PlanetCatfish.com

What are your opinions on this matter?
How do you think that keeping fish in tanks effect them.
I will give my opinion after a while because I want to see other peoples opinions before I divulge my current feelings on the matter.
Thanks.
Matt

Like any keeping of animals in some form of enclosure, it has a certain "restriction of freedom". However, the problem comes when you don't give the fish sufficient space [next debate goes to define "sufficient space"].

--
Mats

Maybe that is the point of the discussion, sufficient space.
Obviously redtailed catfish will immediately spring to mind but they appear to react a bit better to captivity than fish such as woodcats and some doradids.
They soon seem to settle down into a relaxed routine and even become 'pet friendly' whereas doras and woodcats will hide for weeks on end only coming out for food.
After having kept striped doras in a very big tank after a while they came out and rooted about at any time of the day in pairs or threes not unlike corydoras.
This led me to believe that they should not be kept in tanks any smaller than 6' long x 3' wide x 2' deep, very much bigger than the recommended size.
Matt

What is 'sufficient space?'

Ideally, it would be the space which does not prevent normal behaviour.

Normal, natural behaviour basically comes down to: finding food, shelter and mates; breeding and whare applicable, protecting the fry

The problem is, is one takes Corydoras, one will need for this a tank which fulfills the 10 BL * 3 BL * 2 BL l * b * h rule (BL is bodylength), no problem, but for say a Panaque nigrolineatus thsi tank will get a bit large - hence people start downgrading it

If we move on to the redtail catfish, growing to over 1 meter, this rule would mean a swimming pool, but also be far too little, as they are fiercely territorial.

I think Corydoras (to stick to the example) will, generally speaking, suffer much less than the really big ones. So, turning it around, keeping Corydoras can hardly be called cruel, while for others it can

I do not believe fish keeping in itself is necessarily cruel, but there are people that keep fish (and any other animal) in cruel circumstances due to lack of knowledge or simple negligence.

Bas Pels wrote:What is 'sufficient space?'

Ideally, it would be the space which does not prevent normal behaviour.

Normal, natural behaviour basically comes down to: finding food, shelter and mates; breeding and whare applicable, protecting the fry

To add fuel to the flames, where do you draw the line for "normal behavior"? What about fish that normally swim over wide areas, or migratory species? On the flip side, what if we don't know what normal behavior is? The normal behavior of many freshwater fish in their natural habitat is not very well studied.

Good remark

migratory fishes will need space to migrate, obviously. And just as obviously, no such tank will ever be made

In my eyes, such fishes are not suited for tanks

Perhaps a pity, as some migratory fishes are very beautifull, but still

Oh Dear OH Dear

Keeping fish cruel??

Bloody right it is if you keep a group of fish with no intention to understand the way of nature.

But then Fishmongers’ keep fish aquarists keep water.

I work as a “sales prevention officer” in a LFS, I see and hear the most disgusting behaviour of the public from parents who to appease the beady eyed brat they have raised they will buy any thing it wants to people so stupid that they have no understanding of water apart from its wet. Some of you will say we have a need to educate these people!! During the education process they will slaughter fish on an unliveable scale that makes me angry.

I see nature as following 3 rules these being reproduction, predation and avoiding predation in that order
No “I love you” just sex, eat and be eaten.

In my experience man when the very thin veneer of civilisation is removed obeys these rules but I move to a subject that is best avoided right now.
.
My self as an observer of the natural way would endeavour to provide a natural habitat for any fish I keep that will involve a long and detailed study of these fish and the environment were they are found I try to create a natural environment and avoided the space problem by keeping small groups of small fish. This requires time patience and knowledge that I have gained over the years.

In the UK we now have acts of Parliament i.e. laws that protect all vertebrates with a duty of care
Sadly this seems only to be observed with doggy wogeys and pussy wussys not fish well after all they are cold blooded.

Enforcement of this act “which I believe did create an arrest able offence to treat any vertebrate in any manner that may or could cause unnecessary suffering” is a duty of every aquarist.

