Feeder fish humane?

I'm sorry, I have to argue with this, because it's the argument I hear most out of meat eaters as a vegan, and the one attitude that irks me most of all... plants do not have a central nervous system, and that's a fact. You need a central nervous system to feel pain. Therefore... plants do not feel pain. ;P

Do you have research to support this belief?

We presume that you need a central nervous system to feel pain, because we need a central nervous system to feel pain.
Human science is very human-centric. We make a lot of presumptions about things based on the human condition. Often, this presumption is based on our ability/inability to communicate with something. For the longest time, sharks and octopI were considered to be far from intelligent, because their thought process was so different from ours. However, they have since proven that they have great problem solving skills. I do not doubt that plants have a similar ability, though even more alien to our own method of thinking.

In the end, consuming anything causes harm to something. There is no way to get around this. Consuming plants causes less harm than consuming meat, but the pain is still there. Consuming minerals (if you could do such a thing and retrieve nutrients from it) does less harm than consuming plants, but the pain is still there.

 

I used to have a tank with a jack dempsey in it. only fed him feeder fish if I had a deformed one in my other tanks . It went into the dempsey tank. I never had the heart to feed a healthy fish to him. I had no problem putting worms and or grubs into his tank ( which he loved). I chose not to keep those kinds of fish now cuz I hate to harm anything . I only had the dempsey as he was headed to the harbor via the porcelain train.

 

Moved the Vegan part of this discussion to

 

eat fish

I think its ok. I eat all kinds of food ,and if someone said your not eating that food anymore. it would be quite sad. And some how I think if fish like to eat feeder fish to eat. It would be the same. No taste buds just a pleasure in grub.like us all lol

Some how I think we all try and replicete the best we can???

 

Hi,

I'm not sure if this topic has been done before on this forum. I've tried using the search but nothing comes up.

Anyway, this is a subject that really bothers me.

It seems to be a generally 'accepted' practice within the fishkeeping community - to feed live fish, sometimes quite big and healthy ones to larger, predatory species. I've seen a lot of youtube videos of pet owners doing this, and being quite showy about it.

I actually think this is disgusting, and wish there were laws restricting it.

Putting a live mouse or perfectly healthy, medium sized koi into an arowana tank where it has no chance of escape and is basically doomed isn't something that should be laughed at, enjoyed or treated minimally. I think the same pet owners who love and care for their cats and dogs and would hate to see them come to harm (and we all know horrendous practices go on in some parts of the world) but take pleasure in these videos or feed live guppies to their wild fish are hypocrits.

I'm not sure how the general forum feels about this subject, and I may even alienate myself. But I don't care. People shouldn't keep wild pets if they know they will only consume live animals, or they should require a special licence of some sort.

Harming animals for no reason is wrong.

 

There are several threads here on this. But ill bee the first taker... now first feeding mice to fish is a little further then ill go but feeding fish their diet is part of our duty as fish keepers. If the fish you own has a main diet of fish then that's what it needs to be fed. There are also cases where a fish will refuse to eat flakes and or frozen food. Therefore live food is neccesary. Now there are ways to deceive some inhabitants with shrimp inncurrent or twitching it with tweezers, but not always.

I myself got into this hobby bc I found it interseting how turtles, bass, bluegill, and catfish, caught they prey in the wild. So I wanted to see it and created it. Now being a little more educated now, I could of went about those in a different way but still I don't find it inhumane. Some fish such as my puffer need crunchy foods to trim there beak down, therfore I breed crawfish and snails In order to take Proper care of my pets.

Ill be back but what's the differnce between feeding live fish or flakes? If the fish food is a good dietary supplement then read then read the ingredients. Theres mostly like fish there as well.

 

This is a really interesting issue, thanks for raising it. Not sure about aquatic animals as I've never kept fish that need live food, but there are regulations, at least where I live, restricting the practice of live feeding to reptiles. I have a lot of experience with and a developed position on that so I'm writing the following based on the assumption that the two situations are relevantly similar:

I kept pythons for many years and almost always fed them pre-killed mice, which are bought frozen in packets. As far as the morality of feeding in general is concerned- if you've a pet animal that needs to eat meat, then other animals have to die to meet that need (and it is a need, obligate carnivores can not survive on a vegetarian diet). As a pet owner, it's your first responsibility, having chosen to keep that animal, to meet its needs- as humanely as possible.

