Reef Central Online Community

Home Forum Here you can view your subscribed threads, work with private messages and edit your profile and preferences View New Posts View Today's Posts

Find other members Frequently Asked Questions Search Reefkeeping ...an online magazine for marine aquarists Support our sponsors and mention Reef Central

Go Back   Reef Central Online Community Archives > General Interest Forums > Responsible Reefkeeping

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10/12/2005, 06:34 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
Thumbs down Harlequin Shrimp, are they ethical????

I am really angered of all the talk of people keeping and wanting to keep Harlequin Shrimp. I mean they have to be fed tube footed sea stars. Whether it is a Linkia, Chocolate Chip, Fromia, or Sand Sifting Star is not the point. All of these stars are kept within the hobby as ornamental livestock and not as food for shrimp. Who are we to say a starfish can live or die just because we have the $10-20 to buy them. If that was the case could we not buy gobies, clowns, or other small fish to feed the likes of groupers, lionfish, eels, and other predatory fish. Would it be different if we only fed the predatory fish captive raised fish? I think that you know where I stand on this subject, I think Harlequin Shrimp should be left on the reefs. But what does everyone else think?
  #2  
Old 10/12/2005, 07:55 PM
Reeses Reeses is offline
Whoo Hoo! 500!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 603
I would think the Harlequin Shrimp would think it was ethical. After all, it is it's natural diet. Is it unethical that all of us keep fish? After all, fish eat, well, other fish amongst other things. That would hint that every package of frozen, canned, flake, or pellet food is unethical also. They all contain seafood.

I believe that as keepers in this hobby it is ONLY responsible and ethical to supply the most natural diet to the species we keep. Why does it make a difference if the shrimp has to hunt it on the reef or in our tanks?

And I am quite certain that there are folks out there who do occasionally purchase live fish for their predators. It really is only fair to the fish. The natural cycle of things.
__________________
There are two systems at work in every tank. There's the system you created and the system IT created.

Last edited by Reeses; 10/12/2005 at 08:36 PM.
  #3  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:06 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
Reeses I see your point but try and look at it this way. There are thousands of cultures all over the world that eat only what they catch and grow. Does that mean we as a complicated and an advanced society we should do the same? I can tell you one thing, I would much rather eat Pizza then anything I could possibly catch (except shrimp) and grow. Now is Pizza the healthiest thing for me, I do not know. I mean you would have to compare pizza to seal, wild boar, rat, monkey, insects, and a plethora of other creatures. So how do you see it is unethical to feed fish, fish food. I mean the 100's of fish foods out there are just being made with fish by products that are unused when the fish are prepared for human consumption. And the same goes for cows, pigs, chickens, and who knows how many more animals. I mean Mad Cow disease was started by nothing more then cows being fed their own by products.

That is why the point of this thread is whether or not the keeping of harlequin shrimp is ethical knowing that you have to supply the shrimp with their live food source forever.
  #4  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:14 PM
Bass Master Bass Master is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,597
How bout' reefers buying linkias? I bet 90% of them die anyway - without the addition of Harlequin shrimp
  #5  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:17 PM
Bass Master Bass Master is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,597
Oh yeah - the linkias' should be left on the reef too. This way the harlequin shrimp have something to eat.
  #6  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:23 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
I could not agree more Bass Master. Linkias should not be collected and readily available in the hobby. But experienced reefers do not keep linkias, they know better (or they have the ecosystem to support them). The only people who get linkias are beginners who buy them becasue they are pretty, cheap, and will fit in their small tank. And who knows maybe the LFS told them that they were easy to keep.
  #7  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:34 PM
Reeses Reeses is offline
Whoo Hoo! 500!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 603
I think that I might be missing the point of this debate here.....

I don't think that feeding fish other fish is unethical, and I don't think that there is anything unethical about keeping harlequin shrimp as long as the person who chooses to keep them understand that they need a specific diet, and that they are willing and able to supply the shrimp with that diet.

