# Keeping fish cruel?



## Japtastic (Jan 21, 2008)

I've kept fish for over 14 years now on and off but never kept cichlid's before, with the clearly higher intelligence that cichlid's have, is it cruel to keep them contained to a 4-6ft tank? Especially the bigger fish like Jaguars and Oscars to name a couple, can they really be happy in a glass cage? Surely in the wild they would swim miles every day?

Can any one put my mind at rest?

What are every one's thoughts on this?


----------



## bulldogg7 (Mar 3, 2003)

Only advice I have is if you don't do it, someone else will keep them in a 5,10,or 20 gal.
Most of the chainstore varieties are raised in ponds or 10gal growouts, they are destined for the 5 year old's fishbowl. As for wild caught, that's one of the reason's I don't keep them, I don't have the space, and just couldn't do it if I did.


----------



## Toby_H (Apr 15, 2005)

Iâ€™ve kept Cichlids in both very small and very large tanks, and I would definitely say my Cichlids display far more activity and intelligence when kept in larger environments. So if in search of ideals, yes I would say keeping Cichlids in (relatively) small glass boxes is a bad idea (saying â€™cruelâ€™ is still arguable).

But in defense, I would argue that animals and even people often (if not usually) live in less than ideal conditions. The world is a less than ideal place. This does not dismiss improper housing, but instead makes me consider it from a balanced perspective.

In the wild, how stressful of a life would a typical Cichlid live? Compared that to the amount of stress floating around in our glass boxes? Free food, clean water, no predators, regulated lighting/heatingâ€¦ in trade for limited spaceâ€¦ Iâ€™m not sure which they would choose, but life in the aquarium isnâ€™t all badâ€¦

I wouldnâ€™t say it is â€œcruelâ€


----------



## Number6 (Mar 13, 2003)

at lunch times, I often stand and watch the cichlids in the stream at work... they do not seem to do much beyond forage, interact with each other, etc. Provided that my tanks are large enough that I see natural behaviors, and there are no obvious "captive" disorders like pacing, hiding at the top, etc. then I don't see how one could say that its cruel.

I'd have to challenge them to find me criteria that showed some sort of mental harm of any kind.


----------



## SinisterKisses (Feb 24, 2004)

Keep in mind as well - unless you buy wild caught fish (which I will never do), these are fish that have NEVER known anything except living in a glass box, if you will.


----------



## venustus19 (Aug 30, 2007)

i have thought about this topic before too, and i have my positives and negatives too... i only have a 90 gallon tank, and i refuse to put anything that would grow to be bigger than like 8" in that tank... i would love to get my hands on some bigger fish, but i will buy at least a 6' tank or custom make one to fit my needs... 
i also don't think i would ever heavily stock my tanks, thinking that overcrowding is a bad idea... i know alot of people do it, and in the videos you see of lake malawi, there are always a ton on fish... so it might be normal, but as SinisterKisses said, most of our fish don't know anything else but aquarium life...
i don't think we will ever know if cichlids really enjoy the tank life or not, unless you think that since they color up, they are happy... that may be the case, if your cichlids portray good color and breed, then maybe they are happy... just my opinion...
great topic though, it will be interesting to hear everyone's opinion.


----------



## Joea (May 25, 2004)

Japtastic said:


> Surely in the wild they would swim miles every day?
> 
> Can any one put my mind at rest?
> 
> What are every one's thoughts on this?


Many of the fish we keep are territorial, and in the wild, often stay in their small area for life, only migrating to new territory if the food and/or female supply deminshes. While some like to think that in the wild, they utilize the huge vastness of the lake, the fact is that most don't swim for miles every day. This is why a proper sized tank is necessary for them to have the territory that they would have in the wild.

Keeping a large cichlid confined to a small tank that limits its mobility and keeps it from behaving in a normal manner, is certainly not fair to the fish and could be considered cruel.

Worrying about whether or not keeping them at all is cruel, is pointless. It's tantamount to worrying that keeping a dog from roaming the forests and hunting its own food is cruel. It's not.


