FishProfiles.com Message Forums

Damnit, this is the brand of well thought out discussion that I like .

I completely agree that one cannot stand sessile, which is what I had previously imparted. Thusly, attempting to right wrongs via dispensing sound aquarium advice, regardless of whether it is presumed to help or not, has greater efficacy than would standing immobile. The point in question, however, is that said shopowners and breeders are the people that retain the goods, and thus, will dictate how they will are dispersed (maltreatment or otherwise); there is little hope for the idyllic world of which you speak, as the market will not acknowledge it, and governmental proceedings will be non-extant. Most hobbyists just don’t share your sense of compassion, which is unfortunate. Even if something WAS to be executed, how would it’s gears be turned? If you’ve ever lost a fish as the upshot of poor or erroneous care, then you would yourself be subject to these ideals, amirite?

“This site is certainly a repository of information, but it has less info than say -one issue of baench aquarium atlas. It cannot be compared to the kind of worldwide accurate database I would like to see implemented, although we could pull our fingers out, and get working on making it much more significant than it is.I for one am happy to contribute.”

Not merely this site, but hundreds of other specialized hobbyist sites, many far more dedicated to their respective fields of study than even your said aquarium atlas. The proposed database is both inefficient monetarily as it is by a hobbyist standpoint. The hobby does not need such a collective database of hobbyist efforts; contribution will be low/mediocre at best, inconsistencies will be troublesome to spot, and it will be recognized by few indivduals. The material that encompasses the hobby is already stored preciously within each and every hobbyist around. This wealth of information can easily be obtained by enquiring for it; therefore, even these forums could hold million of topical expertises (now take a look at those specialist forums, such as PC; then you’ve got yourself an idea of how easy it is to find material even without said database), and is far more interactive than a posted record. Fishbase, technically, can already be deliberated as a cumulative effort corresponding to the catalog you so desire.

“As to the point of reiterated information, I have no problem with it, or its quality, except of course you run the risk of regurgitated information written by people with no experience of keeping the actual species.”

That’s the idea. However, this information is regurgitated as a result of at least one individual having raised the species in question. Any scrap of correct-albeit-oft-repeated information is better than none.

Helpful.
Good knowlegde on Fish.
Friendly.
Good Prices.
Healthy Fish.
A good variaty of Fish.


http://uk.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/s8xi5heh/my_photos
http://www.geocities.com/s8xi5heh/classic_blue.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/buzaqq/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/corydoras/
Member of the Malta Aquarist Society - 1970.
http://www.maltaaquarist.com

While I do agree that misinformation is conceivably fatal, it need not apply to said instance. PH is hardly as issue; not only is pH rarely resultant in ichthyoidal death (pH shock is a morphological bystander of rapid pH change, not unsuitable pH itself-fish can adapt to a wide level of TDS differences), appropriate conditions are easily traceable to said fish’s locality of origin. However, for appropriate material to be cycled throughout the hobby, year after year, necessitates that it must at least to some extent, be immersed in truth. Scientific grants have no business in the pet industry; they have far more important, or rather, profitable locales of research in mind. Hobbyists, moreover, are, IMO, quite capable of handling themselves; it largely depends on the site and the methodologies of the individuals present. Fishprofiles, as a whole, deals not with scientific niceties of the hobby, but rather, on the enjoyment and contented keeping of fish. Other sites are more devoted towards both the material and the depth (but they generally lack the atmosphere to harbor enjoyable discussion; it’s mostly scientific ramble). These are amongst the best locations where one can hope to obtain an understanding of the proper methods for specialized fish care. In fact, I highly doubt many scientists could deduce such ingenious methods of breeding/care (lixothus and related genera digging their own caves with the aide of a half submerged milk jug? Get out!) without years of trial and error—the scientific mind merely contains physiological understanding of the creature, not necessarily how to properly raise it. As I had put forth earlier, if you’re looking for a purely scientific database, you’ve already got one; fishbase.org.



“Would a site as I propose really be more e to error than an internet site set up by just anyone? I think not.”

Even well funded primarily scientific sites such as fishbase contain numerous errors, unearthed by the devoted hobbyists that care for those respective species. Errors are just as likely to occur in a scientifically monitored catalogue as in a highly contributive hobbyist site.

“Idealism yes. Expensive? Quite possibly, but impossible? No.”

Again, I say; your ideologies are quite interesting and would most definitely benefit many a fish. However, the thing is, while necessity may in fact be the mother of invention, there IS no necessity for said amendments. Few people see the essentiality of your quest for fish rights, as noble as the cause may be.

I, myself, work at a popular pet chain store. I have become completely disturbed by all the things that go on in the store. Since I have a love for fish and other animals, I thought what better place is there to be then to be surrounded by them all day. As soon as I began working their I quickly noticed how dumb(is there a better word?) the customers really are. The typical customers lurking around the fish isles are a small group of kids and a mother. The kids whine and plea for some fish. The mother really just wants them to get off her back. She doesnt want a big mess or a lot of work, she just wants something to shut the kids up. So she grabs the cheapest starter kit bowl on the shelf and approaches me asking "how many of those fish can I put in here?" I have become completey distressed from this scenario. All day I'm being asked that question. People try to cram the most fish in the smallest aquarium, or bowl I should say, instead of going larger. The parents really dont want the whole kids "fish-fad" to turn into anything big or inconvenient. People give me weird faces when I explain to them about frequent water changes or how big that oscar or bala shark really gets. They want to do the bare minimum as far as cleaning and expenses goes and cannot logically reason why a few goldfish cant be tossed in a bowl. "They can fit in their!" seems to be most customers thought process, with very few exceptions.

I do not make commission on fish. Heck, I barely get paid over minimum wage. People think I purposely try to sell them things for my benefit. For example, "Sir it's really best to keep those tetras in schools of atleast 6 or more." I really dont personally benefit from asking them to buy more fish. They always come to me saying, "I'll take one of those fish, one of those, one of those, and also one of those." I hesitate and do my best to dissuade them without causing a scene.

