For the Non-water changers in the crowd. - Page 3
Tropical Fish

Tropical Fish Keeping - Aquarium fish care and resources » Freshwater Fish and Aquariums » Beginner Freshwater Aquarium » For the Non-water changers in the crowd.

For the Non-water changers in the crowd.

This is a discussion on For the Non-water changers in the crowd. within the Beginner Freshwater Aquarium forums, part of the Freshwater Fish and Aquariums category; --> Originally Posted by Sanguinefox I am with you Jeaninel that I could not imagine not doing water changes with my tanks. That said there ...

Check out these freshwater fish profiles
Chocolate Gourami
Chocolate Gourami
Tail Spot Cory
Tail Spot Cory
Like Tree97Likes

Closed Thread
LinkBack Thread Tools vBmenu Seperating Image Search this Thread vBmenu Seperating Image
For the Non-water changers in the crowd.
Old 01-25-2013, 03:06 PM   #21
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguinefox View Post
I am with you Jeaninel that I could not imagine not doing water changes with my tanks.

That said there are a lot of people in this world that keep animals. They all have different reasons. For me I keep animals as companions. As such it is very important to me no matter what kind of animal it is that they are given the absolute best that I can give, and given what is necessary for good health.

There are many people out there that think their animals are "Happy" because the animals are alive. Alive is not the same as happy. Alive is not the same as healthy. Animals put up with what situations we give them because they have no choice in the matter. Cows can't leave their pen for better pasture no easier than fish can leave their tanks to seek better waters.

A caged dog can only whimper and cry. What can a boxed in fish do when presented with less than ideal conditions because their owners have fooled themselves into thinking they are fine? The only answer is cope. So those of you who think that your animals are fine even though you don't do water changes...just remember. Animals cope with what we give them. Coping =/= healthy.
I agree with you 100% .

The only thing we disagree on is whether or not constantly doing water changes provides a better enviroment then a balance and stabilized environment where the fish wastes are constantly being recycled into fish food and oxygen.
madyotto likes this.
beaslbob is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to beaslbob For This Useful Post:
madyotto (01-26-2013)
Old 01-25-2013, 03:27 PM   #22
 
Freshcatch's Avatar
 
OK, I guess that I will weigh in with my experience. I have always changed water in my tanks. In the 80's, I was changing water weekly in my tanks, (yeah, I'm old as dirt) and I will continue to do that until I give up fish keeping. It was the "right" thing to do then, and it will always be the right thing to do for the fish, and they will give me years of enjoyment. If I say more, I will just be repeating others points about chemical changes in tank water.
Byron and Chesh like this.
Freshcatch is offline  
Old 01-25-2013, 03:39 PM   #23
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Freshcatch View Post
OK, I guess that I will weigh in with my experience. I have always changed water in my tanks. In the 80's, I was changing water weekly in my tanks, (yeah, I'm old as dirt) and I will continue to do that until I give up fish keeping. It was the "right" thing to do then, and it will always be the right thing to do for the fish, and they will give me years of enjoyment. If I say more, I will just be repeating others points about chemical changes in tank water.
Gee my first tank was in the late '70's.

Does that make older than rocks? (I think they came before dirt.)
willow, Chesh and madyotto like this.
beaslbob is offline  
Old 01-25-2013, 04:16 PM   #24
 
Freshcatch's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob View Post
Gee my first tank was in the late '70's.

Does that make older than rocks? (I think they came before dirt.)
Just a bit of Magma.....
willow likes this.
Freshcatch is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Freshcatch For This Useful Post:
beaslbob (01-25-2013)
Old 01-25-2013, 04:21 PM   #25
pop
 
Hello all;
Your point is well taken but I have to say Bryon and others that your argument falls short.
The argument that is made is so anthropomorphic that it loses all aspects of validity. No greater mistake can be made than applying human attributes to non human life form.

An example is pain does pain exist before it is experienced? No it does not, pain only exist when there is a cognitive construct in other words you have to experience pain, before it exist for the individual. Do fish have cognitive constructs for pain or when they react to a negative stimulus is it just an unconditioned response?
What on earth is a happy fish does this mean fish can enjoy pleasures like a fine glass of wine? As stated in previous post “unless you are a fish, you are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in” if this concept is correct then how can we humans know if a fish is happy, unhappy, in pain or just having a glass of wine and a smoke for the pleasure of it. It is alluded that there are clues that only some can read. This sounds more like a self-fore filling prophesy than a sound and logical scientific approach. As for a normal life span I am wondering what is the normal life span for a fine fish in nature.

Mollies were mentioned and I fined it interesting that neil monks version of molly fry is somewhat opposed to the view expressed in the fish profiles. According to monks all molly fry are male and as a single fish gains dominance in the group it changes sex to female. Interesting concept but not unheard of in nature.

