I want YOUR opinions... An ethical question...

[ScatMan]

i've seen threads where people just cooked and ate their fish for dinner. if you take emotions out of the equation, it's just 1 of many logical solutions to the problem. but if you value the fish more than a meal, buy a divider.

as for the morality of it; although it's far from a perfect rule, i tend to try and put myself in the other's shoes.

if you were the oscar, what would you prefer? certain and quick, relatively painless death... or a small chance at a good life with a more likely chance of prolonged misery and pain?

so your question is basically asking my opinion of which i prefer between the two. given the choice, i'd take my chances.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

euthanizeing under the assumption it will endure more stress is definitely playing god. You don't know that it will end up worse off. And if you consider stress torture you don't give yourself enough credit for how simple things you do for tank maintenance can traumatize your fish. Realistically the idea of trauma or torture is all relative. Save for a fish being in a pond without human disturbance most fish would definitely be "happier" fending for their lives in the wild. With that kinda perspective I consider everything short of the fish outright physically hurting(stunting, infectious disease, etc.) is par for the course of fish keeping.

We at MFK definitely tend to do a better job of keeping fish and accommodating their needs but still we are dealing with animals that can't really be tamed/domesticated as much as conditioned.

Basically my answer to you question if I came to the same cross roads would be to re house the fish or place a divider in the tank. You argue that the fish has to suffer being rehoused, a little pain for allot of happiness is par for the course in this hobby. He'll be happier in the end alive than dead. They are animals after all and their #1 goal in existence is to survive, #2 is make babies. If the fish was dieing then you could make the argument for putting him down but this case it just seems like neglectful fish keeping.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

i've seen threads where people just cooked and ate their fish for dinner. if you take emotions out of the equation, it's just 1 of many logical solutions to the problem. but if you value the fish more than a meal, buy a divider.

as for the morality of it; although it's far from a perfect rule, i tend to try and put myself in the other's shoes.

if you were the oscar, what would you prefer? certain and quick, relatively painless death... or a small chance at a good life with a more likely chance of prolonged misery and pain?

so your question is basically asking my opinion of which i prefer between the two. given the choice, i'd take my chances.

I don't think eating your fish is the same as euthanizing it. Mercy killing serves no practical purpose and we all feed feeders to the monsters. I think that eating your fish is the same as feeding it live fish. Netting your fish and throwing it in the dumpster is like buying a bag of feeders and dumping them down the sewer drain in the parking lot. Its wasteful and in my opinion more disrespectful of life.

 

[Bottomfeeder]

I wouldn't bring it to a Petland or chain store. I'd probably divide the tank and when I can bring it to a good place like Shark Aquarium.

 

[Natalie]

I would not euthanize the fish just because I personally couldn't provide a good home for it any longer. That's a very selfish thing to do. He at least deserves a chance at a good life. Put an ad up on Craigslist, like others have said, and someone will come along with a nice opportunity for him.

 

[Carefree_Dude]

euthanizeing under the assumption it will endure more stress is definitely playing god. You don't know that it will end up worse off. And if you consider stress torture you don't give yourself enough credit for how simple things you do for tank maintenance can traumatize your fish. Realistically the idea of trauma or torture is all relative. Save for a fish being in a pond without human disturbance most fish would definitely be "happier" fending for their lives in the wild. With that kinda perspective I consider everything short of the fish outright physically hurting(stunting, infectious disease, etc.) is par for the course of fish keeping.

We at MFK definitely tend to do a better job of keeping fish and accommodating their needs but still we are dealing with animals that can't really be tamed/domesticated as much as conditioned.

Basically my answer to you question if I came to the same cross roads would be to re house the fish or place a divider in the tank. You argue that the fish has to suffer being rehoused, a little pain for allot of happiness is par for the course in this hobby. He'll be happier in the end alive than dead. They are animals after all and their #1 goal in existence is to survive, #2 is make babies. If the fish was dieing then you could make the argument for putting him down but this case it just seems like neglectful fish keeping.

Isn't owning fish in general kind of playing god? I mean, you own and have control over their entire world, you're the one who makes food rain from the sky, the one who can magically make one vanish from their world, the one who can make their world toxin free, the one who sees a fish picking on another fish, and call upon "divine intervention" in form of a massive hand or net that decends upon their world and unleashes its fury upon those below it...

 

[xEchOx]

Thank you all for the replies. First an apology, I've left out the fact that I am not posing this as my own question. It's theoretical. I only want to know what you would do in this particular situation.

Fish are living animals. I think of mine as pets. To get a fish you can't keep and then just kill it because you have no place to put it is so wrong. That's like saying I bought a bull mastiff but can't keep it in my apartment. so I will just put it down... It's just wrong.

You take a firm stance upon animal cruelty. Yet simply being a part of the hobby only further propels more animals to insufficient care. I think you must be turning your head to many of the suffering animals that are a part of our hobby.

Educate yourself before you buy.

If only this was required.

 

[xEchOx]

I would not euthanize the fish just because I personally couldn't provide a good home for it any longer. That's a very selfish thing to do. He at least deserves a chance at a good life. Put an ad up on Craigslist, like others have said, and someone will come along with a nice opportunity for him.

Is it selfish? I ask myself the same thing. Where exactly is this 'good life'? In some punk kids 30g tank along with 10-15 african cichlids? A water change when the water starts to evaporate? I think if I were my fish, I'd rather be euthanized than suffer those conditions until I died of prolonged exposure to nitrates.

Don't make the mistake of thinking we (MFK, Cichlid enthusiasts) are the majority of this hobby. I'd be willing to bet for every one of us, there are 5 of them.

Try a Youtube search for 'oscar fish'. See what the 'good life' looks like.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

I mean really if this a ethical question than we as responsible fish keepers/lovers should buy out the fish at the LFS and put em down so that bad fish owners don't buy them.

 

[kamikaziechameleon]

Isn't owning fish in general kind of playing god? I mean, you own and have control over their entire world, you're the one who makes food rain from the sky, the one who can magically make one vanish from their world, the one who can make their world toxin free, the one who sees a fish picking on another fish, and call upon "divine intervention" in form of a massive hand or net that decends upon their world and unleashes its fury upon those below it...

Good deals in absolutes. In an abstract way you are right accept that god can save and god can destroy. I can easily enough kill a fish but save it from disease... Thats another story. breaking up a fish fight is not the same exactly.