A Question of Ethics

[BrianNY]

The thread started by "evenings" a few days ago (arowana & oscars), prompted me to consider this carefully. It's almost universal here and in other forums that when someone purchases fish that will out grow it's aquarium, the advice given is to return them to the seller. Is this really the most humane treatment for the fish? Is this really the best advice for the hobbyist? I think no in both cases.

My reasoning is as follows: The returned fish will likely end up in a worse environment. The reason the fish arrived in this persons care is because the lfs is more concerned about selling the fish than the fate of the fish. And, the current fish owner cares enough to seek advice here for its' well being. The fish probably won't live out its days in comfort but is more than likely better off left where it is.

So what would be the best advice to give on this subject? Many of the members here are very serious about their new hobby. Expansion (or MTS), seems common place. I would prefer advising these people to begin planning for their expansion at their earliest convenience.

I don't expect everyone to agree with me on this subject, but will welcome a friendly debate.

 

[Devilishturtles]

I agree with you BrianNY.

I started with a 5 gallon tank, then upgraded to a 10 gallon tank. Then started to get serious into the hobby, and went all out for the 55 gallon.

People always say, well, it's in a small tank now, but I plan on getting a bigger one later... How can you be sure of that. When I sell fish to my customers, I make sure they always know about the fish before I hand them the bag. I won't even take an oscar out of the tank unless *I* make sure that they have a big tank that they are going into, or I greatly beleive that the person I am selling it to will be providing the fish with a bigger habitat in the future.

It's hard to do things that way, but it works.

I totally disagree with buying a fish for a indefinite period of time, and then returning it to the lfs...what's the point? It stresses the fish, might stress the person getting rid of the fish, etc.

I dunno...just my two cents. 8)

 

[Talon242]

I think some of the people starting to get in to the aquarium hobby fail to do research before making their purchases or based of what the workers say is ok. To me this is rediculous, how can you go caring for something you know nothing about. As lame as this may sound I try to care for them or any of my pets as best as I can, thinking if the roles were switched I would also be happy.

People who knowingly buy fish that will end up too big and return them at a later time is crazy. I was just at my lfs last week and a poor pacu was in a tank, the largest at the lfs but the fish still took up 1/2 of it, I don't think the fish could have turned around if it wanted too.

 

[madasafish]

You're right Brian. Ultimately, returning a fish is just passing the buck... I suppose the advice is commonly given (and I'm one of the ppl who gives such advice) because there is at least a hope that somebody with a big tank will pick up said arrowana eventually...

Ultimately, large fish just shouldn't be sold in the quantities they are! DT, sounds like you have a good philosophy. And, if your policy is to tell customers about the space requirements of these fish, I hope it means you tend to stock and sell fewer large fish as a result. It makes sense that it ends up being more economical for you to stock more small fish, right?

 

[tbonem91]

my local lfs had a tank of about 30 - 35 small (1.5") arrowanas... a couple days later there were only 2 left. now I know for certain there are not nearly that many people in town with big enough tanks to house them. In the back of the store at the same time, there was an 2 foot arrowana in a tank by himself kinda hidden away... I do support the "knowledge factor" when buying/selling fish - it's just too bad there are so many people out there just trying to make a buck and not caring at all for what they're doing.

 

[madasafish]

My guess is that some of those arrowanas went to new homes, but that a lot of them died. The babies are very sensitive, and many die in the store.

 

[poikilotherm]

I agree with you both in principle. However, some people don't really have the option to expand, so if they find themselves in the position of having an overstocked tank, their options are:
1) Return to original LFS
2) Sell/give to another LFS
3) Convince a friend to get a tank
4) Euthanize fish
So options 1 and 2 are generally the most reasonable *for someone already overstocked*. Option 3 is good if you can pull it off!

Anyway, I guess that for me, the crux of the matter is that, as Devilishturtles said, that this situation should be preempted by the person selling the fish. I know that in the short run, it may cost some sales to the store, but in the long run, reputation is what keeps stores in business. Also, if you sell a Pacu to someone, you'll end up with it back and filling your biggest tank!

That said, if expansion is possible (either replacement or addition), then that should be suggested. Is there any "aquarium trade-in" program for people who are up-sizing their tanks?

 

[BrianNY]

The lfs isn't entirely to blame tbonem. They need to carry species that bring the customers into their stores. They need to do a business volume that supports their existence. The problem is that way too many people, hobbyists, retailers and distributors of living fish don't equate care with ethical treatment.