I also do not believe it is the pet store associates fault for not informing customers about the fish they buy or compatibility issues. Customers should do their own research instead of relying solely on one associate. It becomes exhausting when I repeat things all day to unknowledgable people. Especially when its really busy on the weekends, customers will get mad if they have to wait for more than 5 minutes. When I have a line of people waiting for me I dont have time to explain how to set up a whole aquarium, cycle it, how many and what type of fish to add, etc. They should do their own homework. Associates should simply be "recommenders." For example a customer could say, "I know I need a filter for my tank, which kind do you recommend?" And then I'd tell them my own personal experiences, the differences between some of the brands, and marketing tricks. I really feel pet store employees are overworked and underpaid, I dont think you should give them a hard time.

I practically didnt even have a training process like I expected. They dont even test our knowledge of the fish to get hired. There's really no prerequisite. That dumb little book they gave me when I got hired didnt help me at all. Fish care is so in depth that I had to do my own research, and I'm still learning. I was expecting so much more.

In conclusion, which I cant believe you actually read everything I wrote, I just wanted to share my personal thoughts as a pet store employee.

Last edited by fish007 at 05-Oct-2005 21:06

Brain ... hurts ...

Great discussion! I'm looking forward to reading the Article!

Wow.... GREAT responces. HOWEVER, I need to point this out; some of you are listing things for a PERFECT store.

some of you do not know many basic concepts of running a store. Just because a store may charge 200% of what they pay for mechandise, does not mean they make a 100% profit. Most stores cannot afford to hire multiple marine-biologists, charge reasonable prices, AND stay open. They have to pay employees, electric bills, WATER BILLS, rent, taxes, workers comp, the loan to build the store in the first place, etc.. And those are only the neccessities. That doesn't include advertisement, uniforms, display tanks, lose from sales, etc.. This is why most fish stores do not have very knowledgeable staff. Do you think college grads are lining up to use their 4 year degree to work in retail?

Also, keep in mind. FISH DIE. No matter what level of care any store provides, fish will die. The numbers of fish alone say that statistically, stores should have dead fish. Yes, there is a different between a store with a total of 10 dead fish throughtout the store, and an average of 10 dead fish per tank throughout the store. Also, if one tank has a lot of dead fish, but no other tank does, the chances are, it is no the stores fault. Fish go through a LOT of stress before they get to the store, fragile fish tend to die.

Also, those who say, "The store should have this, this, this, and this" need to cosider money. Space costs, and to many store owners, space without merchandise is space wasted. Yes, a refrence area or some books or the like isn't, in my opinion, too much of a waste, but to some, having a LIBRARY per say, may be.

Also, some of you said things about good customer service. Well, what IS good customer cervice? There is no solid answer! What one person thinks is great service may be horrible to others. From working in retail, I know there are customers that want to be waited on, hand and foot, and others who wish to be left alone, to those who expect the employees to telapathically know when they want help! So what can a store do? Have each customer tell us when they walk in what kind of service they want?

Along the lines of customer service issues is ability to do so. Mainly, number of staff vs. number of customers. No one really knows how many people will walk through the doors any day. Yes, you can predict that if there are sales, customers will come, but on any random day, who can really tell? In general, you can guess based on the day of the week, but whos to say that there wont be a rush of people all at once?

If there is a rush, there are customers who get frustraited that the people who came in BEFORE them are being help before them!! (wow, what a concept, first come first serve, who'd a thunk it ) I've seen so many people mad because the store was busy, and person A, B, C, and D are waiting to be helped, and person E just walked through the door and is not immediately being helped.

Yes, it would be nice to see a PERFECT store, but we will have to wait until they build perfect. Please keep these comming.

A variety of fish availiable at all sizes.
Tanks are properly maintained and stocked appropriately.
Friendly staff who works on the tanks instead of just standing there when not serving customers.
Know the details of their water parameter and fish info.

At another lfs close to me, I asked them what is their pH.
To which they answer, "around 6.5 to 7."
That was the last time I bought any fish there.]

JQW

It would be nice to be able to stock fish at different sizes, but remember, thats a lot of space. Lets say a store just carried a small, medium, and large of every fish. That would double, if not, TRIPLE, the stock of a store. Where is the stock going to get that space? They either have to add more tanks, or rid themselves of stock, and limit the variety.

ALSO, from working at fish stores, most large fish don't sell as much as their babys. Baby oscars sell like hot cakes, but adult oscars usually stay in the store for about months, usually until a worker/manager takes it home to make room for fish.

Also, most stores don't have wet tanks over 75 gallons. Ocasionally, they will have a couple "large" tanks, but the largest average I've seen was 75 gallons.

I don't worry about what they have in stock, because I know after talking to the very knowledgeable and helpful gentleman at my LFS that they can only stock what they can sell. I felt 100% confident in this store when he told me he could order anything I needed in the way of fish. they're already paying the shipping on fish with the order that the store regularly makes, so I would just pay the cost of the fish. What a deal, if I ordered the fish I was looking for on aquabid or liveaquaria I would have to pay tons of shipping, but I can get through my LFS (usually) if I just ask--without worrying about the shipping. That is awesome. This LFS has been very good to me and very helpful, I will continue to patronize tehm ever if they are a little bit higher priced than other places....doesn't matter, I make up the difference in cost in quality of service.


