Ethics Of Scientific Aquarists

[Tolak]

Is what we do the right thing or not? It depends on what you do, and who "we" is. Most businesses run with a narrow profit margin, large hatcheries are no different. They sell a product, and consider it nothing more than that. Your lfs are often no different, the good ones do care about their stock, and will care for them more than a hatchery. Folks breeding out of their house generally care more about their fish than most any lfs, and the person who keeps ornamental tropical fish usually care more about the fish than a breeder. For example, compare a hatchery, lfs, breeder, and owner of a single tank loosing half a dozen fish overnight, and how it affects each. I totally agree with CFC that fish in the wild have a much tougher life than aquarium raised fish.

As far as wild caught, or endangered species go, it depends on what you do with them. I've been working on a species maintenance program for my local aquatics club; I just handed out a rough draft to some other board members yesterday. It's similar to this; http/greaterdetroitaquariumsociety.com/
People involved in a program like this realize how man has impacted the environment, and are trying to do their little bit to repair or reverse the damage. I find it hard to lump all the people keeping endangered species into the same group.

 

[Captain Retardo]

QUOTE(blue acara @ Aug 20 2006, 12:10 AM)

i think that most if not all experiments on animals is for humans benifit. we treat animals with little or no respect. humans are unfortunatly destroying and damaging the planet.


We are, but this has nothing to do with treating animals badly.


QUOTE

As for fish keeping: Aren't most fish farmed now anyways? I don't believe a farmed fish has the brains to realize what he is missing. Although there are sometime terrible conditions for them (Stores, people who don't know about fish keeping and keep an oscar in a 10 gallon). I dont advocate collecting wild animals for the pet trade at all, although now I think I actually have some fish that are collected from the wild and I kinda feel bad (My kuhli loaches).


So a farmed fish has different neural processes than a wild one? Interesting hypothesis...

And, more importantly, it's okay to abuse a dumb fish but not okay to abuse a clever fish? Isn't that like saying that it's okay to medically experiment on mentally disabled people because they won't understand what's happening anyway?


QUOTE(Captain Retardo @ Aug 19 2006, 08:51 PM)
Although I do not advocate keeping tropical animals at all, unless it is a farmed freshwater fish of course!


And where did the parents of the first farmed freshwater fish come from?

As for the fish brain thing: I meant that the fish were bred in captivity have never seen the wild, so they won't miss it because they don't know what it is.

About the parent of the freshwater fish: Remeber, I kinda changed my opinion from taking wild fish is bad, to taking wild endangered fish is bad. So the people would have taken probably a few thousand wild fish, bred them, then never would have to take any wild fish again.

If you genuinely mean that, then that's quite shocking.


(Perhaps you'd like to clarify how homeless people 'hurt' you?)

I was kidding with that, maybe I didn't show it enough. Although the prospect of testing on deadly criminals dosen't seem that bad...

Yes, but taking a fish from the wild is still taking one whether it's a fish with five thousand million in the wild or just five thousand. Your arguement isn't very stable, you keep changing it to suit your own personal situation.

But taking one fish from a population of five thousand million will barely hurt the wild population at all, but taking it from a wild population of five thousand does a lot more damage. And yes I did change my opinion because I realized that fish that are not farmed are usually less common in the fish keeping hobby. So they would not take as much of them, also if they were to keep an eye on the population numbers of the fish and react in a way to keep it stable, then it would be all fine.

 

[Tolak]

I think keeping wild caught endangered fish is bad if you are keeping them only for ornamental purposes. Most of these people have too much money, and like to brag about it. They are usually idiots who probably shouldn't be keeping fish in the first place.

I have talked, at length, to people who keep endangered species, and would love nothing more than to take fish they have bred, spend their own money to travel with these fish to their native environment, and personally re-introduce them to the wild. I don't see how folks like this keeping endangered species could be classified as bad.

