FishProfiles.com Message Forums

it has been brought to my attention that people on this site have diff. ideas on painted, dyed, and dipped fish. tell me what you think

in my opinion, painting or dying of fish should be banned everywhere.

o boy.... just hear me out b4 u destroy me....

idk if i am pro or not for it, but these are points that i feel.
--


A) this topic gets to me b/c the fact is that most fishkeepers that preach to the choir about how it is bad, only know and believe that the adult fish is injected, and dont really know anything else about the topic. (This is nothing about the topic, but when i hear about this topic it gets annoying)

B) what about glow fish and madaka fish. These fishes are injected with jelly gene when they are in the egg form. Does this make it any more right or wrong than doing it on a adult fish? also what makes this more right or wrong if anything.

C) sometimes the way i see it is, it does get some new fishkeepers into fishkeeping.

D) also sometimes i feel that what right does someone have to tell me what fish i can or can;t get. given i know about the fish, unlike newer fishkeepers.

E) What about altering fish. Isn't this the same topic, as when us humans alter fishes to make them hybreds or long fin or different colors etc.... Isn't that all the same, why is it that altering fishes not an issue but changing the color is? My point is that i feel that it is always animal cruelty by altering fishes, or just taking them from the wild, so why do people only look at the part of this topic that involes injecting.

F)what about color enhanceing foods? i feed my parrots a red color enhancer, when a true parrot should turn from black to yellow.

G) colored parrots: i do have some, when they are here i dont inject them and with all fishes, the coloration usually only last a few months. does this make me a fish hater?


-- overall--

overall not saying that it is right or wrong, but why should this topic be more important than others when it comes to altering fish.

and just examples, i mean look at bettas. everyone thinks that wild fishes are long finned, but the fact is they dont know any better. and often they add theirs to a community tank with fin nippers and a strong curent and the fish isn't meant for this. part being the owners fault, but isn't it animal cruelty that bettas are being bred to have long fins. and in the wild it isn;t a natural adaptation so why is there no public out cry for this.

I do have a couple of what were sold as "coloured" tetra's. They are white skirt tetras. These were the first fish I bought when I started in the hobby and they caught my eye because of the "pretty" colours.

It never entered my mind that they weren't the natural colours. I'm sure that once people are educated on how these fish come to be the colours they are that they generally steer clear of buying them.

For me personally, it is something that I would not like to support in the future.

---

Those who say they cant, Never will !!!

In the case of the 'Glo Fish', these have been genetically engineered. The gene for the luminescent compound has been spliced into the genome of the fish. The techniques for doing this constitute cutting-edge medical science, and the techniques would not work if they caused damage to the embryo (which is pretty easy to damage). Having said that, there are, surely, better uses for the technology - such as enhancing disease resistance?

Dyed fishes, on the other hand, experience pretty rough treatment. Anyone who has had a tattoo will testify that it's pretty painful when the tattoo is being etched into one's skin. Imagine if the tattooist was using, instead of a fine needle, something the size of a ballpoint pen to inject the dye with. Somehow, I think tattooists would pretty soon go out of business (and probably face criminal prosecution) if they wielded such tools!

From the standpoint of the fish, however, this is what it's like if you're injected with dye. Don't forget that this is done, not in the surroundings of a medical or veterinary lab, but in conditions that are pretty crude by comparison to even a family doctor's practice. Plus, a lot of is is conducted in 'Third World' countries, where the baseline for hygeine is lower than in the West (in some cases alarmingly so). Other fishes are subjected to an 'etching' process, which involves the use of corrosive chemicals and other less than delightful tools, which results in damage to both slime coat and cutaneous layers. The process is, in effect, akin to taking a human being, stripping off a layer of epidermis with bleach, then sandpapering the stripped area with sandpaper dipped in paint. Not pretty to watch, and even less pretty to experience if you're the unfortunate subject of the experiment.

