Cyanide fishing is still quite prevalent and unchecked in many areas of South and Central America. I've not done any research into SW, but I know this is true for FW.
Ethics of wild caught fish vs tank bred
- Thread starter PuppyFluffer
- Start date
Cyanide fishing is still quite prevalent and unchecked in many areas of South and Central America. I've not done any research into SW, but I know this is true for FW.
This problem has definitely decreased drastically compared to the 1950's, but as long as anyone is still doing it, it's not over just yet.
Last edited:
In my opinion, one of the objectives of fishkeeping is to provide your creatures with the best life possible. Can one claim that they are doing all that they can to make their fish's life happy when they have taken it from its home in a natural environment, and put it in an artificial habitat which is a fraction of the size that the fish would normally have to live in (this is generally speaking, of course)? I have strong doubts.
That being said, I do believe that bloodlines do need fresh DNA introduced into them, but I also know that in the cases of species like loaches, many saltwater fish, and cardinals are generally not bought specifically for breeding, yet are mostly wildcaught.
That being said, I do believe that bloodlines do need fresh DNA introduced into them, but I also know that in the cases of species like loaches, many saltwater fish, and cardinals are generally not bought specifically for breeding, yet are mostly wildcaught.
I honestly think that we CAN say that. Aside from the concern of lack of space, and maybe water quality issues since we can never keep dissolved metabolics as low as they are in natural waters, almost every aspect of the fish's life will be improved (in the hands of a conscientious aquarist). It will have a steady supply of food, a safe haven for it and it's conspecifics to live, and will never have to worry about hunger or predation again. If a live in captivity were so terrible compared to the wild, why do captive fish often have longer life expectancies.
The saltwater collection trade has made leaps and bounds in terms of ethical collection practices, and though loaches are often still collected in shady manners, it cannot be re-iterated enough that Brazil at least practices strong conservation measures in their fish collecting, and the cardinal trade is the MAIN source of income for many Amazon communities. At that point, the issue goes beyond the ethics of fishkeeping, and it verges o the point where misguided moralism can begin to affect the actual livelihoods of people who in actuality are probably doing more to preserve the natural habitats they depend on than any amount of forum bickering is going to accomplish.
People seem to consistently forget that the wild includes highly efficient predators and pathogens which have usually evolved using our aquatic animals as a food source/breeding ground. If you are conscientious about the amount of room your fish need I don't see how a fish's quality of life would go down, even if it wasn't for the amount of pollutants entering natural bodies of water.
Bishop:
I wasn't trying to imply that most people's fish are wild caught, but moreso that from my understanding in this thread most specimen of some species are wild caught.
Inka:
I think a matter of priorities is disputable, however many of the issues of fishcare that come up on this site do include tank size and water quality. These are obviously significant issues to the animal's quality of life and I find it dubious to dismiss them for this argument. I'll use an analogy of humans for an example of environment and its size: I live in a dorm room which allows me adequate space to live, eat, sleep, breathe, and move around, yet I am still not as happy here than I would be in a house or apartment. The water and air that I receive here are chemically and biologically sound by generally all measurable standards, but I am still happier outside in fresh air with more room to move around and spread out in.
I also don't beleive that life span directly dictates life quality by any means. One may generalize that a longer lifespan would indicate a physically healthier creature, but that does not necessarily indicate happiness or quality of life. A human could live to be 120 years old, but what sort of physical condition do they occupy towards the end of thier existence?
As for the saltwater collection issue, I'm mainly reflecting on points and information expressed in this thread. I haven't been doing scholarly research on these topics.
I concede that harvesting wild fish might be a necessary process, but only if it is aiding in the conservation of the animals and thier habitats. This is not a reason to condone all catching of wild fish, but a reason to not prevent it in my opinion. Its great to support people who are doing this work, but I think it is a separate issue than debating ethics of the actual fish. That is essentially congruent to saying that someone who drives a hybrid or alternative fueled vehicle is not considering that they are hurting the workers in the oil industry.
Doreenjoy:
Extinct species are definitely an extenuating circumstance, not a main reason for catching wild fish, IMO.
I wasn't trying to imply that most people's fish are wild caught, but moreso that from my understanding in this thread most specimen of some species are wild caught.
Inka:
I think a matter of priorities is disputable, however many of the issues of fishcare that come up on this site do include tank size and water quality. These are obviously significant issues to the animal's quality of life and I find it dubious to dismiss them for this argument. I'll use an analogy of humans for an example of environment and its size: I live in a dorm room which allows me adequate space to live, eat, sleep, breathe, and move around, yet I am still not as happy here than I would be in a house or apartment. The water and air that I receive here are chemically and biologically sound by generally all measurable standards, but I am still happier outside in fresh air with more room to move around and spread out in.
I also don't beleive that life span directly dictates life quality by any means. One may generalize that a longer lifespan would indicate a physically healthier creature, but that does not necessarily indicate happiness or quality of life. A human could live to be 120 years old, but what sort of physical condition do they occupy towards the end of thier existence?
As for the saltwater collection issue, I'm mainly reflecting on points and information expressed in this thread. I haven't been doing scholarly research on these topics.
I concede that harvesting wild fish might be a necessary process, but only if it is aiding in the conservation of the animals and thier habitats. This is not a reason to condone all catching of wild fish, but a reason to not prevent it in my opinion. Its great to support people who are doing this work, but I think it is a separate issue than debating ethics of the actual fish. That is essentially congruent to saying that someone who drives a hybrid or alternative fueled vehicle is not considering that they are hurting the workers in the oil industry.
Doreenjoy:
Extinct species are definitely an extenuating circumstance, not a main reason for catching wild fish, IMO.
As I said, there are many reasons for extinction, or even for a species to disappear in the wild. Catching fish in the wild is not the only reason a species disappears from the wild. If a habitat disappears, and there are none kept in captivity, then the species is extinct.
I simply disagree that keeping fish in captivity is wrong or cruel.
