The most compelling reason that RTC's should not be sold

[grokefish]

I found this video on you tube whilst looking for crocodile catfish.
The video is of a dying red tail cat fish and is listed as such, well the music tells all.

It is very sad, I down loaded it and re uploaded it as it was so that the OP would not get any money from google ads,there has been 62,000 views so far, if its your video I don't apologise, your a tool.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=74AYjN1JmQM
This is the most compelling evidence I have seen of why these fish (or maybe any fish) should not be sold and kept as 'pets'

Very sad.

[MatsP]

That looks more like a newly set up tank problem than the "usual" problem of "got too big for the tank/filter".

--
Mats

[Viktor Jarikov]

What's exactly your beef with the OP? The music and the mood might be (in one option!) interpreted as sadistic but what does this have to do with your thread title?? The tank is enormous and nice.

Unless I am missing something, I'd title the thread "The most compelling evidence that we might still have sadists or overall nice people but with temporary judgment lapses"?

[RickE]

I'd say not much of an argument against RTC's in particular. Just some tosser who shouldn't be keeping fish at all if they feel that is an appropriate level of respect to show a dying animal.

[apistomaster]

I also thought Matt's choice of title odd.
To me it shows a fish which has been starved much longer than it has been in that tank. I have seen many similarly emaciated large species of Catfish in some Seattle wholesalers tanks and that was the condition they were shipped in so these problems often begin soon after capture in less reputable exporters facilities. That doesn't have much relevance to the thread's title or argument as to why very large species of catfish should be left in the wild.

As long as an owner of a fish like the Red tailed catfish keeps moving a healthy growing specimens to an appropriately large vessel I really do not think it is cruel to keep the large species. As long as the owner knows what they are getting into and has the resources to provide an indoor pool with a good filtration, ability to feed properly and water changing is performed sufficiently to maintain high water quality it comes down to a matter of taste or what kind of fish you desire to keep. Very, very few have the where with all to provide big fish adequate conditions the argument primarily applies to ignorant beginners. Maybe this particular specimen was merely a rescue fish?
Granted, way too many buy large species and don't have the ability and have the capacity to provide for their needs. Size is irrelevant. I have enjoyed my large Cichlids phase and bred them successfully which they would have never done in an undersized aquarium so as long as you provide them with enough space, diet and high water quality I cannot criticize those who choose to properly care for their large species.
I do not condone the selling of large species to those who have no intentions of providing for their needs. These fish keepers will always be with us so more sad stories will appear in the future.

A statement that holds true for all fish regardless of their size.

I also believe that many large species may be kept humanely providing the their owners are aware of their requirements prior to my purchases. Arowanas are my large fish of choice and the only Arowana I would even consider now having raised several SA Silver Arowanas from ~5 inches to 24 inches I am finished with them. I would actually like a farm bred, radio identification tagged specimen of Asian Arowanas for the Feng Shei of my household and I admiration of their regal bearing but even though they are farm raised, implanted with radio ID tags, the USA policy continues the import ban by their literal interpretation of the CITES treaty.
Rick,
That fish could probably still be able to recover given some TLC.

[andywoolloo]

it's a sad video to me, cause I wouldn't be filming it and playing that music. I'd be trying to save it, well I wouldn't have bought the poor little thing either.

That was sad.

but maybe he was sad about it and just choose a inappropriate song. who knows

[grokefish]

Viktor: the tank is no where near big enough to keep an RTC, I dont think many many household tanks are if you kept a dog in room of similar relative proportions and never let it out, this would be seen as cruel.
The tank is not the issue anyway, its the mentality behind the video.

Larry: The title is such to get people to look at it, add " as 'pets'" to it and the perspective and intention is more clear, this is stated in my post.

RickE: That is my point exactly, thank you for interpreting it correctly.

As we all (should) know red tailed catfish are harder to keep humanely than most other large fish. They suffer badly with minor water parameter fluctuations/deterioration and is in my opinion this not purely a chemical thing.
Having kept an RTC in the past, their interaction with their keepers goes beyond that of most fish. I believe they are actually aware of their captivity and there is a case for them recognising different people (in my own experience and that of others)and therefore having some idea of self and others.
The only other fish I have kept that even comes close in terms of 'Apparent' intelligence was a Hemibagrus Wykii and Uaru.
I think it is possible that these fish actually deteriorate due to 'depression' for want of a better word.