 

[fisch]

I think ultimately the responsibility lies with the people selling the fish. They have to know that a large number of consumers do not do their research and do not always know what they are getting into. If your average fish store didn't stock pacus, red tailed cats and a number of other fish that get large the average person wouldn't think twice about stocking one into a home aquarium. Even though the stores may make a lot of money of these larger fish I believe they have a moral responsibility not to sell them.

 

[BrianNY]

Well fisch, if that were the case these fish would not be sold. You may want to place responsibility there, but it doesn't mean the lfs will accept it. That's just one of the issues we're dealing with.

And Poikilotherm, you're missing the point entirely. I'm saying that the most humane advice we can give is to advise the hobbyist to care for the fish as best he/she can, and PLAN on expansion. Even if the fish eventually succumbs, the fish is with the best caretaker it will likely have.

 

[docrak]

I don’t know, I have a slightly different philosophy of things. When I first got into the hobby I used to like growing baby fish I would buy from local breeders. I would buy small ½ inch fry for 25 to 50 cents and grow them until they were about two inches and sell them for a couple of bucks. Most often they were cichlids like convicts, zebras or angles. Even now I’ll keep fish for the express reason of selling them in the future for more money.

The one thing I don’t agree with is getting a fish you won’t be able to control when it gets older. Fish like piranha, oscars, arowana, jack dempsy, and plecos. Most of those fish will need at least a 50 to 60 gallon tank when they get older. I would even classify angle fish in that category. Have you ever seen an angle fish in the wrong size tank, almost makes me sad.

I was at my local fish store and saw a guy buy a pair large oscars for his 55-gallon tank. The only problem was that this guy obviously didn’t know what he was doing and he was going to be keeping the oscars with sunfish he caught locally. I was talking with the manager of my lfs and we both agreed that he would probably end up killing the oscars. I kind of had to express my objections but I can’t do much about it, he is trying to run a business and he’s not breaking any laws. I don’t think the SPCA would do anything about it either; they’re more interested in larger animals.

Of all the fish I have the largest possible fish I could have is about 6 inches long. All of the fish are compatible no mater how big they get. Right now I also have about a hundred fry I’m going to sell when they get big enough. I’m currently keeping my adults with some tetras and angle fish to keep down my fry population.

I guess if you want to escalate this argument wouldn’t it also be morally and ethically wrong to keep wild caught fish in an aquarium. Some fish species are becoming almost extinct just to supply hobbyist with rare fish. Think of how many neons and cardinals die every year just so that you can have some pretty fish. I don’t know that exact statistics but my local fish store manager tells me that almost half to 70 percent of the neons and cardinals he gets die within the first week from stress. If you think of how many places those fish have to stop before they reach your aquarium I wouldn’t be surprised if 10 fish had to die very neon or cardinal that survives.

Either way, this is just one problem in the industry/ hobby. We have painted fish, colored fish and genetic mutants to deal with also. How do we fix the problem? I don’t know if our hobby is big enough to form a political lobby group. Do we try to get the SPCA involved, do they care? Something should be done. This problem is no different that people that buy small puppies not realizing the amount of effort and space some dogs require when they get larger. Or people that buy parrots not realizing that they can live almost if not longer than most humans.

I’m not a bleeding heart Liberal, but I have to agree that there is a problem. How do we begin fixing the problem?

 

[fisch]

I do feel it is the responsibility of the owners who have taken these pets into their home to find them a new proper home if they can no longer house them. And I agree that in most cases it is not the LFS. But the problem is that in most cases the LFS is the only option other than releasing the fish into the wild which I'm sure none of us think is a good idea. Just think of how many people you know that would be able to take in a foot long fish. Its probably only a few if any. And the average person that may get one of these fish may know even less people. And most people simply cannot afford aquariums large enough that the fish deserve.
Of course the ideal solution to the problem is education. Education of the consumers buying the fish that they will not be able to house them unless they get very large aquariums which most will not end up doing. I think thats what people here try to do in swaying people away from fish they cannot keep. But the fact of the matter is no matter how many forums there are on the internet people still buy these fish without proper knowledge. And thats why I feel the people that should have the true knowledge, the LFS, have the obligation not to stock these fish for the average consumer.

 

[liquidelusion]

i think the key word here is "living". if people respected life in all of its forms then everything would be ok. most people find out how big a dog will get before adopting a puppy. mabey people have to look a little harder for info on fish, but its definatly not impossible

 

[Devilishturtles]

I hope it means you tend to stock and sell fewer large fish as a result. It makes sense that it ends up being more economical for you to stock more small fish, right?

