FishProfiles.com Message Forums

What I find sad is that organizations care about the fuzzy ones, but often don't give a blurb about conditions fish live in or are subjected to prior to sale. Would you buy a fuzzy from a store where there was a dead one in the cage next to the one you were getting? Or even in the same cage?

git, your idea for photoshop reminds me of the RSPCA campaign I saw on their site yesterday RE: tail doxing
.
A friend of mine got a min pincer that had it's tail and ears done, I thought it rather yucky.

I'd like to see the same effort that they're putting into the fuzzies put into tattooed fish, and improper advertising on "goldfish bowls", and tanks that display impractical and cruel fish stocking, and cruel transport practices.
Still just a WIP, but here's one I'm working on that might or might not need to be redone from scratch...

^_^

Attached Image:

Yeah thats the kind of thing I had in mind, I wonder if the owner of "tiny" the giant gourami would mind if we used his pic for our noble cause? Its just a great clear space for doing the photoshop work, which is unfortunately part of the reason white GG's get tatooed in the first place.

Im still looking for that perfect picture of a fish with a clear tattoo, and an advanced infection. Understandably shame prohibits most people from posting them on the net too often, but sooner later i'll find some.

I don't even understand why there is a market for these poor dyed or tattooed fish. Notwithstanding the cruelty of doing this to the fish, IMO the poor fish are rendered ugly in the process.

Why would anyone buy them - mainly as a point of principle, but as well as the poor fish IMO are now quite ugly.

It's beyond my understanding.

Cheers
TW

Yeah, even for dyed fish, those Mollies look like crap. It's a shame that the US seems to be lagging behind in preventing cruelty to animals compared to the UK and Australia. Tail-docking, ear-docking, declawing, and dyed fish are not only tolerated here, but in fact quite common in occurrence.

---

I'm not your neighbor, you Bakersfield trash.

Odd to hear that since on every other forum I go to everyone claims the US is ahead when it comes to animal care and laws.

I don't agree that tail docking, ear shaping, and declawing are at all the same. They don't have a high chance of killing the animal, put it in life long pain, or shorten it's lifespan. Sometimes such things are even necessary. Docking and ear shaping all had a true purpose at one time to keep the dog healthy while it was working. Having the tail ripped off is far worse than surgically removed ahead of time. I don't agree though with continuing to do it just for looks but for real working dogs it's sometimes a good idea. Declawing I don't agree with unless there is no other way but I know a few cats that were horrible scratchers. Carmel has done $500 of damage to the woodwork in my mom's house and recently shredded 2 corners on the new couch. After several $100s more spent on various types of claw covers and scratching posts along with trying every known type of training possible it nearly came down to declawing her or my mom was going to have her put down. Luckily I managed to reason with her and Carmel kept both her claws and her life but some people won't stand for it. I definitely wouldn't suggest anyone declaw but I'm not at all for making it illegal.

The things done to fish aren't even comparable. They have no purpose except looks. They don't help the animal avoid injury or illness in the future or make it easier for it to get along with humans. The fish could be kept just as well (far better actually) if it was never dyed. There is also a much higher rate of death and a much great impact on health than things done to other animals for look. Fish though can't yelp or mew in pain like a cat or dog so people don't even notice.

The thing is with tail docking as was mentioned in the article I linked to is that it isn't necessary. Some hunting dogs did have it done, others didnt.

What is really wrong is that you don't need a license to do it. Anyone can just cut off a piece of an animal, with or without anesthesia, or even clean tools. That's the same as saying just anyone can go and perform medical proceedures.

Back on topic....Unless the fish are marked as "dyed" often people don't know any better (). Not sure how many times I've been in a LFS and heard "oh these are pretty, look at the colors" ('grumble mutter'). It could have been the same person that didnt know there was a difference between fresh and saltwater fish .
Add to that intelligence level the fact that the word "dyed" conjurs up images of warm colored baths and natural inks that would safely color a fish.

^_^

In the uk almost no-one is allowed to do what is described as "an invasive " procedure on any species of animal, unless its an emergency situation, or a pest species (which rather shockingly you can kill on a whim) and frankly in this respect our laws are leaps ahead of some other countries, but farmers etc do get special dispensation for docking lambs tails etc, but this is a health issue.

The trouble is , is that fish dont have a lot of rights at the moment, and while they should in theory be protected against abuse in a general way it really needs a few landmark law cases of abuse to be proven in court. Im not a big fan of heavily letigious cultures at the best of times, but nothing makes shops back away from a product line more than the risk of being sued.

Im not one of those crazies who thinks that fishing etc need be stopped, but dyeing fish is pure torture for vanity's sake. Id really like to see it become solidly illegal.

You know, I guess that's one reason why there hasn't been many guidelines about fish, the whole fishing thing (that and the lack fo cute fur). I can't really see that companies would be that stupid that not a single person in the marketing department knows that goldfish don't belong in little bowls.
But back on the dyed fish issue, I'm sure the owners of shops know that it's painful for the fish to go through such a proceedure, that a good many of them likely die in the process, and yet they're willing to support such practices by purchasing them for their shops and for displaying them to the general public that may just be wandering in for a look. That "public" then carries this image of a brightly colored fish or a fish with words sketched into it "wow did you see that!" not even knowing that it's not natural and it just becomes accepted. I've often wanted to say something to a store owner, just never had the guts .

^_^

"If one considers the relative bore size of the injection needle with that of a glassfish, it would be the equivalent of us receiving several jabs using a needle of pencil-sized diameter - not a pleasant thought."

A quote I found from this site

I think that the reletive size of the needle has to be stressed when speaking to people. Even if you explain to them it's not a paintbrush that's "painting" the fish they simply think of the fact that plenty of humans have been tattooing themselves for millenia and they're fine so it can't really be that painful to the fish.....

^_^