How do you make a puffer fish puff?

[Anonymous]

PS> Try to actually discuss the topic instead of telling my that my spelling sucks, or that I used bad grammer, or whoshamacallit's debate techniques, or that I'm short

You're taller than me!

Someone told me that it sounded like I was advocating getting them to puff 8O , I edited my last post...

We have to quarantine puffers STRICTLY, and for longer than any other fish with the exception of sharks. Any good round of skin contact and they have an epithelial infection.

Just wanted to clarify, its not the puffing I would have a problem with, at all, its the contact that people are using in attempt to see them puff.

 

[Reef_Monkey]

PS> Try to actually discuss the topic instead of telling my that my spelling sucks, or that I used bad grammer, or whoshamacallit's debate techniques, or that I'm short, or whatever other completely off the point and ridiculous idiotic excuse you can come up with. Do you actually have anything constructive to say at all, or are you just here to annoy those that actually want to keep their fish healthy?

Was that directed towards me :?:

 

[Reef_Monkey]

Nevermind...I didn't see that last post!

 

[Anonymous]

I believe we can have this discussion, keep it civil and disagree with each other. If we get emotional, and argue from that standpoint we all look like closed minded booties. However, if we accept the idea that we can have different opinions on things, try to understand those positions, and agree to disagree, we all look evolved. :mrgreen:

You claim we've done nothing to prove that it's harmful. I disagree wholeheartedly, you simple have closed your mind to the truth. It is right there in front of your face.

I have seen nothing posted that indicates puffing is harmful. It has been pointed out that due to being in an aquarium, the effects of puffing on the fish could be harmful. With minimal precautions, the potential harm could be avoided - not that I advocate making a puffer puff.

Even if I am wrong and it is not harmful then my way still does no harm, if you are wrong, then your way is harmful!!!! The choice for anyone with ethics is clear.

I have ethics and I disagree with you.
I am interested in what you think of my previous response to this argument.
Public aquariums have touch displays that stress the animals. How do you feel about them?

Bottom line NOTHING GOOD CAN COME FROM THIS TYPE OF ACTION so why do it? To get your kicks is the only reason. That's pathetic.

Again, the same reasoning can be applied to reefkeeping in general. Just as it can be argued that by keeping a reef tank we are educating people about reefs (or whatever justification) it can be argued that by sparingly puffing a puffer we are educating people about puffers.

The only reason the vast bulk of us have reefs in our home is to get our kicks -no matter how much we try to convince ourselves otherwise. Why is that not pathetic as well?

 

[Anonymous]

Don't take this personal Righty, it's just that you ask such good questions.

I have seen nothing posted that indicates puffing is harmful.

Since puffers and the like are notorious ick and parasite magnets, and a whole slew of bacterial and skin problems, and seem to get anything and everything at the drop of a hat - why would you want to run the risk?

We have to quarantine puffers STRICTLY, and for longer than any other fish with the exception of sharks. Any good round of skin contact and they have an epithelial infection.

Public aquariums have touch displays that stress the animals. How do you feel about them?quote]

Public aquariums have a built in replacement policy. Also they have access to diagnostic methods and treatments that hobbyists don't. All that, and the smart one's tend to stay away from animals that are hard to replace, treat, or just can't handle it. Too much trouble.


These fish tend to create parasites right out of thin air, not to mention every kind of bacterial and sometimes fungal infections known to man. To top it all off, they are hypersensitive to most meds and about the time you get all that taken care of, they get something going on internally.

If I finally got one cleaned up, dang if I'd touch it. We don't even use nets to move them around.

and that's my reason for not touching them.

Here's a test for you guys. Who among you has the most expensive angel? or any other fish for that matter.

This is what I want you to do. Take it out every day and tickle it.

 

[jandree22]

ugh, I can't believe this BS is still going on! would a moderator lock this thread already?! :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Jandree22,
RDO generally does not lock discussions in an effort to allow members to discuss things they find interesting. Respectfully, if you don't want to be part of this one anymore, please stop reading it, and unsubscribe yourself if you are subscribed.
I myself find the thought process behind people's 'ethical' decisions regarding this hobby to not only be interesting, but of a critical nature to the future of the hobby. I realize that others may not share my view, and I urge them to start threads discussion whatever they want to discuss.

:mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

Don't take this personal Righty, it's just that you ask such good questions.

Gotcha; puffers are very sensitive. Should we not then advocate not having them in our aquariums in the first place? If they really are so sensitive, how can we live with ourselves knowing they are being collected?

Public aquariums have a built in replacement policy. Also they have access to diagnostic methods and treatments that hobbyists don't. All that, and the smart one's tend to stay away from animals that are hard to replace, treat, or just can't handle it. Too much trouble.

