"Chuck Gadd" wrote in message
...

So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?



Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong
g-
I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature
from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die
is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
plastic bag?
Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?

I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our
present society condones.
I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
our own.

I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
kingdom.

I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than
my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm

Toni wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Chuck Gadd" wrote in message
...

So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?



Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm
wrong
g-
I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a
creature
from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that
die
is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
plastic bag?
Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?

I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses
our
present society condones.
I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
our own.

I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
kingdom.

I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more
than
my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm

Graham Ramsay wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gadd" wrote
Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for
the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. I don't
recall which species she was talking about, but Karen Randall
mentioned areas in South America where fish are caught and sold. In
those areas where they banned fishing (to protect the fish), suddenly
that land wasn't making any money, so the forests were cleared for
farming and other uses, which destroyed the habitat and killed off the
fish.

There were some live-bearers for sale at our last
fish club auction which are now extinct in the wild
due to habitat destruction.
I was actually thinking about the whole ethical
side of fishkeeping the other day.
I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild
caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough
about the issue to make a judgment either way.
Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that
fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that
any livestock we buy has been treated humanely
and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable
wild populations?
If not then there should be.

--
Graham Ramsay

One of the benefits of this hobby is seeing that we can sustain species that
are no longer found in the wild. Some top of the head examples would be
cherry barbs, black ruby barbs, and most Lake Victoria Hap's.
Some are so common and easily bred within the hobby that the chance of
extinction is remote. Others are maintained through specialty societies,
zoos, and scientific studies, so that perhaps a restocking can take place
once the causes for extinction in the wild have been corrected.
Reef or marine fish do not have the benefits of time, numbers of keepers,
and ease of keeping that freshwater fish have on their side. Yes, there are
firms that are actively involved in spawning experiments with marine fish
and invertebrates. Some are successful enough to offer the progeny through
retail outlets. But it will take a lot more time and study before many of
the marine life forms are self sustaining in captivity. Our hobby would be
a lot smaller if we had to wait for just tank raised fish.
Some tank raised fish come with 'certificates' of captive breeding. But I
imagine it is up to the individual hobbyist to be informed about the status
of fish they intend to keep, and to be experienced and knowledgeable enough
to provide a proper aquarium environment. The longer we can keep fish
alive, the less likely we need to purchase replacements, probably of wild
caught fish.
What you keep is indeed a personal decision. Just be informed.

Jim

Toni wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Chuck Gadd" wrote in message
...

So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?



Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm
wrong
g-
I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a
creature
from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that
die
is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
plastic bag?
Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?

I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses
our
present society condones.
I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
our own.

I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
kingdom.

I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more
than
my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.
Toni

Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto
trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse?
Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are repositories
for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an
international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to
share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and
establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts.
I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now
than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason.
Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made.

Jim

Graham Ramsay wrote in message
...
"Chuck Gadd" wrote
Actually, for some wild caught freshwater fish, having them caught for
the aquarium industry might be the only thing saving them. I don't
recall which species she was talking about, but Karen Randall
mentioned areas in South America where fish are caught and sold. In
those areas where they banned fishing (to protect the fish), suddenly
that land wasn't making any money, so the forests were cleared for
farming and other uses, which destroyed the habitat and killed off the
fish.

There were some live-bearers for sale at our last
fish club auction which are now extinct in the wild
due to habitat destruction.
I was actually thinking about the whole ethical
side of fishkeeping the other day.
I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild
caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough
about the issue to make a judgment either way.
Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that
fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that
any livestock we buy has been treated humanely
and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable
wild populations?
If not then there should be.