This is where the almost comes in, because some predators just won't take dead food. For pythons, the big food signal comes from warmth and movement- which you can try to replicate to a point but for some hatchlings it just doesn't work. They usually learn to take dead food, but for them to live long enough for that to happen you need to start them on, then wean them off, live food. It's their nature, over which they have no control, and if the owner doesn't cater to it they will starve to death.

Doing it for any kind of entertainment, I and many other people find highly ethically objectionable- hence the regulations (though it's difficult to say, and probably varies greatly depending on the situation and animal, which mechanism of death- by animal or in a factory- causes more suffering). But to say that what's necessary - necessary being the operative word, not by the design of a human but simply as a function of nature - for that animal to live is immoral is necessarily saying that the animal's life in and of itself is too. Without getting too philosophical about the matter, unless you want to wage war against the food chain, maybe you just have to accept that such animals just aren't suitable pets for you and leave it at that.

Regards

 

Ill be back but what's the differnce between feeding live fish or flakes? If the fish food is a good dietary supplement then read then read the ingredients. Theres mostly like fish there as well.

Flakes are dead fish materials mixed in with other chemicals and stuff. Live fish are ALIVE. They breath, eat, sleep = want to survive.

This is a really interesting issue, thanks for raising it. Not sure about aquatic animals as I've never kept fish that need live food, but there are regulations, at least where I live, restricting the practice of live feeding to reptiles. I have a lot of experience with and a developed position on that so I'm writing the following based on the assumption that the two situations are relevantly similar:

I kept pythons for many years and almost always fed them pre-killed mice, which are bought frozen in packets. As far as the morality of feeding in general is concerned- if you've a pet animal that needs to eat meat, then other animals have to die to meet that need (and it is a need, obligate carnivores can not survive on a vegetarian diet). As a pet owner, it's your first responsibility, having chosen to keep that animal, to meet its needs- as humanely as possible.

This is where the almost comes in, because some predators just won't take dead food. For pythons, the big food signal comes from warmth and movement- which you can try to replicate to a point but for some hatchlings it just doesn't work. They usually learn to take dead food, but for them to live long enough for that to happen you need to start them on, then wean them off, live food. It's their nature, over which they have no control, and if the owner doesn't cater to it they will starve to death.

Doing it for any kind of entertainment, I and many other people find highly ethically objectionable- hence the regulations (though it's difficult to say, and probably varies greatly depending on the situation and animal, which mechanism of death- by animal or in a factory- causes more suffering). But to say that what's necessary - necessary being the operative word, not by the design of a human but simply as a function of nature - for that animal to live is immoral is necessarily saying that the animal's life in and of itself is too. Without getting too philosophical about the matter, unless you want to wage war against the food chain, maybe you just have to accept that such animals just aren't suitable pets for you and leave it at that.

Regards

I disagree with your last statement. If people want to keep wild creatures as pets then they should invest in creating a replica of their natural habitat with creatures needed for their survival. These (feed) creatures will have an equal chance of capture or escape by the predator.

If people choose to take away an animals choice by feeding it directly to their pet, then you are basically causing intentional harm/suffering.

Your snake didn't ask to become your pet.

 

I agree..to the point of if you think its purely humorous and you do it out of pleasure (for lack of better word) then yeah I think that's wrong.
But Id say there are benefits. Its healthier for your pet. And it can be very educational.
A lot of people strive to make their pet's home as close to their natural environment as possible. Anything from fish, reptiles, dogs, cats, birds..
And food is included.

I believe reptiles can bring a whole different light on the subject.
Say you buy a young snake and raise it without live food. And one day, for some reason it gets outside. Gone into the wild abyss.
Your snake will more than likely die. It has no hunting skills. Itll starve.

In conclusion, unless someone is doing it for entertainment purposes, it should not be illegal.

 

I agree..to the point of if you think its purely humorous and you do it out of pleasure (for lack of better word) then yeah I think that's wrong.
But Id say there are benefits. Its healthier for your pet. And it can be very educational.
A lot of people strive to make their pet's home as close to their natural environment as possible. Anything from fish, reptiles, dogs, cats, birds..
And food is included.

I believe reptiles can bring a whole different light on the subject.
Say you buy a young snake and raise it without live food. And one day, for some reason it gets outside. Gone into the wild abyss.
Your snake will more than likely die. It has no hunting skills. Itll starve.

In conclusion, unless someone is doing it for entertainment purposes, it should not be illegal.

So what you're basically saying is that you should put the life of your pet over the life of creatures that have no choice but to accept human interference.

It's my opinion that, unless you are hunting the food to feed yourself, leave Mother Earth's creatures alone!

 

So what you're basically saying is that you should put the life of your pet over the life of creatures that have no choice but to accept human interference.

