• Why not take a moment to introduce yourself to our members?

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Anonymous

Guest
I find it infinitely fascinating that the whole collection and shipping issue, which ismost likely the cause of more puffer deaths than any amount of puffing reactions once established in displays, is so neatly skimmed over by those who seem to be incensed by the idea of causing a puffer to do so. Also, I would wager a guess and say that it would be, by FAR, poor husbandry practices that kill more animals post-ship than anything else (including a pinch).

I will reiterate (probably to be ignored again), that, if you really want to see a puffer puff, just try shipping. I've lost many bags (and subsequently time), but no puffers to shipping.
 

John_Brandt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Heifer":2u6mf4sv said:
I still say if that fish cost a thousand dollars and was hard to get, nobody would be pinching nothing. :lol:

A thousand-dollar fish is gonna get a pinch on the ass and a wink from me :wink:
 

John_Brandt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
This is from my collection of antique ocean life artwork. It's a circa 1830 engraving. Check out the cute porcupine puffer.
 

Attachments

  • plate001.jpg
    plate001.jpg
    101.8 KB · Views: 1,781

saltyzoo

Active Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ok, here's the logic. Collection is bad, so if you are going to promote collection you must promote any other bad husbandry. That's the fallacy. Again, we can discuss the problems with collection and the ethics of keeping animals in a tank it's a good discussion to have, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the ethics of doing something that is harmful to an animal after it has been collected.

Basically what you are saying by this argument is that it's ok to do anything you want to it since you collected it. That's the true bunk. It still matters how you treat them. This is like saying that if you hit somebody with your car it's ok to shoot them too because you've already committed battery so what difference does it make? That's the fallacy. The two are not related.

They are two completely different acts which you must be responsible for.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
I'm wondering if you're including me in that comment. I'd like folks to know that I keep NO fish at the moment (excepting the fat goldies in our pond), haven't for quite a few years, actually. There are many reasons for this, but one of them, and not the least of them, is the same reason you won't find me adding to the throngs we find at our great natural wonders like Yellowstone.

I am not saying folks should feel free to go out of their way to harm their pets, I'm saying that there needs to be some perspective here. IF you really love certain animals so much as to become truly outraged and incensed with what you percieve to be awful mistreatment, then love them enough to go withOUT them altogether and not keep them in your tanks. Because, if you really think about it, endeavoring to keep them in your tank and encouraging others to do same is far more harmful to both the individual and the family as a whole than a gentle pinch. Unless, of course, you are blissfully unaware of what collection and shipping (especially the shipping part) are really like. If you have questions on that, I will be glad to answer them for you.

What I, personally, find far more disturbing is the large number of people who acquire first, and ask questions later. I'm sure that many of you would agree with this, as we can go to many sites and find post after post demonstrating this. I would put forth for everyone's consideration that this practice is the bain of all hobbies involving animals, certainly not the least of which is our chosen. (That, and skipping quarantine!)
 

saltyzoo

Active Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ok. Because you don't keep fish it's ok for someone else to torture them? :?

I repeat again. We can certainly debate whether we should keep fish or not, but that is not relevant to whether it is ok to cause harm to them once they are safely in our care. I think it is also important that we are concerned about the fish that make it into someone's tank and not just the fish that have yet to be collected, although I agree that both issues are important. If a puffer dies due to poor husbandry, how many more will die in transport to replace it? Don't you feel it's important to be sure we do our best to keep them alive and stress free once they are collected?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
saltyzoo":1gbkv92z said:
Ok, here's the logic. Collection is bad, so if you are going to promote collection you must promote any other bad husbandry. That's the fallacy. Again, we can discuss the problems with collection and the ethics of keeping animals in a tank it's a good discussion to have, but that has no bearing whatsoever on the ethics of doing something that is harmful to an animal after it has been collected.

Basically what you are saying by this argument is that it's ok to do anything you want to it since you collected it. That's the true bunk. It still matters how you treat them. This is like saying that if you hit somebody with your car it's ok to shoot them too because you've already committed battery so what difference does it make? That's the fallacy. The two are not related.

They are two completely different acts which you must be responsible for.

