Received wounded fish

[hahnmeister]

We arent arguing... its a free country.

... dont get me wrong jmaneyapanda, if I can at least turn around and feed that freshly killed fish to another fish, I will... so its not for financial gain 100%, but even in the food fish market, infected and siclkly fish are discarded. I keep fish/corals for the 'experience', and I dont want to experience trying to heal a sickly fish. To me, thats not worth it... to me, that hassle and worry (sounds hypocritical from me, I know, but 'emotional attachment and stress) far exceeds the cost of the fish, esp considering I can get a full refund just like that. Its not that Im just trying to get my money back.... Im trying to avoid the complications too. Its not like LA is going to suppy me with the equipment, meds, etc to set up a hospital tank. True, the fish we kill for food do at least serve a purpose, but you say that the ornamental fish industry is 'different'? Actually, its worse. They waste most of the fish during import and QT, and those dead fish simply get trashed. At least with the food fish, they get killed and nearly all are used. The ornamental fish industry is very wasteful. Me killing one fish that the dealer paid 10% of what I did for it (believe me, that $100 clam was $10-15 on the ORA wholesaler list, Ive seen them) isnt going to mean much except lost medication and hospital tank supply sales.

I remember my first tank.... 20+years ago. I bought white cloud mountain minnows... a <$1 fish. Of the 6 I bought, one had a gill problem. It breathed heavy, and appeared to have an infection of some sort. I spent all sorts of time and money on meds and treatments to try to fix my sickly fish.... many times what the fish was worth. In the end, it died, but the LFS made a bundle off of it. Now, looking back, I know what was wrong with that fish... it had been raised in polluted water so its gill covers had 'curled'. There was nothing I could do to cure it. I have had thousands of fish since (was a big-time african cichlid breeder in WI, specializing in importing and breeding rare tanganyikan cichlids), I had about 3000 fish at one time in my parents basement, all calvus fry. If one looked sick, I weeded it out quickly before it spread. I killed more fish in a day simply by changing the water and having babies get stuck in the pipes. Parents were no better off. I would import fish by the dozen, so the bad looking ones... they were weeded out (and keep in mind that each of these fish could cost me $50-100 that I wasnt getting back). I have found that with many internal parasites and infections, there is no point to trying to cure the fish... the effects are often long lasting and permanent. The fish will forever be a runt. I want a strong fish...a good show fish or potential breeder, not a charity case.

At a LFS I worked at in HS, fish were killed, and when it comes down to it, its for profit. Its a business. If only one fish had ich in a tank, kill it before it infects the rest!!!

And the idea of keeping a whale in a 55g is absurd.. it wouldnt fit. But the idea of keeping a whale shark in a 6 million gallon tank is just as cruel when you think about it. Inbreeding fish until they develop bubbles under the eyes, and disfigured fins and colorations, defective swim-bladders, and even missing tails.... the ornamental industry was started with this very idea as the goldfish was perhaps the first captive raised and bred fish. To say that the ornamental fish industry is ethical in any way is a rather sheltered opinion from what I have seen. There is no 'conservation', only 'consumption'. So to be shocked when someone says they will kill fish for $$$... like thats a new concept.

Its not that I want to just kill fish, but consider this... lets up the costs a little bit (everyone has a price, right?). Lets say it was a $100 fish on the line... or a $300 fish. So you are telling me that you would risk trying to heal that fish, possibly going outside the 14 day deadline (unless they are willing to extend it), and risk your $300 for a decorative plate of sushi? Sorry, but you draw a line between food fish and ornamentals that doesnt exist... life is life... why would we operate under a different set of principles? Its our intentions that vary, thats all, keeping vs eating. I think for some the idea to so quickly disgard a 'new something' that we intended to keep is whats alarming. We spend tons of money on trying to conserve things that are constantly breaking because we cant bear the thought of giving up on what we want sometimes. Get rid of it and move on.

Oh, wait... a vegitarian! Not being critical at all... the argument stops here. You have taken the high road I suppose. Me, I simply cant imagine life without sushi. The day PETA decides to try to protect fish is a sad one for me.

 

[amuruges]

Here is my experience with live aquaria, you decide, I for sure will go back again.