It's my opinion that, unless you are hunting the food to feed yourself, leave Mother Earth's creatures alone!

What you're saying is we should leaving animals in the wild. Correct?

Imo all living creatures, including plants, have value.
But I'm not going to pretend The Circle of Life is imaginary

 

What you're saying is we should leaving animals in the wild. Correct?

Imo all living creatures, including plants, have value.
But I'm not going to pretend The Circle of Life is imaginary

Madam,

Plants don't have feelings. Fish do.



The circle of life is not imaginary, but replicating the circle of life in your own home for the sake of your predator pet (which should probably be in the wild anyway), makes us killers.

By the way, the emojI above isn't an attack against you - it's a signpost for the feelings of all those voiceless, murdered feeder fodder.

I would love to open my own fish shop once I have the money, but I don't think I could knowing that a portion of the goldfish and other fish I sell would be used to feed bigger fish.

My point is, they don't have a voice. These are animals that are MEANT as PETS.

 

Then why are you here? I'm not trying to be combative, but if you are of that mindset then keeping any pet shouldn't be in line with your reasoning. On the topic of the recreating the natural environment, there will always be the enclosure, and thusly, no escape for the feeder animal.

The fish and shrimp, prior to being made into meal or flakes, still would prefer to survive as well, so they shouldn't be excluded in your mindset.

And yes, I put the health and needs of my pets and family over pretty much any other animal. I also hunt, so I'm not as removed as some as to how that food gets to my table. It is stranger to me that there are people that have never seen their food alive.

At the end of it all, I think the education of the food chain as a whole is good for people. While I do find it exciting to see an animal eat live food, and thusly entertaining, I don't see it as a humorous thing generally. It makes me ask the why's. Why did the snake do that? Why did it hide in that corner for almost an hour when it could at anytime have slithered out to get the mouse?

This reminds me of a reddit thread where a lady was a vegan and fed her cat a vegan diet. She was rather smug about it until someone pointed out that she was slowly killing her cat.

All animals should deserve respect, but I look on the larger scale. Everything dies from one cause or another, and a quick death from human interference is likely the most humane in any case. I've heard a cotton tail die for hours as a young coyote happily chewed on it. Nature is far more cruel than most any of us could ever be.

Feeding live to many of our pets is usually more humane to both animals. And yes I do realize that feeding live also poses risks to our pets like snakes.

 

Peacefantasy- This is a digression, but since you mention the what-if-they-escape thing... once, when I was pretty knew to keeping pythons, one of mine did. She was gone for a full six months, right through winter, and I had almost given up on seeing her again- then come spring, she turns up living inside an old computer (one of those relatively huge boxes of macroscopic circuitry and wires that you just don't see any more). And despite having been raised on the aforementioned already-dead food, she was obviously well fed, so must have been successfully hunting for herself. Probably because they're not truly domesticated animals, I guess, all the natural instincts are still there.

Obamelia- so do you believe that humans should all be vegan, and only keep animals that are, too, as would be necessary for (ostensibly, arguably) no animals to suffer for us? You mention hunting for ourselves, but we can't do the same thing for our pets- what about our children? If the provision barrier is about species, on what basis is that justified, and what is its extent? Perhaps we shouldn't keep pets at all, since doing so clearly constitutes human interference. But what about the environmental footprint resulting from our entire modern way of life? And any or all of these things might well be perfectly ethically correct. But the thing is, consistency: if you make moral judgment on a particular basis, then anywhere that basis applies (i.e. relevantly similar situations), the judgment must too, unless preculded by a larger contravening factor (but that too must be justified)... And so on. These arguments are a rabbit hole! An interesting one, which I'd be more than happy to debate with you (I love this stuff), but a rabbit hole none the less.

 

Madam,

Plants don't have feelings. Fish do.



The circle of life is not imaginary, but replicating the circle of life in your own home for the sake of your predator pet (which should probably be in the wild anyway), makes us killers.

I find this funny because I just took a look at some of your posts where you clearly state that you feed your fish live food about once a month........?

Also the frozen foods you buy for them.. are you aware that they are bred specifically to be killed by humans, bought, and fed to your fish? Which would never be as healthy as having (for example) live bloodworms..
Just a thought.

I'm wondering what you're trying to prove when you feed live foods yourself?

 

Then why are you here? I'm not trying to be combative, but if you are of that mindset then keeping any pet shouldn't be in line with your reasoning. On the topic of the recreating the natural environment, there will always be the enclosure, and thusly, no escape for the feeder animal.

