Lets Discuss Ethics in the Hobby

[HBtank]

Ethics are tricky, and I would say that there is no doubt humans are very inconsistent with it regarding the rest of the animal kingdom. Our perception of ethics relating to other mammals, versus almost any other classes of animals, can be dramatically different. We often anthropomorphize animals and judge them on very superficial levels, and can be completely ignorant of consciousness and/or intelligence that is alien to us (i.e. cephalopods)

But yes, at a higher level, I think we have to agree that cnidarian versus a vertebrate have big differences, without diving too deep into biology. But even then, we fall victim to just scale; do we treat that little amphipod/copepod the same as a crab? We can only do our best to be humane and judge how that relates to the animals we are providing husbandry for.

Even the most ardent environmentalists can be pretty ruthless when it comes to a topic like invasive species.

It's complicated

 

[kingoftheHiLLpeople]

I feel it is my ethical duty to kill a mosquito whenever I get the chance! Seriously, screw those guys!

Still not sure what purpose tbey serve in the world

 

[HBtank]

Still not sure what purpose tbey serve in the world

The same as any animal, to reproduce.

 

[kingoftheHiLLpeople]

The same as any animal, to reproduce.

Holy cow my phone let me misspell they* and send it!? Sorry sidetracked.
Yes i understand that. Can i not still dislike them? A panda bear has the same purpose (and from what ive read they are terrible at it) but they dont spread debilitating/deadly disease? Only cuteness lol. Have you ever seen those lazy pandas rolling around!?

 

[HBtank]

Holy cow my phone let me misspell they* and send it!? Sorry sidetracked.
Yes i understand that. Can i not still dislike them? A panda bear has the same purpose (and from what ive read they are terrible at it) but they dont spread debilitating/deadly disease? Only cuteness lol. Have you ever seen those lazy pandas rolling around!?

Of course you can dislike them! I don't reserve that for any animal, including humans

 

[Lowell Lemon]

I have learned more about the natural world through observation. Aquariums just add to that ability to watch nature up close. As a youth I would set up aquariums on a seasonal basis and return the fish and inverts to the creek in my backyard where I collected them from. Very instructive and little harm to the fish and inverts. Kept frogs, salamanders, and small snapping turtles the same way. Ethical? You decide. I would do Saltwater the same way if I lived near the ocean.

I was never successful with prophylactic treatment for fish disease. Killed way more fish that way so I adopted the techniques used by the most successful wholesalers during that period of my experience. Now the loss rates are way down. Is that ethical? You decide.

 

[dcsorrell]

Still not sure what purpose tbey serve in the world

Mosquitos are part of the food chain; flying animals eat the adults, and fish eat the larvae.

All of the animals in our aquaria are members of the world-wide food chain and likely to be eaten in the wild, which is not always a quick way to die.

Even reef aquarists (coral keepers) who never add live rock will bring in unwanted animals unintentionally. Think flatworms. Is it less ethical to rid the tank of flatworms or aptaisia than crabs that will eat your SPS corals? or zoanthind-eating snails?

We tend to draw rather arbitrary lines in the proverbial sand, I think.

 

[kingoftheHiLLpeople]

Mosquitos are part of the food chain; flying animals eat the adults, and fish eat the larvae.

All of the animals in our aquaria are members of the world-wide food chain and likely to be eaten in the wild, which is not always a quick way to die.

Even reef aquarists (coral keepers) who never add live rock will bring in unwanted animals unintentionally. Think flatworms. Is it less ethical to rid the tank of flatworms or aptaisia than crabs that will eat your SPS corals? or zoanthind-eating snails?

We tend to draw rather arbitrary lines in the proverbial sand, I think.

It was tongue in cheek

 

[dcsorrell]

It was tongue in cheek

Oops! heh, heh...

 

[Mschmidt]

I had some quotes I wanted to reference, but changing platforms, phone to computer, I lost them. But here we go. I should say I haven't yet read the whole thread, on page 6 now.

Q1: There is a distinction between euthanizing an animal, killing for a purpose, and just killing. Now I think I know the thread from earlier being referenced, although I did not open it nor comment on it, about euthanizing a hermit crab.