Last edited by crazyred at 24-Oct-2005 10:45

Last edited by crazyred at 24-Oct-2005 10:46

---

~~Melissa~~
"Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

To noodles, I would say theres a few strange comments there.Ok the comment on ph, we know fish can handle (but only in some cases) a wide range of ph,but the periodical dumping of fish in batches into locations with wildly differing ph in pet shops and importers is nothing that could be equated with acclimating fish gradually (and therefore safely) into differing water values. In addition its also bad culture to do so, as most species will gain no benefit from being forced into the process,some will die, and when we know as much as possible for fish we should be emulating the wild conditions, isnt it plain bad fishkeeping to keep encouraging people to test the ph limits of their fish? Its certainly not rocket science to adjust ph, or especially costly in the scheme of things, so why not get it right? The loss of a few fish on the way being largely insignificant can hardly be a legitimate excuse for keeping up practises its easily within our power to improve upon, especially as when you add up the number of fish deaths across a country as a result its starts to look a lot less insignificant. Suppose you get one or two fish dead per week in a shop that carries 500- 1000 fish.Add to that the total number of dead in all the shops , (say 30,000 shops- dont forget that theres a petshop that carries fish in almost every town or city in the western world, and some cities will have many) and then multiply that by the amount of similar countries- say 40 or so. Thats 240,0000 fish per week , stone cold dead for no reason except penny pinching and laziness.Fish deaths as a result of stress from incorrect ph are completely needless and as such should be avoided. Quarter of a million dead fish in a week is globally insignificant by the pet trades standards, but it doesnt feel all that insignificant to me. Im not blaming the blanket filtration systems in shops as the only cause , but its sure as hell not going to lessen the culture, and its not as if ph is the only water quality issue we're looking at here. What about carbonate hardness? How about oxygenation? Theres still very much the issue of disease too. The problem is the pet trade isnt regulated well enough in regards to fish deaths per head of the buying public anyway. The huge eventual death totals are not subject to specific enough breakdowns as to causes, and most aquarists will suffer "mystery deaths" in regards to their charges, so at what point can we afford to be keeping fish under blanket water conditions when we know that by and large its contrary to their biological needs. In our situation can we afford to do anything other than act preventatively?

Second, science is already integral to the fishkeeping hobby. The fish industry is a multibillion dollar industry and youll probably find that the impact it has on international trade is not far off being comperable with that of pharmaceutical companies, and commercial fisheries etc. Vetinary sciences are often at the forefront of any given keepers armoury of tools , and a good number of both common and unusual treatments will have been tried and tested as effective with vets in conjunction with hobbyists.The vets will on and off be in communication with the manufacturers of medicinal products, and their own research community and governing bodies, and by proxy, large numbers of the scientific community. Fish anatomy and the understanding thereof will unboutedly come from the pure research areas of science, as will accurate taxonomy, figures on regional distribution and so forth. Without this contribution from pure science huge numbers of keepers would have considerable less success in keeping fish. A lot of keeping information will have been collected by zoos, researchers,field biologists, pharmaceutical companies, and educational colleges. Sciences already work both directly and indirectly with the pet trade.To say there is no monetary incentive to do so is ridiculous. What precisely is your objection to closer working bonds between the hobbyist and the scientific community? All im suggesting is that these bonds could be strengthened and a more positive attiutude be encouraged so that scientists working with hobbyists enjoy more direct 2 way communication and feedback. There is no need for the two cultures to beaurocratically alienate one another. If the production and consultation involved in a database as I recommended does become effective there would be a huge amount of mediation between the chaff that some hobbyists may contribute and the huge amount of raw data produced by scientists to be edited, and better networked as to relevance. After all science is about understanding as well as profit, and this pertains also to the interests of commercial pet suppliers and the average hobbyis to varying degrees. Perhaps the process would help you to see the relevance of "scientific niceties". It might be nice for scientists to see their research be put to another effective and appreciable result, it might encourage hobbyists to see their theories and experiences tested and proven in a quantifiable way. They would no longer need to be unrecognised.

Its unfair to say that most scientists wont have a long term perspective on the maintenance of fish because in many areas of research the nature of that research will dictate that wild animals are taken and kept alive for extended periods of time and even bred. The information certainly isnt exclusive to scientists, some talented fishkeepers may get similar results , but a lot of the time scientific research will be testing , collating , and documenting and distributing the findings they get with a much higher degree of certainty, technical knowledge and available equipment and some thorough documentation protocols. If you think most fishkeepers can rival that degree of accuracy youre kidding yourself. Most scientists start from a higher level of knowledge base and finish on a much much higher level of resultdue to the reliability of their evidentiary chain of information reporting.Half the people I know are barely able to dehumanise their fish, let alone make accurate biological observations and make proper objective documentation.

Its an intelligence issue, and thats why most people are not research scientists. Most people outside of surgical and biological sciences will not have the deficiency of conscience required to abuse the fish methodically to get the hard data.They also wouldnt have the resource budget or the size selection of specimens and groups of specimens from which to make average comparative results for any given singular experiment. Not that some of them wouldnt abuse the fish out of laziness or cheapskate-ism. Theres a huge difference in the type of information a hobbyist can provide in comparison to scientific research. Both are valuable , but lets not pretend that the fish hobby can get along without, or would have come as far as it has without the contribution of the scientific community.

So in short I would say that "scientific niceties" is a strange way of putting things. Ive never believed that dumbing down is the way forward and if more people had a slightly more scientific approach to their fish keeping and studying it would be helpful. I think a lot of what I was originally talking about was about bridging the gap between hobbyists and scientists so that we both no more about each others work and that the hobby of fishkeeping could be improved by and better monitored by those with both hard data and the best experience.

I guess its just a personal opinion but I think I would have more faith in an organisation designed with a clear mission statement to the furthering of the hobby and to its improvement in terms of information distribution and consultation with international government support and an independant governing body than I would with the half-measures typically implemented from within an already corrupt industry with needs that contravene many of the principles of good animal keeping.I also appreciate that any given hobbyists perspective may also not be good grounds from which to start, hence the need for impartiality . Im fussy that way

To fish007 - lol, ive no problem reading a 10000 times as much as I write, so no problem, your passage was interesting and full of valid observations- keep it up!

This is exactly the kind of personal conflict that the current state of the trade produces, neither you or I are content with the situation, and your experiences mirror much of what I have said, and I have seen first hand many of the problems you describe. I have pretty much done to death what I would propose, but Id love to hear your opinion on the matter as to what you believe would really help.It also highlights one of those issues ive long had problems with, and that is the fact that pet superstores are not really suitable places for the selling of trickier species like fish and reptiles. A dedicated aquatic shop with a smaller customer base, with a higher proportion of hobbyists frequenting the place is by nature of its own culture a much better place to buy fish, and to meet people like minded in the pursuit of happier fish.

So another question, should we be encouraging pet superstores to increase their range of exotics as the culture seems naturally to be doing , or should we nip it in the bud. We could do it ethically with legislation or simply vote with our purchasing power, by going to the specialist shops and paying the higher prices. What would you do?


Last edited by longhairedgit at 07-Oct-2005 11:41

Righty then- if I may invoke the ancient tradition of pantomime language. OH NO IT ISNT. lol.

