Is fish keeping ethical?

[Merv49]

The answer is plain common sense; most fish kept in a well maintained reeftank will live much longer lives than what they would have had on a natural reef. Anybody thinking that this is not ethical must immediately stop eating fish in any form, fresh, canned, smoked, pickled, and if he's an 'angler' he also must stop his hobby and throw his equipment away.

Exactly!!!

 

[Merv49]

Seems to be two different topics, and I am not sure that fish keepers need to bear the weight of what fish eaters are doing.

Next someone will ask is cutting trees is ethical or how about eating chicken or cutting a blade of grass. Where do we stop? So silly.

 

[biophilia]

Next someone will ask is cutting trees is ethical or how about eating chicken or cutting a blade of grass. Where do we stop? So silly.

Maybe I'm overlooking intended sarcasm here, but those all seem to be perfectly legitimate, albeit off-topic, questions of philosophy and could be approached in any number of (sometimes conflicting) ways (animal rights ethics vs. environmental ethics, or utilitarianism vs. virtue ethics, etc.)

 

[NY_Caveman]

Maybe I'm overlooking intended sarcasm here, but those all seem to be perfectly legitimate, albeit off-topic, questions of philosophy and could be approached in any number of (sometimes conflicting) ways (animal rights ethics vs. environmental ethics, or utilitarianism vs. virtue ethics, etc.)

Who can draw the line? What are the criteria? A blade of grass is alive. It grows toward the sun so it has sense. What is life for that matter? Is it ethical for humans to exist? Who is to judge?

I may be a vegetarian, but I understand one must consume life to exist. I personally draw the line at eating flesh (fish too), but I judge no one in what they eat. I grill hot dogs for my kids. That is just where I draw the line for me.

 

[Susan Edwards]

Is fish keeping any different than caging birds for our enjoyment? Or a cage of hamsters or mice or rats or even that fluffy rabbit? Reptiles? All those caged critters would much rather be free to live how nature intended. How about those who breed dogs or cats? There are always those who abuse the life they should cherish. Those who aim to provide the best captive life I believe are ethical. And often, those caged animals live far longer and healthier lives than in the wild. They are fed proper diets, given medical attention and loved. Yes, even rats. I've taken a few to the vet when I had them as pets. Keeping fish and coral is no different. We as humans are collectors by nature, and I believe we are also natural caretakers. We often also need the love and comfort of our pets to make our lives complete. Yes, even fish or the beauty and thrill of corals. No, your fish can't nuzzle up to you like your cat but many do communicate their interest in the "funny humans" outside their little world.

 

[biophilia]

... No, your fish can't nuzzle up to you like your cat but many do communicate their interest in the "funny humans" outside their little world.

I had a FOWLR tank many years ago with a porcupine puffer in it and sometimes it felt like the little dude would have jumped out of the tank and nuzzled up to me if he could have!

 

[biophilia]

Who can draw the line? What are the criteria? A blade of grass is alive. It grows toward the sun so it has sense. What is life for that matter? Is it ethical for humans to exist? Who is to judge?

I may be a vegetarian, but I understand one must consume life to exist. I personally draw the line at eating flesh (fish too), but I judge no one in what they eat. I grill hot dogs for my kids. That is just where I draw the line for me.

Agreed. I've been vegetarian for 13 years, but always feel a little uncomfortable with the harsh judgement I sometimes see directed towards omnivores by other vegetarian/vegans. It's really just a personal choice... and from an environmental ethics standpoint it's possibly easier to justify a lightly omnivorous diet than a strict vegan diet as some of the newer agricultural land carrying capacity research has shown.

 

[Tony Thompson]

Interesting video presentation by Jonathan Balcombe, PhD. Author of the best selling book "What a fish knows" I think a deeper understanding of the animals we keep may help us with the ethics debate. What ever your standpoint I think most will find it at least interesting.

 

[A Toadstool Leather]

This is why I keep mostly coral since there are no ethical considerations aside from collecting.

 

[BantyRooster97]

This is why I keep mostly coral since there are no ethical considerations aside from collecting.

