Tropical Fish Forums

[Pete Harcoff]

[Ciklido]

Well the fish is half blind.....I guess If I wanted a fish I'd just let him live a normal life....oh well its just an opinion.
_________________
Get attached, love everything now, then, suffer when it comes to an end, for it will bring great meaning to one's existence. JR

[LunarFlame]

So would you have your dog put down if he had an eye injury which was able to be corrected with surgery, and he ended up having to live with one eye? There are plenty of animals who have 3 legs, or even two legs for that matter and they live wonderful lives

I personally think there is nothing wrong with them helping the fish... yeah, maybe it wasn't completly necessary to remove the bump if it was not harming the fish's health, but certainly euthanizing it isn't the next best thing to do.
_________________

[Blair]

My family are members of the NMS (National Museums of Scotland) and the Museum of Scotland is said museum which the goldfish has came from. The first I went into the Museum I was apalled (sp) at the fact that there was Goldfish AND people throwing in coins. But I voted yes in the poll because the growth could have spread to the eye. Just my opinion.

[Nova_C]

One of my piranhas has been missing an eye since I got them. He's not quite as aggressive as the other, but he seems perfectly healthy. It's quite a judgment to automatically assume that this was done with no concern to the fish.

Take it easy on the knee jerk reactions, everyone.
_________________
Nova's Razor: The stupidest explanation is probably the correct one.

[Tigerissey]

This could be seen many ways however, any growth has the potential to cause problems at some point. The article has focused on the cosmetic side, it is more reactionary to readers. ( Is that a word, not sure its late) However I would rather see an otherwise healthy animal operated on where there is better chance for survival or lack of complications, than wait until a growth is causing problems and there is a possiblity of complications.
_________________
Tina

[Matt W]

What this really comes down to is the media. The whole story has not been told and therefore we are all jumping to conclusions on whether it was right or wrong.

If all the facts were presented to us then we would be able to make an educated and reasonable decision.

We (at AofA, research what fish would would work well in our aquariums, size, aggressiveness etc etc), yet we have all jumped to conclusions on whether it was right or wrong to operate.

I for one, am not voting, not because I disagree with this thread but purely because I am not in possession of all the FACTS. Much the same as I wouldn't buy a fish without knowing details like it adult size, feeding habits etc.
_________________
Heart of Fire, Mind of Ice!

[Nova_C]

But Wilson! Bandwagon! BANDWAGON!
_________________
Nova's Razor: The stupidest explanation is probably the correct one.

[Trill the man]

The fish was bred for ornamental purposes. These days I breed fish, from ornamentals like goldfish, golden orf, shubunkin, and course fish such as carp, tench and crucian. Since we breed in the thousands (we currently have about 95,000 fish) we see fish born with no eyes sometimes, and other worse defects which are still taken by our whole sellers, but usually rejected by buyers and therefore detroyed.

The point in trying to make is if a fish is bred for ornamental purposes, that fish always has to look the best that it can, because if owned by a company for display purposes, it will most likely be taken out and terminated since it's purpose is no longer relevant. It's better to take an eye out than have the whole fish terminated. It will adjust and carry on living a healthy life.

My thoughts on the matter. Phil
_________________
"Donald duck never wore pants, but when he gets out of a bath, he covers his waist with a towel...."

[ceci9293]

I just have to wonder if people will start complaining: "You have a one-eyed fish in there. It's ugly." Of course, now that it's in the news, it's an ugly, one-eyed celebrity.