 

[OohFeeshy]

Indeed. The only ways to stop fish species becoming extinct is to stop habitat destruction (which 9.9 times out of ten is why that species is endangered) and to breed stocks in captivity. The first way is a little difficult to manage, but the second isn't.


But people also have to remember, just because something is 'rare' in the hobby, doesn't mean it is in the wild. And it is a little hard to estimate the number of fish in the wild, so take all numbers with a pinch of salt.

 

[Captain Retardo]

Yes, by far the biggest threat to wild species is not the pet trade (although it is still a very big threat, especially if you look at the tomato frog) but it is the destruction of habitat and the rising human population.

 

[OohFeeshy]

There are plenty of species for while the only reason they are not extinct is because people (dedicated hobbyists) have figured out how to breed them before it's too late. Zebra plecs are a prime example- some people on this forum (which reflects the general status) had a zebra plec before export was controlled and they were like any other pretty L number. But now they are only (in most cases) kept by breeders and the population is slowly increasing.

 

[blue acara]

i think that most if not all experiments on animals is for humans benifit. we treat animals with little or no respect. humans are unfortunatly destroying and damaging the planet.

We are, but this has nothing to do with treating animals badly.

experimenting and destroying the homes of animals is treating them badly imho

i love keeping fish, and if i thought it was too 'inhumain' i would sell my tanks.

we do give the fish we keep a life of luxury and if they are not a wild caught endangered species then its ok.
and if you are keeping an endangered species and breeding them then keep it up-long live the zebra plec

throughout history millions of species have died, and long before humans were around.-one day(probably) a massive asteriod will hit earth, humans and most other animals will die- and a new cycle will begin. cockroaches will rule the earth!!!!!!!

 

[Lynden]

a massive asteriod will hit earth, humans and most other animals will die-

If an asteroid comes in 30 years, humans will be ready for it. Already are we on the brink of developing weapons able to destroy these sorts of thing. Already have we spotted an asteroid heading straight for Earth. I don't think that humans will ever become extinct. Like, ever. Even the sun exploding in 500000000 years will not end our species - we will be long gone by then.

I agree that captive fish are better off compared to wild fish. I do not feel disheartened by fishkeeping. But I'll try putting it this way. Would you rather: be taken from the danger of outside when you were little, and raised in a small nursery with luxurious pampering, a T.V., and nothing else, and never being able to leave? Or, would you rather exist in the infinite expanse of the wild, being let to roam the unlimited landscape, with no rules, doing whatever you care to do, and never running out of territory to explore, even if it was filled with danger? I feel that a life like that would be filled with endless excitement, exhilaration, and fullfilment. I become disheartened when I watch coral reef shows because I know that I could never provide my animals with such a vast, unlimited world. They were meant to be in the wild. Of course, this passage does not apply to captive-bred fishes, plants, or animals such as coral.

If animal rights activists see this, I am afraid that I do not care. What chance do they have at shutting down a world-wide industry if they can't even prevent animals such as Matamata turtles and Red Arrowanna from being taken from the wild? Or animals such as Rhinoceroses and Elephants from being poached? Even if hell freezes over and they do succeed, the worst they could do is make us release our fish

-Lynden

 

[Lord Zogat]

Again as I said, they should test on the Bums and Criminals, they are especially useless and hurt normal people!

If you genuinely mean that, then that's quite shocking.


(Perhaps you'd like to clarify how homeless people 'hurt' you?)

Exactly, Captain Retardo, your starting to fulfill your name sake with a comment like that. How is a homeless person even compared to a criminal. Its a good think society would not allow testing on either.