Coral are living creatures as well.

 

[biophilia]

I’m reminded of Jeremy Bentham’s famous line:

“... It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”


If the capacity to suffer is where that line is drawn, keeping (and fragging!) coral may be ethically permissible outside of collection issues because they lack a developed central nervous system and likely don’t feel pain in the way that more sensitive creatures do. Hmm...

 

[Venator]

I know this topic is stressed a lot, but maybe it should be.
I believe that, like what Mr. Holmes-Farley pointed out, if a fish is given what it needs to thrive, then it is, in that case, “ethical” to keep a fish.
That being said, it is entirely possible for one to convince themselves that they have given the fish everything they need/should have, yet clearly haven’t done so. For example, the argument that it’s okay to keep a tiny 1” hippo tang in a 10 gallon aquarium, just because it can fit, is not ethical. This is because the fish will need more room likely at that time, and will need to be moved to a larger tank down the road, thereby changing its home and causing potentially bad reactions in the fish. This could all be avoided by having the fish in the larger tank to begin with.
Now, I don’t disagree with this approach wholly, as there are obviously other factors than just ethicality. Is it ethical for an extremely busy individual to keep a dog? Nah, but that doesn’t mean they can’t adapt to their situation. If I have two tanks and at the time the tang could live happily in the smaller tank but would be at risk from larger fish in the larger tank, I would keep the tang in the smaller one until it can’t tolerate it to be able to thrive anymore (this obviously begs the question of whether or not I should have the fish in the first place, but please bear with me! ).

It is unfortunate, though, because the lower cost of much smaller tanks in some cases promotes unethical keeping of marine life. I was one individual who did this a couple of years ago as a kid, and no matter how much I berate myself now, I just did not know any better. As I hinted above, this matter probably should be stressed much, much more.
Forgive my ramblings and long message... just my 2 cents!

 

[A Toadstool Leather]

Coral are living creatures as well.

Corals, nems and others have no central nervous system though. They still deserve the best possible care but as long as your lighting, flow, and water are good they are fine. Fish require far more ethical consideration imo.

 

[Merv49]

Coral are living creatures as well.

Oh no you don’t!! We’re on a mission to change the world here. You’re not allowed to opt out.

 

[SDReefer]

I definitely agree with you - it's not a simple yes or no answer.

Is the 12 year old kid who buys a clownfish on impulse and puts in a tank full of tap water unethical? Of course so.

Is the hobbyist who tries to buy tank-raised fish and corals using a sustainable and ethical model of fishkeeping? You bet it.

Anywhere between those two scenarios can get iffy.

Something I'd like to interject is the importance of aquariums and other marine life parks in the education of future generations and the conservation of current populations and I'd argue that any accredited aquarium is ethical simply because it inspires the future generations to protect and care for the world we love. Living in San Diego, SeaWorld is a big part of this city and is doing many good things for the ocean and the hobby. For example, they're one of the main sponsors of Rising Tide Conservation which helped breed the first blue and yellow tangs in captivity. Also, they contribute to a bunch of research studies that help wild animals. They are able to do large-scale rescue work and they've rescued over 31,000 animals since they've been in business.

While taking fish and other marine life out of the ocean can seem unethical, it helps us understand and find better ways to help species survive. From clownfish to bottlenose dolphins, aquariums and other parks find the best ways to breed species in captivity which can negate the reliance on wild populations. Just 50 years ago, keeping sharks alive for more than a year was considered a big feat. Now, we are breeding them in captivity so that we don't have to collect any more from the wild.

I guess my point is that, yes, taking animals from the wild isn't a "good" thing, but it is worth it if keeping the species in aquariums enables us to study and protect the species through captive breeding.

 

[Tony Thompson]

This thread seems to be petering out so I thought I would attempt to inject a particular perspective.

To debate what is ethical I think we must first investigate the definition of Ethical.