First order, 1 purple fish and 4 anthias, they didn't have the anthias and they send the purple fish, I was upset that I had to pay shipping for one fish, since I was going to cancel the anthias order.... "They refunded the shipping", so basically they just gave me the fish...
Second order, I ordered 6 anthias ventralis, all 6 came in dead, they resend the whole order, no questions asked. The next shipment came in 2 doa, and the other 4 croaked the same day, I am not sure about those anthias ventralis. I sent all six frozen back, they refunded full amount for those. Since then I have placed 3 orders and waiting for availability on a few more to place the order.
When ordering online unseen, it is nice to have such garantee so I can order with confidence. Thanks Live Aquaria.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Hahnmeister, we will SO need to agree to disagree. If anything can be learned from the pages of this website, it is that reef keepers must keep their animals ethically and honorably. We absolutely cannot compare it to the values held in commercial fishing for human consumption, sport fishing, or even some commercial aquaculture. Because the intended goal of each of these activities is massively different, and even opposite.

Whenever ANY hobbyist buys an animals online from ANY vendor, they are taking a risk. Plain and simple. And with many, that risk is the possibility of unhealthy or dead fish. That is the trade off we make when ordering online versus buying at a LFS. Howevere, as per your original comment and the original thread, you claimed "when in doubt, kill it". And the purpose of this action was to claim your refund. Not because the fish wasn't going to make it otherwise, not because you intend to feed the fish. You said to kill it so you can meet the vendors gaurantee. Am I misunderstanding? If so, let me know, and I will apologize.

I agree 100% that vendors should not ship injured or sick fish. I feel they should be responsible for it. But this has nothing to do with the solution you have recommended. Do you really have no interest whatsoever is caring for and healing any animal you may have in your care that is not doing well? If so, I am really surprised. I cannot imagine anybody on this forum who does not care about the health and well being of their fish.

The big diference in our arguments (that I see at least) is that you are arguing the economics of purchasing fish, and I am arguing the propriety. Yes fish wholesaler and breeders cull undesireables. Yes sickly fish are destroyed for economical purposes. Do I think this is right? Honestly, no, but I am not even arguing this. I am arguing that the hobbyist who purchases a fish for the "experience", as you put it, should expect to need to deal with situations of illness and injury. Especially those who decide to purchase online. Furthermore, in this case, DR F+S would gladly refund the costs on disappointment, so why kill it? Because you dont want to even try to help it? I cannot put my head around that. I especially think we need to consider the fact that we are not talking about terminal diseases or injuries. You original suggestion was to "Kill it when in doubt", despite the affliction or problem. Just make sure you validate that refund. That is the statement I have such issue with.

For the record, I said keeping nurse sharks in 55 gallon tanks, not whale sharks. That would be ridiculous. But I have seen nurse sharks in 55 gallon tank and they could not turn around easily, or swim normally. To me, this is ethically improper. Anyone who agrees thereby agrees that there is ethics in this hobby, ipso facto. How can you tell me that whale sharks in a 6 million gallon tank is unethical, but killing a fish for money is not? I thought you said ethics dont play any part in this hobby?!

To answer your question/statement, if I decided to pay an online vendor $300 for a fish, I would closely look at what they offer, and if I still decided to buy it, I would plan to do whatever it took to make that fish live. Quarantine, treatment, therapy, mouth to mouth, whatever it took. The only way I would resort to euthanizing the fish would be if I felt it was certainly going to die, and was suffering along the way. If that occured in the guarantee period, so be it. I would certainly let the vendor know I was dissapointed, but I would never kill a fish to meet the terms of a guarantee.

"There is no 'conservation', only 'consumption'." Dude, are you serious?! That is exactly what the world thought like 100 years ago. Times have changed for the better. If you dont believe this, I dont know what else we can discuss.

As I said, if you would like to continue this discussion, I prefer to do if off this thread, as we are quite off topic. I am not trying to ditch or anything, but please email me at the above address, so that we can continue. I dont want to keep cluttering DR F+S forum here with our discussion of ethics.

 

[hahnmeister]

With the whale shark comment, I meant that keeping whale sharks in a 6million gallon tank is in fact killing a fish for money. The tank is about the size of a football field, and a whale shark gets pretty large... about the size of a school bus. A whale shark is used to diving a few hundred feet on a whim, and travels across oceans... and now has to spend its life in a football field.

The point is, the fish die young. One of the whale sharks has already died, when the aquarium wasnt even open a year. Keeping one in captivity for more than a few years is some sort of success... for a fish that lives as long as a human. Last I checked, the Atlanta Aquarium charges $25+ per ticket, and $75 for a behind the scenes tour.

Their main attraction, something that they know will die young, is to make money. Sure, there are biologists, aquarists, etc... and they claim that the captive setting is to observe behaviors at a greater detail than in nature. Yeah... right. The giant octopus exhibit is nothing but an empty tank with a movie projector flashing colors and images against the back wall of the tank... that octo must have a headache. The jellyfish are being displayed in tanks that are only 12" thick, floor to ceiling, with a colored acrylic back panel lit up. Not that jellyfish are the most interactive... but it proves the point... its for looks.