 

[blue acara]

"If an asteroid comes in 30 years, humans will be ready for it. Already are we on the brink of developing weapons able to destroy these sorts of thing. Already have we spotted an asteroid heading straight for Earth. I don't think that humans will ever become extinct. Like, ever. Even the sun exploding in 500000000 years will not end our species - we will be long gone by then."

humans will die-i hope neway.

read this book, imo is a fantastik book called 'a short history of nearly everything' by Bill Bryson.

before reading this book i would have agreed with you about the above statement. if i could be bothered to find the quotes i would. basically if an asteroid doesnt kill us then the sun will- we wont be able to 'move' to another planet because the universe is quite big-

ok ive got a bit of info for you- even at the speed of light 300,000km per second (our max speed atm is 56,000km per hour) it would take 7 hours to get to pluto and pluto isnt even the edge of our solar system beyond that is the oort cloud-which are basically drifting comets, pluto is barley one fifty thousandth of the way to the edge of our own solar system.

 

[Lynden]

"If an asteroid comes in 30 years, humans will be ready for it. Already are we on the brink of developing weapons able to destroy these sorts of thing. Already have we spotted an asteroid heading straight for Earth. I don't think that humans will ever become extinct. Like, ever. Even the sun exploding in 500000000 years will not end our species - we will be long gone by then."

humans will die-i hope neway.

read this book, imo is a fantastik book called 'a short history of nearly everything' by Bill Bryson.

before reading this book i would have agreed with you about the above statement. if i could be bothered to find the quotes i would. basically if an asteroid doesnt kill us then the sun will- we wont be able to 'move' to another planet because the universe is quite big-

ok ive got a bit of info for you- even at the speed of light 300,000km per second (our max speed atm is 56,000km per hour) it would take 7 hours to get to pluto and pluto isnt even the edge of our solar system beyond that is the oort cloud-which are basically drifting comets, pluto is barley one fifty thousandth of the way to the edge of our own solar system.

I figure 5 billion years is enough for humans to accomplish pretty much anything - hell, we came from typewriters and calculators to computers capable of holding terabytes of information in less than 20 years.

humans will die-i hope neway

Why would you hope for your own species to become extinct?

It's one thing to be an animal activist - it's completely another to want your own species to die

-Lynden

P.S., this statement makes me laugh

Exactly, Captain Retardo, your starting to fulfill your name sake with a comment like that

 

[blue acara]

"I figure 5 billion years is enough for humans to accomplish pretty much anything - hell, we came from typewriters and calculators to computers capable of holding terabytes of information in less than 20 years."

yer were smart but we cant controll asteriods or the suns enivatable growth and explosion(90% of the time we cant see asteroids and even if we did we couldnt stop them, nukes arnt designed to travel millions of miles through space- and even if we did blow it up chances we would make it into many radio active smaller rocks which would hit us neway.

"Why would you hope for your own species to become extinct?"

because im crazy -i feel the planet would be better off without us

 

[Tolak]

It seems to me the human race will kill itself off before it gets smart enough to save itself. Hopefully, some fish will survive.

 

[Lynden]

It seems to me the human race will kill itself off before it gets smart enough to save itself. Hopefully, some fish will survive.

Wars will not destroy the entire human race. And if they do, don't expect any fish to be left.

nukes arnt designed to travel millions of miles through space

Nuclear arms are not the answer; there is no fire or explosions in space. But what scientists are developing is rather futuristic; laser weapons.

-i feel the planet would be better off without us

Probably. But as you can see, it is far too late for that. To remove the humans, you must sneak up and destroy the planet they are on.

-Lynden

 

[Synirr]

It seems to me the human race will kill itself off before it gets smart enough to save itself.

Yep. We might be able to handle extreme weather, asteroids, etc, but can we handle the most destructive force on the planet today -- ourselves?
Just because I'm a biology nerd, I wanted to point out that the idea of humans evolving too quickly and bypassing wisdom on the way there is kinda silly when you think about how evolution really works. It is entirely reactionary, there is no proactive component of it, and the sole "purpose" is to pass on DNA to the next generation. So basically, you can't expect evolution to be like "uh oh guys, we better slow down the development of intelligence in this species, it's going to get too smart too fast and destroy itself!" The only important thing in evolutionary terms is that intelligence helped us survive to pass on our DNA, and apparently we're doing a darn good job of it if you look at the rate of population growth.