----------



## Japtastic (Jan 21, 2008)

The other thing that bothers me is the tank size recommendations, for instance imagine a Male Jaguar gets to around 12" the recommended tank size is a 6ft tank which is 72" so the jag has 6 times it's body length to swim up and down, if we continue using the same formula then a 3 inch convict only needs an 18" tank and I can guarantee if some one was housing convicts in an 18" tank people would be complaining, some things just don't add up here...

It worries me more and more to be honest, I'm starting to change my mind about keeping big fish because I don't have the room for a 10ft square tank which seems like the only fair thing?

:-?


----------



## thor meeki (Sep 12, 2008)

a very debatable topic

but i would think given the choice they would choose freedom
as far as being happy in a glass box 
that's a tough one do fish feel happiness?
i try to make them as comfortable as possible 
wild vs captive breed probably plays a big roll in this

i wonder if it's like being very hungry you will eat what is given but a steak would taste better

you've got me 
good post


----------



## Joea (May 25, 2004)

Japtastic, you're falling victim to anthropomorphizing. These fish have very little going on in their heads other than eating, procreating and surviving predation. They don't get depressed and they're not "pining for the fjords". If they're provided a territory they can call their own, fed a nutritious, regular diet and get to sow their seeds of love once in a while, they're doing what they're instinctively driven to do. Often in a far less challenging environment than a lake will provide.

Don't compare the territorial needs of a Jag to that of a Convict. Over-analyzing formulas like that can make any combination or tank size utterly ridiculous one way or the other.

Just take care of your fish, and they'll be fine.


----------



## cichlidaholic (Dec 7, 2005)

Keeping fish that are incompatible and will surely kill each other is cruel.

Housing them responsibly isn't. :thumb:


----------



## Big Vine (Feb 26, 2007)

Excellent thread, Japtastic. :thumb: 
Joea summed up my thoughts on the matter, so I won't try to reinvent the wheel on this by trying to fabricate my own response. :lol:

Thanks for letting me 'use' your brain, Joe. :dancing: 
BV


----------



## xalow (May 10, 2007)

I agree with *Joea* and have a concurrent opinion.

We as humans have a particular idea in our minds about how fish behave and fancy that they are like underwater birds soaring through their bodies of water freely until we trap them in a cage. When I have looked at various fish in the wild, a lot of them as all ready mentioned by *Number6*, don't really move around all that much. Now something like a Tuna or a Sailfish will migrate great distances and I feel couldn't be kept well in captivity because their bodies are designed for constant long distance swimming. Most cichlids that I am aware are not like marathon runners when it comes to their behavior, though haplochromines are open water swimmers I don't think they are designed to always be moving really fast and know the Dimidiochromis Compressiceps often approaches prey slowly and head on to appear as less of a threat.

Joea's explanation of anthropomorphizing is also something I completely agree with and the "pining for the fjords" is a nice reference.

Anyways my point is, if the fish we keep are not meant to constantly be swimming, they are kept in a large enough area where they can establish territory, are feed well, have clean water, proper nutrition, and even have the chance to breed. I have to ask then is the cruelty only in assuming that they are pining for the fjords?

If the fish were aware they were in captivity and had human like intellect maybe they wouldn't be so different from us working in cubicles and living in small apartments except we have the choice to go streaking into the forest and eat berries like Bear Grylls. If fish are not so smart I could think of them like the house cats or dogs and those animal both prefer the house even though a dog needs to be walked and go into the yard daily and my fish never want to consume the mailman. If fish are even less smart than that I have a hard time imagining they would really have a preference for the wild.

Also one final point, my Mbuna have had 9 fry all fry are alive now because none of my fish need to fear predation.

Ok one more "final" point. Great white sharks are an example of a always moving fish that cover long distances, keeping this type of fish in captivity proved impossible and they would refuse to eat, bump into things, and die. That is until one was placed in a tank offering "1.2 million gallons sea water" in the Monterey Bay Aquarium.