The fish and shrimp, prior to being made into meal or flakes, still would prefer to survive as well, so they shouldn't be excluded in your mindset.

And yes, I put the health and needs of my pets and family over pretty much any other animal. I also hunt, so I'm not as removed as some as to how that food gets to my table. It is stranger to me that there are people that have never seen their food alive.

At the end of it all, I think the education of the food chain as a whole is good for people. While I do find it exciting to see an animal eat live food, and thusly entertaining, I don't see it as a humorous thing generally. It makes me ask the why's. Why did the snake do that? Why did it hide in that corner for almost an hour when it could at anytime have slithered out to get the mouse?

This reminds me of a reddit thread where a lady was a vegan and fed her cat a vegan diet. She was rather smug about it until someone pointed out that she was slowly killing her cat.

All animals should deserve respect, but I look on the larger scale. Everything dies from one cause or another, and a quick death from human interference is likely the most humane in any case. I've heard a cotton tail die for hours as a young coyote happily chewed on it. Nature is far more cruel than most any of us could ever be.

Feeding live to many of our pets is usually more humane to both animals. And yes I do realize that feeding live also poses risks to our pets like snakes.

Well, with your kind of morals I would hate to be your pet.

I find this funny because I just took a look at some of your posts where you clearly state that you feed your fish live food about once a month........?

Also the frozen foods you buy for them.. are you aware that they are bred specifically to be killed by humans, bought, and fed to your fish? Which would never be as healthy as having (for example) live bloodworms..
Just a thought.

I'm wondering what you're trying to prove when you feed live foods yourself?

Are you comparing bloodworms to a fish? Oh please!

Peacefantasy- This is a digression, but since you mention the what-if-they-escape thing... once, when I was pretty knew to keeping pythons, one of mine did. She was gone for a full six months, right through winter, and I had almost given up on seeing her again- then come spring, she turns up living inside an old computer (one of those relatively huge boxes of macroscopic circuitry and wires that you just don't see any more). And despite having been raised on the aforementioned already-dead food, she was obviously well fed, so must have been successfully hunting for herself. Probably because they're not truly domesticated animals, I guess, all the natural instincts are still there.

Obamelia- so do you believe that humans should all be vegan, and only keep animals that are, too, as would be necessary for (ostensibly, arguably) no animals to suffer for us? You mention hunting for ourselves, but we can't do the same thing for our pets- what about our children? If the provision barrier is about species, on what basis is that justified, and what is its extent? Perhaps we shouldn't keep pets at all, since doing so clearly constitutes human interference. But what about the environmental footprint resulting from our entire modern way of life? And any or all of these things might well be perfectly ethically correct. But the thing is, consistency: if you make moral judgment on a particular basis, then anywhere that basis applies (i.e. relevantly similar situations), the judgment must too, unless preculded by a larger contravening factor (but that too must be justified)... And so on. These arguments are a rabbit hole! An interesting one, which I'd be more than happy to debate with you (I love this stuff), but a rabbit hole none the less.

I'm sorry, but what exactly is your point?

 

Hm I haven't read all the posts but id like to comment on this thread. I personally could not have an animal in my care that needed live food, I couldn't handle that I think its cruel. But on the same note, the animals that do need live foods or would normally eat live pray in the wild should be able to do as they need too to survive. Yes its horrible but when you think that they would do it in the wild anyway then that makes it only fair. If people were doing this just for the fun of it then yes it would be outrageous, but its not so.

 

Hm I haven't read all the posts but id like to comment on this thread. I personally could not have an animal in my care that needed live food, I couldn't handle that I think its cruel. But on the same note, the animals that do need live foods or would normally eat live pray in the wild should be able to do as they need too to survive. Yes its horrible but when you think that they would do it in the wild anyway then that makes it only fair. If people were doing this just for the fun of it then yes it would be outrageous, but its not so.

Well, your personal opinions are reflective of justice, which takes into account that the feeder fish (which are intended to be pets because they are sold in petstores usually) have feelings.

I want more people to be open-minded about this subject. Fish, and FEEDER-FISH especially, have feelings.

People must remember that the next time they feed koi to their useless arowana.

 

Are you comparing bloodworms to a fish? Oh please!

Now you're saying worms have less value of life than a fish?
Kinda like how people see fish as "just fish"..

I agree this is obviously a rabbit hole, but a fun hilarious debate

 

Now you're saying worms have less value of life than a fish?
Kinda like how people see fish as "just fish"..

