Tattooed Fish/glo Fish

[unknowntbeast]

I was in a fish store in Northern Virginia today and saw a tattooed fish. (See link for image) and started to get thinking "This is wrong!" So I am planning to write my rep. to try to get them banned from being sold in VA. I am in the process of writing out the details of the bill that I would try to get him to introduced in the state General Assembly. But I've ran into a snag. Where do you draw the line in defining "Tattooed fish"? I ask this because I have found a site selling "Laser Tattooed fish", and also the debate of Glofish. The laser tattooed fish site says they use a low powered laser that doesn't hurt the fish, of course they say this, they don't want to push potential customers away. But is this true? Also, does the fact that you could have your favorite football team's logo tattooed on the fish make it more messed up? (I personally think it is "bad word" up.) Now on the subject of GloFish. I will admit that I was ignorant at the time, and I did get them. I still have them. I still will care for them no matter what and no less than other fish I will get in the future. But had I came to TFF first I would probably wouldn't had gotten them. The question is, is it right or not? They have a page on the ethics of it. In the begining of GloFish, they had to use needles to implant the jellyfish gene (I believe) into the fish, thus subjecting it to pain. However, how is it done now? Since they have been out for a while, do the continue to use the needle method or do they have a spawning method? Since the color should continue through breeding, the second would make better sense.

So, members of TFF, I ask you, what do you think? Please leave feedback on what you think.

Link for tattooed fish picture: <a href="http/s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm101/u...0823091545a.jpg" target="_blank">http/s294.photobucket.com/albums/mm101/u...0823091545a.jpg</a>

EDIT: From the looks of the vote so far, confiscated fish should not be euthanized. Then what should happen to them? I highly doubt the state will fund an aquarium just for illegal fish. Should they be able to force the selling company to take them back?

 

[backtotropical]

I absolutely agree. The practice is cruel and quite frankly disgusting. It should be outlawed worldwide IMO.

I don't think existing fish should be euthanised (its not their fault some idiot tattooed them), but they should certainly be banned for sale and neutered to preserve existing true species.

 

[unknowntbeast]

I don't think existing fish should be euthanised (its not their fault some idiot tattooed them)

But are they continuing to suffer from the effects of the tattooing?

 

[dthoffsett]

I don't think existing fish should be euthanised (its not their fault some idiot tattooed them)

But are they continuing to suffer from the effects of the tattooing?

I don't think so, just like with humans once you tattoo heals you shouldn't have any after affects. I do agree that they need to be banned, I can't understand why anyone would think it's "cool".

 

[meguro]

Most ornamental fish which happen to fall under a ban, are usually allowed to be kept until they die. Only fish which would greatly adversely affect local ecosystems are destroyed when the ban of them comes into force.

I doubt glofish and the like fall into the category of being potentially ecologically damaging.

edit: forgot to add that there are usually also stipulations which will prohibit the breeding of the banned species too. As well as sale/import/export etc.

 

[Whitester]

A LFS where I live has hundreds of tattooed fish! You wouldn't believe some of the things tattooed on them. I have personaly saw ones that said "I love you", "Be mine", "No Fishing", and other sayings I cant remember. I also saw football teams names, Nascar driver numbers, and hearts. The fish were pretty big, not exactly sure what kind of fish they were. About 4 inches long. When I say they had hundreds, I mean about 200 fish. The tanks were packed full and there were 3 tanks overcrowded with them.

 

[shroob]

Tatoo'd fish should definately be banned, no doubt about it.

I thought that GloFish were a result of genetic modification, inserting the jellyfish DNA into danio eggs, therefore not actually harming the fish (however if I'm wrong and the GloFish is produced in another way which is painful/harmful to the fish then, yes, it shouldn't be allowed).

 

[Jonty]

Found this on Glofish Site

Do you have to add a fluorescence gene to every fish before it hatches?
No. Today's GloFish® fluorescent fish are bred from the offspring of fluorescent zebrafish that were originally developed several years ago. Each new GloFish® fluorescent fish inherits its unique color directly from its parents, maintains the color throughout its life, and passes the color along to its offspring.

 

[Mikaila31]

Tatoo'd fish should definately be banned, no doubt about it.

I thought that GloFish were a result of genetic modification, inserting the jellyfish DNA into danio eggs, therefore not actually harming the fish (however if I'm wrong and the GloFish is produced in another way which is painful/harmful to the fish then, yes, it shouldn't be allowed).

You are correct. They insert it into the egg, not the adult fish. IMO there is absouletey no harm in doing this. Also I believe most glofish now are bred no different than you zebra danio, since the jelly fish gene is passed to the offspring.

 

[zuulan]

A LFS where I live has hundreds of tattooed fish! You wouldn't believe some of the things tattooed on them. I have personaly saw ones that said "I love you", "Be mine", "No Fishing", and other sayings I cant remember. I also saw football teams names, Nascar driver numbers, and hearts. The fish were pretty big, not exactly sure what kind of fish they were. About 4 inches long. When I say they had hundreds, I mean about 200 fish. The tanks were packed full and there were 3 tanks overcrowded with them.

Sounds like an absolutely awful shop. Can't you complain to any authorities to get it closed down?

 

[joshjames]

shouldnt be done full stop .

 

[hihi100202]

I thought that GloFish were a result of genetic modification, inserting the jellyfish DNA into danio eggs, therefore not actually harming the fish (however if I'm wrong and the GloFish is produced in another way which is painful/harmful to the fish then, yes, it shouldn't be allowed).

that is very correct, IMO there is NO harm done... don't ban the glofish

on the other fin...

I don't think so, just like with humans once you tattoo heals you shouldn't have any after affects. I do agree that they need to be banned, I can't understand why anyone would think it's "cool".

But fish are not humans... and don't the fish that get tattoed have a shorter life span? IMO its because they have so mutch pain, they just cant take it.

 

[chrisrm]

OMG i just googled laser tattooed fish i never realised that went on, why?
thats horrorific

 

[kizno1]

OMG i just googled laser tattooed fish i never realised that went on, why?
thats horrorific

because some people think they look good and buy them. 3 people have voted on hear it shouldnt be banned.

 

[hihi100202]

OMG i just googled laser tattooed fish i never realised that went on, why?
thats horrorific

because some people think they look good and buy them. 3 people have voted on hear it shouldnt be banned.

hmmm... i bet the ppl who saidd not to ban them have them?