Hoarding animals as in the people busted for having 200000 cats in a 1 bedroom apartment:silly:
Pets
- Thread starter J double R
- Start date
Hoarding animals as in the people busted for having 200000 cats in a 1 bedroom apartment:silly:
I saw that thread as well. The difference is that thread talked about keeping wild caught animals as pets. Which I also find a bit hypocritical since there wouldn't be any fish in this hobby if the first ones weren't (at some point in time) wild caught. Some people do keep wild caught species in captivity as well. I personally see no issue with it if they are well cared for and provided with adequate living conditions.
LOL, well, that too.. Hoarding in my book defined as having more animals than you can spend quality time with, or care for. And having so many that you dont have the space for them.
I (obviously) don't have issue keeping animals as pets. I try to adhere to a very high level of care. I also try to buy captive-bred animals, and breed/propagate as much as possible myself to further the hobby and lessen the strain on nature.
See how much nicer it is when everyone is pleasant?
See how much nicer it is when everyone is pleasant?
It's a tricky question, isn't it? Most people here will probably say that keeping pets is ethically permissible, if you give them the proper care.
But, it is also legally permissible to keep pets, even without giving them the proper care.
Of course, there are laws against gross animal abuse. But what about substandard or inadequate care that doesn't constitute "abuse"?
Many of us here have probably experienced the following scenario: A person posts asking for advice about his tank, maybe asking about what new plant he wants to buy. He lists his stocking, tank size, etc., and a bunch of people here consider these tank conditions to be horribly inadequate and/or downright cruel. All these people people start posting and criticizing the OP's stocking. The OP responds, "Listen, I wasn't asking about your opinions on my stocking! My fish are perfectly happy, so stop telling me what to do!" At a certain point a mod steps in and says, "This is off-topic--stick to the plant question." And then all of us here eventually have to say to ourselves, "I've stated my opinion, and now what the OP does with his fish is his business."
But we all go away feeling sad, because we know that it's the fish that suffer. We have an intuition that, ethically, the OP is wrong.
But how can we ever bring the law in line with our ethical intuitions? It would be impossible to restrict the fish trade (or the pet trade in general) so as to enforce our own high standards on other people. Wouldn't that, at some point, harm business or infringe on the personal freedoms of others?
In the end, the only protection that animals in the pet trade really have is the caring nature of their owners. Which is to say, pets are at the mercy of the individual humans that own them.
As responsible pet owners, the best we can do to bring the pet trade in line with our ethical intuitions is to be as vocal as possible about our own standards, try and educate those around us, and try to boycott or protest inhumane business practices.
But, it is also legally permissible to keep pets, even without giving them the proper care.
Of course, there are laws against gross animal abuse. But what about substandard or inadequate care that doesn't constitute "abuse"?
Many of us here have probably experienced the following scenario: A person posts asking for advice about his tank, maybe asking about what new plant he wants to buy. He lists his stocking, tank size, etc., and a bunch of people here consider these tank conditions to be horribly inadequate and/or downright cruel. All these people people start posting and criticizing the OP's stocking. The OP responds, "Listen, I wasn't asking about your opinions on my stocking! My fish are perfectly happy, so stop telling me what to do!" At a certain point a mod steps in and says, "This is off-topic--stick to the plant question." And then all of us here eventually have to say to ourselves, "I've stated my opinion, and now what the OP does with his fish is his business."
But we all go away feeling sad, because we know that it's the fish that suffer. We have an intuition that, ethically, the OP is wrong.
But how can we ever bring the law in line with our ethical intuitions? It would be impossible to restrict the fish trade (or the pet trade in general) so as to enforce our own high standards on other people. Wouldn't that, at some point, harm business or infringe on the personal freedoms of others?
In the end, the only protection that animals in the pet trade really have is the caring nature of their owners. Which is to say, pets are at the mercy of the individual humans that own them.
As responsible pet owners, the best we can do to bring the pet trade in line with our ethical intuitions is to be as vocal as possible about our own standards, try and educate those around us, and try to boycott or protest inhumane business practices.
Last edited:
The main issue that came up in the otehr thread (as I understood it anyway) was people keeping wild-caught animals for a short period of time, improperly caring for them, then tossing them back out into the wild when they get tired of them. I believe not engaging in this practice would be covered in "keeping a high level of care". And, as has been discussed at greeeeeaaaaaaat length (especially recently), do not, ever, under any circumstances, take on a pet if you intend on returning it to the wild at some point. Do't release store-bought pets into the wild. There is a distinct difference between "rehabilitation" and a "pet".
Eating animals in some country that we view as pets is common practice, so again that would go towards perspective.
Yah some of the things I found on the menu visiting family in Asia made me go what the fudge?!
Heck Knife fish we love to keep in fresh tanks are in my local korean safeway like place for sale to be cooked up.
