Live food, what is morally acceptable

Hi all,


After viewing a video recently of feeding live mice to Pirhana I am wondering what is deemed morally acceptable. We feed live foods we consider fine, from shrimp to fish and insects.

Granted the guy could have quickly killed the mouse first and dropped it in, they would have ripped it apart anyway, but live is ok for snakes and spiders isnt it?

I dont agree with doing it for the fun of whatching I'll say that.


Any views or am I starting another yawn of a thread:)

I do expect the opinion of the deleter of my vid, still waiting on a PM or something?

Mark

I personally dont let anyone tell me what is or isnt morally acceptable and and for that same reason wont preach to anyone else on that issue.

Jay

Thats fair enough, I can't see how one live food is different from another, principally its the same thing.


Mark

i have to say im totally against live feeding 90% of the time it doesn't need to be done

but live is ok for snakes and spiders isnt it?

again with spiders and other insects and lizard's they generally won't eat a dead cricket

but live feeding snakes in my opinion is big no no.

it doesn't need to be done except for a few extreme cases

9 times out of 10 its complete morons who want to live feed snakes just for the sake of it and i won't entertain them coming into the shop trying to buy it

as for live feeding piranha's does that really need to be done either?

i had all the piranha's in the shop on frozen foods so they won't just eat live food as some may think

and same thing again you get these scarface wanna-be's in

"any pir-an-its?!"

i dont really agree with live feeding piranha, i have watched alot of them videos on youtube and people will argue that this is what happens in the wild! but its not really as the mouse or whatever there feeding dosnt have a chance..and i think alot of the people posting this on youtube are doing it for there own sick twisted pleasure..

as for feeding live bearers i wouldnt intensionally breed them just to use as feeders, i dont really see the point it just seems like alot of work for little reward,
tho if i had fish breeding in a community tank i would go out of my way to try and save them.

well thats my thoughts for what its worth....

I think that there is a big difference between using inverts like shrimp and crickets as live feed compared to animals like mice. There is no evidence that inverts feel pain while mice, being mammals (just like us) feel relatively complex emotions and pain.
I am of the opinion that if you are feeding your livestock with animals like mice (or any other vertebrate) then you should be killing them humanely first.
As for pets that "refuse" to take dead food (I find it hard to believe that they cannot be trained to eat dead food, especially if they're starving), I would question the morality of keeping such an animal in the first place. Leave them in the wild where their prey have a fair chance, instead of being trapped in a tank with them.

Interesting thoughts lads

Personally I found it a little disturbing, you cant feed spiders dead mice, food needs to be live so the venom will circulate the body and this doesn't happen with a dead one. I feed my snake frozen pinkies (but is it ok to be taking newly born mice and freezing them then, no less cruel in my book) On the heat mat, soon as it warms up, gobble.

As for the wild, I am sure Pirhana and other predators get lots of live food. Crocs eat people too.

As for shrimpp ect being ok, thats just inconsistent, it is not about pain, a life form is a life form and no individual has the right to say which is ok and which is not to kill other than for the purpose of survival, that view seems a little slanted I think, to deem some worthy of a quick death and others not, Some life and some not. You can use science as a shroud to cover up the fact that we as humans find some creatures less appealing, we are programmed to like big brown eyes ect, who would kill a seal, someone needing to survive either by eating it or financially, they may see Seals as you may see shrimp you feed to the fish? Please no seal killing debate, noone supports killing seal pups.

@John Why the live feeding is done and why the video is posted is not a matter for us, you cannot state such an opinion without ever knowing the keepers true intentions ect, we need to be a little less right wing here. Judge the spectacle I agree. But as far as just watching a video it is no more disgusting than watching a lion kill a zebra (not wether a warden put the zebra there to be killed)
Attack the post not the poster I have heard quite a bit here so we should extend that courtesy to all such postings we read.

