The ethics of quarantining and and prophylactically medicating (or not)

[fishybizzness]

In my opinion, as is with several other posters, if you are overly concerned about the ethical aspect of keeping animals you should not be doing it in the first place. There is nothing ethical about keeping fish in an aquarium, dogs and cats in a home or birds in a cage. One we choose to have a pet we should realize that it is not an ethical practice. We are however morally responsible to ensure that we provide an adequate environment and habitat to ensure some acceptable quality of life for the animal we have chosen as our pet. New aquarium keepers are faced with a double edged sword. A lot of the experts in the hobby, either for or against quarantine, all realize that it is inevitable that new aquarium keepers will encounter issues regularly including livestock loss in the first years. If livestock death was a deciding factor for people staying in the hobby or leaving, this hobby would not exist. I disagree with some experienced pro quarantine hobbyist regularly insisting that quarantining fish is easy and people that don't do it are just lazy or don't care about their fish. The issue with quarantine is that their is some room for success but a lot more room for failure, especially for a new hobbyist without experience. Another issue, especially when running a medicated quarantine is time. Most people on here work full time jobs and have other responsibilities such as families that take up a lot of their time. The constant monitoring of a quarantine system is very time consuming. I should note also that a lot of the non quarantine long term reefers, Paul B comes to mind, regularly state that they do believe that new aquarist with newer tanks should be practicing some sort of quarantine, even if its just another smaller observation tank. I use natural ocean water for water changes so i don't quarantine as it would be pointless as if everything new added would have to be quarantined and that is not possible with my method.

 

[flourishofmediocrity]

In my opinion, as is with several other posters, if you are overly concerned about the ethical aspect of keeping animals you should not be doing it in the first place. There is nothing ethical about keeping fish in an aquarium, dogs and cats in a home or birds in a cage. One we choose to have a pet we should realize that it is not an ethical practice. We are however morally responsible to ensure that we provide an adequate environment and habitat to ensure some acceptable quality of life for the animal we have chosen as our pet. New aquarium keepers are faced with a double edged sword. A lot of the experts in the hobby, either for or against quarantine, all realize that it is inevitable that new aquarium keepers will encounter issues regularly including livestock loss in the first years. If livestock death was a deciding factor for people staying in the hobby or leaving, this hobby would not exist. I disagree with some experienced pro quarantine hobbyist regularly insisting that quarantining fish is easy and people that don't do it are just lazy or don't care about their fish. The issue with quarantine is that their is some room for success but a lot more room for failure, especially for a new hobbyist without experience. Another issue, especially when running a medicated quarantine is time. Most people on here work full time jobs and have other responsibilities such as families that take up a lot of their time. The constant monitoring of a quarantine system is very time consuming. I should note also that a lot of the non quarantine long term reefers, Paul B comes to mind, regularly state that they do believe that new aquarist with newer tanks should be practicing some sort of quarantine, even if its just another smaller observation tank. I use natural ocean water for water changes so i don't quarantine as it would be pointless as if everything new added would have to be quarantined and that is not possible with my method.

You go over a lot here but I really just want to address the position that is simply not ethical at all. I disagree and I think that it is possible to ethically keep pets including fish. Even if you believe that keeping pets is unethical overall, it is still worth the discussion about the ethics of how to keep those pets, and the implications of the different ways of doing it.

 

[Paul B]

I never think about the ethics of this, especially if I am not thinking of it while I am eating a hamburger or stuffed flounder surrounded by baked clams. I eat fish constantly which means I am using those fish for my selfish purpose. I can probably live on broccoli or apples but I choose not to.

It could and should be an ethics issue if you are a total vegan and don't wear leather shoes. Humans have used animals for their purposes since they invented Humans. Jesus was probably an animal rights guy and he ate a lot of fish. He may have given them last rites first, but he still ate them. Maybe he even had a reef tank but if he did, I bet none of his fish stayed dead.

