A Moral Obligation?

[pedzola]

As human beings, I don't think anyone would argue that we are morally obligated to help another person in immediate distress.

Many would argue this same obligation extends to animals, but perhaps to a different extent depending on the type of animal or other circumstances.

Now the question is... does a fish have the same moral/ethical "rank" or standing as a cat or dog or other animal?

If we see a fish dying in a store's tank, are we obligated to purchase it and try to save it?

What if a fish appears healthy in the store tank? We all know that theres probably a 75% chance or worse that the fish will meet a miserable fate in the tank of someone who doesn't know how to take care of the fish.

I'd like to hear your opinions on this. I saw 2 clown loaches in a tank today at the store and debated whether to buy them. One looked healthy, one looked sick. They were in a tiny tank packed full of medium sized bala sharks. Barely enough room to swim in a circle.

It just makes me feel terrible, like I'm obligated to give them a good home.

Thoughts?

[Graeme Robson]

Now the question is... does a fish have the same moral/ethical "rank" or standing as a cat or dog or other animal?

It is what your own perception of value of animal/aquatic life is. Comparisons are not needed. Humans have that advantage.

Fellow aquatic keepers always "poke" at a poor lfs and hopefully many will.

[Mad Duff]

Now the question is... does a fish have the same moral/ethical "rank" or standing as a cat or dog or other animal?

I dont think a neon or something similar could be compared to a cat or dog. I can see however that a large fish that is kept as a pet such as a giant gourami, oscar or koi could be compared to a cat or dog. I suppose everybody will have a different view.

As for buying a sick fish to ease your own conscience I dont know, If it was a case of buying a fish from a shop because it was sick and there was a good chance of it dy'ing anyway then money is tight enough all ready without wasting it on a fish that doesnt really stand a chance, you could also say it depended on space available as we already have a moral obligation not to knowingly introduce disaese to the fish we already own. If the fish was slightley injured or distressed then it would probably depend on if I had the tank space and if I could really give it the help it needs.

Mark

[Wendie]

We've discussed this in one of the Betta forums. People tend to see sick Bettas in tiny containers in the various stores and buy them even though they can see the fish is almost dead.

The idea is heartfelt, but I strongly feel that this act encourages the store to go out and buy more fish and continue to treat them in the same manner which lead to the problems in the first place.

Most stores ordering fish do so with the thought in mind that a certain percentage of fish will not make it from the distributer to the dealer and on to the home. The large chain stores only care that the fish makes it to the home for at least two weeks so that they don't have to replace it. The smaller pet store owner who has been in business for years is a different story. He wants the fish to live in his tanks and his customer's tanks because that means more business for him in the long run. I also think the smaller stores will cull anything in really bad shape. The larger chains don't have the personel or the time to do it and therefore you'll notice dead and dying fish in the tanks. I personally try not to buy from a dealer with excess dead fish in the tanks. I won't buy a fish from any tank that has a dead fish in it.

I might walk away from a tank with a sick fish in it and feel bad for a bit, but I personally can't afford to buy something I know won't live.

[mikev]

Oh well...

(My overall guideline, violated occassionally )

My feeling is that we have no moral obligation whatsoever to the fish we may see at a store. We cannot help them all, and as Wendie correctly noticed, buying unhealthy fish would only encourage stores into torturing more, and will end up also endanger your other fish in some way. And while I've seen way too many unhappy and sick clowns I know I really cannot do anything in most cases: there are thousands of sick clowns in the stores across the country at any moment. (Having said this, I did and will make an exception is some special cases).

Now, the more interesting issue imho is the level of the commitment *after you bought the fish*. I see it as a social contract with a probationary period. It is my responsibility to provide the right conditions for any fish, but it is the fish' responsibility to prove that it is viable, by surviving for the period; if it does not, it is not my fault. (Specific example on my end: lots of kuhli losses during the first week -- I feel bad, but not guilty about them.) I'll of course try to treat the new fish as well as I can, but: during the probationary time, any new fish has less rights than any old fish; I think it is wrong to endanger a "citizen" neon to make room for (or even save) a new clown. Loss of any fish after the probationary period is obviously my failure, unless proven otherwise.

(Just my feelings here...)

I won't buy a fish from any tank that has a dead fish in it.

Agree, but I go one step further now: I won't buy a fish from any place that regularly has dead fish in tanks or would not react instantly when I point them to a dead fish (any store may overlook one occassionally).

[pedzola]

I think it's pretty depressing to go into a major chain pet store sometimes. As mentioned, the bettas are usually in especially sad shape.

On the one hand, buying the fish encourages the store to sell more fish (and probably more will die). On the other hand, you know that the poor fish doesn't have a chance unless somebody intervenes.

If you saw a group of kittens locked in a small dirty cage looking neglected you would probably be moved to do something. I'm pretty sure in most states that visible neglect or abuse of an animal is a crime.

The same doesn't apply to fish though. Short of buying the affected animal, there doesn't seem to be much remedy other than to complain to the store management.

The question isn't, "should I take care of a neglected fish *if* I have the space/money/time/whatever." The question is, "should I?" regardless of the consequences.

Are we, people, the "keepers" of the earth, responsible for all of the other creatures in the world? From a high level, the answer is yes of course. But to what extent are we individually responsible?

I have no qualms stepping on an ant, or eating meat from farm-grown animals. But does a wild animal taken out of its natural environment have "rights?"

[qumqats]

A biased perspective, but it does bring up some intersting points.

http://www.helpinganimals.com/Factsheet ... .asp?ID=30

[pedzola]

I'm beginning to feel bad for having any fish at all. I guess the best I can do is try to provide the best for my fish.

[mikev]

I felt sorry for the fish many times in the stores ... but there is one I feel most sorry about:

A small family-owned fs around here has a Pacu, who is not for sale, but the very long-standing attribute of the store. The tank even lists his birth date mm/dd/1970, and, according to the owner, he actually spent most of his life in the store. The problem is that the tank he is in is less than twice as long as the fish (the fish is HUGE), so he can barely turn around...for decades. Now, I really know nothing about Pacu's but this one looked sad....

[pedzola]

That must be a miserable existance... living in a space barely large enough to turn around, for 35 years.

If thats not animal cruelty then I don't know what is.