Surly keeping any fish that is not going to have within its tank the natural territory and space that it would in the wild is cruel.

Keeping any fish with no regard to the water quality and environment it would naturally live in is cruel.

Keeping any fish in a environment that causes it to suffer and have no opportunity to follow the natural laws of reproduction, predation and avoiding predation is cruel.

But then is it cruel to allow the fish to predate i.e. eat live food?

Well thanks for reading my ramblings

Some good discussion so far, so my two-penneth.....

Within the hobby you will find responsible fishkeepers & those that aren't!

A fish in a tank, if kept well should have, plenty of room, regular food, the avoidance of predators, quality water & adequate disease prevention/treatment. These are not always observed - sometimes accidentally & sometimes intentionally. I think there will always be an element of cruel or inappropriate fishkeeping but it is significantly in the minority.

Personally, i'd like to see a list of the "giants" where husbandry was examined before purchase, so we don't end up with RTC in a 6x2x2 (or worse) because someone has "a really big tank"

another issue is of the aquarist who doesn't listen (or want to) -typically the guy who is angry i didn't sell him some 2" tiger oscars because i explained they grow large, eat small fish (he mostly kept livebearers), require upgraded filtration. He comes into the shop a few weeks later wanted to sell some oscars (looking well fed) that he has bought at another retailer! Grrrr

Or the guy (or gal) who buys a malawi c******d who we know has an alkaline set up, who comes back a week later complaining the fish is dead, we ask for a (duly supplied) water sample & find it is ph 5.7 sky high nitrate, nitrite - on questioning he has added "a couple of bits of really nice looking bogwood" that he didn't soak, i overstocked, overfeeding & hasn't done a partial water change ever - NO!!!!!!

This sort of thing is the one bit i DON'T miss about working in a LFS!!!!

Thanks for your ramblings, I'm glad there is such a person as a "sales prevention officer" in the world o fishkeeping and all the points in your rambling are valid.
However I was more thinking about the general concept of fishkeeping.
I do disagree with the point about "love".
This is a very hard concept to define even in human beings which have the ability to describe things using words.
Many pairing fish seem to show signs of attachment that could be described as "love".
If you have a well established pair of Uarus, for example, if one gets ill the other will stay around and even refrain from eating, at the risk of ridicule from the skeptical I have even seen one try and encourage the ill one to feed.
This appears to illustrate the fish having an idea of "self" and "others"
If the ill one dies, or they are separated they will pine sometimes to death even with the presence of other Uarus.
Large pims and puffers are another example of fish with clearly defined images of self and others.
Redtailed cats that have been in captivity have been known to like being stroked, rays seem to exhibit this need also.
They recognize themselves as being a very definite entity and their "keeper" as being another recognizable being.
I had a hemibagrus years ago that liked my wife and allowed her to clean the tank, moving him/her out the way to clean but would very viciously attack me or anything I put in the tank.
This fish could clearly distinguish between itself, me and her. Definite signs of intelligence above "sex, eat and be eaten", in my opinion.

The fish that I keep now will come out and about and behave in a very relaxed manner while I am working away, but as soon as they catch sight of me coming home and they disappear for weeks. This is due, I believe, to the fact that I am the one that catches them up when moving tanks about.
They can distinguish not only between fish and humans, but between humans themselves.

Don't get me wrong, I am not being a tree hugger, or attacking fish keeping in general, just interested after watching some box puffers , angel fish, wrasses etc hanging around in their natural environment in a habour in Muscat and the thought occurred to me that these fish seemed much more at ease than any fish I have ever seen in any aquarium anywhere in the world even in the presence of predators.

On the point that Richard made of red tailed cats.
at the risk of abuse, I think redtails are a bit of an exception to the rule for tank size. To keep a redtailed cat in an appropriate tank using the normal rules of territory size is an absolute impossibility. However if the water is kept clean (very hard work) they seem happy enough , psychologically anyway, in tanks and ponds much smaller than simple mathematical calculations would suggest.
It is the psychological side of this that I am actually trying to get at here rather than abusive fishkeeping.
Have you ever seen a bumblebee catfish (SA) go insane? swimming round and round and round and round? this can happen even in very large tanks, stripped doras seem prone to this also but they exhibit it as swimming across the front of the tank and abck and forth, back and forth.

anyone else have any information, opinions rantings about fish psychology. Larry?

