"Fishless" cycle myth.

[runway1]

I'm going to rock the boat here because I'm sooooo tired of hearing how inhumane it is to use Damsels, Chromis, etc. as cycle stock.

Forgive me, but the reality is that the neurological and physco-emotional sophistication of the average FISH is slightly (SLIGHTLY) above that of an insect. The thought that an animal with a brain that could fit on the point, not the head, but the POINT, of a pin can actually feel pain and emotional discomfort at the level of a mammal is scientifically pure nonsense. We're not talking about Dolphins and Whales here. Where talking fish.

A recent study was completed for the bleeding hearts that felt a lobster suffered while being boiled (I know a lobster is an insect) resulted in proving that the neuro system of that animal had no ability to feel pain; physical or emotional (of course).

Like I said, a Damsel is, ever so slightly, more sophisticated than a lobster but certainly has no ability to feel significant physical pain as you or I perceive pain - much less any emotional anguish which has actually been suggested by some on this board. This concept is balderdash; that's right, balderdash. So, let's stick to science folks, and not bleeding heart, nonsensical conclusion based on humans with no zoological training, whatsoever.

 

[DanW0007]

If you think about how many fish are collected from their "homes" in the wild, shipped across the world, and then bought only to know there is a good chance they are going to die, it seems pretty cruel to me.

 

[malkore]

Please provide the location of this 'recent study' so I can read it myself. If you intend to make claims like this, you'd best have citations and references to back yourself up.

Also, please tell me where you received your degree in Zoology/Biology.

 

[fishfreek]

I am above knowingly putting a living creature thru situations that we all know is bad for their overall health. We all know fish sense pain. You stab one with a sharp object does it just continue to go about its business or does it react? It reacts! That shows it senses something and based upon the degree of its reaction one can deduce it was more pain than suprise.

And the part about a fishless cycle being a myth. Are you saing there is no such thing as a fishless cycle? You must have fish to cycle? Thats what I am getting from the notion of it being a 'myth'.

If your goal is to inflame those whom consiter fish more than mindless enjoyment your going to fail because we are ALL above that here.

 

[BillyZ]

Pain or no pain, why spend 10 dollars on agressive fish that you'll likely want to remove after the cycle anyway? The shrimp is cheaper, doesn't need to be fed and isn't IMO, cruel. I'll second Malkore's comments, you make a lot of "this is fact" statements but don't offer anything to back it up.

 

[quarryshark]

Would like to second Malkore's question, would love to see the supporting data.

So, let's stick to science folks, and not bleeding heart, nonsensical conclusion based on humans with no zoological training, whatsoever.

IMO there is no need to place a fish (i Like to refer to them as pets) into an ammonia soup.
Believe what you will, but I am not going to stop suggesting more humane ways of cycling.

 

[Phyl]

If there's another way why put the fish in? If something else works just as well then why use a fish? Why pay more money for something just to kill it anyway? Seems silly to me to get up on a soap box and stand up for needlessly wasting money and killing a fish. Go ahead, put fish in your tank before it is cycled. Nobody here's going to stop you. How much have you wasted so far?

I'm just shaking my head...

 

[Regen311]

(I know a lobster is an insect)

Um... what??? IF you know so much about fish, and zoology in general, you should know that a lobster is not an insect. It is SIMILAR to an insect, as they are both in the phylum Arthropoda, but so are snails and I don't conisder snails to be an instect., because, well, they aren't. Insects belong to the Subphylum (a smaller division of the Phlyum Arthropoda) Uniramia, while lobsters belong to the Subphylum Crustarea. And then, a smaller division is into Class. Insects belong to a different Class than even other creatures in the Subphylum Uniramia, so not all creatures even in Uniramia are considered to be insects, insects belong to the class Insecta, Lobsters to the class Malacostraca.

So.. LOBSTERS ARE NOT INSECTS. If you're going to make a post based on science, you should make sure all your facts are correct. If you post one stupid thing like that, it makes it hard to believe that everything else you say isn't based on nonsense either.

Wow, that was exhausting, remembering too much stuff from zoology last year.

 

[klam]

If there's another way why put the fish in? If something else works just as well then why use a fish? Why pay more money for something just to kill it anyway?

I know! Call on me! IMO, it's because a lot of people new to the hobby don't have patience and they want something too look at right away. Also the LFS makes more money selling them damsels that will probably die during the cycle.

 

[RocketSeason]

I'm going to rock the boat here So, let's stick to science folks, and not bleeding heart, nonsensical conclusion based on humans with no zoological training, whatsoever.

Consider the boat rocked.

Anyone who would put a fish through unessicary stress knowing full well that there is a better alternative, really should re-evaluate their priorities.

It is our duty as avid aquarists to be responsible in everything that we do. Why purposely harm a helpless sea creature?

...that being said, I love lobster, and I go fishing all the time...go figure.

 

[OneBowl]

Referenced study was out of Norway, the Univ. of Oslo and released about a month ago. It was sound bite "news" on many networks. Google search should reveal it.

Until all books and LFSs take a different path, this issue won't go away.

Ultimately, I hope that the free market will provide a resolution. Let's see, 4 damsels, average price of $3.00, gross margin of say 30% yields LFS a profit of about $3.60. If I owned a LFS, I'd create "Humane Cycle," consisting of some shrimp or other fresh sea mush at a cost of maybe 50 cents, and sell for oh, $14.99.

 

[RLG2182]

Well... what I don't understand is why get into a hobby that requires time, money, patience, and care for something if you're just going to think about the inhabitants as just "stupid little fish"

Assuming runway is correct, and fish don't feel pain, why not simply just go for a pet hobby with animals that people regard as purely pests... like ants. Or a termite farm. Hey, how about a roach nest? These creatures are commercially driven to be eradicated, and therefore it is not cared if they live or die. This might make things more worth while to you if all you're looking for is a science project.

I don't fathom how you (or anyone) would have such little regard for animals based on how much mental capacity they do or do not have. Does this mean you, or others, would chop down trees for fun and feel no remorse since they do not "think" or "feel"? In reality, what do we REALLY know about intelligence since we as humans cannot even scientifically define the emotions of love, hate, or happiness beyond a trace of elements and muscle movements?

Forget the usage of shrimps vs. damsels... I'm more worried about your attitude and views on a hobby that so much of us love, and think about it as a science test to see if you can prove us wrong and "triumph" by making your fish survive. Forget the study & proof... get yourself some ants and call it a day.

 

[midiman]

Like I said, a Damsel is, ever so slightly, more sophisticated than a lobster but certainly has no ability to feel significant physical pain as you or I perceive pain - much less any emotional anguish which has actually been suggested by some on this board.

Anyone who's ever seen a fish rub on gravel or on a rock knows that it can feel something which is unpleasant for it. Putting a fish through something unpleasant DELIBERATELY while KNOWING that it is totally avoidable is self-centered, unfeeling cruelty. Sadly, this type of egocentrism, along with lack of concern for others (both big and small), and need for instant gratification are growing trends in our society. I choose to treat my animals humanely because I CAN. I think it ennobles us when we treat helpless creatures humanely and with respect.

OK, end of sermon.

 

[rubysoho]

What if you cycle responsibly with fish? It may take longer, but if you are cleaning your tank every other day then levels shouldn't be harming the fish anyway. But that is just my opinion and I can't proove it. As for saying that you should cycle with fish just because they can't "feel" pain. That is irrelevant. A good reason why not to cycle with fish is because many times this fish dies do to improper care (or a new hobbiest who doesn't know what they are doing). A lot of these fish come from the ocean and since one died, people go out and buy another, more fish shipped in from the ocean, less fish in the natural habitats. So cycling with fish can have a negative effect on the environment by over harvesting fish. I hope that makes sense.

 

[Hara]

This post reminds me of what it would be to go to a PETA or SPCA website and declare that there is nothing wrong with dog fights seeing as wild canines, such as wolves, battle for pack leader status all the time. Kudos to all for keeping cool heads on what could have been a pretty hostile thread.