--
Graham Ramsay

One of the benefits of this hobby is seeing that we can sustain species that
are no longer found in the wild. Some top of the head examples would be
cherry barbs, black ruby barbs, and most Lake Victoria Hap's.
Some are so common and easily bred within the hobby that the chance of
extinction is remote. Others are maintained through specialty societies,
zoos, and scientific studies, so that perhaps a restocking can take place
once the causes for extinction in the wild have been corrected.
Reef or marine fish do not have the benefits of time, numbers of keepers,
and ease of keeping that freshwater fish have on their side. Yes, there are
firms that are actively involved in spawning experiments with marine fish
and invertebrates. Some are successful enough to offer the progeny through
retail outlets. But it will take a lot more time and study before many of
the marine life forms are self sustaining in captivity. Our hobby would be
a lot smaller if we had to wait for just tank raised fish.
Some tank raised fish come with 'certificates' of captive breeding. But I
imagine it is up to the individual hobbyist to be informed about the status
of fish they intend to keep, and to be experienced and knowledgeable enough
to provide a proper aquarium environment. The longer we can keep fish
alive, the less likely we need to purchase replacements, probably of wild
caught fish.
What you keep is indeed a personal decision. Just be informed.

Jim

Toni wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Chuck Gadd" wrote in message
...

So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?



Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm
wrong
g-
I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a
creature
from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that
die
is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
plastic bag?
Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?

I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses
our
present society condones.
I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
our own.

I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
kingdom.

I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more
than
my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.
Toni

Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto
trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse?
Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are repositories
for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an
international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to
share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and
establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts.
I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now
than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason.
Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made.

Jim

This ethical consideration is very interesting. We in the West (America)
have realized the results of our "industrialization" and have for basically
economic reasons, moved our "dirty manufacturing" to third world countries.
We preserve our habitat at the expense of other's habitats. I'm an American
and believe in free enterprise...because I'm a true blue Capitalist, but let
me take this one step beyond fishkeeping (because I'm pretty buzzed on
Merlot )\
One day we're going to overpopulate the earth or do something to melt the
polar ice caps or something equally cataclysmic.... (some folks believe that
we will exterminate some "Key" in the food chain that will domino up the
food chain to us)... the beauty of nature is that it really doesn't matter.
What survives after the cataclysm will be stronger.
So... off the soap box... and the wine bottle, when the fish that we keep
are near extinction because of something man did, well I feel that having
those rare species in a controlled environment is a wonderful extension to
their lives. A friend of mine once said that as a species becomes extinct,
we suffer greatly. However until we become extinct we won't understand the
suffering. Dang.... birthday wine does a number on my sensibilities!
Are we much different than the "fish in the box" that one previous poster
mentioned? Heck, I've moved to several new "boxes" over my 40 year life
span...

BTW the majority of my fish have been with me for over 5 years. Their
thousands of spawn have populated a few LFS... Don't know how they would
have faired in the wild!?

DJay


"Toni" wrote in message
thlink.net...

"Graham Ramsay" wrote in message
...
I was actually thinking about the whole ethical
side of fishkeeping the other day.
I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable about wild
caught reef fish and inverts but I don't know enough
about the issue to make a judgment either way.
Is there such a thing as a 'happy fish' scheme so that
fishkeepers such as ourselves can be confident that
any livestock we buy has been treated humanely
and is either tank bred or comes from sustainable
wild populations?
If not then there should be.



I think about these things as well... only *I* think "humanely treated /
wild caught" is an oxymoron. g
Perhaps one of the first things we can do as end buyers is to ask our LFS
"where is this fish from?" before each and every purchase. Let them know
that it is an issue that will influence where the $$$ go.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm

Skunky wrote:
I know that for some areas of the world, their only income is from
catching fish for the trade, but at what price, some fish have already
seen dramatic drops in numbers, one in particular I'm led to believe is
the Zebra plec, yet I still see them for sale, why?

I know a few of you keep Marine fish and inerts etc, which the majority
of are wild caught I believe, personally I feel it should be banned. I
know there are controlled catches around the world, but for some reefs
etc, the damage has been done and some of it irreversible all because
of high demand by the trade.