I don't think abnormal/not naturally observed behaviour (or lack of) automatically = cruelty.

Take for example a nocturnal catfish that after 5 years in the aquarium become conditioned to feed in the daylight and may not even bother hiding in the daytime. This is not normal, nor is it "cruel". Pleco's wouldn't normally eat courgette in the wild. Is it "cruel" to feed them this food?, no.

"Cruel" and "suffering" are loaded and emotive words, and suggest fish feel the same kind of emotions as a human, which is clearly not the case, but I do think they are a bit more intelligent that we give them credit for. My discus for example learnt very quickly that I feed at both ends of the tank (for the Sphaerichthys vaillanti) and are waiting for me before they have even finished the food at the other end!

If fishkeeping were cruel or the fish were suffering (i.e. stressed), would fish live far longer than they do in the wild?, would they spawn?, would they show their spectacular colours? Would they feed from their owners' hand?

I don't think so.

Sure there are downsides, like less space and perhaps less than perfect water, but the lack of predators and the daily availability of food must make up for this.

In conclusion, if the right fish are kept appropriately and to best practice, then no, keeping them in an aquarium is not cruel.

However, perhaps a more controversial question is, is it cruel to starve them for a week, and ship them in plastic bags around the world with the significant mortality that this is associated with? Anyone who has seen the state of fish arriving at an LFS will know what I'm talking about. Although temporary, this is most certainly cruel, and often fatal......

Thanks Racoll, you have definitely settled my mind a bit on this subject.
I was considering packing it in.
Matt

racoll wrote:However, perhaps a more controversial question is, is it cruel to starve them for a week, and ship them in plastic bags around the world with the significant mortality that this is associated with? Anyone who has seen the state of fish arriving at an LFS will know what I'm talking about. Although temporary, this is most certainly cruel, and often fatal......

This is certainly the most difficult part of the hobby. Knowing that - in order to get your favourite fishes in - many of them will die previous to or during the trip. I've seen this (too) many times while helping out at a wholesaler's and sometimes I truly doubted the hobby when opening yet another box filled with dead fishes.
On the other hand there's the fact that more and more waters are being polluted, rainforests disappear and all kinds of other threats to (aquatic) wildlife.
So yes, I am one of people who doesn't think too deep. For if I'd do so, I would no longer be able to enjoy the hobby. Instead, I take good care of my fishes by providing them the best circumstances for a good life. And hope other people are doing or trying to do the same thing.

Marc van Arc wrote:
This is certainly the most difficult part of the hobby. Knowing that - in order to get your favourite fishes in - many of them will die previous to or during the trip. I've seen this (too) many times while helping out at a wholesaler's and sometimes I truly doubted the hobby when opening yet another box filled with dead fishes.

This is why I grabbed my synos when I saw them even tho at the time I did not have the proper size tank.

My fishkeeping experience started with the poor male bettas in the small cups. Cold, dirty water, starving skinny bettas. Looking so sad in their death traps. I try my best to give them, and all my fish, a good life. The best water and space and food I can. If we don't take them who knows who will get them and not take care of them or make their water right for them?

I try not to think too deeply on it either, I mean on one hand every fish we buy means another gets shipped in. But what can we do? I like to watch them and see them happy and swimming. I like it when there alot of the same ones in the tank and to see their interaction.

I love my fish.

Matt - i agree with your points on RTCs - i do feel however that there are a large number of general hobbyists who think a 4 foot is big enough to keep any species or group of a species, which is clearly not the case - my previous point was perhaps not phrased as good as it could've been.

As an aside, Don't give up, that would be a sad loss in these forums.

