The Puffer Forum

Been a while since I'm in the 'hobby' and thought of that after some guys and orgasnistions are trying to ban the aquarium fishing business in the Hawaii.

Do you believe it is fair ot buy a wild fish, to take it home? Once home you may think that:

1. You have saved the fish from that evil LPS
2. Fish would be more happy in your 100G (most likely less) aquarium than in the ocean
3. The fish at your home would do better than at other's home
4. You have just bought something nice for your (others) entairtenment
5. All (or a combination) of the above

Maybe I have missed it but at which point you have thought the fish would have did just great in the ocean and did not ever ask for any of the above? When have you exactly thought that if you do not buy anything it would go against the dealer business and they would think twice before ordering new life stock and therefore leaving the fish where it belongs, into the ocean?

Do we guys really need to have a'piece of the ocean' in our homes?
Would appreciate your comments.

Thanks.

I would be severely depressed if I did not have my fish friends. It's habit now, a way of life for me. I feel so long as you take proper care which tbh many hobbyists don't then it's good. No endangered species though, unless on a breeding project funded by whoever.

What happened to all your fish?

It's a great question, and something everyone who keeps fish should be mindful of. I often do feel a bit guilty that by buying fish I in some way, do contribute to taking fish out of their natural environment. As many fish are wild caught. I also feel that since they are in the fish store, in a way I am "rescuing" them, because most homes for fish are bleak, at best.

Hopefully, we are all mindful of such things, as much as we can be. I don't eat meat, because of the horrible conditions animals are kept in. I'm not against eating animals, because that will always happen, but I do think people should be aware of what animals go through before they are killed, and buy accordingly. Most just want what they want, at the cheapest price possible, even if something suffers. This is sad

It is at root PETA question, an intentional booby trap.

The underlying question is: Do humans have the right to own animals?

IMO, the answer is a resounding YES!

^ Like!!

Pufferpunk wrote:What happened to all your fish?

I still have the same two marine puffers. Thinking that one day I'll release back into the ocean, althought the aquarium parasites they may eventually carry seems to be an issue.

RTR wrote:It is at root PETA question, an intentional booby trap.

The underlying question is: Do humans have the right to own animals?

IMO, the answer is a resounding YES!

It's not about if you have the right to own animals. It is about the way you treat them and why would you keep them.

Humans arent the only animals that has another animal as a pet.

If memory serves me, you wouldn't listen to me about proper care/housing of your fish? I even had to block you from my IMs, because you got so rude.

As far as the moral question: I do my best to get fish as juvies. If housed properly, I believe they never know what they might have experiences out in the wild. They have a much bigger chance of survival in captivity, with no predators & great food available to them. I also do my best to try & buy fish bred in captivity whenever possible.

TheShield wrote: Thinking that one day I'll release back into the ocean, althought the aquarium parasites they may eventually carry seems to be an issue.

please don't even consider doing this
it's wrong in every respect
they will not have a chance for survival

eieio wrote:

TheShield wrote: Thinking that one day I'll release back into the ocean, althought the aquarium parasites they may eventually carry seems to be an issue.

please don't even consider doing this
it's wrong in every respect
they will not have a chance for survival

Big +1 the idea seems noble in writing but in practice it will be disastrous.

TheShield wrote:Been a while since I'm in the 'hobby' and thought of that after some guys and orgasnistions are trying to ban the aquarium fishing business in the Hawaii.

Do you believe it is fair ot buy a wild fish, to take it home? Once home you may think that:

1. You have saved the fish from that evil LPS
2. Fish would be more happy in your 100G (most likely less) aquarium than in the ocean
3. The fish at your home would do better than at other's home
4. You have just bought something nice for your (others) entairtenment
5. All (or a combination) of the above

Maybe I have missed it but at which point you have thought the fish would have did just great in the ocean and did not ever ask for any of the above? When have you exactly thought that if you do not buy anything it would go against the dealer business and they would think twice before ordering new life stock and therefore leaving the fish where it belongs, into the ocean?

Do we guys really need to have a'piece of the ocean' in our homes?
Would appreciate your comments.

Thanks.

Nobody 'needs' a fish in their home in the same way that you don't 'need' the majority of the material possessions in your home. In order to survive you don't even 'need' a bricks and mortar home.

Going back to your question though there are many elements to consider and both answers can be morally wrong depending on how you look at it.

1. Keeping animals is morally wrong because you are forcing them to live in an unnaturally small territory potentially eating unnatural foods and potentially housed with other animals that they wouldn't naturally encounter in the wild.
2. Banning the sale of wild caught fish - I'm assuming from sustainable fisheries - is morally wrong because the locals are forced to find alternative ways to pay their bills and that means that the natural environments around them are not profitable and can therefore be exploited and destroyed to make way for other more profitable enterprises.

So what is the answer? I believe that we should support the captive breeding and sustainable fisheries projects and not support unsustainable fisheries. You only have to look as far as England to see what happens when a natural environment isn't made profitable. We wiped out our large predators from bears to eagles through habitat destruction and fears for ourselves and our livestock. We have devastated the population of our native crayfish because it was more profitable to farm american crayfish and they inevitably escaped, much like our desire to farm mink which has devastated our native water voles. If we had exploited our natural environment to create business and pay peoples wages would we have driven our animals to and beyond the brink of extinction?

Does this thread have any other reason then to rile up a bunch of fish-keepers?...
+1 to not releasing in the wild... Once an animal has been adapted to captivity, it is often fatal to release them without some prior training/exposure to what the wild would hold for them, so they are otherwise prepared.
As for buying fish, people overall suck and do not care for the well being of each other, let alone animals. If I do not buy that fish, it will not stop the stores from selling them, and it will not stop others from buying them. At least I know I will take care of the fish and fulfill its needs. I don't justify buying every fish with the intent to save it; though such thoughts are noble, but they are far from practical. I enjoy caring for interesting organisms and maintaining their complex environment, and doing so/not doing so will make absolutely no difference in the grand scheme of things. Keeping fish is no more morally wrong to me then keeping other animals, and could be considered less "wrong" then slaughtering millions of fish each year to feed people.

the problem with the question of morality is that the morality of a person's actions are defined by such a complex set of factors, including situation, intention, culture, location and many, many more.

Something that you may consider immoral may not be considered so by someone half way across the world. you do NOT have a right to impose YOUR moral code on ANYONE else, barring a strong popular consensus from the majority. even "the majority" is a very subjective thing.

Personally, i believe that wild caught fish, if properly cared for, are likely to have a much longer, and safer existence. I don't believe that if fish were capable of "longing" for the open ocean that they would want to be there. after all, they are all food of some sort. would you make the choice to live in the wilds with a wide variety of fauna trying to munch on you when you could live in your house with meals provided and noone trying to munch on you?

Does this thread have any other reason then to rile up a bunch of fish-keepers?

GSP Freak, Hit the nail on the head. After knowing the OP & his past at improperly keeping & killing fish, I see no other reason for this thread.