Re Dont keep a pet if it east live mice? We need to keep this grounded and in reality, millions of spiders are kept as pets and they eat mice in the wild, it is happening right now, it is not done for entertainment, it is a requirement to keep the aniumal alive as a pet or in the wild. The live mice to Pirhana not so, but this is part of their true nature to do so, and they do so in the wild, kill and rip apart rodents fish and anything they can get their teeth into, if a keeper keeps these fish and is interested in every aspect of them this may be one aspect they want to see as it is the most famous trait of a Pirhana is it not?



mark

just my two cents,
you should check the august edition of the practical fishkeeping,theres alot of the piranha myths brought to reality and it makes for an intersting read.It also discusses about why they dont need live food and the risk involved in feeding live food.
Stuie

lestat wrote:

just my two cents,
you should check the august edition of the practical fishkeeping,theres alot of the piranha myths brought to reality and it makes for an intersting read.It also discusses about why they dont need live food and the risk involved in feeding live food.
Stuie

I may give it a read, though this is about why some are acceptable and some not and why. I wouldn't keep such fish and if I did, I wouldn't be feeding live mice, but I have fed live shrimp, and although it can be a little distressing watching mice being eaten by Pirhana it is essentially the same as Rainbow eating a Cherry shrimp. The level of suffering, we truely do not know how a shrimp feels when being swallowed whole or chomped. I find with people in general, they feel against something first and find the justification for those feelings thereafter. Cute creatures always get preference.

I had said, most famour trait, real or not, when people think Pirhana they think chomp chomp thanks to hollywood



Mark

Look lads, if were talking about fish lets keep it about fish. Forget the snakes and spiders and lets not dance around the question. If you keep certain species of fish that can and will take live food, be it shrimp or ducklings, and you choose to do so, then who are we to judge? All of my fish are carnivores, and if I had the means I would certainly treat them to live food more often than I do. Do they need it to survive? Absolutely not, that said there are species out there that do. Should we keep such species? Why not? The fact is, mine relish a live treat and I wont deny them that over, what I believe to be, a misguided sense of morality. Wether or not these clips should be posted on sites for the sake of a big hit count is a mute point. I personally wouldnt do it but that changes nothing.

Jay

Viperbot wrote:

Look lads, if were talking about fish lets keep it about fish. Forget the snakes and spiders and lets not dance around the question. If you keep certain species of fish that can and will take live food, be it shrimp or ducklings, and you choose to do so, then who are we to judge? All of my fish are carnivores, and if I had the means I would certainly treat them to live food more often than I do. Do they need it to survive? Absolutely not, that said there are species out there that do. Should we keep such species? Why not? The fact is, mine relish a live treat and I wont deny them that over, what I believe to be, a misguided sense of morality. Wether or not these clips should be posted on sites for the sake of a big hit count is a mute point. I personally wouldnt do it but that changes nothing.

Jay

Interesting pov, and touches on a point there nicely, morality is often confused with "I just dont like it".


Mark

just to clear up one point spiders dont need to eat mice be they alive or dead crickets will do them perfectly fine

and on the point of live feeding fish in my opinion

is still pointless but if people want to waste thier own money buying feeders than so be it

a pike cichlid, for example wouldn't feel any more satisfied eating some live guppies as it would eating some blood worm

Stephen wrote:

just to clear up one point spiders dont need to eat mice be they alive or dead crickets will do them perfectly fine

and on the point of live feeding fish in my opinion

is still pointless but if people want to waste thier own money buying feeders than so be it

a pike cichlid, for example wouldn't feel any more satisfied eating some live guppies as it would eating some blood worm

a bit off topic, but surely you are not including every species of spider in that comment.

Money is not the question either though breeding fish to feed is inefficient, shrimp on the other hand is not.

Mark

Mark. wrote:

I feed my snake frozen pinkies (but is it ok to be taking newly born mice and freezing them then, no less cruel in my book) On the heat mat, soon as it warms up, gobble.

It's not cruel if they are killed humanely before being frozen and eaten. This is a fact really. Cruelty is defined as causing pain or distress and killing something humanely does neither of these things.

As for the wild, I am sure Pirhana and other predators get lots of live food.

I'm sure they do. However, in the wild the prey have a fair chance to escape unlike a mouse being thrown into a fish tank. It's not the same as a wild situation at all.