I agree this is obviously a rabbit hole, but a fun hilarious debate

I'm talking about the pain and suffering being caused to voiceless creatures. A bloodworm is not an example of an organism that can experience measurable pain or suffering.

Please correct me if you can provide proof.

I don't like the fact that you also find this discussion 'hilarious'. This is a serious conversation, and I'm pretty sure all those lives that have been lost because of human beings who think they can take away the freedom of innocent creatures are not being offered in celebration here either.

 

I'm talking about the pain and suffering being caused to voiceless creatures. A bloodworm is not an example of an organism that can experience measurable pain or suffering.

Please correct me if you can provide proof.

I don't like the fact that you also find this discussion 'hilarious'. This is a serious conversation, and I'm pretty sure all those lives that have been lost because of human beings who think they can take away the freedom of innocent creatures are not being offered in celebration here either.

Take away their freedom?
You own fish tanks! Are you kidding me? You have made takung live animals from the natural environment a hobby.

And yes. I find it funny that people consider one life more valuable than another.
For instance, you mention the koi and the "useless" arowana.
Do you really not see where I'm going with this?

 

Whether it's live, frozen, or flakes, something died to become that food. Flakes are made up of fish too, they were just killed before you serve it to your fish while live food is killed by your fish. What's the difference? Also, why should feeding fish be condemned while feeding something like shrimp or bloodworms not be? They too eat, sleep, breathe, and want to survive, so why draw the line at fish? Some fish require live foods in their diet, so not giving them that live food is at the expense of their own health. Is it better to let the feeder fish live while the other fish suffers, or vice versa?

Morality is a gray area.

 

Take away their freedom?
You own fish tanks! Are you kidding me? You have made takung live animals from the natural environment a hobby.

And yes. I find it funny that people consider one life more valuable than another.
For instance, you mention the koi and the "useless" arowana.
Do you really not see where I'm going with this?

I'm giving my pets a wonderful life in their aquariums (I hope!).

I don't find the arowana less valuable than the koi. But tell me, what is useful about a 3 foot arowana swimming in circles in a 5 foot tank?

 

On second thoughts, could people say kill the live food humanely before giving it to the predators? That way they won't feel fear from being chased and taunted and eaten alive.

 

Whether it's live, frozen, or flakes, something died to become that food. Flakes are made up of fish too, they were just killed before you serve it to your fish while live food is killed by your fish. What's the difference? Also, why should feeding fish be condemned while feeding something like shrimp or bloodworms not be? They too eat, sleep, breathe, and want to survive, so why draw the line at fish? Some fish require live foods in their diet, so not giving them that live food is at the expense of their own health. Is it better to let the feeder fish live while the other fish suffers, or vice versa?

Morality is a gray area.

Flakes are made up of dead fish?

Why are you making excuses for your behaviour? Killing an innocent creature to feed your hungry pet is immoral.

I don't see why it's so difficult to recognise.

 

Flakes are made up of dead fish?

Why are you making excuses for your behaviour? Killing an innocent creature to feed your hungry pet is immoral.

I don't see why it's so difficult to recognise.

I don't feed live fish, so I'm not making up any excuses

Where does that dead fish come from? It was alive too, it was just killed by people and made into food, whereas live food is killed by your fish and made into food.

EDIT: Wait, I may have misunderstood your question. Yes, flakes are made of dead fish. Check the ingredients label, it'll say something like "whole salmon", "whole halibut", "fish meal" (the remnants of fish that are deemed unsuitable for human consumption).

Killing an innocent animal? Whether you feed live or not, something innocent died to feed your fish. There's no way around it.

 

Funny, I don't feed live fish either Aster lol!

Op I'm still stuck on you using live feed, but speaking against it..
Also id like to point out that many different fish have different qualities. Doesnt make their lives any less valuable just because they swim differently than another

 

Guys if you want to keep this thread alive I would try and be more civil and less compative otherwise the mods will close it. Ive seen it happen to multiple threads on the same and similar topics.