ONE piece of information thats innacurate- feeding , ph, temperature etc can lead to the death of fish/s . It only takes one error be perpetuated in the mind of someone who knows no better for information to become counterproductive, this is why I say there needs to be an official international database with government support led by the best scientific minds. The whole problem with leaving it entirely in the hands of hobbyists is that you have the situation we are in now- and that is a huge number of sites and publications that offer contradictory information that a beginner will not know from truth or fiction.

What I was proposing was that there be a definite database organised specifically with the purposes of being definitive, thusly checked and rechecked and issued yearly with amendments . I wouldnt say anyone need be excluded from contributing to it, but it would be so well checked that information provided by nerks and charlatans would be detected and edited accordingly. In addition it would also centralise information internationally and it could be well known as THE place you need to go for reliable information.It could be a charity with business sponsorship and an independant governing body. It could offer certification for training and standards to all shops of a suitable calibre rather like other industries have like kitemarks for quality etc. It would be in the interest of shops and businesses to comply with the regulations and guidelines they are promoting as it would be a guarantee of quality for the consumer.

There would be no need for this service to exclude other sites ad forums or clubs as people will always want to communicate in an interactive way. It would be helpful if these organisations would deem themselves worthy of contributing to it for the greater good.certainly any forum sharing any information can be useful, often things start from humble beginnings , but what im talking about is the kind of communication that eliminates the need for repetition and a solid information database based on tested theory and practice not quite so open to mistakes or erroneous individual opinion as most unregulated sites are.

Im not knocking the efforts everyone makes, but there should be a way to preserve and communicate it in a way where a person looking for information has a guarantee of quality. Would a site as I propose really be more e to error than an internet site set up by just anyone? I think not.

We live in a culture where the single sheet of information per species is the norm, and since any given fishes habits, lifespan, and existence cannot be accurately described in such a short volume, it should be obvious we are dumbing down for bad readers and those with limited attention spans and its bad culture, and the more enlightened among us will know there is infinately more to it than that.We should be addressing this. People can always exract the essentials from a longer text as required but we need instantly accessible information for those who need to know more, and for those who didnt even know they needed to know more.This would help ensure that little one page printout from a petsmart or similar wasnt all they thought they needed to know.Sure people can buy weighty tomes of information, but its sure as hell not free, and there is a huge gulf of difference in the quality of a fine aquarium book and some crappy single page sheet.We would be helping to bridge the gap.

Idealism yes. Expensive? Quite possibly, but impossible? No.

As for it happening, why should it not be possible. Form follows fuction as they say and neccesity is indeed often the mother of invention. We have need. It could happen.It might only take one altruistic millionairre , a dedicated group of individuals or an unusually concerned government to get the ball rolling.If in 5 to 10 years this database appeared we could all experience massive benefit. Why fight the idea? Pessimism rarely ever gets anything done, and if the human race is guilty of anything its usually shootIng a little low on idealism. I for one am certainly not the biggest believer in the good of human nature( you guessed huh?), I certainly dont trust beginners to widen their horizons and get things right or have a good approach to aquaculture on the whole, but thinking that they will sort themselves out with a little advice from us- THAT would be raging optimism. Trusting governments and businesses to do the right thing without a considerable social and morally enforced push or a major reason to do so- That too would be insane optimism.

Thinking that we can do nothing to prevent problems letigiously or through good global standard information circulation - that would be total pessimism. So I think encouraging people who love fish, love reading about fish, love observing and studying fish (we are legion after all) to contribute to an authoratitive database and hope that it will serve as a reference point for the law and enthusiasts, shops and businesses to work from would neither be mindless pessimism or optimism, but a balanced chance against overwhelming odds. Id consider it worth a go. It has a seed that might just take.I want something so definitive as a data resource that governments are unable to take their usual stance and say that they cannot make informed judgements . I want stores and suppliers to have not only a resource of hard data that highlights the problems but gives rise to alternative solutions, and I want every beginner to know he or she can go somewhere and get all they need to know from one place.We want a mechanism for change but are afraid to provide it. THIS is a mechanism for change.

I'll get off my soapbox now .




Last edited by longhairedgit at 05-Oct-2005 12:02

ok, thats another good response all well thought out, but Id have to disagree on a number of points in a few areas of subtlety. On the moral responsibility taking its toll bit- while I realise that good keepers in shops will bear a moral burden because of the losses they know to occur (like our good buddy sirbooks for example) I do admire their stalwart approach and continuing tenacity in adverse conditions.But I cannot agree that the fragile hearted amonst us shy away from bearing witness to the abusive situation of petkeeping. Even should they not choose a profession in the pet industry they do not have to shy away from the issues and can do something pro-actively to aid the situation. Leaving the situation to be handled purely by a few brave souls and a lot of joe bloggs profiteering people with a deficiency of conscience is not the way forward. I guess what im saying is that it is a collective responsibilty for all of society to handle.We cant afford to let people only involved at breeders , shops , and suppliers make the only decisions as it is a conflict of interest and pretty much the situation we already find ourselves in. There would be no change or improvement.We have a responsibilty to educate people, and then ask them their considered view. Allowing the pet trade itself to continue as the main reference point for peoples attitudes to fishkeeping is not acceptable.

This site is certainly a repository of information, but it has less info than say -one issue of baench aquarium atlas. It cannot be compared to the kind of worldwide accurate database I would like to see implemented, although we could pull our fingers out, and get working on making it much more significant than it is.I for one am happy to contribute.

As to the point of reiterated information, I have no problem with it, or its quality, except of course you run the risk of regurgitated information written by people with no experience of keeping the actual species. I will probably correct and add to some of the infomation on rainbowfish on the site, so we are openly encouraging improvement, and very democratically being open about the mechanism of improvement.But before this site is thought of as authoratitive we have some way to go. My problem is that no-one is making a significant enough effort internationally, and there are huge knowledge gaps from country to country and until its all down in hard copy or electronic copy in a fairly definitive and constantly updated yearly version, comprising information on all species known to science, a huge number of people (possibly even in the millions) will keep repeating the same mistakes.