I suppose Matt's question is preaching to the converted here, isn't it? I doubt many of the active members of the site don't keep fish, and I also doubt that most of us don't try to achieve good (optimal might be gilding the lily) living conditions for fish kept as pets.

However, Racoll's comments on wild-caught fish mortality certainly hit a nerve with me- I'm one of the few aquarists I know that prefers to buy tank-bred fish, partly because if I do mess up, I feel less (but not zero)responsibility over a death, and partly because there are quite a few examples of fish that have been made locally extinct through over-collecting. This is one of the main reasons why I lean heavily towards catfish over loaches as my favourite group of fishes- I like them both and couldn't imagine not keeping catfish, but if more loaches were captive-bred I'd keep a mixture split between my tanks. As it is, most loaches I see in the UK look far too emaciated to take a risk on- I'd be truly frightened to look at the mortality rate of shipping.

As a keen angler and aquarist (I've been fascinated by aquatic life since I was three), and after 15 years in which I was unable to keep fish, I'd hate for someone to come up with a really good reason why I shouldn't!

I'm not looking for a reason why I shouldn't, so don't worry about that carp. I was just interested to see what opinions were on the subject having had doubts myself. I seem to have remedied these doubts by, would you believe it, buying some new fish. Some neons and emperor tetras. They really do look happy to be in my small tank, I had forgotten how nice these fish are (neons are my all time favorite 'swimmy' fishes but have not been able to keep them for years due to the amount of fish I have that consider them breakfast,lunch,dinner and esp. midnight snack). They are kept in a 36" tank along with Endlers live bearers a couple of hatchet fish some corydoras concolor and my new breeding project of spotted doras (see earlier thread about July 2007 )
I think it is very much a species or family thing though.

Loricriidae- easy to please (generally)
Callichthyidae- easy to please
Doradids,auchenipteridae,pimelodidae and pseudoimelodidae- difficult to please.

I can only comment on the families I have kept.

However I do believe that we as human beings do have a duty to study all forms of life on this planet before we wipe them out in readiness for the day when these animals are only in zoo's/aquariums and the human race realizes what they have lost and begin repopulating nature either in some science fiction type way (Jurassic Park)or in a more realistic (for this period in time)breeding and reintroduction way.

By the way read Mike Norens comment in this:-
http://www.practicalfishkeeping.co.uk/p ... cle_id=646

Mike I would like to personally thank you for seemingly being the only Human on the planet that cares about the RioXingu. On almost everything on the internet I can find that mentions the RioXingu and fish has a comment from Mike regarding this subject.
Have you started a chain E-mail on this subject? If you have e-mail it to me would you I shall forward it to everyone I know, and considering I work in the power generation industry it is bound to get somewhere that it may make a difference eventually (It's actually a very close and closed industry you know).


Matt

You should look at the positive effects of fishkeeping : saving some species that will become extinct

grokefish wrote: Callichthyidae- easy to please
Matt

I wish someone would tell my Callichthyids that they're easy to please! The Callichthys and hoplos always seem pretty happy, and the Brochis always seemed unfazed by everything until I put the adults in with the juveniles- now I've got 20 Brochis splendens, in with just endlers and apple snails, that I NEVER see until I put food in, at which point they come out from hiding like a swarm of locusts, mop that up, then disappear again, until the next feeding time comes round! The corys seem to be doing much the same at the moment- maybe they're being pretty well fed and reducing the feeding would make them more proactive in searching for food, but I'm trying to condition some of them for spawning attempts and I want to keep the feeding up for the juveniles...

Of course, they're probably pretty happy doing this, but it's totally different to how they react when they're put in a new tank, when they really do go hyperactive checking out their new surroundings...

wwg wrote:You should look at the positive effects of fishkeeping : saving some species that will become extinct

This is an interesting thread.
Personally I dont consider that having a fish in captitavity, when it has become extinct in the wild, is saving it.
Keeping a species alive only in captivity is no substute for not allowing it to become extinct in the first place.
The only way this could be considered conservation is if there is a programme of releasing captve bred fish back into the wild.
Many extinctions are due to the destruction of habitats. There are also cases of over fishing.
Us keeping a species alive in our tanks does not help. Imo extinct in the wild, means as a wild animal it is extinct.
Take for example the tiger. Once the tiger is extinct in the wild, (any day now), and only lives on in zoos, then the tiger is no longer a wild animal. It is a zoo animal, and the creature we know as the tiger is extinct.
On a more positive note.
As fish keepers, we can ease or stop the capture of wild caught fish, by having our own home breeding programes, and putting more tank bred fish back into the hobby.

