Yeah jokes aside, these "spas" are horribly torturing these fishes for things to work.
They don't eat dead skin, so the only way for it to work is to starve them horribly until they become so desperate that they'll eat anything, and that's when they start eating dead skin.
And that's not even starting on their living environment and conditions other than that, the lack of space, the stress, etc.
As a general rule, when you see a fish in captivity, they are having a horrible life, because no one gives a shit about fishes.
It's possible that some would try a nibble, but not really to the extent of exfoliating.
You can look at wikipedia's page, that references Peta's website (footnote 16), which mentions starvation as well as other bad points such as horrible transportation conditions and unhygienic results.
And I mean, all of that just to remove some dead skin? I don't really see the point.
Yeah I don't see the point either but I'm just saying fish will eat weird shit sometimes I don't think that proves they were starving. When it happened to me they were going at it pretty hard it wasn't just one or two nibbles. That said, I doubt it was the same species so it could be true for that one. But your link seems to be an unsourced statement by PETA which doesn't seem too credible.
Yeah the problem with animal abuse is that no one cares as long as it's not scientifically proven, and no one proves it scientifically as long as no one cares. That's why insects have been considered for ages to not feel pain, even though no studies were done, and now studies say the opposite.
You might not find sources that prove that it's abuse, but even websites that talk about taking care of them as domestic fishes mention that spas starve them.
And considering that the starvation would only be one of the abuses, I think it is reasonable to assume that starvation isn't a crazy assumption to make.
I've seen some very healthy fish in captivity, but I'd agree if you suggested that one kinda needs to be a pro to even come close to an environment that is not toxic to a fish.
In rare, very rare cases, captive breeding has stabilized a fish species that was previously at dire risk of extinction from over-fishing. It's rare, and your general rule still stands, but it's good to leave a little space for the very occasional good news about that.
Yeah, I know there are exceptions, and the fact that we know fishes can be abused mean we know what they need. But since the overwhelming majority of people don't give a shit about fishes, the majority of captive fishes will be abused.
It's a bit like hamsters: sure, some people give them the huge cages that they need, proper burrowing places, food, etc. But most people buy them from shitty pet stores for cheap to give to their kids as a disposable pet, put in a horrifyingly tiny plastic cage with nothing to do, often with other hamsters that will attack each other.
So yeah, it's good to also encourage good news about fishes being treated well, but I feel like the bigger priority is reducing abuse, so that's why that's what I'm focusing on.
It really only happens in tropical and subtropical countries, and where people may not have access to clean themselves properly. I don’t know where you live, but you are probably safe.
Had to look that up: "Albipennis" is a Latin term that translates to "white-winged" or "white-feathered". It is a combination of the Latin word albus (meaning white) and penna (meaning wing or feather).
Bats are cool and all, but I don't think I need to cultivate a bat colony to target Naughty Bits Parasites that I've NEVER heard of. I believe the concern for this issue is overstated.
28 Comments
FrankFrankson@lemmy.world · 28 pts · 46d
This is one of the many reasons I fill my pants with bats.
Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 45d
I want at least 2 more reasons
(Hard mode: no sexual reasons)
atopi@piefed.blahaj.zone · 4 pts · 45d
to tell people that you have bats in your pants and to be able to scare people who you have not told
Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone · 3 pts · 45d
Implying that the scary part is the surprise and not the actual situation?
AllNewTypeFace@leminal.space · 13 pts · 46d
You know how they have fish spas where you can dip your feet and have fish nibble the dead skin off them? Well, hear me out…
Solumbran@lemmy.world · 22 pts · 46d
Yeah jokes aside, these "spas" are horribly torturing these fishes for things to work.
They don't eat dead skin, so the only way for it to work is to starve them horribly until they become so desperate that they'll eat anything, and that's when they start eating dead skin.
And that's not even starting on their living environment and conditions other than that, the lack of space, the stress, etc.
As a general rule, when you see a fish in captivity, they are having a horrible life, because no one gives a shit about fishes.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 46d
Is this actually true? I've had fish do this to me in the wild. Maybe they were starving too but I feel like fish are usually pretty hungry.
