I like to keep animals. I am also a conservationist. This leads to some interesting conflicts. I want to post a few thoughts of mine and see what you all think.
I. Ethics of husbandry
I will take it as read that no one on this forum believes keeping animals in captivity is unethical in itself. However, I think many or most of us believe that it is unethical to keep an animal in poor, stressful, or unhealthy conditions. We all make mistakes of course, and most of us have kept animals in situations we ought not to have, through ignorance or poor planning. This forum and other sources of information are a great way to improve general husbandry, but they are passive methods which only apply to those hobbyists who choose to take an interest. I am interested in more active methods for reducing poor husbandry practices.
Different animals of course have different husbandry requirements. Some are relatively easy to keep for a typical beginning hobbyist with a modest budget, but many commonly sold animals require larger or more sophisticated setups than the typical hobbyist can provide. These animals often end up dying unnecessarily, harming humans, or being released when they prove difficult. What can we do to ameliorate this issue?
1. Ban advanced species. This is probably the cheapest, easiest, and most used method, but it may hurt the overall hobby and business of fishkeeping. I also believe it may hurt the species themselves; if a valuable wild species suddenly becomes worthless, there is no longer an incentive to protect its habitat or harvest it sustainably.
2. Require permits for advanced species. This is an expensive and labor-intensive option, but I believe it could be an effective one. Those hobbyists who wish to keep large or specialized species must apply for permits; the permitting process would involve both a fee (supporting the enforcement and distribution of permits) and testing to ensure that the permittee understands the care requirements of the species he wants. This will no doubt reduce the demand for those species, but I believe the subsequent rise in price would offset this, avoiding the sudden worthlessness scenario described above.
3. Place a 'luxury tax' on advanced species. This would raise the price of these species and hopefully discourage uninformed beginners from considering them. Less thorough but cheaper than option 2.
Please discuss. I will add more topics later.
I. Ethics of husbandry
I will take it as read that no one on this forum believes keeping animals in captivity is unethical in itself. However, I think many or most of us believe that it is unethical to keep an animal in poor, stressful, or unhealthy conditions. We all make mistakes of course, and most of us have kept animals in situations we ought not to have, through ignorance or poor planning. This forum and other sources of information are a great way to improve general husbandry, but they are passive methods which only apply to those hobbyists who choose to take an interest. I am interested in more active methods for reducing poor husbandry practices.
Different animals of course have different husbandry requirements. Some are relatively easy to keep for a typical beginning hobbyist with a modest budget, but many commonly sold animals require larger or more sophisticated setups than the typical hobbyist can provide. These animals often end up dying unnecessarily, harming humans, or being released when they prove difficult. What can we do to ameliorate this issue?
1. Ban advanced species. This is probably the cheapest, easiest, and most used method, but it may hurt the overall hobby and business of fishkeeping. I also believe it may hurt the species themselves; if a valuable wild species suddenly becomes worthless, there is no longer an incentive to protect its habitat or harvest it sustainably.
2. Require permits for advanced species. This is an expensive and labor-intensive option, but I believe it could be an effective one. Those hobbyists who wish to keep large or specialized species must apply for permits; the permitting process would involve both a fee (supporting the enforcement and distribution of permits) and testing to ensure that the permittee understands the care requirements of the species he wants. This will no doubt reduce the demand for those species, but I believe the subsequent rise in price would offset this, avoiding the sudden worthlessness scenario described above.
3. Place a 'luxury tax' on advanced species. This would raise the price of these species and hopefully discourage uninformed beginners from considering them. Less thorough but cheaper than option 2.
Please discuss. I will add more topics later.