With respect, I am not making that argument or making or promoting that conclusion (and I don't think anyone else here is either).
They are two seprate, but related, issues.
:D
Since you are so passionate about not harming puffers, what I am trying to glean is: if you think doing something bad to a puffer in a tank is unacceptable, why are you OK with collecting them in the frist place?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Heifer-
I rub my majestic angel every now and then on its "forehead" when it eats out of my hand. It cost $250, so if I do it 4 times a day does this count? :D
I still say if that fish cost a thousand dollars and was hard to get, nobody would be pinching nothing.
 

Glenn UK

New Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Th 'ethics' of fish keeping and puffer puffing cannot be seperated imho.

If you are worried about a puffer reacting to any stimulus that it finds threatening, be it a pinch or a flash of light from the tv or camera maybe, then you have no business keeping fish.

The act of keeping fish/stcock generally, is in my view a selfish act by the home aquarist. Many try to convince themselves and others that they have other motives, but for me i keep fish cause i like the way they look, i believe that this is the primary reason othe rpeople keep fish too. They are interesting!

The argument about being cruel to animals is often explained using references to how an animal thinks or reacts in human terms, when in reality we have little if any comprehension of what animals 'thnk' if anything. People often quote research which 'proves' an animal suffers stress which is then interpreted to mean that animal has similar thought processes and emotions to human beings.

The reports i have read show that the animal in question releases certain chemicals into its blood stream when subjected to a situation we would find stressful iei being chased. IMHO this deoasnt mean an animal feels any stress in the same way you and I would.

Keeping or using any animal in a domestic environement on this basis is in my view likley to involve cruelty if you apply this type of definition.

HTH

Glenn

If you saw the first thread it was only a joke honest!!! :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
saltyzoo":p8azhjce said:
Ok. Because you don't keep fish it's ok for someone else to torture them? :?

I repeat again. We can certainly debate whether we should keep fish or not, but that is not relevant to whether it is ok to cause harm to them once they are safely in our care. I think it is also important that we are concerned about the fish that make it into someone's tank and not just the fish that have yet to be collected, although I agree that both issues are important. If a puffer dies due to poor husbandry, how many more will die in transport to replace it? Don't you feel it's important to be sure we do our best to keep them alive and stress free once they are collected?

salty, do you not read the posts to which you are responding? Please, point out where I said this. Again, prove to me that gently eliciting a response from a puffer to puff is "torture". Just because you vehemently insist it is so does not make it so. Not even garnering Mr. Borneman's support in your "cause" will make it so. I would dearly love to know how many puffers you have actually had interaction with, what special areas of study make you so expert in puffer psychology or physiology. Or is it simply that you so dearly love your pet that you have lost the means by which to balance your view? There is nothing wrong with loving your pet, not at all. But passing such harsh judgement upon others whose perspective is different, well...you do appear to have a case of the "high and mighty's" going on here.

Clearly, you know very little about the rest of the chain from collection to final sale, and clearly don't care to comment on any other aspect I've mentioned in my previous post. Could it be because you are one of those who "purchases first and asks questions later"? If so, are you still this sort? If not, what changed your stance?

In any event, I still feel that there has been a loss of perspective, especially when considering the grand scheme of things. In my opinion, time would be better spent in our Industry forum learning more about how almost all our (marine) fish came to be here. You might also want to spend time studying more closely the threads here, on RC, and on other sites that are started by people who simply made an impulse purchase, only to wonder "What do I do now?" I am wondering if you can even begin to fathom how many animals are truly tortured -- through starvation, being placed into a small glass box with animals who predate upon them, or whose physiological needs cannot begin to be met (osmotic shock, ammonia poisoning anyone?) -- by simple desire of acquisition married to true ignorance. When compared to this grand scale, a scale which does not encompass fishes only, but will include a VAST myriad of animals wild and domestic, getting SO worked up over the gentle pinching of a puffer becomes sadly ridiculous, nay, laughable.