Matts brings a good point of a seemingly newly set up tank, again ignorance/lack of experience both of fish keeping and the fact that fish are living beings is possibly in play here.
If this is the case then somehow these fish and other 'demanding' fish should not be allowed into the hands of such keepers.
Price plays a massive role in this whole situation. you can pick up an RTC locally from as little as £25!!!!!!!
That is well within the reach of most fish keepers/pet owners, which in my eyes itself is a very crap way of describing what goes on between us and the fish in our care.
Clearly if this person knows about RTC's then they will know that those other fish are not going to last long if water parameters are kept well.


Either way, if they were not sold as 'pets' at such ridiculously low prices and as such readily available then this would not happen.
The same could be said of other fish as in my post and RickEs' but many other fish do not suffer so badly due to captivity, for example large doradids can suffer serious 'abuse' and still be fine.

The only answer in my eyes is to hike the price up to regions where it is either out of reach of the inexperienced or callous.
After all someone is more likely to care more for their £500 fish than a £25 impulse buy.

This can be seen in the case of rays and brachyplatystoma tigrinus, the latter, in my opinion and experience, a much hardier easier to maintain fish than RTC.
The expense, care and information gathering that goes on before people buy tigs is in my opinion far more commonly invested for these expensive fish and after purchase care also.

At the end of the day we (generally) as humans put value in terms of money way ahead of value in terms of life, which is very sad and IMO a great cause of why the earth is being extensively plundered and ruined every day.

If we dont give a crap about an animal that is in our care then why would we give a crap about fish in the Rio Xingu and their imminent demise which is not(which is another discussion also)?
Or any other animal/ecosystem in the world.
It is exactly that this distinction, like the comparison between a fish and a dog and relative 'care', that makes many people not think this to be a cruel situation.

In the case of the OP, a lack of 'education' from whichever source (schooling or parenting) has let them down and not allowed them to become their (and all our) potential as the higher beings we perceive ourselves to be as a species.
The very fact that we see 'life' in ourselves as a 'sacred' thing, so much so that if you kill another person you will not only be punished (which is a whole different discussion)and seen as a degenerate.
Yet this thing that is so sacred to us is not extended (generally) to other beings which contain this 'sacred' thing.

The idea of separation in all its guises, including the above, must be removed from our way of thinking if we are to come into line with nature and continue to exist as a species on this planet.
I have no doubt that we will come into line and retake our place within the system itself but unless we do make this change on every level we will be dragged kicking and screaming into almost complete extinction aourselves before it happens.

Non of the above is aimed at anyone that has already posted or the majority of people on this forum so please dont get all keyboard warrior about it. I am not intending the above post too offend or troll just expressing my opinion on the need for change to be highlighted and addressed on every level, however seemingly minor it appears.

[Viktor Jarikov]

Matt: the tank is no where near big enough to keep an RTC, I dont think many many household tanks are if you kept a dog in room of similar relative proportions and never let it out, this would be seen as cruel.
VJ: it is a useful analogy but not an equal situation; dogs require walking and exercise.

Matt: The tank is not the issue anyway, its the mentality behind the video.
VJ: Yeah, I think I missed your second to the last sentence: I see now that you are aiming much higher, i.e., at the whole hobby, are you not?

Matt: As we all (should) know red tailed catfish are harder to keep humanely than most other large fish. They suffer badly with minor water parameter fluctuations/deterioration and is in my opinion this not purely a chemical thing.
VJ: never noticed IME, which does not deny your experience but only supplements it.

Matt: Having kept an RTC in the past, their interaction with their keepers goes beyond that of most fish. I believe they are actually aware of their captivity and there is a case for them recognizing different people (in my own experience and that of others)and therefore having some idea of self and others. The only other fish I have kept that even comes close in terms of 'Apparent' intelligence was a Hemibagrus Wykii and Uaru.
VJ: never noticed either but very good to know - will be paying closer attention to this aspect - I have multiple RTCs and Wykiis. I'd be very surprised though, based on general knowledge - people are still unsure if parrots, dogs, and cats have self-awareness; they are testing many smart animals - elephants, pigs, monkeys, apes, dolphins and I do not know if there is a consensus. For one, it is very hard to test and the results are almost invariably ambiguous - what is seen by one as an evidence of self-awareness usually exposes their ignorance and can be explained via 2-3-5 different ways by some one smart and knowledgeable - that's what makes a great scientist, when they can explain the experimental result in several likely ways and try to sort them out, but at the end, the conclusions are just about probabilities, meaning which explanations are more probable and which are less. Human psyche is an enormous enigma and those guys can talk! Mammal psyche is probably even harder. Fish psyche? Most would say forget about it. Still, very interesting topic for fish nuts. Thanks, Matt!

