How do you make a puffer fish puff?

[Anonymous]

Ok, I have made puffers puff, but it's always been inadvertently, mostly because bagging a puffed puffer is a pain in the arse. As I said on page one, bagging for ship is a really good way to make 'em puff. But no one noticed. :lol:

 

[esmithiii]

The educational part. Still falls under "keeping things in glass boxes for our pleasure," but a tad less selfish if you have kids, friends, visitors, etc who take part in the education process.

Ernie

 

[Expos Forever]

R33f_$hark wrote

So after all these pages of talk (on and off discussion) did we ever come to a consensus on the deliberate act of making a puffer puff?

Steve @cortez marine and John and others in this thread have handled more puffers in a week than I will likely see in a lifetime. I have found Steve in particular to be amongst the most tireless and commited to ethical practices in regards to the hobby and the natural reefs.
Others whose opinions I trust have also said that they are generally hardy (once settled) and don't seem to mind it.

I think some of the outrage was the thought of hobbiests across the nation chasing around their puffers, scaring all of the other fish, and pulling on it's skin. I still say John's first post was at least a bit ambiguous...

I would also like to say that, for me at least, this discussion was definitely worth having.

 

[Expos Forever]

Still wouldn't pinch one if I had one though. :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

The educational part. Still falls under "keeping things in glass boxes for our pleasure," but a tad less selfish if you have kids, friends, visitors, etc who take part in the education process.

I know what you are saying, but it still seems like a rationalization to me. At the very least you could fufil the 'education' with a small/nano and stock it with only captive raised critters :mrgreen:

 

[esmithiii]

The educational part. Still falls under "keeping things in glass boxes for our pleasure," but a tad less selfish if you have kids, friends, visitors, etc who take part in the education process.

I know what you are saying, but it still seems like a rationalization to me. At the very least you could fufil the 'education' with a small/nano and stock it with only captive raised critters :mrgreen:

Not if you wanted to learn about critters that are not yet captively propagated.

Ernie

 

[Anonymous]

Sure, but that is still would just be doin' it for kicks.

 

[mooner]

There is one thing I have not seen in this post (hard as hell to believe, I know) or perhaps it's there and I just missed it. That is a mention of "intent". Intent is the key to the cruelty vs. not cruelty. At least this is my opinion.

If I spend time to capture a fly alive and press on it 'til it pops....cruel. If one bites me (yes they bite here in Oklahoma too) and I smash the little bugger...not cruel. End result is still a dead fly.

If one wants to see a puffer puff out of interest and gives it a bit of a pinch it's not cruel at face value. Now, if you get a thrill out of it in a "Beavis and Butthead" kind of way, it is cruel.

To add to the confusion of my own point of view: If you are convinced that the fish is going to be miserable/sad/mad in the process of getting your "puff itch" scratched even with good intentions and you do it anyway that is selfishness and thoughtlessness but not really cruel and perhaps questionable. That's the price you are willing to make the fish pay to satisfy yourself.

Intent is the key and it is what makes a good reef keeper pinch or not pinch. If I had a puffer I'd not pinch it because I wouldn't really care to see it puff. I do defend the right of others to do so if they are truely convinced that it is not miserable for the animal. Everyone has an opinion on this and should stick to their own common sense approach. Do what you feel is really right.

In summation, I can honestly say I feel that it's not cruel but it's potentially cruel. How's that for stradling the fence?

 

[Anonymous]

Nice points mooner!

Random tired thoughts:

Kinda 'necessary evil' stuff.

I think some would say that intent doesn't matter, cruelty is cruelty. If I really believed that killing flies was wrong, I wouldn't do it, even if it bit me.

It seems that intent certainly makes the 'cruel' event more palatable. I rember feeding my Oscars when I was a kid, and the other kids would cheer like it was a boxing match. It made me fell dirty. I always thought that we somehow needed to respect the feeder fish. Pinching a puffers feels something like that to me.

 

[Reef_Monkey]

I do have to admit that I have tried this before, but I was unsuccessful in the attempt.

P.S. [Flanders] Ralph, you can be on special teams.
[Ralph] Yeah! I'm special!

