Feeding Kitten to TSN?

  • We are currently upgrading MFK. thanks! -neo
Status
Not open for further replies.
Red Devil;3527583; said:
i definitly agree that we lack protective laws for fish .... they are also live little creatures with feelings ... but unfortunatly it will be a long long time before it is considered since fish do not have enough avocates fighting for their rights... and they are on the bottom of the totem pole.. but MFK and all the knowledge we obtain here helps us educate people to look after the fish themselves.. the more we know the more we can do for fish..be it a larger home.. not buy it ... so retailers don't capture and sell it ...etc.. slow process but everyday it gets better.


mm.. but where do we draw the line? are feeder goldfish to be included? I would say my big channa and my dats (may they rest in peace) have about the same intelligence as a cat.. squids learn to open jars in order to attain food, the big sa/ca cichlids are undoubtfully very intelligent and care for there young to the point of dying for them..

I think all animals should be included in such a law because I basically hate all humans but I still won't have any issues with feeding platy/molly/guppy(fishes ending with a "y") to my big and mean fish in order to get them started and moved on to prepared food.
 
You shouldn't draw any lines. No animal "deserves" to be fed more than any other. A pig is as smart and affectionate as a horse/dog/cat, yet you can butcher pigs all day long. It boils down to cultural indoctrination...you have been told since you were a child that pigs and fish are "food", while cats and dogs are "pets". There is no logical reason why one doesn't deserve to be eaten.
 
ettfettbranamn;3527611; said:
mm.. but where do we draw the line? are feeder goldfish to be included? I would say my big channa and my dats (may they rest in peace) have about the same intelligence as a cat.. squids learn to open jars in order to attain food, the big sa/ca cichlids are undoubtfully very intelligent and care for there young to the point of dying for them..

I think all animals should be included in such a law because I basically hate all humans but I still won't have any issues with feeding platy/molly/guppy(fishes ending with a "y") to my big and mean fish in order to get them started and moved on to prepared food.

The obvious answer is to protect all animals under this new law and have feeder people. Round up anyone that, for example, wanted to try feeding a kitten (or any animal not ending in a 'y') to a TSN and feed the fish them instead.

New argument using above law: It's now illegal to feed puppies to your catfish. However, if you feed just 1 'puppy', then that's ok. for a juvie tsn feed a chiauaua puppy, for an adult feed a bull mastiff puppy (feeding multiple chiauaua 'puppies' results in you falling foul of the law and you being your tsn's next meal)
 
badger126;3527597; said:
There is no ethical reason to not feed a live animal to another one. Why should a snake in the wild eat a live mouse but one in a cage should eat a dead one? Why should a fish in an aquarium eat pellets/market shrimp etc if he is a fish that eats primarily live fish in the wild?
I'm sorry, but people who think that they are living a higher standard by creating these fictitious moral boundaries are fooling themselves.

Why should you have pets then, going with that thinking all animals should be left free in the wild.

As I stated before there is nothing natural about keeping fish/ herps, ect in captivity.

I agree with your comment that its stupid to think its ok to feed one animal but not another, I think live feedings are cruel. Am I a hypocrit beacuse I choose to freeze insect larve to feed them to my fish rather than throwing them in live, yes, but it makes me feel better :)
 
Stupidity of the original question aside, I've often wondered if human attitudes towards this sort of thing are shaped by our onmivorous nature. We have the luxury of avoiding meat if we have an ethical problem with it; carnivores do not.

Someone mentioned feeding a snake live mice...I could have sworn I'd read that live snake food should be avoided because it will fight back when cornered and may hurt the snake. Is that accurate?
 
Someone mentioned feeding a snake live mice...I could have sworn I'd read that live snake food should be avoided because it will fight back when cornered and may hurt the snake. Is that accurate?

It is indeed. It's a bigger concern than the suffering of the prey. I'd rather be bitten by my snake than the rat I'm feeding to it.
 
I 2nd D' Motion, hahaha a lots of hypocrite ppl leaving in a selective double standard.

badger126;3527597; said:
I see this controversy a lot and there is so many double standards in it. In example, I work at petsmart - they refuse to sell live mice as feeders for snakes, but they are perfectly willing to sell comets/rosies all day long for the purpose of feeding fish, snakes, etc. Who is to say that the fish have less feelings than a mouse? How can you make that moral judgement call?
Also, when the mollies/platys have babies in the store there is no set plan to do with them. They aren't on the stocklist so they can't sell them. So I offered to take them home, thinking they'd be a good source of feeders for my fish. The manager refused to give them to me, telling me that policy and procedure was that no pet could be sold for the purpose of feeding. So now why is a molly's or platy's life more valuable than a comet's?
People who draw moral lines are dumb. There is no ethical reason to not feed a live animal to another one. Why should a snake in the wild eat a live mouse but one in a cage should eat a dead one? Why should a fish in an aquarium eat pellets/market shrimp etc if he is a fish that eats primarily live fish in the wild?
I'm sorry, but people who think that they are living a higher standard by creating these fictitious moral boundaries are fooling themselves.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
MonsterFishKeepers.com