 

What's useful with a guppy swimming in a 10 gallon tank?
Anyway I'll throw my opinion out there... I don't believe if an animal needs live food that are also pets(I know I know, a little hypocritical since I feed banana worms) that the animal that needs the pets is a pet... If that makes sense... It's been said its the same as in the wild, well, not really. In the wild they have miles upon miles to hunt, here they have a few feet if they are lucky. It's not the same, your intentionally trapping an animal in a small place with, in they're mind, a killer. They have no escape like they would in the wild. That being said, I don't look down on anyone who does this as it's purely opinionated. I also don't agree with hunting for fun, for food, sure. Just like fishing, I don't fish as I know how stressful it is and I don't eat fish so there's no reason for me to. It makes me feel sad to know how many animals are killed for food and all, but this is just life. I think they could make their life better definitely, but what would we eat if there wasn't butchers? Being vegan is very bad on the body, we need meet, so do our animals. The thing is that the animals that are raised for food aren't hunted, they are, sad to think about, but mass killed. Not put into a box with a predictor that may or may not be more painful than the factory. It's a sad situation all around, but I know how great a fish can be and couldn't feed one to another intetionally(I know, yes I do survival of the fittest with fry... But I'm not plopping them in and say eat!). Same with mice, I had a spiny mouse once and he was the sweetest little guy. I could never feed a mouse to something... But this is my opinion, and OP, you do seem a little hypocritical.. But it could just be the way it's worded and we are misunderstanding. but yes, let's please be less combative and act like we are fancy people with cups of tea in our hands. or like smee82 said, be a little more civil.

 

I agree it is different from the wild in the sense that they have nowhere to go.
I personally have no plans of getting fish that *require* live foods.
But if you wish to keep a fish that does, its sonething you have to deal with.
If you dont, then I don't think its something someone else should be judged on.

Unless (impo) its out of negative energy vs "just life" philosophy.
I don't like those kinds of people anyway

 

I think the big picture that you are realizing is that people have a very broad spectrum of values. Accepting that is helpful to vigorous duscussion. I don't value any life being as high as human life. It's kind of like a pyramid for my value of life with a few exceptions. I value a food bearing fruit as a higher life than insects eating it, but bees trump individual plants. I don't value the feelings of non domesticated animals all that highly, I will admit. I'm torn if I see a dead dog on the side of the road, but a racoon or coyote just don't hold the same value for me. I can't personally justify all life to be sacred or I would never survive in this world. Just not wired that way.

You seem to be able to justify that mentality. You hold far different values than I, and I can accept and respect that. I just can't live it.

 

Flakes are dead fish materials mixed in with other chemicals and stuff. Live fish are ALIVE. They breath, eat, slet to survive.

As said previously if your feeding flakes or frozen foods, then its all the same it was alive.
Also you called an arrowana useless...?
I enjoy these debates but you lost me, sounds moral to wo der about this topic but
To go on about this and then call an arrowanna useless makes no sense. Feeder fish are bred for that reason. Goldfish are as well but any knowledgeable aquarist knows that they are an unhealthy live food. This is a rabbit hole because we argue that its inhumane to feed live fish... but keeping fish in general isnt....?
Who are we to judge?

 

I'd just like to address the misconception that feeder fish in the store are there to be sold as "pets". The tanks are labelled feeders, could that be more obvious? I tend to consider those with your position as major hypocrites because they are keeping fish in a glass box, but get indignant when someone uses live fish to feed large piscivores. You want to think you are keeping your fish "happy", but that would assume that you know how they feel, which you cannot.

Morality is a personal position. I don't care if you don't want to use fish as feeders. I do care if you want to insist that others follow your idea of morality. In fact, I find it quite offensive. I think this is why such threads eventually get locked and/or deleted on this forum, as this one should be.

 

chromedome52, I know you didn't mean to, but you accidentally put "are" instead of "aren't". Made an interesting two sentences haha. Just kidding. I agree with you, I personally view them as pets. But that's just because I see what great pets they can be. But yes, they are intended for live food. I still think this thread has a chance to not have to be chance to not be locked though. Just depends on the following responses.

 

I think the big picture that you are realizing is that people have a very broad spectrum of values. Accepting that is helpful to vigorous duscussion. I don't value any life being as high as human life. It's kind of like a pyramid for my value of life with a few exceptions. I value a food bearing fruit as a higher life than insects eating it, but bees trump individual plants. I don't value the feelings of non domesticated animals all that highly, I will admit. I'm torn if I see a dead dog on the side of the road, but a racoon or coyote just don't hold the same value for me. I can't personally justify all life to be sacred or I would never survive in this world. Just not wired that way.

You seem to be able to justify that mentality. You hold far different values than I, and I can accept and respect that. I just can't live it.

Just because you lack warmth, doesn't mean that innocent animals have to suffer because of it. You should treat all animals with basic human decency. Just because something is wild, doesn't mean its life can't be assisted by human intervention. Since human beings are the most valued, use your abilities to help other helpless creatures.