You must not know how to pinch your puffer then... :wink:

I was doing some thinking on this. Isn't the point of an aquarium to learn and to educate about the sea life? For "kicks" and "amusment?" I understand that we established that, but let me ask you this. I bought a CChip Starfish about 2 weeks ago. My G/F loves that thing, so when she comes over, she likes to stick her hand in the tank (only if the starfish is towards the top of the tank, otherwise *WACK, right up side the head... :lol and let the little guy suction to her hand. But she gets scared when she wants it to let go because of the "little suction cups" are stuck to her hand and she doesn't wanna hurt it. Now is that un-moral?

I mean does that hurt the starfish? I know it's not a defense mechanism, and they don't inhale air, but does that bring stress to the starfish? Isn't that what some of this is about? Having an enviorment where fish and others water life can live stress free? I don't see a problem with that. As well as I don't see a problem with seeing a puffer puff..(not that I have yet :wink: ) It's like playing with your dog right? Does it stress your dog out when you throw a ball and it goes and gets it? It's natural response is to bring it back. As a puffers repsonse is to puff up. It's just these animals are under water.

Okay now with that said, I don't know if I liked the way it turned out. But I am gonna post it anyways to see if anybody sees where I'm coming from.

One more thing, I don't want it to sound like my tank and fish are like all for experimental purposes, I only have a starfish, 3 clowns and a puffer. And they do live STRESS FREE!!

 

[saltyzoo]

Ok. I must admit that some of you folks shocked me. I really thought it was common knowledge that physically handling a fish was stressful to them and potentially harmful.

I compare being asked to "prove" such to being asked to prove that fish need water. I really thought the information was that basic and accepted as fact by anyone that had worked with fish.

My mistake. Let me try to remedy it.

Someone passed me this link which contains much of what I mistakenly thought was common knowledge. I'll quote specific portions here for convienence, but there is much more good info in the article. Stress - Its Role in Fish Disease

Osmoregulation is disrupted because of changes in mineral metabolism. Under these circumstances, a freshwater
fish tends to absorb excess water from the environment (over-hydrate). A saltwater fish will tend to lose too
much water to the environment (dehydrate). This disruption requires that extra energy be used to maintain
osmoregulation.

Mucus (slime coat) is a physical barrier which inhibits entry of disease organisms from the environment into the
fish. It is also a chemical barrier because it contains enzymes (lysozymes) and antibodies (immunoglobulins) which
can kill invading organisms. Mucus also lubricates the fish which aids movement through the water, and it is also
important for osmoregulation.

Scales and skin function as a physical barrier which protects the fish against injury. When these are damaged, a
window is opened for bacteria and other organisms to start an infection.

1.Any stress causes chemical changes in mucus which decrease its effectiveness as a chemical barrier against
invading organisms. Stress upsets the normal electrolyte (sodium, potassium, and chloride) balance which results
in excessive uptake of water by fresh water fish and dehydration in salt water fish. The need for effective
osmoregulatory support from mucus components is increased.
2.Handling stress physically removes mucus from the fish. This results in decreased chemical protection, decreased
osmoregulatory function (at a time when it is most needed), decreased lubrication thereby causing the fish to use
more energy to swim (at a time when its energy reserves are already being used up metabolically), and disruption
of the physical barrier against invading organisms.
3.Chemical stress (ie. disease treatment) often damages mucus resulting in loss of protective chemical barrier, loss
of osmoregulatory function, loss of lubrication, and damage to the physical barrier created by mucus.

Scales and skin are most commonly damaged by Handling Stress. Any break in the skin, or removed scale, creates an opening for invasion by pathogenic organisms.

The article has many other excellent points in this regard, so I encourage you to read it.

Again, I apologize for my "obtuse"ness, however, I do feel that ignoring the points made in this article will be only at the detriment of the animals in our care. Had I realized that the people on this thread were unaware of these facts I would not have reacted as strongly as I did.

 

[Anonymous]

I don't think anyone is unaware of the ideas put forth in the article. The question is, how much stress is bad and is stress always bad?

Clearly we all think some stress is acceptable, as some has to happen just to get our fish from the store to our tank.
If the answer is any stress is bad, then we have no business keeping fish at all.
In the ocean, as well as in our tanks, fish often purposefully rub up against people. Is this stress and is it bad? Also, many fish dig into the sand or squish themselves into rocks. Is this stress and is it bad?
Why is the stress involved in getting the fish to the tank (not initial collection) acceptable?