 

[Jchillin]

No one says that you "must" cycle without fish. The advice is "You can cycle without fish". I can't imagine that a society will "toss out" an option just because a study (probably in all likelihood was commissioned by fish retailer - who lose money with "fishless cycling") says "it's a myth".

A myth by definition is something that cannot be proven with existing science. Fishless cycling has been proven...therefore, it is not a myth.

The thought of fish not feeling pain is irrelevant. Imagine if your nervous system failed and you could not feel pain. Does that mean you can be subjected to pain causing events or activities without any remorse???

 

[malkore]

Yes, you can cycle with fish, or without fish. Cycling with fish is a lot more work, and risky. In a world where time is money, and convenience is king, why not just cycle without fish and save yourself the anxiety of worrying if you're cycling properly?

 

[runway1]

Well, I certainly got what I deserved, anyhow. Please, I don't mean to solicit anger (although inevitable); I do mean to solicit logical, intelligent arguments that will help others decide with knowledge - I think I did that. There are many of you who posted EXCELLENT arguments against live-fish cycling. Several still post the emotionally based responses that I don't think are nearly as helpful. Please let me clarify.

Please provide the location of this 'recent study' so I can read it myself. If you intend to make claims like this, you'd best have citations and references to back yourself up.

Very well: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147667,00.html

why spend 10 dollars on aggressive fish that you'll likely want to remove after the cycle anyway? The shrimp is cheaper, doesn't need to be fed

EXCELLENT point and a logical argument.

We all know fish sense pain. You stab one with a sharp object does it just continue to go about its business or does it react?

We do?? Sorry. The stimulus-reaction observation you’re making doesn’t come from pain.

A good reason why not to cycle with fish is because many times this fish dies do to improper care (or a new hobbiest who doesn't know what they are doing).

Another excellent point.

I choose to treat my animals humanely because I CAN. I think it ennobles us when we treat helpless creatures humanely and with respect.

Thank you for a wonderful point.

that there is nothing wrong with dog fights seeing as wild canines, such as wolves, battle for pack leader status all the time

Sorry, completely out of context.

Pain or no pain, why spend 10 dollars on agressive fish that you'll likely want to remove after the cycle anyway?

Another logical argument

The point I’m trying to make is that many newbies, such as myself (6 years keeping fish, 5 ¾ in FW), are trying to find good logical, scientific info from you good folks. Comments like “that poor, pretty fish in the ammonia soup is in suffering” is distracting, illogical and just doesn’t help. Intelligent, logical arguments like the many you’ve presented, is what I’m asking to stick with.

I agree with a great many of your arguments and I hope you can see my point. I also hope you can still help me when I ask my newbie questions without too much disdain.

 

[Phyl]

The point I’m trying to make is that many newbies, such as myself (6 years keeping fish, 5 ¾ in FW), are trying to find good logical, scientific info from you good folks.

Haven't you alone killed off like 6 fish trying to cycle your tank? Shouldn't that be reason enough to use a shrimp?! Seems to me if I had a track record like that I'd be looking for alternatives to blowing another 6$ on a fish! The seas are poorer as a result. Our future generations will thank you.

I also hope you can still help me when I ask my newbie questions without too much disdain.

You could always change your user id...

This is a pretty tolerant group, all things considered. I imagine that they'll be pretty lenient on you. Just don't post any more "my 2 damsels died in ammonia soup... what killed them" posts... I doubt you'll be met with much embracing.

 

[BillyZ]

There won't be any disdain. However we're going to continue to offer our opinions.



My first rebuttle is a quote from the article you gave to back up your point;

The Norwegian study, even while saying it's unlikely that crustaceans feel pain, also cautioned that more research is needed because there is a scarcity of scientific knowledge on the subject.

It is also worth mentioning that the study focused solely on invertibrates. Fish do not belong to this category... being that they have a spine and all. So, unfortunetly, the article does little to back up your claims that we're all a bunch of tree huggers! j/k

I know you want to keep things based on science... but you have to acknowledge the fact that the majority of members here see their tank inhabitants as pets. Any pet keeping should go hand in hand with a care and concern for your pet. With care and concern go good husbandry. So to foster good husbandry, we foster care for our pets.