 

[Lyss]

I never think about the ethics of this, especially if I am not thinking of it while I am eating a hamburger or stuffed flounder surrounded by baked clams. I eat fish constantly which means I am using those fish for my selfish purpose. I can probably live on broccoli or apples but I choose not to.

It could and should be an ethics issue if you are a total vegan and don't wear leather shoes. Humans have used animals for their purposes since they invented Humans. Jesus was probably an animal rights guy and he ate a lot of fish. He may have given them last rites first, but he still ate them. Maybe he even had a reef tank but if he did, I bet none of his fish stayed dead.

lol that was a fun read

It's true. All of it is problematic -- all of it. But we do it and have been doing it since forever. Dogs and cats are truly domesticated and so if we want to get into a real philosophical discussion around the ethics of keeping them then the terms will be a bit different. You could argue that taking a domesticated animal and putting it on the streets is unethical for the same reasons taking an animal from the wild and caging it in your house is unethical.

But just re: the broader discussion around ethics and pet keeping -- ethicists have actually been debating this more and more lately and finding a lot of it to be problematic. The tides have been turning (no pun intended): Sea World is shutting down Shamu b/c Blackfish did them in, the circus is dead, etc. And the more you think about the way we have made pets part of the family, the more the ethics of keeping them becomes problematic.

All of that is to say there is for sure a bigger discussion to be had, and ethicists have already been having it. UK law just recognized octopus, crab, and lobster sentience. Animal rights are broadening in some countries and have been for years.

SO, if we want to harp on folks who don't QT and prophylactically medicate their aquarium fish but ignore the rest, that's fine. But there is def a lot more to it when it comes to ethics and animals, and pets.

 

[Jubei2006]

Yeah sadly fish are treated as ‘disposable’ pets that people give little thought to. Some of my friends think it’s crazy id spend $300 on a fish, and don’t see the connection of me comparing it to their $3000 designer puppy… Many don’t view them as sentient, equating any fish to a .25 petsmart goldfish & thinking since they are ‘cheap’ and have a ‘short lifespan’ who cares if it dies - just go buy another one \o/

The entire aquarium trade industry is rooted in profit, they could care less about animal welfare. Much cheaper/easier to catch 100 fish and 50 die rather than catch 50 and take really good care of them…

I doubt the welfare aspect of the hobby will ever outweigh the $$$, though as more wild fisheries shut down and captive bred fish become more prevalent they do at least seem to be heartier/healthier

Had this same conversation with my staff and a few clients. Thye ask how much is that fish? I tell them anywhere from 60 to 400 depending on the fish. They tell me I'm insane. I ask them how long they think that fish lives. They say a few months...........I scratch my head and ask them how much they paid for their Labradoodle. They tell me 3 to 4 thousand. I let them know some of my fish with live two to three lifespans of their dog. Then jaws hit floor. People have no idea. So is it ethical? I dont know. But I do know it is a great talking point for awareness of nature and the peril humans put it in. So just on that aspect, if I need a reason to justify that's it.

 

[i cant think]

Had this same conversation with my staff and a few clients. Thye ask how much is that fish? I tell them anywhere from 60 to 400 depending on the fish. They tell me I'm insane. I ask them how long they think that fish lives. They say a few months...........I scratch my head and ask them how much they paid for their Labradoodle. They tell me 3 to 4 thousand. I let them know some of my fish with live two to three lifespans of their dog. Then jaws hit floor. People have no idea. So is it ethical? I dont know. But I do know it is a great talking point for awareness of nature and the peril humans put it in. So just on that aspect, if I need a reason to justify that's it.

It’s funny watching some of the reactions!! Even when I walk into my LFS (Whenever they’re stuck on something they will turn to me), the reactions I get from some people when they find out I have about £500 worth in fish stock, three of them making up £300 they fall under shock.