I know that the 'ideal' is that we expect to see conservation, but really, it still comes down to supply and demand. It seems you have the idealist POV, and I the realist.

Who cares about cluttering the thread?.. the thread was dead long ago... it happens. Topics change. the original poster quit posting, so its a free-for-all.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Hahnmeister, you facts are totally innaccurate. I happen to be close colleagues with some people involved in animal care at the GA Aquarium, and, in fact, NO WHALE SHARKS HAVE DIED. Please do not spread innaccurate rumors. They hired Ray Davis, the WORLDS pre-eminent eleismobranch biologist and scientist (he is now the director of husbandry there) to assist in construction of the whale shark tank, and they quite scientifically calculated the tank dimensions to be suitable for adult whale sharks. It has been designed to be over 12 times the MAXIMUM LENGTH EVER RECORDED for a whale shark, six time the in the width, and four times as deep. So that whale shark, which have been known to feed "standing up" with their tail down and face up, can even do this in their tank. They do not "know" these animals will die young, as you accuse. In fact, at their recent 1 year anniversary, one whale shark had been recently given a physical, and it has grown 7 feet. Quite healthy if you ask me!

Like before, if you want to talk about economics, I can do that with this example also. Yes their admission is high. The principal financier, Bernie Marcus, put $260 million of his own money into that project, and the final $40 million was through corporate sponsorship. Taxpayers burden 0% of this aquarium project. Do they have the right to try to re-coup some of this money with admission prices? I think so.

Have you been to the GA aquarium? Because all of your accusations are incorrect. They flash light in the octopus exhibit? When? They may occasionally do so as a husbandry technique called enrichment, but this is practically required of zoological institutions. It is not full time, if at all. How are the jellies exhibited? 12" you say? Wrong again. And how are jellies supposed to be exhibited?

I dont mean to sound harsh, but I take great exeception to the attack you have improperly and inadvisedly waged on the GA Aquarium.

But this is all besides the point, do aquariums need to make money? Yes, because they have staff to pay, and food to buy, and so on. This does not mean they they are not foremost in conservation and ecology. In fact, if it weren't for zoos and aquariums, you can be GUARANTEED that many many more species of animals would now be extinct (like gorilla, snow leopards, rhinos, etc, etc, etc). I'm not being real? C'mon, you're not being real. Conservation is real, and alive, and critical.

 

[hahnmeister]

Im sorry, I thought I saw a story this summer that one of them had died. Maybe there were ones in Japan that had died or something. I know that when one of the ones in Japan died at 5 years it was considered a 'great success'. Whale Sharks dont even mature until 30 years old. As you can see from here, whale sharks in captivity dont seem to live that long...
http://homepage.mac.com/mollet/Rt/Rt_captive.html

Yes, Ive been to the GA 3 times... the in-laws are friends with Marcus himself, and I assure you, the giant octopus exhibit is a little disturbing, like a clockwork orange. I have pics I can post from my last visit. And its not a flashlight, but a movie projector flashing movie/TV images all over the tank.
Here ya go...

Thats a giant octo in a bare tank where the movie images were flashed at it all day long... every time I was there.

Thats the belugas being in an area about 1/4 the size of the Shedd's beluga setup, with 2x the number of adults. They cant even swim... they just do backflips all day long.

Thats the jelly fish exhibit that was 8'+ tall, 12'+ wide, and 1' thick... and ever so natural looking.

Right across from that was a tank for cuttlefish consisting of a couple ceramic pots, some pier pillars, and black gravel. Ive seen better cuttlefish setups in people's own homes.

The GA might intend to become a research facility some day, but first and foremost, it is commercial. When you visit the Monterrey, Shedd, and Baltimore Aquariums, you get a real experience like stepping into a really well kept reef shop with choice specimens. The GA made me feel like I was in petco. The cartoon characters (DEEPO) and advertising goes a little beyond 'upkeep'.

And although conservation might be an active part of the zoological setting, the fish collection industry isnt like that. Look at where many of the current specimens were obtained from... the belugas were in a depraved amusement park in mexico, the bowmouth guitarfish is the first one successfully transported and in captivity... ever, from a fisherman. The whale sharks are often taken from fishermen who then keep the beasts in large netted ponds. While there are some honest conservation efforts, the vast majority of what is out there is purely consumerism. Most every specimen was caught by a fisherman or someone looking to make a profit. The small amount of fish that ORA is able to breed, as well as other fish farming operations, fills a very small percentage of the trade's demand by Turner's own account. Most species are still collected from the wild, some still with CN. Im hardly killing as many fish as they are... or am I through the demand I have supported? Bottom line is that I have a hard time seeing any conservation in the ornamental collection trade. Its a consumer driven economy. How can I feel bad about killing a damaged wrasse or tang compared to all the other fish that died in the process? Its just the 'name of the game'.