As for shrimpp ect being ok, thats just inconsistent, it is not about pain, a life form is a life form and no individual has the right to say which is ok and which is not to kill other than for the purpose of survival, that view seems a little slanted I think, to deem some worthy of a quick death and others not, Some life and some not.

As I already said. Cruelty is defined by causing pain or distress to an individual. If said individual cannot physically feel pain or distress then it is not cruel.
Arthropods (with the possible exception of decapod crustaceans) cannot feel pain and they cannot be emotionally distressed. They do not have the equipment to experience these things. This is a fact.

You can use science as a shroud to cover up the fact that we as humans find some creatures less appealing, we are programmed to like big brown eyes ect, who would kill a seal, someone needing to survive either by eating it or financially, they may see Seals as you may see shrimp you feed to the fish? Please no seal killing debate, noone supports killing seal pups.

I have to say that I don't really see your point here. For me, it has nothing to do with how visually appealing an organism is it has to do with their capacity to feel pain and distress. I do not value the life of a rabbit over the life of a rat just because I find the rabbit more "cute".

Re Dont keep a pet if it east live mice? We need to keep this grounded and in reality, millions of spiders are kept as pets and they eat mice in the wild, it is happening right now, it is not done for entertainment, it is a requirement to keep the aniumal alive as a pet or in the wild.

These animals do not need to be kept in captivity, they are kept for human enjoyment. These mice are suffering unpleasant deaths as a direct side effect of human recreation. I find this morally reprehensible.
In the wild there is a level playing field where predator and prey have equal chances of achieving their desired results (either escaping or getting a meal). When you put a live mouse in an enclosed space with a predator you are not replicating the wild, the prey has no means of escape and no chance at survival.

if a keeper keeps these fish and is interested in every aspect of them this may be one aspect they want to see as it is the most famous trait of a Pirhana is it not?

I think that this is a flawed argument. It's like saying that it's perfectly okay to set a pack of dogs on a cow in an enclosed space because you want to see this "aspect" of the dog as a predatory animal (an extreme example I know).

Mark. wrote:

The level of suffering, we truely do not know how a shrimp feels when being swallowed whole or chomped. I find with people in general, they feel against something first and find the justification for those feelings thereafter. Cute creatures always get preference.

We do know that there is a difference between the suffering of a shrimp and a mouse. There are massive differences in biology between a mouse and a shrimp (much greater differences then there are between a mouse and a human). Mice can feel all of the basic emotions that we feel, they feel pain the same way that we feel it. Shrimp do not, this is a fact.
There is some evidence that decapod crustaceans might feel something similar to the pain response and because of this I would always make sure to kill them before feeding them to anything.
It bothers me that you're making sweeping statements about a field that you are obviously not familiar with. I am a zoologist and I have a little experience in this field.


For me, the biggest issue with death is suffering (either physical or emotional). If I knew that I was going to be eaten by something (a lion would be a good example being one of our natural predators) then I would want it to happen in the quickest most painless way possible. If I couldn't feel pain (for some reason) and was unaware of what was happening then it wouldn't even really matter to me that I was dying.
I try to extend the same courtesy to any animals that I might have to kill that can feel pain or emotional distress (or any that might be able to feel these things).

a bit off topic, but surely you are not including every species of spider in that comment.

i haven't come across one spider that would be on general sale in a shop that has to be fed live mice

How far do we take the issue of morals or ethics? that is a question in itself.

There's a few big generalisations I see about 'other animals' here.....many tarantulas will take dead food, in fact often a spider on hunger-strike (for want of better words) is best tempted into eating by feeding it a cricket or a locust where the guts have been exposed. As for feeding mammals to spiders....not a great idea.
Snakes.....many captive snakes will take dead food; and some species eat crickets/locusts/eggs.
There are some species of snakes, however, that will only take living food (eg lizards or fish); that is point that needs a lot of careful consideration.

If an animal will take dead or prepared food, then that is what it should be fed.

The biggest question that I have here is not necessarily about 'live-feeding' but the morals behind inappropriate feeding...viz: we know a pirahna or arowana will happily eat a live mouse, but I question the morality of feeding an inappropriate food. Short-term....probably no problems, but is the long-term effect on fish kidney function being compromised?

2 more points....