So if we could replace the animal easily, treat the animal or use animals that don't seem to mind so much it is ok to intentionally stress them out? :wink:

 

[jandree22]

Jandree22,
RDO generally does not lock discussions in an effort to allow members to discuss things they find interesting. Respectfully, if you don't want to be part of this one anymore, please stop reading it, and unsubscribe yourself if you are subscribed.
I myself find the thought process behind people's 'ethical' decisions regarding this hobby to not only be interesting, but of a critical nature to the future of the hobby. I realize that others may not share my view, and I urge them to start threads discussion whatever they want to discuss.

:mrgreen:

I understand that, but after 7 pages of back and forth, IMO it's never gonna get resolved and this topic might as well have 40 pages. It just seems that this very insignificant topic is firing a lot of people up and to me it'd seems in everyones best interest to keep everyone at peace with each other... but I'm still a nOOb around this joint and my opinion doesn't really count.. I know where I stand so I'll just shut up, like I should've just done before :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Oops, missed this.

Here's a test for you guys. Who among you has the most expensive angel? or any other fish for that matter.

This is what I want you to do. Take it out every day and tickle it.

Tickling an angel does nothing but mess with the fish with no interesting result, and I am not sure what price has to do with the subject at hand.
No one here is advocating that anyone puff their puffers every day. Invoking an interesting behavior once and a while, maybe. For some, part of the lure of having an animal that does interesting things is to see it do those interesting things. As long as it is done rersponsibly, I dont see the problem with it.

 

[liquid]

... but I'm still a nOOb around this joint and my opinion doesn't really count..

Everyone's opinion counts around here -- including n00bs.

Rest assured that we are watching this thread and if it does get out of hand, it will be handled. We hear your point and we appreciate your position.

As Righty mentioned, we generally do not close threads unless they get out of hand. So far there's heated debate on both sides of the issue but as long as everyone remains civil and respectful toward one another while discussing the issues, we would like to keep the thread open.

Thanks again for the feedback!

Shane

 

[Anonymous]

I understand that, but after 7 pages of back and forth, IMO it's never gonna get resolved and this topic might as well have 40 pages.

It may take 40 pages and it might never get resolved, but if the people participating are for the most part acting nicely to each other, I dont see any harm.

It just seems that this very insignificant topic is firing a lot of people up and to me it'd seems in everyones best interest to keep everyone at peace with each other...

For the most part I agree, however I do think fir the most part this discussion has remained civil. I also think it is of greater benifit to reefing if we can find it in us to discuss and disagree respectfully, rather than halt discussion when things get involved.

but I'm still a nOOb around this joint and my opinion doesn't really count.

I have to disagree with you here - your opinion does count. But so does the opinion of those that wish to continue discussing this topic.

 

[saltyzoo]

Gotcha; puffers are very sensitive. Should we not then advocate not having them in our aquariums in the first place? If they really are so sensitive, how can we live with ourselves knowing they are being collected?

This is actually an excellent example of the strawman fallacy. The two are not related. Bringing up one is only to divert attention from the real issue. If you want to discuss the ethics of keeping fish in a tank fine, but it is irrelevant to whether annoying a puffer is ethical or not.

It's obvious you are here merely to argue and not to advocate good husbandry practices.

I give you credit for your debating skills, but you get poor marks in husbandry IMO.

 

[Anonymous]

So if we could replace the animal easily, treat the animal or use animals that don't seem to mind so much it is ok to intentionally stress them out? :wink:

Most of the contact/interaction exhibits I have been involved incorporate very very strict instruction and moderating when it comes to higher animals. For example, touch tanks that focus on stingrays (a growingly popular exhibit type) have a volunteer overseeing the guests at all times, ensuring that no more than a flat palmed rub is what happens. Life support for systems like these is run at massive overkill to keep water quality high. Beyond that, its all about being particular in selection. Some animals respond well/don't mind, others (like puffers) don't, and thus would never be allowed in a touch exhibit.

The stingrays are not overly stressed by this contact, as is obvious by the good health they stay in. In fact, they are usually more than eager to swim up to an awaiting guest with hand outstretched.

Other touch tanks usually feature invertebrates whose health is not affected by contact. Urchins, hermit crabs, horshoe crabs, nine-armed seastars etc., all tolerate contact very well and are the staples of these exhibits. Again, moderation is very important. Guests are never allowed to remove the animals from the water and they are watched to make sure they are being gentle.

So, to some extent its apples to oranges. Some animals are not stressed by contact and interaction (in fact, some seem to thrive on it at due to high intelligence, such as cuttlefish), and others are very highly stressed by it and are put in jeopardy of having a pathological event.

 

[Anonymous]

As long as it is done rersponsibly, I dont see the problem with it.

Unfortunately, invoking this behavior puts the animal at a pathogenic risk when it involves contact. I don't see how this is responsible.

 

[Anonymous]

Gotcha; puffers are very sensitive. Should we not then advocate not having them in our aquariums in the first place? If they really are so sensitive, how can we live with ourselves knowing they are being collected?

