consequences of dyeing fish mean that they suffer for the rest of their lives. So I don't think I would really be preventing suffering by rescuing dyed fish. With rescuing bettas I can end the pain of the fish involved, but all I would be doing with dyed fish is improving the environment - this environment that is no better or worse for them than it is for any other fish living in a pet store. I can hardly go and rescue every fish that is in a pet store because the environment it lives in is inadequate. That's why I would personally vote with my feet, by not providing custom to pet stores that continue this barbaric practise. (Most of them would be chain stores anyway if anybody in Australia does carry dyed fish, and I try not to buy there anyway because of the abuse of bettas.)

 

[Spishkey]

i think all we can do is try to raise awareness of the gruelling process and procedure that fish undergo when being dyed/tattooed.
there is a lot (and i mean a lot) of people out there who see these 'pretty' fish and think oh i have to have one of those. they more than likely have no idea what that fish has been through, or the many fish who died having the same thing done.
as long as people buy them, shops will stock them.
if you can make aware as many people as possible, then demand would diminish and shops would stock them less. if shops want less the suppliers may think 'whats the point in doing this, they are no longer selling, it is not worth the money/time/effort/deaths anymore to do this. et voila!
fingers crossed anyway

 

[Butch]

Oh THAT seller? I don't like that seller very much as he mislabeled lots of fishes as wrong species. His doctor fish doesn't look like garra rufa but washed out garra species. And this seller do poor on shipping the fish out. He even sell endangered paddlefish which unsuited for aquariums. But he had nice fish too...especially calico swordtails.

 

[peter22UK]

i think the problem is that the majority of people dont view fish as pets, but more of a decoration in their home, like a lamp. Hence why we see fish kept in tiny tanks. If your not a fish enthusiast then you dont really care about keeping an oscar in a 10 gallon tank....as when it dies, you can go and buy another one. its this mentality and the ease of owning a fish that are the issue.

if they were selling puppys that had been shaved and then be tattoed with logos and state names.........there would be hell to pay im sure.

 

[Inchworm]

Since the ethnic slurs made on this thread have been reported and I've cleaned it up, this post is just to get the thread active again.

 

[jourdy288]

Thanks Inchworm!

 

[Butch]

Thanks Inchworm!

Oh brother

 

[Syphoniera]

Yes, thank-you, Inchworm.

To return to the important topic at hand, as I've stated before, I think another effective approach in such cases would be to include the fact that the sale of such damaged fish - which would be automatically presumed by most buyers to be healthy and with the capacity for a normal lifespan - could be considered to constitute a fraudulent transaction.

This might have more effect than humane considerations on those holding only a business perspective - particularly where such expensive fish are concerned.

Most human advances in the business world (the eight-hour work-day, breaks, holidays, etc.) have been achieved predominately by appeals to self-interest and ultimate increased productivity/profit benefitting industry/industrialists at any/every level.

And the same holds true in other areas, as when a business loss could be triggered by boycotts due to immoral practices such as cruelty to animals or abuse of workers.

A series of diplomatically phrased inquiries/comments from multiple persons, or a petition - especially one organized from this site, (if such a thing is permissible??? Not presented as an official TFF effort, but as one independently produced by those who happen to belong to the forum??? Perhaps via a thread on the subject, to be emailed to those involved?) or both, might do a great deal to trigger awareness in sellers not only that many people object to such practices, but that many people will avoid supporting businesses which engage in transactions involving the abuse of animals - and which businesses thereby encourage continued and even worsening inhumane treatment of the vulnerable as new, potentially lucrative variations on the theme are developed for sales.

I wouldn't know how to go about the latter suggestion of a petition myself, but if that should prove to be acceptable under official policies, it might prove particularly efficacious coming from a community of fish-fanciers, as presenting a united front of those easily able to be voted as 'most likely to buy fish'.
Lots of fish.

 

[Ace Of Spades]

Yes, thank-you, Inchworm.

To return to the important topic at hand, as I've stated before, I think another effective approach in such cases would be to include the fact that the sale of such damaged fish - which would be automatically presumed by most buyers to be healthy and with the capacity for a normal lifespan - could be considered to constitute a fraudulent transaction.

This might have more effect than humane considerations on those holding only a business perspective - particularly where such expensive fish are concerned.

Most human advances in the business world (the eight-hour work-day, breaks, holidays, etc.) have been achieved predominately by appeals to self-interest and ultimate increased productivity/profit benefitting industry/industrialists at any/every level.

And the same holds true in other areas, as when a business loss could be triggered by boycotts due to immoral practices such as cruelty to animals or abuse of workers.

A series of diplomatically phrased inquiries/comments from multiple persons, or a petition - especially one organized from this site, (if such a thing is permissible??? Not presented as an official TFF effort, but as one independently produced by those who happen to belong to the forum??? Perhaps via a thread on the subject, to be emailed to those involved?) or both, might do a great deal to trigger awareness in sellers not only that many people object to such practices, but that many people will avoid supporting businesses which engage in transactions involving the abuse of animals - and which businesses thereby encourage continued and even worsening inhumane treatment of the vulnerable as new, potentially lucrative variations on the theme are developed for sales.

I wouldn't know how to go about the latter suggestion of a petition myself, but if that should prove to be acceptable under official policies, it might prove particularly efficacious coming from a community of fish-fanciers, as presenting a united front of those easily able to be voted as 'most likely to buy fish'.
Lots of fish.

I might aswell jump on the bandwagon

THANK YOU INCHWORM