Parrot cichlids

[lagrant]

Im probably going to get bashed for this, but I know alot of people get flamed on hear for buying dyed parrot fish....... The main question is, whats right and whats wrong?

when seeing them in the shop do we not buy them because they are dyed fish and this will ony be promoting the sales of them, this in fact possibly be making there demand more and amost say "hey I love this fish, it's right that they are dyed"

Or do we leave them in the shop, possibly to die there, maybe having a miserable life, because we are standing by our morals in saying whats happening is wrong. the fish itself can not help it, it didnt ask to be inhumainly dyed, should this mean we dont buy it and not give the fish the best life we can?

There seems to be no right or wrong in this matter, only the pain and suffering caused to the fish......should this mean that we dont try and give the fish a happier life from then in.

Why should a dyed parrot fish suffer any more than it hast to for the sake of people out there not giving a darn about its welfare and mistreating it.

I would like to hear your views on this, after all we all want the best for our fish, and I personally believe someone who buys a fish like this should not be bash but, praised for trying to make its live a happy and heathy one.

so tell me is this right or wrong?

 

[annka5]

Sorry, but i disagree with you!
In purchasing the fish, you show the breeder /dyer /retailer that their is a demand and they can make money from it. So, they will carry on.
You'll be improving the quality of life for one fish, but in return more fish will be dyed and suffer a short life as a result. So for each one you "save" you could be encouraging the dying of another 10 or however many - a bigger number than one, anyhow. So the net impact of your action is to increase the number of fish suffering.
Further, I think IF you can avoid it, you shouldn't give your money to companies whose practices you strongly disapprove of, as this cash props them up and enables them to continue. Otherwise effectively you are funding these practices.

 

[lagrant]

I totally understand your view, as I said, it seems to be a lose lose situation. would we treat other animals that way, say a pug dogs thats on the verge of being put to sleep an the kennels as everyone who has seen him disagree's so much in the way the poor dog has be bred to be like that, at no fault of his own, he enduours then again more suffering. because no one will take him into there family.

Id be interested in hearing others views.

I myself is at a lose as to what is right and what is wrong?

its very much the same as people who rescue fish from pets at home and wallmart, not saying this is wrong, its great people are so in love with these creatures they will do anything to save them . fish that are gravely ill there, once one is saved another will be there in its place.

In an ideal world non of this suffering would go on.

We have to cocentate on the whole issue and this dying needs to come to an end, but there must be a way to help those who are already so needy of our help.

 

[jimw13uk]

Sorry but I am 100% against these fish as , as Annka5 said - by buying these fish we are supporting the extremely cruel manufacture of them.

Do you know how these dyed fish are dyed - do you know mortality rates (during dyeing) run at 80% in these fish - they are dipped & stripped , dyed and the dipped again to stimulate the production of their slime coat. Some are injected but they require so many injections to get the dye into the body that they die - the strong who survive all this have a guaranteed shortened life span

This barbaric business is criminal in my eyes and supporters of it should be ashamed

 

[lagrant]

Sorry but I am 100% against these fish as , as Annka5 said - by buying these fish we are supporting the extremely cruel manufacture of them.

Do you know how these dyed fish are dyed - do you know mortality rates (during dyeing) run at 80% in these fish - they are dipped & stripped , dyed and the dipped again to stimulate the production of their slime coat. Some are injected but they require so many injections to get the dye into the body that they die - the strong who survive all this have a guaranteed shortened life span

This barbaric business is criminal in my eyes and supporters of it should be ashamed

I do realise the pain and suffering this causes and if you read my posts proparly you will see this, I am not promoting this trade in anyway, just wishing there was away for the whole thing to be banned and for the fish that did suvive to brought into homes that love them.

As said above a lose lose situation, either way there are so many lives lost.

This post is not intented for anger against each other, everyone is intitled to there own views, this anger needs to be againt the traders that are the whole route of this problem,

my only corncern is making sure that the fish that do suvive dont die unnessarey. I hate this trade and understand that by bying these fish, the trade will only continue, Its upto the LFS's to stop bying in these fish.

 

[annka5]

I think we all agree that dying fish is wrong.
I also reckon that rescuing fish from places that keep them in apalling conditions (e.g. betta's at walmart) is not a good idea, simply because businesses look at profits and cash flow, and if they can keep fish in cheap to maintain, poor conditions, and still sell them, they are likely to do that rather than be fair to them, ASSUMING that they have no feeling toward the fish in the first place. Also, you would be funding a company which does something you strongly disapprove of.