And the GA ocean tank itself is only about 30feet high, while a whale shark gets up to 45+ft... what was that about 3x their length so they can feed straight up?

 

[jmaneyapanda]

Hahnmeister:

I was just at the aquarium recently, and the octopus exhibit was completely different from what you are explaining. Barren? absolutely not. In fact, we couldn't even see the octupus because of the decor in the tank. From where were the projections coming from. There was absolutely nothing of that sort when I was there. I will ask my colleagues at the GA Aquarium about this, because perhaps there is something I am missing.

As per your other comments, where do you have your information from? Because I will still say it is not accurate. Surely, the beluga exhibit is not as big as other insitutions, but do you include the off exhibit holding? Those animals are in this off exhibit holding as much as they on on exhibit. They can't swim, just doing backflips? We are not thinking of the same aquarium, because the beluga exhibit is actually just a long as it is deep. I saw them swimming quite a bit in the on exhibit area, and that's not including the off exhibit holding.

The jelly exhibit is NOT 12 inches wide. And furthermore, as I stated earlier, what is the appropriate way to exhibit them, then? They are provided clean, pure, laminar flow- exactly what they would inhabit in the wild.

I dont understand how you points of the origin of these animals does anything but prove my point of conservation. The majority of the animals were either "rescued" from other places, or sent from other institutions. As you said, two of the belugas were housed in a small pool under a roller coaster in Mexico. They Whale sharks were caught to be eaten. The otters were also rescued. These animals were not captured from the wild for the intent of making money off of Atlantas residents. They were captured for other reasons, and the Georgia Aquarium now uses them to inform the public about these animals.

How deep is the whale shark exhibit? Where did you get this information? I think you are thinking of the viewing window, not the exhibit. Bruce Carlson, Vice Presdient at the Aquarium, has specifically stated the information I posted previously, and I will go on his accounts.

Let me say, though, I am not truely smitten with the aquariums philosophy, though. Originally, I was quite torn at their intentions with whale sharks. And, quite honestly, I think they are a bit too ambitious in their plans on breeding them. And I am right with you with that whole Deepo nonsense. But that doesnt mean they are a horrible place with no morals, ethics, or responsibilities. And they do need to generate income to continue to operate, and educate, and conserve. Like EVERY OTHER BUSINESS OUT THERE. Lastly, on the GA Aquarium, I think the Petco comment was out of line. Yes, Shedd, and Monterey have wonderful exhibits. Are you telling me you werent blown away by the curved acrylic reef exhibit? With the wash from overhead. Petco, my A$$.

But, you are right, we digress here. I only discussed the GA Aquarium, because you brought it up. The Pet Trade is founded on consumerism. But that was 30 plus years ago. Let me ask you this, why does ORA captive breed fish? Why is aquaculture and mariculture so prevalent nowadays? So that people can make a buck, or so that we can conserve the natural environment? I think it is the latter. If I understand you right, essentially you are saying "this one fish that I may unnecessarily kill, is just 1 in a million that may die in the trade, so what big difference does it make". That is EXACTLY what every collector, hunter, whatever said as they were hunting things like passenger pigeons. And guess what happened? You brought up fish like Moorish Idols and Threadfins earlier. Has the hobby changed their opinion on these fish over the past 10 or 15 years? You better believe it. Contientious hobbyist will now avoid fish they know may be difficult, heartbreakers, or they may not be able to maintain.

Conservation and ethics are not black and white. There are many degrees of them. We cannot look at them in black and white. You say, "well the hobby is killing millions of fish anyway, so lets do what we want". That is black and white. There are more options than leave them in the ocean, or treat them as expendible commodities. I say, "millions of fish are dying in the trade, we should do what we can to minimalize the number, including treating and caring for sick and injured fish, and buying appropriate specimens". That is one of the degrees between black and white.

 

[hahnmeister]

Okay, fine, but Im not wasting my time setting up a hospital tank and wasting $50+ of my time and money on a $30 fish. I think thats what it comes down to.

 

[jmaneyapanda]

It is completely within your right to do that. Personally, I dont feel that is an proper ethical decision for this hobby, but that is just my opinion. I am sure you dont agree with many of my personal ethical decisions, it is just the way it is.

Good luck.

 

[rbaker]

This isn't the appropriate forum for this discussion. If you see fit, you can start another thread in a different forum.

Regards,