----------



## DeadFishFloating (Oct 9, 2007)

G'day *Japtastic*,

There have been similar discussions in SA forum about appropriate tank sizes for the fish that we keep. (who said I started them) These discussions haven't really focused on if it is cruel or not to keep cichlids as pets, and confined to a glass cage.

I don't know if cruel is the right word to use. I have said many a time I believe it's inappropriate to keep large predatory SA cichlids in most home aquariums. I have my own unwritten formula for keeping cichlids, and that's a tank 12 times the adult fishes body length and 4 times as wide. But that's just my little rule and why I keep SA dwarf cichlids, tetras and small catfish.

Tank size really is just only part of the overall equasion. Appropriate aquascaping, filtration, tankmates, etc all go towards making for contented fish.

At the end of the day you can only be responsible for the fish you keep. There are many, many African, SA and CA cichlids, not all of them are large predators. Find one/s that suit your tanks and interst. Best places for that are the forums.


----------



## becadavies (Apr 2, 2007)

Joea said:


> It's tantamount .


My new word of the month!! :lol:


----------



## Japtastic (Jan 21, 2008)

Some interesting opinions, it has put my mind at rest a bit, maybe I was becoming victim to anthropomorphizing?

The really reason for my concern was that I was thinking of buying a Jag and then had all these thoughts, so I'm still undecided on whether to get one but at least I've got some info to contemplate on.

Cheers


----------



## becadavies (Apr 2, 2007)

Joea said:


> anthropomorphizing.


No, THATs my new word of the month!! Thanx Joea!!

Does that mean to compare our fish to ourselves?


----------



## lloyd (Aug 24, 2005)

providing your fish with a larger living area, or feeling the need to offer it, are neither examples of anthropomorphism, IMHO. none more than moving Rex to a country farm, with the impression the dog might also enjoy getting out of the city. now, if you pick up a couple pairs of rubber booties for him, on the way out of town.... :roll:


----------



## Joea (May 25, 2004)

lloyd said:


> providing your fish with a larger living area, or feeling the need to offer it, are neither examples of anthropomorphism, IMHO. none more than moving Rex to a country farm, with the impression the dog might also enjoy getting out of the city. now, if you pick up a couple pairs of rubber booties for him, on the way out of town.... :roll:


Hmm, I'm not sure that's directed towards me or not, but I'll respond. You're correct, anthropomorphization isn't the act of providing human conveniences to an animal or any non-human being or object. However, the thought that these animals think as we do, with emotional response to certain stimuli, such as getting depressed for not having their normal food, or longing for a better life or environment like their wild counterparts have, is indeed anthropomorphization, and when one _does _fall victim to it, it may cause them to rationalize behaviours like the ones you've described above.



becadavies said:


> Does that mean to compare our fish to ourselves?


Not so much comparison, but as I've described above, ascribing human attributes to them. Humans are an interesting and ignorant species. We instinctively look for pattern and meaning and reason to just about everything, when often, there isn't any. It's how we rationalize and learn. Unfortunately when we do anthropomorphize, we tend to cause more stress to ourselves because we just know that if _"we"_ were a plant, we'd be very upset if we weren't watered. The reality is that a plant won't be upset, it will die.


----------



## Mr Dinks (Sep 23, 2008)

Good thread but a very old one in terms of â€˜Should we keep any pet animalâ€™.
There are more fundamental issues here. Many people have them for therapeutic reasons, like dogs and cats. They can relate with them. They ask for nothing in return apart from being looked after.
If they were to be taken away there would be more sad people and maybe even more grave than that. 
Mark twain said..â€™Humans are the only animal that inflict pain just for the sake of itâ€™
Look after your pets which include fish, they will give you so much contentment funniness and different perplexing behaviours .
Bringing the wild outdoors into your home is wonderful. If even if itâ€™s mass produced their behaviours are the same.
I have fish, dogs, and Birds of Prey (which I fly) and I would rather part with my television or computer any day.


----------