On the basis that fishkeepers are interested in the welfare of their charges, and want their fishes to be happy, healthy fishes, the above dyeing processes are, it should be fairly obvious, seriously at variance with even elementary considerations of health and well-being for the fishes. It should come as no surprise that fishes subject to such treatment are more e to disease, and tend to live shorter lives than fishes that are spared such treatment. On that basis, most reasonable people, once informed of the processes involved, would and indeed should find themselves in vigorous opposition to such methods. And, it should be fairly obvious from what I've just written where I stand here.

As for 'preaching to the choir', I make a point of trying to educate people outside the fishkeeping realm when the opportunity arises, particularly if those people express at least some degree of intent to become part of the fishkeeping realm in the near future. Every additional person made aware of the issues and given an understanding of such ideas as the basics of ecology and animal husbandry in a reasoned, calm manner, is one more foot soldier in the army of commonsense. Once there are enough of us, practices such as this will, hopefully, become a relic of history akin to bear baiting and the burning at the stake of so-called "witches".


Panda Catfish fan and keeper/breeder since Christmas 2002

B) what about glow fish and madaka fish. These fishes are injected with jelly gene when they are in the egg form. Does this make it any more right or wrong than doing it on a adult fish? also what makes this more right or wrong if anything.

Glow fish do not experience pain or a higher mortality rate because of the additional gene. Additionally, the gene was not inserted willy nilly by some guy trying to make a buck. They were created by biologists trying to find an environmentally friendly way of identifying polluted water ways. They are just as hardy and active as other danios.

C) sometimes the way i see it is, it does get some new fishkeepers into fishkeeping.

With fish that are stressed and not hardy. Having fish that will die no matter what you do right is not a good way to get someone into fishkeeping. Are you really comfortable with killing an animal in order to get someone into a hobby?

D) also sometimes i feel that what right does someone have to tell me what fish i can or can;t get. given i know about the fish, unlike newer fishkeepers.

Experience doesnt make you immune from constructive criticism. Frankly, I would hope an aquarist with any sort of experience would not support this hobby.

E) What about altering fish. Isn't this the same topic, as when us humans alter fishes to make them hybreds or long fin or different colors etc.... Isn't that all the same, why is it that altering fishes not an issue but changing the color is? My point is that i feel that it is always animal cruelty by altering fishes, or just taking them from the wild, so why do people only look at the part of this topic that involes injecting.

Hybridization and selective breeding are put in the same catagory with dying when they harm the animal. If the dyeing process wasnt inhumane, no one here would much care if other aquarists were doing it.

F)what about color enhanceing foods? i feed my parrots a red color enhancer, when a true parrot should turn from black to yellow.

They dont harm fish and are made from chemicals found naturally that just happen to affect the pigment of the scales when fed long enough. Not the same as sticking a needle full of synthetic(and possibly toxic) dye into a fish.

For fish to display their full potential of brilliant coloration, they must consume a diet high in carotenoid pigments--the same compounds that enhance the natural colors in vegetables, flowers, spirulina, and crayfish. Utilizing a full spectrum of carotenoid pigments, Total Color deepens the yellow, orange and red hues in your ornamental tropical fish, optimizing their coloration within four to six weeks of feeding.

The carotenoid pigments are found in carrots, which is why the noses of infants sometimes turn a yellowish or light orange color

G) colored parrots: i do have some, when they are here i dont inject them and with all fishes, the coloration usually only last a few months. does this make me a fish hater?

You are supporting the industry by buying dyed.

---------------------------------------------------

Chris, most of the arguments you made were comparing apples and oranges. This isnt about whether or not it is right changing a fish's natural appearence; it is about how one goes about doing it.

The process is not fun or humane. This topic is not about a pet owner's right, but about what we are obligated to do in order to properly care for an animal that is completely dependant upon us.

Why it cruel to dye(Practical FishKeeping)

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.


ETA: What Cali said...