Correct! You have to remember though, I work at Wal-Mart, and although I manage the place, I still am limited on what I can buy and all that. But definitley, we have one tank of oscars, and only max 3 at a time. I put a "no order" on the Pacus. WM is all about selling the most fish though, which upsets me..but I still beat out every store in my district in sales, lol, and have the healthiest tanks.

The fact of the matter is, it all starts at the store. People need to be aware of what they are buying, and how to care for them properly. I have talked to a lot of people who raise fry, and then sell them. I don't have a problem with that..but buying that inch long african cichlid, sticking him in a 10 gallon tank,and then realizing a few months later he is too big, so you take him back to the store...is not the solution.

But, this is the way the world works sadly...unless there becomes a law that every person that handles and sells fish, MUST be knowledgeable, it's still going to happen.

Nice thread topic BrianNY.

 

[docrak]

Maybe we need to form an organization for pet shops, primarily fish stores, which will ensure that the owner will conduct business to a set code. If they don’t join we boycott then. We’d have to start with the big guys like Watmart, Petco and Petsmart. Even though some stores are good, in my area I’ve found they are the biggest offenders of bad fish keeping and poorly trained employees that will sell you and oscar to go along with your swordtails.

 

[poikilotherm]

BrianNY, I heartily disagree with you that I am missing the point. I am merely saying that there are some people who can not expand. Period. Some people (like me) live in small apartments, and have other constraints.

For those that can expand, as I stated in my previous post, I support the assertion that getting a new tank is the best option. That is key, and perhaps my emphasis was wrong in the previous post, but I agree with BrianNY's original premise, which (in my interpretation) is that the first suggestion to people with questions such as that posed in the arowana/oscar thread should perhaps be "get another tank" rather than "return to the shop".

I also know that we cannot put the entire onus on the fish stores to only sell fish that are appropriate to the purchaser. Our responsibility is to take the current situation and help people make the best of it. If it helps other people avoid those situations, then that's even better. Seeing knowledgable people suggest that getting a bigger tank is the best option may give the inexperienced aquarist pause before purchasing potentially large fish, whereas seeing that it's OK to just take them back encourages irresponsible behavior.

We just have to be aware that some people will respond to the suggestion that they upgrade their tank by saying that that is not an option. If we're considering ethical advice, we must also consider what to do if the first suggestion is not possible. If the fish succumbs because the owner never upgrades the tank, then it may not be the case that the fish is with the best caretaker.

 

[Talon242]

Maybe we need to form an organization for pet shops, primarily fish stores, which will ensure that the owner will conduct business to a set code. If they don’t join we boycott then. We’d have to start with the big guys like Watmart, Petco and Petsmart. Even though some stores are good, in my area I’ve found they are the biggest offenders of bad fish keeping and poorly trained employees that will sell you and oscar to go along with your swordtails.

Yeah, this is a possibility but in the end probably unlikely. I think this goes way deeper than how trained an employee is, not saying that it isn't important. It would definitely be the right thing to do but I think people in general are impatient and unable to make good educated decisions. Sure every now and then their is someone who goes and researches about what they are getting into but for every one there is a large number that the thought doesn't even cross their mind. Even in this day when information is so easily accessed people don't take the time to find information on their own. With all the technology in the world it just makes people more impatient since they are used to getting everything instantly. Just my thoughts.

 

[Punkymom]

I don't think I will ever give my fish to a petstore again. The reasoning lies not in the fact that they don't take care of the fish once they're there, but that half the fish that I'd had died from the stress. I had 3 angels. Two of them died and one was sold. Two Skunk loaches. One died and the other is still there. Two rubberlipped plecos. One died and the other was sold. The albino redtailed shark was sold. I was disheartened to learn that so many of my fish that were well cared for died simply from the stress of going to a new environment. From now on I will either upsize or give them to someone who already has an established aquarium who wouldn't mind taking them. JMHO

 

[BrianNY]

OK Poikilotherm, now I know you got the point, and restated it very well.

Once the purchaser has bought a fish, it's his/her responsibility to care for. I merely am taking the position that any fish has a better chance of survival with the person that originally wanted it.

The fact that we have to accept is that fish seem to be valued so little (in general), as living things. Just think of any fishing trip where you've seen people catch and keep far more than they can consume.

Thanks for the compliment DT. I applaud your efforts as a responsible member of the fish selling community. Walmart needs more like you.