I suppose the point of my debate is that it doesn't matter if we purchase live food for our inhabitants or get it from a can or freezer. It's the same thing.
__________________
There are two systems at work in every tank. There's the system you created and the system IT created.
  #8  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:39 PM
onereefnotenuf onereefnotenuf is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hamilton,Ohio
Posts: 292
this is probably oversimplifying this but if a harlequin shrimp is going to eat what it eats in the wild, why is it unethical to have one in a tank eating the same thing it would be eating if it was in it's natural enviroment? i would understand if there was a breeding program where the numbers of these shrimp are artificially inflated and more natural food had to be taken from the ocean but a shrimp has to eat so it might as well be where i can see it.
  #9  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:39 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
But reeses how is flakes, pellets, algae sheets, and Frozen cubes equate to live food? The only thing I feed my fish that was alive in its entirety are brine and mysis shrimp. And I think you would agree that these are way down on the evolutionary chain compared to sea stars.
  #10  
Old 10/12/2005, 08:40 PM
Reeses Reeses is offline
Whoo Hoo! 500!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 603
What I am saying is that in one instance, it is personally our hand that kills another creature, and in another, it is merely someone else's. By purchasing that product, you are supporting the killing of, well, other fish.

In my formula two, there is sardine, squid, cod, and clams. Are they not at least as high on the food chain as a starfish?
__________________
There are two systems at work in every tank. There's the system you created and the system IT created.
  #11  
Old 10/12/2005, 09:16 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
Reeses do you think they catch sardine, squid, cod, and clams straight out the sea and put them straight in your fish food. NO WAY

The sardine, squid, cod, and clams are processed for human consumption. Their uneatible for human consumption by products are the ingredients for your fish food. And by no means am I saying to become a vegan. I enjoy chicken and seafood as much as the next guy. But I do like the fact that when a living organism is prepared for my consumption that none of the uneatable remains go to waste.

This is excellent practice and as we as a society get smarter and more technoligically advanced we waste less and less. There are uses for almost all types of waste these days.
  #12  
Old 10/12/2005, 09:39 PM
Reeses Reeses is offline
Whoo Hoo! 500!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 603
ah, but you can purchase whole cockles, silversides, squid, krill, and lance fish whose only purpose is to feed the inhabitants of our tanks. Do you feel that is unethical?
__________________
There are two systems at work in every tank. There's the system you created and the system IT created.
  #13  
Old 10/13/2005, 10:11 AM
onereefnotenuf onereefnotenuf is offline
Premium Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Hamilton,Ohio
Posts: 292
this is a very odd discussion. have you ever gone fishing? used live or formerly live bait? those fish that eat the squid, krill,silversides etc. do so in the ocean . bringing the predatory fish into an aquarium also means bringing in the prey. i don't get your point.
  #14  
Old 10/13/2005, 11:28 AM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
The very limited fishing I do, is either catch and release, or I will eat what I catch. Nothing unethical about that. I do not go fishing but maybe once every 5 years.

Now reeses you are wrong. Like I said earlier I am no fisherman, but I do know that silversides and squid are used to catch fish. And probably cockles and lance fish as well. And I have never kept any predatory fish although some of them are my favorites.

So reeses instead of trying to prove that the stuff I do is as unethical as keeping harlequin shrimp. Just forum an opinion. Your arguments are bassless at best.

Heck we could say the entire hobby is unethical because we take these beautiful creatures out of the ocean and put them in little boxes. And do not think this has not gone through my mind a million times. But there are villages on Islands in different parts of the world that their sole living is based upon the fish they catch and export. Who are we to say they can not make a living?
  #15  
Old 10/13/2005, 11:39 AM
tekknoschtev tekknoschtev is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SCS, MI
Posts: 2,027
In this case it actually seems like more ethical than how other things get treated. There are plenty of species of coral/invert/fish that we dont know exactly what they eat, but in this case, we know what they eat and how to take care of them. I dont want to keep the harlequin shrimp because I dont think I could keep up with the feedings of starfish, but for the most part, those who purchase the shrimp also purchase the starfish, and while in certain instances the starfish is classified as "ornamental" due to its price, what does price have to do with it? You are simply buying the food that this animal needs to survive.

