How do you make a puffer fish puff?

[saltyzoo]

Forgive me for being repetitive, but there is the only one reason I became involved in this thread. I have no interest to debate the dozens of other issues at this place and time. I'm only trying to drive one small point home to those reading this thread.

You should never handle your fish unless absolutely necessary. It is stressful and has been shown to cause harm to the fish in more than one way.

 

[Len]

You should never handle your fish unless absolutely necessary. It is stressful and has been shown to cause harm to the fish in more than one way.

It would help us greatly if you could define "neccesary."

We'll disagree on the fact that human contact with fish is always harmful. But for clarification's sake, no one is recommending hobbyist purposely handle their fish.

 

[Anonymous]

It has been shown that keeping fish in glass boxes is stressful to the fish. You should get rid of your glass box, or get off the soap box!

 

[saltyzoo]

As long as people keep repeating their opinions over and over, I guess I'll keep repeating mine.

Croaker, I debunked the fallacy you used in your post several pages back. For the full story go back and read it, the short version is the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right".

You should never handle your fish unless absolutely necessary. It is stressful and has been shown to cause harm to the fish in more than one way.

 

[Anonymous]

Who are you, anyway? Someone I know, or should know?

You'll have to tell that zebra moray and a whole SLEW of puffers (not to mention a few humu humu triggers, my koi, and the baby bamboos I was helping raise up) that they can't come for their scritches. I'm not sure how you'll get the point across to 'em, either, that getting their scritches are really, really bad for them and it's not necessary. :|

 

[Len]

Croaker, I debunked the fallacy you used in your post several pages back. For the full story go back and read it, the short version is the saying "Two wrongs don't make a right".

I know you're not interested in pursuing this line of discussion, but you never did explain how you can justify an arguably less ethicial practice of keeping wild animals in captivy and yet make huge waves about gently pinching a puffer - a practice which people with practical experience have told us is not quantifiably harmful.

I'll leave it at that since you do not seem interested in pursuing this dicussion any further.

 

[Len]

Ok, so I lied.

I just wanted to add that I fully understand (and agree with) your point about two wrongs not making a right. But I also hope you can understand why people may be perplexed why you're so indignant about something that experienced people have said is not harmful but still find the whole concept of captive reefkeeping acceptable. I'd be happy to start a new thread if you're willing to engage in that discussion.

 

[Habib (Salifert)]

...........Is it really a 'bad' thing then, to cause stress as long as you don't push past the animals limit to accept it, and then make sure the animal has what it needs to recover?.........

That must be some real fun to do it perhaps even every day if one would consider it necessary.

Are you guys suggesting with questions like:

...........That language is part of the problem. What is 'necessary'? Peoples definations differ..........

That it is OK to create conditions which might stress fish or cause harm to their protective systems (mucus layer, scales, vitamin reserves, etc) regardless for whatever reason, anytime, any place because a certain soul might consider it necessary?????



I'm totally stunned.



It is well known how important the mucus layer and scales are in giving protection against a.o. diseases. Some diseases we will see others might remain unnoticed.

It is also known that unnatural handeling of fish e.g. by holding/grabbing them will impact the mucus layer. The extent can be very small to very high.

I think that it is a matter of common sense then to avoid handeling as much as possible.

So if it is not necessary then it should IMO not be done.

I think it is a matter of how a persons mind is in what he/she would define necessary in this context.

Just some examples: If a person considers taking a fish out with his/her bare hands just for the kick or bags a fish just for fun or uses it as a shuttle with/his her badminton racket then these persons might consider it as necessary. A necessity because otherwise it could not be done what they wanted.

FWIW I don't consider it as necessary but there will always be people who will consider these things and many more things as a necessity.


IMO the disagreements in the previous posts might reflect what some of the people consider in this thread as a necessity to handle fish physically and some not.


I assume no one is trying to make a new law.

So I guess for a person to form an opinion the knowledge about the importance and fragility of the mucus layer and scales is of importance so is the knowledge about what happens with a fish when stressed.


