A
Anonymous
Guest
Gotcha Jen, thanks for the clarification.
Oh absolutely - but the difference is, the people do it to themselves. The fish don't have a choice in the matter.dizzy":ulrmpilr said:I've seen people do far worse than that to themselves. 8O
Righty":12gwqys1 said:In reality, I am torn on this issue. Since these animals aren't wild caught, is painting them really any worse than how we treat our food animals? I guess it does set a poor tone for the hobby in general.
vitz":9gzhhk2h said:painted/dyed fish, including the 'bloody parrot/jellybean cichlid' (a man induced mutation/mule/hybrid )have been around for decades, are bred for the body form and then cosmetically altered (usually w/a dye injection performed subcutaneously)
This is the first y'all are aware of this ? 8O
i'll lay money down that within 5 years there will be green and yellow percs available as well, with purple polka dots, too! :wink:
JennM":1bh640ah said:Righty":1bh640ah said:In reality, I am torn on this issue. Since these animals aren't wild caught, is painting them really any worse than how we treat our food animals? I guess it does set a poor tone for the hobby in general.
You're torn about it? You mean part of you thinks it's OK to do this for the sake of somebody who wants an unnaturally coloured fish or to use the fish to send a message of endearment? Nothin' says luvin' like a mutant, dyed, tatooed fish... :roll:
Is a wild-caught life more valuable than a captive raised one? That opens a whole other can of ethical worms too. It's OK to mess with a captive raised fish, but it would be somehow worse to do this to a wild-caught specimen?
Just because a captive bred creature is more easy to procure than a wild caught one, does that make it that much more "disposable"?
Comparing them to food animals is like comparing guns and butter.
cortez marine":3m9y118s said:I sure as heck wouldn't want somebody tattoing, dying or otherwise adulterating my body with paint or dye.
Jenn,
People pay for that!
OK... So you're not a Goth chick.
Steve
JennM":1s5ndwdg said:Oh absolutely - but the difference is, the people do it to themselves. The fish don't have a choice in the matter.
Jenn
dizzy":zoo0gd3l said:JennM":zoo0gd3l said:Oh absolutely - but the difference is, the people do it to themselves. The fish don't have a choice in the matter.
Jenn
Jenn,
I'm pretty sure in certain cultures people tattoo their children without much regard to the child's feelings. Yep I'm pretty sure I saw something like that on the Discovery channel or National Geographic. Who's to say it doesn't happen right here in the good ole US of A. And belive it or not, people actually take a needle and poke holes in their little girl's ears so they can put earrings on the child. Like a 4-year child cares about how they look. :roll: I honestly doubt the fish gives a rat's ass as long as you feed it and change the water once in awhile.
PS
I've had to give some of my koi deep muscle injections with antibiotics and it doesn't seem like it bothers them very much.
JennM":1iqqhb5c said:Well my daughter asked to have her ears pierced when she was 3. I made her wait til she was 4 1/2... and she knew it would hurt, and she made that choice herself, and I agreed to it. Actually a 4 year old DOES care how they look, but that's another story too.
There's still a huge difference between making the choice to adorn (or deface) oneself, and inflicting the same on a creature that has no say in the matter.
Jenn
JennM":1s3k441y said:No Righty, I'm not being condescending - but since you offered a differing opinion, I'm challenging it.
Food animals are totally different from aquarium livestock, period. And while I'm not partial to keeping chickens in little boxes their whole lives (I kept a henhouse and mine free-ranged - better eggs when the chickens can eat worms and bugs) there *are* regulations in place to protect those, and they are routinely enforced.
But since you brought it up it really pisses me off that most chicken products available in supermarkets are "enhanced" with some kind of "broth"... more chemicals we don't need... but that's a whole other post for a whole other discussion board.
Are you trying just to play devil's advocate, or do you really see the good in having a grotesque, painted and tattooed fish to appeal to the lowest common denominator in the hobby?
Soiling a fish by dying it or tattooing it is to do so only for the sake of cosmetics, and IMO unnecessary and unethical.
This is just my humble opinion.