Maybe I'm missing the point here, but to me it doesnt seem unethical at all.
  #16  
Old 10/13/2005, 12:07 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
Tekkno you are right about the different species of coral/invert/fish that we do not know how to take care of them. I had a buddy who owned a store and he told me that it took him like 4 or 5 ribbon eels before he got one to eat and live. And then he was selling the eel for like 500% profit. There are stores out there that are just trying to make money. And they will sell you a shark for your 180 and a linkia for your brand new 29. These are the same stores selling carnation corals and moorish idols. But in all of these conversations I have never heard any discussion of the harlequin shrimp. Nor have I ever seen harlequin shrimp food in the freezer or a tank at a LFS listed as Harlequin Shrimp food.

But then again people feed their snakes mice and rats.
  #17  
Old 10/13/2005, 12:15 PM
tekknoschtev tekknoschtev is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SCS, MI
Posts: 2,027
Because harlequin shrimp (please dont get me wrong here, I've not researched them much because I have no desire to keep them) but dont they NEED live food? At any rate - I dont commonly see foods specifically labeled towards one particular fish (occasionally I'll see "tang food" which is just minced up nori). But just because a specific name branded food doesnt exist for a specific animal it doesnt mean that it should not be kept. Do you find people who feed their turtles the "feeder" goldfish unethical? If not, what's the difference? Just the price is all I can see. Actually the feeders are treated much worse than any ornamental fish/invert that I've seen. So in my mind, its probably much "nicer" to feed a starfish that's been well taken care of and not suffered its entire life. I do agree that linkas shouldnt be in the hobby but thats not in the scope of this dicussion.

And with your last point - that's why I dont keep snakes And it makes your point even more arbitrary. I think that if someone is willing to look into and keep harlequin shrimp properly it is one of the more ethical things anyone in this hobby is doing. Sure, plenty of this hobby - if not all of it - is immoral and unethical, however in the case of harlequin shrimp, I rarely see a post that says "help my harlequin shrimp is dieing, what do I do". Maybe that's because they are rarer in the hobby than I imagine (I've never seen one in person) or for whatever reason.
  #18  
Old 10/13/2005, 02:40 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
I think feeder goldfish are treated 1000% better then saltwater aquaria. After all they are raised for one thing and that is to be food. We are not going into their homes and taking them away for their families and friends like we do with saltwater fish

But let me tell you a little story when I was a young private in the army. I had a Master Sergeant I worked with who was into fighting c*ocks. And I questioned him about it. And he explained it to me as such. You take to c*ocks and put them on a desert island they will kill each other. You put a c*ck in front of a mirror and the c*ck will try and kill its own reflection. And this would be done even if the c*ck has never seen another c*ck in its life. It is just natural. And then he goes on to say when you have a fighting c*ock you treat and care for it far better then if it was anywhere else. Heck the champion c*ocks are worth thousands of dollars and live the lives of kings.

As far as seeing a post about Harlequin Shrimp is dying, come on, a shrimp is not like a fish or coral where there are signs of it being in bad health.

But I think you as well are resses are just trying to justify the keeping of Harlequin Shrimp by stating examples of other unethical situations that might be worse.
  #19  
Old 10/13/2005, 03:23 PM
tekknoschtev tekknoschtev is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SCS, MI
Posts: 2,027
No - I'm not trying to show other examples that are worse I'm equating it to something else. A great majority of the things we have (fish wise espeically) in this hobby are wild caught. What makes doing such to a starfish different? Even the harlequin shrimp from what I gather are generally wild caught as breeding in the hobby is rare. So why do we keep anything wild caught?

In this case the wild caught shrimp is being fed its natural, albiet wild caught as well, food. I dont see how it is unethical. I'm not trying to be single minded here, but it just seems like this is a moot point. I have nothing further to contribute and its not worth going back and forth repeating the same things (both you and I) so I guess I'll leave it here unless something else comes up.
  #20  
Old 10/13/2005, 03:38 PM
Reeses Reeses is offline
Whoo Hoo! 500!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 603
Once again here, I think that I am totally missing your message.

In a nutshell, what I heard from you is that harlequin shrimp are unethical to keep because they have to eat starfish and that's not OK because there isn't a sign on the starfish that specifically says for feeding harlequin shrimp

My take on it is that it makes no difference if the "food" animal is labeled for feeding or decoration. I am NOT trying to justify the keeping of harlequin shrimp by stating other possible unethical situations, I am only trying to say (the whole point to this very odd conversation) that each creature that we keep has a diet we need to uphold as best as possible, and if that diet happens to consist of something we personally consider taboo, so be it. With proper treatment, it seems that harlequin shrimp adjust well to the home aquarium, so why the fuss over what it eats?

I'm not saying that what you personally do is unethical or anything, and I'm not attacking you. I am honestly trying to understand your point. I don't feel my point is baseless.
__________________
There are two systems at work in every tank. There's the system you created and the system IT created.
  #21  
Old 10/13/2005, 03:58 PM
pbarrett pbarrett is offline
Moved On
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: St Charles, MO
Posts: 198
I do appreciate everyone's opinions and views. But reeses your whole point was since we feed fish food which are composed of one or more previously live foods it is no different then feeding a harlequin shrimp live ornamental starfish. But like I have stated there is nothing in the pellets, flakes, and most of the frozen food that was caught solely to be consumed by fish.

And I also think since the only food that a harlequin shrimp will consume is starfish that were to be pets the keeping of the shrimp is unethical.

For the large part, us as hobbyists want the creatures we buy and see at the LFS to be brought home to a healthy ecosystem and live long and happy lives.

If you owned a pet strore and a customer came in and wanted to buy rabbits (which were meant to be pets) to feed his lizard or snake would you sell the rabbits to him? And if not why, afterall the snake and lizard have to eat.

And one last note, when a person buys something that can not be kept adequately like a shark for instance the only bad thing that happens is that the shark dies

But when you buy harlequin shrimp who knows how many ornamental stars which were meant to be pets are eaten.
  #22  
Old 10/13/2005, 04:01 PM
tekknoschtev tekknoschtev is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: SCS, MI
Posts: 2,027
My point was - what difference does it make if the "pet" gets fed. I know several stores who will refuse to sell their "pet" animals as feeders and was told that I can no longer purchase my fiddler crabs to feed my puffer. So what did I do, I found a different food source. In this case, there is no other food source, and what difference does it make to the LFS?
  #23  
Old 10/13/2005, 04:19 PM
pisomojado pisomojado is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Western South Dakota
Posts: 59
lol this thread is hilarious. How do you justify killing anything for the sake of staying alive(be it human or shrimp) is ok, but if that organism were "designated" as a pet then its unethical?

If you owned a pet strore and a customer came in and wanted to buy rabbits (which were meant to be pets) to feed his lizard or snake would you sell the rabbits to him? And if not why, afterall the snake and lizard have to eat.

Of course I would sell to them! I make a profit, and he gets to NATURALLY feed his pet as it would be doing in the wild anyways.

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.
  #24  
Old 10/13/2005, 04:59 PM
revance revance is offline
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Indianapolis
Posts: 521
There is only one solution... kill all the harlequins so we can save the sea stars of the world
  #25  
Old 10/13/2005, 05:42 PM
Reeses Reeses is offline
Whoo Hoo! 500!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Florida
Posts: 603
If I ever decide to open a fish store, I'll make sure to label my starfish as either ornamental or for feeding harlequin shrimp.

I think at this point we are

__________________
There are two systems at work in every tank. There's the system you created and the system IT created.
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Use of this web site is subject to the terms and conditions described in the user agreement.
Reef Central™ Reef Central, LLC. Copyright ©1999-2009