I think a more interesting debate would be why certain species of animal will only go for living food, and others will happily take dead; and

I think that forums should have a rule to not allow live feeding advice or live-feeding videos/pictures be posted. Moral/ethical discussions are different thing.

Posting of such images sends out a bad message....some people may be influenced and see it as fun, but, and this is a big BUT....forums may be browsed by person wishing to gain evidence against the keeping of exotic species. Those people (or groups) already paint a bad image of 'exotic animal keepers', so why put-it-out-there that some people feed live rabbits (or whatever) to their fish.

ian

I think this debate goes back to , Is it morally acceptable to keep any type of Animal in captivity despite the arguments that they live longer in captivity? While this is true in many cases, does this mean they are happier being denied the opportunity to hunt for food as nature intended and if they are, how can you quantify happiness in an animal?

If we didn't keep wild things in our Homes, feeding wouldn't be an issue.


Kev.

stretnik wrote:

how can you quantify happiness in an animal?

Well this is going to depend on the animals species. Obviously the closer they are to humans then the closer their "happiness" will be to ours. A dog, a cat, a monkey, a rabbit, all of these mammals are going to have similar emotional responses to our own species and it is, therefore, easy enough to understand and provide for their "happiness". Birds also seem to show complex emotional responses.
If we're talking about reptiles, amphibians, fish and inverts then things get a little more muddy. I think that husbandry of these animals focuses less on providing happiness than it does on preventing suffering.

igmillichip wrote:

How far do we take the issue of morals or ethics? that is a question in itself.


2 more points....

I think a more interesting debate would be why certain species of animal will only go for living food, and others will happily take dead; and

I think that forums should have a rule to not allow live feeding advice or live-feeding videos/pictures be posted. Moral/ethical discussions are different thing.

Posting of such images sends out a bad message....some people may be influenced and see it as fun, but, and this is a big BUT....forums may be browsed by person wishing to gain evidence against the keeping of exotic species. Those people (or groups) already paint a bad image of 'exotic animal keepers', so why put-it-out-there that some people feed live rabbits (or whatever) to their fish.

ian

Your point that how far we take these issues is a question in itself is very true. One just needs to look at the comment sections under controversial vids to see how one topic leads to another, often far deeper one. Some of the debates have gone on for months. Regards your point on forums blocking discussions about live feeding, I think that would be a mistake. This information is out there, and people are going to do it so why not try to advise them in the best ways to go about it safely? This form of feeding, wether we like it or not is part of the hobby and to shun it is to detract from the hobby. It shouldnt be up to us to shelter people from it. For sure, there are people and organisations out there who will demonize folks for just keeping animals captive, and why give them ammo, but at the end of the day these folks will always find something to give out about.

Jay

Is a Gorilla that goes through the motions of eating, defecating and reproduction , displaying outwardly, signs of happiness? these are a Species that are potentially as close as you can get to Humans on a scale of cognisance and awareness, I doubt it, they will also display aberrant behaviour through stress and ultimately social aggression.

You are responding as if we were the important species and therefore all hapiness or contentment is gauged by ours. who says? Creationists would concur, I don't, how can we, with a few pounds of Grey matter be so arrogant to assume we are the important ones and that we know everything.

We are here because we adapted more quickly not because we are all there is. We top the Food chain at the moment and assume everything else is below us. Science is still only discovering unknown facts about Bee, Ant and Termites that show very advanced science and with a fraction of our Brain power, what other species ruins as much as us in or endeavour to overpopulate the World in which we live? Take Take Take and absolutely no giving back and we are the Template we gauge everything else by, I think not.

Kev.

Great stuff. Some good points
__

It's not cruel if they are killed humanely before being frozen and eaten. This is a fact really. Cruelty is defined as causing pain or distress and killing something humanely does neither of these things.

Unfortunately we aren't talking a dictionary definition, I think a perfect example of using something to explain what you dont like, when you see something you judge it depending on life experience and not a dictionary meaning, too simplistic, nor are principles dependant on dictionary meanings.
The word IF also comes into it. Are the pinkys killed in this way, I buy them, I have no idea, do you breed and kill them or know indeed that this is the norm and they arent just chucked into a freezer, if not then this is a mute point.