FWIW I think that no one should use the argument that if stress during catching and transportation is acceptable everything else (or very close to it) should be acceptable.

IMO many people who love this hobby try their best (what is definition of best???????? ) to make the fish and other reef creatures feel as good as possible.

 

[Len]

Habib,

I think you've misinterpreted what Righty has written. He's simply curious (as am I) why people aren't equally enraged in the fundamental idea behind keeping wild fish in captivity .... a stress arguably greater then any rare handling of fish (which BTW no one has recommended). It's now become an ethical debate.

I think we've all established that it is not recommended that people needlessly handle their fish. We all agree that providing the best possible care for the animals and plants you choose to take custody of is important and ethical.

What remains in contention are:
1) How much harm does one pinch/puff inflict? From an academic point of view, we understand the significance of the mucus secreted by fish (although it should be noted the amount of mucus secreted and the protection it provides is HIGHLY variable). It is a bad idea to handle fish in principle. But from a practical, real-world viewpoint, absolutely no one has offered any data that pinching/puffing negatively affects fish. I can understand both sides of the argument.
2) The basic ethics of reefkeeping is in question. I don't believe anyone is trying to steer the discussion away from the first contention, but ethics is definitely relevant to this conversation and can't be ignored IMHO. Apparently some people do not want to discuss it while others find it not only interesting, but critical to talk about in light of this thread's topic.

Necessary is an ambigious and misappropriated word the way we use it in this thread. But I think we all agree that keeping fish in captivity is not necessary, nor is pinching a pufferfish.

No one is using the argument that since fish are terribly stressed during collection and transport, it's acceptable to put further stress on them under our care. Again, I think some folks are seriously misinterpreting the philsophical implications of what others are saying.

 

[Anonymous]

OK, my 2 cents?
Personally, if I had a puffer I wouldn't touch it- I've seen plenty of puffers puff up. But I think part of whats going on here is people are reacting to emotional level of the discourse; the "anti-pinchers" seem a bit like PETA. But then so do tang police, some times.

When I was a kid we used to fish for puffers, and we would fill buckets with the inflated fish. They are quite tasty, but once when my mom saw how many we caught (she had to clean them) she dumped a whole bucketful back in the bay. They were all full of air and floated a while before deflating and swimming off....

 

[DJ88]

My apologies.

I am just perpetuating this thread.

I shouldn't have posted.

This isn't due to whatever responses there are after my post. I haven't read them and for the most part probably won't.

My apologies again. I will bow out politely. I suggested to a friend that he refrain from posting anymore. I should have taken my own advice.

Cheers!

 

[Len]

Who are you, anyway? Someone I know, or should know?

I guess that says it all as far as the attitude goes here.. :roll:

Darren,

Seamaiden is responding to saltyzoo's quote: "I find this fact deplorable. As I write this, I think I'm beginning to realize that you aren't disagreeing with my words, you are disagreeing only because of who I am." He insists that people are arguing with him simply because of who he is, when in fact, Seamaiden has no idea who he is. I think you've jumped the gun there.

 

[Mogo]

So I go away on vacation and come back and this thread is still active?? I say close this thread. Or else I may have to pinch you. The end.

 

[Anonymous]

...I think I'm beginning to realize that you aren't disagreeing with my words, you are disagreeing only because of who I am.

I was just about to make that point, and you outtyped me, Len.

To expand on what he said, not only do I not know who "saltyzoo" is, it really shouldn't matter, should it? Unless we have a friend in common or something, in which case I'd actually love to know, say "hey" and all. I really didn't think that was so wrong, this being a relatively small industry, and the world wide web making ours a much smaller world.