The article says " An animal is able to adapt to stress for a finite period of time. During this period the animal may look and act normal, but is depleting energy reserves because of the extra requirements placed upon it." Is it really a 'bad' thing then, to cause stress as long as you don't push past the animals limit to accept it, and then make sure the animal has what it needs to recover?

Certianly we want to minimize the stress that is put on the animals in our care. No one would disagree with that, but there may be discussion about what minimize is, as some people find certian practices acceptable while others don't.
And I understand that you would like to keep the discussion to post collected animals. But, from the standpoint of the moral aspects of stressing an animals, I don't think such a division is realistic. So I ask the following question not to try to trap you or to imply any conclusion on my part, but only to try to further understand your position.
If your position is that we should do everything we can not to stress our animals, how can you accept the stress and death that collection causes?

:mrgreen:

 

[clarionreef]

Salty,
You do not want to know what is really involved in bringing most fish to this country...its too stressful to have this knowledge.
Delivering a pulse dose or three of sodium cyanide causes pain in the fish that have it passed over their gills. I know this for a fact as the jerks, twitches and running wildly into corals suggests this strongly. I have witnessed this a hundred times easily.
The non decompression of most fishes adds still more unbearable stress to the fish. Blowing up the airbladder and having it exert tremendous pressure on all nearby internal organs kills so many fishes...I'm sure it stresses then greatly. Airbladders extending out of the mouth, eyes popping, needles poking in the boat topside after 20-30 minutes in expanded, stressfull pain...etc. And the process to bring them to our shores is just beginning.

No one says that adding a touch of stress on top of a mountain of it is good. However...when put in perspective...it is a pretty token and small thing to gently pinch a puffer. And if that puffer feeds right away or wants to bite you back...thats very low level stress indeed.

I would rather people save their quota of righteousness and energy for the resolution of the industrys serious problems, stresses it causes to coral reef eco-systems and DOA percentages, handling and disease control.
This does not mean that you don't pinch that little brat [ when his moms not looking] that keeps slapping his hand on a tank of anthias.
In the 1 to 100 rank order of stresses fish go thru to please us and be cheap and affordable to us...[ because of us] the puffer pinch is a solid one. [ Scaring anthias into heart attacks is more serious.]
Sincerely Steve @ Cortez Marine

PS. Have I pinched children who bang the tanks? YES...and I'll do it again!

 

[saltyzoo]

Ok, so apparently I was right all along. Seems some do realize it's not good for the fish. My "righteous indignation" would be unnecessary if I wasn't being argued against that it's harmful and shouldn't be done.

The fact is people on this thread are recommending bad husbandry practices. Bad husbandry leads to premature death which leads to additional collection. This issue is important because it leads to more collection.

To support bad husbandry because there are worse problems is faulty logic. Bad husbandry is bad husbandry.

For those who's minds are not closed, please don't touch your fish if it's not necessary.

Thank you.

 

[Len]

The fact is people on this thread are recommending bad husbandry practices. Bad husbandry leads to premature death which leads to additional collection. This issue is important because it leads to more collection.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, no one recommends bad husbandry practices. No one recommends you touch your fish or pinch your puffer. But people with extensive experience are saying it really does little harm to puffers, even though they still do not recommend people doing so. I respectfully ask that you try not to read stuff that isn't written.

We all are in agreement that so long as you choose to keep marine life for your own personal amusement (for "kicks" as you put it), you should assume the ethical responsibility of providing the best possible care for it.

 

[saltyzoo]

I can agree that not everyone has done so, but if you wish to be fair, please re-read the thread. There are dozens of statements saying that it's ok, or at least that it's not really that big of a deal.

I'm sorry, but I disagree with ever saying bad husbandry is not that big of a deal no matter where it falls on someone's personal "scale" of importance. Bad husbandry is bad husbandry and should never be encouraged.

Disagreeing with me because there are other problems makes it appear that you are not encouraging good husbandry.

Why can't you just say: Don't handle your fish unless necessary. It's bad for them. ?????

If you want to discuss collection and the problems therein, fine we can do so, but THE POINT IS THIS THREAD IS ABOUT PUFFING PUFFERS NOT COLLECTION.