 

[Jubei2006]

I really disliked QT until I just left the thing running all the time. I know not everyone can do this. I don't think it's wrong if you don't QT, but I know from my own experience and others, that it's risky.

As I said, I used to hate QT, but now I actually enjoy it. It's super easy if your tank is established. What I like the most is how stress free my display is.

Having the QT always up and running has also helped me a few times when I ran into aggression issues and had to separate fish.

If I encounter parasites, I do have to leave the tank fallow for a while, but I tend to crank the temp up to 81/82 and give it 45 days. I can't add fish in this time, but oh well. I tend to buy in groups anyways.

I don't know if I would QT if I only had a small tank, but I have about 300G and 20 something fish. I'm in too deep to get all willy-nilly and risk throwing a bomb in there. This hobby is tough enough. I have cyano to deal with.....

In the same situation as well! Plus one of the fish I have, Ive been waiting for years to aquire again, and specifically set up a large tank for these guys to be a centerpiece. So whether I believe copper quarantine is "ethical" or not, it is what it is to protect my sanity. And yes, even my corals and inverts go 72 days fishless.

 

[Jubei2006]

lol that was a fun read

It's true. All of it is problematic -- all of it. But we do it and have been doing it since forever. Dogs and cats are truly domesticated and so if we want to get into a real philosophical discussion around the ethics of keeping them then the terms will be a bit different. You could argue that taking a domesticated animal and putting it on the streets is unethical for the same reasons taking an animal from the wild and caging it in your house is unethical.

But just re: the broader discussion around ethics and pet keeping -- ethicists have actually been debating this more and more lately and finding a lot of it to be problematic. The tides have been turning (no pun intended): Sea World is shutting down Shamu b/c Blackfish did them in, the circus is dead, etc. And the more you think about the way we have made pets part of the family, the more the ethics of keeping them becomes problematic.

All of that is to say there is for sure a bigger discussion to be had, and ethicists have already been having it. UK law just recognized octopus, crab, and lobster sentience. Animal rights are broadening in some countries and have been for years.

SO, if we want to harp on folks who don't QT and prophylactically medicate their aquarium fish but ignore the rest, that's fine. But there is def a lot more to it when it comes to ethics and animals, and pets.

Animal RIGHTS is a misnomer. In order to have "rights", one must also know the consequences to exercising said "rights". Let's take a higher thinking animal, the dog. Is a dog sentient enough to know that crapping in the house is inherently "wrong"? People say their dog knows it did something wrong. If that is so why does it keep doing it? It is responding to your body language. It has no cognition of why the jackhole owner is rubbing his nose in it, smacking him with a newspaper, or any of the idiotic things we do to correct it. It has no understanding of the concept of cause and effect and therefore the concepts of "rights".
That being said annd ticking a lot of people off......Animal welfare is an entirely different subject. Getting biblical, GOD determined that even if animals of all kinds are under our dominion, it is OUR responsibility to care for them, revere them, and respect them to the best of our ability. As Paul B said. I wont be thinking much about the ethics of eating animals this holiday weekend, however I know exactly where that food came from and pay my respects to it for sacrificing it's life to sustain me. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and any other beliefs I left out during this time of celebration! Stay safe my Fishy Brethren!

 

[Lyss]

Animal RIGHTS is a misnomer. In order to have "rights", one must also know the consequences to exercising said "rights". Let's take a higher thinking animal, the dog. Is a dog sentient enough to know that crapping in the house is inherently "wrong"? People say their dog knows it did something wrong. If that is so why does it keep doing it? It is responding to your body language. It has no cognition of why the jackhole owner is rubbing his nose in it, smacking him with a newspaper, or any of the idiotic things we do to correct it. It has no understanding of the concept of cause and effect and therefore the concepts of "rights".
That being said annd ticking a lot of people off......Animal welfare is an entirely different subject. Getting biblical, GOD determined that even if animals of all kinds are under our dominion, it is OUR responsibility to care for them, revere them, and respect them to the best of our ability. As Paul B said. I wont be thinking much about the ethics of eating animals this holiday weekend, however I know exactly where that food came from and pay my respects to it for sacrificing it's life to sustain me. Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanzaa, and any other beliefs I left out during this time of celebration! Stay safe my Fishy Brethren!