Q2: We have an obligation to give the our animals what they need to survive and thrive. Does that mean every clown needs a nem? I don't think so, but I know my clown tries to live in my hammer and my lfs wont separate bonded shrimp and gobies, even to make a sale. Petco even was going to give me a discount on a clown/nem combo. The clown was home in the nem, and the nem in a rock, buy all three. I digress.

Q3: Is there a better solution to dealing with "pests" or "bullies" than killing them? Probably. That is why we talk tank size and filtration as well. We see an obligation to not put a queen angel in 40b even though that would be the best way to get a stationary view of it.

I have a dottyback in one of my tanks. He's mean. Regardless of space in the tank, I will not ever put another new fish in that tank because it will die. Part of my reason is financial, sure, but a larger part is I know that fish is a killer.

Q4: What is the goal of this thread? It has been taken in two different directions. It begins with a discussion of ethics of reef keeping in general. But also has turned to "what does that mean within the forum?" does this mean that the community of r2r people must in their reef keeping abide by a different, maybe stricter standard of husbandry? can I leave r2r and put the queen angel in the 40?

A1:I would argue there is nothing wrong with the creation of micro ecosystems as @Eagle_Steve describes, fragging coral to feed one thing, then dissolving it in a reactor. Or growing dither fish to feed a predator (it took me way too long to properly spell this word) tank. That's nature man. And to be honest, everything we do in this hobby is for us. actinic blues to make colors pop, making lower and lower maintenance systems, mixed reefs rather than biotopes, the list goes on.

I have gone on long enough for now. thanks for making it through all that. I like ethics discussions...

 

[Mschmidt]

One thing I intended to say above but missed in the chaos that is my previous post: I had a professor say once "a weed is just a plant where you don't want it to be". There can be a place in the tank for aips, flatworms, astaria (sp) stars...

 

[Mschmidt]

And for the third consecutive post, some comment responses:

This is mostly what I was looking for and maybe should have worded thing different. I just wanted to see the differences of what other thought. Guess fish in a box is like politics and should just be kept to themselves.

Either way, @Stang67 said panties in a wad, so I got laugh out of it.

Back in to regularly scheduled ich and what to do programming.

I edited that some people may not have thought that was nice and I apologize.

Dang, she had it edited before I got there. shucks.

If there is no commonly agreed to concept of morality a discussion of ethics is pointless.

That lack is exactly the point of discussion!

I feel it is my ethical duty to kill a mosquito whenever I get the chance! Seriously, screw those guys!

God's work there.

I don't really understand ethics, so I probably haven't got any.

When my wife screams "Spider! Kill it!", I'll pick it up and put it outside. Not because of ethics, just because I don't want to harm it. After all, it hasn't harmed me (England, see? Our spiders don't bite. Much).

Mine tells me to put them outside. She's better than me.

As promised, I'm going to try and give as helpful an answer as I can. I don't claim to be the expert on ethics, and this answer is not intended to be a "be all, end all" to this conversation. However, as one member of the R2R staff, hopefully I can provide at least some idea of what our "Ethical Fishkeeping" rule is aiming at. (Btw, if anyone is not familiar with our Terms of Service, here is the link.) One of the reasons we have a team of moderators is that in cases where the ethics of a post or thread is in question, we need a team to weigh in on issues to help us all arrive at some form of consensus. None of us has a corner on ethics, and hearing from multiple voices on the subject is really really helpful. This is actually one of the beautiful things about doing things (like reefkeeping) in community.

Speaking of our "Ethical Fishkeeping" rule, here's what it says:

• The owners of Reef2Reef adhere to certain standards of ethical fish keeping. We believe that freshwater and saltwater aquarists are directly responsible for the health and well being of any aquatic animals in their care, be they fish or invertebrate. These responsibilities include providing a healthy aquatic environment, humane treatment, humane euthanasia (when required), as well as obtaining and disposing of aquatic animals in such a way that does not damage sensitive local ecosystems. Posts advocating the illegal collection of fish or invertebrates, inhumane treatment, flushing live animals down the toilet, or releasing them into the wild will be removed.