What's useful with a guppy swimming in a 10 gallon tank?
Anyway I'll throw my opinion out there... I don't believe if an animal needs live food that are also pets(I know I know, a little hypocritical since I feed banana worms) that the animal that needs the pets is a pet... If that makes sense... It's been said its the same as in the wild, well, not really. In the wild they have miles upon miles to hunt, here they have a few feet if they are lucky. It's not the same, your intentionally trapping an animal in a small place with, in they're mind, a killer. They have no escape like they would in the wild. That being said, I don't look down on anyone who does this as it's purely opinionated. I also don't agree with hunting for fun, for food, sure. Just like fishing, I don't fish as I know how stressful it is and I don't eat fish so there's no reason for me to. It makes me feel sad to know how many animals are killed for food and all, but this is just life. I think they could make their life better definitely, but what would we eat if there wasn't butchers? Being vegan is very bad on the body, we need meet, so do our animals. The thing is that the animals that are raised for food aren't hunted, they are, sad to think about, but mass killed. Not put into a box with a predictor that may or may not be more painful than the factory. It's a sad situation all around, but I know how great a fish can be and couldn't feed one to another intetionally(I know, yes I do survival of the fittest with fry... But I'm not plopping them in and say eat!). Same with mice, I had a spiny mouse once and he was the sweetest little guy. I could never feed a mouse to something... But this is my opinion, and OP, you do seem a little hypocritical.. But it could just be the way it's worded and we are misunderstanding. but yes, let's please be less combative and act like we are fancy people with cups of tea in our hands. or like smee82 said, be a little more civil.

I'm not being hypocritical.

As said previously if your feeding flakes or frozen foods, then its all the same it was alive.
Also you called an arrowana useless...?
I enjoy these debates but you lost me, sounds moral to wo der about this topic but
To go on about this and then call an arrowanna useless makes no sense. Feeder fish are bred for that reason. Goldfish are as well but any knowledgeable aquarist knows that they are an unhealthy live food. This is a rabbit hole because we argue that its inhumane to feed live fish... but keeping fish in general isnt....?
Who are we to judge?

1) This isn't a debate.

2) An arowana in a tank slightly bigger than it's length is useless. This type of fish is just for show.

3) My fish are kept in tanks with lots of swimming space, in comparison to the size of the fish.

4) Keeping fish is not inhumane, if it is done well. That includes providing necessary space for swimming, feeding and looking after.

I'd just like to address the misconception that feeder fish in the store are there to be sold as "pets". The tanks are labelled feeders, could that be more obvious? I tend to consider those with your position as major hypocrites because they are keeping fish in a glass box, but get indignant when someone uses live fish to feed large piscivores. You want to think you are keeping your fish "happy", but that would assume that you know how they feel, which you cannot.

Morality is a personal position. I don't care if you don't want to use fish as feeders. I do care if you want to insist that others follow your idea of morality. In fact, I find it quite offensive. I think this is why such threads eventually get locked and/or deleted on this forum, as this one should be.

Your point makes no sense. You are comparing killing a fish with your predatory pet to owning and looking after a fish and providing it with a good home. It may not be the perfect replica of its natural environment, but it has all the conveniences, and possibly more. The obvious problem is space. Fish in ponds have less to worry about in this case.

You are missing the entire point of morality which I am trying to highlight: you are taking away the fish's choice to survive by feeding it to your pet, because it is basically bred to die, and mostly a painful death. Breeding goldfish to feed to your wild pets which are just kept for their 'coolness' value and probably to show off to your neighbours is immoral.

Please consider it.

I'd just like to address the misconception that feeder fish in the store are there to be sold as "pets". The tanks are labelled feeders, could that be more obvious? I tend to consider those with your position as major hypocrites because they are keeping fish in a glass box, but get indignant when someone uses live fish to feed large piscivores. You want to think you are keeping your fish "happy", but that would assume that you know how they feel, which you cannot.

Morality is a personal position. I don't care if you don't want to use fish as feeders. I do care if you want to insist that others follow your idea of morality. In fact, I find it quite offensive. I think this is why such threads eventually get locked and/or deleted on this forum, as this one should be.

Morality is not a personal position when pain is universal and definitely felt by those fish.

 

Fish's choice? Sure... That makes sense since they decide where they go and whether they get ill.

 

No need to apologise? I followed your argument through to its logical conclusion (or, possible conclusions, of which there are many from the somewhat contradictory information you've given).

The point is that if you justify X on basis Y, and basis Y also applies to situation Z, then Z too must necessarily also be justified unless you can provide further sound consistent argument for why Z and X are relevantly dissimilar. I provided a few possible situation Zs (there are many, many more), what you make of them is up to you. But I do suggest seriously considering the consistency and workability- and implications- of your own moral framework before you start attacking those of others. Refusing to do so is in and of itself hypocritical, at the very least.