Should such a definitive version come into existence it would be of huge aid to government bodies, allowing them to be consulted with , given the best information, and hopefully the upshot of this would be some good, inclusive , legislation.The drop in animal abuse could be geometric in terms of year on year impact.Take the campaigns on smoking for example- they are starting to be effective, and have had an impact certainly in the older agegroups, and while it is an important human issue, it is certainly of less significant ecological importance than say the killing of billions of fish. The earth would probably benefit from a few less human beings after all. Not that cancer sufferers would find that of any consolation, but at least people have always had the choice to smoke or not. Fish have never been given a choice.Point being is that an emotive issue can sell, and change things for the better.(ok I smoke myself- but as I said - its a personal choice, but certainly the passive smoking issue is the one that would be most likely to make me quit.) Why then should it be so difficult to change peoples attitudes to fishkeeping, especially as the emotive issue of the effect a persons behaviour can have on others (inclusive of fish) and the guilt issue is often enough to make people reconsider.

On the issue of blanket filtration in shops and stockists- Ok, I dont doubt that the levels of filtration they provide IS effective, very much so under most circumstances, but the bacterial infection and parasite risks, not to mention the species specific water conditions being ignored is still a significant issue to which no-one has provided a solution. You could use one of these filtration systems effectively if the entire setup was run for the benefit of certain fish from one or more compatible biotopes as regards water quality and parameters- but most shops largely wont do this, certainly Ive never seen one that does. We see discus, danios,cichlids, tetras and catfish etc, all on the same system, and we KNOW they have different water requirements, as regards temperature , ph, kh,etc. Effective filtration or not, there are other problems that huge filter systems with blanket conditions will cause fish, and the effects will be suffered by them and their new expectant owners.

How many people will be buying fish from a pet superstore with nice sparkly water thinking that shop was "oo so nice and clean" only to find that when they return it to normal water perameters described for the species it drops dead from shock, or at least has a very difficult period of establishment.

We are in a situation now that people have to recommend that fish are NOT kept in ideal water perameters for the species and that you have to match the water quality from the shop for at least the first few months, until acclimation, again making the job for the new or indeed even experienced hobbyist that much harder.We have to do this because we know that if you change the perameters quickly the fish will die, and if we dont change them the fish will be dying anyway eventually. Then once the fish is established or acclimating it may show symptoms of disease or parasite that isnt even normal for its species , or which clearly wasnt apparent in the specific tank you selected it from. It may catch a disease that it normally wouldnt outside of captivity, which will naturally be that much harder to treat.Bloody pet shops. The situation means that even having a good eye for fish disease and the advantage of years of experience is effectively wiped out except under a few blindingly obvious circumstances.It also means that now absolutely everyone but everyone has to perform quarantine on all thier fish, and while I appreciate that this is good practice and that most of us will already be doing it, the average beginner will not be doing it. Is it really worth all that to save a few bucks on the price of fish?

People have been encouraged to keep fish from different biotopes seperately for years, so that cross species infections are kept to a minimum , and to ensure each fish is kept in ideal conditions, thus promoting longevity and breeding success.What was the point of all that if stores all adopt the blanket filtration approach. I think a lot of experienced hobbyists would be horrified if they knew their precious lake malawi cichlid collection had been in the same water as little living disease factories like fancy goldfish.

Ok I know that major suppliers and stockists have always done this to some degree, and we should be stamping on that- not encouraging your lfs to go the same way.It almost feels like suppliers used to pass on the consequences of blanket water quality to the lfs's and let them take the hit, and then the lfs's are alleiviating themselves of responsibilty and passing it on directly to the consumer. Niiiiice. Nothing like not nipping a problem in the bud and passing it straight on instead is there?

Last edited by longhairedgit at 05-Oct-2005 10:54

Last edited by longhairedgit at 05-Oct-2005 11:01

Is there really such a marked need for self introspection? I for one am satisfied with my livestock; they are well fed, well housed, and breed regularly. That not being the thrust of the picture, allow me to argue my point. Law really has little, if any bearing upon the industry. I mean, seriously, the fact of the matter is that these fish are nothing more than objects of our interest—no laws will ever be erected towards ichthyoidal rights. The mere thought seems ludicrous. Am I saying that it is morally accurate? Perhaps not, but, it’s a given constituency, and will remain fact as long as the hobby persists. In fact, all of us here on these forums are urging forth the assumed “exploitation” of fish (we’ll leave that one for PETA ). Rather than distance oneself from this hobby, attempting to rectify it’s numerous wrongs seems like a more efficient and appropriate response to these troubles. If this means taking up residence in a LFS as an employee, then so be it—far better than watching from afar. And who’s to say that one’s advice isn’t heeded by responsible, devoted customers (these, furthermore, are oft the ones that return time and time again); having taken my advice, one of my customers managed to spawn L-260 (even before I have . The reality of life is that people need to make a living. If aquarium mechanisms are their collective specialties, then so be it. It cannot be helped. From what I’ve gathered, quite a few shopkeepers do in fact love the hobby, and do all that is within their abilities to empower customers with well versed aquarium technicalities. But again, the necessity of sustenance results in the unfortunate niceties regarding fish treatment As far as I can gather, a good portion of the animals rescued are indeed, put down. How is this not concurrent to the mentioned ideology of imminent destruction of biological life? From where I stand, it seems to be an exact match. Furthermore, when one says “animal abuse”, he or she is really only referring to endothermic maltreatment, thus disregarding a vast majority of the vertebrate population; there’s a big difference. If fish sufferance is such a stressful and troubling topic of discussion for you, then it’s probably best for your personal health that you distance yourself from it.

“A lot of the information even on this site has not been founded by the sites own members but is repeated and regurgitated information from decades of reading and the works of other hobbyists and scientists. Magazines and periodicals constantly "rediscover " keeping information and recycle it yearly. No-one is really collating this information into definitive versions and distributing it worldwide.”