In any event, I've handled more aquatic animals than I can count, it seems that my experience holds little water...LOL! (at first I didn't mean the pun, but it works, yes?), including that which has demonstrated to me that a HAPPY, healthy fish that apparently can enjoy interacting with me (outside the shipping arena, of course) has not only not ever been harmed, but is coming back for more (demonstration of aforementioned enjoyment). As I said before, were it any other animals besides a fish, no one would get so worked up about me (or anyone else) simply touching it. And when I say "scritches" I mean just that, a little rubbing, a little scratching, and there are those with their own particular preferences. My point? None of this is absolute or axiomatic, and I use my personal experience to guage this. I also use my personal experience when advising "noobs".

 

[Len]

Want to know why it is being argued? Entertainment purposes. I see no other reason. Argue for the sake of arguing.

I can't speak for others, but I'm not debating ethical issues for the purpose of entertainment. It's for the purpose of critical, deep thinking. I know some folks don't find such debates interesting, but they help me as a person to understand myself and to understand others. I ask you not to devalue the importance of the ideas being discussed here by referring to them as nothing more then contentious entertainment. Ethics is what defines our actions and I can think of few discussion more important and pertinent to our lives.

To address one of your points: You make the concsious decision to keep marine fish, hence you are directly responsible for the stress it suffers to get said fish to your aquarium for your amusement. Not taking responsiblity for the great stresses inflicted on fish in every chain of custody until it reaches your house is not responsible. Would you buy a dog if you knew that for every one you bought, 20 or more have to die?

 

[Anonymous]

Hey Habib! Its nice to see you here!

That must be some real fun to do it perhaps even every day if one would consider it necessary.

Not any more or any less than keeping fish in a box is really fun :wink:

Are you guys suggesting with questions like:

...........That language is part of the problem. What is 'necessary'? Peoples definations differ..........

That it is OK to create conditions which might stress fish or cause harm to their protective systems (mucus layer, scales, vitamin reserves, etc) regardless for whatever reason, anytime, any place because a certain soul might consider it necessary?????

Nope.

It is well known how important the mucus layer and scales are in giving protection against a.o. diseases. Some diseases we will see others might remain unnoticed.

It is also known that unnatural handeling of fish e.g. by holding/grabbing them will impact the mucus layer. The extent can be very small to very high.

I think that it is a matter of common sense then to avoid handeling as much as possible.

Yep!

So if it is not necessary then it should IMO not be done.

Necessary being the operative word. It is not necessary to keep animals in our living rooms. It is also not necessary to keep rearranging stuff in a tank. The list of non necessary activities in this hobby is close to endless.
I think my issue with the word necessary is that none of what we do as hobbyists is necessary, so to condemn another's actions on the basis of necessity is bizarre :wink:

...
FWIW I don't consider it as necessary but there will always be people who will consider these things and many more things as a necessity.

Right on. And that is part of the problem with using the word 'necessary'. It seems that some want to think keeping captive reefs is 'necessary', but pinching a puffer once and a while is not. The cognitive dissonance involved in such thinking boggles my mind.

So I guess for a person to form an opinion the knowledge about the importance and fragility of the mucus layer and scales is of importance so is the knowledge about what happens with a fish when stressed.

Right on.

FWIW I think that no one should use the argument that if stress during catching and transportation is acceptable everything else (or very close to it) should be acceptable.

Agreed.
And, contrary to some of the posts you may have read, no one is making that argument.

IMO many people who love this hobby try their best (what is definition of best???????? ) to make the fish and other reef creatures feel as good as possible.

No argument from me about that.
Also, what is the definition of 'possible' and 'as good as possible'? :wink:


:mrgreen:

 

[Habib (Salifert)]

Len:

Thanks for your respons.

It was not my intention to debate about what I said. I just wanted to express my opinion. If someone who reads it then he might agree or disagree with it. Be it partly or completely.

I think you've grossly misinterpreted what Righty has written.

I sure hope so but my impression is that I have not misinterpretated what he has said. IF I have misinterpretated what Righty has said then the following logical conclusion of mine (but I'm just a simple soul) is that he tried to make a fool of the person.

Still I might be wrong.


But perhaps it is best that Righty talks for himself. I'm willing to discuss that with him.




