I almost supported animal cruelty...yuck!

[johnlarson66]

Just to put this out there,

I think most would agree that keeping fish shortens their life if they would have just been left alone in the wild. Keep in mind many fish die from capture, shipping, and at the store before they make it to someone's fish tank.

So if the act of dying the fish or feeding it dyed food (which is debatable) shortens it life even more, really how bad is it in the big picture. I am not sure there is any real proof that dying the fish shorten their life. It could be how the fish are kept by the people that purchase the dyed fish.

Now as far as tatoos and mutilations, well that is something many humans partake in. The people that I know that have tatoos, say they even kind of liked the pain. Most people that have one tatoo either have more or want more. They would tell you they like how the tatoo looks or it is worth it. Same can be said against the mutilations and piercings.

If you don't like dyed and tatooed fish, don't buy them. If you want to boycott a store or company for doing that, then great, you have rights. If a person likes dyed or tatooed fish, then they should have the right to buy them.

But to think that this practice is unethical and should be illegal, well you sound like PETA. Before anyone starts knocking PETA, it would be good to read what they say about fish keeping. Their advice about fish that are already pets is pretty sound.

 

[vanillaXtiffy]

The difference there is that people choose to get their tattoss and most are aware of the pain that it will cause. The fish don't walk into a tattoo parlor and say 'excuse me, but could I get my wife's name tattooed on my tailfin?' Someone else does it to them against their will (presumably. Maybe the fish do like it, eitherway unless we could communicate with them and they tell us it's okay I think we can safely assume they don't enjoy it.) So yeah, that argument doesn't work.

 

[13enzene]

lol and you have felt "fish pain"? No? oh ok then that doesn't work either. Fact is we don't know if it physically hurts the fish or not, and until you have been a fish don't try to act like you know. Sure somethings are cruel and wrong to do to the fish (keeping them in really small places like the phones mentioned and betta cubes and such) but who are you to say this hurts or doesn't hurt the fish all you are doing is assuming based on your bias opinion (which everyone has including me).

Not saying it is right or wrong, just trying to put it into prespective.

 

[vanillaXtiffy]

If we don't know whether or not it causes them pain, it's safer to opt on the side of not doing it. Anyway, whether or not it causes them pain, it's not like the fish has anything to gain from it. We do. So why do it?

 

[13enzene]

I am not saying that it is right and that we should keep doing it, personally I think the fish already look nice an come in amazing colours but to use a pain argument or assumption thereof won't cut it.

 

[SchizotypalVamp]

Actually, fish are known to live longer and healthier lives in tanks than in the wild. They also tend to inhabit a portion of their habitat, not the full lake/river/etc. So these are not inhumane pratices. Also, these are captive-bred fish we are talking about.

One thing we certainly know is that fish die from stress. And the tatooing process is very stressful and damaging to their bodies. It certainly shortens their lifespan. Read what lupin said about all the diseases and such dyed fish are more vunerable to.

PS getting a tattoo if you didn't want one would be a painful and horrible process.

 

[13enzene]

Just being the devils advocate here...

Actually, fish are known to live longer and healthier lives in tanks than in the wild

if that is true then the dying ect. that goes on and shortens there lifespan how short? If it is no better then the wild then what?

Also if there were less stressful ways of doing it (ex gene manipulation like the GloFish) would you still claim it was inhumane, or not buy these fish? If so then there must be other reasons.

 

[SchizotypalVamp]

Dying shortens their lifespan by a drastic amount. I would personally buy glofish, though they are banned where I live. My only scruple is that they not be mixed with the unmodified member of the species.

 

[Lupin]

Just being the devils advocate here...

if that is true then the dying ect. that goes on and shortens there lifespan how short? If it is no better then the wild then what?

How short? It depends how long it takes for the fish to remain free from health issues. Take note the dyeing processes done has damaged the slime coat of several fish. After the slime coat is damaged, are they still protected from skin diseases especially the incurable viral lymphocystis?

They are no better in the wild than in captivity when you consider the food chain cycle as one factor that influences their lifespan. Another factor is climate changes. Set the killifish for example. The adults are simply seasonal spawners and do not live for more than a year when the drought comes in. In this case, they begin to lay eggs to maintain their survival before they die. In the aquaria, would they meet the drought at all? Not if the aquarist simply played dumb by putting a sun lamp on it and leave the tank to dry up.

Also if there were less stressful ways of doing it (ex gene manipulation like the GloFish) would you still claim it was inhumane, or not buy these fish? If so then there must be other reasons.

Oh that, we're entitled to our own views. We cannot go on preaching around why you agree or disagree if the process done has not harmed the specimen at all. Provided the method used does not harm a live specimen, then I am fine with it. For aesthetic reasons, it depends. I keep about 10 colors of Pomacea bridgesii and they're selectively bred to gain those colors. If they were painted around, I'd be ticked off because it looked rather artificial and temporary, not that the snails need to be painted anyway since they look cool whether in wild color or not.

 

[Lupin]

Oh my god, I totally thought this stuff was illegal.

Great thread.

There has been no law against tattooing and dyeing. We tend to be insensitive idiots when it comes to these fads. The glofish though has been banned in New Zealand, some states and other countries despite the fact they have not been harmed at all. They're not banned here though and have spread around already. I've seen the new generations look less like the original glofish as they may have presumably been bred with the non-genetically modified ones.