Now, there are a few words in here that are not totally defined. That's by design. This is meant to be a guiding principle to help with day-to-day conversations within our community. Yes, there will be some variance of opinion on specific actions and ideas (i.e. what qualifies as "humane euthanasia"? Is quick and efficient the only qualification?). Some variance is expected on these ideas. After all, we are a global community with lots of people from all kinds of backgrounds. We want there to be discussions...after all, isn't conversation a key component to a community like R2R to begin with? In fact, reasonable disagreements aren't bad on this (or most) topics as it's through attempting new ideas that we as a hobby (and as a society) push forward in many ways. However, I do think there are some helpful guiding principles that we can look to which are helpful. @HankstankXXXL750, @Eagle_Steve, and others have touched on some of these in previous posts.

Ultimately, what I believe this comes down to is the intent and attempt to treat all life within our care with respect and provide the best possible treatment we are capable of. Intentionally ending life of aquarium creatures may at times be reasonable and necessary, but it should not be done without consideration, and in cases where it can reasonably be avoided, it should be. In cases where there is no alternative, euthanasia should be performed in a way that reflects the same consideration as was given for the creature during its life in the tank...in a sense, euthanasia should be a final act of caring for the animal.

In keeping with the above principles, the way in which we advise others should also adhere to these types of ethical principles. Trolling or intentionally leading/encouraging someone to treat the animals in their care contrary to ethical standards is something that should not happen in a community like ours.

Lastly, the "Be Nice" rule in our terms of service also comes into play here. It doesn't directly impact the conduct of "ethical fishkeeping" but it does lean in on this conversation because we ought to be treating one another ethically. In conversations that are sensitive topics (i.e. euthanasia), we ought to be careful of how we address the issue and the words we choose as we encourage others to behave ethically towards their creatures. Remember that it's not just what we say, but also how we say it that conveys kindness and respect toward one another. As has been said at multiple points in this conversation, we all come from diverse backgrounds and viewpoints. Therefore, we need to consider how we treat one another in regard to the Golden Rule (and I might add that the principle there isn't just to treat others how we want to be treated, but infers that we should treat others also how we think they would want to be treated).

Now, I know this is still going to have people asking questions, and that's ok. That is where we come in as a community. We can discuss these issues and hopefully we all grow in wisdom as we discuss these things. I do hope this post is helpful in this conversation. Happy reefkeeping!!

Thank you for this.

Still not sure what purpose tbey serve in the world

they are a result of the fall.

 

[Wasabiroot]

As mentioned before, I think the ideal scenario is to avoid intentional harm and do best to perform the most humane actions warranted in the circumstances.

We are dealing with extremely complex captive ecosystems with a variety of neurological capabilities from vertebrates down to single celled organisms. I don't think it's possible to create a strict TOS policy that covers every possible scenario because everyone has different circumstances. Motives for decisions are important.
I have put down fish with clove oil as well as blunt force trauma with a hammer to the brainstem. In my view I was relieving the fish of a life with the burden of illness that impaired its quality of life significantly. An aiptasia, with a simple neural net, shouldn't be compared. Corals are clones. That doesn't mean I would kill coral colonies without careful consideration of my options or reasoning. I don't enjoy killing aiptasia in my tank but I know that if I want to have a tank with animals other than aiptasia it needs to be done. I don't envy farmers or those who hunt. I respect their decisions and careers though, as long as it's driven with respect of the animals in question whenever possible. I think Daniel gave an excellent response tbh. If it's a scenario where you're not sure, you could always ask beforehand.

I don't think the argument that everyone's worldwide view of ethics varies is relevant when talking about being humane in reefkeeping. It's true, but it's also very likely that any culture that encourages suffering of a conscious being or animal as a core tenet or philosophy is likely one we don't need to include as valid in this specific discussion and it seems like a bit of a red herring here. We can all agree that we should try to be considerate but there's obviously a balancing act. For example, doctors don't think twice about removing a tapeworm from an infected human because it minimizes suffering. Pretending that there are advocates for tapeworms in these instances strikes me as fear mongering even if they exist, but I also understand wanting this hobby to continue. That's why facts are important.

 

[bnord]

First off, I apologize if what I present here is redundant, read the first 3 pages, and for times sake skipped to here.

