Andy Sager
Aquarium Advice Addict
I have been following this thread and have to say, some interesting things have come out for sure. But, at what point to we need to qualify the term "Ethics"? Is it ethical to take a species and change it's color via selective breeding? What about changing it's physical shape? What about forcing it to live with other fish or amphibians that do not come from the same areas as they do? Where do we draw the line?
Would we as hobbyists be satisfied with just keeping fish that had only their natural wild colors and shapes? If you look at your tanks, how many fish do you have that could be identified ( or confused) as wild? There would need to be a reduction of probably 75% +/- of the fish we commonly keep to bolster those numbers ( which I am sure are very low.)
Yes, painting a fish is questionable at best ( and I am definitely appalled at the practice) but isn;t changing a fish's body shape to the point that it doesn't or can't swim "normally" also "questionable" or unethical? If it is, then anyone keeping goldfish, anything ballooned, anything veiled or longfinned have to also be considered as being willing co-conspiritors to the problem. Same with simple things like keeping non green swordtails or Platies or fancy Guppies. Do you have a non silver Angelfish in your tank? If so, you are also guilty.
So what is ethical to some is unethical to others. Yes, there has to be some common ground but where do we find it? In tank size per fish species? In harvesting practices of wild fish? In harvesting wild fish to protect their existence against habitat loss? As a breeder, I know that the best way to maintain the integrity of a line of fish is to strategically reintroduce wild genetics back into the line to correct deformities and health. What happens when there are no more wild fish to use? Will the entire fish hobby eventually implode from poor breeding practices? I can tell you that the fish I see today don't hold a candle to the fish I kept just 50 years ago. But the selection of fish today far exceeds what was available years ago so is that the compensations for the variety?
Agree with me or not, the same applies to most pets we keep. Look at dogs and cats. They are not anything close to their ancestors in color, shape and, unfortunately, health as well. So was it unethical to make a wolf / fox/ feline into today's dogs and cats? Do we blame the breeder that creates a new variety of dog with multiple problems on the inside but "it just looks so cute!!!!" on the outside or do we blame the buyer who wants something different? To me, it's no different than with fish.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
Would we as hobbyists be satisfied with just keeping fish that had only their natural wild colors and shapes? If you look at your tanks, how many fish do you have that could be identified ( or confused) as wild? There would need to be a reduction of probably 75% +/- of the fish we commonly keep to bolster those numbers ( which I am sure are very low.)
Yes, painting a fish is questionable at best ( and I am definitely appalled at the practice) but isn;t changing a fish's body shape to the point that it doesn't or can't swim "normally" also "questionable" or unethical? If it is, then anyone keeping goldfish, anything ballooned, anything veiled or longfinned have to also be considered as being willing co-conspiritors to the problem. Same with simple things like keeping non green swordtails or Platies or fancy Guppies. Do you have a non silver Angelfish in your tank? If so, you are also guilty.
So what is ethical to some is unethical to others. Yes, there has to be some common ground but where do we find it? In tank size per fish species? In harvesting practices of wild fish? In harvesting wild fish to protect their existence against habitat loss? As a breeder, I know that the best way to maintain the integrity of a line of fish is to strategically reintroduce wild genetics back into the line to correct deformities and health. What happens when there are no more wild fish to use? Will the entire fish hobby eventually implode from poor breeding practices? I can tell you that the fish I see today don't hold a candle to the fish I kept just 50 years ago. But the selection of fish today far exceeds what was available years ago so is that the compensations for the variety? Agree with me or not, the same applies to most pets we keep. Look at dogs and cats. They are not anything close to their ancestors in color, shape and, unfortunately, health as well. So was it unethical to make a wolf / fox/ feline into today's dogs and cats? Do we blame the breeder that creates a new variety of dog with multiple problems on the inside but "it just looks so cute!!!!" on the outside or do we blame the buyer who wants something different? To me, it's no different than with fish.
Just my thoughts on the subject.
) And that's just one fish. The list of man made colors and body shapes is HUGE compared to their wild counterparts. Discus, Angelfish, Oscars, Swordtails, Guppies, Mollies, Platies and on and on have more color varieties and shapes in the trade than found in the wild. This is why I asked what the definition of Ethical was. To me, many of today's fish were the culls of yesteryear for me. Balloon fish were fed to my "big boys" because they weren't the correct shape for the specie. Now, everything is Ballooned. Mollies, Gouramis, Rams, Tetras, etc. To me, it's a sign that too many captive bred fish were misshapen through poor breeding practices so in order to continue breeding the fish in a profitable manner, these deformed fish needed to be sold as well. Is that an ethical practice? And yet, many people just love their balloon Mollies if you look at the threads on this site. So is this the Yay for the breeder for his creativity or a Nay for the breeder who sold us on the shape as being okay even tho they are known to have a shortened life span and were derived from fish with a skeletal deformity? It makes me wonder...... 