I think you may be misunderstanding what sentience means. It’s about feeling pain more than higher thinking like apes, and then humans are capable of.

Animals do have globally recognized rights, which I believe the original Q from the OP stems from.

 

[2KMILLER]

There are a lot of posts lately about whether or not to quarantine, and the responses about why someone chooses to or not tend to be practical, financial, and based on previous experience. The discussion usually centers around efficacy, not ethics, and I assume everyone takes the welfare of the animals into account when making this decision. Within the context that quarantine and management both have their own risks even when done correctly, what are the ethics of both?

Why is it ethical to quarantine and prophylactically medicate for common fish diseases?

Why is it ethical to not quarantine and just manage diseases?

EDIT: These questions are not meant to solicit one's belief about which method is "better" The point of this post is to discuss what is / isn't ethical about QT'ing. If you want to argue your way is ethical and another is not, that's up to you, I'm not going to ask you to stop. I want to know WHY you think what you do. What led you to your position?

It’s an ethical balance. If you follow some quarantine rules, you will be treating your existing stock and the new stock as equitably as possible. medicate prophylactically after considering all circumstances and options. People don’t always do that so - in my mind - they’re acting unnecessarily cruel to certain fish. After following some reasonable steps, you may find the risk to quarantining is potentially in the best interest of the other fish. But, I try to reduce the “wrong” of quarantining by making my quarantine tank a palace, educating myself thoroughly, and following my rules.

I know you don’t really want my opinion on which is better but I think the ethics of quarantine are absolutely dependent on how you do it. You must consider every factor in order to determine if it’s necessary and wise. That means balancing the options. And if you do, how can you provide a better QT experience. Better conditions = less stress. better conditions and serious thought as to how long to quarantine. That weight and consideration is far better morally than dumping a solo stressed fish in a barren tank all alone for 72 days.

Ethics of QT for me is balance and no matter what, quarantine kindly. Cruelty to anything that feels pain just, cruel. Unethical.

Quarantine is tragic for fish. They are lost and lonely. Breaks my heart. Not a new fish but a comment on the trouble with quarantine: I had quarantined a seahorse in a medicated hospital tank and he got stressed and sad and seemed to lose the will to live in the first hour. And this was not even a fish fresh from the store. To improve conditions, I tried sticking his spouse in as well, and she got depressed. A depressed fish is a stressed fish and that’s the first step to death. Killing fish because of uneducated decisions is wrong. Even the main tank suffered. Instead of a hospital tank quarantine, I now lightly dose the whole tank, segregate in a box in the tank, and feed medicated food. At least everyone’s together.

Once I did that, EVERYONE was happier. I wouldn’t do a hospital tank again without knowing that I absolutely had to.

Ethically, it’s a quality of life issue. When considering quarantining new fish, you MUST know the fish source and know diseases like the back of your hand. You must also have an arsenal of meds in case. If not, you’re negatively affecting The quality of life without regard to ethical considerations. Keep meds handy to dose an entire tank the second a problem shows. Mitigate the wrong. Instead of auto QT, now I do 4-6 hour drip acclimation from my only trusted store (copper-using) instead of auto QT so I can monitor their health after a stressful event. A sick fish quickly goes downhill once stressed. You can quarantine him and medicate prophylacticly because he’s obviously halfway there. Keep clove oil handy for when he can’t breathe or swim or eat. Sentient or not, fish feel pain and experience stress and loneliness. How comfortable are you with that? That’s ethics and that’s kind personal. At least, have clove oil on hand. It’s humane.

Consider everything. Buy appropriately and weigh the risk. Consider that captive bred fish are much less likely to be infected and hardier. Go for them. Fewer risks. Fewer reason to quarantine.