I'll do graffiti,
If you sing to me in French.

http://www.deathbydyeing.org/

that is all you need to know. if you want to stop the selling of these poor fish, talk to your lfs. i asked a woman why they sold them and she said people wanted them. i told her the prosess and she was very upset. she almost cryed when i explaind about the acid dipping and the dye being lethal to humans and thats why its used only for fish. her supplier told her that they were fed fruits, the strawberry tetras were fed strawberry....... she no longer buys painted or dyed fish. if you want them to stop tell your lfs they might not even know.

Glofish are also not continually injected. New glofish can be made by breeding current glofish just like a normal danio. That is why I do not have a problem with them being sold. Perhaps the technology could be better used but the more it's used and tested the better they will get and the more uses they will begin to find. Dyed fish cannot be born that way. Each and everyone goes through the same process and the people doing it don't care so much whether the fish live or for how long so long as enough of them survive long enough to make a profit. It's definitely in the interest of scientists to have as many glofish survive for as long as possible and so they are careful not to cause harm, pain, or injury to the embryo and growing fry. People coming into the hobby should be taught proper fish care and should actually care about the lives of their pets as much as you should a cat, dog, or any other animal. They should also be made aware of how the dying and tatooing processes work. Any good fish hobbyist will not buy dyed fish after they learn what these fish go through. Those that do don't need to be in charge of another creatures life.

Hybrids are an entirely different topic. Any type of breeding that affects a fish or other animals quality of life is bad. Many hybrids cannot eat correctly or swim as easily as normal fish but you'll also find those problems in nonhybrids that have been bred for some specific look. Whether it's genetic engineering or just selective breeding it should only be done to improve the species in a way that benefits them instead of just for looks. Or least not affect them in anyway such as selectively breeding certain colors usually does no harm even though it doesn't benefit the fish. Examle: I do not agree with breeding bettas to have such long fins. It not only doesn't benefit the fish but makes it harder for them to swim and enjoy living in a larger open tank instead of in a tiny boring tank where they can only just wiggle their fins to move forward before running into the side.

if it gets done during the egg stage without harm to the fish like in the case of the makada fish is that better.

in relation to the glowfish, makada fish that have been injected are somehow made infertile, so if is done responcible so that the color enhanced fish can't breed with wild population, would you have a problem with that? and also these fish aren't beening harmed in the sense of needle in live fish.

we all have different opinion and personally fishkeepers that breed fish like guppies to use as feeders, isn't that animal cruelty also. JW

"we all have different opinion and personally fishkeepers that breed fish like guppies to use as feeders, isn't that animal cruelty also. JW"

Not anymore than a cheetah eating a gazelle. If your fish requires live food, its cruel not to feed it live. As long as the feeder guppies are cared for well until they are fed, I personally dont have a problem with it.

I'll do graffiti,
If you sing to me in French.

again, i am not saying that it is a good thing, but what i am saying is that i am not going to sign anything that will stop it, even though i know that it is bad. i find it that i should have the option to buy any fish that i want.
also from the bussiness standpoint, i will not never go to a lfs that has a painted fish as that is alittle unfair, while yesthey do have them, it isn't like they actually did it, while u can say they support it, thats fine, but i would hate to be a bussiness owner and have no bussiness just b/c they are already there, guess the only option would be to feed them to others...

some fish places do the prosses in house. when i started boy cotting a lfs this is what i told them. if people were injecting kittens or birds would that be ok, if pet stores were dipping puppys in acid and then into toxic ink just so there a diff color long enought to make money should you be able to buy those if you want to.
and as for feeder fish. i have frogs and geckos i feed them live bugs, i dont like it but i do it. i also have to snakes, i feed the prekilled mice, but sometimes to keep there instincs intact i feed the live lizared. wouldnt it be crul to not feed them what they need.

when i told my fav lfs the prosses she called her supplyer and had him take them back. she hasnt sold them since. her bussiness is doing just fine.

personally i have a problem when people buy 50 + guppies for a 10 gallon tank and try to breed them for food etc... but again no body says anything about that for cruelty.

