Interesting idea

The April FOTM Contest Poll is open!
FishForums.net Fish of the Month
🏆 Click to vote! 🏆

JuiceBox52

Passionate about fish and their care
Tank of the Month 🏆
Pet of the Month 🎖️
Joined
Oct 9, 2019
Messages
11,738
Reaction score
13,948
Location
PNW

I came across this but I got really mad with their idea of a "cheap test fish" to make sure it works. Just because a fish is cheap does not mean its disposable.:mad::mad:
 
Conversely nature is cruel, and lots of us leave fry to get eaten etc to control the population and many shops sell drab fish as feeders for others, live food is the same principle. We only have beautiful fish varieties because most get discarded in the process of selective breeding.

Animal cruelty for its own sake is obviously not the right thing to do, but at the end of the day fish keeping is for the purpose of bringing the owner joy, in the way that eating meat is to bring the eater joy (/debatable health benefits).
 
Rosy reds have always been feeder fish. But they are raised for feeder fish, hense, not animal cruelty.
 
@Barry Tetra , the definition of animal cruelty is this: "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse, animal neglect or animal cruelty, is the infliction by omission (animal neglect) or by commission by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human." They are bread specifically for food for bigger fish. (Oscars, Arowanas, etc.)
(Quote provided from www.google.com)
 
I dont have a problem with feeder fish, but using an animal to test your idea to make sure it works for a more expensive fish is not right
 
@Barry Tetra , the definition of animal cruelty is this: "Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse, animal neglect or animal cruelty, is the infliction by omission (animal neglect) or by commission by humans of suffering or harm upon any non-human." They are bread specifically for food for bigger fish. (Oscars, Arowanas, etc.)
(Quote provided from www.google.com)
That’s what im talking about.
 

Most reactions

trending

Staff online

Back
Top