Firstly, slippery slopes and lines in the sand are constant issues we all deal with in society today. I own several shotguns, and rifles, but I would never own a semi automatic "assault rifle". That is my line on the slope I have drawn. You want an AR 15, you can have one, but you can't have a shoulder launched anti-tank missile. I firmly believe there is not reason or cause for gorillas, Chimps or orangoutangs to be used in research, regardless of the benefit to mankind. Macaques and spider monkeys? I guess depending on the benefit. Line on the slope.

I am a veterinary researcher, make products for most species - chickens to horses.
In this line of work whether in the University or the Industry owned lab, you are required to create an Institution Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC) among other animal care oversite groups.

I have served as a member of several of these IACUC including for a major University and their vet school. They cover a range of species for the types of experiments conducted across the university, and most of them cover expected species (dogs, cats, pigs etc...). if there is ever a need for an animal to be exposed to stress, treatment, and certainly death as an endpoint, significant justification is presented and committee decides or not it is worthwhile. IACUCs help the country in keeping some sets of animals from needless experimentation and I believe puts us in a better place. No one should try to see what effect hitting a macaque in the head with a hammer will have on its ability to navigate a maze.

While participating in the IACUC, I was interested in the cutoffs for species. If you wanted to use crawfish in an experiment, it went to IACUC. If you were working with earthworms, it did not. Some one established the line on the slope.

in the previously cited dwarf hermit crab case, I suppose the crab would be covered. The statement was presented, I need to humanely euthanize this crustacean because I cannot justify the 20 minute drive to donate it to a shop. I suppose there would be members who would say, 30 minutes is the limit of the range for the decision to go to euthanasia. But let's decide then that the closest is really 40 minutes. then the case would be made, as the OP in the first post said, what is the best way to euthanize this crab. Bet there is a publication on this, but without that, a case could be made for freezing (torpor sets in almost immediately then ice crystals cause sudden destruction of vasculature) or cervical dislocation - sorry, quickly crush it.

So as it comes to a Forum policy, I suppose we can come up with a Reasonable Animal Care and Use Statement (RACUS) that is made available to all that says (and I use this as an example) all vertebrates and Crustaceans are covered Annelids and Coelenterates are not

If all reasonable efforts have been made to re-home have been exhausted, then proceed with the most humane procedure for the species involved.

 

[dcsorrell]

Picking up where I left off, having not really stated where I draw the line:

If I choose (which I am doing) to set up and populate an aquarium, and if, in doing so, I cannot avoid importing a few animals that would harm the greater number of benign to benevolent species, I am either going to at least try to rehome the animals for which that is realistic. If not, I will euthanize as humanely as possible, because I am not going to set up a fish room. Pests, on the other hand - flatworms, aptaisia, majanos (cute though they are) and such - I will dispatch of as quickly as I can in the interest of protecting the peaceful hitchhikers I want to keep and have thrive - the micro stars, corals, stomatella snails, tunicates and more that ride in with live rock and sand.

It's been an interesting discussion.

 

[Roli's Reef Ranch]

Big fish eat little fish. Don't over-think things.

 

[Jeffcb]

We may need an ethics Police Squad ?

 

[BirdFish5000]

I farted

 

[I.AM.MR.MIKE]

Do you guys know if you add your age plus the year you were born it equals 2022....how cool huh

Took me a second

 

[I.AM.MR.MIKE]

I get that, so maybe they should chime in and let us know their ethics instead of just a broad statement in the TOS.

I will line some out for myself.

Killing crabs as they are considered "bad" - Not ethical to me.
Killing aips as they are considered "bad" - Not ethical to me.
Using fish or other critters to control the above - Ethical to me.
Taking an out of the blue mean fish and euthanizing it - Ethical to me
Fragging Corals - Ethical to me
Cutting anemones to make more - Not ethical to me
Recycling corals to feed my general stars and then put them into my CaRX to be reused by the tank - ethical to me
Throwing corals in the trash - Toss up, as I can easily see both sides.
Killing flatworms with chemicals - not ethical to me.

While arguments could be made for and against the above, these are my views and only my views.

Well you had me in agreement, although not sure ethical is my word, then you lost me especially with the mean fish...