Harlequin Shrimp, are they ethical???? - Page 2

revance · #26 10/13/2005, 10:07 PM

Actually, I think it is terrible we feed animals other animals. In my opinion all animals should be vegan. In fact, I have been working long and hard to convert many animals into vegans. My latest project has been my pet shark "nippy". I call him that because during his "conversion" he got quite moody and kept trying to "nip" me. Anyway, finally one day he settled down and has been doing great since. Heres a pic...

Cute little guy. He loves his carrots.

Reeses · #27 10/13/2005, 10:54 PM

another instance right here on reef central of a harmless debate getting way out of control...........

pbarrett won't want to come play ever again.

Reeses · #28 10/13/2005, 10:54 PM

sorry, accidently double posted

revance · #29 10/13/2005, 11:01 PM

Sorry, I am just joking around. No hard feelings meant to anyone.

Reeses · #30 10/13/2005, 11:06 PM

note my laughing emoticons......I seriously doubt that anyone would take it as anything other than what it was, which was just funny.

pisomojado · #31 10/14/2005, 09:44 AM

revance... hilarious picture

Edge · #32 10/14/2005, 05:23 PM

From reading the two pages of posts so far it seems that the original post was that it is unethical to feed wild caught stars to HS because the stars were labeled pets by the LFS and feeding a pet to another pet is unethical. In addition, the taking/killing of an animal from the wild to feed another animal is unethical.
I don't see how these arguments can stand. To argue the first point, I fail to see the difference in using an animal for food based on the retail classification it is assigned. In fresh water Talapia are used as a food fish worldwide, but you can also buy them as ornamental fish, or pets. How is the eating of the Talapia sold as a food fish ethically permissable yet eating the one shipped to LFS is unethical? Secondly, there is evidence that feeding SW predators FW fish is detrimental to their health. With that in mind, to be a responsible aquarist, I feed my predatory fish damsels. Now in the 20+ years I have been keeping fish, I have yet to see a "feeder damsel" tank. So feeding damsels to provide a natural food source for my pets is unethical? Hardly.
Conversly, I have kept goldfish labeled as "feeders" as pets. Does the subsequent feeding of these to a pet turtle of these count as an unethical act? Would it have been ethical if I fed them to the turtle straight from the store? Ethical treatment cannot be based on the application of labels.
As for the second point, there are millions of fish and inverterbrates taken from the sea that are harvested solely for the purpose of animal feed and fertilizers. The point that is made about the processing of these animals so that nothing is wasted may make one feel good. However the reality is that nothing is wasted simply because every part of the animal can be sold. If there were no money to be made with the fish after the liver oil was extracted, they would be discarded. But since the processing plant can turn a profit by selling these animal by-products they do so. Is it ethical to take these animals from their habitat (and family and friends) to make a profit if I don't waste any part of the animal but unethical if I only use 50% of the animal?

tekknoschtev · #33 10/14/2005, 06:23 PM

Very well stated Edge - and just an interesting side note on feeding "feeder" goldfish to turtles - what if the turtle considers the fish a pet and then decides to chow down one day?

My turtle is a nut and wuld actualy single out a goldfish from the few I'd give her and save it for a "special occasion" as best I coudl tell.

pbarrett · #34 10/15/2005, 04:05 PM

Quote:

Besides, who is to say something is "meant" to be a pet? I say all animals low on the food chain are "meant" to be consumed by those above them.

WOW what an attitude to have. Before you know it we will be able to get orangutan burgers and dolphin steaks at McDonalds

When I choose to keep a tang, angel, goby, or whatever by doing so I do not effect any other live creature besides the fish itself.

If I were to choose to keep a HQ I am choosing to kill who knows how many sea stars.

I have 3 dogs and 2 cats, and all but my English Bull Mastiff could be eaten by large snakes. And a shark could eat my mastiff. Who is the higher or lower on the food chain? I guess since a shark can eat people they are higher on the food chain. And are not mammals higher on the food chain then all others?

I am not saying we should all be vegans. And heck if you can eat talipia maybe we should keep them as pets feed them till they get big and fat and then eat them. But to buy a animal as such as a sea star and sentence it to death, I feel that is unethical.

revance · #35 10/15/2005, 05:07 PM

You are so incredibly inconsistent!

You are using the analogy of feeding your pet dog to a shark to explain why we shouldn't feed stars to a harlequin. Whats the difference? STARFISH ARE ITS NATURAL DIET!

BTW, being a mammal has nothing to do with your position on the food chain.

If I choose to keep a snake as a pet, I am going to feed it mice (that is their natural diet). If I choose to keep a harlequin as a pet, I will feed it starfish (that is their NATURAL diet). Simply because some animals can survive on processed food so you don't have to actually give them a live creature, you think its ok. Meat is meat is meat, whether it be alive, frozen, freeze dried, flakes, or pellets.

revance · #36 10/15/2005, 05:11 PM

I forgot to tell you... you need to go save toby!

www.savetoby.com

pbarrett · #37 10/15/2005, 08:13 PM

The bottom line is this. When you choose to buy and keep a halequin shrimp you choose to kill who knows how many sea stars.

I have no problem with something being raised soley to be used as a food source. Whether it is goldfish or rats.

