[yikesjason]

http://portland.craigslist.org/mlt/for/1456281511.html

I couldn't believe it when I saw what was in this 20 gallon tank.

 

[Riiz]

Cozy, but c'mon. Hopefully someone with a large tank or two takes them up on the offer. But from that crappy pic, the fish look really good for being confined.

 

[kid creole]

Cozy, but c'mon. Hopefully someone with a large tank or two takes them up on the offer. But from that crappy pic, the fish look really good for being confined.

I bet one of the oscars is, and one of them isn't.

 

[Green024]

When i adopted my jack dempsey he was in a similar situation, At one point they had a large pleco like that one, and two oscars larger than him in a 30g (didnt take long for him to kill them). It's allways dissapointing to see such large fish jammed into such a small tank. Poor fish :\

 

[markstanfill88]

But its one gallon per inch of fish right? I mean a 12 inch oscar is fine in a 15 tall right? Petsmart = murder.

 

[yesclassic]

But its one gallon per inch of fish right? I mean a 12 inch oscar is fine in a 15 tall right? Petsmart = murder.

I know what you mean thats what I was thinking when I saw this yesterday at petsmart the salesman told a lady that she could get 3 bala sharks for a 36 gallon tank:icon_eek: because they only got 12 inches each I felt so bad for the fish
what people at petsmart don't think about is yes a oscar only gets 12 inches long but it also can be 6 inches tall so really it needs 72 gallons of water not 12 or so

 

[Philosophos]

If the person keeping the tank is happy, then so be it. I wouldn't cram them in like that, but that's their prerogative. I will not complain about it for the same reason that I don't harass people buying the majority of meat in grocery stores.

-Philosophos

 

[dr6run]

I know what you mean thats what I was thinking when I saw this yesterday at petsmart the salesman told a lady that she could get 3 bala sharks for a 36 gallon tank:icon_eek: because they only got 12 inches each I felt so bad for the fish
what people at petsmart don't think about is yes a oscar only gets 12 inches long but it also can be 6 inches tall so really it needs 72 gallons of water not 12 or so

not to mention 2" wide. it makes you wonder what the fish look like up close, the ammonia in that tank! burns and fat ugly heads! that is unless they are doing a 75% wc twice daily.

makes you want to grab them (owner) by the head, rub their nose on the tank and yell NO!!!

 

[kid creole]

If the person keeping the tank is happy, then so be it. I wouldn't cram them in like that, but that's their prerogative. I will not complain about it for the same reason that I don't harass people buying the majority of meat in grocery stores.

-Philosophos

I generally agree with this, but one of those Oscars is going to kill the other, which is just a waste.

 

[zavikan]

I kind of think thats an awful thing to say really...There is crammed, and then there is abusively crammed. This fits the bill for the latter I think.


If some jerk wanted a dog, and bought a lab for his postage stamp studio apt in the middle of NYC w/o access to the outdoors...as the guy had some crap 9-5 job....and then got a 10 minute daily walk to go poop.... I would see as around equal to this.

Thats just neglectful. And I really dont consider myself a fish crazy guy. I personally do what most consider to be overstocking.

 

[Philosophos]

I generally agree with this, but one of those Oscars is going to kill the other, which is just a waste.

Definitely a waste. At the same time, much of the hobby doesn't raise a stink about the nasty conditions and high mortality rate experienced in the aquarium business. People go to big box stores all the time, and we don't tell them that it's supporting methods that frequently lead to disease and weak genetics. It's inequalities like these that interest me.

I kind of think thats an awful thing to say really...There is crammed, and then there is abusively crammed. This fits the bill for the latter I think.

If some jerk wanted a dog, and bought a lab for his postage stamp studio apt in the middle of NYC w/o access to the outdoors...as the guy had some crap 9-5 job....and then got a 10 minute daily walk to go poop.... I would see as around equal to this.

Thats just neglectful. And I really dont consider myself a fish crazy guy. I personally do what most consider to be overstocking.

And yet we'll have animals raised and slaughtered in horrible conditions when they aren't labeled our pets, so long as we don't watch it happen. Some people raise dogs for meat and give them a quick death; I've met students from south korea who's families eat dog. Is this less ethical than a life time of cramped conditions and killed in a drawn out process to simply be able to say that it meets kosher standards?

I'm not going to say which one is right or wrong here; perhaps some individuals believe that animals lack the qualia to discern suffering, and there actually is no cruelty. I'm simply pointing out an inequality related very strongly to ethics that I think people should be willing to examine.

-Philosophos

 

[rasetsu]

There's right, there's wrong, and a few shades of gray in between. This situation is obviously wrong to those of us who are not ignorant about the subject matter.

 

[Philosophos]

There's right, there's wrong, and a few shades of gray in between. This situation is obviously wrong to those of us who are not ignorant about the subject matter.

You seem to have a strong opinion about this. I wouldn't mind hearing why you think it's wrong, and what you mean by wrong. Is it ethically wrong from a logical standpoint, wrong because of the attached emotions, wrong in terms of pure efficiency?

-Philosophos

 

[octopus44]

I don't think philosophos is trying to play mind games. While I don't personally agree with his a opinion that there is no need to make some noise about fish being kept in these conditions, I think he asks a good question. Is it wrong simply because they are living animals? If so why? Would we feel the same about a cockroach. If not, then is it because we believe that they have some level of consciousness. Do all beings with consciousness deserve equal treatment (hence, I believe, philosophos comment about buying meat in the grocery store)? Or... is it simply wrong because it is a waste of money and effort.

Perhaps this forum is not the place for such discussion, but I believe that the OP did make an ethical statement and thus philosphos's comment is fair.

Edit: Re-reading the OP's post I see that they didn't make a moral judgement - just an observation

 

[Gatekeeper]

Perhaps this forum is not the place for such discussion, but I believe that the OP did make an ethical statement and thus philosphos's comment is fair.

Agreed. I would recomend taking this to a "fish forum" if you need further elaboration on this issue.