The entire hobby, at least to my knowledge, is immersed heavily within a cumulative culture. Specimens are constantly being reclassified, reexamined. Fabricated information is being interchanged with up-to-the-minute truths. Every scrap of hobbyist data is fostered atop old ideas, enhanced by experience and research. This site is maintained to be used as a resource for aquarists; should a viewer obtain a particular species that he or she knows nothing about, a corresponding profile should be called forth. Even if no other members have ever kept said species, a reiterated account of it’s rearing is better than none at all. If you take a look around, you’ll see that the internet harbors millions of firsthand accounts of fishkeeping; this, arguably, is a portion of the database so urgently called for. For the record, I’ve spent more money on individual fish than I have on my ipod.


EDIT: BTW, Large, multiple tank filtration units are very, very effective.



Last edited by Cup_of_Lifenoodles at 04-Oct-2005 23:56

After reading through your reply, I can think of a few policies that my ideal fish store would practice. Some of them may have already been mentioned, I can't remember all of the previous posts.

I'd like to see a system where the quality of each shipment of fish is evaluated and monitored for the duration of its stay in the shop. Information about the health, behavior and colors of the fish should be recorded and put on file. If too many of a type of fish from a certain supplier die or are ill, the management at the shop would know to switch to a different source for the fish in question (this relies on the store having access to multiple distributors). If the supplier's stock is of poor quality overall, then the store would no longer order their fish. This policy would enable a shop to carry healthier stock, which would cut down on deaths both in store and in the customers' tanks. The fish might end up costing more, but I think most people would not have a problem sacrificing a little money for better quality aquarium subjects. If enough businesses followed this, then suppliers would be forced to improve their live stock, or lose customers and money.

I would like to see seminars and training classes available for the public. These would help to educate customers about general facts of fishkeeping, make them less likely to do things the wrong way and kill fish, and perhaps whet their appetites for more knowledge and further involvement in the hobby. Also, I definitely feel that new pet shop employees should at least recieve general training about all of the live pets carried at their place of work. The above-mentioned classes could be a part of this. As time goes on and they've been working at the shop longer, they could be given required reading on more advanced topics, perhaps as a prerequisite for a raise or promotion. On this topic, I would also like to see increased wages across the board for pet store employees. The work is a bit more skilled than fast food, and requires knowledge in order to perform the job well. Higher pay means a larger pool of applicants, and also that employees would be more likely to stay on in the pet industry for a greater period of time. This leads to more experienced and able workers and managers, and will have an effect on the help that customers recieve.

I agree that legislation would be required in order to control how people at the top of the chain treat their animals. Collectors, importers and exporters have a huge impact on the health of every fish that they touch, and unfortunately many of these people/groups will skimp on care in order to make quick money. They are also often unwilling to change their ways, especially if their current practices are successful. Laws could force them into complying with policies that benefit the animals, and those who eventually recieve them. However, such legislation could be very difficult to enact, as just about everybody on the chain from collectors or breeders on down to the individual hobbyists would resist any laws that told them how to care for their animals. I'm sure that they feel they have a right to do things as they please, because they can claim that they are the ones who risk the loss of their own fish from their practices. I can really only see opposition to legislation from those who neglect to care properly for their animals, but this is definitely a great majority of aquarists. It would be a long and difficult road to pass any laws that benefit fish, and enforcement of the laws would be just as tough. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.

My belief is that we as knowlegeable aquarists have to start working on this by ourselves. From my readings in Tropical Fish Hobbyists, such organizations as the Marine Aquarium Council (http://www.aquariumcouncil.org/) make for a good start. We only have to build on this.

Last edited by sirbooks at 04-Oct-2005 20:31

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

That was by any standard a good answer, I totally appreciate the circumstances you work under.You are doing your bit as are many who contribute to this site, and Im certainly not knocking you for trying to improve things at your lfs.The thing is though, that I also understand to some degree the rather painful futility of your position,and how ultimately how disappointed you may end up having invested so much of your time improving things only to be defeated by the fishkeeping culture that generally already exists.Animals in your personal care may do well, but your commitment to looking after them after they leave your hands will always have to end to some degree.Looking after your part in the chain is a valid viewpoint, but after that point there will still be animal abuse, is there anything you would like to see implemented that might ensure animals go to better homes after your commitment to them is over?

The analogy of being a doctor for fish is descriptive but there are a few fundamental differences- the circumstances of the intake of patients is radically different. Most humans are pretty much ultimataly responsible for their own destinies. Fish are not free do do as they wish, some are collected in their countries of origin by physical force or by being stunned chemically. They are then transported to holding facilities under stress and inadequete water conditions and usually in mass overcrowding. Often after import the situation continues with the fish being mixed with other species either by shared water or tankspace. They are then redistributed and sent to shops, with the legacy of days or even months of life threatening abuse carried in their bodies.Then they reach you, and to your credit , you do your best to help them recover and restablish themselves in the limited time you have. Then the fish go on to the lottery of finding a good home. The odds are against them.

The situation is actually more like you being (no disrespect intended) a prison camp doctor or a red cross doctor in a wartorn region of the world where there are no civic rights. You try your best and bless you for it, but even being the best doctor in the world you will make no difference to most and a small difference to a few.


What changes in the law or keeping practices would you like to see implemented to make doing your job conscientiously humane and more easy in regards to good animal keeping and husbandry ? What do you think would be good steps to improve the situation? Would you find any legislation supportive of you in your current situation, and if so , what would it be?


There must be loads of scope on this- after all animals arrive from breeders , importers and supply houses either diseased or suffering from the results of poor preparation for transport. Forcing them to improve things might effectively reduce the amount of quarantining and disposing of terminally ill fish that you will have to do in your career, what would help you there?

After all things could be handled many ways. We could create blanket laws that create a restrictive situation under which it is more difficult for animal abuse to be perpetrated , but leads to less freedom for the fish business and individual keepers, or we could encourage support for people in individual partitions of the business like yours to help them do their job with greater care and less financial and cultural resistance, or we could simply continue as we are doing and hope attitudes change.

What would be your chosen course of action?

As to crazyreds comment- he is of course absolutely correct- it sickens me too that shops should have one huge filtration system when they stock fish from a multitude of different biotopes, all requiring different salinities, kh, ph, temperatures, and other chemical levels. It makes establishing fish bought from these shops incredibly difficult, as returning these fish to the normal water perameters for the species can result in shock, and this probably results in the deaths of thousands of fish. Even where rampant disease spread isnt a problem you know that these shops must be using blanket medications untested on a huge number of species. This probably contributes to a huge amount of unexplainable deaths.It also radically increases the likelyhood of fish from different biotopes being exposed to diseases and parasites never normally encountered by a given species, to which they have no resistance.