It would be nice if we could keep this from degenerating into an emotional exchange of insults, or this thread will be closed or deleted- which would a shame, since the debate (n response to what you said to someone else about it not being such, you can't write about a topic like this on a public forum and reasonably expect it to not become a debate) is worthwhile and intersting.

One question at a time: why are you not okay with animals being given to killed and eaten by a fish for food, but fine with them being killed on a fishing boat or in a factory to be processed to make food which will eventually be fed to that same fish?

 

Obamelia

1. An Arowana in a tank slightly bigger than it's length is useless. This type of fish is just for show.

no fish or pet is useless but any fish kept in a tank to small for it is inhumane. Also arrowanas are not only kept for show and even if they are its not immoral or useless many people keep dogs and cats for show. How Is that wrong?


2.) Keeping fish is not inhumane, if it is done well. That includes providing necessary space for swimming, feeding and looking after.

you've directly contradicted yourself many fish need live food or food made from fish so if you don't feed them they will starve which means you aren't taking care of them

3.You are missing the entire point of morality which I am trying to highlight: you are taking away the fish's choice to survive by feeding it to your pet, because it is basically bred to die, and mostly a painful death. Breeding goldfish to feed to your wild pets which are just kept for their 'coolness' value and probably to show off to your neighbours is immoral.

If raising an animals for food is inhumane then why is it ok to raise animals for slaughter for our consumption or to feed our pet cats or dogs.

 

Just because you lack warmth, doesn't mean that innocent animals have to suffer because of it. You should treat all animals with basic human decency. Just because something is wild, doesn't mean its life can't be assisted by human intervention. Since human beings are the most valued, use your abilities to help other helpless creatures.

"You should treat all animals with basic human decency"
Does this include live bloodworms?

 

@

1. An Arowana in a tank slightly bigger than it's length is useless. This type of fish is just for show.

no fish or pet is useless but any fish kept in a tank to small for it is inhumane. Also arrowanas are not only kept for show and even if they are its not immoral or useless many people keep dogs and cats for show. How Is that wrong?


2.) Keeping fish is not inhumane, if it is done well. That includes providing necessary space for swimming, feeding and looking after.

you've directly contradicted yourself many fish need live food or food made from fish so if you don't feed them they will starve which means you aren't taking care of them

3.You are missing the entire point of morality which I am trying to highlight: you are taking away the fish's choice to survive by feeding it to your pet, because it is basically bred to die, and mostly a painful death. Breeding goldfish to feed to your wild pets which are just kept for their 'coolness' value and probably to show off to your neighbours is immoral.

If raising an animals for food is inhumane then why is it ok to raise animals for slaughter for our consumption or to feed our pet cats or dogs.

Because it's unnecessary killing. If you don't require it for food, then your pet should be able to eat what you eat or taught to fend for itself. Don't justify killing in the name of feeding your pets, when the actual feed is also a valued species. Just like you value your dogs and cats and would be horrified if someone stripped them alive and barbecued them, I feel horrified when these beautiful, intelligent creatures are fed as live food.

It has no value except to satisfy the desire for 'realness' for the immoral pet owner.

If you can't handle these comments then please don't keep wild animals as pets.

"You should treat all animals with basic human decency"
Does this include live bloodworms?

NO.

One question at a time: why are you not okay with animals being given to killed and eaten by a fish for food, but fine with them being killed on a fishing boat or in a factory to be processed to make food which will eventually be fed to that same fish?

Because it's cruel.

No need to apologise? I followed your argument through to its logical conclusion (or, possible conclusions, of which there are many from the somewhat contradictory information you've given).

The point is that if you justify X on basis Y, and basis Y also applies to situation Z, then Z too must necessarily also be justified unless you can provide further sound consistent argument for why Z and X are relevantly dissimilar. I provided a few possible situation Zs (there are many, many more), what you make of them is up to you. But I do suggest seriously considering the consistency and workability- and implications- of your own moral framework before you start attacking those of others. Refusing to do so is in and of itself hypocritical, at the very least.

It would be nice if we could keep this from degenerating into an emotional exchange of insults, or this thread will be closed or deleted- which would a shame, since the debate (n response to what you said to someone else about it not being such, you can't write about a topic like this on a public forum and reasonably expect it to not become a debate) is worthwhile and intersting.

This isn't a debate. If it was, I would be arguing my points. I'm not.