 

[lagrant]

I think we all agree that dying fish is wrong.
I also reckon that rescuing fish from places that keep them in apalling conditions (e.g. betta's at walmart) is not a good idea, simply because businesses look at profits and cash flow, and if they can keep fish in cheap to maintain, poor conditions, and still sell them, they are likely to do that rather than be fair to them, ASSUMING that they have no feeling toward the fish in the first place. Also, you would be funding a company which does something you strongly disapprove of.

There seems to be so much crulty, but for some reason it doesnt seem to be as such and important issue as it is with other animals, something really needs to be done, Laws put in place to protect them, I believe places such as pets at home, wallmart etc.... should not stock live stock and leave it to specilist stores, which can be closly monitored. the compertition element of selling fish and keeping costs down is possibly one of the main causes.

Sorry for my terrible spelling.

 

[annka5]

IMO we shouldn't need laws. People should just not buy the things they disapprove of.... would be great to live in an ideal world...!!
And, this is a very pulled-out-of-thin-air theory, but are fish less protected because they are counted as livestock and farmed as a food crop - e.g. salmon farming? Therefore, not protected as a pet.

 

[lagrant]

IMO we shouldn't need laws. People should just not buy the things they disapprove of.... would be great to live in an ideal world...!!
And, this is a very pulled-out-of-thin-air theory, but are fish less protected because they are counted as livestock and farmed as a food crop - e.g. salmon farming? Therefore, not protected as a pet.

Laws are a fact of life, if there were no rules, then where would we be. these fish are not sold as a food source they are sold as pets, although I would imagine the laws were stricter for fish that are farmed for food, due to heath reasons. crulity is crulity and should never be inforce apone anything, or any one.

 

[annka5]

Fish are sold for food, admittedly, only shellfish are sold live as food.
What I meant was that (at least in the UK) commercial fish farms would be affected by any laws surrounding keeping of fish.They keep fish contained within in a small area within a huge body of water nad feed high levels of antibiotics and colour-enhancing chemicals - not for the skin /scales but for the flesh, to give your salmon flesh a "lovely" salmony pink colour. Otherwise farmed salmon flesh would be greyish. A law would "accidentally" cover both farmed salmon and pet fish - the definitions otherwise would just be too difficult.
Also, I didn't mean we shouldn't need any laws at all, just laws preventing cruelty to fish - in an ideal world.

 

[Synirr]

A law would "accidentally" cover both farmed salmon and pet fish - the definitions otherwise would just be too difficult.

Why would the definition be too difficult? It wouldn't be hard at all to simply exclude fish farmed for food from the aforementioned laws.

In America at least, I'm pretty sure there aren't any laws about it because they are "just fish." Let's face it, not many people really think of them as worth protecting.

Anyway, as to dyed fish, I am completely against supporting the practice. I have bought a dyed fish before even though I knew it was dyed (my midas hybrid,) but ONLY because I knew my LFS does not normally stock dyed fish, had no idea they would be dyed when they were ordered, and didn't plan to order any more. Considering that my fish wasn't going to be replaced by any more cruelly dyed fish, I just think of it as giving her a good home

 

[freddyk]

Supply and demand. To use the attitude that they're already there so we may as well buy them is very ignorant - if you don't think they should be sold then don't by them - no demand, no supply!! Any vegetarians for moral reasons out there must understand - they understand that by letting one chicken rot on the shelf, many more will be saved brutal slaughter in the future.

I'm not a vegetarian and my morals are not so flawless. I simply can't figure out why a fat bulbous creature with a mangled spine and mutilated mouth is considered desirable. There are so many beautiful fish created by nature - fish of which every feature evolved for a reason, fish that have natural behavior to display -- fish with natural beauty and grace that can never be matched by man.

 

[MegTheFish]

the strong who survive all this have a guaranteed shortened life span

Actually, I wouldn't say that they are guaranteed to have a shortened life span, but 99% of them do. The reasen I'm saying this is because I've had my painted white-skirt tetras (never knew they were dyed when I bought them!) for over 2 years, and they are still kicking around! Yah, that was kind of pointless to say, but whatever

 

[Ben]

Not all dyed fish die, and the ones who live, dont always die too.
the dye can simpyk wear off from the fishes body, happens all the time

DD`

 

[Synirr]

Not all dyed fish die, and the ones who live, dont always die too.
the dye can simpyk wear off from the fishes body, happens all the time

DD`

That's what has happened to my little (ok, not so little anymore) Marie. She only has one tiny, barely noticeable speck of blue left where I assume the needle went it. Many fish do die or have shortened lifespans from dyeing, but if you do possess a dyed fish for whatever reason, there's hope they can be nursed back to health and live a wonderful life