Matt: I think it is possible that these fish actually deteriorate due to 'depression' for want of a better word.
VJ: my RTCs usually "deteriorate" from bacterial infections or if they eat inedible and impassible items. The ones that avoid either are as happy (superficially) as their many, many motley-crew tank-mates.

The rest of your points, Matt, are way too philosophical and/or economical and even theological to discuss for me, because of my lack of knowledge and the place.

Matt: If we dont give a crap about an animal that is in our care then why would we give a crap about fish in the Rio Xingu and their imminent demise which is not(which is another discussion also)? Or any other animal/ecosystem in the world.
VJ: This sounds a bit black-and-white. Of course, people care. But people are finite beings with finite resources. Of course, any sane person would care about little kids dying from AIDS and famine in Africa, dying like every given minute. It is also very obvious that we are heading for the total demise of the Planet and everything on it. It is not a question of if. It is a question of time.

Matt: Yet this thing that is so sacred to us is not extended (generally) to other beings which contain this 'sacred' thing.
VJ: this is where it starts to bear on people's faith: animals have no soul, they do not carry the Image and the Likeness... and people are not just another species, i.e., unless you are an extreme darwinist.

Matt: I have no doubt that we will come into line and retake our place within the system itself ...
VJ: I differ, as evident from the foregoing.

Matt: just expressing my opinion on the need for change to be highlighted and addressed on every level, however seemingly minor it appears.
VJ: how true but, again, we are finite and have incomparably sadder problems on our hands.

[apistomaster]

I think I will be a troll, Mat.

Not really. Personally, I do not think Red Tail Cats should be among the fish sold for aquariums, either.
The problem is that they are and probably will continue to be sold in the trade.

There is no way to screen a shop nor it's customers.
All we, concerned fish keepers, can do is discourage their purchase.
However, there are some few individuals with incomes large enough to buy and provide accommodations for fish as large as Red tailed catfish and fresh water stingrays which in the latter case, are sufficiently adequate for captive breeding, means there are no valid reasons for them not to be able to buy these fish if they so choose.

The real problem is that only a few thousand fish keepers in the world, if that, have both the knowledge and facilities to take proper care of these extreme giants.
I haven't visited the Monster Fish Keepers forum in a long time but there are members who could afford to build tanks out of reinforced concrete like those in a public aquarium for their giants. If that is what you want and can afford it, you shouldn't be criticized.
It is just a fact that the majority of people who buy RT Cats and Rays do not have these qualifications.

[MatsP]

Agreed, there are a few people for every many thousands of a population that have all the necessary income, inclination, knowledge and abilities to care for really large fish. But these people, given the requirement to do so, could also very well pay for the shipping, and wait a week or three to have it delivered directly from the country of origin. For example, if you want a Ferrari <insert latest, fanciest model>, you don't just go to any car-shop and get one - in fact, even the specialist Ferrari garages may well have a waiting list of several weeks, months or years. If you want an expensive lens for a camera and happen to NOT live in a large metropolis, then you probably have to wait at least a few days for one to arrive. If you want new AP Racing brakes for your motorbike, you don't just walk into your local moped & motorcycle shop to get one. I'm sure we can list many other things that aren't immediately available, because it's a bit "exotic" or "expensive".

So I see absolutely no reason why fish that can be expected to reach more than about 12" should be immediately available and relatively cheap.

In fact, I think those selling large fish would actually make MORE money if they were special order items.... Only the exporters may loose some of the "mass-market" benefits. But there are many other, more suitable, species that they could export in its place, and I don't really think that exporters make that much on for example RTC's.

--
Mats

[L number Banana]

Didn't watch the video but I get the idea - I would be sad to see it, so no visit for me.

Matt: Yet this thing that is so sacred to us is not extended (generally) to other beings which contain this 'sacred' thing.
VJ: this is where it starts to bear on people's faith: animals have no soul, they do not carry the Image and the Likeness... and people are not just another species, i.e., unless you are an extreme darwinist.