1) How much harm does one pinch/puff inflict? From an academic point of view, we understand the significance of the mucus secreted by fish (although it should be noted the amount of mucus secreted and and the protection is offers is HIGHLY variable).

How strong is the pinch and where is the pinch applied and which bacteria and in what amount amount are on the hands?

How strong is the persons necessity to have the puffer blow up in front of his friends in order to show off (what other reason??). He he does not blow up, pinch it harder....

But from a practical, real-world viewpoint, absolutely no one has offered any data that pinching/puffing negatively affects fish.

Well physically handeling does so why would pinching not? Is it different?
Why and how is it different?



The basic ethics of reefkeeping is in question

Yes, I agree and for that reason I found it sad that the person who tried to show what harm might be done by physically handeling fish was treated in that way.

That was my main reason to post in this thread.

That person was giving/showing scientific data while others were only speculating or something very close to it.

But perhaps I did miss something in this lenghty thread and those who say that pinching does no have have scientific data to back it.

How can one talk about ethics when there are no data?

IMO talking about ethics basing on false data or speculations (which have a very large chance of being false) results in wrong ethics.

IMO so far only the comments of that salty guy are based on science.

Are there any other comments from others in this thread which are are different from that of saltzoo and which are based on science?

 

[Len]

Habib,
I think you haven't read much of the thread and I can't blame you . We have had major handlers/collectors/wholesalers/retailers of fish that have the most experience with puffers tell us that puffers are not harmed when pinched or puffed. They've also described the pinch as very gentle. Lastly, none of them recommends people do this so I'm not sure why people are still suggesting they have. I know it's long, but it probably would serve you well to read at least the last ten pages of discussion instead of basing your opinions on what other modertators have told you.

I'll let Righty answer your other questions. Cheers!

 

[Anonymous]

I sure hope so but my impression is that I have not misinterpretated what he has said. IF I have misinterpretated what Righty has said then the following logical conclusion of mine (but I'm just a simple soul) is that he tried to make a fool of the person.

What you may be reading is my continued contortions to try to understand where SaltyZoo is coming from. Briand and I had similar misunderstandings until we both took the time to answer each others questions. I am not trying to make a fool of anyone, I am trying to understand them and how they come to their conclusions.

My basic intention is to understand why some can be so indignant at the idea of another occasionally gently pinching a puffer to elicit a natural, interesting, educational response while taking care to not overly stress the animal, but feel no such negative feelings towards the damage, stress and death caused by their own reefkeeping.

It is the moral soap box that I am trying to understand. Have an opinion, great. Say you don't think people should pinch their puffers, great (and I believe just about everyone in this thread has agreed), but I don't see how we can condemn others from feeling so slightly differently than us.

I see no way in which my efforts at understanding support the idea that since we hurt them to get them we can do what ever we want to them.

I fear that the repeated misgeneralizations and refusal of discussion has done exactly what I have feared they would do - namely continue to polarize this discussion and lead people to the conclusion that people think things they don't think.

Please, if you, or Darren, or anyone for that matter, have any questions regarding any of this, let me know and give me a chance to clear it up. I don't think I am saying anything either of you would disagree with in any kind of major way.

RR

 

[saltyzoo]

We have had major handlers/collectors/wholesalers/retailers of fish that have the most experience with puffers tell us that puffers are not harmed when pinched or puffed.

Just for the record some would say I fit in most if not all of those categories myself. I guess it's a matter of credibility. I think I'll take the word of everyone I've ever worked with in the field. Literally EVERYONE I've ever worked with accepts that handling is stressful and should be avoided. I have never heard anyone that works with fish on a daily basis say anything even remotely otherwise. That's exactly what is blowing my mind here. I simply can't believe what I'm hearing.

Also for the record, just because I want to stay on the intent of the thread doesn't mean I don't care about the other issues. I've participated in many discussions of that sort in the past and I will participate in many more. That attack is just yet another cheap shot in a long string of cheap shots.