Why the Monsters? Is It Ethical?

[cchhcc]

I wonder why people have the tendency to want to keep some of the largest freshwater fish in the world in a home aquarium. What happens to these fish when they outgrow your (or anyone's) ability to maintain them properly? While it is arguable whether we can provide our fish with a better life than they'd get in the wild (though I doubt most fish would miss the constant risk of predation), it is at least POSSIBLE to offer a 12" fish a suitable environment in a home setting. The same is distinctly NOT POSSIBLE for many of the monster fish so popular on this site.

Zoos and public aquariums are increasingly refusing "adoptions" as a strict policy. Unfortunately, most of the true giants die long before they reach maturity, making that issue moot.

How can it possibly be ethical to even consider keeping fish such as gigas in anything less than a swimming pool? Is it even responsible for sellers to offer them to the general public?

Discuss!

 

[myles]

I do think its sad to see how meany monster fish are being shipped wolrdwide for home aquaria, becase the vast vast majority will be subjected to tanks way too small. very few make it to homes that can properly look after them. i guess the problum is peopel are makign lots of money, there lots of demand, and people dont really care or think abotu down the road wich is sad for soem of these fish. I woutl be nice to have soemhtign in place so u cant jsut go and buy a pacu at wal-mart and giant fish like this could have a way to be more availible to people who acualy care and will look after them properly. I supose another prolum is were do you draw the line? fish that get a foot? 2 feet? 3 feet +? I thikn alot of it is jsut due to ingnorance, its nice to see more and more people trying to properly educated people about fish. i duno its a interesting topic.

 

[Eoibio]

Yeah...Most are bought by small-tank owners..I dont own any monsters lol

 

[Lady Sphinx]

It's sad to see some of these beautiful fish kept in ridicules small tanks and try to explain how bad that is for the fish and they jump on their high horse and tell you that you are wrong cause they believe some of these stupid myths. I love some of these beautiful monster fish and want to keep some but will not do this until I have a tank that can house them properly. Theres a thin line between right and wrong and it depends on how you can provide for them. In our country the person selling a pet have the right to check on how you can provide for your pets and may decide not to sell if he does not think that you can not take care of the pet properly they should do this with fish too especially monster fish.

 

[nishant_datta]

i think the pacu would be case i point supporting what you're saying.. considering the price we pay for an ATF or Asian arowana or a leopoldi ray, we do care for our monsters a lot. Personally, I love caring for my fish and do care for them more than myself. Most of us here would rather use available space and saved money on their fish rather than themselves. Look at necrocranis, tkldm and johnptc. Their devotion to the hobby is inspiring. And this leads to best possible living conditions for the fish in captivity.

 

[T]

i consider the fish hobby to be enjoyable for me, not the fish.
it may seem cruel.
but hey people eat fish. that means you would have to kill it first.
i would consider that worse then keeping a fish in a tank.

 

[Natural_Born_Killer]

I do think it is sad to see how some of the monster fish are treated. Like the Pacu kept in a tank far too small.

But then, look at the effort that many of the members here go to in order to provide their fish with the best life possible. Massive tanks, excellent filtration, top quality food and more. These fish are now safe from being killed, eating better food on a regular basis and are living in water conditions that are better than their native waters.

So like anything, there are two sides. For those who cannot treat these fish with the proper homes - then yeah its a terrible situation.

But think what makes those situations? Shops that don't give out the proper information, LFS stores that don't refuse to sell to people who don't have sufficient space. Also, personal neglect on individuals side to learn as much about their fish before getting them and the mentality that "its just a fish".

The truth is for those who don't go the extra distance to house their fish, they are probably people who have that view. Unfortunately fish are not ranked by most on the same level as their cats or dogs.

But does that mean that those who would go the distance should be subjected to probable bans on certain species? Is that fair?

Or would it be more fair to ban species like the Pacu? Fish that grow excessively big?

This is just a very two sided topic.

 

[chefjamesscott]

hmmmm I would have to agreee that unless you have the tank size keeping monster fish is monterous, but there are those who have every intent on having the tank size when the need arises as it grows and sometimes that works sometimes it dont, but there are those who not only have the intent but also the vision, passion and make the means to do so.

for example take pacu when people on a certain club found that I had gotten 2 pacu as a rehome from a 33 and 55 they dumped on me hardcore for doing so even though I had gotten them from there and put them in a 180. that was not good enough for a 3 month old pacu and a 8 month old, yet now here it is a little over a year into the fishes life and they are both in a 300g 8ft, I have also lined up a 10ft tank 300g and a 8 ft 420g and plans are in the works to build a 5-7,000g indoor pond for their forever home.

I do agree that ethics is not in the consideration of some, but, personally I do my best to give my fish the best and if your discussion was taken to its logical end, there would only be one conclusion.

ALMOST NONE OF THE FISH WE KEEP IN GLASS HOUSES ARE KEPT IN AN ETHICAL MANNER DUE TO SPACE CONSTRAINTS

For example I am absolutely sure that a white cloud minnow covers more than a 10g footprint in the wild but in aquaria a 10g is a ok.

I would hate to see where ethics according to someone elses standards especially a wildlife warrior nutjob was that guide for what I could keep.

 

[Drew'n'Kylene]

I'm never goin to own anything bigger than an O unless i have a pond or dam for it. I feel bad for oscars let alone rays and aros.

 

[sandtiger]

i consider the fish hobby to be enjoyable for me, not the fish.
it may seem cruel.
but hey people eat fish. that means you would have to kill it first.
i would consider that worse then keeping a fish in a tank.

I don't know, I think a life confined to an undersized tank with poor quality is worse then death for some of these fishes. The reason this hobby is enjoyable for me is because I know I'm taking care of another living thing and it makes be proud that I can give these animals good home, watch them grow, breed etc. Why anyone who dosen't enjoy that would want to keep fish I'm not entirely sure.

I supose another prolum is were do you draw the line? fish that get a foot? 2 feet? 3 feet +? I thikn alot of it is jsut due to ingnorance, its nice to see more and more people trying to properly educated people about fish. i duno its a interesting topic.

If a pet shot cannot carry a tank large enough for whatever fish you intend to buy they probably shouldn't carry the fish at all. The largest tanks most LFS carry are 55-75g, they probably shouldn't carry anything over 12", certainly a 3'+ iridescent shark should be out of the question. I'm not saying these large fish should be unavailable but maybe if you were forced to get them through special order and they were a bit more expensive than a few bucks more might end up in better homes. I realize this will never happen but it is the best solution I can think of.