Even in your lfs where they might have tanks with individual filtration its entirely possible that they recieve fish from breeders and stocking warehouses where fish have already been kept under similar conditions. Its a huge problem and one which more people should be aware of.

As to the question of relevance of the debate myself and sirbooks are openly having- it is most relevant to the original question as we are taking on the fundamentals of the subject, and not limiting ourselves to small improvements but looking at ways from which we could improve the situation in lfs's generally.

I think its obvious that lfs's will need help from all aspect of the businesses and suppliers they work with to provide the service and care we are looking for, and while peoples individual niggles and bugbears are valid in the current situation, we should not turn a blind eye to the potential benefits of a radical change in outlook.



Last edited by longhairedgit at 04-Oct-2005 06:24

Off-topic. Just work around us.

"You know that a huge proportion of the fish you sell will die prematurely in the hands of irresponsible and just plain bad keepers, probably more than half of those fish will die in a fairly short time period,and that no matter how much advice you give, and despite your very best , consistant and conscientious efforts this will probably always be the case. So knowing that despite your best intentions you are part of a selling machine that is directly and indirectly responsible for the thousands of cases of fish deaths and suffering every year."

Of course, but I reduce the volume of deaths that occur related to my shop. If I went in and quit right now, fish which have been in our tanks would die at an even greater rate, and I would be standing by and allowing it to happen. Doing nothing when I could be helping to rectify the situation in my own little ways would be morally wrong. It's like voting in an election. The one vote that you are allowed to cast is watered down by that of many other people, but it contributes just a little bit to those who you think are most fit to hold office. In my eyes, not voting in an election is the same type of wrongdoing as not doing my job and pretending that fish don't die every day regardless. I'm just one person pushing against a huge tide of wrongs in our hobby, but at least I'm trying. I really don't see anything morally wrong with my job.

Doctors have a hand in many deaths (intentionally through ending life support and unintentionally), and often have had to tell people that their illness/disease is terminal. That does not make them bad people; I think we can agree that they try to do their part in helping humanity. Some are better than others at this, but they all do try to chip in. I am far from being a doctor, but I also work towards improving the lot of my charges. They just happen to be fish and other assorted critters.

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

Boy, I've seen a lot of GREAT things discussed here, but I have to throw one in that I don't think I've seen yet (maybe it was there I just missed it.) Amazingly enough it's kind of simple. I look at how their tanks are filtered. I try to stick with stores that have individually filtered tanks rather than a huge, central filtration system. This is important because if ick or any other disease breaks out in one tank the central filtration system has the potential to take to all the tanks, but tanks that are individually filtered can be shut down and the disease isolated. The LFS I go to now doesn't have the best selection, but the thing is their fish are very healthy, because their tanks aren't on central, mass filtration. I've had problem with stores that are.

---

~~Melissa~~
"Beauty is in the eye of the beer holder."

I getcha sirbooks, but the measures I suggested of course would be difficult, -its all "ideal world stuff".

One thing I would say in the defence of the animal lovers not working in pet shops is this.I would ask the question - You know that a huge proportion of the fish you sell will die prematurely in the hands of irresponsible and just plain bad keepers, probably more than half of those fish will die in a fairly short time period,and that no matter how much advice you give, and despite your very best , consistant and conscientious efforts this will probably always be the case. So knowing that despite your best intentions you are part of a selling machine that is directly and indirectly responsible for the thousands of cases of fish deaths and suffering every year. The culture of this abuse will not change until the law addresses it, and even then things will probably not be great as enforcement of law will be expensive , but the culture will not change on its own because if it could , it would have done already.What im asking is, at what moral level or effective level do you consider the good advice you give actually makes an impact in a store situation, bearing in mind the time you have to give advice is limited . Does the fact that you try your best and still are destined to clearly and ultimately fail in saving great numbers of fish, and yet stay within an animal expoiting industry sit well with you? What I would say is, once as I did, if you take the issue and all its ramifications seriously, you have a bit of soul searching to do. Some people will come out on different sides, but when suffering is involved you have a duty to think about how much you like doing something versus every remotely empathic sense you have to the animals involved. Only when you have done that is an opinion on these matters no longer shallow. Im not judging people for their eventual decision, but most people dont think nearly hard enough or seriously enough on the issue. If people are just thinking, "i like fish , so ill sell fish" they should really look into it much, much, deeper. Even ex-animal rescuers such as myself in these situations have to look at what they really want to be doing, after all a lot of animal rescuers have to kill suffering animals (euthanise if you will)and thats not something everyone can take.In a way there is a parralel between the attitude of an animal rescuer and someone who gives good advice at pet shops, but dont kid yourself that its a direct parrallel, one is trying to be an improvement in a corrupt system but is still contributing to that system, the other just picks up the pieces and sees the real destruction at the end of it all. Theres a gulf in moral standing there.

Thats really the whole point. I was wondering when or if indeed at any point we might make a decision to use the law to prevent the suffering of fish, rather than keep "trying our best" and ultimately failing.

You know im playing devils advocate here, but its a point of fact we should be aware of. Animal abuse will continue until the decisions are taken out of our hands.

Ok , Im not saying that I too am not part of the problem as I buy fish from shops, in my youth I doubtless killed the odd fish through ignorance, and I will probably continue to buy fish.So im aware there is conflict of personal interest in the rules of conduct I set out earlier. I also know it would mean that a lot of shops would have to close. What I am saying is that I am not worthy of making the perfect moral choice as I want to keep fish, but what I am also sayiing is that if I were to continue to keep fish under the rules I proposed, not only would I be willing to pay higher prices, keep more limited stocks and variety of fish, and be held more accountable to the law for the priviledge of my hobby. I would also gain great personal satifaction from knowing that all required information was available to me, that wild populations werent being over exploited , and that nearly all the fish I purchased would be captive bred, largely disease free , and not from shops that literally bin thousands of fish every year. It would be a more exclusive hobby, not nearly as accessable to everyone, but I consider paying that price worth it in comparison to seeing an unregulated hobby grow and grow with unlimited potential for abuse and suffering.