Obviously, keeping the fish alive in captivity when it's extinct in nature is preferable to it being extinct in nature with NO species alive in captivity. Ideally, no species should ever be made extinct by human intervention - species do occassionally go extinct for natural reasons in one way or another, so that is a different matter.

--
Mats

MatsP wrote:Obviously, keeping the fish alive in captivity when it's extinct in nature is preferable to it being extinct in nature with NO species alive in captivity. Ideally, no species should ever be made extinct by human intervention - species do occassionally go extinct for natural reasons in one way or another, so that is a different matter.

--
Mats

I agree that keeping creatures alive in captivity, as examples of an extinct species is better that having none alive at all.
But imo, there is a lot of "greenwash" going around these days. Big companys, and govenments rather than dealing with habitat loss, promote their "conservation" work by funding zoos. Without a release back into the wild programme, it is NEVER conservation.
Conserve the wild places, and the creatures can, and will look after themselves.

As fish keepers, we can ease or stop the capture of wild caught fish

I'm one of the few aquarists I know that prefers to buy tank-bred fish,

I have nothing against tank-bred fish per se, but I really would like to see the commercial fish breeders clean up their act. The quality of commercially bred fish is simply awful, which is the reason I don't think think i own any tank-bred fish.

One just has to compare wild caught rams or cardinals with their mass produced counterparts to see the difference. Most commercially bred fish I have bought seldom last longer than a 6 months.

Producing quality, genetically sound fish is not on the radar of most breeders, as it just doesn't fit an effective business model. Why spend more effort/time/money producing an expensive premium product that will last five times longer than the huge turnover of dirt cheap, garish and short-lived fish.

I do agree that the hobbyists should have a greater role in supply and production of tank-raised fish though.

What I meant is that once a specie is extinct in the wild you could try and repopulate its habitat

racoll wrote:

As fish keepers, we can ease or stop the capture of wild caught fish

I'm one of the few aquarists I know that prefers to buy tank-bred fish,

I have nothing against tank-bred fish per se, but I really would like to see the commercial fish breeders clean up their act. The quality of commercially bred fish is simply awful, which is the reason I don't think think i own any tank-bred fish.

One just has to compare wild caught rams or cardinals with their mass produced counterparts to see the difference. Most commercially bred fish I have bought seldom last longer than a 6 months.

Producing quality, genetically sound fish is not on the radar of most breeders, as it just doesn't fit an effective business model. Why spend more effort/time/money producing an expensive premium product that will last five times longer than the huge turnover of dirt cheap, garish and short-lived fish.

I do agree that the hobbyists should have a greater role in supply and production of tank-raised fish though.

Good point about commercially bred fish often being sub standard.
Some people only see money to be made and do not care for the wellfare of the fish.
There are a lot of good fish that have been weakened by careless breeding. As I understand it, White Cloud Mountain Minnows used to be much brighter/better coloured than the fish we see in the shops today.
I believe that this is down to over breeding/ line breeding from the same stock.
With the current craze for L numbers, I see wild caught fish being rushed into the shops, and put on sale before they are healthy, i.e. with sunken stomachs etc.
I saw some Peckoltias today, the whole batch had fungus, but were still on sale!
Putting the money before the fish is cruel.

A bad point about the hobby is that a lot of people consider fish as ornaments rather than pets . As a result they are kept in terrible conditions (betta jars)

I do not understand how all the fish live at the stores when their tanks are all linked together water wise. I mean I guess its not pheasibel to do it any other way but seems dangerous. I saw a syno eupterus at a local per store chain the other day and he had no colour and no stripes or spots, just up and down thich lite brown bars of what appeared to be dirt. I wanted to take him home and put him in a ten gal hosp tank.

