Ethical Question Time: Wild Caught or Captive Breed?

[jetajockey]

Good point, I think that's a popular misconception with wild caught but in my experience they are drastically hardier than captive breed. I'm sure the daily struggles in the wild have a higher risk value than the lazy life in our tanks. My biggest challenges has always been acclimating to processed foods and overcoming their shyness, once that's done there really are no differences.

Another factor I thought of is that nature is the expert at culling so by the time a fish makes it to my net its already passed through a gauntlet of "survival of the fittest"-esque checkpoints.

 

[DragonFish71]

Another factor I thought of is that nature is the expert at culling so by the time a fish makes it to my net its already passed through a gauntlet of "survival of the fittest"-esque checkpoints.

Then from your net or another collectors net to my tank where the fittest are kept in the best environment possible to attempt breeding and adding them into the "fish culture" in these states that don't have a decent native variety.

On the topic of getting them used to a new diet. I've found with my sheepshead pupfish, whom were only fed live cultures by the collector took to "regular" foods such as flake and pellets rather quickly. I soaked the pellets in a little tank water and a drop or two of garlic juice and BAM, they went insane. Since I haven't started on culturing my own micro-worms yet (still not quite sure how to do it) they do get frozen foods and my home-made food, which are gone in a matter of seconds. Think inch long sharks in a feeding frenzy!

I think part of the issue at hand with wild vs captive bred is that we mostly we all raised that a wild animal should be left in the wild, for example people who keep exotics like tigers, bears, wolves etc and find they are harder to care for than a house cat/dog. While I can agree to that to some extent, there does need to be an influx of fresh bloodlines to keep certain genetic issues from showing up. Like the in-breeding of guppies. How many times do you see them with crooked backs, stunted finnage, missing fins, etc.

 

[Scott F]

Ethically speaking....

1.) To remove an animal from it's native habitat is unethical. To use an animal for the sole purpose of amusement or pleasure is unethical. ( Sea World for example )

2.) Captive breeding is unethical, but in the case of a species becoming almost extinct might persuade this argument,but then...should we release them back after such time as extinction doesn't seem likely?

Of course you only mentioned "ethics" so that's how I'm approaching it.

Live animals for a hobby is questionable. The only reason we don't question it is because we see ourselves highest on the food chain, invincible and the most intelligent.

I'll question the last of those three...

 

[jetajockey]

Ethical/unethical by what standard though? I think that's the crux of the debate.

 

[aqua_chem]

By that line of thinking, strict Veganism is the only acceptable lifestyle. Fish aren't human, so treating them by the same ethical standards we so humans isn't a reasonable way to go about it.

 

[DragonFish71]

Ethically we do things every day that shouldn't be done.

Driving causes pollution.

Flushing the toilet puts unknown hormones into water systems, some of this can find it's way back into rivers, oceans, lakes etc.

Advancement in medicine would not be where it is today if it weren't for the unfortunate sacrifices of testing on animals. (Although I do have an idea on how to avoid animal testing altogether)

Turning on your T.V., running your household, charging your cell phone, anything involved with the usage of electricity puts a drain on resources and leaves a carbon footprint.

Eating in general could be called unethical. Pure vegans don't eat meat of any type, but they do kill plants. Us omnivores eat everything, so we're killing plant and animal.

Filling our tanks puts a strain on fresh water supplies.

Cross breeding franken-fish like the blood parrot, breeding fish for certain deformities like the balloon mollies and rams.

Pretty much anything we as humans do can be considered unethical by at least 6 religions/beliefs that are based on nature instead of one omnipotent being.

So I'm sorry if someone thinks that by me having wild collected fish in my tanks is unethical, but I am giving those fish a fighting chance compared to what they would have in the wild with us bipedal apes running around ruining their natural habitat.

 

[HN1]

Ethically speaking....

2.) Captive breeding is unethical, but in the case of a species becoming almost extinct might persuade this argument,but then...should we release them back after such time as extinction doesn't seem likely?

American Cichlid Association - ACA C.A.R.E.S. Preservation Program


There are always shades of gray. By "wild caught" are we talking about first person fish collection or the standard wild caught supply chains that are primarily responsible for the illusion that wild caught fish are weak and prone to disease?

IMO, calling captive breeding unethical is a bit off. We don't breed them. They breed when their needs to reproduce are met. Naturally. Now, hormone inducements in farmed fish is a different story. Like I said, shades of gray.

 

[tukker]

They should preserve wildlife. Protect endangered species. People shouldn't be able to have everything they want.taking animal from wildlife for decorating is not done. It's like getting imprisoned for the rest of your life while innocent.

At my lfs I ask if it's captive bred, otherwise I won't buy. It's just unnecessary, with nowadays technology we can breed everything.

And it's bullshot that bred species Are weaker, if you just mix the right fish with eachother, and the breeders add fresh lines now and then, the customers don't need to buy willdcatched fish

 

[MrPillow]

with nowadays technology we can breed everything.

False.

 

[tukker]

Well alot of the fish can be breeded. Those we cant should be left where they belong

 

[MrPillow]

Should specimens of critically endangered species not be kept in captivity unless a stable breeding program exists? Is there some sort of margin of error between the time of specimen acquisition and establishment of a effective breeding program? Should we be allowed to collect wild specimens for attempts at developing viable breeding regiments, given the possibility of failure? Should failure be punishable?