And as far as feeding a predator damsels alone. This is not a healthy diet and I would not reccomend it. The predator foods that are produced have much more nutrition and ingredients that resemble the predators diet in the wild.

So can we please stop talking about goldfish???????

tekknoschtev · #38 10/15/2005, 08:59 PM

What we (i believe we, at least I) am getting at here is that who are we to label what is food and what is a pet? Its all the same organism. How is a feeder *fill in the blank* different from a pet *fill in the blank*? Are they raised differently? Are they treated differently?

The only thing I have experience with in this respect is goldfish (sorry, I know you wanted to get off this tangent but this seems to make sense to me). From my experience, these fish are treated terribly. Crammed into a tank far too small to keep them (and trust me, I know pet store tanks are cramped, they have to be in order to turn a profit, but when you have several hundred fish in a single tank, that's a whole different ballgame). I personally find it less ethical to purchase feeder goldfish to feed my turtle because they are less healthy (generally) however they are an economic solution and I QT all of them first anyways.

So how is feeding something a *feeder* version of the *pet* different?

SDguy · #39 10/15/2005, 09:28 PM

Congrats all...first thread I've ever laughed out loud at!!

But seriously, I used to keep a pair of harlequin shrimp many years ago. Rather than let them kill the whole star, I used to just slice a leg off for them. I'd rotate between several stars. Worked out well. But would that be unethical AND torture?

I've also heard reports of them taking dead (frozen) stars...

BTW, what if I wanted to keep mysis as pets? Then what?

Peter

pbarrett · #40 10/15/2005, 10:05 PM

Are the frozen stars in the seafood department at the supermarket? And once something is frozen it does not taste nearly as well as if it was fresh.

SDguy · #41 10/15/2005, 10:34 PM

Not sure where one would get frozen stars. Perhaps doing what I did, just using a leg at a time, and freezing them, you could alternate between stars and theoretically never have to kill one, just harvest their limbs.

As for the taste....not sure how the quality of the star's flavor is diminished upon freezing, and I suppose if the shrimp eats it, does it matter? I'm not going to try it myself

Peter

revance · #42 10/15/2005, 10:41 PM

Alright, this guy HAS to be a troll. There is no way anyone is THIS ridiculous!

If I open a supermarket and sell live starfish (about 500 of them crammed into a 10g tank) then it will it be alright to feed them to something... right? Because since it is in a supermarket it is alright to eat... right?

But we shouldn't feed them frozen stars because they aren't as good and thus isn't fair to the harlequin right?

I think I understand now. You think we should leave all of them in the ocean because as long as we don't SEE the harlequins killing and eating the starfish everything is "OK". Thanks, I feel like a better person already

I like the idea of cutting one leg off and letting it regenerate. That way you can buy several of them and not have to be out $20 each time you feed your harlequin.

tekknoschtev · #43 10/15/2005, 10:50 PM

I'm in agreement revance, something doesnt seem right.

By his logic, NOTHING should be kept in the home aquaria, and for that matter, it shouldnt exist.

revance · #44 10/16/2005, 12:21 AM

I'm going to stop feeding the troll and sign off this thread.

Thanks everyone for the entertainment! It was fun.

aaron23 · #45 10/16/2005, 09:02 PM

THIS argument is utterly useless.

keithgamble · #46 10/17/2005, 01:23 AM

To answer one of the first few questions? Yes it's ethical for us to feed clowns, Gobies ect to lion fish. Is it right? No less right than feeding them a goldfish or guppie...fish is a fish is a fish....BUT...there is that price tag issue. I think we often overlook the reality of things b/ of the idea of things. This thread is right up there with people saying that keeping certain fish in captivity is wrong b/ they swim so much.

JennyL · #47 10/17/2005, 01:10 PM

pbarrett, I don't mean to be rude but this is one of the most rediculous arguements I have ever heard/read and I have been in this hobby for a long time and been in many discussions.

The idea that it is unethical to feed a critter it's "natural" diet is just ludicrous. It would be unethical to deliberately deprive them of their natural food and endanger their health because we happen to think their natural food is pretty.

I simply fail to see the logic in your arguement, they eat their natural diet in the oceans, why not in our tanks?

I think I will also bow out of this thread. My head is beginning to spin.

Reeses · #48 10/18/2005, 01:31 PM

My goodness, I don't check out this thread for a few days, and look what has happened.

Love the "save toby" site, nice touch, and extremely irrelevant.
Alas, the unethical part of saving toby is the fact that his keeper is trying to use his possible death to make himself wealthy, and that is a bit sick. It has nothing to do with having bunny for dinner.

And on this note, I'm going to take my giggling self and mosey on my way.........

Reeses · #49 10/18/2005, 11:29 PM

whoops, just realized that Toby's link was put there by revance. Now that I've realized my mistake, it's really much more funny than it was! (and it was funny when I thought pbarrett put it there!)

manderx · #50 11/01/2005, 01:54 AM

i have no issues with feeding them starfish and feel that anyone who does and has a tank at the same time is being extremely hypocritical, but one issue that people should be aware of about them is they are an important line of defense in the wild against the crown-of-thorns. i've heard a few experts mention that collecting them is detrimental in that regard.