tattooed fish is ok
- Thread starter gagaliya
- Start date
I saw this as well.
It's saddening that the SPCA people, the people that are supposed to be protecting animals, just said that it was legal and that they hoped people wouldn't think it's cool. Where was the voice saying "this is wrong"??
I don't know if I'd be more upset if CNN chose not to include a voice of dissent in the segment, or if one never existed.
Anyone near this pet store: be warned. The owner is just out to make more money by exploiting helpless fish through painful tattooing.
It's saddening that the SPCA people, the people that are supposed to be protecting animals, just said that it was legal and that they hoped people wouldn't think it's cool. Where was the voice saying "this is wrong"??
I don't know if I'd be more upset if CNN chose not to include a voice of dissent in the segment, or if one never existed.
Anyone near this pet store: be warned. The owner is just out to make more money by exploiting helpless fish through painful tattooing.
the SPCA doesn't make the laws.
if something is not illegal, and a group like the SPCA is put on the spot and asked to say something about it, they are going to say the most politically correct thing they can say about it at that moment. right now i'm sure they are seeing how much news this item about the fish is getting, and they are putting together a stronger or more unified statement in case they are asked to give a more detailed opinion, but if they said what WE all think, which is that these fish should be banned and stores should not sell them, they could get into legal trouble. if a store or a distributor can show a loss of profit and trace it back to the SPCA's comment, the SPCA can be sued for the profit loss because the sellers are legally not doing anything wrong.
individuals can have that opinion, but going onto what became national tv and slandering a business can turn into a very large and expensive mistake. since there is no legislaton regarding the fish, to say that the guy is wrong and cruel and evil, etc. can't be supported. what little facts there seem to be are not made very public, and evidence that the fish 'suffer' is either difficult to find or absent entirely. seeing as how that one SPCA's statement is now being broadcasted all over America, they were right to say what they did because they have become the voice of the whole SPCA, and they need to remain mostly neutral until the issue gains the attention of one politico or another.
if something is not illegal, and a group like the SPCA is put on the spot and asked to say something about it, they are going to say the most politically correct thing they can say about it at that moment. right now i'm sure they are seeing how much news this item about the fish is getting, and they are putting together a stronger or more unified statement in case they are asked to give a more detailed opinion, but if they said what WE all think, which is that these fish should be banned and stores should not sell them, they could get into legal trouble. if a store or a distributor can show a loss of profit and trace it back to the SPCA's comment, the SPCA can be sued for the profit loss because the sellers are legally not doing anything wrong.
individuals can have that opinion, but going onto what became national tv and slandering a business can turn into a very large and expensive mistake. since there is no legislaton regarding the fish, to say that the guy is wrong and cruel and evil, etc. can't be supported. what little facts there seem to be are not made very public, and evidence that the fish 'suffer' is either difficult to find or absent entirely. seeing as how that one SPCA's statement is now being broadcasted all over America, they were right to say what they did because they have become the voice of the whole SPCA, and they need to remain mostly neutral until the issue gains the attention of one politico or another.
that's an interesting question, though CNN didn't buy the fish. they re-broadcasted what was originally a local new report. probably swimming and dying in a fish bowl in the breakroom. . .
what really made me chuckle was when the store owner said something like "those tattooed fish will attract more people to this hobby so it's win situation"
The one dude has no problem with it because they "looked healthy"... He obviously didn't see the death bucket where they were tatooed at! Just isn't right in my opinion. I almost bought a tatooed molly because I thought it was some crazy new strain... then the girl at my lfs said they were tatooed (first I had heard of it) and I said no thanks.
By the way, Gagaliya your avatar is creepy!
By the way, Gagaliya your avatar is creepy!
Last edited:
Thanks for stealing my topic. :sim:
But yeah the entire thing is messed up. There is no law about dying chickens either but they quickly swooped in to grab those off the market. Stupid double standard that fish dont have feelings and every other creature does Im taking it as.
But yeah the entire thing is messed up. There is no law about dying chickens either but they quickly swooped in to grab those off the market. Stupid double standard that fish dont have feelings and every other creature does Im taking it as.
several states do have laws aganst dyeing chicks, ducklings, bunnies. etc. it clearly stated in the report that it was illegal.