Ok the fish hobbyist community, breeders and soforth really does come up with most of the keeping information, we know this to be true, but the point is a lot of the stuff we know today and believe is current was really discovered from as far back as the turn of the century,certainly this includes huge amounts of species accounts, and distribution, and locality information. While we have made improvements and established more species as we progress, improved technology and so on what we are not doing is really keeping a complete database of what has been earned. A lot of the information even on this site has not been founded by the sites own members but is repeated and regurgitated information from decades of reading and the works of other hobbyists and scientists. Magazines and periodicals constantly "rediscover " keeping information and recycle it yearly. No-one is really collating this information into definitive versions and distributing it worldwide. There are animal abuses happening worldwide because humans basically have small memories, viewpoints, and circles of communication.Point is, that someone somewhere will know how to look after that unsual fish in the shop, and if they know, the shop should. But they dont.We dont need to be revisiting the mistakes thousands of times over as we do already. We are in a situation where now we have huge amount of information on thousands of species, and people dont need to keep killing fish until they figure out how to establish them, the information should be available and shared freely. Beginner aquarists shouldnt be buying unusual species and with their limited experience trying to establish them. There is already more variety of fish in the stock of large aquarist shops than any one man can afford to keep in a lifetime,people are hardly short on choice. These unusual fish should be going to licensed breeders and researchers before they are released generally in the trade. You dont have to work in the industry to contribute, many zoos and animal rescues already delegate the keeping of excess stock to experienced private keepers.

The fish industry is a multibillion dollar industry in america alone, across asia and europe its just as huge. Out of all these billions of dollars are we really saying that there isnt a few million dollars available to coordinate research and build a comprehensive database and communicate it electronically? It could be done specifically with the aim of improving the industry and that could only improve the market for the industry.

If that means a guppie is a $1 instead of 40 cents does anyone really care?

Its the organisation that is lacking, that fish sellers have to take the impact is only because it isnt centrally organised from government. Theres no reason that people in fish shops have to be temporary or low paid staff, or that they need to omit training from their careers. In fact fish keeping and selling can be a long term career, it only needs a change in thought . Why should people pay several hundred quid for a piece of hardware like an ipod or similar that breaks in a few years or is outdated in 2 years and still regard a fish which is a living creature and infinitely more special, and may live several decades to be worth no more than a few $'s?

I think government legislation could help stop that trend, because frankly , we have failed to do it, and will continue to do so.

I want to continue to be able to own fish, reptiles, and other exotic pets, but im aware that the pet industry as a whole is a huge animal killing monster , but Im not saying its unfixable, but we might have to get more radical than most people estimate.We certainly cant go on as we have.

Isnt anyone else out there deeply saddened by the fact that we know for every fish we have in our much loved and well cared for aquaria there are hundreds of others out there choking to death, starving to death and dying from disease for no reason other than lack of information and irresponsible keepers?

There is a learning curve for every new aquarist, and what im saying is that most would have their chances of success significantly improved for several reasons , one the information would be improved, the shops would sell better stock, the price of fish alone would serve as a reminder that they are to be valued (sick as it may seem in my experience I have found that really makes a difference to a huge number of people). Finally it would lead to more experienced and permanent staffing at your lfs, in short people that could be better relied upon to do their best to cater to your needs and that of your fish.

If you dont believe the scale of the slaughter- take one group of animals - mediterranean tortoises.Tortoises are useful in that their longevity provides a nice way to prove a statistic. Since 1940 in the UK alone 8 million tortoises were imported to the uk. At a conservative estimate nearly 50% of these tortoises should still be alive today, meaning that they should be the one of the commonest pets in britian, as it stands it is estimated that less than one 1000th of that amount is still alive.

Then take into account the amount of fish imported worldwide to all countries every year for that same time period, much greater than tortoises to the tune of several hundred thousand per tortoise. Its entirely possible that the hobbyist death toll for fish alone is getting near the trillion mark on premature deaths.We seriously need to look at what were doing. We are possibly the best placed generation to do something about it in terms of global communication and technology.

The only things I can add as far as what makes a good store is a great staff (management and owners included) and a good selection of fish. A lot of the other things will follow, especially if the owner is really on the ball.

With that having been said, I have some problems with some of longhairedgit's statements.

"I dont think working in a fish shop is something somebody who truly loves animals with a genuine concern for their well-being would do."

I definitely disagree with this. I love fish in general and I think I care for my fish fairly well. I try to extend this to the fish at my work. I make decisions that benefit our stock, often correcting problems caused by the management. I also let managers know when there is something wrong in a tank and I am not allowed to fix it; and I make sure that they fix it the right way, making suggestions if I must. I like to believe that if I did not work where I work, many of the fish would not be in as good a condition as they are now. I also discourage many customers from buying fish based on size and compatibility issues, and help them make decisions on treating fish and buying chemicals (I sell a lot of bacterial starter products). That means I have an effect on many, many fish in my area, and I really do try to improve their lives.

Many of the suggestions you make would be impossible for small stores to implement. Sadly, additional training, information, and customer incentives cost more money than a number of businesses can afford. The shop where I work would lose money doing any of these things, and money does not flow very freely here. Also, I doubt that any fish store would be able to regulate customer purchases as you suggest. Not only would that lead to extra time taken away from the employees, but it would alienate many shoppers. That leads to some of them not returning, which affects finances. Additionally, many people are liars. Anybody who works at a pet store and tries to make recommendations to their customers is fed lies on a daily basis. Unfortunately, there is rarely any way to actually prove this; I can't go to somebody's house and see if they were telling the truth or not. It's impossible for even the largest store to hold customers accountable for their decisions besides possibly not selling them fish or refusing them advice in the future.

---

And when he gets to Heaven, to Saint Peter he will tell: "One more Marine reporting, Sir! I've served my time in Hell."

One lfs I like has a section of books that are not for sale but are available for reference use by both employees and customers. I think that's a great idea

~~~~~~~~~~~~
There is water at the bottom of the ocean