Only buy fish in pairs or groups. If you must quarantine, quarantine together. It makes it better on the fish and therefore, more ethical. If you can’t afford to lose two fish, don’t buy them. And if you have a lot of awesome fish in your main tank, you’re saving everyone with a quarantine. It’s a balance.

You have to really think about the source of the fish. Like, really consider a full-range of details. Example, I bought a fish from a new-to-me but highly regarded fish store. I didn’t quarantine. If I was smart, I would’ve noticed that he was with a bunch of seahorses and they’re resistant (not immune) to marine velvet so wouldn’t show signs. BUT more importantly, you can’t use copper with seahorses. In retrospect, they clearly weren’t careful.

In sum, the point of the marine velvet story below is that quarantine is no guarantee, fish death is hard to explain and predict, and you must carefully consider all aspects of the source before deciding whether to quarantine. especially consider copper treatment and the store’s source of the fish. Having that information is more important to me than a mandatory quarantine.

Also, quarantining a GROUP of new fish is much less painful that just one. They bicker and are dynamic and peppy. Far less stressed, even in a small tank. Two aggressive damsels and a huge clown in a 20-gallon was rough! But they were animated and not depressed. It’s cruel and stressful to quarantine one fish who has been stressed already. Then sticking in meds? Awful.

Prophylacticly dosing two is better than an entire tank so if you feel QT is the right choice, medicate the other fish you bought and avoid stress and death.

I make sure they eat first as well. Gives some strength! Improve their chances.

Consider two moves is hard than one and how long will your QT last?

To make the whole QT thing use the most gentle of meds first if you medicate in quarantine. Less stress.

I killed happy quarantined fish accidentally by moving them to infected tank I had cleaned and medicated that had housed a non-quarantined fish with velvet. 5 fish died horrible deaths because of my ignorance. I couldn’t even watch. My heart broke and it was just wrong to be so careless.

Sometimes even ethical quarantine considerations and accommodations and balancing can go wrong. Is ignorance a mitigating factor in determining morality?

FULL VERSION OF THE TRAGIC MARINE VELVET. Marine velvet is hard to diagnose til it’s too late. I thought it was a parasite. 3 fish died. One seahorse died and the other survived because I did a freshwater dip (thinking it was parasitic) and promptly dropped him with new seahorses in a new tank. He went from sad and solo to happy and thriving. I thoroughly medicated and cleaned the velvet tank (again, thought it was parasitic) and moved over three fish from a quarantine tank. They had been doing great because they were a group and they were cramped but happy. They promptly got sick and died in the most painful way possible: gasping for air. I thought it was shock from the transfer. It wasn’t until the last quarantined fish died that I saw I saw the spots. It was a clown and it took a long time and it was tragic. The copper was too late. I had quarantined the wrong fish. (before I knew it was velvet, I went back to that same store - the seahorse tank was completely empty - 20 fish gone. One seahorse remaining, just like me). Devastating and cruel. I infected my quarantined fish (because they themselves had been housed with a puffer full of worms in their old home) while killing them in a well-intentioned move. I didn’t quarantine the LFS fish because I trusted them. If I had known that copper wasn’t compatible with seahorses, I would’ve been on guard with the fish. Plus, it was too late to remember that my regular store NEVER mixed fish and seahorses. And they put copper in all other tanks.

ignorance can lead to awful results. Because you can actively reduce ignorance, if you make an unethical decision through neglect of your duties as an animal owner, it’s unethical.

 

[WVNed]

I find a discussion of ethics interesting where if we take the same animal, one culture keeps it as a pet and another eats it for dinner.

 

[WVNed]

My computer is sentient? It sends out alarm codes when it is in pain.

 

[phillybean]

I don't QT, really never have. That said, my main LFS keeps all fish for two weeks before selling and medicates any that are sick. I'm very selective on the fish I buy and usually observe them at least two days before I buy.