I fail to understand why anyone is arguing with me because I refuse to agree that getting a puffer to puff should be encouraged in any way. I find this fact deplorable. As I write this, I think I'm beginning to realize that you aren't disagreeing with my words, you are disagreeing only because of who I am. Another good reason for me to bow out.

I only hope a few people now realize the most important points of this thread:

1 The collection process is very destructive and we should do everything in our power to improve it as well as avoiding collection whenever possible

2 You should never handle your fish unless absolutely necessary. It is stressful and can cause harm to the fish.

 

[Anonymous]

Ok, so apparently I was right all along. Seems some do realize it's not good for the fish.

But it is not necessarily bad for the fish either. I don't believe making a healthy, acclimated puffer puff once and a while, and then taking care to see it recovers well, is really bad for the fish.

My "righteous indignation" would be unnecessary if I wasn't being argued against that it's harmful and shouldn't be done.

I think your' righteous indignation' would be unnecessary in any case.

The fact is people on this thread are recommending bad husbandry practices.

Of course you realize that we differ on our opinions of what 'bad husbandry' is.

Bad husbandry leads to premature death which leads to additional collection. This issue is important because it leads to more collection.

Expanding the hobby also leads to additional collection, are you against that as well? Setting up another tank also leads to additional collection, are you against that as well? Purchasing anything collected leads to additional collection, are you against that as well?

I also think it is bad form for you to use collection as an example when it supports your position, but ignore it when it questions your beliefs.

To support bad husbandry because there are worse problems is faulty logic.

And again, no one is making that argument.

For those who's minds are not closed, please don't touch your fish if it's not necessary.

No ones mind is closed in this thread. This type of rhetoric really has no place in an open minded discussion.

I am still interested in why you can show 'righteous indignation' in regards to the idea of puffer pinching, but happily accept the destruction and death caused by the collection of the animals in your living room.

:mrgreen:

 

[Len]

Yes, people have said puffing a puffer is no big deal. That's their opinion to hold and it's not any less or more valid then your contrary opinion that it is a big deal. Again, the people who are saying it's no big deal work with more puffers in one month then I will in my lifetime.

Not everyone agrees with your blanket statement that human contact with fish is necessarily stressful to the point it harms the fish. We all agree that handling fish should be kept to a minimum as a good general guideline.

A reason why people may be arguing with you is because of the unsavory way you present your opinions. I really don't think we're all that off in principle.

 

[saltyzoo]

You should never handle your fish unless absolutely necessary. It is stressful and has been shown to cause harm to the fish in more than one way.

 

[Anonymous]

I'm sorry, but I disagree with ever saying bad husbandry is not that big of a deal no matter where it falls on someone's personal "scale" of importance. Bad husbandry is bad husbandry and should never be encouraged.

But we disagree on what bad husbandry is. And not just in this discussion. This kind of disagreement is rampant in the hobby.

Disagreeing with me because there are other problems makes it appear that you are not encouraging good husbandry.

No one has disagreed with you for that reason.

Why can't you just say: Don't handle your fish unless necessary. It's bad for them. ?????

That language is part of the problem. What is 'necessary'? Peoples definations differ.

If you want to discuss collection and the problems therein, fine we can do so, but THE POINT IS THIS THREAD IS ABOUT PUFFING PUFFERS NOT COLLECTION.

This thread has veered into morality of reefkeeping. Sometimes threads change topic. I think if you would answer the questions, they would stop being asked.

I fail to understand why anyone is arguing with me because I refuse to agree that getting a puffer to puff should be encouraged in any way.

Because that is a domatic statement that not everyone agrees with. More the dogmatic part though.

I find this fact deplorable. As I write this, I think I'm beginning to realize that you aren't disagreeing with my words, you are disagreeing only because of who I am.

Completely incorrect. I am disagreeing with what you write. Who you are has nothing to do with it, and I am saddened that you think that little of me and others here. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I am out to get you

1 The collection process is very destructive and we should do everything in our power to improve it as well as avoiding collection whenever possible

What does 'whenever possible' mean? Collection is OK when someone really really wants the animal? Why shouldn't we simply stop all collection?

2 You should never handle your fish unless absolutely necessary. It is stressful and can cause harm to the fish.

Agreed to the first part. However, simply having the animals in our living rooms is stressful. I we really had the best interests of the animals at heart, we wouldn't have them in glass boxes.
And again, what does 'absolutely necessary' mean?

:mrgreen: