This is not flaming

[danieljames]

I would like to know others opinions is all. Probably a big can of worms here, but here goes. Most people i've met in the hobby agree that life should not be taken off of the reef if one cannot sustain it properly in an aquarium. Like goniopora and cleaner wrasse. I think most people agree it's not really appropriate at this point in the hobby to harvest these animals. But i have seen several threads about people keeping harlequins and having to feed them live blue linkia's. I personally find this unsettling. I know that the population probably isn't affected badly, but then does that mean that the "life" issue really has nothing to do with it at all?...That if there where tons and tons of goniopora and millions of cleaner wrasse, that it would be totally cool to harvest? Even if they die in our aquarium? I reiterate this is not a flame, i just think it would make an interesting conversation.

[Nek]

Also not a flame..... But what do you think Harl. Shrimp eat in the wild?? Yes, blue linkia. So how is feeding them in your tank any different than them feeding on them in the wild.

I do agree with you that some very hard to keep corals should not be collected, and we should provide the best environment possible..

[danieljames]

good point........interaction on the reef is completely out of our hands. But in our aquariums, there it has been taken on by us. The sustaining of life by the destruction of another....is that responsible reefkeeping??....Is the benefit of observing a harlequin worth the destruction of a linkia??...and again, its perfectly cool if one thinks so. I'm not imposing my opinion, i would just like to hear others......

[Nek]

What I was trying to say is the har. shrimp eat linkia in the wild.....so either linkia are eaten in the wild or in our tanks...there is no difference. I think it is rather RESPONSIBLE for people who own har.'s to feed them linkias since this is their natural diet.

[danieljames]

I feel there is a difference. You do not decide what linkia's are eaten on the reef. You do decide what lives and dies in your aquarium. There is a difference (imo) between the linkia's that are eaten in the wild, and the three that are thrown into a captive environment.

[Nek]

But by taking the Harlequin pair out of the wild, you could be saving other linkia which could have been eaten.:D :D :D :D :D :D

(Is the glass half empty or half full??)

[danieljames]

lol.....except you have to feed the ones you took!!!...

[danieljames]

I cant believe no one else has an opinion

[visualscapes]

I've said this before, but if a person were truly concerned with taking animals and or live rock from the ocean, then one could easily have a 100% captive bred tank including farmed live rock.
I personally don't have a problem with the responsible collection of livestock from the ocean, as long as one is equiped to take care of the animals to the best of thier capability. IMO the commercial fishing industry is far more damaging to the reefs than the reef aquarium industry.

[danieljames]

i dont mean to imply that the hobby is damaging our reefs....i did not mean that at all.

[DJ88©]

I've said this before, but if a person were truly concerned with taking animals and or live rock from the ocean, then one could easily have a 100% captive bred tank including farmed live rock.
I personally don't have a problem with the responsible collection of livestock from the ocean, as long as one is equiped to take care of the animals to the best of thier capability.

I am going to have to follow along with this post.

I know Chuck and he would not do anything that puts an animal in his care at risk. Those shrimp are fed exactly what they require. No trying to find a subsitiute. How many people buy them because they are cute and don't look into the proper feeding requirements? A lot more. I guarantee it. If anything Chuck and others who give those shrimp the best possible opportunity to survive should be applauded.

I own a spendid dottyback. I feed it what it would eat in the wild. Inverts. It's favorite is peppermint shrimp. My LFS wants me to buy Fire shrimp. They call them Filet Mingnon.;) lol I do whatever I can and must do to provide the best environment for the creatures under my care.

I understand that to some it may seem unusual to buy what is a decorative speices in another persons tank for food for a specific spieces they own. But to some, there is no limits to what they will do to provide the best possible environment they can with the resources available.

lol.....except you have to feed the ones you took!!!...

(Is the glass half empty or half full??)

This discussion will result in a never ending loop of discussion. Some see it as half full. others as half empty. Everyone has a right to do as they wish. Some do things to make for the most realistic possible secenario for the inhabitants of thier tanks. Others see the tank as something that they can go with a minimalistic approach and still be happy. 6 of one half a dozen of the other.

I cant believe no one else has an opinion

I think a lot of people are under the feeling that topics like this can slide down pretty quickly into a flame war.

especially with the word right in the title. ;)

Personal opinions and differences between those opinions for two people can slide down pretty fast. Pride goeth before the fall. ;)

But this all is just my .02

:D

[danieljames]

so true about the flaming.....that is why i stated it like that. I truely am not passing any kind of judgement. I was just wanting to know others opinions. So you think that the death of another animal so that another can survive in your aquarium should be applauded? We make a conscious decision on the animals we keep. By purchasing harlequins, you doom linkia's. No way around it. And thats fine if you feel thats cool. And perfectly fine if some think it is not. I dont want argument, just opinion. Thanks very much for your comments.

[Nek]

This comes back to what I was saying. Say a har. will eat 200 starfish in his liftime. Either he picks those stars out of the ocean, or we pick them out for him. What is the difference?? How do you choose what cow dies for your hamburger??

I agree this discussion will go back and forth forever.

[manderx]

the difference is *why* they die. food is food is food, but harvesting something that everyone knows will just die needlessly is a crime. if someone had a fish that only ate goniopora, i would have no problem with them buying it to feed their fish.

[danieljames]

lol...i know...i agree about the going back and forth. But i think that is healthy, if we can keep it respectful, which i believe everyone has. No one is right or wrong. Just opinions is all.

I totally see what you are saying. The shrimp will eat what they eat, whether in your tank or in the wild. I guess what i am saying, is that the linkia's life is on your hands in your aquarium, and not in the wild. Goniopora die in the wild as well. Cleaner wrasse as well. But putting one in our home aquaria is a death sentence that is on our hands. Do blue linkia have a chance of survival on the reef??...Most certainly....Do they have a chance in your 75 with a pair of Harlequins and no other linkia??....doubtful.

[danieljames]

Manderx......why is the fish life more valuable than the goniopora?

[danieljames]

i find this kind of discussion about our hobby very refreshing. So many posts, and so little about ethics, which i think are important. (whatever yours might be) Many thanks to all the replies. All of them respectful. Reef central rocks.......

[danieljames]

to completely distill what i am saying, is that why is a linkia stars life less important than a harlequin shrimp? I have a problem understanding this is all. You dont buy a fish to put in your reef that eats harlequins do you???.....Why not???....What if linkia's cost $90 a piece???....and not the 10 or 15 that most pay??....How many of us would buy harlequins then???....alot less i'm sure....

[visualscapes]

Manderx......why is the fish life more valuable than the goniopora?

Think about it this way, if gonipora ate damsels to suvive then he would have no problem feeding them to the gonipora, or vice versa. Would you? Or maybe you disagree about feeding any kind of live food? I used to love feeding my Cichlid tanks live fish when I kept them. :D BTW this is a great thread!

[danieljames]

so true visualscapes...so true. The funny thing....where do you draw the line???....I use to feed brine shrimp to my fish...have no problem with it. They are life to, yeah???....Does something have to be fluffy and cute, expensive, or whatever to "not" feed??...You dont put kittens in your crab traps...you put chicken. I would like to know where people draw the line on what they allow to die and live, and why. Why do harlequins get to live and not linkia's????....Why????? You make the choice when you buy a harlequin that linkia's die. There is no way around that. Why does one feel that that is ok??.....

[danieljames]

a money thing then.....how sad would that be???.....something dies in our aquaria because it is not hurting our wallet. Linkia's are cheap. harlequins are beautiful. The linkia gets screwed. No???? Linkia's=15 bucks.....harlequins=40-80bucks.....which one dies???

[danieljames]

what if it was a battle......on the reef, when a harlequin encounters a linkia, it is 50/50 which one dies and gets eaten. The prices staying the same as above, who buys harlequins for their aquaria????

[kmk2307]

Do harlequin shrimp (Hymenocera elegans) have to eat blue Linckia (Linckia laevigata) starfish tube feet? I was under the impression that they would eat the tube feet of just about any asteroid starfish. There are other starfish (many which are less expensive than the blue linckia) that I have heard are edible to harlequin shrimp. For example, Jeff's Exotic Fish (www.exoticfish.com) has 4 "sand sifting shrimp" for $21.99. The Florida Collector (www.floridacollector.com) has "general starfish" (Echinaster sp.) for $2.50 each. To my knowledge neither of these asteroids are suffering from extreme overcollection like the prized blue linckia unfortunately is and they are much cheaper.

Just a rant,
Kevin

[know-it-all]

ok,
1.har's will eat any starfish, they do not need to feed on only linkia's. they will eat chocolate chip star's also.
2.starfish regenterate legs, if you were to let them only eat 1 leg, then rescue the starfish into your sump, or Q tank you would not be "killing" starfish. They only need to eat 1-2 times per month.
3.what about the argument then of feeding goldfish to oscar's or mice to snake's? why stop at the ethical treatment of linkia's
(which seem to an average life of 3 months in the home aquarium)

[danieljames]

know it all and kmk....i believe you miss my question.

know it all....1)I totally agree with "why stop there"....that is exactly what i am talking about. Where do you draw the line? 2) Hacking of a leg and letting the starfish regenerate is an ethical alternative???....3) A chocolate chip star is an ethical alternative to linkia?

kmk.....My comment about the money thing. A cheaper starfish is then an ethical alternative? This is then not an ethical thing for you, but a money issue?

Again......i say no one is right or wrong. I want to understand your answers.

I dont mean this to be linkia specific. I mean anytime a life is purposefully sacrificed for the benefit of another in our aquaria. What makes the sacrificed life less valuable?

[danieljames]

i say once again.....if it was a 50/50 chance that the linkia eats the harlequin when they encounter each other in our aquaria, who of you aquarists out there would purchase a harlequin and feed it linkia? After you have paid alot more money for the harlequin. I doubt there would be any at all. Whether or not it is right or wrong. We like our money, don't we?

[kmk2307]

kmk.....My comment about the money thing. A cheaper starfish is then an ethical alternative? This is then not an ethical thing for you, but a money issue? The fact that those starfish are cheaper is an additional benefit to not using linckia starfish. I'm not really interested in having or adding to an ethical discussion but I did want to point out that there are starfish whose population isn't really in any jeaparody that are equivalent foods to linckia stars who are overcollected.

Kevin

[Dean812]

You have got to be kidding. Right?:uzi:

[bmcelhinn]

I feel when you buy an animal, it's life is in your hands. That is a big responsibility. I care more about the animal than I do the money I spend on it. I think there is a big difference between animals eaten as prey in the wild than in the aquarium. I saw a video of a man shooting an endangered animal that was chained to a fence for sport. Is that hunting? What goes on in the wild is part of the chain of life. Throwing something in an enclosed space in an aquarium is alot different. There is usually no defense for the prey. I'm no hippie or anything, I admit I feed my new sea horses live shrimp to wean them to frozen if they won't accept it. But I don't like when people buy live food if there are other options. If I have an animal that would be happier with live food like the person with the basslet that feeds it pep. shrimp, and it accepted frozen or otherwise, I'd rather feed it frozen, as long as it is healthy. And if one linkia dies in the ocean to a har. shrimp and one dies because you threw it in is different too. The one you threw in could have been a pet to somebody else. I worked at a pet store and it disgusted me when stupid people would come in and buy a snake or oscar, just because they thought it was mean. It's like they didn't really care about the animal as a pet, but more to show off when their friends are at their house, or to say "I'm a bad dude I have this animal that kills things!" Or the gang banger punks that buy pitbulls to look hard. I'm being a little hypocritical because I have pets, but I don't think it's right to own animals in the first place. When I really think of it, I feel bad for the cows that die for food. They are born and live a ****ty life until they are big enough to kill, and that is their purpose for life. But then I'm not going to be a vegitarian. Basically I think the world is a messed up place, I've contributed to it myself, I just got out of jail so I don't have room to talk. But if you really think deeply animals have it pretty bad having their fate decided by their owners. I try to do my best in most situations and do whats right.

[Dean812]

Well stated. The bottom line is we can, so we do.

[kmk2307]

You have got to be kidding. Right?:uzi:
Hi Dean. Who were you talking to? Me? I'm definately not trying to be confrontational I just want to know if I need to explain something I said.

[manderx]

If I have an animal that would be happier with live food like the person with the basslet that feeds it pep. shrimp, and it accepted frozen or otherwise, I'd rather feed it frozen, as long as it is healthy.

what's the moral difference between feeding live and frozen? is it worse for the animal to die 'in battle' with a natural enemy than in a packing plant?

[bmcelhinn]

what's the moral difference between feeding live and frozen? is it worse for the animal to die 'in battle' with a natural enemy than in a packing plant?


Exactly.

I try to do my best in most situations and do whats right.
I don't feel like I killed it if its frozen. Like I said, when you buy an animal, it's life is in your hands, you are responsible. If you buy a frozen carcass you don't have life in your hands. That is how I feel. Both ways might not be perfect, but don't try to say there is no difference.

[Pepito]

Hey all,
When you buy frozen food then yes you are not resposible for its life, but you are responsible for its death. It's as simple as supply and demand. That organism is killed and processed into food because you will buy more every time you run out. I'm not trying to argue either, but just showing my point of view that frozen and live food are the same ethicaly. Feel free to disagree.

[JahReefer]

My two cents.
Where the samples are collected from, and HOW they are colected is the primary concern. Chipping away at over harvested sites is the last thing any of us want to support. Keeping your charges in a responsible way can be a great springboard for many people to come to an understanding that the worlds reefs are an amazing treasure that needs to be vigiianty protected.

[Aaron1100us]

What about the food that we feed the rest of our creatures? My can of flake food says fish meal, clams and other forms of animal life plus algae. There are fish and other animals that are selected to make flake food. Also brine and mysis shrimp, and silversides are all selected to be processed into food for our fish, they are animals just like the linkia star, just not as pretty. This isn't a flame, just pointing out that the rest of the food that we feed our pets also comes from other living creatures.

[danieljames]

another angle to try and get an answer.

dj88 states that to get the most realistic approach to the reef, some introduce harlequins that need to be fed live food. This is a more "wide" approach and more accurately simulates a reef. Why does the hobbyist stop there then? How come one does not then introduce predators towards the harlequin? Is that not the next logical step in that philosophy?

[EricHugo]

Personally, I like threads like this. I think developing compassion and awarenes is central to reefkeeping and, indeed, to our own lives.

That said, my feelings are that Harlequin shrimp, and any obligate predator, or any generalist or mnivore, or herbivore, should be cared for in captivity in a manner that matches or exceeds its quality of life in the wild.

These animals eat sea stars and should be provided with sea stars. In my mind, there is no difference between a sea star and a brine shrimp. Their size, beauty, and price is unimportant in the scheme of this. However, in providing that food, one should be aware of the many choices of sea stars that would qualify as food. Are Blue Linckias disproportinately collected and threatened as a result of the aquarium trade? If so, then feeding them, or even supporting their collection, is probably best rethought. If they are plentiful and our harvest/collection for food or for the tank in general is not impacting them or the habitat in the wild, and their survival in our tanks matches or exceeds their survival in the wild, I see us doing no net harm.

I don;t know that anyone has looked a the impact of the trade on Linckia populations. I suspect they are common, but I also suspect they are disproportionately collected, bthaveno hard data one way or the other on them. The shrimp, OTOH, are not real common and their collection, in general, I think should be considered carefully. Also, if you were not to feed them seastars and they died as a result, that would, in my mind, be quite irresponsible.

Food is food, and lives are lost to pay that cost, be it flake food or whatever. As humans, and knowing what we do aout nutrition, we have a bit more of a choice as to how we choose to sustain ourselves...by killing or not killing (or having others kill and we just blindly eat). However, predation in the wild is a valuable ecological process. The foods we choose to feed our inhabitants should, ideally, also reflect those ecological processes, and not use something like Atlantic cod since that fishery is in such poor shape resulting from our misuse. Raising our own brine shrimp, ototh, has no real net impact.

[baron_vonklyff]

I dont mean this to be linkia specific. I mean anytime a life is purposefully sacrificed for the benefit of another in our aquaria. What makes the sacrificed life less valuable?

People for the Ethical Treatment of Brine Shrimp!!!! Come on here. When you maintain an in home aquarium you typically are trying to make the environment as realistic and natural for the inhabitants as you can. At least, that is what I do. If you do feed your fish, and they are not strict vegetarian, then you are sacrificing other animals to feed them. Whether those animals are alive or frozen or chopped into flake food, it does not matter. This is not a sacrifice. This is a fact of life. Whether the food is Brine Shrimp or Ghost Shrimp or Chocolate Chip Starfish or Damsels the result is the natural feeding of carnivorous species.

If you keep a species that has a specific diet, you should provide that specific diet or you will starve that animal to death. Mandarins pretty much have to have copepods. Harlequin Shrimp have to have starfish. If you cannnot provide these requirements for practical or your own percieved ethical reasons then you probably should not be in this hobby in the first place. Take up knitting...it does not threaten starfish or any other animal (unless you fall on the knitting needles) http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/angry/grindteeth.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/angry/evilgrin.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/celeb/icon_007.gif

[laxing22]

Originally posted by danieljames

I totally see what you are saying. The shrimp will eat what they eat, whether in your tank or in the wild. I guess what i am saying, is that the linkia's life is on your hands in your aquarium, and not in the wild. Goniopora die in the wild as well. Cleaner wrasse as well. But putting one in our home aquaria is a death sentence that is on our hands. Do blue linkia have a chance of survival on the reef??...Most certainly....Do they have a chance in your 75 with a pair of Harlequins and no other linkia??....doubtful.

The Silver Sides and the Krill I buy are dead and frozen. They really never had a chance. Also, I do not think my hamberger had much of a fighting chance out on that farm. Unless you are a vegan, you do this yourself, someone elses hands just get bloddy. We are only being responsible by givving the proper food to the Har's or what ever. Many Lion fish will only except live food and we ween them off on frozen. But that frozen fish was not always dead. Why does it matter if it is mass killed, frozen and sent to you or you put it in live? Not trying to Flame here, but it is all part of the great Circle of Life (I hear a song from Disney) and our responsibility to provide an environment as close to the wild as posible.

[Frick-n-Frags]

There is an "edit" button located in the upper right hand corner of the posted message box. This edit feature may be used to add to a post rather than needing to make many posts in sequence.

Just pointing out an option here, (and closely watching this thread too :D)

[SPC]

Originally posted by danieljames
another angle to try and get an answer.
How come one does not then introduce predators towards the harlequin? Is that not the next logical step in that philosophy?

Yes it would be IMO, the problem with this however is space limitations. Each of us must decide on what the "top" predator will be in the limited tank space we can provide.
Steve

[bmcelhinn]

A linkia which could have been a pet and safe from predators if people didn't buy them. Is a little different from brine shrimp that are meant as food and wouldn't have a chance anyways. Moreover a brine shrimp dies instantly when attacked by a predator usually. A Linckia getting slowly eaten is different. Sure they both die. But one was on their way to being someones pet, and is suffering alot more. (That is if starfish feel pain. If not that's another story) And pepito just showing my point of view that frozen and live food are the same ethicaly. Feel free to disagree. How can you argue that those are the same? Maybe both are bad if you really think of it, but you can't say they are the same because they aren't, buying frozen is the lesser of two evils. People need to drive, and they die alot due to accidents. So if you drive and buy cars, gas, etc. etc. you are supporting the auto industry. Supply and demand, is that which supports other industries that cause death the same as you personally running down people with your car? or putting them in a car with a drunk driver? I know it's not exactly like what we are discussing, but I'm trying to get across that creating demand for food that is needed is different than taking life on your own. Maybe neither are good but I clearly stated that on my last thread and also stated I try to use good judgment. But they are in no way the same thing. If that were the case, Foster Farms could save millions by not paying people and machines to kill and clean chickens and turkeys, they could sell them live and people wouldn't have a problem killing them on their own. Most people wouldn't. I worked at a pet store before and most people felt the same way. Most people specifically asked for fish that don't eat live food, and I usually asked them if they thought it was wrong, or because they didn't want to keep food live and take care of the food too. Most thought it was just plain wrong.

[baron_vonklyff]

Originally posted by bmcelhinn
If that were the case, Foster Farms could save millions by not paying people and machines to kill and clean chickens and turkeys, they could sell them live and people wouldn't have a problem killing them on their own. Most people wouldn't.

There are societies in the world that eat live animals. In Japan people want the freshest sushi, and therefore some people will eat live octopus and lobster. There are people that don't live in cities that hunt for their food and raise their own chickens and kill them for dinner. Everyone has their own standards and ethics. As you said, most people wouldn't, but there are some that would. To each their own.


Originally posted by bmcelhinn
I worked at a pet store before and most people felt the same way. Most people specifically asked for fish that don't eat live food, and I usually asked them if they thought it was wrong, or because they didn't want to keep food live and take care of the food too. Most thought it was just plain wrong.

I have also worked in a fish store, and I had customers that came in specifically for fish that would eat live food... Oscars, Groupers, Triggers, Gar, Baracuda, Sharks, Lionfish....etc. True some came in and asked for fish that did not require live food, but they were a minority, along with those that specifically requested active carnivores. For the most part, people realize that what is happening is natural and there is nothing wrong with it.

Whether the food is alive or preprepared, there really is not a difference. All of the food was alive at some point, and gave its life to sustain the food chain. Whether that food chain is in the ocean or in an aquarium doesn't matter. If you decide that in your own estimation that it is ethically wrong to feed live food, then you don't have to, and you don't have to keep an aquarium that houses any carnivores. However, there are many of us who don't see it your way. There are many that enjoy the natural feeding that goes on, and that includes live food.

One point of note though, if you object to live foods then you should remove all sand beds and live rock, or you might accidentally be feeding your fish the live copepods, amphipods and miniature starfish that live in these formations.

[danieljames]

boron_vonklyff:

I see what your saying. But on the reef without interference is a fact of life. Purposefully putting animals in our aquaria is most certainly not a "natural" process. The feeding of an animal in a captive environment cannot be a "natural" process. It is most UN-NATURAL for the animal to be there in the first place.

I think there is a misunderstanding in what i am asking. Erichugo has gotten closest to what i am trying to ask i think.

"In my mind, there is no difference between a sea star and a brine shrimp. Their size, beauty, and price is unimportant......."

He is stating (imo) he feels the life a brine shrimp is the same as a sea star.That is what i am trying to distill from everyones opinion. I in no way think someone should starve a harlequin in their tank. But i seriously doubt anyone has received a harlequin by chance. They are all purchased. Life occuring naturally on the reef is NOT THE SAME as life occuring in our captive aquaria (however badly we try to make it, myself included). It never, ever will be.

[bmcelhinn]

baron_vonklyff
Do you know how to read??? Or do you just choose not to? I never said I was against the use of live food. I use live food ocaisionally.
I'm no hippie or anything, I admit I feed my new sea horses live shrimp to wean them to frozen if they won't accept it. But I don't like when people buy live food if there are other options.
And I also said people did want animals that ate live things, I described what I thought of them.

I worked at a pet store and it disgusted me when stupid people would come in and buy a snake or oscar, just because they thought it was mean. It's like they didn't really care about the animal as a pet, but more to show off when their friends are at their house, or to say "I'm a bad dude I have this animal that kills things!" Or the gang banger punks that buy pitbulls to look hard.

I have also worked in a fish store, and I had customers that came in specifically for fish that would eat live food... Oscars, Groupers, Triggers, Gar, Baracuda, Sharks, Lionfish....etc.
Most if not all of the animals you described can eat frozen or pellets, and most are better off doing so. It just proves my point when those types of people come in and want goldfish and you tell them processed food is more healthy, and they still want the goldfish to watch them die. Not really caring about the animals health, they just want some sick entertainment. And it is true that people buy live food for themselves, or hunt. I clearly said the majority of people wouldn't. And if people in other countries still live like that I don't care. I don't and I don't personally know anybody who does. Just because they eat it doesn't mean it's right either. You are talking about the same people who cut sharks fins off for soup and leave the shark to die an agonizing death so they can have a ****ing bowl of soup! that is ridiculous. There are people who kill endangered tigers for their penis for an aphrodisiac, is that ok to? It doesn't matter to me how certain people live their lives, you made a ridiculous argument. Jeffrey Dahmer lived off of eating people, but I guess thats okay to because that was just the way of life for him! I'm not a maniac who thinks animals shouldn't kill each other. But having pets people should draw the line somewhere. And I still don't know how people can say buying a frozen animal, that is dead is the exact same thing to them as getting a living thing, and throwning it in the tank and watching it die. That is night and day to me. I do it, but I know the difference.

[danieljames]

.

[SPC]

Originally posted by bmcelhinn
And I still don't know how people can say buying a frozen animal, that is dead is the exact same thing to them as getting a living thing, and throwning it in the tank and watching it die. That is night and day to me. I do it, but I know the difference.

Well I don't know how you think they are different. Do you think because you don't witness the death of the animal that this makes a difference?
Steve

[bmcelhinn]

EXACTLY!! You are not personally throwning the animal to its death, how is that so hard for you to grasp???
I'm not saying both are right or wrong, I'm saying they are two different things, one is alot more direct.

[baron_vonklyff]

Originally posted by bmcelhinn
Just because they eat it doesn't mean it's right either. You are talking about the same people who cut sharks fins off for soup and leave the shark to die an agonizing death so they can have a ****ing bowl of soup! that is ridiculous. There are people who kill endangered tigers for their penis for an aphrodisiac, is that ok to? It doesn't matter to me how certain people live their lives, you made a ridiculous argument. Jeffrey Dahmer lived off of eating people, but I guess thats okay to because that was just the way of life for him!

You do have a valid point here, but this is where society tries to take an active roll. These practices have been at the least regulated, and at the most outlawed. If everyone was left to their own volition to set their own rules and regulations, then I believe that this society would never survive. The individual should not be left to draw his own lines when it comes to matters of ethics and morality. Whether it be the indiscriminant killing of sharks for the fins or cannibalism these acts are regulated by society and not by the individual. It is the individual that breaks these regulation and laws. However, not all of these things are against the law. Hunting is regulated, as is slaughter of chickens and other livestock. People still raise their own for their own consumption. People still hunt for food. It is the moral choice of the individual at play within the constraints of society.

In the aquarium hobby, it is the choice of the tank owner whether or not he tries to make the tank as natural as possible for his inhabitants. If he wants to have a fish that eats small shrimp, or a shrimp that eats starfish, that it the prerogative of the tank owner. However, if he wants to keep a Piranha that is a different story. He now has to contend with the laws a regulations of the society he is in. If it is against the law, then he will cross the line that society has imposed. The line is drawn by society, as to what can and cannot be done. It is up to the individual to set his standards at whatever level he wants on the right side of that line. He can choose to be right on the line, and never waiver from that point, or he can impose stricter restrictions as he sees fit.

Originally posted by bmcelhinn
I'm not a maniac who thinks animals shouldn't kill each other. But having pets people should draw the line somewhere. And I still don't know how people can say buying a frozen animal, that is dead is the exact same thing to them as getting a living thing, and throwning it in the tank and watching it die. That is night and day to me. I do it, but I know the difference.

Where is the difference really? Whether you do the killing or the killing is done for you. Killing has been done. Whether it is anonymous and distant, or up close and personal. If you take the stance that you should not kill, then you should not have someone else kill for you. Now, I know that you feed live food, and so do I. However, unlike you, I really do not see any difference. Whether the silverside is frozen or alive, it is still food to my fish. I buy fresh shimp at the fish market near me. I would buy live if I could, but I can't, and anyway my fish would not be large enough to eat them. However, I do get these shrimp and prepare them for my fish and for myself. These are shrimp that were alive that morning and killed by shrimpers and served up to me fresh. true, I did not eat it alive, but it was still living that morning that I (and my fish) ate it. Unless the food is completely synthetic or completely vegan then animals were killed to bring it to your table and/or to your fishes mouth. The only difference is whether or not you kill it yourself or you have soemone else do it for you. And as was stated, it does not matter whether the live food is brine shrimp or crabs or a blue linkia starfish, at the end of the day it still ends up as food.

[Pepito]

Why is frozen food a LESS evil then live? Atleast the live food is being eaten in a more natural way then being killed and frozen. Like said before, not witnessing the death is only for you comfort. The animal is still killed for you because of your demand for the "product". Still not flamming; just trying to have some discussion.

[bmcelhinn]

I see your points and I agree with them, I have said over and over I know that either way I'm contributing to the deaths of animals. But I do see a major difference. If you don't, then the next time you want chicken why don't you go to a farming store and get the chicken and kill it yourself. Then come back and tell me that you didn't feel any different doing that then you would buying one that is already dead.

[baron_vonklyff]

Originally posted by Pepito
Why is frozen food a LESS evil then live? Atleast the live food is being eaten in a more natural way then being killed and frozen. Like said before, not witnessing the death is only for you comfort. The animal is still killed for you because of your demand for the "product". Still not flamming; just trying to have some discussion.

Exactly my point.....except in a nice short and succinct statement, instead of my long rambling dissertation.

http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/spam.gif

[baron_vonklyff]

Originally posted by bmcelhinn
I see your points and I agree with them, I have said over and over I know that either way I'm contributing to the deaths of animals. But I do see a major difference. If you don't, then the next time you want chicken why don't you go to a farming store and get the chicken and kill it yourself. Then come back and tell me that you didn't feel any different doing that then you would buying one that is already dead.

Don't worry, I have killed my own food. I hunt. I fish. I have killed and eaten turkey, deer, adn a wide variety of fish. Yes, I did feel different...I felt more in tune with nature. Although, i doubt that that is the point you were trying to get across. http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/tong.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/misc/lecture.gif http://community.the-underdogs.org/smiley/happy/smokin.gif

[SPC]

Originally posted by bmcelhinn
EXACTLY!! You are not personally throwning the animal to its death, how is that so hard for you to grasp???
I'm not saying both are right or wrong, I'm saying they are two different things, one is alot more direct.

But why not? Personally I don't expect others to do what I am not willing to do myself.
Steve

[The Shaman]

As a reefkeeper, my goal is to try to provide( as closely as I can) a healthy, natural environment for the critters I keep. It is completely natural for these critters to hunt down their prey. If that means a cute little shrimp gets swallowed by a not so cute fish, so be it. This is perfectly natural, and I will do what is necessary to keep this harmony. It is wholly unnatural, IMO, to choose to keep a species and be unwilling to provide for them their natural diet.

IMO, sometimes people forget or let their feelings get in the way of how nature really works. It is indeed all about survival and perpetuation of the species. That's why I don't feel bad when I see a cute little shrimp get swallowed, or a sheep get torn apart by a pack of wolves. This is part of the cycle of life, and though it may not be pretty, it is succesful and has been for millions of years. Who am I to think I know better? :)

[outprowllin]

OMG.....Can't we all just get along?????

and by the way, if you choke a smurf it turns the same color as a Linkia.........except knowbodys going to eat it......:frog:

[johnrags1234]

I was not going to get involved in this one at all. But I am going to post my opinion and start running away. LOL.

I dont understand why feeding harlequin shrimp thir natural diet in captivity is so wrong. If someone was buying pairs upon pairs of these cool little guys and not feeding them properly (linkia stars) then, yes, I would be ****ed off. But if you are providing a stable, home with a natural diet, why does it matter?

Like it is said earlier, why is it ANY different from feeding your fish frrozen mysis. Should we make sure our fish/inverts also dont eat ANY of our pods because that is not eco friendly?!

I was going to order a pair, but decided not to because I cant always get a rid to my LFS, so it would be an unresponsible choice for me to make. I did NOT choose against purchasng them because they eat Linkia stars. In fact, I was only going to get them if I could for sure get a linkia for them to chow on every month, but sometimes it just isnt possible.


FWIW
John

[danieljames]

i just can't seem to get my point across.

johnraggs1234:

your quote: "If someone was buying pairs upon pairs of these cool little guys and not feeding them properly(linkia stars), then yes, i would be ****ed off"...

You would be "****ed off" if someone let the "cool little guys" starve in an aquarium.....if someone let the harlequin shrimp die, you would be ****ed. But NO mention of the linkia star dying as being anything even worth mentioning.

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?????.....i just wish to understand this aspect of it. WHY IS THE HARLEQUINS STARVING WORTHY OF BEING ****ED OFF ABOUT AND THE DEATH OF A LINKIA NOT?????.....Please help me to understand your point of view....i dont wish to debate whether or not it is cool to keep harlequins. Just why you would be ****ed that the harlequin is starved and NOT ****ed that a linkia died to stop it.

[danieljames]

"prey" is not worthy of living then??...only predators???....i truely wish to understand WHY people feel this way. Not whether or not it is ethical to keep harlequins. This is NOT what i am after. I dont feel anyone is right or wrong...i just wish to understand a point of view.

[danieljames]

and by the way john...if you where my neighbor, and came over and said you needed a ride to get a linckia to feed your harlequin...i would give you one. I just wish to understand a view that is different than my own.

[bmcelhinn]

People that are arguing the point here are only telling one side of the story, they want to be right. They can tell themselves that they are right all day long I don't care. Putting an animal no matter what it is into a captive environment and then trying to make it natural by adding something into this closed environment with no way to defend itself is not natural. And adding goldfish and most other live feeders that aren't even natural prey for the animal isn't natural either. If someone has to go so far out of their way to keep feeders alive between feedings or go to the store constantly to get them when there are better things you can feed an animal obviously just want to have some god complex and be in control of life and death, or watch things die. I've seen people die, in fact when I was 17 I shot somebody who tried to kill my brother. I have been through alot and have very stong opinions and understand life more. I'm not talking so much about feeding har. shrimp linkias aside from the fact that the linkia could have been a pet for someone else. But I'm talking about the people who want to see things die, or kill things and say they are close to nature as an exuse. Animals kill because they need too. My opinion is when people want to kill things when they don't have to they are just sick.

[danieljames]

shaman.....

you imply that our captive reefs are somehow a replica of nature. I feel this could not be further from the truth. As much as we want them to be, WE OURSELVES are "Lord" over our aquaria. We decide what lives and dies. We most certainly do not decide what lives and dies on the reef.

[danieljames]

We encourage only what is pleasing to our eye in our aquaria (imo). We do not introduce what is possibly damaging to our expensive coral do we???....This is not even close to nature. Not even close. And yet people say they are "creating a natural environment" for a given species they put in their tank. Is it truely creating a "natural" environment for a harlequin, when you completely omit predators for it in your aquaria??...Why is it more natural to create an environment for it to feed, and not to be fed upon?? Why??

[tentacle]

I didn't read the whole thread, and I apologize, but Daniel, maybe we can stop using the word "Linckia" and substitute it for starfish. Harlequin shrimp have been observed eating a wide variety of starfish (Glynn, 1984). Mine mostly get species of Fromia, but this is academic. Your contesting that discrimination exists, and I can understand that.

You're right that in a natural environment, Harlequin shrimp will prey on starfish, and get preyed upon. Those that keep Harlequin shrimp enjoy their beauty and of coarse have to provide food for them, and would not introduce any animal that would consider them food. In reality a very small percentage of the starfish taken from the wild get sold to Harlequin keepers. Many die in transit. Many days later after their arrival to the wholesaler/LFS/someone's tank due to improper acclimation. And the rest live out their lives in tanks free from Harlequin predation.

All the starfish collected in the trade are not endangered AFAIK, and while Harlequin shrimp are obligates, many other animals in the ocean eat starfish as well (mollusks such as Charonia tritonis, sea otters, crabs, sharks, whales).

[pnosko]

Originally posted by bmcelhinn
EXACTLY!! You are not personally throwning the animal to its death, how is that so hard for you to grasp???
I'm not saying both are right or wrong, I'm saying they are two different things, one is alot more direct. bmcelhinn, PLEASE consider taking a deep breath and relaxing a little before this thread heads south and gets closed.

I don't really see the logic in your argument that feeding food that someone else killed is significantly different than feeding live food. Just because it is your personal preference to buy and eat dead food instead of killing it yourself doesn't mean that your tank inhabitants feel the same way.

You say that feeding live food in a closed environment is not natural. How many species in the ocean get a diet of frozen dead food naturally?

FWIW, I feed mainly frozen foods. However, I maintain a DSB and a refugium with a DSB to grow an abundant supply of live critters that are a mini live food chain as well.

[danieljames]

works for me tentacle.

By the way....its not even about that. I just cant seem to get my point across. So i will stop trying. Thanks for all the replies. My search continues..........

[OscarBeast]

Just a real quick thought.

I eat seafood (much is still harvested wild). I also eat other types of meat. I also keep various aquariums.

I don't mind killing animals for a useful purpose as long as they are not endangered, rare, or in risk of becoming so as long as there is no or minimal suffering.

The sad fact of the matter is that for everything in your tank that you have alive, MANY others died getting that to you. Even if it is tank raised or aquacultured, MANY wild ones died before someone figured out how to propagate/spawn them so you could have one that was "tank raised" or "aquacultured". Even then, many of these tank raised creatures will die due to various things such as shipping, inexperienced reefers, and unpreventable equipment failure or other unforeseen incident. This is a selfish hobby where we capture animals and place then in an enclosed environment where many will and do die in our tanks or in the process of getting to us despite their origin.

If you can't deal with the fact that this hobby does and will result in the loss of life, then you are in the wrong hobby as it is a luxury. Until humans, shipping methods, and equipment all become perfect, this will always be the case.

IMHO, being ethical and responsible is simply doing what we can to keep the wild population of our creatures thriving, but understanding there will ALWAYS be the loss of life and try to minimize it. However it doesn't always have to impact the wild population. It is "OK" to harvest wild creatures as long as we aren't depleting populations. It is better to acquire aquacultured or tank raised creatures if you can, but this still doesn't prevent loss of life. It only helps to preserve wild populations.

One a side note, someone used the argument about live starfish being fed to their shrimp. Many stated that this happened anyway in the wild. Well yes, but feeding live starfish has a much larger impact on the wild population when we feed in our tanks. The reason is simply that several starfish died just to get that one live starfish home to you. Now you take that starfish and feed it as food and of course it dies as well. As a result MANY starfish died just so you could feed one, where in the wild, only a single starfish would have died. You do the math. It doesn't quite come out the same...

Someone else said that frozen and live is the same? Well not if you think about it. The reason being is that when you have frozen, animals are collected with the intent to be killed. Thus is all animals captured will be used for food. If you are doing something like feeding the live starfish you buy from your LFS, you get to feed one that was captured while the rest that died in transit are thrown away and are a total loss. That is a lot of waste just so you can feed one live creature.

Hmmm, well I guess I had more than one thought and it wasn't quite so quick...

[SPC]

Originally posted by OscarBeast
Someone else said that frozen and live is the same? Well not if you think about it. The reason being is that when you have frozen, animals are collected with the intent to be killed. Thus is all animals captured will be used for food. If you are doing something like feeding the live starfish you buy from your LFS, you get to feed one that was captured while the rest that died in transit are thrown away and are a total loss. That is a lot of waste just so you can feed one live creature

I disagree. The number of animals that must die due to bi catch is staggering when talking about shrimp and is not even close to the number of animal deaths due to collecting for the hobby.
I don't remember the exact number, but it is something like 10 lbs of bi catch die for each lb of shrimp.
Steve

[SPC]

Originally posted by danieljames
...Why is it more natural to create an environment for it to feed, and not to be fed upon?? Why??

I said this earlier but never got a responce to it so I will try it one last time;) .
The reason for this is that each hobbyist must set the upper limit of predation with the physical size of the environement they can supply.
Is it natural that every animal in our tanks does not have a higher predator that would normally pray upon them, no IMO. But this can be easily solved if we look at the animal who is currently on the top of the food chain, man. I doubt that there are any animals in our tanks that are not prayed upon by man. If we really want to make it natural maybe the thing to do is to drag a net through the water or drop a hook in there or use a little dynamite and cyanide as man is so fond of doing.:)
Steve

[kmk2307]

I think a vocabulary word that might help this discussion out is evolution.

Kevin

[baron_vonklyff]

Originally posted by danieljames
We encourage only what is pleasing to our eye in our aquaria (imo). We do not introduce what is possibly damaging to our expensive coral do we???....This is not even close to nature. Not even close. And yet people say they are "creating a natural environment" for a given species they put in their tank. Is it truely creating a "natural" environment for a harlequin, when you completely omit predators for it in your aquaria??...Why is it more natural to create an environment for it to feed, and not to be fed upon?? Why??

Now this is ridiculous. Why would anyone waste money in an aquarium to introduce something he know will kill his aquarium? I guess your little thread here does boil down to money. I spend $40 on a coral (many times over)...why would I introduce a predator to that mix just to see my investment go down the drain?

Yes we want our tanks to be as natural as possible. However, we don't want to kill our show pieces. There is a difference between showpieces and food. It does not matter whether that food is Blue and has 5 arms, or is 1/4 inch long and has an exoskeleton. Food is food and showpieces are showpieces. It is up to the aquarist to determine which is which.

We are in this hobby to keep our systems alive. We therefore provide the most natural food for our livestock and we try to keep them free of predation, parasitation and disease. If you consider the blue linkia a showpiece then you would not introduce a pair of harlequin shrimp into the tank. However if you consider the harlequin shrimp to be the showpieces then to keep them from starving you have to feed them live starfish...they will eat nothing else. I think that therein lies the difference that you seek Daniel.

If you have a problem with the way this is, then this probably is not the best hobby for you to be in. If you have a problem with this, then pet ownership as a whole is not really in your best interest....even in dog ownership you have to kill a few flees and that would create a moral dilema if this thread is followed through to its natural conclusion.

[OscarBeast]

Originally posted by SPC
I disagree. The number of animals that must die due to bi catch is staggering when talking about shrimp and is not even close to the number of animal deaths due to collecting for the hobby.
I don't remember the exact number, but it is something like 10 lbs of bi catch die for each lb of shrimp.
Steve

I think it is up to 30% of a typical catch is bi-catch (using legal fishing methods) and we don't know the mortality rate of the bi-catch that is thrown back, but guess much of it doesn't survive.

[Covenant]

WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY?????.....i just wish to understand this aspect of it. WHY IS THE HARLEQUINS STARVING WORTHY OF BEING ****ED OFF ABOUT AND THE DEATH OF A LINKIA NOT?????.....Please help me to understand your point of view....

Here's my answer: Because as reefers, we CHOOSE certain organisms. An aquarium is not natural, never will be. We are playing God in our tanks. I bought peppermint shrimps to control my aiptasia outbreak in order to protect the corals I had purchased. I feel awful that I had to control the aiptasia population by destroying them, but if I didn't intervene, the tank would balance itself in a way that isn't pleasing to me. If my tank doesn't please me, why should I have it? Maybe my next one will be an experiment to see what would happen if I left everything in it to it's own devices, but this tank is for my clownfish and corals.

Food is food and showpieces are showpieces. It is up to the aquarist to determine which is which.

I agree. As long as we're responsible and remember that it's all life, and a brine shrimp's life is as important to it as a prize harlequin's is to itself.

[He Aint Lion]

Law of the Jungle - Obey the strong, oppress the weak...


Say you were unfortunate enough to be in a sea wreck , and are treading water, unfortunately you are 80km's off Port Lincoln on the South Australian coast and an 18 ft Great white (Carcharadon Carcharias) decides you are invited to dinner (as the main course). Circumstance has contrived to put you in that position, you are now under his control, and in his element, you will recieve no quarter, and no mercy, this is nature in action, except the usual roles are reversed.

Right??, Wrong??, tell it to Mr Jagged Tooth.

Daniel James, to have a discussion, no matter how carefully and finely worded it is, no matter how delicately you tiptoe around attempting to not hurt peoples feelings, you must still be willing to listen to other opinions , even if they differ from your own, otherwise its not a discussion with two points of view rather a one opinioned dialogue.

[pitbullpooch]

not that this has alot to do with whats been talked about but to add to barons comment about even dog owners have to kill a couple fleas which is a good point also im in the horse buisness and alot of horses are bought at horse auctions and sold in canada to be butcherd all for dog food and glue of coarse.this is a little more cruel then whats being dicussed here.its just a cheap way to make dog food.

[thallone]

Daniel,

I think I understand your point, but I find the argument to be both unpersuasive, and somewhat misguided.

If I understand you correctly, the question revolves around whether it is ethical to make the choices to feed one animal to another, since, as thinking beings, we know what we are doing, and do so knowing that we are puttong 'innocent' creatures to death for our pleasure, or to feed things that give us pleasure.

The answer is, oddly, yes, it is ethical.

Consider this: Imagine if it were possible to go to the seashore every day, and observe (in this case) a Harlequin shrimp in it's natural environment as easily as we could in a tank. Now imagine that we notice that these attractive Blue Linkias are getting eaten by the shrimp. Would kit then be unethical to allow the shrimp to continue to eat the Linkias? It's really the same question. we see the natural way of things, we understand it, now do we interfere?

Since out tanks are supposed to provide us with a convenient way to observe the life in the sea without ewach having to have our own private tidepool, we are obligasted to recreate as much of the necessary natural environment for the creatures we keep as possible. By necessary, I mean food sources, lighting, water condition, etc. If we cannot satisfy, for whatever reason, the great majority of the needs of the creatures we keep, we should not keep them. Is it unethical of us to select WHICH linkias get offed as food? Yes. Our creatures in the wild would choose the most available food source. We do the same thing.

Jeff

[Shlou]

is it ethecial to feed one animal to another?

this question leads into the much larger ethical question:

is it ethical for you to go to mcdonalds and eat a cheesburger?

yes of course it is ethical for animals to eat each other, this is the natural food chain and nature would collapse if we tried to interfere and stop it. the real question you are asking is wheather or not it is ethical for man to attempt to control this food chain. is it ethical for us to mass produce cows and chickens so we may eat them? is it ethical for us to collect starfish so that our pet shrimp may eat them? in the natrual food chain these animals would be eaten anyway, but is it ethical for us to collect/grow/raise them just for this purpose?

[bmcelhinn]

I mostly agree with everyone, I don't mind feeding live. Especially ghost shrimp and brine shrimp. But things like goldfish and linkia stars I feel bad for. They could be pets. Alot of times you see small koi in with feeders that are beautiful fish that can live 100 years. It is one thing to feed live to something that needs it, but for someone who just gets off on killing is sick.

[PygmyAngel]

...Night before last my 5 yr old son was looking at my reef, and messing with the bowl that the live brine shrimp were in that I feed my tanks....a few seconds later I hear a noise and go see what's going on (I was in the other room), to find him soaked from head to toe, with a scared look on his face, denying that anything at all happened...so i get a closer look at him, and he is covered from head to toe, including in his hair, live brine shrimp...
:eek: Then I go to the table where the bowl was...more live brine shrimp everywhere...on the table, on the tankstand doors, and mainly all in the carpet... :eek1: (...As he was trying to look at the live brine, he rested his hand on the bowl and flipped it everywhere). :rolleyes:

So what do we proceed to do for the next 20 minutes?
After I carefully remove every little live brine shrimp off his body that I can 1st, with toothpicks in hand, we gently remove each live brine off the carpet, table, etc., and put back in a bowl of water. :hmm5: Of course, during which he knocks the bowl over 2 more times while crawling on the floor to get the rest of the brines. (Murphy and his law just love to taunt me).

And all this for what? To not waste the lives of the little brines and feed them to the fishes anyway. And as I am crouched there on the floor wondering if I am not completely insane yet, and how did it come to this, and why am I not just vacuuming them up if they will get eaten anyway, I hear my son say (as only a brutally honest 5 year old would), 'I can see their big eyes', and 'Hurry mommy, and get this one so it doesn't die'. :( Lessons in irony abound....

As far as which life would be more important than another as to justify sacrificing it for the other...to me, the brine shrimp is just as important as the fish I am feeding it to. But as others have mentioned, I chose one animal over the other to keep/sustain, in my reef (my pet, or showpiece, or whatever). So I must supply to it the animal, or diet, which it eats. I try not to think about that, but I do have a conscience. For me, I don't value the brine shrimp, or the silverside, or the zooplankton any less than the creatures in my reef. But I chose to care for the animals that I do, that feed on them. Each creature is important to the ecosystems of our world. And each creature must eat another to survive. Even plants/vegetables are life. Everything/everyone must eat some form of life (even a cracker was a wheat plant) to continue to live.

As far as preference, I would not want to care for an animal that feeds only on starfishes or larger inverts, because my personal preference would lean towards keeping these animals as a possible pet, or showpiece, and it is harder for me to use them as food. But in my personal feelings, I don't value the life of a brine shrimp any less than a starfish.

As for putting a live animal in the tank to be killed, or putting in something that is frozen/already killed, it is similar, but different. :rolleyes: As in, both sides are a little correct.
(No wonder so much debate about it). Look at it this way. Yes, it is easier to put in an already killed shrimp or piece of food, just like it is easier to eat a cheeseburger than go out and kill the cow and prepare the burger yourself. However, are you still guilty of killing someone if you hire a hitman to do the job, or you do the job yourself? Yes, it may be easier to have someone do it for you, and you don't get charged with 1st degree murder. But you still get found guilty because you conspired to have it done. Whether you kill the animal yourself or you use the killed animal for the purpose it was killed for, but didn't do the deed, you are still a part of the act because you are supporting the action, or involved some way in the effort, whether it be directly or indirectly. I know that I will not eat shark fin soup because I would be promoting the cruel and senseless killing of sharks by buying this soup. Being a supporter of it would make me a guilty party to it. Maybe not the ones cutting off the fins, but does that make it ok to buy the soup just because I didn't cut the fins, and then say I don't support the action because I wasn't there?

I do what I believe in; yes, I have a conscience. The question Daniel is asking is one of conscience and personal motive. He is asking each person's opinion as to how he/she feels about choosing a particular life to sacrifice, and why. He is not asking for right or wrong. He is asking each individual's motive. So I gave my personal feelings and motive. He did not ask for a debate whether it is right to feed an animal to another. He is asking, if it has to be done, how do you feel about choosing one life over the other?

Oh, the ironies and the intricate balance of life....

[Pepito]

PygmyAngel:

That was all very nicely said

[PygmyAngel]

:)

[flaunt]

this is an old thread but i wanted to chime in anyway... questions like this will never be answered in any way that everyone agrees. the reason is that the "question" is really a whole long series of never ending questions. i mean, if you're going to get philosophical about feeding starfish to other creatures in your aquarium, why stop there? what about the copepods on your aquarium glass that get feasted upon by your fish, or flatworms? Those copepods came (or were produced by those who came) from the liverock that happened to be collected from some part of the ocean. Perhaps a copepod would have lived a longer, fuller life (however long they live) if it had been left alone in the ocean? You will never know.

IMO this question is one for which we should not even attempt an answer. One reason is that we as humans have since day one been interacting with the ocean environment and probably have caused cascading effects that end up meaning the death of one linkia starfish versus another. A better reason, however, is that we are part of nature, just like the cow, just like the dog, just like the starfish and the halequin shrimp that eats them. Because we have the ability to BE philosophical, however, we think that makes our responsibility much greater to those living things around us. It's good that we are able to use our judgement in order to live in harmony with nature, rather than destroying the world, but we shouldn't use that same judgement to attempt to redefine our own role within it.