`ethical`
Relating to moral principles or the branch of knowledge dealing with these. (English Oxford Dictionary)

`morality`
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour. (English Oxford Dictionary)

relationship between law and morality
Law and Morality do not coincide in meaning, though there is - there should be - a necessary interdependence between them. Moral law distinguishes right and wrong in (free) human actions. It is aimed above all at personal improvement and ultimately at salvation.

The question I raise is,
if something is legal, is it therefore deemed as ethical by consensus, ie. accepted as right or wrong by the majority of the population governed by that law in a democratic society?

If this is the case then keeping of animals in captivity is deemed ethical aslong as it remains within the bounds of the law of that country. There are however boundaries and regulations to govern what is legal within that context. Laws may prohibit the keeping of certain species. Make requirements on the conditions the animals are kept and their general welfare. It is important to keep in mind the words consensus , majority and democratic. As ethics - morality, will always and should always be an area of debate and discussion in a democratic society. If the consensus changes , laws can and are amended within the democratic process, either by election or referendum.

In the UK there are specific laws governing animal welfare, wether in commercial premises or in ones own home. They are also similar laws governing the treatment of wild animals and their environment.
Rather than going into all of the regulations and guidance here is a link to the UK government regulations. Including the Pet Animals Act 1951.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/animal-welfare-legislation-protecting-pets

To be more specific to the laws regarding aquarists, here is a link from the Federation of British Aquatic Societies . This summarizes the laws from the animal welfare act and is titled

YOUR LEGAL DUTY OF CARE FOR KEEPING FISH UNDER THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT

http://www.fbas.co.uk/FISH CARE and LAW.pdf

Successful and binding prosecutions of individuals, including those keeping aquatic pets (Fish) under these laws instigated by the RSPCA and brought to court by the CPS.

In conclusion, I suggest that as long as one keeps within the regulations and lawful requirements. Then keeping animals in an aquarium is indeed ethical.

 

[fish farmer]

In conclusion, I suggest that as long as one keeps within the regulations and lawful requirements. Then keeping animals in an aquarium is indeed ethical.

That can vary though from state to state, country to country. For instance there are certain fishes that you can't have in the U.S. due to whatever reason (asian arrowana I believe), but are captive bred, micro chipped and sold elsewhere in the world. Does that make the U.S more ethical with regard to that species? On a state level I can't keep poison dart frogs without a permit in Vermont. They aren't sold in this state anywhere. The state made a restricted list of wild animal/fish list many years ago, either for disease, over collection practices, potential for escape and threat to public/native wildlife. If I wanted dart frogs I would have to apply for a permit and more that likely have a visit from the governing body to ensure I have the proper environment for said animals and possibly health certificates. If I lived in a neighboring state I wouldn't have to go through all the red tape to get dart frogs. If I want to keep river stingrays, not a problem.

 

[Tony Thompson]

That can vary though from state to state, country to country. For instance there are certain fishes that you can't have in the U.S. due to whatever reason (asian arrowana I believe), but are captive bred, micro chipped and sold elsewhere in the world. Does that make the U.S more ethical with regard to that species? On a state level I can't keep poison dart frogs without a permit in Vermont. They aren't sold in this state anywhere. The state made a restricted list of wild animal/fish list many years ago, either for disease, over collection practices, potential for escape and threat to public/native wildlife. If I wanted dart frogs I would have to apply for a permit and more that likely have a visit from the governing body to ensure I have the proper environment for said animals and possibly health certificates. If I lived in a neighboring state I wouldn't have to go through all the red tape to get dart frogs. If I want to keep river stingrays, not a problem.

Hi @fish farmer . I can understand it must be very frustrating trying to wade through state laws in the US. Fortunately for me living in a tiny country like England . The laws are very much restricted to laws governing the whole of the country, with only minor colloquial by- laws that originate from centuries ago. such as allowing ones sheep to graze on common land.

If the laws applied in a any particular state are created through a democratic process then yes, if its legal in that state it can IMO be deemed ethical in that state. For instance, is it unethical to deliberately break a democratic law accepted by the majority of any given state. I believe it would generally be accepted as unethical. However through the process of democracy any individual of that state has the democratic right to both debate and demonstrate for a change in the law through referendum or the voting system.