Being actively involved in raptor conservation in the U.K, I can
foresee for different reasons, the future of certain species of
tropical fish doomed! I know there are quite a few species of fresh
water fish struggling to maintain numbers due mainly through habitat
loss and pollution here in the U.K

Well, my personal take on wild caught fish (and I have owned some in the
past and plan to again in the near future once I rid myself of certain
roommates (search for my recent disaster on alt.aquaria)) is that I only
purchase wild caught fish I know that I can breed in my tanks. My thoughts
are that I should contribute to the local hobby by breeding these fish and
distributing them to the LFS and aquarium societies in the area. I tend to
prefer F0 and F1 for my breeding tanks to avoid the possibility of
hybrids. Still has the possibility of inbreeding, but it's really the
purity of the species that I'm more concerned with. Anyways, in this way,
as some other respondants have mentioned, the species can be maintained in
the hobbyist/industry field even if it becomes "extinct" in the wild.

One quick note as for damage, I have seen one damaged wild-caught fish
from the rift lakes. In my last batch of Neolamp. similis, one female
definately had a damaged swim bladder. She couldn't really swim without
slowly sinking even if she put a ton of effort into it. I always wondered
if she suffered from pressure issues when caught or if it was a later
infection/etc that caused the problem. She didn't seem to be unhappy from
it. She had her own little spot in the colony and defended the fry
(although not as adeptly as the others). I miss my little "clown" as I
called that female *frowns in her roommate's direction*.

"Jim Brown" wrote in message
.. .

Then how do you feel about cattle being yanked from a pasture, jammed onto
trains or trucks, then crammed in stockyards at the slaughterhouse?


Well- any cattle that spent time in a pasture are much better off than the
pigs stacked in crates and shat upon by all the pigs above it for all its
life. Or the chickens penned so closely that their feet grow around the
grates. For some ridiculous reason I was taken on a tour of a slaughter
house as a small child- fear in an animals face is not something you forget.

I'm a hypocrit I guess, as a failed vegan of several years. I'm a product
of my society as much as anyone else. I do buy free range poultry and
Coleman beef, but that is more to avoid hormones as it is taking an ethical
stand.


Zoos are no longer just a prison for captive animals. They are
repositories
for animals that are almost lost in the wild. They maintain an
international registry of captive animals to allow breeding programs to
share the gene pool. Many even breed animals that are extremely rare, and
establish release programmes for the successes of their efforts.


None of these extraordinary efforts would be necessary had man not fouled
the equation to begin with.

I would imagine that there are less animals being treated inhumanely now
than in the past. Any animal at risk can look to man as the reason.

And that's my point.


Not an easy problem to resolve, but at least the efforts are being made.


The problem will never be resolved as long as man sees this planet as his
own personal playground, and the flora and fauna as fun to play with *and*
expendable. It will be what gets us in the end.


--
Toni
http://www.cearbhaill.com/aquarium.htm

"Toni" wrote in message rthlink.net...
"Chuck Gadd" wrote in message
...

So you think that wild caught fish are automatically mistreated?



Knowing full well that you'll probably come back with 100 reasons I'm wrong
g-
I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature
from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die
is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
plastic bag?
Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?

I believe it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives.
I also don't believe in zoos, captive animals, or a hundred other abuses our
present society condones.
I believe that "dominion over the animals" is not a license to redetermine
their fate, but a gentle edict to respect their right to exist as equal to
our own.

I believe that "animal viewing" exhibitions may have started innocently
enough as a way for common folk to see up close and personal all the
creatures that the explorers wrote home about, but that time is now past.
The concept went bad pretty early on IMO- when the first animal died.
We have the Discovery Channel now for viewing the wonders of the wild
kingdom.

I also might need to mention that I have worked in the pet
shop/circus/companion animal field for over 30 years and have seen more than
my share of animals faring badly at the hand of man.