Like all of us, I've lost fish over the years but not many. Going forward, I may start QTing, just based on not wanting to introduce anything to my current fish. I feel like that is the most ethical approach, I've had a few fish for around 5 years now and obviously owe them a healthy environment.

 

[Cell]

.

 

[WVNed]

The most ethical approach is to have enough skill, time, assets and interest to keep an animal comfortably for it's entire lifespan.
I always wondered when I was at the LFS who bought all those baby fish that would grow quickly to be to large for my small tank. I was envious of them and their large tanks.
I assumed there was a huge number of large tank owners out in the world since I saw these fish sell quickly week after week.
Then there was the internet and I found out the truth.

 

[amygetsalife]

I'm a total noob to this hobby, but I'm not new to keeping livestock. Bachelor's degree in Animal Science and worked several years pre-children and becoming more domesticated myself, with cattle.

I think of QT debate a bit like I would handle cattle. I'm introducing new ones to the herd. The herd is much more valuable both financially and ethically as a whole (if you're vegetarian, substitute horse for the cattle , same concept.)

We isolate new animals from the herd, deworm, and vaccinate if we do not know the history of the animal. For that matter, get a new puppy, you're going to the vet and they are going to vaccinate and deworm. AND...we are going to try to reduce stress on the new animal.

I'm not going to release the heifer into the herd early because she had a rough trip across country in the trailer. I'd argue that would be reason to keep her separately from the herd. But she'd be in a separate pasture ideally, not shut up in a concrete stall.

I'd also point out that even in the wild, there are certain efforts to control pests/problems for the good of the forest, reef, pack, habitat, and herd. Aquarium keeping seems to appeal to a more urban person, so thinking in terms of the health of the herd over time might be harder to keep in mind than the individual creature of the moment. Home aquatics is still relatively new in terms of health management.

When it comes to fish though....there isn't as much information about parasite and disease vectors as well as treatment. On bigger animals we can visually assess signs of parasites and disease easier.

And many only have the "local livestock market" to purchase from where we don't really know the history of the animal or treatment, versus a reputable breeder.

My personal ethics are pointing me to purchasing captive raised livestock and corals. I'm not a fan of a stark bare QT. But I am vigilant on testing and monitoring. I've also been in small commercial scale organic farming, so I do fully appreciate the concept of a diverse ecosystem to help keep pest and disease managed. I don't have that ecosystem yet. Some of your more seasoned tanks do.

 

[Lyss]

My computer is sentient? It sends out alarm codes when it is in pain.

If we’re getting into AI then that’s a whole new mind blowing discussion.

But from a philosophical viewpoint when we’re discussing living things sentience means feeling, to differentiate it from reasoning.

 

[WVNed]

If we’re getting into AI then that’s a whole new mind blowing discussion.

But from a philosophical viewpoint when we’re discussing living things sentience means feeling, to differentiate it from reasoning.

Sentience quite literally has nothing to do with feeling. Something that has no feelings can be sentient.

Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others.

If words mean simply what we want them to mean then it is hard if not impossible to discuss anything.

 

[Lyss]

Sentience quite literally has nothing to do with feeling. Something that has no feelings can be sentient.

Sentience is a multidimensional subjective phenomenon that refers to the depth of awareness an individual possesses about himself or herself and others.

If words mean simply what we want them to mean then it is hard if not impossible to discuss anything.

I don’t even know how to engage with this. I didn’t make it up. Awareness and feeling pain are connected.

 

[WVNed]

I don’t even know how to engage with this. I didn’t make it up. Awareness and feeling pain are connected.

Only because you want them to be. A being that is self aware does not have to be able to feel pain. A person that has their spinal cord severed in an accident is still sentient though they can feel no pain below the injury. Pain can generate a response in an organism that has no ability to reason or self awareness at all.

Stimulus - response has nothing to do with sentience