"personally i have a problem when people buy 50 + guppies for a 10 gallon tank and try to breed them for food etc... but again no body says anything about that for cruelty."

Fifty guppies in a ten gallon is way overstocked. We discuss and discourage overstocked tanks all the time. If we didnt consider it cruel we wouldnt make such a fuss.

"but what i am saying is that i am not going to sign anything that will stop it, even though i know that it is bad. i find it that i should have the option to buy any fish that i want."

No one is saying that buying these fish should be made illegal. Its the act of dyeing them that is being opposed. Personally, I dont think anyone should be allowed to dip an animal in acid.

"also from the bussiness standpoint, i will not never go to a lfs that has a painted fish as that is alittle unfair, while yesthey do have them, it isn't like they actually did it, while u can say they support it, thats fine, but i would hate to be a bussiness owner and have no bussiness just b/c they are already there, guess the only option would be to feed them to others..."

Double negatives aside, a business owner can just stop stocking dyed fish. Then maybe advertise the change and the reasoning behind it. I would not stop visiting a LFS with dyed fish unless they knew what the fish went through and decided to keep them anyway. Many petstores are unaware of the dyeing process entails. Besides, you do not lose all of your business overnight. One would have to make the same mistake over and over to lose thier customers.



I'll do graffiti,
If you sing to me in French.

This is not an issue of a person's rights. Its an issue of animal rights. I firmly believe that no animal should be tortured to fit a human being's idea of "pretty". They do not deserve an acid bath or to be injected with toxic dye with a needle that leaves an open wound in the skin. And, no offense, but I cannot believe that anyone who truly loves their animals and animals in general would not be against this process.

I'll do graffiti,
If you sing to me in French.

Practical Fishkeeping magazine ran a campaign in the U.K. a few years back to encourage retailers not to carry dyed fish. As far as I've read, most retailers signed on, and few now sell the dyed animals. Perhaps we can convince TFH to do the same here in America? It's worth writing in for.

---

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

I do think that the dying, injecting, dipping, etc. is cruel, especially when done to the more intelligent fish such as oscars and giant gouramis, but it does annoy me when people compare injecting fish to beating dogs and such, i mean there is a big difference between the two. if you think about it, each day millions of fish much more intelligent than the painted tetras you see in pet stores are being eaten. im sure that the process before the fish are killed is just as cruel as when fish are dyed.

no more cruel then the way chickens, cows, pigs are killed. the reason why we as fish lover need to stand agenst it is because theres no one out there helping fish. if someone beats a dog the aspca come to take them away and the owner gets a fine. no one is out there helping bettas when there stuck in a bowl no bigger then a cup of water, or when lets say a fish is slapped on a table and injected with, what would be relative to a human being stuck with a pencil sized needle, and filled with poison dye just because it "looks pretty". inteligence has nothing to do with it. pain is still pain. slow death is still slow death. the prosses is no less wrong just because they arnt as inteligent. is a mentally challenged person less of a person because they have a lower IQ then you? and if you feel so bad for the fish we eat, go vegetarian.

and of course we are not admiring "nature" when we go for these "artificially made up" fish....... as i personally think that an aquarium is a display of nature's colors. (even if we keep the pain and cruelty things aside)

Intelligence does matter. lets say you were to swat a fly. would anyone care? i think not. but if you were to kill a human, would anyone care? i would hope so. why? because humans are more intelligent than that fly. therefore, we are considered of more importance. Do i think that a mentally challenged person is less important than any other human on this planet? of course not. but humans, as a whole, are the most intelligent animals in the animal kingdom, so we are of more importance when compared to other animals.

you also compare injecting fish to humans being stabbed with a pencil. how do you know that it hurts the fish as much as it would hurt us? we currently dont have the technology to interperate how much pain the fish feel.