I sort of hope this is a troll. We're all guilty of the occasional
oversimplification but the view that aquarium (or any) fish has "their
right to exist as equal to our own" is more than a tad extreme as is
"it is simply not our right to intrude on their lives." (we'll assume
you're vegan, but how do you justify intruding on the life of
vegetables? Do the screams of butternut squash keep you up at night?)
I'm all for treating our finned charges humanely and maintaining their
tank environments respectfully because we, generally, have assumed
that burden in making the decision to keep fish. But I'm also pretty
comfortable with our position as a species on top of the food chain.
Remember folks: we aren't intruding on some grand environmental
equation that would be harmonious and static but for our bumbling;
we're part of the equation and it is dynamic and non-linear--we and
our bumbling are part of the grand equation(or at least this part of
it). Species going extinct for a variety of reasons is part of
evolution; it may not be wise of us to blithely obliterate some
species--but it is rather difficult to tell a subsistance farmer in
South America not to feed his kids because we (from the comfort of our
air conditioned keyboard cubes) need to perpetuate the habitat of a
micro shrew that may or may not exist elsewhere and likely has very
little impact on our survival as a species. There are lots of folks
to blame for the overly romanticized view of nature implied here, from
Rosseau to Disney. Rachael Carson's alarmist style has also muddied
the discourse.

Think beyond the greenpeace bumper stickers.
Enjoy your grilled salmon.

To be honest this topic could go on forever and cause some folks to fall out! I could write about this stuff forever and moan about it. One thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS, that sickening affliction to want to own and control everything at any cost.

Stuart

"Skunky" wrote :

One
thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat
destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS,

Just some of the recent ones.

No one ever complains about the thousands of lost species caused by the
proliferation of Bison in NA nor the loss of whole ecosystems as the
continents shifted nor the near total extinction of every form of anaerobic
life when oxygen producing algae came to be.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.491 / Virus Database: 290 - Release Date: 6/18/03

On Sun, 29 Jun 2003 10:45:23 UTC, Leandra wrote:

That's so scary!

But don't some deep see fish glow anyhow?

Have you heard about them doing a similar experiment with an ape of
somesort? The apes fingernails glowed in the dark! (It's insane!)

As I recall, that experiment didn't work; just got green fingernails or
something. But they did try. (Has anybody got the reference? I saw it
in a reputable source but have lost the cite.)

--
Dan Drake

http://www.dandrake.com

Outer Planets update: Uranus, Neptune, Pluto, the check
in the mail, the weapons of mass destruction.

On Tue, 1 Jul 2003 23:42:11 +0100, Skunky
wrote:
thing I am sure of is that nearly all the species lost and the habitat
destroyed brings us ultimately back to one cause.....HUMANS

Sorry, not even close. If you want someone or something to blame,
point to nature.

According to the 1995 United Nations Environment Programme Global
Biodiversity Assessment, over 95 percent of all species that ever
existed are now extinct. Even figures for the number of species known
to have existed vary greatly, ranging from between two million and
80million - while some scientists estimate that only about 1.6million
species have ever been recorded.

440 Million years ago, 20 - 50 % of families wiped out.

360 million years ago, 20 - 30 % of families wiped out.

250 million years ago, 50 % of families wiped out, Greatest mass
extinction ever.

213 million years ago, 20 - 35 % of families wiped out. Dinosaurs and
mammals had just recently evolved; both live through this extinction.

66 million years ago, 15 % of families wiped out. Dinosaurs
become extinct. 65 million of years after this mass extinction, early
humans evolve.

About 11,000 years ago, many species of animals went extinct across
north america. Some people try to point to human hunting as the
cause, but evidence of human hunting exists only a few of the hundreds
of species that were wiped out. A more credible explanation points to
a changing climate, long before man was having a big impact on the
climate.



Chuck Gadd
http://www.csd.net/~cgadd/aqua

I believe that to interfere to the extent of physically removing a creature
from its natural environment is the ultimate abuse. The percentage that die
is unacceptable- how big is that pile of dead Cardinal Tetras in the sky?
Plus the trauma of being yanked from your home and being slapped into a
plastic bag?
Simply so they can live in a box in your home?
As humans can we really *be* that presumptuous?

Well, yes, obviously. g

I'm curious, though. If you feel this way, why do you have an aquarium?
Especially with wild-caught fish like cardinal tetras, otos, and farlowella
catfish? You could, if you wanted, keep only captive-bred fish, and not be
party to the "ultimate abuse."


Leigh

http://www.fortunecity.com/lavender/halloween/881/