As for “regular water changes keep the aquarium much fresher than would otherwise be the case, meaning that your fish will be happier and healthier”.
How can we possibly know if a fish is happier and healthier since you have to be a fish to know if you are happy or healthy an we are humans that ‘are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in’ of course there maybe clues not just any clue but the right clue that supports the individual’s predetermined conclusion.

I understand that when anthropomorphic argument is used because we all have a sense of responsibility to provide the good life to our critters but the way we experience life is very different from the way fish in nature or in an aquarium experience life.

pop
madyotto likes this.
pop is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to pop For This Useful Post:
beaslbob (01-25-2013)
Old 01-25-2013, 04:50 PM   #26
 
Chesh's Avatar
 
Odd on the Mollies, from my personal experience regarding gender (and everything else I've read on the subject) - the reverse is true! Regardless. . .

It WOULD be interesting to set up two tanks, as identical as possible (though, obviously they would differ in some respects), and divide a 'fresh' batch of home-grown fry between the two. One with water changes, one without - and track it throughout the years. . . I couldn't do it, I'd feel to bad for the non-water change crew, lol! But it WOULD be an interesting study.
madyotto likes this.
Chesh is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Chesh For This Useful Post:
madyotto (01-26-2013)
Old 01-25-2013, 06:22 PM   #27
ao
 
ao's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by beaslbob View Post
1 guart (or less) betta bowl. 3 years.
dude, dont ever post this in the betta side of this forum... you will be verbally butchered.
Not that it isnt possible since bettas breathe atmospheric air, theoretically as long as you keep the nitrogen down you can keep a betta alive. But I'm curious whether that water is liquid rock by now...get a TDS meter and test :)
pittipuppylove likes this.
ao is online now  
Old 01-25-2013, 06:32 PM   #28
 
Olympia's Avatar
 
Not going to argue over water changing... people all have different ways of being successful in the hobby.
We as people THINK we are doing the right thing naturally, and so we try to influence others to do what we are doing. Sometimes this leaves us not open to entertaining both sides of an argument. The thing about knowledge, is that the things we know are constantly being disproved, so that is why it's important to be willing to accept new information, or if not analyze it thoroughly.
As Jes suggested, I would be much more inclined to listen to a person who has done both side by side (water change/no water change) than someone who says "this is what I do and it's right and you have to do this too." I do think it's good we have some of you non water changers on the forum, lets newbies listen to both sides and decide what's right themselves. . Nevertheless, the forum has "norms" and it can seem we're all against you at times.

Anthropomorphizing is a huge issue at times, but I would not keep fish without it. It is fun to set up little scenarios and make up personalities for the fish but you must remember that those two goldfish are not really in love, your betta isn't really a total narcissist, and the pygmy gourami are not really hiding something from you in the back of the tank (ohhhh kay... maybe that's just me.)

Do fish feel pain? Honestly, from a scientific standpoint, we don't know.
Even though they are vertebrates, they are a much lower form of vertebrate (because it took less evolution to get them to where they are), with a less developed nervous system than ourselves.
Here is an article published by Dr. Rose on fish pain. Not the most recent one, no, but last month he published a new one that basically came to the same conclusion (these are reviews, so he is basically going over a lot of other people's research and trying to put it all together).. What's the answer? Well, he wants to say "no," but he knows that'd be incredibly foolish to do, so he's stuck at "maybe." We have just as many great scientists that have good arguments that fish do feel pain.
Okay, so let's assume fish don't feel pain. This leaves us free to abuse them to our will. A very attractive thought, no?
Hundreds of years ago, it was "PROVEN" that higher animals like dogs and chimps do not feel pain. That's right, proven. Abuse levels were unbelievable, just for the fun of it in cases. Dogs were just robotically responding to stimuli, after all. Fast forward, and we prove that dogs do feel pain (though it can still be debated). "Oops."
So, if it's all fine and dandy, and we "prove" that fish don't feel pain, I don't believe this opens up a window for abuse. Fairly recently we thought people that were completely paralyzed also had no conscious mind or thoughts and were unaware of the outside world. Long story short, that was proven wrong as well, but the damage was done.
Personally, I don't think fish feel much if any pain, but I will be open to accept the fact that they do if the time comes that we are able to prove this. I'm just going to keep doing what I think is best for them. Right now, it's just a little extra comfort when you see a sick fish to believe there isn't much going on in there.

This is one of those posts that I normally type out but never send, but what the heck I'll let you guys have at it this time..
Chesh, madyotto and Timjwilson like this.
Olympia is online now  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Olympia For This Useful Post:
Chesh (01-26-2013), Timjwilson (01-25-2013)
Old 01-25-2013, 06:50 PM   #29
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by pop View Post
Hello all;
Your point is well taken but I have to say Bryon and others that your argument falls short.
The argument that is made is so anthropomorphic that it loses all aspects of validity. No greater mistake can be made than applying human attributes to non human life form.