The debate of the ethics of fish-keeping and all its related extensions seem about as likely to reach an agreeable conclusion as a town-hall meeting on abortion.

I do however, appreciate everyone taking the time to voice their input and read that of others without resorting to a juvenile display of flared tempers. Some interesting ideas being thrown around here, let's see where this goes

 

[absolutangel04]

I only keep fw and am only speaking from the fw side of life.
I do not at all believe that captive breeding or wild collection are inherently unethical. I totally agree with Len that there are all sorts of shades of grey on a topic like this because of the individuality of the circumstances where different fish are collected from. We are looking at a whole globe of species, and there are a world of variables. Personally, I prefer to keep tank bred fish when possible, but I certainly own some wild caught fish and I don't lose any sleep over it.
People sometimes tend to apply human emotions to fish, but that's not a fair representation of the fish. IMO, to view them as human is to not respect them for the form of life that they actually are. If a fish's basic needs are met, and it is given the environment for an array of its natural behaviors, I think the fish is fine. Also, it can do all of that in my tank which is FAR easier than being chased by predators for its whole life or facing pollution or the temperature swings that can happen in creeks or droughts. Heck, the wild is not easy, so I personally don't feel that it's a disservice to the fish to put them in appropriately sized tanks.

 

[BillD]

If one were to look at the list of CARES species, you might be surprised at some of the species that are in danger. One that surprised me was the White Cloud Mountain Minnow, which I still see sold as feeders. I am keeping a pair of Cryptoheros nanoluteus, sometimes called lemon or yellow convict, a CARES species, as are a number of people in our club. If you have the tank space, adopting a CARES species might be something you would want to consider. The CARES program is still evolving, but is a start of something good, in my opinion.

 

[5x5]

Ethically speaking....

1.) To remove an animal from it's native habitat is unethical. To use an animal for the sole purpose of amusement or pleasure is unethical. ( Sea World for example )

2.) Captive breeding is unethical, but in the case of a species becoming almost extinct might persuade this argument,but then...should we release them back after such time as extinction doesn't seem likely?

Of course you only mentioned "ethics" so that's how I'm approaching it.

Live animals for a hobby is questionable. The only reason we don't question it is because we see ourselves highest on the food chain, invincible and the most intelligent.

I'll question the last of those three...

If you truly find this behavior unethical, how could you even participate in this hobby in good conscience?

This is also an extreme stance on animal keeping in general. Ethics are not universal and vary among people and culture. Almost every person I've ever known has had an animal at some point in their life. Most ethical views are shared by the majority, which clearly isn't the case here.

 

[5x5]

Ethically we do things every day that shouldn't be done.

Advancement in medicine would not be where it is today if it weren't for the unfortunate sacrifices of testing on animals. (Although I do have an idea on how to avoid animal testing altogether).

How do you think animal testing can be avoided for drug development?

 

[DragonFish71]

How do you think animal testing can be avoided for drug development?

Not to go off topic but my stance is instead of using animals, use the prisoners that are on death row, or that are serving life sentences without the possibility for parole. An animal can only give so much information, they are different than we are. We can voice what's happening when we react to a medication. Plus, well, honestly, if you're on death row or serving life without parole, you shouldn't be considered a human any longer.

We can discuss this further in PM though to avoid going off topic.

 

[Innovator]

Test humans = population control......or zombie revolution ....or both

 

[Scott F]

If you truly find this behavior unethical, how could you even participate in this hobby in good conscience?

This is also an extreme stance on animal keeping in general. Ethics are not universal and vary among people and culture. Almost every person I've ever known has had an animal at some point in their life. Most ethical views are shared by the majority, which clearly isn't the case here.

The original poster brought up the point about ethics and, as someone else said, it's a very grey area.

Ethically we could also look at how quite a few of the LFS keep their fish and say that by bringing them home and improving on their environment would also be ethical in relation to where they came from.

Just because I brought up one side of an ethical argument doesn't mean that there aren't 5 other sides to it. But to ignore one side, because the other 5 support your stance doesn't negate the 6th side.

He asked to look at it ethically, which I did. Taking an unpopular few doesn't mean that I share it, but only brought it up for a topic of conversation to expand on it.

It's really that simple. An open exchange of ideas, whether popular or not, actually add to the conversation, not take away from it.

Had he framed the question differently, he would have gotten vastly different responses.

 

[HUKIT]

I am keeping a pair of Cryptoheros nanoluteus, sometimes called lemon or yellow convict, a CARES species, as are a number of people in our club.

I have a wild caught pair of nanoluteus and that I've been supplying fry to members in our club for 18 months. The next endangered fish I've been looking for are wild caught Amphilophus lyonsi which will be entered into our breeding program.

We have been active in CARES in our club for sometime now, I'm sure most will recognize most of the names on the cordinator list. This is a great program that could use support from you or your local club. Below is a link to the speices on the list.

C.A.R.E.S Preservation Program

 

[Scott F]

Ethical/unethical by what standard though? I think that's the crux of the debate.

Exactly. Ethics are completely subjective and can be approached from so many different angles.

But it does provide for an interesting discussion.