He was in their with lots of other baby eupterus's. I have no idea what the poor guy had cause synos are hardy. Aren't they? He just kept looking at me and not moving from the bottom, just looking at me.

racoll wrote:

As fish keepers, we can ease or stop the capture of wild caught fish

I'm one of the few aquarists I know that prefers to buy tank-bred fish,

I have nothing against tank-bred fish per se, but I really would like to see the commercial fish breeders clean up their act. The quality of commercially bred fish is simply awful, which is the reason I don't think think i own any tank-bred fish.

One just has to compare wild caught rams or cardinals with their mass produced counterparts to see the difference. Most commercially bred fish I have bought seldom last longer than a 6 months.

Producing quality, genetically sound fish is not on the radar of most breeders, as it just doesn't fit an effective business model. Why spend more effort/time/money producing an expensive premium product that will last five times longer than the huge turnover of dirt cheap, garish and short-lived fish.

I do agree that the hobbyists should have a greater role in supply and production of tank-raised fish though.

This is almost worth a separate thread in its own right- the only definitely wild-caught fish I've got are the Brochis splendens parents, which I'm not sorry about as they're still with me and bred after 10 days, (although the Corydoras sterbai were so skittish when I got them that they may have been wild-caught, and the Corydoras pestai are uncommon enough to suggest that they may have been very small wild-caught imports), and I'm not against sustainable catching of wild-caught fish for the trade- in fact if it's done responsibly, it should have an impact on preserving, rather than destroying, wild populations of fish, due to their having a definable monetary value. However, I have considerable doubts about the ethics of the fish trade and the sheer quantities of losses from capture to sale- add my own potential mistakes in there and the loss rate is just unacceptable for me for a lot of species.

andywoolloo wrote:I do not understand how all the fish live at the stores when their tanks are all linked together water wise. I mean I guess its not pheasibel to do it any other way but seems dangerous.

It's definitely possible to have them separate, at least one LFS here has the tanks separate rather than on central filtration. At least one LFS that has a centralized system uses UV sterilization to try to avoid spread of disease.

I have had 8 plecs (L128) for 2 &1/2 yrs in captivity. The dominant fish are 12-14cm having shared conditions that I hope would suit, high filtration in a 125 gallon tank. Recently a load of wildcaught L128's came into the country. These fish are the same size as my largest fish yet They are obviously more juvenile than mine. Had mine not been caught as young as they were or at all would no doubt be much larger than they are due to captivity.
I cannot determine if they are happy or not, nor if they are any more secure in captivity than still in the wild.
I guess that collectively we are lucky as we are still at a point that decisions or perceptions from such discussions could actually make adfifference. The exponential growth of "Fish keeping" might change that opportunity in a remarkably short amount of time.

"All animals are equal-Although some are more equal than others"- Animal farm -George Orwell.

Perhaps the challenge is finding balance and happiness for humans, so we can learn to share.

Excellent Thread.

It could be argued that wild caught fish are actually better for the hobby. If people are catching fish for the aquarium industry, they will need to take a keen interest in their environment around them in order to maintain their livelyhood. If they are forced to seek employment elsewhere it is likely that the habitats of the native fish will be altered thereby affecting the animals living in these environments. As with most things in life moderation in all things? On the subject of cruelty in keeping fish as pets, Even if all the animals needs for a good and healthy life were met is it still right to do so? Is a prison a prison regardless of the conditions inside? I keep fish myself and I also work in a LFS but these questions do keep coming back, if these arguments were followed to their logical conclusion of non interference, humanity would be unable to act in any way which is also an unacceptable viewpoint. My own thinking is that fish are one of the many different forms of life on this planet and that although by keeping them captive could be viewed as moraly wrong I can learn from them and by extension the rest of the world around me. I feel that these benefits outweigh possible moral objections to the hobby.