An example is pain does pain exist before it is experienced? No it does not, pain only exist when there is a cognitive construct in other words you have to experience pain, before it exist for the individual. Do fish have cognitive constructs for pain or when they react to a negative stimulus is it just an unconditioned response?
What on earth is a happy fish does this mean fish can enjoy pleasures like a fine glass of wine? As stated in previous post “unless you are a fish, you are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in” if this concept is correct then how can we humans know if a fish is happy, unhappy, in pain or just having a glass of wine and a smoke for the pleasure of it. It is alluded that there are clues that only some can read. This sounds more like a self-fore filling prophesy than a sound and logical scientific approach. As for a normal life span I am wondering what is the normal life span for a fine fish in nature.

Mollies were mentioned and I fined it interesting that neil monks version of molly fry is somewhat opposed to the view expressed in the fish profiles. According to monks all molly fry are male and as a single fish gains dominance in the group it changes sex to female. Interesting concept but not unheard of in nature.

As for “regular water changes keep the aquarium much fresher than would otherwise be the case, meaning that your fish will be happier and healthier”.
How can we possibly know if a fish is happier and healthier since you have to be a fish to know if you are happy or healthy an we are humans that ‘are unlikely to have any idea as to the state it is in’ of course there maybe clues not just any clue but the right clue that supports the individual’s predetermined conclusion.

I understand that when anthropomorphic argument is used because we all have a sense of responsibility to provide the good life to our critters but the way we experience life is very different from the way fish in nature or in an aquarium experience life.

pop
A happy fish is a healthy one in my opinion. However if you want to remove the entire aspect of "Anthropomorphism" you cling to to try to debunk what others say we can pay sole attention to the very real condition called "health".

Health is what determines to some degree the behavior of your animals. Healthy fish live longer lives. Unhealthy fish do not. Same applies to people really. If we are going to take animals from their natural habitat, or domesticate them to keep them as pets don't we at least have a moral/and or ethical obligation to keep them healthy?

Even if you throw out the idea of morals and ethics, it's a huge waste of your money to set up a tank and then improperly keep it. You end up throwing money down the drain with each fish that dies/and or fails to live it full potential live span.

So for what ever reason that floats your boat I would imagine everyone here can agree that it is to the best interest of us all to keep "Healthy" animals in our tanks. Things like "water changes" fall into a category of health. If you don't do them the long term health of your fish can and will suffer.

As for "Pain" don't mix pain up as being purely an idea. Pain is a sensation that the brain picks up on as a response to harm/injury. The ability to feel pain is evolutionary advantageous. So is the ability to feel "Fear". I remember a while back there was a study on lab rats where they removed the ability to feel "fear" by removing part of the brain associated with it. The rats were unable to react to predators, and that handicap very well could have been their demise in a real predator/pray situation.

The ability to "feel pain" is very similar because if you cannot identify when something is hurting you than you are unable to react for the sake of self survival. It necessary to point this out. Pain, fear, stress are not purely ideological concepts, and neither are they purely anthropomorphic. Even concepts like depression are beginning to come out with emerging research as something even insects are capable of feeling. People often do not give animals credit where credit is due when it comes to their capabilities.

That said the arguments of those who are against water changes have shown me little in this thread or any others to back up their claims, or debunk the reality of how necessary water changes are. Our aquariums are not open systems. They are closed systems. Humans at this current time are unable to create an open system within a closed system artificially.

EDIT: Totally aware we may be on different pages when it comes to use of the term "Feeling pain". I 'm taking it at most basic reaction to a physical injury.
Byron and Chesh like this.

Last edited by Sanguinefox; 01-25-2013 at 07:02 PM..
Sanguinefox is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Sanguinefox For This Useful Post:
Byron (01-26-2013), Chesh (01-26-2013)
Old 01-25-2013, 07:28 PM   #30
 
Olympia's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sanguinefox View Post
Even if you throw out the idea of morals and ethics, it's a huge waste of your money to set up a tank and then improperly keep it. You end up throwing money down the drain with each fish that dies/and or fails to live it full potential live span.

So for what ever reason that floats your boat I would imagine everyone here can agree that it is to the best interest of us all to keep "Healthy" animals in our tanks. Things like "water changes" fall into a category of health. If you don't do them the long term health of your fish can and will suffer.
But, don't you think beaslebob would not have successfully kept generation upon generation of fish if he wasn't following what you take to be necessary? He is taking "bad care" of it, according to you, but his fish seem very long lived and none the worse for wear.
Chesh, madyotto and beaslbob like this.
Olympia is online now  
Closed Thread

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
water question deoinized water vs distilled water jaysix79 Saltwater Fish 13 02-08-2010 01:42 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:38 AM.