Eeeeee! Don't go there, my friends. People are stuck like glue to their faith whether it be faith in science, man made religion, oak trees or what ever but it's a can o' worms. Step away from the can. If I thought I was given the power to know who/what has souls or if a 'soul' exists, etc, I would build myself a pyramid. Don't bring radical religion into this unless you've got your extra skin on.

I'm perfectly happy if someone assumes a fish has thoughts or feelings or souls or whatever because it can help them take good care of the little guys (or big guys). At least they have empathy for something that can suffer even if we don't understand it.

[Jools]

This is the most compelling evidence I have seen of why these fish (or maybe any fish) should not be sold and kept as 'pets'

Very sad.

It is indeed sad. I strongly agree we should keep off the theology chat too. Please.

However, because it's an RTC clouds the issue and to be honest pretty much any species specific discussion like this, for me, misses the point. I think your comment about any fish is more appropriate, do you think we'd feel the same about a cardinal tetra in such a position? I say we should.

Jools

[Viktor Jarikov]

-- Step away from the can, Sir!
-- Yes, Mam. Please, put the gun down? Pretty please?



Sorry, friends.

Good points, big J. You have a way of cutting thru the dung.

[grokefish]

ViKtor, dude, I mentioned nothing about a soul. Souls are for religion, I am talking of the thing that makes us not inanimate objects and therefore must and does extend to animals of all kinds.

Jools: you along with RickE are getting the point exactly.

It just happens to be an RTC.

Larry: I agree that some people do have the money, facilities and enthusiasm to keep these fish.

Mats: Your Ferrari analogy is perfect.

Everyone, its the distinction between fish and 'furry cute animals that gets me, What if this was a horse or a dog or cat??????? There would be an outcry.

In fact I am going to report the video to youtube just to see what they say about it.

[Viktor Jarikov]

Guess I overreacted. Sorry, Matt.

They will blow you off. Still, a marvelous move.

Everyone, its the distinction between fish and 'furry cute animals that gets me, What if this was a horse or a dog or cat??????? There would be an outcry.

I'd sign my name under that. Good one. Sorry, I did not get it right away.

[Jools]

Yes, would be interested in what happens with YouTube. I agree re furry animals too, I think some of it too is many people do not know a sick fish when they see one in the same way a, for example, sick cat looks.

Jools

[grokefish]

Cant find the OP now!!!!!

Anyway found this...............
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wB9Ue59F ... ature=fvwp



Although the tank is small it is obviously a happy fish and is clearly interacting in some way with the human.

By the way the you tube tag thingies to make it show in the post is not working????????????

This is even better:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7wmnFq4 ... re=related

[grokefish]

Update: From reading the comments on this video it seems this guy whose fish it is paid $600 (Australian) for this fish.
(that scuppers that idea)

and he also had 2 others in a 4ft tank?

[racoll]

By the way the you tube tag thingies to make it show in the post is not working????????????

Matt, the YouTube tags are not very logical. You don't just paste the whole link into them.

You need to go to the YouTube share option, and then copy/paste just the URL after the equals sign into the YouTube tags

i.e. this bit in red: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u7wmnFq4aWc

So, this ...

Code: Select all

[youtube]u7wmnFq4aWc[/youtube]

... ends up as



Could this go in the FAQ perhaps?

[Viktor Jarikov]

Update: From reading the comments on this video it seems this guy whose fish it is paid $600 (Australian) for this fish.

the owner of the dying little RTC? is it like 20 US$?

(that scuppers that idea)

you mean that the more expensive the fish, the higher the chances that the owner would do their homework? If yes, it needs no saying but we (you) were only talking chances. One case means nothing.

[RickE]

is it like 20 US$?

No Viktor it's over 600 USD!

I keep thinking that if the sellers of these kind of fish don't self-regulate, then sooner or later something like this video will create enough outcry that it will force governmental regulation of some kind.

I'm not a fan of 'censorship' generally but I think the asian arowana is perhaps a good example of how RTC's (and similar oversize fishes) could be handled.

Another alternative would be a CITES type licensing system. IME this works well for corals and the like. But then I suppose until RTC's and the like make it onto a 'threatened' list it's unlikely anything will be done to protect them.

[Viktor Jarikov]

Ok then, Matt (Grokefish) and other esteemed colleagues who think this video is "bad"...

I do not mean to have this thread drag on, especially in light of Jools' view of this species-specific discussion being rather pointless, which I find agreeable, but my last two cents would be the following.

The guy very well may not be a villain at all.

(1) I found the OP on You-Tube - there is a sad face at the end of the title, which clues us in that the poster is... well... sad.

(2) over $600 ?? that's shocking (I can buy them for $15 in LFSs at 2"); but anyways, if the guy/gal lost so much money when this little RTC died, their choice of requiem can be a bit off the norm, given high-running emotions, and is their business and if it is somewhat upbeat and "rocky" or "disco-ey" or whatever, there is nothing horribly wrong with that and perhaps, Matt, you jumped to a conclusion. It may be clownish. It may be theatrical. It may be acting out. It may be how they best cope with the emotional and financial loss. It may be just a brain fart, as Crkinney would put it. Moreover, some people like to be buried to a cheerful music and for their comrades to celebrate their life instead of crying over their departure. It's a matter of taste or whatever you wanna call it.

Even though I allow for the possibility that I am way off, I still do not like the strong condemnation of that person.

Well, remember, this is just another explanation and should be understood in terms of chances, if anybody ever cared to slice this one up. I should shut up now.

[Jools]

@Viktor,

Well, I am certainly one for looking at "the other point of view", and I find the Monty Python dead parrot sketch hilarious, I've even been to see Europe live (clearly also a sign of a sense of humour).

For the avoidance of doubt, we're talking about selecting a less-than-current song with the title/chorus "It's the Final Countdown" for the backing track of a short video taken during the last hours of an animals life.

I don't think many would see anything like humour or homage in that and, given it was put out for public viewing, then the public can express a view!

Jools

[andywoolloo]

Jools said:

However, because it's an RTC clouds the issue and to be honest pretty much any species specific discussion like this, for me, misses the point. I think your comment about any fish is more appropriate, do you think we'd feel the same about a cardinal tetra in such a position? I say we should.

I would definitely feel the same to any living thing that wasn't given proper respect in an agonizing state. Fish or any other creature or human being.

But like I said, giving him the benefit of the doubt, maybe just poor music selection.

[MatsP]

Pedantic note: The music on this video is "Crazy Frog" cover version of Europe's song [the band, not the "continent"].

And a note on the choice of music, when there was a bus-crash involving the death of a large number [more than 10] 14-15 year olds from a school in Norway some 20 or so years ago, the music played (in the television programme about) the funeral/memorial service of one (or a group, memory is a bit vague) of the victims of the crash was indeed "The Final Countdown". Not your typical funeral/memorial music, but I guess it's actually not that strange [it was more current music of that time, anyways].

--
Mats

[grokefish]

Matt: I have no doubt that we will come into line and retake our place within the system itself ...
VJ: I differ, as evident from the foregoing.

From the evident of the foregoing Man will come into line and retake his place within the system itself, as hunter gatherers in an admittedly much less resource rich planet.

Matt: just expressing my opinion on the need for change to be highlighted and addressed on every level, however seemingly minor it appears.
VJ: how true but, again, we are finite and have incomparably sadder problems on our hands.

The sadder problems can only be tackled by tackling the seemingly minor problems.
The main problem which is by far the saddest problem in humanity is the 'attitude' of the western materialistic separated from nature mind.
this is seen by many, such as yourself as a visually less sad problem but is in fact the key to solving the more visually sad problems

I'm sorry but your comment about souls is a a major part of this problem.

[Jools]

I'm not sure where this is headed, but I'm keen to keep it close to topic?

Jools

[grokefish]

I was going towards the inflexible, set mentality that exist very prominently among us (humans)and as such is very on topic.

The ability for us to see something one way and no matter what evidence or logic is presented to stick to the original thinking.
Best example and most quoted is the case of the world being a sphere rather than flat.

This was the accepted situation so massively in-ground into the human way of thinking that when it was presented that the earth was a sphere there was uproar, yet these people that swore that the earth was flat to their dying day were clearly WRONG.
By harbouring the idea that animals are in anyway inferior to ourselves in terms of their 'life' makes it easier to harm them and the environment they (and we) exist in or in the case of RTC keep them in disgusting conditions and when they die due to our stupidity/ignorance and not to sustain our 'life', it is generally accepted by Joe public as no big deal its just a fish.

It is the same mentality that is EMPTYING our oceans of fish.
It's over there, not here, so obviously this does not affect me, there is food in the supermarket so all is ok.
The concept of animals being here for 'our dominion' is IMO the reason why the planet has been seriously raped in the blip in human history that is the industrial age, because it is easy to justify and even easier to say 'its not our fault'

These examples of 'blind faith' i.e there has always been food in the supermarket so there will always be food in the supermarket, or 'There's LOADS of oil left' are extensions of a mentality that would for example think 'Oh I'll make a funny video of a fish dying (through my own stupidity)' or 'I cant be arsed about the rainforest being cut down that's no where near here' and are just more examples of our 'seperation' from nature 'we are not part of nature we are the divine image of a mighty power and as such, let the plunder commence, cos it will come to our rescue when it all goes wrong'

I'm sorry for the rant but I was lucky enough(?) to witness the actual moment of death of an old large and very much individual fish, I watched her eyes cloud over and blood leak from her gills. Having witnessed human death also it was NO different its just the fish could not communicate with me, and the human had no gills .

The point I am making is, what if we ARE wrong, what if fish (and other animals) have a sentience similar to our own?
These large fish would be suffering purely because of some peoples ineptitude or cruelty or ignorance where they could more easily keep a smaller fish?
Is that worth it???????
Why 'OWN' a RTC? when you can go and see them in an aquarium????????

You need to take a dog for a walk?????? Who knows what these fish 'need' they certainly did not evolve to be in a tank that is maybe 3 times its adult size long and 1.5 times its adult size wide!!! Have you seen the Amazon??? or any other large river???? There is reason to believe these fish travel massive distances in their lives and also their day to day business. If that is not cruelty I have no idea what is.

I'm not saying they have no place in aquariums indeed the exposure to humans is vital for educateing the problem of separation,but not the 'average aquarium'

Having seen the difference in behaviour of small-medium doradids in VERY large tanks relative to their size compared to the 'average' 4 ft tank makes me wonder how would these rtc's behave in a similar relative size tank??
Would we see more 'natural behaviour'?

In case you are wondering the doradids came out regularly in the dimmed light (not darkness) and foraged about like a shoal of cory's. On the subject of cory's how often do you see them scattered about a tank and in no way shoaling? pretty much all the time in an average tank. These are all examples of unatural behaviour due to their captivity, they are not living to their potential.

This idea of ownership, especially but not exclusively when applied to another living creature, is also a puzzle to me but I wont start ranting about that.

Rant over, that is all.

[L number Banana]

Hey Grokefish,

Rants are good for the soul eh? This topic is really important for us to think about whether we agree or disagree, it doesn't matter, what matters is that we can take the time to think about our part is this whole business. Maybe it makes some of us a little better fish-keepers?

The point I am making is, what if we ARE wrong, what if fish (and other animals) have a sentience similar to our own?

Not everyone believes that non-humans aren't sentient beings. I believe that all creatures have some sort of thought or feeling but since I'm human, I can't ever have a clue what it even means for a fish or cat to 'feel' or think because I have no reference point other than human.
I guess the danger is when we try to imagine non-human species have feelings or thoughts that are the same as humans. "Oh, he's kind, he won't bite your child..." eek! As another species, we don't know diddley but nothing wrong with that. It is wrong if we think of other life as brain-dead machines.

If I'm wrong in feeling the way I do, so what? No one was hurt by my error but a lot of critters were cared for, turtles turned back over, snakes given shelter logs etc. Didn't hurt anyone to hope that critters know or feel something. I think about these things when I'm watching my fish or watching the crow teenagers interact with their new siblings.

I have a statue of St. Francis of Assisi in my garden and I'm not of the Christian faith but he was kind to animals so I think he's cool. As my very Christian Mother-in-law would say, "God doesn't make mistakes" and she thinks all the critters were made by God - again no harm done if she feels that way. It also makes her very caring of all creatures great and small

Hi Jools,
I think it's still on topic even if it's looking at the 'inner' fish because it really boils down to what we all think of as 'good' fishkeeping or 'not-so-good' fishkeeping/and selling. People sometimes choose not to buy large fish because they don't think it's good for the fish for whatever reason, health, soul, whatever.

I could be wrong though....

[taksan]

Many of you know my thoughts on keeping fish ....
And you know I keep RTC's

I believe that all such fish should be sold only to a licensed fish keeper who passes a test and has the tank space to keep such a fish.

The cost of keeping 75kgs (because that's what 2 x 6yo RTC's are going to be) nitrate free in 5000 gallons exceeds £300 a month.

I might be infamous for sweeping statements but one i make regularly is "most people shouldn't keep fish" .....