Some laws that vary over wide geographic areas may be imposed to protect indigenous wildlife. For instance, the UK has a temperate climate, therefore there are far less restrictions on the movement of tropical fish species than cold water species. The USA covers both Temperate, Arctic and sub tropical regions. I can in this instance see it necessary to vary any laws to accomodate these conditions.

IMO no country has the right to impose on any other country, ethics based on one particular culture or religion. Unless there is a clear attempt by either party to disrupt or enforce a foreign set of values over the other party. Could one for instance seriously suggest that any generally accepted ethical values directly linked to ones own culture be classed as superior to any other. However, any culture has the right to reject any common trade from a country that does not share a common value or whose values are in direct contradiction of their own.

Many institutions and professions have a code of ethics. Including but not limited to , banking, medical and scientific. Although particular to their own professions none of these ethical guidelines should vary outside the law of the democratic state. Maybe it could be argued that as hobbyists we should also have a more clearly defined code of ethics. Personally in my own community I believe the Law has most of the areas covered.

 

[Tony Thompson]

I’m reminded of Jeremy Bentham’s famous line:

“... It may come one day to be recognized, that the number of legs, the villosity of the skin, or the termination of the os sacrum, are reasons equally insufficient for abandoning a sensitive being to the same fate. What else is it that should trace the insuperable line? Is it the faculty of reason, or perhaps, the faculty for discourse?...the question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”


If the capacity to suffer is where that line is drawn, keeping (and fragging!) coral may be ethically permissible outside of collection issues because they lack a developed central nervous system and likely don’t feel pain in the way that more sensitive creatures do. Hmm...

Great quote @biophilia , from an English Philosopher, Reformer and Atheist. Seems quite ironic with ethics in mind if you read the following article from the English newspaper The Telegraph

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/science...centric-jeremy-bentham-go-display-scientists/

 

[Tiger-Paws]

Hi @fish farmer . I can understand it must be very frustrating trying to wade through state laws in the US. Fortunately for me living in a tiny country like England . The laws are very much restricted to laws governing the whole of the country, with only minor colloquial by- laws that originate from centuries ago. such as allowing ones sheep to graze on common land.

If the laws applied in a any particular state are created through a democratic process then yes, if its legal in that state it can IMO be deemed ethical in that state. For instance, is it unethical to deliberately break a democratic law accepted by the majority of any given state. I believe it would generally be accepted as unethical. However through the process of democracy any individual of that state has the democratic right to both debate and demonstrate for a change in the law through referendum or the voting system.

Some laws that vary over wide geographic areas may be imposed to protect indigenous wildlife. For instance, the UK has a temperate climate, therefore there are far less restrictions on the movement of tropical fish species than cold water species. The USA covers both Temperate, Arctic and sub tropical regions. I can in this instance see it necessary to vary any laws to accomodate these conditions.

IMO no country has the right to impose on any other country, ethics based on one particular culture or religion. Unless there is a clear attempt by either party to disrupt or enforce a foreign set of values over the other party. Could one for instance seriously suggest that any generally accepted ethical values directly linked to ones own culture be classed as superior to any other. However, any culture has the right to reject any common trade from a country that does not share a common value or whose values are in direct contradiction of their own.

Many institutions and professions have a code of ethics. Including but not limited to , banking, medical and scientific. Although particular to their own professions none of these ethical guidelines should vary outside the law of the democratic state. Maybe it could be argued that as hobbyists we should also have a more clearly defined code of ethics. Personally in my own community I believe the Law has most of the areas covered.

Gentleman while I agree that no country has the right to impose their values, their laws or values on another country, has happened and is happening today through trade restrictions and direct military action.
I submit that all of this (and other) discussions on Ethics is little more than that a discussion. A practice is either legal (where it happens) or is illegal. As an example I have personally killed in cold blood more people than I care to remember (yes some of my actions haunt me), but because those actions were sanctioned by the U.S. government I will never be changed with a crime.

Ethics is a meaningless word thrown around in an attempt to shame others and justify our actions.