I'm sure they do. However, in the wild the prey have a fair chance to escape unlike a mouse being thrown into a fish tank. It's not the same as a wild situation at all.

If they have a chance or no chance, how can that be determined in levels of cruelty? The pain you mentioned was your point, fairness is a different definition. A mousee in the water against a Pirhana I reckon has a very small chance of survival, a sense of fairness a perfect example of a priciple gained from life experience and again not a dictionary, this keeper sees it a different way totally, who is right?

As I already said. Cruelty is defined by causing pain or distress to an individual. If said individual cannot physically feel pain or distress then it is not cruel.
Arthropods (with the possible exception of decapod crustaceans) cannot feel pain and they cannot be emotionally distressed. They do not have the equipment to experience these things. This is a fact.

So with the science above it is morally ok to kill them then, if they were larger were walking on all fours and had big brown eyes and licked your hand but felt nothing, I doubt you would feel the same, this is human nature and how we're programmed, again if humans felt nothing would it be ok, differnt rules apply of course, which is my point axactly. I am sure there are people out there that would feel as you do about mice about shrimp, regardless of the defination of pain. And science is not fact, it corrects its self every minute of every day so to say, yep we know all about them for sure in premature to say the least. "Our current understanding" might be a better term. I have seen so many "facts" over turned, the earth was flat at one point:)

Your last points are again envolved with pain definition and are really covered by above, you feel this way, many don't who is right I don't know but I think this discussion can help give a guide to such people that have not considered such things yet, mainly young fish enthusiasts that may read, and get a alanced view on it and make up their own minds.

You have explained a lot, Zoologist, science, I'm afraid facts get overturned and all you can do is work with the best you've got, at some point some of your certain beliefs ma be over turned in future, the word fact is slapped on a lot of things.


I am not a zooologist and the patronising tone is not appreciated, a little pretentious to say "I know what I'm talking about I'm a zoologistyou you aren't" if it does bother you that my level of understanding is lower than yours regarding such you can reply with your opinion and keep that tone out of it, I never professed to be any kind of expert and this is a forum for opinions, I gave mine.



Mark

stretnik wrote:

You are responding as if we were the important species and therefore all hapiness or contentment is gauged by ours. who says? Creationists would concur, I don't, how can we, with a few pounds of Grey matter be so arrogant to assume we are the important ones and that we know everything.


Kev.

Very accurate point Kev


Mark

stretnik wrote:

Is a Gorilla that goes through the motions of eating, defecating and reproduction , displaying outwardly, signs of happiness? these are a Species that are potentially as close as you can get to Humans on a scale of cognisance and awareness, I doubt it, they will also display aberrant behaviour through stress and ultimately social aggression.

What I meant was that they would derive happiness from similar things that we would. Play, friendly social interaction, eating a favourite food etc

You are responding as if we were the important species and therefore all hapiness or contentment is gauged by ours. who says? Creationists would concur, I don't, how can we, with a few pounds of Grey matter be so arrogant to assume we are the important ones and that we know everything.

I am about as far from a creationist as one could get, believe me. I'm using our species as a point of comparison because our nature will always colour our perceptions. It is always easier to understand something on your own terms, I think. I was saying that it's easier to understand animals that are closer to our species, not that they are superior to those that are not close to us.
I certainly do not think that our species is the most important.

Take Take Take and absolutely no giving back and we are the Template we gauge everything else by, I think not.

I need to stress again that I only use human emotion and behaviour as a gauge for other animal emotion and behaviour because we are humans and will obviously relate to things that are similar to us more easily than those that are different. I am not saying that animals that are different from us are any less important or inferior, just that they are harder to understand.

Arthropods (with the possible exception of decapod crustaceans) cannot feel pain and they cannot be emotionally distressed.


Who says? Maybe at our current level of knowledge but maybe in 20 or so years time new methods of detection will be developed and we'll realise this in fact, isn't the case?

For years, people in deep Coma were called Brain dead, mainly because methods of detecting Brain activity were so Neanderthal, nowadays, Experts aren't so gung ho in writing these patients off.