I happen answer questions for Mr. Fenner as a member of the WetWebMedia crew on a daily basis from people who do just this (WWM's Daily FAQ's). They see a fish, or any other animal aquatic, and simply must have it. They then find themselves in the unenviable position of trying to figure out how best to prolong the life (yet far too often ultimately killing) their new acquisition! This series of events is so common as to be entirely ubiquitous, and is far more worthy of the time and energy you're devoting here. (I'm going to completely avoid the issues of anemones, mandarins, and SHARKS, for time and space considerations.)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
But I can't help it...its one of my pet peeves (pun intended).

Definition From Dictionary.com

anthropomorphism an•thro•po•mor•phism
noun. Attribution of human motivation, characteristics, or behavior to inanimate objects, animals, or natural phenomena

===
I keep captive-yes that's what they are-marine and freshwater fish. I do so because it pleases me to do so. That is my choice, and I have a responsibility to take care of them. Do I torture them by keeping them in a glass box for my own amusement? In my opinion, no. I do go out of my way to ensure that they survive, but nowhere do I delude myself that I do this for the fish's benefit. I want my critters to thrive-not because it makes them feel good, but because it makes me feel good.

To rationalize or argue that one hobbyist's puffer pinching is wrong because it "is torture" - without taking into account the hobby as a whole could be construed as "torture" - is inherently hypocritical, and a great example of the above definition.

Of course, it is much easier to ignore this idea than think about it logically.
(Stepping off soapbox now.....as you were)
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
"Mill about smartly", eh? :lol:

Hey, just how did you get in that handbasket? Where's mine?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
seamaiden":2sp82ki4 said:
"Mill about smartly", eh? :lol:

Hey, just how did you get in that handbasket? Where's mine?

(Revealing the Eternal Truth)

Your basket is where you find it seamaiden. I'm not sure exactly how I got into mine, but I'm sure it has to do with why I'm never ever lost...people are always telling me where to go!
:mrgreen:
 

Reef_Monkey

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Ya know, I really don't know what to say anymore. I mean half of what ya'all posted, I'm gonna be honest, I didn't understand. Some of those words, yeah didn't know they existed. :lol: Pathetic right? I just wanted to know how to make my puffer puff...Apparently I struck a couple nerves. But from what a lot of you posted ( with the exception of what i didn't understand ) I look at the fish world a little different. I set up my tank cuz everytime I went into a pet store, the first thing I did was go straight to the salt water section. I love the fish and inverts and everything else, so finally I just decided that I wanted to do it. I have learned so much from this board....not to mention about the most addicting thing I have ever done in my life. I plan on continuing with my tanks forever. I want to go bigger and better. Reading all these posts from all the different members and seeing all the different sides, really educates me and make's me look at things a little different. I really don't know what else to say about all this. I just enjoy reading all the different opinions people have.
IMO- Best Thread Ever...


* What do you think Jandree22 ? :wink: *
 

John_Brandt

Experienced Reefer
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Marine Aquarium Instruction Manual from 1954. Before they did "The Monster Mash" , they did the Puffer Smash.
 

Attachments

  • straughanmanual6-7.jpg
    straughanmanual6-7.jpg
    124 KB · Views: 1,605
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Thanks, ye dawg of law. I know from whence my handbasket came, and where I hold it (dear!).

ReefMonkey, the burning is good for you. Eated some more and be sore a-pleased....or is that appeased? I'm actually quite glad that this thread has become something more for you. You see, this "buy first ask questions later" mentality has always been a huge pet peeve of mine, long before I ever kept my first fish. I saw folks do it with the piglets they bought from us, the hamsters, horses, dogs, cats, chickens...too long a list. I know it happens with other rare and exotic animals as well, such as wild cats, birds (psittacines), amphibians, and reptiles, just to name a few. I feel that if I can shine that burning light of truth upon it all and make others take pause, I've done a small bit of good--not just for this hobby, but for many, many others.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Let's move this argument over to invertebrates:

Is it ethical to propagate frags by hacking, smacking, cracking, sawing, snipping, nipping and tearing them? We are most certainly stressing the animals and in some cases we inadvertently cause infection and death.

Hmmmm?


Sincerely,
Lee
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sponsor Reefs

We're a FREE website, and we exist because of hobbyists like YOU who help us run this community.

Click here to sponsor $10:


Top