What do you believe is cruelty or abuse when it comes to fish?

[lp85253]

ok guys lets start with the premise that the 80% in the middle get where both sides are coming from ,, but the 10%on each polar extreme dictate the shouting and the space,,,,ain't much of a way to spend your time

 

[pops]

was going to tell a old man story but naaa, back to the

 

[DDK]

K, I'm done. You actually sound like one of those conspiracy theorist people, or one of those "society is out to get me" people, and I refuse to argue with someone who isn't using logic. Goodnight.

I agree with this. Bill I'm not going to argue with you. Pointless.

 

[Bottomfeeder]

Knowingly keeping an animal in sub-par conditions, or any condition that you know is detrimental to the well being of the animal.

 

[Bottomfeeder]

Very good points, I especially agree with the "touching fish without their consent". I hadn't really thought of that.

Where do you stand on flushing healthy fish just because you do not want them anymore? I know a lot of people who do that and it makes me REALLY sad, even in the case of small fish like goldfish and neons.

Oh man, when I hear about that, my stomach just turns... the thought of a healthy fish suffocating and its flesh burning from the ammonia and pollution in the sewer because someone decided they didnt want it anymore... that's a really evil thing to do, and anyone who isnt sickened by that thought honestly has no business keeping animals.

I agree that birds make bad pets for the general population, they really arent suited to cages. They need an aviary to fly around. If you cant provide that, you shouldnt own a winged animal.
I actually have two parakeets in my house. We got them when I was in fourth grade, and didnt know much better. I didnt know how to train them, so they went untamed/untrained. We decided to do right by them as best we can, and put them in a 3 by 2 by 5 cage, which gives them more room than probably 90% of parakeets sold to pet store customers... but I still think it's way too small. They're old now, and I hate to say, but when they're gone, I think the house will remain bird-less.

 

[Paperlantern4]

Bottomfeeder,

Good on you for providing them with a larger cage. I know for a fact that most budgies are kept in REALLY tiny cages. I'm sure they're very happy with you, though, you seem to care for them. .

Random question but, I was at petco the other day and saw "glow" fish. You know, the kinds who glow under blacklights. Are those fish dyed? I mean, it can't possibly be natural, right?

 

[skjl47]

Bottomfeeder,

Good on you for providing them with a larger cage. I know for a fact that most budgies are kept in REALLY tiny cages. I'm sure they're very happy with you, though, you seem to care for them. .

Random question but, I was at petco the other day and saw "glow" fish. You know, the kinds who glow under blacklights. Are those fish dyed? I mean, it can't possibly be natural, right?

Hello; The fish you saw are likely ones that have been genetically modified. This was done in a lab a few years ago. I understand this breeds true but that the gene splice technology is copyrighted. ( so you cannot breed a few and sell them) I think they were able to take a gene segment from a sea creature?

 

[wild bill]

This is the issue with cruelty to fish it is all personal opinion in a lot of cases. A 300 gallon tank for a pair of jags maybe fine in my opinion but not to someone else. The last thing we want are regulations on keeping our fish but it is almost like some people are asking for them. They now have them in Britain and the people are upset. Sorry if this truth sounds like a conspiracy theory.
This is why I say let us use MFK to educate our fellow fish keepers. All to often a thread is started and the poor guy is ripped to shreds for what he says. Yes this may work but kindness will be less hurtful and encourage him to do better not quit the hobby or this group. Which by the way is one of the most informative sites I have found.

 

[wild bill]

The gene I believe was from a jelly fish that glows.

 

[skjl47]

This is the issue with cruelty to fish it is all personal opinion in a lot of cases. A 300 gallon tank for a pair of jags maybe fine in my opinion but not to someone else. The last thing we want are regulations on keeping our fish but it is almost like some people are asking for them. They now have them in Britain and the people are upset. Sorry if this truth sounds like a conspiracy theory. This is why I say let us use MFK to educate our fellow fish keepers. All to often a thread is started and the poor guy is ripped to shreds for what he says. Yes this may work but kindness will be less hurtful and encourage him to do better not quit the hobby or this group. Which by the way is one of the most informative sites I have found.

Hello; I think this point needs to be repeated. We each can make a list of do's and dont's. The thing is there are groups that feel they know best and are willing to impose their particular set of rules on all of us. They are true belivers in their particular point of view. This is already true for some things and could be true for the fish hobby.

If you have been reading threads on this forum for any length of time, it is likely you have come across some practices that you do not agree with and perhaps would never do. Picture this, Say it turns out to be those very practices that become the rules. Just because what you like seems reasonable to you does not mean you will get the say so.