Kev.

stretnik wrote:

Is a Gorilla that goes through the motions of eating, defecating and reproduction , displaying outwardly, signs of happiness? these are a Species that are potentially as close as you can get to Humans on a scale of cognisance and awareness, I doubt it, they will also display aberrant behaviour through stress and ultimately social aggression.

You are responding as if we were the important species and therefore all hapiness or contentment is gauged by ours. who says? Creationists would concur, I don't, how can we, with a few pounds of Grey matter be so arrogant to assume we are the important ones and that we know everything.

We are here because we adapted more quickly not because we are all there is. We top the Food chain at the moment and assume everything else is below us. Science is still only discovering unknown facts about Bee, Ant and Termites that show very advanced science and with a fraction of our Brain power, what other species ruins as much as us in or endeavour to overpopulate the World in which we live? Take Take Take and absolutely no giving back and we are the Template we gauge everything else by, I think not.

Kev.

Totally agree there, Kev.

We humans are so anthropocentric, that even science and scientists (and I’m speaking as a scientist there) sometimes do fall victim to our own visions of grandeur.

We tend to judge emotion, stress, pain, etc etc, and intellect etc etc on our own scale. But, we don’t even really understand human stress and emotion fully yet; so where do we start with other species.

Maybe it’s a bit like saying a BMW 6 series car is bottom of list of fast vehicles in a league made of jet fighter planes.

Just because I don’t know how to ask for a cup of tea in Italian (and I should do) doesn’t mean that I am not intelligent (and no come-backs on that comment!)

And I agree with Kevs comments earlier on the depth at which a debate on morality is actually the whole crux. (but this thread is moving too fast to ‘quote’ back to that).

As for forums…..there are times where we can start to demonstrate a responsibility and to set a platform that stands apart from those individuals who wish to exploit animal tropisms for fun.
Educational material is a different ball-game. And, that of course, leads to a debate on what is ‘educational’.

If they have a chance or no chance, how can that be determined in levels of cruelty? The pain you mentioned was your point, fairness is a different definition. A mousee in the water against a Pirhana I reckon has a very small chance of survival, a sense of fairness a perfect example of a priciple gained from life experience and again not a dictionary, this keeper sees it a different way totally, who is right?

If, in some fictional scenario, you had to face off with a lion. Would you prefer to be put in a room with the lion, with no weapons and no escape route or be out in the open with the lion, being able to possibly escape?
A mouse that falls into a river in the wild may be able to swim to shore and escape, a mouse in a tank will just come up against a glass wall... and even if it could escape the person who put it there would just throw it back in.

So with the science above it is morally ok to kill them then, if they were larger were walking on all fours and had big brown eyes and licked your hand but felt nothing, I doubt you would feel the same, this is human nature and how we're programmed, again if humans felt nothing would it be ok, differnt rules apply of course, which is my point axactly. I am sure there are people out there that would feel as you do about mice about shrimp, regardless of the defination of pain.

I already stated that I would not measure the worth of a life based on the appearance of the organism (I compared a rabbit and a rat), I'm not sure why you ignored what I said. I value a life based on its capacity to feel pain and distress.
Is it okay to kill something that can't feel pain or distress? I don't know, I think that's a personal decision, but I would consider it to be better than killing something that can feel pain or distress.

And science is not fact

Facts are proven using the scientific method. Science may be dynamic but there are a huge amount of scientifically proven facts.

Your last points are again envolved with pain definition and are really covered by above, you feel this way, many don't who is right I don't know but I think this discussion can help give a guide to such people that have not considered such things yet, mainly young fish enthusiasts that may read, and get a alanced view on it and make up their own minds.

Oh, of course. What I am saying is very much my own opinion. It bothers me to think of other animals in pain so I try to avoid causing pain to those who can feel it. It's a matter of emotional comfort on my part as well as physical and emotional comfort on the part of the animal.
However, what is not opinion or emotion is that mice feel pain and distress and that feeding them live to another animal will cause the mouse to experience these things.
Whether someone thinks that they can justify inflicting suffering on another animal to feed their hobby is a personal decision. And I reserve my personal decision/opinion to think that someone who would intentionally cause suffering as part of their hobby are a morally reprehensible individual.