This is actually an excellent example of the strawman fallacy.

Actually, I don't believe is, as I put forth no conclusion, rather I asked some questions. I think perhaps you are assuming conclusions that I am actually not making beacuse of the 'heat' of this discussion.
If you would like to continue to discuss the straw man fallacy, let me know and one of us can start a topic in the Sump!

The two are not related.

I think the two are related. If the basis of the argument is 'its bad for the fish' I am interested in how that conclusion was drawn, and how it is applied or not applied elsewhere.

Bringing up one is only to divert attention from the real issue.

I think the 'real' issue has been covered pretty well. You don't think puffers should ever be made to puff, and I think if it is done responsibly once and a while, no big thing.
Now, I am interested in seeing how far the thought process used to come to these conclusions can be pushed, and what comes from that pushing.

If you want to discuss the ethics of keeping fish in a tank fine, but it is irrelevant to whether annoying a puffer is ethical or not.

If you want to limit the universe of discourse to 'fish that have already been collected', then sure. However, I don't think we can limit the universe of discourse like that since collecting the puffer in the first place surely counts as 'annoying' it.
In other words, if it is bad to 'annoy' the puffer once it is in the tank, why is it ok to 'annoy' it by collecting it?
I understand if you are not interested in having this discussion.

It's obvious you are here merely to argue and not to advocate good husbandry practices.

Again, I disagree, but you knew I would. :wink:

I give you credit for your debating skills, but you get poor marks in husbandry IMO.

Thank you, and why?
What do you know about my husbandry skills, thoughts or practices besides I don't think it is all that bad to get a fish to display once and a while if it is done responsibly?

 

[Anonymous]

Nice points about the touch tanks.
To sum up, if it really doesn't 'hurt' the animal, then go for it.

As long as it is done rersponsibly, I dont see the problem with it.

Unfortunately, invoking this behavior puts the animal at a pathogenic risk when it involves contact. I don't see how this is responsible.

Ok. For now, lets assume that contact with the animal puts it a pathogenic risk (although, I am not sure about it - they sleep wedged into some pretty tight spaces). If that is the case, is it also the case that collecting them in the first place is also not responsible?

:mrgreen:

 

[Anonymous]

If that is the case, is it also the case that collecting them in the first place is also not responsible?

It depends on the collection method. I only have experience with public aquaria procurement of puffers, they generally collect their own or rely on AZA certified collectors. In general, both know the problems with puffers and would be responsible in their collection technique.

And like I said, even then, they require intensive quarantine and monitoring to ensure that their collection and transport (or even wild conditions) had not made them overly susceptible to illness. Its a catch 22 I suppose. You can use responsible collection/transport techniques (no touching, etc.) but the actual collection and transport can still stress the animal enough to allow pathogenesis.

 

[John_Brandt]

Since I'm the dude that told everyone how to pick a puffer's lock I suppose I need to keep tabs on the discussion. The thread has gone in all sorts of directions that, although they are interesting, have little to do with the central issue. From my perspective, the main issue is whether or not causing a puffer to puff is meaningfully harmful to that animal. The answer probably lies somewhere in between harmless and harmful.

The "pinch" is the minimal stimuli that I have found that will consistently work to cause them to puff. You could just grab them in your hand but that causes far more contact and I don't do that. The need for the "pinch" is probably because puffers react to the stimulus as if they are getting bitten by something (a prelude to being eaten?). A sharp pinch is unnecessary, just a gentle grasping of a quarter-inch of their loose skin will work fine. The gentle "tug" probably has them "thinking" you've got a hold on them. Within about 5 seconds they will begin to inflate. Often you can release them as they start to inflate, and they will continue to fill up. Very quickly after inflating (sometimes they will only inflate partially) they will start to deflate. I have never seen a puffer react negatively after this like hiding, swimming away or seeming to have any lasting affect. For all practical purposes they seem to immediately forget that you ever touched them.

Never has any puffer contracted an infection, shown any lasting affect or even displayed a "mark" from the contact point. Never has any other fish in an aquarium been harmed by this action. Surely, if puffer-puffing caused the release of toxin then spontaneous puffer-puffings would kill fish in any aquarium that houses a puffer.

If the question is could it ever cause harm, the answer would have to be yes. If the question is has it ever caused harm in my experiences, the answer would have to be no.

I don't pinch puffers just for fun and entertainment. I've probably only done it a couple dozen times in my career, and it has always been a legitimate demonstration for someone(s). This has always been in a retail store setting or in an aquarium that I professionally maintain. Needless to say, it is important to me that the puffer is not harmed. It would not serve me to demonstrate puffer-puffing to a client only to have the fish die afterwards or become diseased. I only do it because those outcomes have never occured.

Having said all of that, I will say again, I don't recommend doing it.

 

[Anonymous]

I still say if that fish cost a thousand dollars and was hard to get, nobody would be pinching nothing. :lol: