LFS laughter

aufishman

aufishman

Member
Originally Posted by rot_stupid
http:///forum/post/2532913
I don't get it. Everyone says don't cycle with damsels cuz you kill the damsels and it inhumane. But go ahead and cycle with a raw shrimp? As if the shrimp wasn't a living creature that also had to die, ultimately for the same purpose. I understand the concept that they are hard to get out once done, because I still have 1 damsel in my 150 that I just got tierd of trying to catch so this time I'm just ghost feeding my 90 to cycle it.
Do whatever works for you. Personally, I don't get too worked up about all this fish "suffering".
 
phelpz

phelpz

Member
I think every time something like this has happened to me they knew better. It sucks that you cant go into stores and ask a simple question without getting a bunch of BS, and them trying to sell you something you dont need, or will do more harm than good.
I'm about to go to one of these types of stores in a few. Not looking forward to it.
 
readster

readster

Member
Originally Posted by AUFishman
http:///forum/post/2532981
Do whatever works for you. Personally, I don't get too worked up about all this fish "suffering".

I with ya on that one. I don't like to see them lay on the floor of the tank, gasping, but other than that, i'm not to worried about it.
 
rot_stupid

rot_stupid

Member
Originally Posted by Tizzo
http:///forum/post/2532955
The shrimp had to die for a different purpose. Cause we eat them!
But one taken out of our diet and thrown into the tank makes no difference.
And they are already dead.
This is my point. You didn't eat the shrimp, so saying it died for food is not true anymore. And if something is going to die, is it any different if you kill it yourself, or have someone else do it for you?
 
stdreb27

stdreb27

Active Member
Originally Posted by rot_stupid
http:///forum/post/2533407
This is my point. You didn't eat the shrimp, so saying it died for food is not true anymore. And if something is going to die, is it any different if you kill it yourself, or have someone else do it for you?
lol there is a difference between a fish and a shrimp...
ok well you could argue that usually damsels don't die and shrimp already have died... So in the sceme of things damsels make out a little better.
 
alienhybridx

alienhybridx

Member
if you think about it people who cycle with damsels are doing a favor for the fish....we are putting them in a new home instead of letting them die at the LFS...there are many people that cycle with them and there's really nothing wrong with it seeing as to how people will end up getting rid of them anyway in the long run and you know its true......with that said whether it's a fish or a shrimp they were both once living ...there are people overseas that eat sharks and many other things that us hobbyists would like to keep in an aquarium think about that for a second...
 
grim_reefer

grim_reefer

Member
wow.. 10 damsels in a 55g aquarium.. even if they did live through it, there will be no more room for other fish, not to mention they would all kill whatever fish was put in with them.. imagine being a kid in high school with nobody except the bullies attending.. would be a nightmare!
 
T

tizzo

Guest
Originally Posted by rot_stupid
http:///forum/post/2533407
This is my point. You didn't eat the shrimp, so saying it died for food is not true anymore. And if something is going to die, is it any different if you kill it yourself, or have someone else do it for you?
But it did die for food... The seafood dept doesn't care if you eat it, drop it, cocktail it or sell it. They caught, beheaded, and cleaned that shrimp for our consumption.
Because you used it to cycle doesn't change the reason it was on ice to begin with.
 
fatcat

fatcat

Member
Originally Posted by rot_stupid
http:///forum/post/2533526
So what's the difference? Am I to understand we only have care about the "pretty" animals?
When you go to the seafood counter and see the shrimp on ice thats not spcificly your fault that they are dead BUT putting a damsel in your tank and letting its gill burn that IS your fault.
Thats the difference..
There is no need to put any animal through that..
JM $0.02
 
rot_stupid

rot_stupid

Member
I'm just suprised that some people will scorn someone for killing one animal, yet they think that just because they buy slabs of flesh at a meat market killed and slaughtered by someone else, it is somehow more humane. Just because you paid somebody to kill it for you, doesn't absolve you of the responsibilty for it's death. And burning gills doesn't seem much different to me then allowing a shrimp to suffocate out of water before they decapitate them and carve off their legs. IMHO.
 
T

tizzo

Guest
Originally Posted by rot_stupid
http:///forum/post/2533862
I'm just suprised that some people will scorn someone for killing one animal, yet they think that just because they buy slabs of flesh at a meat market killed and slaughtered by someone else, it is somehow more humane. Just because you paid somebody to kill it for you, doesn't absolve you of the responsibilty for it's death. And burning gills doesn't seem much different to me then allowing a shrimp to suffocate out of water before they decapitate them and carve off their legs. IMHO.
I don't care what people do with their fish. I don't care how people cycle their tanks, but I gotta mention that, that example you just gave is not valid. And by that I mean...to compare your dinner, and how it came to be, with a "pet", is well unfair.
Sure I enjoy my share of animal, including veal so I don't have a bleeding heart for the animals, but I try to take care of my dog and I feel the same about my fish.
The analagy you gave would give me free reighn to say, well my dog got hit by a car and is hurt, but he'll make it through it eventually or he'll die.
There is a difference in dinner and pets you chose to care for. It is simply irresponsible to buy an animal, house it and not care of it's well being. Fish, dog, cat... well, except cat....j/k
 
woodwalker

woodwalker

Member
You go Rot Stupid. I have argued the same point on the shrimp and it seems
that harming the damsel is bad but you throw the shrimp in your tank and you are good. We all must face the fact that once these fish are plucked
off the reef somewhere and shipped to the lfs they are doomed. We can keep clean tanks and a nice enviroment but it's not like being in the ocean. Same goes with the Tang Police, You think a nice 55gal tank with a diligent tank owner is better than rotting in the lfs 10gal tank ??? Just mo
 
crimzy

crimzy

Active Member
Originally Posted by rot_stupid
http:///forum/post/2533862
I'm just suprised that some people will scorn someone for killing one animal, yet they think that just because they buy slabs of flesh at a meat market killed and slaughtered by someone else, it is somehow more humane. Just because you paid somebody to kill it for you, doesn't absolve you of the responsibilty for it's death. And burning gills doesn't seem much different to me then allowing a shrimp to suffocate out of water before they decapitate them and carve off their legs. IMHO.
He's got a point here. As an example, let's say 100 fish get taken out of the ocean. Of those 100, 85 are taken by fishermen for food. The other 15 get taken for the hobby, and 14 of them die at some point in shipping, the lfs or in some irresponsible hobbiest's tank. 1 may live for a year or two before finding a similar demise. So, as far as the fish are concerned, is either choice any better, or more virtuous?
If you take a broad view of things, then using couple of damsels to cycle a tank (which generally does NOT cause long term damage to the fish) is really not a big deal.
I've said this before... anyone who considers themself a "fish-saver" is in the WRONG HOBBY.
JMO
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top