You have explained a lot, Zoologist, science, I'm afraid facts get overturned and all you can do is work with the best you've got, at some point some of your certain beliefs ma be over turned in future, the word fact is slapped on a lot of things.

Yes, science is constantly changing as our understanding of our world changes. It is a dynamic field. However, I do not think that this invalidates any of the points that I have made.
Are you arguing that we might discover that mice do not feel pain?

I am not a zooologist and the patronising tone is not appreciated, a little pretentious to say "I know what I'm talking about I'm a zoologistyou you aren't" if it does bother you that my level of understanding is lower than yours regarding such you can reply with your opinion and keep that tone out of it, I never professed to be any kind of expert and this is a forum for opinions, I gave mine.

I did not intend to sound patronising, I'm sorry if that's how it came across. I mentioned my profession because you were making statements with no evidence (implying that we don't know if there's a difference between what a mouse and a shrimp feels), I argued against these points and I thought it important to mention that I had the credentials to back up my argument.

stretnik wrote:

Arthropods (with the possible exception of decapod crustaceans) cannot feel pain and they cannot be emotionally distressed.


Who says? Maybe at our current level of knowledge but maybe in 20 or so years time new methods of detection will be developed and we'll realise this in fact, isn't the case?

For years, people in deep Coma were called Brain dead, mainly because methods of detecting Brain activity were so Neanderthal, nowadays, Experts aren't so gung ho in writing these patients off.


Kev.

This is a valid concern to a certain extent. It is why, I would personally always kill any animal I plan on feeding to another, just in case. But this is an emotional thing, not really very rational.

It does stand that if inverts feel anything, that it is different from the pain response that we experience, since they do not have the equipment to feel what we feel. It is possible (if improbable) that they might feel something similar, something that serves the same evolutionary purpose as the pain response. However, it might not be the same unpleasant feeling that we experience, it could be similar to how a computer recognises damage... as long as it makes the animal avoid harm then it does its job.

igmillichip wrote:

How far do we take the issue of morals or ethics? that is a question in itself.

There's a few big generalisations I see about 'other animals' here.....many tarantulas will take dead food, in fact often a spider on hunger-strike (for want of better words) is best tempted into eating by feeding it a cricket or a locust where the guts have been exposed. As for feeding mammals to spiders....not a great idea.
Snakes.....many captive snakes will take dead food; and some species eat crickets/locusts/eggs.
There are some species of snakes, however, that will only take living food (eg lizards or fish); that is point that needs a lot of careful consideration.

If an animal will take dead or prepared food, then that is what it should be fed.

The biggest question that I have here is not necessarily about 'live-feeding' but the morals behind inappropriate feeding...viz: we know a pirahna or arowana will happily eat a live mouse, but I question the morality of feeding an inappropriate food. Short-term....probably no problems, but is the long-term effect on fish kidney function being compromised?

2 more points....

I think a more interesting debate would be why certain species of animal will only go for living food, and others will happily take dead; and

I think that forums should have a rule to not allow live feeding advice or live-feeding videos/pictures be posted. Moral/ethical discussions are different thing.

Posting of such images sends out a bad message....some people may be influenced and see it as fun, but, and this is a big BUT....forums may be browsed by person wishing to gain evidence against the keeping of exotic species. Those people (or groups) already paint a bad image of 'exotic animal keepers', so why put-it-out-there that some people feed live rabbits (or whatever) to their fish.

ian

A detailed option matey but barely on topic or adds to the topic. I am looking for views, not judgement of others, which this borders on. What each of makes of this issue, if the why live food is eaten will make a better discussion there is a new thread button:) I mean that in a friendly way.


I gotta say..
If people wish to get into spiders ect, again another thread, the morality of live food for one and not another was the question and not if do they will be happy with an insect. Dont folk realise that Insects are another life form and part of the "acceptable" debate if a live when fed to the pet?
It would be appreciate if people read to catch up and not just grab a few lines and jump in.


Mark

If people wish to get into spiders ect, again another thread,

i think you'll find you brought them into this in the first place buddy

im sticking with my point thats its simply cruel and in 9 out of 10 completely unnecessary