Solumbran@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 46d
It's possible that some would try a nibble, but not really to the extent of exfoliating.
You can look at wikipedia's page, that references Peta's website (footnote 16), which mentions starvation as well as other bad points such as horrible transportation conditions and unhygienic results.
And I mean, all of that just to remove some dead skin? I don't really see the point.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 8 pts · 46d
Yeah I don't see the point either but I'm just saying fish will eat weird shit sometimes I don't think that proves they were starving. When it happened to me they were going at it pretty hard it wasn't just one or two nibbles. That said, I doubt it was the same species so it could be true for that one. But your link seems to be an unsourced statement by PETA which doesn't seem too credible.
Solumbran@lemmy.world · 7 pts · 46d
Yeah the problem with animal abuse is that no one cares as long as it's not scientifically proven, and no one proves it scientifically as long as no one cares. That's why insects have been considered for ages to not feel pain, even though no studies were done, and now studies say the opposite.
You might not find sources that prove that it's abuse, but even websites that talk about taking care of them as domestic fishes mention that spas starve them.
And considering that the starvation would only be one of the abuses, I think it is reasonable to assume that starvation isn't a crazy assumption to make.
LibertyLizard@slrpnk.net · 5 pts · 46d
Fair points but without real evidence one way or the other I can't just choose to believe something. At best we can say it may be true.
Solumbran@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 46d
Yeah, that's a stance that only works for science though, not for morals.
Akasazh@lemmy.world · 5 pts · 45d
Exactly I've had small trout nibble at my toes in the river yesterday, no coercion needed.
corsicanguppy@lemmy.ca · 5 pts · 46d
I've seen some very healthy fish in captivity, but I'd agree if you suggested that one kinda needs to be a pro to even come close to an environment that is not toxic to a fish.
In rare, very rare cases, captive breeding has stabilized a fish species that was previously at dire risk of extinction from over-fishing. It's rare, and your general rule still stands, but it's good to leave a little space for the very occasional good news about that.
Solumbran@lemmy.world · 3 pts · 46d
Yeah, I know there are exceptions, and the fact that we know fishes can be abused mean we know what they need. But since the overwhelming majority of people don't give a shit about fishes, the majority of captive fishes will be abused.
It's a bit like hamsters: sure, some people give them the huge cages that they need, proper burrowing places, food, etc. But most people buy them from shitty pet stores for cheap to give to their kids as a disposable pet, put in a horrifyingly tiny plastic cage with nothing to do, often with other hamsters that will attack each other.
So yeah, it's good to also encourage good news about fishes being treated well, but I feel like the bigger priority is reducing abuse, so that's why that's what I'm focusing on.
lemmyng@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 46d
HappyCatLuvs_U@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 46d
That doesn't scare me because I don't know what it means!
ickplant@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 46d
Urogenital myiasis is a rare condition where fly larvae (maggots) infest the urinary tract or genital organs. DO NOT google the images.
MutantTailThing@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 46d
What the fuck. Do not want.
ickplant@lemmy.world · 4 pts · 46d
It really only happens in tropical and subtropical countries, and where people may not have access to clean themselves properly. I don’t know where you live, but you are probably safe.
macaw_dean_settle@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 45d
Yeah, use a better search like Bing or duckduckgo. googol sucks and was never any good.
ceenote@lemmy.world · 6 pts · 46d
That can't be a coincidence.
ickplant@lemmy.world · 8 pts · 46d
Had to look that up: "Albipennis" is a Latin term that translates to "white-winged" or "white-feathered". It is a combination of the Latin word albus (meaning white) and penna (meaning wing or feather).
Source: https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/albipennis
rizzothesmall@sh.itjust.works · 5 pts · 46d
Bats eat flies that lay their maggots around your smeggy junk
grrgyle@slrpnk.net · 2 pts · 45d
So if flies don't think my junk is rotting I should be fine. I think I can handle this
velma@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 46d
Bats are so fucking cool
BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today · 2 pts · 46d
Bats are cool and all, but I don't think I need to cultivate a bat colony to target Naughty Bits Parasites that I've NEVER heard of. I believe the concern for this issue is overstated.